Good Climate Governance: Only a Fragmented System of International Law Away?

Fragmentation is the hallmark of international environmental law—it is both the key to its success and the pathway to its unraveling. Recognizing that law is an essential component of systems of supranational climate governance, addressing gaps between international legal systems is fundamentally important to the legitimacy of international law and to on‐going attempts to use international law as a central component in efforts to address climate change. This article analyzes developments in international environmental law with a view towards suggesting how efforts to develop an international climate change legal regime—and a broader system of global climate governance—highlight the pressing need to look more closely at the linkages between climate change and other areas of international law and to begin thinking about ways to minimize gaps and maximize cooperation among international environmental institutions and between international environmental law and other spheres of international law.     

Investigation and Prosecution of Large-scale Crimes at the International Level: The Experience of the ICTY

Although the prosecution of large-scale crimes at the internationallevel shares some similarities to the prosecution of organizedcrime at the national level, there are a number of importantdifferences that make the two areas hardly comparable. Two distinctivetraits of international criminal proceedings stand out in thisregard: (i) the lack of any enforcement agency that would allowprosecuting authorities to carry out investigations on the territoryof an interested state without its assistance and the absenceof a general power to carry out such arrests, which render statecooperation of prime importance and (ii) the fact that the proceduralmodel of international criminal tribunals is mixed containingelements of accusatorial (common law) as well as inquisitorial(civil law) systems. As far as prosecutions are concerned, usefulconcepts and procedures adopted from both legal traditions canbe found in the Statute, the Rules of Procedure and Evidenceas well as in the approach of prosecutors, defence counsel andjudges to the introduction of evidence and, more generally,to the manner in which proceedings are conducted. One of themain examples of this is the acceptance of proof of facts bymeans other than oral evidence as a result of the influenceof the civil law tradition, which has progressively made itsway in the procedural system of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Yet, on the other hand, somemethods normally resorted to in national criminal prosecutionmay turn out to be useful at the international level, such asresorting to insider witnesses. Although known to domestic systems,such practice may have a particular significance in the contextof the prosecution of international crimes. So have additionalforms of criminal participation (such as the notion of jointcriminal enterprise). Only a mixing of traditional and innovativeinvestigative tools and the proper balance of the differentlegal cultures can ensure effective prosecution of internationalcrimes.     

Redefining Apartheid in International Criminal Law

This article asks: to what extent is Article 7(1)(j) of the Rome Statute—the crime of apartheid—a tenable crime in international criminal law? It will be argued that despite the obligations incumbent on states not to intentionally discriminate against social groups, there is no customary legal norm of apartheid as a distinct crime against humanity. This is premised on the distinction between state obligations as different from norms demanding individual liability in international criminal law, as well as inadequacies of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) and the absence of case law relying on apartheid as a crime against humanity. Further, the weaknesses hindering the formation of a customary norm of apartheid as a distinct crime against humanity will be assessed with regard to the Rome Statute. Also it will be shown that the lack of coherence of Article 7(1)(j) demonstrates that the crime of apartheid is subsumed by the crime of persecution. Finally, two suggestions are offered on how the crime of apartheid could be established as a distinct offence in international criminal law. The central thesis of this paper is that the crime of apartheid is ambiguous and inoperable. In order for Article 7(1)(j) to be relevant in international criminal law, the offence must be reworked and clearly articulated.     

Stateless Crimes,Legitimacy, and International Criminal Law: The Case of Organ Trafficking

Organ trafficking and trafficking in persons for the purpose of organ transplantation are recognized as significant international problems. Yet these forms of trafficking are largely left out of international criminal law regimes and to some extent of domestic criminal law regimes as well. Trafficking of organs or persons for their organs does not come within the jurisdiction of the ICC, except in very special cases such as when conducted in a manner that conforms to the definitions of genocide or crimes against humanity. Although the United States Code characterizes trafficking as “a transnational crime with national implications,” (22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(24) (2010)), trafficking is rarely prosecuted in domestic courts. It has thus functioned in practice largely as what might be judged a “stateless” offense, out of the purview of both international and national courts. Yet these forms of organ trafficking remain widespread—and devastating to those who are its victims. In this article, we begin by describing what is known about the extent of organ trafficking and trafficking in persons for the purpose of removal of organs. We then critically evaluate how and why such trafficking has remained largely unaddressed by both international and domestic criminal law regimes. This state of affairs, we argue, presents a missed chance for developing the legitimacy of international criminal law and an illustration of how far current international legal institutions remain from ideal justice.     

