Abstract
AbstractThis chapter examines how the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the International Criminal Court regulate(d) their relationship to states. Against the backdrop of the law of primacy, a hybrid/restrictive mandate, and complementarity, it illuminates similarities and differences between their mandates, explains the relationship of each tribunal to national jurisdictions, and assesses the potential of each arrangement to incentivize states’ responses to serious crimes. This chapter argues that, rather than fixed bodies of norms that generate specific procedural interactions or substantive outcomes, these three institutional arrangements also express general values or a dominant institutional preference for international, domestic, or mixed trials. While no mandate was designed to encourage the domestic enforcement of international criminal law, the case law illustrates how ideas about the fight against impunity have changed over time and why some institutional arrangements are more amenable to adjustment than others.
Publisher
Oxford University PressOxford
Reference755 articles.
1. Adjovi R, ‘Regards sur la justice et les droits de l’homme en Afrique. L’affaire Baragaraza’ in Paul Tavernier (ed), Regards sur les droits de l’homme en Afrique (Harmattan 2008)
2. L’affaire Gumisiriza devant la justice militaire rwandaise;African Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire africain de droit international,2010
3. Ainley K, ‘Evaluating the Success of Transitional Justice in Sierra Leone and Beyond’ in Kirsten Ainley, Rebekka Friedman, and Chris Mahony (eds), Evaluating Transitional Justice: Accountability and Peacebuilding in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone (Palgrave Macmillan 2015)
4. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: The Politics and Pragmatics of Punishment;American Journal of International Law,1996