Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:10:26.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative International Law at the ICTY: The General Principles Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Neha Jain
Neha Jain*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For a significant period of time, the comparativist and the international lawyer were considered to inhabit different worlds: the former scrutinized similarities and differences between domestic legal systems while the latter focused on the universal realm of international law that overlays these systems. This comfortably segregated image has been conclusively shattered by numerous studies demonstrating the multiple areas of interaction between international and comparative law. of these, one of the ripest areas for further reflection is the “general principles of law” as a source of international law. Puzzlingly, given the traditional domestic law origins of the general principles of law, comparative law and methodology have rarely featured in the scholarship and jurisprudence on the general principles. Thus, the attempt of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Icty) to use the general principles as a freestanding source of international criminal law provides a particularly intriguing opportunity to study the interaction between international and comparative law.

Type
Exploring Comparative International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 109 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 486 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Mamlyuk, Boris N. & Mattei, Ugo, Comparative International Law, 36 Brook. J. Int’l L. 385 (2011)Google Scholar; Roberts, Anthea, Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law, 60 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 57 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Forteau, Mathias, Comparative International Law Within, Not Against International Law: Lessons from the International Law Commission, 109 AJIL 498 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See generally Fabián O. Raimondo General Principles of Law in the Decisions of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals (2008) (providing a comprehensive analysis of the use of general principles by international criminal tribunals, including the ICTY).

4 Bantekas, Ilias, Reflections on Some Sources and Methods of International Criminal and Humanitarian Law, 6 Int’l Crim. L. Rev. 121, 126–29 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (outlining some of the confused uses of general principles).

5 See, e.g., Bassiouni, M. Cherif, A Functional Approach to “General Principles of International Law”, 11 Mich. J. Int’l L. 768, 770–73 (1990)Google Scholar; Charney, J. I., Sources of International Law, 271 Recueil des Cours 189, 189–91 (1998)Google Scholar; Jalet, Frances T. Freeman, The Quest for the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations—A Study, 10 Ucla L. Rev. 1041, 1044–78 (1963)Google Scholar; Lammers, Johan G., General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations, in Essays on the Development of the International Legal Order 53 (Kalshoven, Frits et al. eds., 1980)Google Scholar (and references therein); Mosler, Hermann, General Principles of Law, in 2 Encyclopedia of Public International Law 511, 512–17 (1995)Google Scholar; Waldock, H., The “Common Law” of the International Com munity—General Principles of Law, 106 Recueil Des Cours 54, 55–57 (1962)Google Scholar.

6 On the creative use by judges of international law sources to address this problem, see, for example, Judicial Creativity At the International Criminal Tribunals (Shane Darcy & Joseph Powderly eds., 2010) [hereinafter Judicial Creativity]; Cassese, Antonio, Black Letter Lawyering v. Constructive Interpretation, 2 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 265 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schabas, William, Interpreting the Statutes of the Ad Hoc Tribunals , in Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese 847 (Vohrah, LalChand et al. eds., 2003)Google Scholar.

7 See Raimondo, supra note 3, at 105–08, 117–20, 124–29; Cassese, Antonio, The Contribution of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to the Ascertainment of General Principles of Law Recognized by the Community of Nations, in International Law in the Post-Cold War World: Essays in Memory of Li Haopei 43, 47–49 (Yee, Sienho & Tieya, Wang eds., 2001)Google Scholar; Ellis, Jaye, General Principles and Comparative Law, 22 Eur. J. Int’l L. 949, 967–70 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nollkaemper, André, Decisions of National Courts as Sources of International Law: An Analysis of the Practice of the ICTY, in International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY 277, 286–89 (Boas, Gideon & Schabas, William A. eds., 2003)Google Scholar.

8 Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Oct. 7, 1997), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/erdemovic/acjug/en/erd-aj971007e.pdf.

9 Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Case No. It-96-22-A, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephen, ¶ 26 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Oct. 7, 1997), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/erdemovic/acjug/en/erdasojste971007e.pdf.