International criminal justice: reflections on the past and the future

While Nuremberg constitutes a watershed in the evolution of international law with its establishment of the fundamental principle of individual criminal responsibility under international law it has not left much else by way of precedent for the subsequent international criminal tribunals. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 827 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and Resolution 955 (1994) establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, set the groundwork for a new model of hybrid tribunals, with the establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2002, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia in 2006, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in 2007. Perhaps one of the greatest legacies of these ad hoc and hybrid courts and tribunals has been paving the way for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. However, they have also brought about the development of international criminal law through judicial interpretation, elaborating, inter alia, the elements of the crime of genocide as detailed in the 1948 Genocide Convention, the judicial recognition of the concept of joint criminal enterprise and the principle that national arrangements for amnesties in respect of international crimes are no bar to prosecution for such crimes at an international tribunal. In view of the completion strategies of the ad hoc Tribunals, as well as of the SCSL, this article delves into some of their legacies and outlines some of the difficulties and challenges they have faced, while identifying areas of best practice in order for the newly‐operational International Criminal Court to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past or even reinventing new wheels.     

Constructing International Crime: Lawyers,States, and the Origin of International Criminal Prosecution in the Interwar Period

This article explains the development of international crime as a legal category. I argue that states’ pursuit of political rights claims empowers international lawyers to develop new legal categories to grant states new tools to pursue their interests. At the same time, lawyers have a stake in defending the autonomy of law from politics, thus pushing for the development of legal norms and institutions that go beyond the original state intent. States’ turn to law thus begets more law, expanding the legal and institutional tools to solve international problems while simultaneously enforcing a commitment to principles of legality. To demonstrate the plausibility of the theory, the article studies the construction of the concept of an international crime in the interwar period (1919–1939). In response to the Allies’ attempt to prosecute the German Emperor, international lawyers sought the codification of international criminal law and drafted enforcement mechanisms. The interwar legal debate not only introduced international crime into the legal and political vocabulary, it also legitimized a new set of institutional responses to violations of international law, namely, international criminal prosecution.     

Translating Justice: The International Organization of Constitutional Courts

What is the international organization of national constitutional courts? This article develops a theoretical framework to analyze this question and tests it empirically with original data of translated opinions. Justices of different nations form an emerging epistemic community, which is congealed due to common practices as well as to competition and selectiveness throughout the judicial career. Opinions translated into English as the lingua franca are pivotal for communication within this epistemic community. Through engaging in a transnational judicial dialogue, and particularly as far as this dialogue concerns legal citations, this community uses international law as a key guide to finding equilibrium solutions at national and international levels. Five sources of international law overwhelmingly dominate. In addition, we find evidence in the collegial game within the different courts for the existence of a transnational epistemic community of Supreme Court justices.     

Who has the right to govern online activity? A criminal and civil point of view

This paper compares how the Australian defamation case of Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 and the English obscenity case of R. v. Perrin [2002] EWCA 747 dealt with the legal concept of publication in the transnational online context or, more specifically, with the issue as to how to treat a foreign online publication. Despite the different nature of the causes of action, with the former being a civil case and the latter being a criminal case, the article shows that, not only were the underlying jurisdictional issues the same, but that there were also significant similarities in the approaches taken to them. Both courts firmly rejected arguments in favour of an exclusive country‐of‐origin approach and stuck with the traditional country‐of‐destination orthodoxy. Nevertheless, it is argued that, given the different nature of and rationales behind civil and criminal law, as well as the less cooperative transnational criminal law regime, the same jurisdictional approach taken to both civil and criminal transnational activity may in fact yield substantially very different outcomes. Thus, the approach appropriate in the criminal law context may lead to undesirable over‐regulation in the civil law context.     

