This paper is based on the premise that an overreliance on law in transitional justice fails to s... more This paper is based on the premise that an overreliance on law in transitional justice fails to sufficiently address the long-term aims of healing and reconciliation, particularly in post-conflict societies. As a result of transitional justice’s political, international and institutional character in the form of legalism, other viable mechanisms are restricted. The key issue revolves around the ownership of any process and the failure of transitional justice to sufficiently consider aims outside retributive justice and the legitimacy of the state post-conflict. Focusing on legalism’s above characteristics, this paper considers the practical problems that legal dominance creates and discusses the quasi-judicial alternatives of gacaca and Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, before taking into account the practices in post-Communist Eastern Europe.
This article seeks to critically analyse and discuss the implications of the ratio decidendi of t... more This article seeks to critically analyse and discuss the implications of the ratio decidendi of the International Court of Justice’s judgment in the Genocide Convention Case. The writer argues that the high standard of proof adopted and the incorrect application of ICTY case law has led the Court to establish an unnecessarily high threshold for the establishment of the dolus specialis for genocide and the subsequent attribution of State responsibility. This outcome makes it difficult to make a finding of State responsibility for genocide, which in turn damages the ability of international criminal law to prevent genocide and deliver justice. The paper also covers individual criminal responsibility, collective responsibility, the impact of the ratio on Darfur and the ICJ’s subsequent decision in the Croatia v Serbia Genocide Convention Case.
Brief discussion on the obligation to prevent genocide, as laid out in the Genocide Convention Ca... more Brief discussion on the obligation to prevent genocide, as laid out in the Genocide Convention Case (Bosnia v Serbia) [2007] after the Hartmann & Vulliamy article concerning the US and UK's actions in the build up to the Srebrenica genocide.
An altered version of this article was published by The New Jurist on 14 July 2015.
This article will examine the role the Unites States of America plays in breaching international ... more This article will examine the role the Unites States of America plays in breaching international treaties and customary international laws that prohibit the crime of torture. The article will consider the theoretical issues behind torture. The article also considers the issue of necessity as a justification, examining its utilitarian nature and the ticking time bomb hypothetical. The writer then turns to setting out the international regime for the prohibition on torture and relevant domestic law of the United States. The focus then turns on the use of torture in the ‘war on terror,’ before analysing the legal arguments and justifications used by the United States in its re-interpretation of the prohibition on torture in customary international law, the 1984 UN Torture Convention, 1966 UN Covenant and 1949 Geneva Conventions. The section covers arguments related to the legal status of American soldiers on foreign soil, the status of Guantanamo Bay and prisoner of war classification. The argument of reduced culpability based on the defence of necessity is considered before an examination of the consequences on international law and the prohibition on torture.
This paper is based on the premise that an overreliance on law in transitional justice fails to s... more This paper is based on the premise that an overreliance on law in transitional justice fails to sufficiently address the long-term aims of healing and reconciliation, particularly in post-conflict societies. As a result of transitional justice’s political, international and institutional character in the form of legalism, other viable mechanisms are restricted. The key issue revolves around the ownership of any process and the failure of transitional justice to sufficiently consider aims outside retributive justice and the legitimacy of the state post-conflict. Focusing on legalism’s above characteristics, this paper considers the practical problems that legal dominance creates and discusses the quasi-judicial alternatives of gacaca and Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, before taking into account the practices in post-Communist Eastern Europe.
This article seeks to critically analyse and discuss the implications of the ratio decidendi of t... more This article seeks to critically analyse and discuss the implications of the ratio decidendi of the International Court of Justice’s judgment in the Genocide Convention Case. The writer argues that the high standard of proof adopted and the incorrect application of ICTY case law has led the Court to establish an unnecessarily high threshold for the establishment of the dolus specialis for genocide and the subsequent attribution of State responsibility. This outcome makes it difficult to make a finding of State responsibility for genocide, which in turn damages the ability of international criminal law to prevent genocide and deliver justice. The paper also covers individual criminal responsibility, collective responsibility, the impact of the ratio on Darfur and the ICJ’s subsequent decision in the Croatia v Serbia Genocide Convention Case.
Brief discussion on the obligation to prevent genocide, as laid out in the Genocide Convention Ca... more Brief discussion on the obligation to prevent genocide, as laid out in the Genocide Convention Case (Bosnia v Serbia) [2007] after the Hartmann & Vulliamy article concerning the US and UK's actions in the build up to the Srebrenica genocide.
An altered version of this article was published by The New Jurist on 14 July 2015.
This article will examine the role the Unites States of America plays in breaching international ... more This article will examine the role the Unites States of America plays in breaching international treaties and customary international laws that prohibit the crime of torture. The article will consider the theoretical issues behind torture. The article also considers the issue of necessity as a justification, examining its utilitarian nature and the ticking time bomb hypothetical. The writer then turns to setting out the international regime for the prohibition on torture and relevant domestic law of the United States. The focus then turns on the use of torture in the ‘war on terror,’ before analysing the legal arguments and justifications used by the United States in its re-interpretation of the prohibition on torture in customary international law, the 1984 UN Torture Convention, 1966 UN Covenant and 1949 Geneva Conventions. The section covers arguments related to the legal status of American soldiers on foreign soil, the status of Guantanamo Bay and prisoner of war classification. The argument of reduced culpability based on the defence of necessity is considered before an examination of the consequences on international law and the prohibition on torture.
Uploads
An altered version of this article was published by The New Jurist on 14 July 2015.
An altered version of this article was published by The New Jurist on 14 July 2015.