¹ The ICTY was founded by the UN Security Resolution 827, 25 May 1993.Google Scholar

² Cases before the ICTY, the ICTR on the international level and cases like Pinochet or Djajic and Jorgic at the national level.Google Scholar

³ Rome Statute UN Doc.A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998, available online at: http://www.icccpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf Google Scholar

⁴ The Rome Statute according to Art. 126 entered into force on 1 July 2002.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Zimmermann, Andreas/Kloth, Matthias, Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof sechs Jahre nach der Konferenz in Rom, in: Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 247 (2005).Google Scholar

⁶ Schabas, William A, Internationalized Courts and their Relationship with Alternative Accountability Mechanisms: The Case of Sierra Leone, in: Internationalized Criminal Courts 157-201 (Cesare Romano/André Nollkaemper/Jann Kleffner eds 2004).Google Scholar

⁷ See e.g. Scharf, Michael P., Is It International Enough? – A Critique Of The Iraqi Special Tribunal In Light Of The Goals Of International Justice, in: 2 J. Int. Criminal Justice 330 (2004); Yuval Shany, Does One Size Fit All? – Reading The Jurisdictional Provisions Of The New Iraqi Special Tribunal Statute In The Light Of The Statutes Of International Criminal Tribunals, in: 2 J. Int. Criminal Justice 338 (2004).Google Scholar

⁸ Kemmerer, See Alexandra, Like Ancient Beacons: The European Union and the ICC – Reflections on a Chapter of European Foreign Policy, 5 GLJ (2004) in this issue.Google Scholar

⁹ See e.g. Schabas, William A., United States Hostility To The International Criminal Court: It's All About The Security Council, in: 15 EJIL 701 (2004); Lee A. Casey, Assessments of the United States Position: The case against the International Criminal Court, in: 25 Fordham Int'l L.J. (2002), 840; Claus Kreß, Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und die USA, in: [2002] Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 1087.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Dugard, See John, Reconciliation and Justice: The South African Experience, 8 Transnat'l L. and Contemp. Probs 277 (1998); Ivan Simonovic, Dealing With The Legacy Of Past War Crimes And Human Rights Abuses – Experiences And Trends, 2 J. Int. Criminal Justice 701 (2004); Beth S. Lyons, Getting Untrapped, Struggling for Truths: The Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) in East Timor, in: Internationalized Criminal Courts 99-124 (Cesare Romano/André Nollkaemper/Jann Kleffner eds 2004); other similar attempts are being analysed by Priscilla Hayner, Fifteen Truth Commissions – 1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study, 16 Hum. Rts. Q 597 (1994).Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Jeßberger, Florian, Pinochet in Nürnberg: Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch und die Universalisierung der deutschen Strafrechtspflege, in: Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 124 at 125 (2005).Google Scholar

¹² How the European Court of Human Rights can operate to support the individual in his/her fight for recognition in the domestic system is described by Andrew Clapham, Revisiting Human Rights in the Private Sphere: Using the European Convention on Human Rights to Protect the Right of Access to the Civil Courts, in: Torture as Tort 513 (Craig Scott ed 2001).Google Scholar

¹³ Trial of German Major War Criminals (Goering et al.), International Military Tribunal in Nürnberg, Judgment and Sentence, 30 Sept and 1 Oct 1946; reprinted in: 41 AJIL 172, 173 (1947).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Clapham, See Andrew, Issues of complexity, complicity and complementarity, in: From Nuremberg to The Hague, 30 at 33 (Philippe Sands ed 2004).Google Scholar

