Trends in Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in War Crime Trials: Is Fairness Really Preserved?

In the course of war, who determines what is just and fair? Fairness and justice are and should be universal constants; however, the paths to fairness and justice must be malleable and adapt to different circumstances. The Nuremberg trials were marked by a conscious effort to avoid “victor’s justice” and provide a fair trial to the defendants who committed acts of atrocity. This paper examines whether this goal was achieved in the Nuremberg, Tokyo, and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia trials, as well as briefly touching upon the Guantanamo military commission trials, by looking particularly at the use of hearsay evidence. By placing greater weight on evidentiary criteria such as “relevance,” “probative value,” “reliability,” and “credibility” and developing a more uniform application of these terms rather than promoting a black and white dichotomy of the admissibility of hearsay evidence, judges can better perform the delicate balancing act of justice that takes place amidst the chaos and hostility of war. War is not a normal circumstance and war crimes are not normal crimes as contemplated by national laws. The path to justice requires flexibility and attention to the precarious circumstances surrounding a world emerging from complete upheaval. The general admissibility of hearsay evidence, in itself, does not provide a great threat to the rights of the accused in the course of war crimes trials. Examination of these war crimes trials indicate that, contrary to common law perceptions, it is possible to allow typically inadmissible evidence and still preserve fairness

Braving difficult choices alone: children's and adolescents' medical decision making.

OBJECTIVE: What role should minors play in making medical decisions? The authors examined children's and adolescents' desire to be involved in serious medical decisions and the emotional consequences associated with them. METHODS: Sixty-three children and 76 adolescents were presented with a cover story about a difficult medical choice. Participants were tested in one of four conditions: (1) own informed choice; (2) informed parents' choice to amputate; (3) informed parents' choice to continue a treatment; and (4) uninformed parents' choice to amputate. In a questionnaire, participants were asked about their choices, preference for autonomy, confidence, and emotional reactions when faced with a difficult hypothetical medical choice. RESULTS: Children and adolescents made different choices and participants, especially adolescents, preferred to make the difficult choice themselves, rather than having a parent make it. Children expressed fewer negative emotions than adolescents. Providing information about the alternatives did not affect participants' responses. CONCLUSIONS: Minors, especially adolescents, want to be responsible for their own medical decisions, even when the choice is a difficult one. For the adolescents, results suggest that the decision to be made, instead of the agent making the decision, is the main element influencing their emotional responses and decision confidence. For children, results suggest that they might be less able than adolescents to project how they would feel. The results, overall, draw attention to the need to further investigate how we can better involve minors in the medical decision-making process

State Obligations Under Public International Law During Pandemics

COVID-19 became an international pandemic affecting every country and threatening a global economic collapse. This Article examines countries\u27 obligations under public international law to prevent and contain pandemics, and subsequent responsibilities to help other countries during pandemics. International Human Rights law recognizes a right to health and includes obligations. Nonetheless, it lacks a sufficient enforcement mechanism. Pandemics are analogous to war; therefore, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can help as countries utilize R2P to protect against atrocities. This Article argues that R2P is not merely a responsibility to protect against the worst that humankind has to offer but against the worst that can be offered to humankind

State Obligations Under Public International Law During Pandemics

COVID-19 became an international pandemic affecting every country and threatening a global economic collapse. This Article examines countries\u27 obligations under public international law to prevent and contain pandemics, and subsequent responsibilities to help other countries during pandemics. International Human Rights law recognizes a right to health and includes obligations. Nonetheless, it lacks a sufficient enforcement mechanism. Pandemics are analogous to war; therefore, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can help as countries utilize R2P to protect against atrocities. This Article argues that R2P is not merely a responsibility to protect against the worst that humankind has to offer but against the worst that can be offered to humankind