Part of ICL (crimes against humanity) and the modern law of IHRL have a common base since they were partially inspired by the wish to prevent the repeat of atrocities such as the ones committed by the Nazi regime. The ICTY and ICTR were also a response to massive human rights violations.
Part of ICL (crimes against humanity) and the modern law of IHRL have a common base since they were partially inspired by the wish to prevent the repeat of atrocities such as the ones committed by the Nazi regime. The ICTY and ICTR were also a response to massive human rights violations.
Both disciplines want to provide a minimum standard of humane treatment. Relationship between IHRL and ICL:
Similarities: a) they share similar fundamental values and purpose, and certain violations of IHRL also constitute int’l. crimes; b) they both apply directly to individuals; c) fair trial rights are applicable in int’l criminal proceedings; d) criminalization is the final stage in the protection of fundamental rights: the direct criminalization of a human righta violation under IL is the highest level of protection that a human right can achieve; d) Int’l. criminal tribunals have relied on IHRL and the case-law of int’l. bodies applying human rights law, to assist them in their interpretation of ICL.
Differences: a) not every human rights violation concerns ICL; b) Human rights norms may be given an evolutive and broad interpretation in order to achieve their object and purpose; however, in ICL rules have to be strictly construed in order to defend the rights of the accused and to uphold the principle of legality.
Relationship between IHRL and IHL: Human rights law lays down norms applicable during ordinary time (including public emergency). In case of armed conflict, int’l. humanitarian law comes into play (it is lex specialis). However, HRL and IHL are not mutually exclusive (see in this direction ICJ’s Advisory Opinion in Palestine Wall, 2004, § 106. UAD’nin 9 Temmuz 2004 tarihli ve “İşgal Altındaki Filistin Topraklarına Duvar İnşa Edilmesinin Hukuki Sonuçları” konulu istişari görüşü, para. 106)
Relationship between IHRL and IHL: Human rights law lays down norms applicable during ordinary time (including public emergency). In case of armed conflict, int’l. humanitarian law comes into play (it is lex specialis). However, HRL and IHL are not mutually exclusive (see in this direction ICJ’s Advisory Opinion in Palestine Wall, 2004, § 106. UAD’nin 9 Temmuz 2004 tarihli ve “İşgal Altındaki Filistin Topraklarına Duvar İnşa Edilmesinin Hukuki Sonuçları” konulu istişari görüşü, para. 106)
Similarities between IHRL and IHL: Both disciplines have similar purposes, fundamental values and terminology. Thus, int’l. tribunals draw from human rights law when interpreting IHL (and ICL) (read Kunarac in Cryer et al. at 13).
Differences between IHRL and IHL:
- Private individuals may bear criminal liability for violating certain rules of IHL, whereas it is not possible for an individual to assume international responsibility for violating int’l human rights rules, because the obligations arising from that regime are addressed exclusively to the state.
Just the way those acts which breach national public order so seriously as to require a criminal sanction are criminalised, those actions which are considered to victimise the international community as a whole by violating its peace and order are regarded as int’l. crimes.
Just the way those acts which breach national public order so seriously as to require a criminal sanction are criminalised, those actions which are considered to victimise the international community as a whole by violating its peace and order are regarded as int’l. crimes.
To put it differently, int’l. crimes are considered to be those which are of concern to the int’l. community as a whole, or acts which violate a fundamental interest protected by int’l. law (Cryer et al. at 6-7).
So, an attack on the fundamental values of the int’l. community lends a crime an int’l. dimension and turns it into an int’l. crime (Werle at 31).
The meaning to be attributed to the term “int’l. crime” is disputed.
The meaning to be attributed to the term “int’l. crime” is disputed.
A basic distinction is between “int’l. law crimes” or “crimes under int’l. law” (criminis iuris gentium) and “other int’l. crimes” (or transnational crimes).
Cryer et al. (at 4) uses “int’l. crime” to refer to those offences over which int’l. courts or tribunals have been given jurisdiction under (general) int’l. law.
I also have a parallel understanding. Throughout the year, by int’l. crime I shall refer to “int’l. law crimes”.
In that sense, int’l. crimes comprise genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression (also known as the crime against peace).
Criminis iuris gentium are of particular gravity and concern mankind as a whole. This is because they do not only harm the individuals they are directed against, but the peace and security of the international community.
Criminis iuris gentium are of particular gravity and concern mankind as a whole. This is because they do not only harm the individuals they are directed against, but the peace and security of the international community.
Definition: It is an act entailing the personal criminal responsibility of the individuals concerned, and emanating from treaty or custom.
Similar definition: Criminis iuris gentium refers to acts which public int’l. law regards as entailing individual criminal responsibility.
