Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
This article focuses on the distinctions that the ad hoc Tribunals have drawn between the comparative law method and the review of evidence for clarifying customary international law and general principles of law. It outlines the dangers in the readiness of some international judges to accept narrow inquiries, which at best attach special weight and at worst restrict the scope of inquiry to a single, specific legal system. The readiness of some international judges to simply elevate legal rules and concepts with which they are familiar from their own legal education and practice to the level of universal truths may imply a failure to understand the other legal traditions on offer. The article concludes by showing that, unless the dangers inherent in the readiness to accept narrow inquiries are clearly emphasized, the achievement of an international criminal justice that is truly tolerant of plurality is a long way off.
1 Barak, , ‘Response to “The Judge as Comparatist: Comparison in Public Law'”, 80 Tul. L. Rev. (2005-2006) 195, at 196.Google Scholar
2 The UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”), established by the Security Council of the United Nations in 1993, pursuant to resolution 808 of 22 February 1993 and resolution 827 of 25 May 1993 (U.N. Doc. S/RES/808(1993); U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993); and the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”), established by the United Nations Security Council by its resolution 935 of 8 November 1999 (UN Document SIRES1955 of 8 November 1994).Google Scholar
3 Cassese, ‘The influence of the European Court of Human Rights on international criminal tribunals - some methodological remarks', in M Bergsmo and A Eide, Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide (2003), at 19.Google Scholar
4 Admittedly, this may sometimes have been for instrumental reasons. Judge Cassese, the first president of the ICTY, stated: “Mon experience est que souvent le droit compare est utilise pour confirmer une solution que l'on avait déjà trouvée.” See Cassese, during a round table talk, printed in Crimes Internationaux et Jurisdictions Internationales 140 (Mireille Delmas-Marty & Antonio Cassese eds. (2002), cited in Bohlander and Findlay, ‘The Use of Domestic Sources as a Basis for International Criminal Law Principles', in the Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence (2002) 2, at 25.Google Scholar
5 Schmitthoff, , ‘The Science of Comparative Law', 7 Cambridge L.J. (1939-1941) 94, at 95.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., at 96.Google Scholar
7 Ibid.Google Scholar
8 Barak, , supra note 1, at 196.Google Scholar
9 Ibid.Google Scholar
10 R v Town Planning Board, ex parte Kwan Kong Ltd (1995) 5 HKPLR 261. Cited in McCrudden, ‘A Common Law of Human Rights?: Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights', 20 Oxford J Legal Studies (2000) 4, at 6.Google Scholar
11 Schmitthoff, , supra note 5, at 99.Google Scholar
12 Ibid.Google Scholar
13 Ellis, ‘General Principles and Comparative Law', 22 European J of Int'l L. (2011) 4, at 949.Google Scholar
14 See Delmas-Marty, , ‘Interactions between National and International Criminal Law in the Preliminary Phase of Trial at the ICC', 4 J INT Criminal Justice (2006) 1, at 2.Google Scholar
15 Sluiter, , ‘Procedural Lawmaking at the International Criminal Tribunals', in Darcy and Powderly, Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (2010), at 315.Google Scholar
16 Byrne, , ‘The new public international lawyer and the hidden art of international criminal trial practice', 25 Connecticut J Int'l L. (2005) 243, at 248 and 259.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., at 248 and 255.Google Scholar
18 Picker, , ‘A Framework for Comparative Analyses of International Law and its Institutions: Using the Example of the World Trade Organization', in Cashin Ritaine, Donlan and Sychold (eds.), Comparative Law and Hybrid Legal Traditions, 67 Publication of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (2009). Several of the author's views are applicable here, although he was writing in relation to the WTO.Google Scholar
19 Delmas-Marty, , ‘The Contribution of Comparative Law to a Pluralist Conception of International Criminal Law', 1 J Int'l Crim. Justice (2003) 13.Google Scholar
20 Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya / Malta), ICJ Reports (1985), 29-30, at 27.Google Scholar
21 Paragraph 34 of the Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 808 (1993) and Annex thereto, U.N. Doc. S/25704.Google Scholar
22 See supra, at 2.Google Scholar
23 Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic (2001), IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T, ICTY Trial Chamber, at 447-456.Google Scholar
24 Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic (2002), IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, at 127.Google Scholar
25 Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza (2003), ICTR-97-20-T, ICTR Trial Chamber, at 345.Google Scholar
26 The Trial Chamber also made use of linguistic sources. See Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simić, Miroslav Tadić, Simo Zarić (2003), IT-95-9-T, ICTY Trial Chamber, at 98.Google Scholar
27 Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic (2007), IT-01-48-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg, at 4.Google Scholar