国际刑法的国内立法研究

在国内刑法中确认和体现国际刑法规范是缔约国应尽的国际义务,也是有效打击国际犯罪的需要。国际刑法公约中有关国际犯罪的实体法规定、程序和证据规则的规定、刑事合作的规定、预防性措施的规定等,应当成为国内立法体现国际刑法规范的主要内容。在中国,国内立法确认和体现国际刑法公约的主要途径有制定单行刑事法律、修改补充现有法律条款、立法解释和司法解释等。     

论国际人权法对国际刑法的影响

冷战结束后,国际人权法获得了较为广阔的生长空间,国际刑法也进入复兴和快速发展的阶段。国际人权法对国际刑法各个领域的影响都十分明显,从基本原则到具体规则,从实体法到程序法,从刑罚制度设计到刑罚的执行,并努力在保护被害人与保障被告人权利两者之间保持微妙的平衡。然而,透过国际人权法推动国际刑法发展的帷幔,不难发现其背后＂人权＂和＂主权＂之间的紧张博弈：为保护人权,国际人权法引领着国际刑法试图突破国家领土的藩篱进而穿透国家主权的坚硬＂铠甲＂;国家则奋力祭起＂主权＂大旗并诉诸＂司法独立＂的坚固盾牌,抵御某些外部政治实体利用国际刑事司法机构干涉其内政、侵蚀其＂司法独立＂,以最大限度地维护国家利益。     

Corporate Liability for International Crimes under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act

Given that the Rome Statute does not provide jurisdiction totry corporations for breaches of international criminal law,it has been suggested that national jurisdictions might be usedto fill this impunity gap. The author presents several arguments.First, the international criminal law system, including theRome Statute — and particularly the principles of universaljurisdiction and complementarity — provides the theoreticalgrounding for states to assert jurisdiction over internationalcrimes wider than the International Criminal Court (ICC). Second,Canada, owing to interactions between its domestic legislationimplementing the ICC Statute and existing national criminallaw, is now able to prosecute corporations for breaches of internationalcriminal law. Finally, this increased jurisdiction of Canadiancourts is consistent with the current status of corporationsunder international criminal law. What is really interestingabout Canada's approach, however, is not so much that it hascreated a new legal principle, but rather that it is one ofthe first countries to establish jurisdiction over internationalcrimes committed by corporate entities which were previouslycommitted with impunity.

By stating that I could not guaranteethat the army is not using forced labour, I certainly implythat they might, (and they might) but I am saying that we donot have to monitor the army's behaviour: we have our responsibilities;they have their responsibilities; and we refuse to be pushedin to assuming more than what we can really guarantee. Aboutforced labour used by troops assigned to provide security onour pipeline project, let us admit between Unocal and Totalthat we might be in a grey zone.¹

     

Bad Torture -- Good Torture?: What International Criminal Lawyers May Learn from the Recent Trial of Police Officers in Germany

The author discusses whether a state agent who applies tortureagainst a suspect in order to prevent the death of one or moreinnocent persons can successfully plead a ground for excludinghis or her criminal responsibility under national (in particular,German) law as well as international law. The author examinesthe judgment of a German court, which recently found two policeofficers guilty of threatening to use violence against a suspectedkidnapper, but refrained from punishing them on account of theirmotivation to save the life of the hostage. The author maintainsthat the court's ‘guilty, but not to be punished’verdict could provide guidance for the resolution of comparablecases under international criminal law. He submits that thetension between the absolute ban on torture under internationalhuman rights law and the availability of defences even to crimesof torture under international criminal law should be resolvedthrough a human rights-oriented interpretation of the latter.The author concludes that criminal responsibility for tortureunder international criminal law cannot be excluded by the factthat the torturer acts to save innocent life; however, his orher altruistic motivation may be taken into account in determiningthe sentence.     

The State of the International Criminal Court,of Special Tribunals and of International Criminal Law: A Concise Review

International criminal law has changed rather dramatically in the last three decades. Whereas in the early 1990s the field was an almost exotic specialization of penal law, it has now developed into a thriving part of the law. Nowadays, most law schools have specialists in international criminal law which has usually developed into an important field of research. An important factor in this development has been the performance of three Special Criminal Tribunals established by the United Nations Security Council. In this article their institutional record as well as their importance for the development of international criminal law will be reviewed. In both senses, on the basis of a necessarily concise review, it is submitted that the performance of the tribunals must be considered a success. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is already twenty years in existence. Its performance cannot be judged equally successfully, however. In particular as an institution it cannot point to records comparable to those of the Special Criminal Tribunals. Still, although it is undoubtedly fragile, the ICC has become a relevant feature of modern international law and in international relations (as a brief examination of its potential role regarding the Special Military Operation in Ukraine shows). Notwithstanding its institutional weaknesses, the importance of the ICC manifests itself in its Statute which can be seen as a codification of international criminal law. The strong increase in the domestic administration of international crimes as a consequence of the principle of the complementarity of the Statute is taken into consideration.

