Юрисдикція міжнародних судових органів щодо злочину геноциду : автореферат на здобуття наукового ступеня кандидата юридичних наук
Loading...
Date
2018
Authors
Аносова, Юлія
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Автореферат дисертації на здобуття наукового ступеня кандидата юридичних наук (доктора філософії) за спеціальністю 12.00.11 "Міжнародне право" (293 – Міжнародне право). – Національний університет "Києво-Могилянська академія", Київ, 2018.
В дисертації досліджується юрисдикція міжнародних кримінальних судів та Міжнародного Суду ООН щодо злочину геноциду з позицій інтегративного підходу до відповідальності індивідів та держав згідно з міжнародним правом. Розглядаються концептуальні підходи щодо розуміння юрисдикції міжнародних судових органів. Висвітлюється комплексна природа Конвенції про геноцид. Досліджуються особливості тлумачення міжнародними кримінальними судами складу та окремих елементів злочину геноциду.
Здійснюється історичний огляд процесу прийняття та характеризується змістовне наповнення юрисдикційних положень статей 6 та 9 Конвенції про геноцид. Пропонуються шляхи застосування статті 6 Конвенції для "підсилення" юрисдикції МКС щодо злочину геноциду. Досліджується юрисдикція міжнародних кримінальних судів за параметрами ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis. В контексті юрисдикції ratione personae детально охарактеризовано форми відповідальності за злочин геноциду.
Констатується, що Міжнародний Суд ООН, юрисдикція якого базується на "компромісній умові" статті 9 Конвенції про геноцид, є дієвим механізмом забезпечення відповідальності держав за геноцид. Детально характеризується юрисдикція Міжнародного Суду ООН за параметрами ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione loci, ratione temporis.
Thesis abstract for obtaining the degree of Candidate of Legal Sciences (Doctor of Philosophy) with specialization in 12.00.11 "International Law" (293 – International Law). – National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy", Kyiv, 2018. Dissertation explores the jurisdiction of the international criminal courts (icluding ICC, ICTY, ICTR) and the ICJ over the crime of genocide from the point of integrative approach to responsibility of individuals and states under international law. The conceptual approaches to the jurisdiction of the international judicial bodies are examined. The content of the Genocide Convention is analyzed and the complexity of its legal nature is proven. The author concludes that this document should be regarded as a classical international treaty, international criminal law instrument and international human rights treaty. On the basis of the case law of international judicial bodies it is highlighted that, in addition to the Genocide Convention, the prohibition of genocide is confirmed in other sources of international law. Particular issues concerning the interpretation by the international criminal courts of the elements of the crime of genocide, including actus reus, mens rea and contextual element, are explored. The author analyzes the substance and separate aspects of the exercise of jurisdiction by the international criminal courts over the crime of genocide. Historic overview of the process of negotiation and the motives behind inclusion of the Article 6 to the Genocide Convention are presented. On the basis of the detailed analysis of the content of this article and matching its application with the procedure of establishment of contemporary international criminal courts, it is concluded that the ICC is the most corresponding model of the court, as defined under the Article 6 of the Genocide Convention. Furthermore, even though institutionally ICC is independent from the provisions of the Genocide Convention, the provision of the Article 6 might help to "reinforce" the jurisdiction of the ICC, at least when the crime of genocide is concerned. The author outlines two practical problems faced by the ICC, which could be solved through the application of the Convention. The first problem concerns the spread of the ICC`s jurisdiction over the nationals of the States, which are not parties to the Rome Statute. The second one is the misuse of personal immunities by high officials, accused of the commission of genocide. The author explores in detail the personal, territorial and temporal jurisdiction of ICTY, ICTR and ICC. It is claimed that the forms of liability should be viewed as a part of jurisdiction ratione personae of international criminal courts. Thus, traditional and new forms of liability are examined. Special coverage is given to the description of the application of the forms of liability in relation to crimes with a special intent as well as the comparison of forms of liability provided in the Genocide Convention and the statutes of the international criminal courts. As a result of the analysis of the jurisdiction ratione loci of the international criminal courts, the author observes relatively clear definition of this aspect of jurisdiction in the statutes of the ad hoc Tribunals and theoretically unlimited territorial jurisdiction of the ICC in case of the application of the active personality principle or the UN Security Council referral of a situation. In the context of the jurisdiction ratione temporis the author points out that the ICC possesses the prospective jurisdiction, which starts from the moment of entry into force of