Summary: International Criminal Courts and Tribunals (ICCT)
Background Information (just read through)....................................................1
Tutorial 1 questions........................................................................................................ 5
Information week 6........................................................................................9
Information Week 7......................................................................................10
Forms of Intent in International Criminal Law................................................12
Background Crimes......................................................................................12
Internal Armed Conflicts can become ‘International’:...................................................15
War Crimes - IRAC........................................................................................16
Grave Breaches............................................................................................................ 16
Serious violations of the laws and customs of war........................................................17
Crimes Against Humanity - IRAC....................................................................18
Genocide - IRAC............................................................................................ 20
Grime of Aggression - IRAC...........................................................................21
Background Liability.....................................................................................22
Direct/ indirect/ joint Perpetration.............................................................................22
Principal mode of liability – IRAC...................................................................24
Co-Perpetration under Custom (Ad Hoc): Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE)......................24
Co-Perpetration under Rome Statute (ICC): Joint Control Over the Crime.....................26
Indirect co-perpetration through Joint Control Over an Organized Structure of Power (In
UN Ad Hoc tribunals, targeting leaders) - IRAC.............................................................27
Assessorial mode of liability – IRAC...............................................................28
Background Defense....................................................................................31
Justifications defense – IRAC.........................................................................33
Excuse defense – IRAC..................................................................................34
Background Admissibility.............................................................................36
Admissibility ‘Case’ - IRAC............................................................................40
Admissibility ‘Situation’ – IRAC.....................................................................42
Jurisdiction ‘Situation/Case’ – IRAC................................................................44
Interest of Justice ‘Situation/Case’ – IRAC......................................................44
Background Evidence & Trial........................................................................45
‘Measures’ Vulnerable victims or witnesses...................................................48
,Examples..................................................................................................... 51
Example IRAC War Crimes............................................................................................51
Grave Breaches......................................................................................................... 51
Example IRAC Crimes Against Humanity......................................................................54
Example IRAC Genocide................................................................................................56
Example IRAC JCE......................................................................................................... 57
Example IRAC Aiding and Abbeting (RS).......................................................................59
Example IRAC Command Responsibility (RS)................................................................61
Example IRAC Excuse defence (RS)..............................................................................62
Duress....................................................................................................................... 62
Intoxication & Mental Defect.....................................................................................63
Example IRAC Admissibility ‘Case’ (RS)........................................................................65
Example ‘Measures’ Vulnerable victims or witnesses...................................................69
Background Information (just read through)
What is ICL: a branch of public international law that prohibits 4 specific categories of
conduct (known as the ‘core international crimes’) and hold individuals criminally
1
,responsible for their commission war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and
crime of aggression
ICL and International Human Rights Law overlap at some points, but the
difference is that ICL is focused on individual responsibility, while IHRL focuses on
the responsibility of the state to protect individuals’ rights.
ICL and International Humanitarian Law overlap in prosecuting war crimes,
but ICL targets individuals for violations, whereas IHL sets conduct rules for all
parties during armed conflict.
ICL and Transnational Criminal Law overlap in addressing serious cross-border
crimes, but ICL focuses on prosecuting universally recognized crimes like
genocide, while TCL centers on international cooperation for crimes that affect
multiple countries.
