The determination of the international community to combat non-criminality and the fight against international crime has prompted the international community to find ways to address the legal vacuum existing in international criminal law. Due to the temporary nature of the courts established since World War II, as well as the absence of major crimes such as terrorism and human trafficking in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the international community is inclined towards domestic courts and plans for actions such as global jurisdiction and commitment to extradition or trial. Due to differences arising from the obligation to perform an extradition or trial, it is necessary to examine the principles governing this obligation.
Meanwhile, the judiciary and international bodies' opinions on these actions are of great importance. The International Court of Justice is one of the most prominent legal entities in the international community in terms of its distinctive and important role in the development of international law. In the present article, the Tribunal's judgments on the obligation to extradite or trial and the effect of the Court on the development of this commitment have been examined.
Table of Contents
1. Combating Non-Penalties in New International Law
1.1. Competence of domestic courts in the investigation of international crimes
a. Qualification on the basis of international treaties and conventions
b. Universal jurisdiction
1.2. obligation trial or extradition
a. Immunity of Aliens in International Law
b. Human rights aspects of extradition of individuals
1.3. the role of the International Court of Justice in the development of international law
2. The obligation to prosecute or extradite the International Court of Justice opinion
2.1. Lockerbie case
2.2. Case of the obligation to extradite or trial
Objectives and Research Themes
The primary objective of this article is to analyze the role of the International Court of Justice in shaping and developing the international legal obligation to prosecute or extradite (aut dedere aut judicare), particularly in the context of combating international crimes and addressing legal vacuums.
- The evolution of modern international criminal law and the shift toward human-centric legal frameworks.
- The jurisdictional competence of domestic courts regarding international offenses and the principle of universal jurisdiction.
- The human rights implications of extradition, including individual immunity and the non-refoulement principle.
- A critical evaluation of ICJ jurisprudence, specifically the Lockerbie case and the Belgian-Senegal dispute regarding torture.
- The role of the ICJ in bridging the gap between contractual state obligations and evolving customary international law.
Excerpt from the Book
1-1.Competence of domestic courts in the investigation of international crimes
Considering that international law, and in particular international criminal law, were at a crucial pivotal stage in the transition to a pivotal and vicious humanitarian base, with the persistence and stubborn confrontation of some governments, and by providing international solutions, including the inclusion of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court Failure to deal with major crimes such as terrorism, piracy and smuggling has inevitably come under the jurisdiction of the national courts to overcome this vacuum. Because the concept of the modern state is responsible for the provision of all human rights, this also requires a thriving role for domestic courts (Moazami, 2013: 18). According to the fact that the Statute of the International Criminal Court also raises the issue of supplementary jurisdiction of the Court and the jurisdiction of the State to investigate international crimes and its perpetrators is recognized as the principle.
The jurisdiction of domestic courts is possible in two situations. The first is based on international conventions and international conventions, and the second is based on the international jurisdiction of the application of the principle of jurisdiction by the domestic courts, which we will examine below.
Summary of Chapters
1. Combating Non-Penalties in New International Law: Discusses the historical transition toward holding individuals accountable for international crimes and the emergence of state responsibility frameworks post-WWII.
1.1. Competence of domestic courts in the investigation of international crimes: Examines how national courts fill legal gaps through treaties and universal jurisdiction when international tribunals are unavailable.
1.2. obligation trial or extradition: Analyzes the doctrinal foundation and human rights considerations of the duty to either prosecute or extradite offenders.
1.3. the role of the International Court of Justice in the development of international law: Evaluates the ICJ’s function in interpreting international law and providing procedural consistency in the absence of an independent global legislature.
2. The obligation to prosecute or extradite the International Court of Justice opinion: Reviews specific ICJ proceedings to demonstrate how the court has influenced the understanding of the obligation to extradite or prosecute.
2.1. Lockerbie case: Analyzes the court’s approach to jurisdictional conflicts between state obligations and Security Council resolutions in the context of international terrorism.
2.2. Case of the obligation to extradite or trial: Investigates the court’s interpretation of the Torture Convention and the confirmation of erga omnes obligations regarding human rights violations.
Keywords
Extradition, Trial, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Law, Universal Jurisdiction, Human Rights, Lockerbie, Torture, State Responsibility, Non-refoulement, Jurisdictional Competence, International Treaties, Immunity, Accountability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
This work examines the role of the International Court of Justice in developing the principle of "prosecute or extradite," identifying how judicial decisions bridge gaps in international criminal law.
What are the central themes explored in the article?
Key themes include the limits of state immunity, the rise of universal jurisdiction, the intersection of human rights and extradition, and the evolving role of domestic courts in handling international crimes.
What is the primary research question?
The research seeks to determine how the ICJ’s jurisprudence in specific cases has influenced the development of the obligation to extradite or prosecute as a customary rule of international law.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author employs a doctrinal legal analysis, evaluating international treaties, UN conventions, and specific ICJ case law to assess the evolution of international legal obligations.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section covers the history of anti-impunity measures, the jurisdictional powers of domestic courts, the human rights constraints on extradition, and detailed analyses of the Lockerbie and Belgian-Senegal cases.
How would you describe this work with keywords?
The work is best characterized by terms such as International Criminal Law, Universal Jurisdiction, Extradition, ICJ, and State Responsibility.
How did the Lockerbie case influence international legal norms?
The Lockerbie case highlighted the complexities of overlapping jurisdiction between the Security Council and the ICJ, underscoring the importance of impartial tribunals when state parties disagree on extradition obligations.
What significance does the ICJ’s decision in the Belgian-Senegal case hold?
The ruling interpreted the Convention on the Prohibition of Torture, confirming that the prohibition of torture is a rule of jus cogens and that member states have a clear duty to prosecute offenders without delay.
- Quote paper
- Aydin Pakdaman (Author), 2018, The role of the International Court of Justice in the development of the obligation to prosecute or extradite, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/449810