     

The Common Core between Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law: A Structural Account

Legal scholars and theorists have recently drawn a more sustained attention to the link between international human rights law (hereafter IHRL) and international criminal law (hereafter ICL). This concerns both positive and more normative accounts of the link. Whether positive or normative, the predominant approach to constructing the link is substantive. This overlap is normatively justified in similar terms by reference to a subset of moral human rights. In this paper, I offer an alternative to the substantive approach. After identifying two flaws in the substantive approach (the problem of threshold and the problem of ethical neutrality), I defend what I call a structural account by focusing on duty‐holders. I start by reconstructing two structural characteristics common to IHRL and ICL qua international legal regimes: who has the authority to address violations of IHRL and ICL, and who can be liable for those violations. I then infer that public authority (functionally construed) constitutes the common structural core of IHRL and ICL. I rely on the extraterritorial application of IHRL and on the collective dimension of ICL violations to further support the argument. I finally offer an argument explaining the normative point of those structural features. I hold that IHRL and ICL (their adjudicative and liability regimes) are both necessary (but clearly not sufficient) to render this exercise of public authority legitimate to its subjects.     

Machiavelli at 500: From Cynic to Vigilant Supporter of International Law

Machiavelli's 500‐year‐old treatise The Prince outlined the central features of the realist tradition in international relations. His premises led him to question the likelihood of efficacious and stable international law and international courts, a skepticism that has present‐day proponents. Machiavelli's reluctance was due to a combination of features of human nature and a focus on anarchic features of the relations among states. This article challenges these assumptions and implications: Other interpretations of human nature are closer to Machiavelli's text, and current relations among states are significantly different. The revised assumptions should make Machiavelli's followers more optimistic about international law and international courts.     

Globalization as Boundary‐Blurring: International and Local Law Firms in China's Corporate Law Market

The worldwide expansion of international law firms has generated regulatory battles and workplace conflicts in advanced market economies as well as developing countries. This article uses the case of China to explore the changing global–local relationship in the globalization of the legal profession and to understand the role of the government in constituting the corporate law market. The author argues that the globalization of the Chinese corporate law market is a process of boundary‐blurring and hybridization, by which local firms become structurally global‐looking and global firms receive localized expertise. Boundary‐blurring occurs in law firms' workplaces, in lawyers' career trajectories, and in state regulatory policies. It has produced a localized expertise that can be diffused conversely from local firms to global firms and has partially changed their relationship from collaboration to competition. Consequently, it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to make or enforce any substantive policy to clarify the market boundary between these two types of law firms.     

