International Court Of Justice

I've done some research into it, and is it correct to say that the main aim of this branch of the U.N. is to combat crimes against humanity?

Reply 1

Marcods

No, that mandate is carried by the International Criminal Court, and the various U.N. tribunals (most of which are finishing their work as the ICC takes over).

The ICJ deals primarily with disputes between states, most often land issues.

Reply 2

WokSz

So, which court actually combats Human Rights?

Reply 3

Lady Narcissus

There are quite a few tribunals set up, former international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia and other ad hoc tribunals. Famous jurists, I believe, such as H.LA have argued that international law is not law because it has no legislature (might be wrong on that ages since jurisprudence) but it can be argued that there are jus cogens norms pervading international law. In the ICJ decision of Continental Shelves and under the Statute of the ICJ, customary international law is authoritative.

Anyway, some argue that Jus Cogens are the highest form of law, and all countries recognise since Nuremberg etc that war crimes are repugnant to mankind, thus jus cogens and override other laws. Thus, some argue domestic courts, such as HL, have a the jurisdiction to try them to protect the greater good. It is inherent in international law from various decisions. Therefore, they can try war crimes and champion international HR. See Pinochet case

This is an extentionally complex area of law because often those who commit crimes against humanity are heads of state, thus have sovereign immunity so tribunals arguably cannot have jurisdiction

The ICJ is aimed at land disputes, look at Congo v. Belgium to see how much controversy their jurisdiction over crimes against humanity caused.

Reply 4

Marcods

LauraWalker

Thus, some argue domestic courts, such as HL, have a the jurisdiction to try them to protect the greater good. It is inherent in international law from various decisions. Therefore, they can try war crimes and champion international HR.

I agree. From my research (which is in no way as academic or thorough as yours, Laura), I understood that international legal bodies (tribunals, the ICC, ICJ etc.) are only able to prosecute crimes where national judiciaries are incapable of conducting a fair trial, either due to lack of resources, or objectionable jurists. For example, after the Rwandan Genocide, there remained only about 16 Advocates in Rwanda. The entire court system had broken down and only tribal law remained. Hence, the establishment of the ad hoc UN tribunal for Rwanda.

I find this area of law absolutely fascinating!

Reply 5

Lady Narcissus

me too, I had not heard about that. Thank You. I looked more at the concepts, legal jusfitications and especailly the legality of the ICJ case.

I did a thesis with Richard Burchill from Hull. Congo v. Belgium: a regressive step in international criminal justice?

Then I was sick and it never got finished.

It is really a case of conceptualising crimes against humanity. A quest for normative coherence. It is so complex with all the immunties, it sends my head spinning, even experts admitted to me they go off in circles. Lattimer/Sands Justice for Crimes Against Humanity as lots of good chapters in it.

International Court Of Justice

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you