10 Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. It-95-17/1-T, Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Dec. 10, 1998), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/furundzija/tjug/en/fur-tj981210e.pdf.

11 Id. ¶ 183.

12 Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Case No. It-95-16-T, Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Jan. 14, 2000), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/kupreskic/tjug/en/kup-tj000114e.pdf. For a useful summary of the Tribunal’s use of general principles, see Raimondo, supra note 3, at 119–24.

13 Kupreškić, Judgment ¶¶ 740–48. For the observation that this is not an application of general principles, but an instance of law-making by the judges, see Raimondo, supra note 3, at 122–23.

14 Kupreškić, Judgment ¶¶ 728–38.

15 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 22, opened for signature July 17, 1998, 2187 Unts 90.

16 Haveman, Roelof, The Principle of Legality, in Supranational Criminal Law: A System Sui Generis 39, 40 (Haveman, Roelof et al. eds., 2003)Google Scholar; Mokhtar, Aly, Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege: Aspects and Prospects, 26 Statute L. Rev. 41, 47–51 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also M. Cherif Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law 182–95 (2003); Hall, Jerome, Nulla Poena Sine Lege, 47 Yale L.J. 165 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Jeffries, John Calvin Jr., Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes, 71 Va. L. Rev. 189, 201 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Luban, David, Fairness to Rightness: Jurisdiction, Legality, and the Legitimacy of International Criminal Law, in The Philosophy of International Law 569, 581 (Besson, Samantha & Tasioulas, John eds., 2010)Google Scholar; van Schaack, Beth, Crimen Sine Lege: Judicial Lawmaking at the Intersection of Law and Morals , 97 Geo. L.J. 119, 121–22 (2008)Google Scholar.

18 Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, ¶¶ 57–58 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Oct. 7, 1997), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/erdemovic/acjug/en/erd-asojmcd971007e.pdf.

19 Id. ¶¶ 59–72.

20 Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment, ¶¶ 177–82 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Dec. 10, 1998), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/furundzija/tjug/en/fur-tj981210e.pdf.

21 Prosecutor v. Sˇainović, Case No. IT-05-87-A, Judgment, ¶¶ 1644–45 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Jan. 23, 2014), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/milutinovic/acjug/en/140123.pdf (citing national legislation and/or case law of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, China, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, England, France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Laos, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Tunisia, the United States, and Vietnam).

22 Id. ¶¶ 1643–44.

23 Prosecutor v. Delić, Case No. IT-04-83-A, Decision on the Outcome of the Proceedings, ¶¶ 11–13 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia June 29, 2010), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/delic/acdec/en/100629_1.pdf (citing national legislation and/or case law of Azerbaijan, Sweden, Austria, France, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States).

24 Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Case No. IT-95-16-T, Judgment, ¶¶ 677–95 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Jan. 14, 2000), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/kupreskic/tjug/en/kup-tj000114e.pdf.

25 Prosecutor v. Limaj et al., Case No. IT-03-66-A, Judgment, Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen, ¶ 3 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Sept. 27, 2007), at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/limaj/acjug/en/Lima-Jug070927.pdf.

26 See id. (citing a few scholars and English and U.S. law).

27 See Linos, Katerina, How to Select and Develop International Law Case Studies: Lessons from Comparative Law and Comparative Politics, 109 AJIL 475 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 479.

30 See Bantekas, supra note 4, at 129; Bohlander, Michael & Findlay, Mark, The use of Domestic Sources as a Basis for International Criminal Law Principles, in 1 The Global Community Year Book of International Law & Jurisprudence 3 (Capaldo, Giuliana Ziccardi ed., 2002)Google Scholar; see also Delmas-Marty, Mireille, The Contribution of Comparative Law to a Pluralist Conception of International Criminal Law, 1 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 13, 18–20 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mosler, H., To What Extent Does the Variety of Legal Systems of the World Influence the Application of the General Principles of Law Within the Meaning of Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in International Law and the Grotian Heritage 173, 182 (T. M. C. Asser Instituut ed., 1985)Google Scholar (presenting a similar suggestion in the context of traditional public international law).