¹⁵ The veil of state sovereignty therefore needs to be pierced, even if it is not totally abandoned; see Bruce Broomhall, International Justice & the International Criminal Court, 20-21 (2003). To loosen the strict ties between human rights law and states is also the meaning behind the redefinition of human rights as general principles of law by Philipp Alston/Bruno Simma, Sources of Human Rights: custom, jus cogens and general principles, in: 12 Australian Yb Int'l Law 82 (1992). In constitutional theory conformity with human rights is suggested by a growing number of authors as one of the pillars to legitimise statehood, i.e. sovereignty; see Jürgen Habermas, Die Einbeziehung des Anderen 165, 175 et subs. (1996); Jörg-Paul Müller, Föderalismus, Subsidiarität, Demokratie, in: Föderalismus-Prinzip und Wirklichkeit 41 et subs. (Max Vollkommer ed 1997).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Immanuel Kant, Vom Ewigen Frieden (1795).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ottfried Höffe, Vernunft und Recht. Bausteine zu einem interkulturellen Rechtsdiskurs 77 (1996) calls this a “transcendental exchange”.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Habermas, Jürgen, Kants Idee vom ewigen Frieden – aus dem historischen Abstand von zweihundert Jahren, in: Frieden durch Recht 7 at 20 (Matthias Lutz-Bachmann/James Bohmann eds 1996). A different approach is taken by Andreas Paulus, Die internationale Gemeinschaft (2001), who relies on a changing attitude amongst governments towards a more human being centred public international law, but does not attribute subjectivity to individuals. It is a mixed concept of an institutionalised international community, see Bruno Simma/Andreas Paulus, The “International Community”: Facing the Challenge of Globalization, in: 9 EJIL 266-277 (1998).Google Scholar

¹⁹ I have elaborated on this in greater debts in: The Justification of Punishment in International Criminal Law, in: 4 Austrian Review of Int'l and Europ. L. (1999), 126, at 153-156.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bothe, Compare Michael, Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte und des humanitären Völkerrechts, in: Die Rechtsstellung des Menschen im Völkerrecht 115 at 126 et subs. (Thilo Marauhn ed 2003) describes the shifting of international law from a legal concept for diplomats and other epistemic communities to the law of the civil society (Zivilgesellschaft).Google Scholar

²¹ According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) criminal prosecution is a human right corollary: “This obligation [the protection of the right to life, CS] extends beyond a primary duty to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person backed up by law enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions”, ECHR Pretty v. United Kingdom, 29 April 2002, Nr. 2346/02 § 38; see ECHR L.C.B. v. United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III p. 1403 § 36; McCann et al. v. United Kingdom, 27 Sept. 1995, Series A No. 324, § 161; Grams v. Germany Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-VII, p. 401; Ogur v. Turkey Reports 1999-III; Orphan v. Turkey Nr. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, §§ 333-348.Google Scholar

²² See e.g. Felix Herzog, Gesellschaftliche Unsicherheiten und strafrechtliche Daseinsvorsorge. Studien zur Vorverlegung des Strafrechtsschutzes in den Gefährdungsbereich 54 (1990).Google Scholar

²³ The danger of a more and more repressive system is elaborated on by several authors; most explicit in particular as regards the European criminal law endeavours the recent work of Peter-Alexis Albrecht, Die vergessene Freiheit (2003), English translation: The forgotten Freedom, September 11 as a challenge for European Legal Principles (2003); a decline in democratic legitimacy of penal law is also observed by Franz Streng, Probleme der Strafrechtsgeltung und –anwendung in einem Europa ohne Grenzen, in: Strafrecht und Kriminalität in Europa 142-164 (F. Zieschang/E. Hilgendorf/K, Laubenthal eds 2003).Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Jesús-María Silva Sánchez, Die Expansion des Strafrechts. Kriminalpolitik in Postindustriellen Gesellschaften 20-25 (2003).Google Scholar

²⁵ Germany has seen a soaring rise in the prosecution of top CEOs or politicians; one of the biggest was the criminal case brought against former executives of the telecommunications giant, Mannesmann, before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Düsseldorf, (published in 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3275 (2004): see for a concise history of the case and its international relevance Peter Kolla, The Mannesmann Trial and the Role of the Courts, in: 5 German Law Journal No. 7 (1 July 2004), 829-847; see also Max Philipp Rolshoven, The Last Word? – The July 22, 2004 Acquittals in the Mannesmann Trial, 5 German Law Journal No. 8 (1 August 2004), 935–940 see furthermore, Joachim Jahn, ‘Lehren aus dem “Mannesmann-Fall“', in 37 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 179 (2004), Financial Times, 15 January 2004, p. 11; see also Rönnau/Hohn, Die Festsetzung (zu) hoher Vorstandsvergütung durch den Aufsichtsrat – ein Fall für die Staatsanwaltschaft?, in 24 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 113 (2004); the US government found itself forced to react to growing misbehaviour of corporate executives by implementing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; hereto, see Jennifer S. Recine, Examination of the white collar crime penalty enhancements in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in: 39 Am. Crim. Law Rev. 1535-1570 (2002); Roland Hefendehl, Enron, Worldcom und die Folgen: Das Wirtschaftsstrafrecht zwischen kriminalpolitischen Erwartungen und dogmatischen Erfordernissen, in: 59 Juristenzeitung 18 (2004).Google Scholar

