![]() 2 x The chapters in the edited volume Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals illustrate this point. Following this assumption, studies into judicial reasoning of international criminal courts have typically assessed and scrutinized (the judicial interpretations of) statutory, conventional and customary rules, thereby paying little or no attention to the way in which the courts have applied these rules to facts of individual cases. This approach assumes that the meaning and scope of the law are determined by legal rules and that legal rules completely control the outcome of individual cases. ![]() So far, international scholarship has primarily analyzed the creative practice of international criminal courts according to a rule-based approach. Shane Darcy and Joe Powderly (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 2 Elies van Sliedregt, Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 14. (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2003), 886 Shane Darcy and Joe Powderly, ‘Introduction,’ in Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals, ed. Schabas, ‘Interpreting the Statutes of the ad hoc Tribunals,’ in Man’s Inhumanity to Man, Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese, ed. Leiden, 2006), 56, 83 Alexander Zahar and Göran Sluiter, Criminal Law: A Critical Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 80 William A. ![]() 1 x Maria Swart, ‘Judges and Lawmaking at the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda’ (PhD diss. The ICTY, ICTR and ICC have therefore regularly adopted creative interpretations of existing legal concepts, thus construing a more comprehensive and balanced notion of criminal responsibility for mass atrocity. At the same time, there has been need to modernize the underdeveloped and sometimes outdated international crimes and liability theories of the post-World War II era. In fulfilling this mandate, the courts have benefited greatly from the legacy of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which adjudicated the major war criminals of the Nazi regime. ![]() All these courts have been set up with the same goal in mind: to end impunity for mass atrocity by holding political and military leaders accountable for international crimes. Since the 1990s, the international community has created several international criminal courts, such as the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR, respectively) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |