Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-wh2kg Total loading time: 0.373 Render date: 2022-06-27T19:20:50.085Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

2 - Creation and amendment of rules of international criminal procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2011

Gideon Boas
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
James L. Bischoff
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of State
Natalie L. Reid
Affiliation:
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York
B. Don Taylor III
Affiliation:
ICTY, The Hague, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Two of the notable differences among the various international criminal tribunals are the manner in which their respective procedural architectures are created, and the constitutional frameworks for their amendment. Though the legitimacy of international criminal procedure as a body of law has begun to receive more academic attention, an infrastructural issue of considerable significance to the debate remains relatively unexplored: how rules and regulations that bind parties and courts (and indeed, states, international organisations, and individuals through orders of these courts) are created and amended.

The judges of the ICTY and the ICTR (jointly, ad hoc Tribunals) have a unique, and now well entrenched, power to create and amend their own rules as ‘quasi-legislators’. The drafters of the Rome Statute, however, rejected such an approach, opting instead for greater control of the procedural framework by the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) – an approach reflected more in form than in substance, as discussed below. Diversifying further the rule-making frameworks, the internationalised tribunals have opted either for the largely wholesale adoption of the ICTY or ICTR Rules, as in the case of the SCSL; or the application of the rules of domestic courts, in the cases of the Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers and the now-defunct East Timor Special Panels.

This chapter discusses the manner in which rules of procedure and evidence have been created and how they are amended in the different international criminal tribunals.

Type
Chapter
Information
International Criminal Law Practitioner Library
International Criminal Procedure
, pp. 21 - 45
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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

Boas, Gideon, ‘A Code of Evidence and Procedure for International Criminal Law? The Rules of the ICTY’, in Boas, Gideon and Schabas, William A. (eds.), International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY (2002), pp. 9–18Google Scholar
Tavernier, Paul, ‘The Experience of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda’, (1997) 321 International Review of the Red Cross605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowlland-Debbas, Vera, ‘Security Council Enforcement Action and Issues of State Responsibility’, (1994) 43 International Criminal Law Quarterly55Google Scholar
Oosthuizen, Gabriël H., ‘Playing Devil's Advocate: The United Nations Security Council Is Unbound by Law’, (1999) 12 Leiden Journal of International Law549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairlie, Megan, ‘The Marriage of Common and Continental Law at the ICTY and its Progeny: Due Process Deficit’, (2004) 4 International Criminal Law Review243, 260–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Virginia and Scharf, Michael P., An Insider's Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: A Documentary History and Analysis (1995), pp. 211–310
Robinson, Patrick L., ‘Ensuring Fair and Expeditious Trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, (2000) 11 European Journal of International Law569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundis, Daryl A., ‘From “Common Law” Towards “Civil Law”: The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damaška, Mirjan, ‘The Uncertain Fate of Evidentiary Transplants: Anglo-American and Contemporary Experiments’, (1997) 45 American Journal of Comparative Law839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulkens, Françoise, ‘Main Comparable Features of the Different European Criminal Justice Systems’, in Delmas-Marty, Mireille (ed.), The Criminal Process and Human Rights: Toward a European Consciousness (1995), p. 5Google Scholar
Schabas, William A., An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (3rd edn 2009), p. 12
Swart, Mia, ‘Ad Hoc Rules for Ad Hoc Tribunals? The Rule-Making Power of the Judges of the ICTY and ICTR’, (2002) 18 South African Journal of Human Rights570, 576–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Gideon, ‘Comparing the ICTY and the ICC: Some Procedural and Substantive Issues’, (2000) 47 Netherlands International Law Review267, 274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairlie, Megan, ‘Rulemaking from the Bench: A Place for Minimalism at the ICTY’, (2004) 39 Texas International Law Journal257, 261–262Google Scholar
Mundis, Daryl A., ‘The Legal Character and Status of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals’, (2001) 1 International Criminal Law Review191, 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, O-Gon, ‘The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the Bench’, (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice360, 363–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratner, Steven R., Abrams, Jason S., and Bischoff, James L., Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy (3rd edn 2009), p. 221
Cogan, Jacob Katz, ‘International Criminal Courts and Fair Trials: Difficulties and Prospects’, (2002) 27 Yale Journal of International Law134, 135Google Scholar
Boas, Gideon, The Milošević Trial: Lessons for the Conduct of International Criminal Proceedings (2007), pp. 65–69
Boas, Gideon, ‘The Case for a New Appellate Jurisdiction for International Criminal Law’, in Göran Sluiter and Sergey Vasiliev (eds.), International Criminal Procedure: Towards A Coherent Body of Law (2008), pp. 439–442Google Scholar
Boas, Gideon, Bischoff, James L., and Reid, Natalie L., Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law (2007), p. 26 n. 94 and cases refd therein
Boas, Gideon, Bischoff, James L., and Reid, Natalie L., Elements of Crimes Under International Law (2008) (‘Boas, Bischoff, and Reid, Elements of Crimes’), pp. 344–345
Kreß, Claus, ‘The Procedural Texts of the International Criminal Court’, (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice537, 537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, B. Don III, ‘Demystifying the Procedural Framework of the International Criminal Court: A Modest Proposal for Radical Revision’, in Carsten Stahn and Göran Sluiter (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (2009), pp. 755–756Google Scholar
Gurmendi, Silvia Fernández and Friman, Håkan, ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Regulations of the Court’, in José Doria, Hans-Peter Gasser, and M. Cherif Bassiouni (eds.), The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court (2009), pp. 797, 808Google Scholar
Broomhall, Bruce, ‘Article 51 Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, in Otto Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2nd edn 2008), pp. 1037–1039Google Scholar
Friman, Silvia A. Fernández de Gurmendi and Håkan, ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court’, (2000) 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law289, 290–291Google Scholar
McCormack, Timothy L.H. and Simpson, Gerry, ‘Achieving the Promise of Nuremberg: A New International Criminal Law Regime’, in Timothy L.H. McCormack and Gerry Simpson (eds.), The Law of War Crimes, National and International Approaches (1997), pp. 248–249
Cassese, Antonio, ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections’, (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law144, 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Hans-Jörg, ‘Article 52 Regulations of the Court’, in Otto Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers' Notes, Article by Article (1999), p. 683Google Scholar
Stahn, Carsten, ‘Modification of the Legal Characterization of Facts in the ICC System: A Portrayal of Regulation 55’, (2005) 16 Criminal Law Forum3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×