²⁶ The process at the ICJ initiated by the UN General Assembly as to the legality of nuclear weapons is another example of the attempt of the civil society to bring about their idea of peace and security; ICJ Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, Legality of the Treat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Reports 1996, see Christoph Safferling, Die Atomwaffe unter der Antarktis, in: 40 Neue Zeitschrift für Wehrrecht 177 (1998), with further references.Google Scholar

²⁷ See, e.g. Kaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (2003).Google Scholar

²⁸ The crime of aggression awaits a compromise in definition; according to Art. 5 § 2 of the Rome Statute jurisdiction over the crime of aggression by the ICC rests until such definition is found. As to the definition of the crime of aggression, see Richard L. Griffiths, International Law, the Crime of Aggression and the Ius Ad Bellum, in: 2 International Criminal Law Review 301–373 (2002) and Irina Kaye Müller-Schieke, Defining the Crime of Aggression Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court', 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 409–430 (2001); however, a definition of the crime of aggression should not be expected soon, see Andreas Zimmermann/Matthias Kloth, Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof sechs Jahre nach der Konferenz in Rom, in: Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 247 (2005).Google Scholar

²⁹ See Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law 120-131 (2003), who writes in favour of a common definition of terrorism as a criminal law and Bruce Broomhall, International Justice & the International Criminal Court 39-40 (2003), who is more critical in this regard.Google Scholar

³⁰ Musacchio, See Vincenzo, Migration, Prostitution and Trafficking in Women: An Overview, in: 5 German Law Journal 1015 (2004).Google Scholar

³¹ Dinstein, Yoram, International Criminal Law, in: 20 Israel Law Review (1985), 206 counts as many as 22 crimes of international character.Google Scholar

³² Art. 123 of the Rome Statute is explicit about the fact, that the Member states may well extend the jurisdiction of the ICC to crimes beyond those mentioned in the Statute to this point.Google Scholar

³³ Clapham, see Andrew, Issues of complexity, complicity and complementarity, in: From Nuremberg to The Hague 30 at 47 (Philippe Sands ed 2004).Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Satzger, Helmuth, Die Internationalisierung des Strafrechts als Herausforderung für den strafrechtlichen Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz, in: 24 Juristische Schulung 943 (2004) addresses this problem and finds that war crimes in particular is criminal law addressing military experts (so called Expertenstrafrecht). These professionals can be expected to know the prohibitions.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Article 32 § 2 Rome Statute; although the general rule is in accordance with the Anglo-American tradition ignorantia iuris not excusat, a mistake of law is notwithstanding accepted as an excuse, if it negates the mental element required by the prohibition. The English practice in this regard shows that a wide interpretation is possible; see e.g. House of Lords Brutus v. Cozens [1972] 2 All ER 1297, and R. v. Smith DR [1974] 1 All ER 632; Privy Council in the case Beckford v. R. [1987] 3 All ER 411; therefore I consider Kai Ambos, Der Allgemeine Teil des Völkerstrafrecht 817-819 (2002) to hold a too pessimistic view of the concept of mistake of law.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Bassiouni, Cherif M., in: International Criminal Law Vol. I 3, 271 (Cherif M. Bassiouni ed 1986); Hans Vest, Genozid durch organisatorische Machtapparate 60-64 (2002); Gerhard Werle, Völkerstrafrecht MN 195 (2003); see also as to national trials concerning crimes conducted on the territory of former Yugoslavia in Germany: Cristina Hoß/Russell Miller, German Federal Constitutional Court and Bosnian War Crimes, in: 44 GYIL 576 (2001).Google Scholar

³⁷ Vest, see Hans, Genozid durch organisatorische Machtapparate 58-60 (2002). Some critics – US American writers in particular – deny universality, cf. Lee A. Casey, Assessments of the United States Position: The case against the International Criminal Court, in 25 Fordham Int'l L.J., 840 at 854-58 (2002);Google Scholar