Early history of ICL:
Abortive first attempt: Post World War I: The Treaty of Versailles and the “Leipzig
Trials” (1921-1923) Failing to try German Keizer Wilhelm II
Conception: World War II atrocities To prosecute or execute? The Moscow
Declaration (October 1943)
The London Conference (1945): Drafting the International Military Tribunal (IMT)
Charter IMT at Nurenberg (1945-46)
Subject matter Jurisdiction (Article 6 IMT Charter): Crimes against peace, War
crimes, crimes against humanity (no genocide)
24 Nazi leaders indicated + 6 Nazi organizations (so later the members of these
organizations can easily be prosecuted)
The Control Council Law No.10: The four allies set up military tribunals in their
respective “occupation zone” in Germany and prosecuted many German war
criminals (e.g. US, UK, French, and USSR Military courts)
The 12 Trials before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals in Nuremberg: Follow-up of
the IMT but for ‘smaller’ mid-ranking German soldiers
International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) was established in 1946
with an executive decree, by US General MacArthur Article 5 IMTFE Charter,
similar to Article 6 IMT Charter: Crimes against peace, War crimes, crimes against
humanity (no genocide) 28 Japanese leaders accused
The legality principle and its non-retroactivity rule (nullem crime sine lege praevia)
(no prior law which established what war crimes are)
IMT and IMTFE compositions: Judges and prosecutors only from victorious nations
one-sides prosecutions: accused were only from the defeated nations
IMFTE: an essentially American venture? Establishment, modification of
substantive law, selection of 11 judges, prosecution service
Judicial bias at the IMTFE: one of the judges was a victim
Seven Nuremberg Principles adopted by UN (1950):
Individual criminal responsibility for the commission of international crimes
(Principle I)
Irrelevance of domestic law for establishing responsibility under ICL (principle II)
No immunity for state officials (Principle III)
Following orders is no excuse for committing international crimes (Principles IV)
Right to a fair trial (Principles V)
Crimes against peace war crimes, and crimes against humanity are international
crimes (principles VI)
Responsibility for accomplices in international crimes (principles VII)
Genocide Convention (1948)
Complete revision of Geneva Conventions (1949)
Boom of international human rights law
The end of the cold war: new hopes and new challenges
Trust in each other, led to the creation of the ICTY and ICTR (1993/94), Rome
Statute and Ad Hoc criminal courts
ICTY:
2
, UN Security Council Resolution 808 (1993): Plan establishment of ICTY
UN Security Council Resolution 827 (1993): Agreed on the plan
Subsidiary body of the UN Security Council
ICTY organs: Registry – Office of the prosecutor – Chambers (trial and appeal)
The ICTY had jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
(material jurisdiction) committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia
(territorial jurisdiction) after 1 January 1991 (temporal jurisdiction) – Articles 1-5
ICTY Statute
Tadic (first case), Krstic (Srebrenica genocide), Milosevic (head of state)
ICTR:
The 1994 Rwandan genocide (1994)
UN Security Council Resolution 955 (same plan and structure as the ICTY, to show
having equal standards)
ICTR organs: Registry – Office of the prosecutor – Chambers (trial and appeal)
Situated in Arusha (Tanzania), but common Appeals Chamber with ICTY (The
Hague)
Subsidiary body of the UN Security Council
The ICTR had jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
(material jurisdiction) committed in the territory of Rwanda (territorial jurisdiction)
between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994 (temporal jurisdiction) and over
Rwandan citizens responsible for such acts committed in the territory of
neighbouring states (Territorial and personal jurisdiction)– Articles 1-4 ICTR
Statute
Un Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT):
The tribunals closed, but: “The mechanism shall continue the jurisdiction, rights,
and obligations and essential functions of the ICTY and the ICTR”
Key functions of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT):
Tracking and prosecuting indicated fugitives; Appeal proceedings; Review
proceeding; Retrials; Protections of victims and witnesses; Supervision of
enforcement of sentences; Preservations and management of archives
The International Criminal Court (ICC):
First permanent international criminal court not a United Nations body
Treaty-based (not resolution-based like the ICTR and ICTY): Rome Statute (RS) of
1998
- Early 1990s: early draft 1998: Rome Conference 2002: Rome Statute entered
into force
Complementary jurisdiction: Only when national courts are “unwilling or unable”
to try the said crimes (domestic courts have primary jurisdiction)
124 State Parties (many countries have signed the treaty but not ratified it)
The four organs: Presidency, Chambers (18 judges), Office of the Prosecutor, and
Registry
Recap: The UN ad hoc Tribunals and the ICC:
Core similarities:
- Truly international tribunals
- Material jurisdiction (apart from crime of aggression, which only ICC has)
- Dependent on state co-operation
Important differences:
- Legal basis: Treaty (ICC) vs ad hoc UNSC Resolution (ICTR and ICTY)
- Temporal and territorial jurisdiction
- Complementary (ICC) and Primacy (ICTY and ICTY)
The “Hybridity” of Hybrid Tribunals Different aspects (and degrees) of hybridity in
the various hybrid ad hoc tribunals:
Staff composition (domestic and international judges/prosecutors)
Material jurisdiction (domestic and international crimes)
Founding legal documents (domestic legislation + agreement with UN)
3