the Rome Statute for the State party, while ad hoc Tribunals` jurisdiction is retroactive and is limited by the timeframe determined by their statutes. It is claimed that due to the application of "compromissory clause" of Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, the ICJ is the effective mechanism of the realization of state responsibility for genocide. Jurisdiction ratione personae of the ICJ extends upon states, which received the access to the Court according to Article 35 of the ICJ Statute as well as accepted the jurisdiction of the Court while becoming party to the Genocide Convention, on the condition that they did not make a reservation to the Article 9 excluding Court`s jurisdiction. The author analyzes the case law of the ICJ on genocide and discerns the practical problems with the establishment of the Court`s jurisdiction ratione personae. These include the issues of determination of the status of a state within the UN, in the context of access to the Court, and the succession to international treaties, and in particular the Genocide Convention, in the context of the jurisdiction of the Court. The author explores in detail the ICJ`s jurisdiction ratione materiae. It is stated that this aspect of the Court`s jurisdiction is based on "title of jurisdiction", which comprises of two components: Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute and "compromissory clause" of the Genocide Convention. The last provision defines the categories of disputes under the subject matter jurisdiction of the ICJ. The author analyzes every category and brings to light the relationship between each of them. Special attention is paid to the category of the responsibility of states for genocide, and in particular the methodology used by the ICJ for the establishment of such responsibility. In the context of the ICJ`s jurisdiction ratione temporis, the issue of the possibility of the retroactive application of the Genocide Convention and customary international law on genocide is analyzed. The author concludes that the Genocide Convention as positive law is not applied retroactively and therefore the ICJ may have jurisdiction only in relation to the acts taking place after the entry into force of the Genocide Convention for the applicant and respondent states. As for the customary international law, its effect as to the events preceding the adoption of the Genocide Convention cannot be excluded, however, only if the ICJ exercises compulsory jurisdiction. In addition, such an important aspect of the Court`s temporal jurisdiction as the delineation between the facts, which constitute the basis of the dispute, and the events, which brought about the respective facts, is highlighted. In the context of the ICJ`s jurisdiction ratione loci, the territorial effect of every of the state obligations under the Genocide Convention is defined. In the end, the author summarizes the specific features of the interaction between the regimes of state and individual responsibility for genocide and points out to the tendency of their approximation under contemporary international law.
Thesis abstract for obtaining the degree of Candidate of Legal Sciences (Doctor of Philosophy) with specialization in 12.00.11 "International Law" (293 – International Law). – National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy", Kyiv, 2018. Dissertation explores the jurisdiction of the international criminal courts (icluding ICC, ICTY, ICTR) and the ICJ over the crime of genocide from the point of integrative approach to responsibility of individuals and states under international law. The conceptual approaches to the jurisdiction of the international judicial bodies are examined. The content of the Genocide Convention is analyzed and the complexity of its legal nature is proven. The author concludes that this document should be regarded as a classical international treaty, international criminal law instrument and international human rights treaty. On the basis of the case law of international judicial bodies it is highlighted that, in addition to the Genocide Convention, the prohibition of genocide is confirmed in other sources of international law. Particular issues concerning the interpretation by the international criminal courts of the elements of the crime of genocide, including actus reus, mens rea and contextual element, are explored. The author analyzes the substance and separate aspects of the exercise of jurisdiction by the international criminal courts over the crime of genocide. Historic overview of the process of negotiation and the motives behind inclusion of the Article 6 to the Genocide Convention are presented. On the basis of the detailed analysis of the content of this article and matching its application with the procedure of establishment of contemporary international criminal courts, it is concluded that the ICC is the most corresponding model of the court, as defined under the Article 6 of the Genocide Convention. Furthermore, even though institutionally ICC is independent from the provisions of the Genocide Convention, the provision of the Article 6 might help to "reinforce" the jurisdiction of the ICC, at least when the crime of genocide is concerned. The author outlines two practical problems faced by the ICC, which could be solved through the application of the Convention. The first problem concerns the spread of the ICC`s