³⁸ Zimmermann, See Andreas/Kloth, Matthias, Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof sechs Jahre nach der Konferenz in Rom, in: Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 247, 251 (2005); e.g. Germany has adopted a Code of International Crimes, so called Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, 26 June 2002, BGBl 2002 I, 2254; see Andreas Zimmermann, Implementing the Statute of the ICC: The German Example, in: Man's Inhumanity to Man 977-994 (L.C. Vohrah et al eds 2003); Christoph Safferling, Germany's Adoption of an International Criminal Code, in: 1 The Annual of German&European Law [AGEL] 549 (2003); an English language version of this Code is reprinted in 1 AGEL 1061 (2003).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Preamble and Art. 17 of the Rome Statute.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The conditions of the complementarity principle are discussed in great detail by Jörg Meißner, Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof nach dem Römischen Statute 75-89 (2003), as well as by John T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC, in: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Vol. I 667 at 674-678 (Antonio Cassese/Paola Gaeta/John R.W.D. Jones eds 2002).Google Scholar

⁴¹ It would also be possible that national authorities ask the international prosecutor to investigate and prosecute. This would fall within the category of a national government unwilling to prosecute. It can also mean that international relations demand, that no national prosecution takes place. The ICJ has vested government officials with immunity before national courts as long as they act in their official capacity; see ICJ Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium), 14 February 2002, compare Claus Kreß, Der Internationale Gerichtshof im Spannungsfeld von Völkerstrafrecht und Immunitätschutz, 150 Gold. Archiv, 25 (2003); Micaela Frulli, The ICJ Judgement on the Belgium v. Congo Case (14 February 2002): a Cautious Stand on Immunity from Prosecution for International Crimes, in 3 GLJ No. 3 (2003); Steffen Wirth, Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ's Judgment in the Congo v. Beglium case, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L 877 (2002).Google Scholar

⁴² Liszt, Franz v., Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht, in 3 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 1 at 45 (1883), who states, that state punishment is an abstraction and objectification of revenge as a primitive form of sentence; the original intention, however, remains the same.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Jesús-María Silva Sánchez, Die Expansion des Strafrechts 36 with fn. 117 (2003)Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. Andrew. v. Hirsch, Censure and Sanctions (1993).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cornelius Prittwitz, Strafrecht und Risiko 107 et subs., 378 et subs. (1993). describes the growing tendency in society to view a catastrophe as a crime for which a responsible person can and must be found.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 11 December 1948, 78 UNTS (1951), pp. 277–323.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Preamble of Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, reprinted in 2 AJIL (1908) Supplement pp. 90–117. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Protocols of 1977 built on these ideas.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ This was made clear e.g. in the talks between the then Federal Chancellor of Germany Konrad Adenauer and the then President of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, Nahum Goldmann, see Peter Heuss, Ein Blick auf die Arbeit der Jewish Claims Conference, in NS-Forced Labor: Remembrance and Responsibility 293 (Peer Zumbansen ed 2002).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ This may sound more obvious than it actually is. Sometimes, victims would rather want a decent excuse or would collectively reject money as a means to compensate; during the fight for compensation for forced labor against the German industry, the Jewish claimants were not always like-minded on this issue; see e.g. Ulrich Adamheit, “Jetzt wird die deutsche Wirtschaft von ihrer Geschichte eingeholt“ 373 (2004).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Not much research has been done in this field. What effect does mass victimisation have on the persecuted group? What are the long term effects on children suffering from persecution and war? Are the feeling of resentment also transferred to the next generation? See Uwe Ewald/Constanze v. Oppeln, War – Victimization – Security: The Case of the Former Yugoslavia, in: 10 European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 39 (2002); Christina Möller, Völkerstrafrecht und Internationaler Strafgerichtshof – kriminologische, straftheoretische und rechtspolitische Aspekte (2003); Christoph Safferling, Das Opfer völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen, in: 115 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 352 (2003).Google Scholar

⁵¹ It is maybe unusual to point to the offenders as well, but also the torturer and the torturer's sons will have to live with history.Google Scholar

