In fact, prosecutions made possible by the support of strong states will give the impression that int’l. criminal responsibility may only be triggered in direct proportion to political power behind the prosecution. Such popular perception would destroy the credibility of int’l. criminal justice.
2) A major problem with regard to ad hoc tribunals is that they are not regularly constituted courts (“olağan mahkeme” değiller). They are extraordinary courts (olağanüstü mahkeme) which do not comply with the basic principle that a criminal case should be handled by a “natural judge” (kanuni/doğal hakim ilkesi: bir olay meydana geldikten sonra, onu yargılamak üzere özel bir mahkeme kurulması hukukta kabul görmez). 2) A major problem with regard to ad hoc tribunals is that they are not regularly constituted courts (“olağan mahkeme” değiller). They are extraordinary courts (olağanüstü mahkeme) which do not comply with the basic principle that a criminal case should be handled by a “natural judge” (kanuni/doğal hakim ilkesi: bir olay meydana geldikten sonra, onu yargılamak üzere özel bir mahkeme kurulması hukukta kabul görmez). This is because the four ad hoc courts have been constituted ex post facto (olay meydana geldikten sonra), i.e. after the crimes within their jurisdiction were committed. The permanent ICC will not infringe such a basic principle of law as it will have jurisdiction (yargı yetkisi) only over crimes that have been committed after the entry into force of the Rome Statute (which is 1 July 2002).
3) A third advantage of establishing a permanent court would be to provide continuity. A major problem with establishing ad hoc courts is that the process lasts too long and the wheels of justice are set in motion too late. This delay causes many problems: 3) A third advantage of establishing a permanent court would be to provide continuity. A major problem with establishing ad hoc courts is that the process lasts too long and the wheels of justice are set in motion too late. This delay causes many problems:a) First, it gets harder to collect evidence. The perpetrators are given the time and possibility to destroy evidence such as official documents, to flee abroad, to intimidate potential witnesses, etc.b) The establishment of each court requires the physical infrastructure to be built, the governing documents (tribunal’s statute, rules of procedure and evidence, headquartes agreement, document on immunities and privileges of the staff, co-operation agreements) to be drafted, negotiated and agreed upon, and the legal and administrative staff to be appointed. This process causes a phenomena which is known as “tribunal fatigue”. This tyring effort causes loss of time and great expense. Such high expenses cause the already fragile political support to further decrease. c) The experience accumulated by the staff of a permanent tribunal will provide for a faster and smoother functioning of the system.
A major contribution of a permanent tribunal will be to provide for deterrence (caydırıcılık). A major contribution of a permanent tribunal will be to provide for deterrence (caydırıcılık). Ad hoc courts have a very limited deterring effect because of their temporary nature which does not allow them to prosecute crimes which will be committed in the future. Thanks to the permanent ICC, potential criminals will know that the int’l. community will no longer tolerate certain atrocities and that there is an organ which may hold the perpetrators of int’l. crimes responsible. So, the famous aphorism “never again” (NUNCA MAS) repeated so many times after WWII will now be supported with a control mechanism. The culture of impunity which reigned so far in the int’l. legal order will leave its place, albeit in part, to accountability. For all the above mentioned reasons, it was imperative that a permanent ICT be established, a necessity which was fulfilled with the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court (ICC).
WWI was the stage of unseen suffering, with 9 million military personnel being killed and another 21 million combatans getting wounded. WWI was the stage of unseen suffering, with 9 million military personnel being killed and another 21 million combatans getting wounded. Furthermore, a myriad of war crimes were allegedly committed. Most allegations were directed at Germans who were accused of invading neutral territory (Belgium), deporting Belgian civilians for the purposes of enforced labour, killing civilians, attacking and looting unprotected cities (Louvain), sinking the commercial ship Lusitania, thus causing the death of over 2000 civilians. The Ottoman Empire leaders were also accused for the death of - allegedly - around a million Armenians (although that figure is certainly an exaggeration).
After the war ended, the Allied States (USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) intended to prosecute those who they regarded as responsible. Especially the British and French governments alleged that the Hague Conventions (concerning the law of war) were consistently and gravely breached, and held the German Head of State, Kaiser Wilhelm II responsible for it. Public opinion also pressed for the trial of war criminals. After the war ended, the Allied States (USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) intended to prosecute those who they regarded as responsible. Especially the British and French governments alleged that the Hague Conventions (concerning the law of war) were consistently and gravely breached, and held the German Head of State, Kaiser Wilhelm II responsible for it. Public opinion also pressed for the trial of war criminals.
Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
