The notion of individual criminal responsibility under international law is a recent phenomenon. Many different mechanisms have been employed including domestic courts, the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well as ad hoc UN tribunals and new "hybrid" or internationalized courts in order to deal with the prosecution of violations of the of the laws and customs of war, human rights abuses, particularly genocide. The adjudicating of international criminal law is a decentralized and roughly defined system. It is a nascent institution struggling to find its legitimacy. It calls into question the ethics of imposing foreign values and norms and foreign systems into a sovereign body. While the limitations and fallbacks of the international court system are numerous, nevertheless, the courts have undoubtedly brought about a new era for the safeguard of human rights.
[...] (Guhr) The reality of the international courts and tribunals is that there is no absolute jurisdiction in a region, nor can the institution proceed in a criminal trial unless there is overwhelming evidence of human rights abuse and approval from the state in which the atrocities occurred. This is one of the fundamental limitations of the international court systems. Using the case of Bosnia in the ICTY and in the modern context of Darfur, the inability of the international court to deter criminal violence is exemplified. [...]
[...] They are composed of a mixture of international law as well as the local national procedural law, as well as local and foreign judges, prosecutors and staff members. Sociology and Criminal Courts Extensive research has been performed when dealing with the sociological nature of the international court system. What role do international courts play in the international community? Supranational bodies like the ICC never existed in the past, what has caused the modern string of international criminal adjudication? More importantly, have they been effective in their attempts to safeguard human rights? [...]
[...] Thus, the deviant, or violator of international human rights as defined by the supranational body, must be punished for justice and the normative system to be restored. This is the basis and result of the International Court System: by punishing grave violations of human rights, the prosecution will deter future deviance and re-establish universal norms. (Totten) Yet, have the international court institutions and tribunals been effective in doing this? Since these institutions are in their nascent stages, it is impossible at this juncture to empirically define the effectiveness of the rulings in preventing future atrocities. [...]
[...] TOTTEN, CHRISTOPHER D., and NICHOLAS TYLER . "ARGUING FOR AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO RESOLVING THE CRISIS IN DARFUR: THE CHALLENGES OF COMPLEMENTARITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND RELATED ISSUES IN THE INTERNATIONAIL CRIMINAL COURT." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 98.3 (Spring2008 2008): 1069-1118. SocINDEX with Full Text. EBSCO. Butler University, Indianapolis, IN] Dec < http:>. Mayerfeld, Jamie. “Ending Impunity” Journal of International Affairs (September 2006) Blackwell Publishing. Akhavan, Payam. “Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?” American Journal of International [...]
[...] However, the criminal justice court was only able to play any kind of meaningful role until after Western powers had taken coercive factors to end the war. It is therefore more essential to employ coercive, forceful, or diplomatic means to combat impunity. In the case of Darfur, we can see the same limitations of the international court system in deterring criminal activity. Some first steps have already been made to help end ongoing civil conflict and genocide in the region, but many analysts predict that the ICC is not capable of ending impunity there. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