⁵² See e.g. Streng, Franz, Schuld ohne Freiheit? Der funktionale Schuldbegriff auf dem Prüfstand, in: 101 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 273 (1989). The US American society is deeply troubled by recent cases, where it could be proven by a new evaluation of evidence by modern technical methods that convicts were actually not guilty of the crime they had been convicted for; see recently Tresa Baldas, Innocence Projects Are Multiplying and Changing the Law, in: The National Law Journal, 4 Oct. 2004.Google Scholar

⁵³ Thus is the hope expressed by Kofi Annan, Verhütung von Völkermord, in: Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 259, 262 (2005).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ International criminal prosecution had to solve this conflict from the very beginning on. At the ICTY the question of anonymity of witnesses for the prosecution caused trouble and necessitated a whole set of decisions; see e.g. Christoph Safferling, Towards an International Criminal Procedure 226-239, 283-288 (2003); and in greater detail as concerns the Rules and the position of the victim at the ICC, see Christoph Safferling, Das Opfer völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen, in: 115 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 352 (2003) with further references.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The literature in this context fills libraries. A summary together with detailed references can be found to name but two with Franz Streng, Strafrechtliche Sanktionen MN 21-25 (2^nd ed., 2002); Claus Roxin, Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil Vol. 1 § 3 MN 21-32 (3^rd ed., 1997). A German-English critical dialog on the issue is documented by Positive Generalprävention (Bernd Schünemann/Andrew v. Hirsch/Nils Jareborg eds 1996).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Hilter is reported to have pointed to the Turkish massacre against the Armenians in 1917 in order to buttress the international apathy towards criminal prosecution of offences like these; see Antonio Cassese, Reflections on International Criminal Justice, in: 16 Modern Law Rev 1, 2 (1998); critical also as to the sporadic prosecution: David Wippman, Atrocities, Deterrence, and the Limits of International Justice, in: 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. (1999) 473.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See e.g. Franz Streng, Strafrechtliche Sanktionen MN 53-60 (2^nd ed., 2002).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Nevertheless also Art. 1 of the Genocide Convention puts prevention and punishment side by side.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ A strong argument in favour of a statistical significance of the probability to be caught and convicted is made by Henning Curti, Zur Abschreckungswirkung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Eine empirische Untersuchung, in; Die Präventivwirkung zivil- und strafrechtlicher Sanktionen 71-94 (Claus Ott/Hans-Bernd Schäfer eds 1999); more sceptical Franz Streng, Strafrechtliche Sanktionen MN 59 (2^nd ed., 2002).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ The ongoing debate whether capital punishment has a substantial deterrent effect is of no general interest here, because in international criminal law, the death penalty is no option. It is however important to note that even for the most severe and ultimate penalty no conclusive empirical proof exist that it actually deters people from offending, cf. recently Lisa Stolzenberg&Stewart J D'Alessio, Capital punishment, execution publicity and murder in Houston, Texas, in: 94 J. Crim. Law&Criminology 351-379 (2004).Google Scholar

⁶¹ “Hate crimes” are crimes which are conducted with a higher degree of contempt towards the victim than in ordinary crimes, cf. Christina Möller, Völkerstrafrecht und Internationaler Strafgerichtshof – kriminologische, straftheoretische und rechtspolitische Aspekte 286-288 (2003); Paul Roberts, Nesam McMillan, For Criminology In International Criminal Justice, in: 1 J Int Criminal Justice 315 (2003); in national law hate crimes are mostly race or gender related, see Hans-Joachim Schneider, Kriminologie der Gewalt 43 (1994).Google Scholar

⁶² As concerns the genocide in Rwanda, see José E. Alvarez, Crimes of States/Crimes of Hate: Lessons from Rwanda, 24 Yale Journal of International Law 365 (1999).Google Scholar

⁶³ Bothe, Michael, Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte und des humanitären Völkerrechts, in: Die Rechtsstellung des Menschen im Völkerrecht 115 at 128 (Thilo Marauhn ed 2003).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ This was e.g. already noted by Ludwig v. Bar, Geschichte des deutschen Strafrechts und der Strafrechtstheorien 343 (1882); see also Peer Zumbansen, Globalization and the Law: Deciphering the Message of Transnational Human Rights Litigation, in this issue.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ According to Pamela Karlan, the term was coined by Judge Jerome Frank in 1943 in the case Associated Industries v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694, 704 (2d Cir. 1943) “to prevent [a government] official from acting in violation of his statutory powers”; see Pamela S. Karlan, Disarming the private attorney general, in: [2002] Univ. Ill. Law Rev., 183 at 186. A fairly early example for a “private attorney general” taking action against another private actor can be seen in the discrimination case in the US Supreme Court Case Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises 390 U.S. 400 (1968)Google Scholar

