Advertisement

International Criminal Jurisdiction as an Alternative

  • Manuel R. García-Mora

Abstract

It has been seen that the exercise of protective jurisdiction as a means of punishing private persons for their actions against foreign states leaves much to be desired from the standpoint of justice. This is so not only for the practical difficulty of reaching an impartial judgment in matters deeply involving political interests of governments,1 but also because the exercise of protective jurisdiction entirely depends upon such an uncertain factor as the ability of the state to get its hands on the offender either through the regular process of extradition or, even more uncertain, through the remote possibility that the offender may sometime fall within its jurisdiction. The inevitable result of this situation is really to allow offenders to go unpunished in the commission of offenses which vitally affect the peace and security of mankind. It is largely for these reasons that an international criminal court, with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals, has been forcibly suggested since the end of World War II.2 Most discussions of this court center on its jurisdiction over individuals acting for the state. However, it is believed that its competence over private persons for the commission of international crimes is deserving of similar consideration.

Keywords

International Criminal Court International Criminal International Crime Private Person Draft Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    This was so recognized by the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction created by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution of December 12, 1950. See Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 11, (A/2136), p. 4 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Q. Wright, “Proposal for an International Criminal Court,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 46, pp. 60, 63 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    For a full consideration of proposals, see United Nations Secretariat, Historical Survey of the Question of International Criminal Jurisdiction (1949).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    This is discussed in R. J. Alfaro, “Report on The Question of International Criminal Jurisdiction,” U.N. International Law Commission, A/CN.4/15, March 3, 1950, p. 9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    “Report on The Question of International Criminal Jurisdiction,” U.N. International Law Commission, A/CN.4/15, March 3, 1950, Ibid., p. 9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For text, see M. O. Hudson, International Legislation, Vol. 7, p. 878 (1941).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For text, Ibid., p. 862. This Convention is discussed in Chapter VI, supra. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Convention for the Creation of an International Criminal Court, Art. 1.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. J. Alfaro, op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. V. Pella, “Towards an International Criminal Court,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 44, pp. 37, 39 (1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid., p. 38.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    For text, see Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. I, pp. x, xi (1946–1947).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charter of the International Military Tribunal, article 6, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The International Military Tribunal for the Far East for the Trial of Japanese War Criminals, established in 1946 should also be noted here.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See L. A. Podestá Costa, Derecho Internacional Público, Vol. 2, pp. 321–323 (3d ed. 1955).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict, p. 377 (1954).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Resolution 260 B (III) of December 8, 1948. For text, see U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Third Session, Part I, Resolutions, p. 177 (1948).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Report of the International Law Commission Covering Its Second Session, 5 June-29 July, 1950. For text, see U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, Supplement No. 12 (A/1316), pp. 15–16 (1950).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Resolution 489 (V) of December 12, 1950. For text, see Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 11, (A/2136), p. 1 (1952).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    For the text of the Draft Statute, see Ibid., Annex I, pp. 21–25.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Sixth Committee, 321 st. to 328th Meeting (1952).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Q. Wright, op. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    For text, see Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of its Third Session, 16 May-27 July, 1951, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Sixth Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/1858), pp. 10–14 (1951).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Article 2 of the Draft Code.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of its Third Session, 16 May-27 July, 1951, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Sixth Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/1858), p. 11 (1951).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    For the text of this Convention, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 45, p. 7 (1951). This Convention has been ratified by a substantial number of states and entered into force on January 12, 1951.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. A. Finch, “Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 46, pp. 89, 93 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    See Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/2136), p. 4 (1952).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    See Report of the International Law Commission, Covering the Work of its Third Session, 16 May-27 July, 1951, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Sixth Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/1858), p. 11 (1951).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Italics supplied. For a discussion of the Amendments adopted and the views of representatives, see Yuen-Li Liang, “Notes on Legal Questions Concerning the United Nations,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 47, pp. 638 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    . cit., p. 646Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cf. J. Paoli, “Contribution à L’Etude des Crimes de Guerre et des Crimes contre l’Humanité en Droit Pénal International,” Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Public, Vol. 39 pp. 146–147 (France, 1941–1945).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    . cit., pp. 89, 93Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. R. García-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, ch. 6 (1956).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    For text, see Yuen-Li Liang, op. cit., pp. 647–648.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P. M. Carjeu, “Quelques Aspects du Nouveau Projet de Statut des Nations Unies pour une Jurisdiction Criminelle Internationale,” Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Public, Vol. 50, pp. 401, 410 (France, 1956).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    This had been presupposed by the 1951 Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction. See Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, U.N, General Assembly, Officiai Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/2136). p. 8 (1952).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yuen-Li Liang, op. cit., pp. 647–648.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Q. Wright, op. cit., p. 69.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    See Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/2136), pp. 8–9 (1952).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    K. W. Thompson, Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics: An American Approach to Foreign Policy, p. 145 (1960).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Q. Wright, op. cit., p. 68.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    The Commission on International Criminal Jurisdiction felt that by extending the jurisdiction of the Court to states, the Court might be involved in decisions of a political character. See Report of the Commission on International Criminal Jurisdiction, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/2136), pp. 10–11 (1952).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yuen-Li Liang, op. cit., p. 647.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/2136), pp. 8–9 (1952).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    G. A. Finch, op. cit., p. 97.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    P. M. Carjeu, op. cit., p. 410.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, op. cit., p. 9.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Q. Wright, op. cit., p. 68.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, op. cit., p. 9.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ibid., p. 10.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Sixth Committee, 328th Meeting, p. 136 (1952).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    J. Stone, op. cit., p. 53.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    P. M. Carjeu, op. cit., p. 412.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Actually, the 1953 Committee deleted the original Article 28 of the Draft Statute which said that “No jurisdiction may be conferred upon the Court without the approval of the General Assembly of the United Nations.” Instead, the present Article 28 was included. See Yuen-Li Liang, op. cit., pp. 649–650.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid., pp. 639–645.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cf. C. Rousseau, Droit International Public, pp. 525–527 (1953).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    op. cit., pp. 142–143.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    See the remarks of the Canadian Delegate, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Sixth Committee, 328th Meeting, p. 135 (1952).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Cf. P. E. Corbett, Law and Society in the Relations of States, p. 237 (1951).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    A. K. Kuhn, “The Pella Memoranda Relating to International Crimes and Criminal Jurisdiction,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 46, p. 129 (1952).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    See U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Sixth Committee, 327th Meeting, p. 130 (1952).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Q. Wright, op. cit., p. 70.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    M. Miele, Principi di Diritto Internationale, p. 276 (1953).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    op. cit., p. 370.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    op. cit., p. 65.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    op. cit., p. 378.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    op. cit., p. 43.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    op. cit., p. 65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel R. García-Mora
    • 1
  1. 1.Fordham UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations