Nuremberg’s Legacy Within Transitional Justice: Prosecutions Are Here to Stay

A lasting legacy of the Nuremberg and Tokyo military tribunals is the assertion that individuals are subjects of international law and should be held criminally responsible for perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity. Building upon the Nuremberg legacy, the emergence and proliferation of modern international(ized) tribunals has ushered in a new era in international criminal justice, whereby states seek to end impunity for international crimes through criminal trials. This Article addresses the legacy of Nuremberg in transitional justice approaches. It examines the criticisms within the transitional justice field that criminal justice processes are generally ill-suited to address the social forces that characterize collective violence and the push away from criminal prosecutions towards other non-retributive processes. It argues that while post-conflict peacebuilding requires a more holistic transitional justice approach, recourse to at least some criminal prosecutions remains an enduring legacy of Nuremberg, supported by both international actors as well as victim communities

Access to Medicines in Times of Conflict:Overlapping Compliance and Accountability Frameworks for Syria

Syria is currently experiencing the world’s largest humanitarian crisis since World War II, and access to medicines for emergency care, pain control, and palliative care remains shockingly restricted in the country. Addressing the dire need for improved access to medicines in Syria from an international law compliance and accountability perspective, this article highlights four complementary legal frameworks: international human rights law, international drug control law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. It arrives at two central conclusions. First, all four bodies of law hold clear potential in terms of regulatory—hence compliance—and accountability mechanisms for improving access to medicines in times of conflict, but they are too weak on their own account. Second, the potential for on-the-ground change lies in the mutual reinforcement of these four legal frameworks. This reinforcement, however, remains rhetorical and far from practical. Finally, within this complex picture of complementary international legal frameworks, the article proposes concrete recommendations for a more integrated and mutually reinforcing interpretation and implementation of these areas of law to foster better access to medicines in Syria and elsewhere

A Practitioner’s Perspective on the Kenya I and Kenya II Cases Before the ICC

On 10 September 2013 the International Criminal Court (ICC) began hearing a case against William Ruto, Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, and Joshua Sang. The related case against the President of Kenya, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, was scheduled to begin in November 2013 but has since been postponed until October 2014. Both cases are noteworthy since they are the first against sitting politicians. Unsurprisingly, they have not been without controversy. These trials are challenging for the Court, not least because the Kenyan government recently passed a resolution withdrawing from the ICC and repealing its domestic legislation criminalizing international crimes, arguing that Kenya needed to restore it sovereignty and resist neo-colonialism. Although this withdrawal does not affect the current cases before the Court, it certainly makes cooperation with Kenya for the purpose of further investigations more difficult. Karim A.A. Khan, QC, formerly the defense counsel of Muthaura and currently the lead defense counsel of Ruto, raised these issues in an interview taking place one week before his opening statements in the Kenya I case. These same issues and concerns were also raised with Adesola Adeboyejo a lead prosecutor in the Kenya II case in December 2013

Access to Medicines in Times of Conflict: Overlapping Compliance and Accountability Frameworks for Syria

Syria is currently experiencing the world's largest humanitarian crisis since World War II, and access to medicines for emergency care, pain control, and palliative care remains shockingly restricted in the country. Addressing the dire need for improved access to medicines in Syria from an international law compliance and accountability perspective, this article highlights four complementary legal frameworks: international human rights law, international drug control law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. It arrives at two central conclusions. First, all four bodies of law hold clear potential in terms of regulatory-hence compliance-and accountability mechanisms for improving access to medicines in times of conflict, but they are too weak on their own account. Second, the potential for on-the-ground change lies in the mutual reinforcement of these four legal frameworks. This reinforcement, however, remains rhetorical and far from practical. Finally, within this complex picture of complementary international legal frameworks, the article proposes concrete recommendations for a more integrated and mutually reinforcing interpretation and implementation of these areas of law to foster better access to medicines in Syria and elsewhere

Multi-layered civil society documentation of human rights violations in Myanmar: The potential for accountability and truth-telling

Serious human rights violations, particularly against ethnic minorities, have been a stark reality in Myanmar for many decades. The Rohingya crisis that deteriorated in 2017 and the ongoing abuses in areas of armed conflict such as Kachin, Rakhine, and Shan States, and more recently in response to anti-coup protests, demonstrate the recurrence of violence and trauma. During these decades of violence and ongoing violations, civil society initiatives inside and outside the country have attempted to monitor and document human rights abuses in order to contribute towards accountability and truth-telling. Despite the vast array of civil society documentation efforts, this work has sparked limited scholarly debate, especially concerning the complexities of existing multi-layered systems of documentation. This article analyses the current scope of documentation work related to serious human rights violations in Myanmar and the methods, standards, and audiences of various initiatives. We distinguish three layers of civil society documentation: (i) initiatives carried out on the local level in Myanmar and the various border areas; (ii) initiatives carried out by the refugee and diaspora communities; and (iii) third-party initiatives. We then analyse two elements that complicate documentation efforts, namely the risk of ‘over-documentation’, and issues of hierarchy and contestation. These challenges make clear the value of strengthening partnerships and cooperation for all groups involved in documentation work that aims to promote and protect human rights. We end by cautiously considering the potential impact, value, and limitations of Myanmar’s multi-layered documentation efforts for accountability and truth-telling in the aftermath of the 2021 military coup

Questioned by the Court: the role of judges and sociocultural aspects of testimonial evidence in Katanga

The ICC relies mainly on testimonial evidence to determine the responsibility of the accused for international crimes. In particular cultural understandings have come to play a large role in the fact-finding process through testimonial evidence. The Katanga trial judgment specifically stressed that numerous sociocultural aspects in testimonial evidence were discussed further during the proceedings as a result of questions from judges themselves. In the absence of information as to which specific aspects required further questioning, this chapter examines the fact-finding role of judges during the proceedings. Through an exhaustive analysis of judges’ questions during the Katanga proceedings, the chapter explores which sociocultural aspects may require extra scrutiny during both the investigation and prosecution of crimes at the ICC, and how this may be implemented throughout the proceedings. It is argued that understanding the relationship between culture and testimonial evidence during proceedings is crucial for international criminal justice