Defence counsel are ethically bound to zealously represent their clients. So what exactly does it mean to ‘zealously represent’ a client before any of the international criminal courts or tribunals? How unproblematic is it for defence counsel to meet their ethical duties? Would an International Criminal Court (icc) Bar or professional association for icc List Counsel and their assistants be of any significance to that end? This contribution concludes that the only way forward out of the prevailing and persistent morass List Counsel currently find themselves in at the icc, is through the establishment of a Bar Association for List Counsel and their assistants.
H. Morrison, ‘Experimental Justice: Do International Tribunals Work?’, 36 Bedford Row, London; Recorder of the Crown Court, online at www.old.leginet.eu/articles_en.php?PHPSESSI=4c5jiep1tgt5b97ohc6rg6bbl5, accessed 20 September 2016.)| false
D. Hoffman, ‘Fifty Resolutions in Regard to Professional Deportment’, in A Course of Legal Study, Addressed to Students and the Profession Generally, Vol. ii (William S. Hein & Co., Baltimore, 1836), Resolution 33, as cited in Zacharias and Green, supra note 78, p. 3.
D. Hoffman, ‘Fifty Resolutions in Regard to Professional Deportment’, in A Course of Legal Study, Addressed to Students and the Profession Generally, Vol. ii (William S. Hein & Co., Baltimore, 1836), Resolution 33, as cited in Zacharias and Green, supra note 78, p. 3.)| false
Turner, supra note 13, p. 688, explaining that international courts serve goals beyond that of determining guilt or innocence according to fair procedures and, therefore, it is sensible to adjust ethical guidance accordingly.
Turner, supra note 13, p. 713.
Turner, supra note 13, p. 697.
Tuinstra, supra note 2, p. 200: “Generally, the concept of being an officer of the court is difficult to understand for lawyers from civil law systems. They consider this to impinge on their independence”, referring to Nagorcka et al., supra note 53, p. 449. She does note that this term has been used in cases from the European Court of Human Rights, citing Nikula v. Finland, App. No. 31611/96, 21 March 2002, para. 45; Steur v. The Netherlands, App. No. 39657/98, 28 October 2003, paras. 36, 38.