31 See, e.g., Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law 32–33 (2003); Bantekas, supra note 4, at 129; Degan, Vladimir-Djuro, On the Sources of International Criminal Law, 4 Chinese J. Int’l L. 45, 81 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Linos, supra note 27, at 479.

32 See, e.g., René David & Camille Jauffret-Spinosi Les Grands Systèmes de Roit Contemporains (1992); Konradzweigert & Hein KöTz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (1987); Mattei, Ugo, Three Patterns of Law: Taxonomy and Change in the World’s Legal Systems, 45 Am. J. Comp. L. 5 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palmer, Vernon Valentine, Introduction to the Mixed Jurisdictions, in Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide: The Third Legal Family (Palmer, Vernon Valentine ed., 2001)Google Scholar; Pargendler, Mariana, The Rise and Decline of Legal Families, 60 Am. J. Comp. L. 1043 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See Langbein, John H., The Influence of Comparative Procedure in the United States, 43 Am. J. Comp. L. 545, 547 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reimann, Mathias, The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 671, 676 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 David & Jauffret-Spinosi, supra note 33; Husa, Jaakko, Legal Families, in Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 491, 496 (Smits, Jan M. ed., 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mattei, supra note 33, at 8.

36 Zweigert & Kötz Eterde supra note 33; Peter de Cruz Comparative Law in a Changing World 34, 36 (2d ed. 1999); Pargendler, supra note 33, at 1060.

37 For a detailed account, see van Reenen, TP, Major Theoretical Problems of Modern Comparative Legal Methodology (3): The Criteria Employed for the Classification of Legal Systems, 29 Comp. & Int’l L.J. S. Afr. 71 (1996)Google Scholar.

38 See Husa, supra note 35, at 499; Mattei, supra note 33, at 10–11. It is worth noting that, in keeping with the changed geopolitical map of the world, the independent significance of the “socialist” legal family has largely been eroded. See Husa, Jaakko, Classification of Legal Families Today: Is It Time for a Memorial Hymn?, 56 Revue Inter Nationale De Droit Comparé 11, 15–16 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 See Husa, supra note 35, at 500; Kötz, Hein, Abschied von der Rechtskreislehre?, 3 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 493, 494 (1998)Google Scholar; Malmström, Åke, The System of Legal Systems: Notes on a Problem of Classification in Comparative Law, 13 Scandinavian Stud. L. 127, 139–40 (1969)Google Scholar; öru¨cu¨, Esin, What is a Mixed Legal System? Exclusion or Expansion, 12 Electronic J. Comp. L. 1, 3 (2008)Google Scholar.

40 See Husa, supra note 35, at 491. The difference between macrocomparison and micro comparison is now generally recognized in the literature on comparative law methodology. See De Cruz, supra note 36, at 227.

41 See, e.g., Palmer, supra note 33, at 4, 7–10 (mooting the category of “mixed jurisdictions”).

42 Mattei, supra note 33, at 13–14.

43 Id. at 16.

44 Sacco, Rodolfo, Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Installment I of II), 39 Am. J. Comp. L. 1, 21–34 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also örücü, Esin, Developing Comparative Law, in Comparative Law: A Handbook 43, 61 (örücü, Esin & Nelken, David eds., 2007)Google Scholar.

45 See, for example, Glenn’s influential account of legal traditions as on going normative information: Glenn, H. Patrick, A Concept of Legal Tradition, 34 Queen’S L.J. 427 (2008)Google Scholar.

46 Örücü, supra note 44, at 59 (citing Merryman, John Henry, The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Western Europe and Latin America 2 (2d ed. 1985))Google Scholar; see also Reenen, supra note 37, at 73.

47 Legrand, Pierre, European Legal Systems are Not Converging, 45 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 52, 56–61 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Id.

