Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The state of the art
- 3 Guiding interpretive principle
- 4 Challenges to the principle of legality
- 5 Operationalizing the principle of legality
- 6 Custom as an aid to interpretation
- 7 Internal indicia of codification
- 8 External indicia of codification
- 9 The Vienna Convention (1969) and aids to interpretation
- 10 Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
3 - Guiding interpretive principle
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The state of the art
- 3 Guiding interpretive principle
- 4 Challenges to the principle of legality
- 5 Operationalizing the principle of legality
- 6 Custom as an aid to interpretation
- 7 Internal indicia of codification
- 8 External indicia of codification
- 9 The Vienna Convention (1969) and aids to interpretation
- 10 Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
In Chapter 2, a representative sample of the ICTY’s and ICTR’s jurisprudence was canvassed in order to glean insights on developing a method of interpretation. One of the findings of that study is that no widely accepted and recognized primary principle has emerged to guide judges in their interpretive reasoning. Accordingly, the next three Chapters are dedicated to identifying a guiding interpretive principle for crimes in the Rome Statute, articulating that principle’s content in a manner that could be useful to judges and lawyers and cataloguing arguments that are (in)consistent with it.
To appreciate the interpretive imperatives set out in the Rome Statute, this Chapter begins by recalling the normative tensions underlying international criminal law. Next, the interpretive imperatives in articles 21(3) and 22 of the Rome Statute – interpretation consistent with international human rights and interpretation consistent with the principle of legality – will be examined. It will be argued that the guiding interpretive principle for crimes in the Rome Statute is legality. An attempt will therefore be made to reconcile article 21(3) with this reading and to give it content that is consistent with legality.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
and , ‘Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law’ (2005) 93 California L Rev75Google Scholar
, ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’ (2008) 19 EJIL655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Impact on General Principles of Treaty Interpretation’ in and (eds.), The Impact of Human Rights Law on General International Law (Oxford University Press 2009) 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press 2002) 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law (Martinus Nijhoff 1985)Google Scholar
, ‘Customary Law or “Judge-Made” Law: Judicial Creativity at the UN Criminal Tribunals’ in , and (eds.), The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Martinus Nijhoff 2009) 77Google Scholar
, ‘Article 22’ in (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 713, 719Google Scholar
and , Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn (Oxford University Press 2013) 69–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Interpreting the Statutes of the Ad Hoc Tribunals’ in (ed.), Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese (Kluwer 2003) 887Google Scholar
, ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections’ (1999) 10 EJIL144, 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press 2004) 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’ (1995) UN Doc. A/50/22, paras. 52, 57
, ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee during Mar.–Apr. and Aug. 1996)’, vol. I, UN Doc. A/51/22, paras. 52, 180, 185
, ‘Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege in International Criminal Law’ in and Others (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol. I (Oxford University Press 2002) 733, 747Google Scholar
, ‘Nulla Poena Sine Lege in International Criminal Law’ in and (eds.), Sentencing and Sanctioning in Supranational Criminal Law (Intersentia 2006) 17Google Scholar
, The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law (Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar
, ‘Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege’ in (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2008–)
, ‘The General Principles of International Criminal Law: The Foundations of Criminal Law and the Nullum Crimen Principle’ in Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 11th edn (Heyer 1832) 12–19, translation by in (2007) 5 J Int’l Crim Justice 1005Google Scholar
, ‘Principles of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law’ in (ed.), International Criminal Law, vol. II, 3rd edn (Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 73Google Scholar
, ‘The Principle of Legality’ in , and (eds.), Supranational Criminal Law: A System Sui Generis (Intersentia 2003) 39Google Scholar
, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes: Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (Intersentia 2002)Google Scholar
, ‘Crimen Sine Lege: Judicial Lawmaking at the Intersection of Law and Morals’ (2008) 97 Georgetown LJ119, 176Google Scholar
App. No. 14307/88, Kokkinakis v. Greece, (1993) Series A, No. 260, para. 52
United States v. Davis, 576 F.2d 1065, 1069 (3d Cir. 1978) (. concurring), cited in , ‘Nullum Crimen and Related Claims’ (1997) 25 Denver J Int’l L & Policy321, 325Google Scholar
suggests that where an ambiguity exists, the legality principle bars resort to travaux préparatoires pursuant to article 32 of the Vienna Convention (1969) to resolve it in a manner unfavourable to the suspect or accused