28 Supra, at 2.Google Scholar
29 See Henckaerts, , ‘Study on customary international humanitarian law: A contribution to the understanding and respect for the rule of law in armed conflict', 87 Int'l Rev. of the Red Cross (2005) 857, at 180. Although, “[i]t is settled that uniformity of acceptance or observance is not required for proof of the emergence of a new norm of customary international law, generality being enough.” See Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija (2000), IT-95-17/1-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen, at 257.Google Scholar
30 Supra, at 3.Google Scholar
31 Bohlander, and Findlay, , supra note 4, at 16.Google Scholar
32 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 949-951.Google Scholar
33 Ibid.Google Scholar
34 Cassese, ‘The Contribution of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to the Ascertainment of general Principles of Law Recognized by the Community of Nations', in Sienho Yee and Wang Tieya (eds.), International Law in the Post-Cold War World – Essays in Memory of Li Haopei (2001).Google Scholar
35 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 953-954.Google Scholar
36 See Nollkaemper, , ‘Decisions of National Courts as Sources of International Law: An Analysis of the Practice of the ICTY', in G Boas and W Schabas, International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY (2003), at 287.Google Scholar
37 See, for instance, Shirley V. Scot, International Law in World Politics: An Introduction (2n Ed.) (2010), at 11.Google Scholar
38 Furundzija, Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen, supra note 29, at 260.Google Scholar
39 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 949. The author notes that some comparatists doubt “the possibility of isolating the essence of a legal rule”, ibid., at 959.Google Scholar
40 Furundzija, Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen, supra note 29, at 260.Google Scholar
41 Cassese, supra note 34.Google Scholar
42 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 971.Google Scholar
43 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 971.Google Scholar
44 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 949-950.Google Scholar
45 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 971.Google Scholar
46 Participation in Crime: Criminal Liability of Leaders of Criminal Groups and Networks, Expert Opinion, Commissioned by the United Nations – International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Office of the Prosecutor- Project Coordination: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Sieber., Priv. Doz. Dr. Hans-Georg Koch, Jan Michael Simon, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
47 Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic (2006), IT-95-9-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schomburg, at 14.Google Scholar
48 Shahabuddeen, , ‘Judicial Creativity and Joint Criminal Enterprise', in S Darcy and J Powderly, Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (2010), at 186.Google Scholar
49 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic (1997), IT-96-22-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber.Google Scholar
50 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 969.Google Scholar
51 Ibid.Google Scholar
52 Ibid.Google Scholar
53 Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor (2003), ICTR-96-3-A, ICTR Appeals Chamber.Google Scholar
54 Ibid., at 26–31.Google Scholar
55 Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic (2001), IT-95-10-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, at 30.Google Scholar
56 Bohlander, and Findlay, , supra note 4, at 16-17.Google Scholar
57 Ibid.Google Scholar
58 Ibid Google Scholar
59 Nahimana, Ferdinand Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze v The Prosecutor (2007), ICTR-99-52-A, ICTR Appeals Chamber, at 894–899.Google Scholar
60 Nahimana, Ferdinand Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze v The Prosecutor (2007), ICTR-99-52-A, ICTR Appeals Chamber, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, at 3–6.Google Scholar
61 Byrne, , supra note 16, at 252.Google Scholar
62 Ellis, , supra note 13, at 965.Google Scholar
63 Grover, , ‘A Call to Arms: Fundamental Dilemmas Confronting the Interpretation of Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court', 21 European J. of Int'l L. (2010) 3, at 541.Google Scholar
64 Bohlander, and Findlay, , supra note 33, at 23.Google Scholar
65 Decision on defence motions for judgment of acquittal, IT-95-14/2-T, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez, 6 April 2000 at 9. This reasoning was cited approvingly by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Judgment, IT-95-10-A, Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic, ICTY Appeals Chamber, 5 July 2001, at 33.Google Scholar
66 Although, admittedly, this case did not directly concern the acceptance by the ICTR Trial Chamber of a narrow inquiry. See Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze v The Prosecutor (2007), ICTR-99-52-A, ICTR Appeals Chamber, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Meron.Google Scholar
67 Ibid., at 5–12.Google Scholar
68 Ibid., at 10.Google Scholar
69 Cassese, supra note 34.Google Scholar
70 Bohlander, and Findlay, , supra note 4, at 26.Google Scholar