jurisdiction over the nationals of the States, which are not parties to the Rome Statute. The second one is the misuse of personal immunities by high officials, accused of the commission of genocide. The author explores in detail the personal, territorial and temporal jurisdiction of ICTY, ICTR and ICC. It is claimed that the forms of liability should be viewed as a part of jurisdiction ratione personae of international criminal courts. Thus, traditional and new forms of liability are examined. Special coverage is given to the description of the application of the forms of liability in relation to crimes with a special intent as well as the comparison of forms of liability provided in the Genocide Convention and the statutes of the international criminal courts. As a result of the analysis of the jurisdiction ratione loci of the international criminal courts, the author observes relatively clear definition of this aspect of jurisdiction in the statutes of the ad hoc Tribunals and theoretically unlimited territorial jurisdiction of the ICC in case of the application of the active personality principle or the UN Security Council referral of a situation. In the context of the jurisdiction ratione temporis the author points out that the ICC possesses the prospective jurisdiction, which starts from the moment of entry into force of the Rome Statute for the State party, while ad hoc Tribunals` jurisdiction is retroactive and is limited by the timeframe determined by their statutes. It is claimed that due to the application of "compromissory clause" of Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, the ICJ is the effective mechanism of the realization of state responsibility for genocide. Jurisdiction ratione personae of the ICJ extends upon states, which received the access to the Court according to Article 35 of the ICJ Statute as well as accepted the jurisdiction of the Court while becoming party to the Genocide Convention, on the condition that they did not make a reservation to the Article 9 excluding Court`s jurisdiction. The author analyzes the case law of the ICJ on genocide and discerns the practical problems with the establishment of the Court`s jurisdiction ratione personae. These include the issues of determination of the status of a state within the UN, in the context of access to the Court, and the succession to international treaties, and in particular the Genocide Convention, in the context of the jurisdiction of the Court. The author explores in detail the ICJ`s jurisdiction ratione materiae. It is stated that this aspect of the Court`s jurisdiction is based on "title of jurisdiction", which comprises of two components: Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute and "compromissory clause" of the Genocide Convention. The last provision defines the categories of disputes under the subject matter jurisdiction of the ICJ. The author analyzes every category and brings to light the relationship between each of them. Special attention is paid to the category of the responsibility of states for genocide, and in particular the methodology used by the ICJ for the establishment of such responsibility. In the context of the ICJ`s jurisdiction ratione temporis, the issue of the possibility of the retroactive application of the Genocide Convention and customary international law on genocide is analyzed. The author concludes that the Genocide Convention as positive law is not applied retroactively and therefore the ICJ may have jurisdiction only in relation to the acts taking place after the entry into force of the Genocide Convention for the applicant and respondent states. As for the customary international law, its effect as to the events preceding the adoption of the Genocide Convention cannot be excluded, however, only if the ICJ exercises compulsory jurisdiction. In addition, such an important aspect of the Court`s temporal jurisdiction as the delineation between the facts, which constitute the basis of the dispute, and the events, which brought about the respective facts, is highlighted. In the context of the ICJ`s jurisdiction ratione loci, the territorial effect of every of the state obligations under the Genocide Convention is defined. In the end, the author summarizes the specific features of the interaction between the regimes of state and individual responsibility for genocide and points out to the tendency of their approximation under contemporary international law.
Description
Keywords
юрисдикція міжнародних судів, відповідальність держав, індивідуальна кримінальна відповідальність, геноцид, інтегративний підхід, Міжнародний Суд ООН, Міжнародний кримінальний суд, Конвенція про геноцид, міжнародне звичаєве право, обов'язки erga omnes, контекстуальний елемент, jurisdiction of international courts, ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, ratione loci, state responsibility, individual criminal responsibility, genocide, integrative approach, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, Genocide Convention, customary international law, obligations erga omnes, contextual element, автореферат дисертації
Citation
Аносова Ю. В. Юрисдикція міжнародних судових органів щодо злочину геноциду : автореферат на здобуття наукового ступеня кандидата юридичних наук / Аносова Ю. В. ; наук. кер. Антонович М. М. ; М-во освіти і науки України, Нац. ун-т "Києво-Могилян. акад.". - Київ : [б. в.], 2018. - 20 с.