Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
The main objective of this article is to put forward a critical analysis of the emergent international criminal justice system, epitomized by the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court (icc). Such an endeavour is warranted on the assertion that international criminal justice scholarship has entered into a ‘reflective’ phase, the hallmark of which lies in the re-evaluation of the institutions of international criminal law in the light of the distinctive traits of international criminality derived from the combination of the criminological theory of state crime and the rising theory of international crime in the domain of international criminal law. In this context, the article summarizes the basic points and the epistemological premises of the criminological theory of state crime, while seeks to delimit the subject matter by alluding to the concept of core international crimes arising from the normative system of the icc. The core aim of such a combined approach is not to downplay the existing differences between the criminological concept of state crime and the penal concept of core international crimes, but to highlight common points in order to draw tentative conclusions and make some preliminary suggestions from a criminal policy perspective.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
L. Zedner, Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) pp. 37–69, at p. 69. See J. Muncie, ‘The Construction and Deconstruction of Crime’, in J. Muncie and E. McLaughlin (Eds), The Problem of Crime (London: Sage, 1996) pp. 5–65; S. Henry and M. Lanier (Eds), What is Crime? Controversies over the Nature of Crime and What to Do about it (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001).
K.F. Aas, Globalization & Crime (London: Sage, 2007); S. Karstedt and D. Nelken (Eds), Crime and Globalization (Dartmouth: Ashgate, 2013).
K. Ambos, La Parte General del Derecho Penal Internacional. Bases para una Elaboración Dogmática (Berlin: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2005) pp. 148–164.
S. Williams, Hybrid and Internationalised Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Hart, 2012).
See, e.g., Cassese, supra note 3; M.C. Bassiouni (Ed.), The pursuit of international criminal justice: world study on conflicts, victimization, and post-conflict justice, Volumes 1–2 (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2010).
H. Köcher, Global justice or global revenge? International criminal justice at the crossroads (Wien: Springer, 2003) pp. 9–267.
H. Jäger, ‘Versuch über Makrokriminalität’, Strafverteidiger (1988) 172–179; F. Neubacher, Kriminologische Grundlagen einer internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit. Politische Ideen- und Dogmengeschichte, kriminalwissenschaftliche Legitimation, strafrechtliche Perspektiven (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) pp. 18–31; S. Manacorda, Imputazione collettiva e responsabilià personale. Uno studio sui paradigmi ascrittivi nel diritto penale internazionale (Torino: G. Giappichelli, 2008) pp. 59–65.
Green and Ward, supra note 26, p. 2.
Green and Ward, supra note 26, p. 7.
Green and Ward, supra note 43, pp. 104–108; Green and Ward, supra note 26, pp. 4–5.
Chambliss, supra note 33; W.J. Chambliss, ‘Commentary by William J. Chambliss’, 26 Society of Social Problems Newsletter (1995) 9.
D. Kauzlarich, ‘A Criminology of the Nuclear State’, 19.3 Humanity & Society (1995) 37–57, at 40.
Kramer et al., supra note 52, at 56.
S. Cohen, States of Denial. Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering (London: Polity Press, 2001) pp. 7–9.
Werle, supra note 5, p. 43.
W.A. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) p. 40. See also W.A. Schabas, Unimaginable Atrocities. Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) pp. 25–46, esp. at p. 44.
Van der Wilt and Nollkaemper, supra note 7.
J.Y. Dautricourt, ‘Le Droit Pénal dans l’Ordre Public Universel’, Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Pénal Comparé (1948) 483–519; B.M. Yarnold, ‘The Doctrinal Basis for the International Criminalization Process’, in M.C. Bassiouni (Ed.), International Criminal Law. Vol. I: Crimes, 2nd edn (New York, ny: Transnational Publishers,1999) pp. 127–152.
A. Gil Gil, El Genocidio y otros crímenes internacionales (Valencia: Centro Francisco Tomás y Valiente, 1999) pp. 20–21.
See, e.g., Vogel, supra note 17; Martinez and Danner, supra note 19; van Sliedregt, supra note 19; K. Ambos, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007) 159–183; K. Ambos, ‘Command responsibility and Organisationsherrschaft: ways of attributing international crimes to the “most responsible”’, in van der Wilt and Nollkaemper, supra note 7, pp. 127–157; Chouliaras, supra note 18; D. Guilfoyle, ‘Responsibility for Collective Atrocities: Fair Labeling and Approaches to Commission in International Criminal Law’, 64 Current Legal Problems (2011) 255–286; C. Papacharalambous, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise: Towards a New Concept of Criminal Participation?’, in P. Cserne and M. Könczöl (Eds), Legal and Political Theory in the Post-National Age (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011) pp. 89–104; J.D. Ohlin, ‘Second-Order Linking Principles: Combining Vertical and Horizontal Modes of Liability’, 25 Leiden Journal of International Law (2012) 771–797; C. Papacharalambous, ‘Group-Based Imputation and the International Criminal Law Discourse. Individuals and Associations as International Criminal Wrongdoers’, 4 Beijing Law Review (2013) 129–136.
Van der Wilt and Nollkaemper, supra note 7. See also A. Nollkaemper and D. Jacobs, ‘Shared Responsibility in International Law: A Concept Paper’, acil Research Paper No 2011-07 (shares Series), finalized 2 August 2011, available online at http://www.sharesproject.nl; N. Nedeski and A. Nollkaemper, ‘Responsibility of international organizations “in conection with acts of States”’, shares Research Paper 08 (2012), acil 2012-05, finalized April 2012, available online at http://www.sharesproject.nl.
Chouliaras, supra note 18 and note 86, at 88–89; Manacorda, supra note 32, pp. 149–188.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 301 | 75 | 10 |
Full Text Views | 253 | 7 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 73 | 20 | 5 |
The main objective of this article is to put forward a critical analysis of the emergent international criminal justice system, epitomized by the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court (icc). Such an endeavour is warranted on the assertion that international criminal justice scholarship has entered into a ‘reflective’ phase, the hallmark of which lies in the re-evaluation of the institutions of international criminal law in the light of the distinctive traits of international criminality derived from the combination of the criminological theory of state crime and the rising theory of international crime in the domain of international criminal law. In this context, the article summarizes the basic points and the epistemological premises of the criminological theory of state crime, while seeks to delimit the subject matter by alluding to the concept of core international crimes arising from the normative system of the icc. The core aim of such a combined approach is not to downplay the existing differences between the criminological concept of state crime and the penal concept of core international crimes, but to highlight common points in order to draw tentative conclusions and make some preliminary suggestions from a criminal policy perspective.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 301 | 75 | 10 |
Full Text Views | 253 | 7 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 73 | 20 | 5 |