Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The International Criminal Court and Reparations: Judicial Innovation or Judicialisation of a Political Process?

The International Criminal Court and Reparations: Judicial Innovation or Judicialisation of a... The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court bestows reparative powers upon the court, a significant development in international criminal justice. However, the court still struggles to effectively discharge this mandate. This article proceeds on the assumption that reparations for mass atrocities are best handled through domestic political processes rather than international criminal justice processes. The article interrogates the effectiveness of the court’s reparative powers by testing them as against the court’s practice, specifically in the Lubanga, Katanga and Al-Mahdi cases. The article concludes that despite noble intentions, practical realities and difficulties make doubtful the court’s suitability as a reparative forum for mass atrocities. Nevertheless, in the absence of a more suitable alternative for effective and meaningful reparations, the article proposes policy reforms to achieve robust reparative complementarity between the court and transitional states, and complementarity between the court’s reparative mandate and the Trust Fund for Victims’ assistance mandate. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Criminal Law Review Brill

The International Criminal Court and Reparations: Judicial Innovation or Judicialisation of a Political Process?

International Criminal Law Review , Volume 19 (3): 27 – May 11, 2019

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/the-international-criminal-court-and-reparations-judicial-innovation-CpKa3QmoPd
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1567-536X
eISSN
1571-8123
DOI
10.1163/15718123-01903004
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court bestows reparative powers upon the court, a significant development in international criminal justice. However, the court still struggles to effectively discharge this mandate. This article proceeds on the assumption that reparations for mass atrocities are best handled through domestic political processes rather than international criminal justice processes. The article interrogates the effectiveness of the court’s reparative powers by testing them as against the court’s practice, specifically in the Lubanga, Katanga and Al-Mahdi cases. The article concludes that despite noble intentions, practical realities and difficulties make doubtful the court’s suitability as a reparative forum for mass atrocities. Nevertheless, in the absence of a more suitable alternative for effective and meaningful reparations, the article proposes policy reforms to achieve robust reparative complementarity between the court and transitional states, and complementarity between the court’s reparative mandate and the Trust Fund for Victims’ assistance mandate.

Journal

International Criminal Law ReviewBrill

Published: May 11, 2019

There are no references for this article.