Damaska and the Faces of International Criminal Justice

Mirjan Damaka 's scholarly publications provide important insightsfor the analysis of systems of criminal justice at the internationallevel. This is particularly true for his major book: The Facesof Justice and State Authority – A Comparative Approachto the Legal Process. The book develops ideal types, or models,of the structure and the function of government. As far as thestructure of government, the ideal types of hierarchical andcoordinate officialdom are contrasted with one another. Withregard to the function of government in society, two other mutuallyexclusive ideal types are developed: the ideal type of the purelyreactive state and that of the purely activist state. In thepurely reactive state all state activities are essentially aform of dispute resolution between individual citizens. Consequently,all proceedings take the shape of a contest between two parties.In the reactive state, on the other hand, all law is an expressionof state policies. This entails that all proceedings are essentiallyan official inquiry enabling the state to implement its policies.The four ideal types call for several observations, one of thembeing that, at the international level, there is no authoritythat can be compared to a state. Setting up international criminal courts requires choices withregard to the structure and function of authority. Internationalhuman rights instruments provide no guidance as to the natureof the choices to be made. In particular, they do not indicatewhether the legal process should be structured as a contestbetween two parties or as an official inquiry. The same is truefor empirical evidence. An analysis of the structures of authority in internationalcriminal courts reveal that they represent hybrids of the hierarchicaland the coordinate ideal types of officialdom. The fact thatthese courts are unitary courts has a profound effect on evidentiaryarrangements. The most important issue raised by the exposition of ideal typesof The Faces of Justice concerns the relationship between thegoals of international criminal justice and the appropriatelegal process to serve their realization. Goals of a conflict-solvingnature are best served by a legal process structured as a contestbetween two parties and goals related to the implementationof policies by a legal process structured as an official inquiry.It is therefore essential to determine what goals are beingpursed by international criminal courts. One may distinguishhere between goals that international systems of justice mayor may not have in common with national systems of criminaljustice. The pursuit of the traditional goals of criminal justicecommon to international and national systems of justice doesnot provide compelling reasons to prefer either a contest modelor an inquest model of the legal process. This is different,however, for the idiosyncratic goals of international criminaljustice that set apart international systems of criminal justicefrom national systems. The pursuit of these goals makes it desirablethat historical facts are established as accurately as is possiblein the given circumstances. They are, therefore, best servedby a legal process that takes the shape of an official inquiry.In the hybrid type of procedure adopted by the ICTY there isinsufficient clarity about the procedural status of the peculiargoals of international criminal justice as well as about theuse of procedural means to pursue them. This entails that itis not really possible to determine whether this hybrid representsa success. Hybrid types of procedure cannot truly exist withoutadopting a view with regard to the impartiality of judges thatis inspired by standards enshrined in international human rightsinstrument rather than those that are characteristic for thelegal process shaped as a contest between two parties.     

Punishment and Rights in European Union Citizenship: Persons or Criminals?

While European Union (EU) citizenship has traditionally been key to limiting criminalisation at national level, over recent years crime has become a criterion to distinguish between the good and the bad citizen, and to allocate rights according to that distinction. This approach has been upheld by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) in its case‐law, where crimes show the offender's disregard for the societal values of the host Member States, and deny his/her integration therein. This article argues that citizenship serves to legitimate criminal law. The Court outlines two—counterposing—types of human being: the law‐abiding citizen and the criminal. The article shows the legal unsoundness of the Court's approach. It does so by analysing and locating the case‐law over a crime–citizenship spectrum, marked at its opposing ends by Duff's communitarian approach to criminal law, on the one hand, and Jakobs' criminal law of the enemy, on the other.     

论国际犯罪主体的范围与特征

由于对国际犯罪的本质、国家法律责任性质、国家犯罪标准的不同认识,学界对国际犯罪主体的范围界定不一。基于国际刑法规范及惯例中关于国际犯罪的规定、国际刑事审判实践、国际犯罪构成理论特质、国际刑法保护、国际社会共同利益的宗旨以及国际犯罪新形态等国际犯罪主体的内涵性考察,可以明确国际犯罪主体的外延应当包括个人、组织或团体(单位)、国家、国际组织,并可以概括出这四类国际犯罪主体的本质和认定特征。     

论修改《刑事诉讼法》的应有视角和立场——以刑事诉讼法与刑法比较为中心

作为国内公法的一国刑法和刑事诉讼法共同展示了国家诠释、认定、处罚犯罪的整体流程和态度。通观国际和国内两个层面的刑法和刑事诉讼法的立法发展,我们可以看到,各国的刑法具有巨大的差异性,凸现了不同的国家性格,表现出执著的国内特色,国际和区域领域的刑法统一步履维艰;而刑事诉讼法在各国日益呈现出一种统一的趋势和样态,各主权国家的刑事诉讼法价值、理念、原则、制度趋于同一,其内容已经成为超越国家的真理性共识,并最终成为国际刑事司法准则。本文在对刑法和刑事诉讼法国际与国内两个层面的表现样式作一番比较和考察后,着重于探讨形成这种不同样式的原因。揭示样式背后刑法与刑事诉讼法制定的不同的生态机理,提出我国立法机关修改《刑事诉讼法》的视角和立场应当是充分考虑刑事诉讼程序的超国界性。