Educational Implications of International tribunals for the purposes and approach of the court

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Mahdireza Sadeghi ¹
• seyed ghasem Zamani ²

¹ Ph.D Candidate in International Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

² Professor in law, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

10.30495/jedu.2022.31354.6288

Abstract

Introduction & Objective: The Ad Hoc International Criminal tribunals paid special attention to the purposes of punishment, both normatively and procedurally. The Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court do not mention the purposes of punishment but the common goals of the two courts provide the Court to follow of Ad Hoc international criminal tribunals model of punishment. The aim of the present study is to research the extent to which the Court's influence on the purposes of punishment in the light of the teachings and findings of Ad Hoc international criminal tribunals in a descriptive and analytical manner.
Methodology: This research is a quantitative research and applied in terms of purpose and also it has a descriptive -Analytical method. Library studies used to collect information such as theoretical foundations and research background. The Case information is obtained from cases heard by the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Results: The Purposes of punishment have not been identified in the documents of the International Criminal Court but However, the Court's proceeding have addressed the issue of the purposes of punishment and have used the model of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in practice.
Conclusion: The common goals and issues of the International Criminal Court and Ad Hoc international criminal tribunals, and in particular the connection of these courts with international peace and security, allow the Court to, in the light of a logical connection and purposeful intentions, be able to follow the case law of the Ad Hoc International Criminal tribunals in relation to Use punishment purposes; An approach that not only contrary to rule but also agrees with the rule and helps the court to compensate for its normative shortcomings in the light of judicial procedure.
 

Keywords

• punishment
• court
• Teaching

---

References

Abels Denis, the objectives of punishment, university of Amesterdam- faculty of law, july 1, 2014

Aghaei Janatmakan, Hussein (1393), International criminal law, international documents, Jungel publications.

Aghaei Janatmakan, Hussein (1394), public criminal law,volume II, Jungel publications.

Akhavan Payam, thr  rise, and fall, and rise of international criminal justice,  journal of international criminal justice, 11 (2013)

Bassiouni Sherif,(2011) crimes against humanity, historical, evolution and contemporary application,first published, Cambridge university press.

Bassiauni, cherif.(2003) introduction to international criminal law, translational publishers, Ardsley, Newyork.

Bassiauni, cherif, perspective on international criminal justice,Virginia journal of international law , V.50, 2010

Blewitt AM Graham (2008) the importance of a retributive approach to justice, cited in: the legacy of Nuremberg: civilizing influence or institutionalized vengeance? Edited by David A. Blumenthal and Timothy L.H.Mccormack, Martinus Nijhoff publishers.

Cassese, Antonio, on the current trends towards criminal prosection and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law, European journal of international law, vo1.9, 1998

Cryer Robert, Hakan Friman, Darrl Robinson and Elizabeth Wilmshurest,(2007) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, Cambridge university press, First Published.

Dana,shahram, the limits if judicial idealism: should the international criminal court engage with consequentialist aspirations? Penn state journal of law and international affairs, vol 3, No 1, 2014.

Damaska Mirjan, what is the point of international criminal justice? Chicago-kent law review, 83(2008)

Hola Barbora, sentencing of international crimes at the ICTY and ICTR, Amsterdam law Forum, vol. 4:4, 2012

Mcdoald Gabrielle Kirk, Problems, obstacles and achievement of the ICTY, international criminal justice journal 2(2004)

Schabas, William, Unimaginable atrocities: justice, politics, and right at the war crimes tribunals, oxford university press.2012

Rhea Harry M, the Nuremberg effect on contemporary international criminal justice, criminal justice studies, vol.21, no 24, December 2008

Woods Andrewk, moral judgment & international crimes: the disutility of desert, Virginia journal of international law . vol.52.spring 2012

Smeulers, Alette, Barbora Hola and Tom Van Denberg, sixty-five years of the international criminal justice: The facts and figures, international criminal law review 13 (2013), Martinus N I, Hoff publisher

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v. Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic, case No, IT-98-32/1-T-T.ch 20 july 2009

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Drazen Erdemovic, case No, IT-96-22-T, T.ch2 , November 1996

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic, case No- IT-95-5/18-T, T.Ch, 24 March 2016

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Zdravko Tomilir, case No. IT-05-88/2-T, T.ch, 12 December 2012

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Milan Matric, case No, IT-95-11-T, T.Ch, 12 june 2007

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Tadic, case No, IT-94-1-A And  IT-94-1-Abiss,A.Ch, 26 june 2000

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Tihmir Blaki, case No, IT-95-14-T, T.Ch, 3 march 2000

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Rasim Delic, case No, IT-04-83-T, T.Ch, 15 september 2008

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Stakic, case No, IT-97-24-A, A.Ch, 22 March 2006, para, 402/ 2. ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Delalic, case No, IT-96-21-A, A.Ch, 20 February 2001,

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Kordic and cerkea, case No, IT-95-14/2-A, A.Ch, 17 December 2004

ICTY, judgement, prosecutor v.Erdemovic, case No, 5-3, T.Ch, 1998

ICTY judgement prosecutor v.Enver Hadzi hasanovic, Amir kubura, case No.IT-02-47-T-15,T.Ch.15 March 2006

ICTY judgement, Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, case No.IT-96-22-T, T.Ch, 29 November 1996

ICTY Judgement,  Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupre, Mirjan Kupre, Vlatko Kupre and Vladimir Anti, case no, IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000

ICTY Judgement, prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, case No. IT- 05—088/2-T, T.ch, 12 December 2102

ICTY judgement, Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic, case No.IT-94-2-s, T.Ch, 18 December 2003

ICTY judgement, Prosecutor v. Biljana Plavsic, case No.IT-00-39 and 40/1-5, T.Ch, 27 Feburary 2003

Prosecutor v. Jeande Dieu Kamuhanda, case No.ICTR-95-54A-T, T.Ch,22 January 2004.

Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana, case No.ICTR-95-18-T, T.Ch,28 April 2005

Prosecutor v. Emmanuel NDindabahizi, case No.ICTR-2001-71, T.Ch,15 July 2004

Prosecutor v. Rutanga), case No.ICTR-96-3,judgement and sentence, 2 Febuary 1999

Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzinda, (T.ch), case No.ICTR-95-1-T,21 May 1999

Prosecutor v. Akayesu, case No.ICTR-96-4-T,2 September 1998,

Prosecutor v. Kambanda, case No.ICTR-97-23-s,23 September 1998

Prosecutor v. Ruggi, case No.ICTR-97-32-I,1 June 2000

Prosecutor v. Rugambara, case No.ICTR-00-59-T,16 November 2007

Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba, case No.ICTR-02-76-T,13 December 2005

Prosecutor v. Serushago,Appeals judgement , case No.ICTR-98-39-A,6 April 2000

Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, case No.ICTR-95-1-T,(T.ch),21 May 1999

Prosecutor v. Serushago, srntencing judgement, case No.ICTR-98-39-S,5 February 1999

Decision on the sentence pursuant to article 76 of the statute, the prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, T.CH II,No.ICC-01/04-01/07, 23 May 2014

Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, Situation in the Democratic Republic of  The  Congo,In the Case of  The  Prosecutor v .Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, T.Ch 1, No, ICC-01/04-01/06, 10 July 2012

[1]First report of  international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,A/49/342.s/1994/1007, 29 Agust 1994

ICTY President, fifth annual report, A/53/219.s/1998/737, 20 August 1998,

Un.secretary- General, the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post conflict societies, un.doc.s/ 2004/616