‘The Sources of International Criminal Law’ in (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press 2009) 41, 45
, ‘Does the Principle of Legality Stand in the Way of Progressive Development of Law?’ (2004) 2 J Int’l Crim Justice1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn (Manchester University Press 1984) 115Google Scholar
, ‘Second Report for the ILC Study Group on Treaties over Time: Jurisprudence under Special Regimes relating to Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice’ in (ed.), Treaties and Subsequent Practice (Oxford University Press 2013) 210Google Scholar
, ‘Textual Interpretation and (International) Law Reading: The Myth of (In)determinacy and the Genealogy of Meaning’ in Making Transnational Law Work in the Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Detlev Vagts (Cambridge University Press 2010) 34, 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Applicable Law’ in and Others (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol. II (Oxford University Press 2002) 1051Google Scholar
, ‘Bad Torture – Good Torture? What International Criminal Lawyers may Learn from the Recent Trial of Police Officers in Germany’ (2005) 3 J Int’l Crim Justice1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘May Necessity be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?’ (2004) 2 J Int’l Crim Justice785)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Article 31’ in (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 863Google Scholar
, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford University Press 2010) 397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Article 21’ in (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 701, 711Google Scholar
, ‘Individual Human Rights in a New International Organization: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ in (ed.), International Criminal Law, 2nd edn (Transnational Publishers 1999) 693Google Scholar
, ‘Article 69’ in (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 1301, 1333Google Scholar
, ‘Human Rights Protection in the ICC Pre-Trial Phase’ in and (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (Brill 2009) 459Google Scholar
, ‘Article 106’ in (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 1663Google Scholar
and , ‘The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles’ (1988–1989) 12 Australian Ybk Int’l L82, 105–06 (citing Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep. 4, 22: ‘obligations…based…on certain general and well-recognized principles’, among them ‘elementary considerations of humanity’)Google Scholar
, ‘Criminalizing Hate Speech in the Crucible of Trial: Prosecutor v. Nahimana’ (2005) 12 New England J Int’l & Comp L 17
, ‘The Influence of the European Court of Human Rights on International Criminal Tribunals – Some Methodological Remarks’ in (ed.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide (Martinus Nijhoff 2003) 157Google Scholar
and , The Law of Human Rights, vol. I, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press 2009) ss. 4.05–4.20Google Scholar
and , ‘Interpretation and Comparative Analysis’ in and (eds.), Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study (Dartmouth Publishing Company 1991) 461, 471Google Scholar
and note that article 21(3) should be interpreted in light of article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention (1969)
, ‘Lex Specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of Jus ad Bellum’ (2007) 40:2 Israel L Rev592, 602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Articulating International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: Conciliatory Interpretation under the Guise of Conflict of Norms-Resolution’ in and (eds.), The Interpretation and Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Legal and Practical Implications (Martinus Nijhoff 2013) 4, 26Google Scholar
, ‘Impact of Human Rights Conventions on the Two Ad Hoc Tribunals’ in (ed.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide (Martinus Nijhoff 2003) 179Google Scholar
, ‘Defining “Crimes against Humanity” at the Rome Conference’ (1999) 93 AJIL43, 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (revised by ), ‘Article 7’ in (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2008) 159, 230ffGoogle Scholar
and , The Law of International Human Rights Protection (Oxford University Press 2009) 132ffGoogle Scholar
, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law: Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission’ (4 April 2006) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 109
, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2003) 257–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Study on the Function and Scope of the Lex Specialis Rule and the Question of “Self Contained Regimes”’ (2004) UN Doc. ILC(LVI)/SG/FIL/CRD.1 and Add.1, 4
, ‘Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying a More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship?’(2007) 40:2 Israel L Rev 355Google Scholar
, ‘Addressing the Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented System: the Doctrine of Lex Specialis’ (2005) 74 Nordic J Int’l L27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Legal Conclusion or Interpretive Process? Lex Specialis and the Applicability of International Human Rights Standards’ in and (eds.), International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 101Google Scholar
, ‘Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’ (2006) II Ybk of the ILC, Conclusions10 and 26Google Scholar