Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Genna Churches. Monika Zalnieriute. A short summary of this paper. Surveillance Law. The Court found U. The U. Citation G. Churches and M.
Until now, U. These programs were authorized by executive powers under the U. His complaint highlighted the incompatibility of U.
Consider the articles of the Rome Statute excerpted below. The Court shall apply: a In the first place, this Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence; b In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict; c Failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards.
The Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.
Article 22 Nullum crimen sine lege 1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy.
In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute. Article 24 Non-retroactivity ratione personae 1.
No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply. We will consider the provenance, contents and limits of the concept, especially when it comes to the questions of special intent and to protected groups.
Why is that so? Is an act of genocide necessarily worse than other acts? Why are they of fundamental importance? How are they different and why did the ICTs find there was a genocide in both cases? Further Reading P. Bilsky and R. Bloxham and A. We will try to understand the concept historically, doctrinally and philosophically. We will especially focus on the question of organisation, with reference to case law and debating the evolution of the concept.
In the second session we will look at specific prohibited acts and we will look at whether the concept can be applied to certain migration control policies, as well as to situations of structural violence and discrimination with a focus on persecution and, especially, the crime of apartheid.
We will relate the latter to the current debate over the characterization of Israeli policy primarily in occupied territories. Readings For the first class: - Rome Statute article 7 - Cryer et al, chapter 11, pp. For the second class: - Cryer et al, chapter 11, pp. And why are they not still linked?
How is it similar and different to the ideas of groups in the concept of genocide? Has it changed gradually in jurisprudence? Do you think the organizational threshold remain high? To what extent are the question of discriminatory intent, the notion of a racial group and the rights granted to the occupier by the law of war relevant? What is the interplay of apartheid and the right to self-determination of the majority group? Further Reading S.
Kalpouzos and I. Dugard and J. Erakat and J. Zreik and A. Accordingly, we will discuss the main principles and features of the regime of IHL also known as the law of armed conflict or jus in bello. In the first session we will look at its fundamental principles and contextual elements such as the existence and categories of armed conflict. In the second session we will have an overview of different types of war crimes, before focusing on the law of targeting, which we will continue discussing in the third session.
Readings For the first class: - Cryer et al, chapter 12, pp. ITA, Judgment, November 16, , paras. Compare them with contextual elements in genocide and crimes against humanity. Are there war crimes in customary ICL that are not included in article 8?
For the second and third classes: - Come to class with three examples of the application of the principle of distinction that you consider especially difficult o In relation to what is a military object o In relation to the targeting of individuals - Do you agree with the findings of the ICTY in the Report on the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia?
Can a failure to take feasible precautions entail criminal liability? Dill, Legitimate Targets? Gill and D. As we will see, however, it is a very different proposition.
Readings For the first class: - Cryer et al, chapter 13, pp. For the second class: - Cryer et al, chapter 13, pp. Questions for preparation and discussion For the first class: - Can you provide an account of the regulation of the use of force by states by international law? How did it develop until the UN Charter?
Was the criminalization of aggression part of that development? What are the values that the criminalization of aggression is supposed to be protecting? Should it?
For the second class: - So, does the ICC now have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression? Since When and against whom can it be exercised? Is that role appropriate? Does it leave out individuals who should have responsibility, and liability, for the crime of aggression? Kress and S.
We focus on the tools that ICL has developed to connect individuals to acts and consequences in often complex collective structures. As discussed so far, international crimes are, in some ways, different from domestic crimes and while some forms of perpetration may involve an immediate, proximate and physical relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, in many cases the structures are more complex. We will start by discussing the overall effort and its futility?
We will then discuss the various concepts and tools, some linked to domestic law concepts, and some especially developed by ICL. We will especially look at forms of co-perpetration and command responsibility. We will apply some of that discussion to one instance of distanced violence, that of migration externalization. In the second class we will look further into accessorial liability, in the context of the arms trade, and discuss how technology and automation affect responsibility.
Outsourcing and Avoiding Responsibility, pp. Do you think there is, or there should be, collective criminal responsibility for international crimes? What are and what should be the limits of the responsibility of military commanders or civilian superiors for crimes perpetrated by their inferiors? Haeberle and M. Todd Henderson 35 Yale Journal on Regulation Crowdfunding Signals , Darian M. Ibrahim 53 Georgia Law Review Davis Law Review Lewis 28 Utah Law Review Lewis 39 Cardozo Law Review Malone 79 Ohio State Law Journal Malone 51 Texas Tech Law Review Oman 81 Law and Contemporary Problems Oman, Daniel Barnhizer, Scott J.
Burnham, Charles R. Calleros, Larry T. Garvin, Nadelle Grossman, F. Guerra-Pujol, Jeffrey L. Harrison, Hila Keren, Michael P. Malloy, Daniel P. Carlson, Mark P. Gergen, Kenney Hegland, Nancy S. Infringement, Unbound , Sarah R. Bruhl 67 Duke Law Journal Bruhl 70 Vanderbilt Law Review Property as a Management Institution , Lynda L.
Butler 82 Brooklyn Law Review Taxing Systemic Risk , Eric D. Criddle 95 Texas Law Review Davies and Peter A.
0コメント