49 Ellis, supra note 7, at 954; see also Raimondo, supra note 3, at 45; Elias, Olufemi & Lim, Chin, “General Principles of Law,” “Soft” Law, and the Identification of International Law, 28 Neth. Y.B. Int’l L. 3, 23–24 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 See Ajani, Gianmaria, Transplants, Legal Borrowing and Reception, in 3 Encyclopedia of Law and Society: American and Global Perspectives 1508 (Clark, David S. ed., 2007)Google Scholar.

51 See Ellis, supra note 7, at 963–64.

52 See Watson, Alan, Legal Change: Sources of Law and Legal Culture, 131 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1121 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Graziadei, Michele, The Functionalist Heritage, in Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions 100, 121 (Legrand, Pierre & Munday, Roderick eds., 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Monateri, P. G., “Everybody’s Talking”: The Future of Comparative Law, 21 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 825, 839–40 (1998)Google Scholar.

53 Graziadei, supra note 52, at 121; Monateri, supra note 52, at 839–40; Riles, Annelise, Comparative Law and Socio-Legal Studies, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law 775, 795 (Reimann, Mathias & Zimmermann, Reinhard eds., 2006)Google Scholar.

54 Wise, Edward M., The Transplant of Legal Patterns, 38 Am. J. Comp. L. 1, 3–4 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 See Harding, Andrew, Global Doctrine and Local Knowledge: Law in South East Asia, 51 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 35, 45 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Örücü, Esin, Law as Transposition, 51 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 205, 219 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Legrand, Pierre, The Impossibility of “Legal Transplants’, 4 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 111, 116–18 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also David Nelken, Comparatists and Transferability, in Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions, supra note 52, at 437, 441.

58 Legrand, supra note 47, at 57.

59 Michele Graziadei, Comparative Law as the Study of Transplants and Receptions, in The Oxfordhandbook of Comparative Law, supra note 53, at 441, 467; Legrand, supra note 47, at 56–61; Riles, supra note 53, at 797.

60 Graziadei, supra note 59, at 470; Legrand, supra note 57, at 120.

61 Teubner, Gunther, Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends up in New Divergences, 61 Mod. L. Rev. 11, 12, 28 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Frankenberg, Günter, Constitutional Transfer: The Ikea Theory Revisited, 8 Int’l J. Const. L. 563 (2010)Google Scholar.

63 Michaels, Ralf, “One Size Can Fit All”—Some Heretical Thoughts on the Mass Production of Legal Transplants, in Order From Transfer: Comparative Constitutional Design and Legal Culture 56, 59–60 (Frankenberg, Günter ed., 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Id. at 60.

65 Berkowitz, Daniel, Pistor, Katharina & Richard, Jean-François, The Transplant Effect, 51 Am. J. Comp. L. 163 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, Jonathan M., A Typology of Legal Transplants: Using Sociology, Legal History and Argentine Examples to Explain the Transplant Process, 51 Am. J. Comp. L. 839, 841–42 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 See Fan, Mary, Custom, General Principles and the Great Architect Cassese, 10 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 1063, 1064 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fabián O. Raimondo, General Principles of Law, Judicial Creativity, and the Development of International Criminal Law, in Judicial Creativity, supra note 6, at 45, 46; Weigend, Thomas, The Harmonization of General Principles of Criminal Law: The Statutes and Jurisprudence of the ICTY, Ictr, and the Icc: An Overview, in Inter National Criminal Law: Quo Vadis? 319, 320 (Association Internationale de Droit Pénal ed., 2004)Google Scholar.

67 See, e.g., Letsas, George, The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the Echr, 15 Eur. J. Int’l L. 279 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shaffer, Gregory & Trachtman, Joel, Interpretation and Institutional Choice at the WTO, 52 Va. J. Int’l L. 103 (2011)Google Scholar.

68 Prosecutor v. Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment, ¶¶ 43–57 (Mar. 7, 2014), at http://www.ICC-cpi.int/ICCdocs/doc/doc1963464.pdf (stating that the court will follow the rules of treaty interpretation endorsed in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but unclear on their relationship to the principle of legality).

69 Letsas, supra note 67, at 282–83.