Search results

Opinions differ widely as to the part which an international court of justice should play in world organization. Individuals and governments for whomIndividuals and governments for whom the pursuit of certain national or international aims which are not susceptible of immediate achievement transcends the need for law and order will be inclined to conceive the role of such a court as more restricted, more subordinate, than those who believe that, in the long run, the interests of the mightiest and most dynamic nations and the most ambitious ideals of social betterment on a world-wide scale will best be served by first securing such measure of orderly world government as is today within our reach.

In recent years, the International Criminal Court has emerged as a major player within the Great Lakes region of East and Central Africa. However, few scholars and commentators have sought to assess the court's activities from within this regional lens. Yet viewing the court's work from within this perspective is critical, because it highlights some of the profound deficiencies with the court's investigative strategy thus far. Time and again, the court has chosen to target criminal activity while ignoring the larger criminal enterprise, seeking to eliminate the impunity of mid-level warlords, while allowing their patrons-who are often high-level government officials-to go free. For the court to truly have a long-term impact on the criminal networks that proliferate throughout the region, it will need to retool its political strategy. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract:The proposal put forward by Spain and Romania for the creation of an International Court Against Terrorism is a traditional legal response to one of the most serious threats of our time. From the beginning of the 20th century, several projects have considered the possibility of including the crime of terrorism in an international jurisdiction with general scope, either as an exclusive competence or as a part of a wider list of crimes. However, certain legal and political obstacles have blocked the developments in this field. This article analyses the main elements and problems of this new proposal in order to determine its viability to evolve from lege ferenda to lege data. The debate revolves around the definition and nature of the crime of terrorism, as well as the relationship with other tribunals, the legal foundation and the well-known political impasse about state terrorism and national liberation movements. The study of these elements shows the aim to reach a consensus at the expense of effectiveness. Nevertheless, this goal is hindered by certain aspects, both internal and external to this proposal, raising serious doubts over the success of this project. Regardless of the outcome, this initiative is a response based on the rule of law against a threat that is disrupting certain basic principles for the pacific coexistence of the international community and, as such, it deserves thorough consideration. ; Resumen:La propuesta presentada por España y Rumanía para la creación un Tribunal Internacional contra el Terrorismo es una respuesta jurídica clásica a una de las mayores amenazas de la actualidad. Desde principios del siglo xx numerosos proyectos han tratado de incluir el crimen de terrorismo en una jurisdicción internacional de alcance general, ya sea como competencia exclusiva o como parte de una lista más amplia de crímenes. Diversos obstáculos jurídicos y políticos han evitado cualquier avance en este ámbito. En el presente artículo se analizan cuáles son los principales elementos de la nueva propuesta y los problemas que plantean, para así determinar la viabilidad que tiene para pasar de una situación de lege ferenda a lege data. El debate principal gira en torno a la definición del crimen de terrorismo; su naturaleza; la relación de este nuevo tribunal con los ya existentes; la herramienta para su fundación y el conocido impasse político sobre el terrorismo de Estado y los movimientos de liberación nacional. El estudio de estos elementos muestra el objetivo de obtener el mayor consenso posible en torno a esta propuesta en detrimento de la eficacia, si bien ciertos aspectos propios y foráneos acaban erosionando esta meta y hacen surgir serias dudas sobre el éxito del proyecto. Independientemente del resultado final, el proyecto merece una especial consideración por ofrecer una respuesta basada en el imperio de la ley en la lucha contra una amenaza que está provocando la disipación de ciertos principios básicos para la convivencia pacífica de la comunidad internacional. Summary:1. Introduction. What Acts Could be Judged? Definition and Nature of the Crime of Terrorism: 2.1 The eternal search of the definition of terrorism. 2.2 International crime vs transnational crime. 3. What Would be its Relationship with other Tribunals? Primacy vs Complementarity. 4. What Would be its Legal Basis? Legitimacy and Consensus vs Promptness and Effectiveness. 5. Towards a Political Solution for the Legal Obstacles? 6. Conclusion. Abstract:The proposal put forward by Spain and Romania for the creation of an International Court Against Terrorism is a traditional legal response to one of the most serious threats of our time. From the beginning of the 20th century, several projects have considered the possibility of including the crime of terrorism in an international jurisdiction with general scope, either as an exclusive competence or as a part of a wider list of crimes. However, certain legal and political obstacles have blocked the developments in this field. This article analyses the main elements and problems of this new proposal in order to determine its viability to evolve from lege ferenda to lege data. The debate revolves around the definition and nature of the crime of terrorism, as well as the relationship with other tribunals, the legal foundation and the well-known political impasse about state terrorism and national liberation movements. The study of these elements shows the aim to reach a consensus at the expense of effectiveness. Nevertheless, this goal is hindered by certain aspects, both internal and external to this proposal, raising serious doubts over the success of this project. Regardless of the outcome, this initiative is a response based on the rule of law against a threat that is disrupting certain basic principles for the pacific coexistence of the international community and, as such, it deserves thorough consideration.