The purpose of this paper is to evaluate on whether the use of ‘structural investigations’ (in Syria) indicate a promising shift in the German practice of the CCAIL from a ‘no-safe-haven’ towards a ‘global-enforcer’ approach.
In order to do so, the following steps will be taken:
First, there will be an assessment of the two main legal provisions and their underlying ratio that are relevant for the practice of the CCAIL and their interplay, namely §1 CCAIL (providing genuine universal jurisdiction to German courts for International Crimes) and §153f CCP the prosecutorial discretion given in cases of pure foreign crimes traditionally frustrating §1 CCAIL.36 In a second step, cases that are exemplary for the previous approach will be examined on considerations made and reasons given by the FPG leading to decision to desist from proceeding and the restrictive ‘no-safe-haven’ practice – followed by an evaluation. In a third step, the current prosecutorial strategy – ‘structural investigations’ – and its theory as well as practice will be analysed to assess how the use of ‘structural investigations’ changes the evaluation of the reasons underlying the restrictive practice.
The aim is to answer the research question:
To what extent ‘structural investigations’ as the current German prosecutorial strategy used to investigate Crimes of International Law (in Syria) operate on the interplay between the prosecutorial discretion (§153f CCP) and the codified universal jurisdiction (§1 CCAIL) to be applied in a proactive – ‘global-enforcer’ – manner?
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- The German Legal Framework and Institutions for Prosecuting Crimes of International Law
- The Codification of The Code of Crimes against International Law in light of the Rome Statute - Universal Jurisdiction pursuant to §1 CCAIL
- Prosecutorial Framework and Discretion - §153f CCP
- Classification and Aim
- Specific Provisions
- Judicial Review
- Institutions
- Analysis
- 'No-Safe-Haven' – Prosecution Strategy and Practice
- Aim and Classification
- Initiation of an Individualized Investigation
- Formal Individualized Investigations in Practice - Decisions to desist, Considerations and Legal Arguments
- Missing Legitimate Link and Lack of Prospect
- Subsidiarity
- Anticipated Legal Assistance
- Immunity
- Evaluation
- Missing Legitimate Link and Lack of Prospect
- Subsidiarity
- Anticipated Legal Assistance
- Immunity
- Analysis
- 'Structural Investigations' as a Prosecution Strategy - Bridge to a ‘Global-Enforcer' approach or Evidentiary Limbo?
- Aim and Classification
- Initiation of an Investigation against Unknown
- Initial Suspicion
- Relation to 153f CCP
- 'Structural Investigations' in Practice Investigations into International Crimes in Syria
- Current Practice - Status Quo
- Institutions and Cooperation
- Evaluation
- Missing Legitimate Link
- Lack of Prospect
- Subsidiarity
- Anticipated Legal Assistance
- Immunity
- Analysis
- Perspectives
- Perspective in the Case of Syria
- Germanys Role within the International Criminal Justice System
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This paper examines the evolution of German law and practice regarding the prosecution of international crimes, with a particular focus on Syria. It analyzes the transition from a 'No-Safe-Haven' approach to a potential 'Global-Enforcer' approach, assessing the effectiveness and challenges of both strategies. Key themes include:- The role of universal jurisdiction in achieving justice for international crimes
- The German legal framework and institutions for prosecuting international crimes
- The effectiveness of 'No-Safe-Haven' and 'Structural Investigations' prosecution strategies
- The challenges and opportunities of Germany's role in the international criminal justice system
- The application of universal jurisdiction to the Syrian conflict
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
The introduction sets the stage by highlighting the significance of universal jurisdiction in addressing human rights violations and the importance of national courts alongside international tribunals. The paper then dives into the German legal framework and institutions for prosecuting crimes of international law, covering the codification of the Code of Crimes Against International Law (CCAIL) and the prosecutorial framework. Chapter 3 explores the 'No-Safe-Haven' strategy, analyzing its aims, implementation, and limitations. This includes examining the practical application of individualized investigations and the various legal arguments used to justify decisions to desist from prosecution. Chapter 4 focuses on the alternative 'Structural Investigations' approach, aiming to assess its potential as a bridge to a 'Global-Enforcer' approach. It discusses the initiation of investigations against unknown perpetrators, the practical application in the context of Syria, and an evaluation of the legal challenges associated with this strategy. Chapter 5 provides perspectives on the prosecution of international crimes in Syria and the broader role of Germany within the international criminal justice system.Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Universal Jurisdiction, International Crimes, Syria, Germany, 'No-Safe-Haven', 'Global-Enforcer', 'Structural Investigations', International Criminal Court, Rome Statute, Complementarity, Prosecutorial Discretion, Legal Assistance, Immunity, International Criminal Justice System, Impunity.- Quote paper
- Franca Langlet (Author), 2019, Germany's efforts in prosecuting international crimes in Syria. A promising shift from a "No-Safe-Haven" towards a "Global-Enforcer" approach?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1333790
