Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>The article examines the model of accountability for international humanitarian law violations committed in East Timor in 1999, in which the Security Council opted for parallel accountability,in East Timor and Indonesia. In the former, it is anchored on a 'mixed' judicial process, administered by 'Special Panels' of the Dili District Court composed of national and international judges. Although its legal framework is sound, and persons 'most responsible' have been indicted, the allocated resources were meager, desired full accountability overambitious, and most accused remain at large. In Indonesia, the ad hoc Human Rights Court's framework is laden withjurisdictional loopholes, and the conduct of prosecutions non-diligent, reflecting 'unwillingness or inability', genuinely to account. If that process had been under the ICC regime, it would have been a valid ground for seizure of jurisdiction by that court. The net result of the model is a misjoinder of human rights perpetrators.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
Nordic Journal of International Law – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2003
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.