Recognising Victimhood: Lessons from the International Criminal Court and Mass Claim Programmes for the Compensation Procedure Parallel to the Trial of International Crimes in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the Dutch criminal court in The Hague (hereinafter: ‘Netherlands International Crimes Court’ or ‘NIC court’) is assigned to try international crimes, and to provide compensation to victims of such crimes. Whereas it has specific criminal laws at its disposal to try international crimes, it applies ‘regular’ Dutch civil law to assess claims for compensation. Yet compensation for international crimes entails challenges that are quite different from domestic crimes: international crimes are normally committed against a large number of victims, and frequently result in bodily harm. This article argues that the NIC court will most likely rule a large number of claims for compensation inadmissible, as a consequence of which victims cannot benefit from the advantages inherent in the award of compensation within the criminal process. It then explores the adjudicative and reparatory standards that the International Criminal Court and mass claim programmes have applied to simplify both the adjudication of a large number of claims, and the calculation of a large number of instances of bodily damage. It is submitted that adoption by the NIC court of international reparatory standards could facilitate the assessment of a large number of civil claims within the criminal process, without prejudice to the legitimate interests of the defendant for an adequate procedure. However, these standards require the NIC court to strike a new balance between tailor-made compensation and symbolic compensation, and thereby between corrective justice and restorative justice

The Roles of Standardization, Certification and Assurance Services in Global Commerce

In this article we examine the rapid emergence and expansion of standardized product and process frameworks and a private-sector compliance and enforcement infrastructure that we believe may increasingly be providing a substitute for public and legal regulatory infrastructure in global commerce. This infrastructure is provided by a proliferation of performance codes and standards, many of which define acceptable social and environmental behavior, and a rapidly-growing number of privately-trained and authorized inspectors and certifiers that we call the third-party assurance industry. We offer reasons for this development, evidence of its scope and scale, and then describe the phenomenon in more detail by examining supply chain arrangements in two industries, food products and apparel, where the use of third-party standards and assurance services has expanded especially rapidly. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for the make or buy decision at the core of the theory of the firm. We argue that as quasi-regulatory standards are developed within various industries, and as performance to these standards can be systematically evaluated using third-party inspectors and certifiers, the costs of moving production outside of vertical firm hierarchies drop. We believe this may be an important factor in accelerating the shift to outsourcing that has been observed over the last two decades