⁶⁶ This is every day practice in US courts, while it is fairly unknown and even considered unfair in other jurisdictions; e.g. the German Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) has always decided against accepting punitive damages for execution in Germany, see BGH, 45 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3096 (1992); Heribert Hirte, ‘Spielt das amerikanische Rechtssystem verrückt?', in: 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2002), 345.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ The notion of the growing market in insurance does not seems to have any consequences on human rights litigation. Even if it is true that the possibility to insure any risk alters the status of civil law, as e.g. claimed by J. Simon, The Emergence of a Risk Society: Insurance, Law, and the State, 95 Socialist Review 61, 73 et subs. (1987), the insurance concept fails when it comes to intentional or gross negligent behaviour on the side of the defendant.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ An introduction to human rights litigation is given by, Michael Swan, International Human Rights Tort Claims and the Experience of United States Courts: An Introduction to the US Case Law, Key Statutes and Doctrines, in: Torture as Tort 65-107 (Craig Scott ed 2001) and John Terry, Taking Filártiga on the Road: Why Courts Outside the United States Should Accept Jurisdiction Over Actions Involving Torture Committed Abroad, ibid. 109-133. A positive view concerning civil prosecution from a German perspective is given by Susanne Walther, Menschlichkeitsverbrechen vor amerikanischen Gerichten. Ein Übersetzungsversuch', in: 151 Gold Archiv 390-401 (2004); a short introduction is provided by Steven Ratner & Jason Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law 240-248 (2^nd ed., 2001).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See e.g. Kadiz v. Karadzic 70 F.3d 232, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2d Cir. 13 October 1995; see also Theodore Posner, in: 90 AJIL (1996), 658, and Zumbansen, supra, note 64Google Scholar

⁷⁰ As to English law, see Smith/Hogan, Criminal Law 201-208 (10th ed., 2002); from a German and comparative perspective see Roland Hefendehl, Kriminalitätstheorien und empirisch nachweisbare Funktionen der Strafe: Argumente für oder wider die Etablierung einer Unternehmensstrafbarkeit?, in: 86 Monatsschrift Kriminologie 27-43 (2003).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Former high ranking politicians of the GDR have been held responsible for the killings at the Berlin Wall because they failed to take active steps to lift the order to prevent boarder trespassing with all means in the national security council and the party council; 48 BGHSt 77 upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court, Bundesverfassungsgericht, in 95 BVerfGE 96 and ECHR. Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany, Judgment of 22 March 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-II.Google Scholar

⁷² See The Federalist No. 78, at 465 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed 1961).Google Scholar

⁷³ See for a critical analysis, Libby Adler & Peer Zumbansen, ‘The Forgetfulness of Noblesse: A Critique of the German Foundation Law Compensating Slave and Forced Laborers of the Third Reich', in: 39 Harvard Journal on Legislation 1-61 (2002), reprinted in NS-Forced Labor: Remembrance and Responsibility 333-392 (Peer Zumbansen ed 2002); see also Christoph Safferling, Zwangsarbeiterentschädigung und Grundgesetz, in: 34 Kritische Justiz 208-221 (2001).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Bank, See Roland, Die Leistungen an NS-Zwangsarbeiter durch die Stiftung “Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft”, in: Die Rechtsstellung des Menschen im Völkerrecht 83 at p. 114 (Thilo Marauhn ed 2003).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The ICTY entertains offices in Sarajevo and Zagreb as well as in Pristina (Kosovo) and Belgrade. The so called “outreach programme” which is financed by donations aims at making the work of the Tribunal known in the states which are affected by the trials the most. ICTY 10^th Annual Report, UN Doc. A/58/297-S/2003/829, §§ 278-287Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cf. Bothe, Michael, Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte und des humanitären Völkerrechts, in: Die Rechtsstellung des Menschen im Völkerrecht 115 at 128 (Thilo Marauhn ed 2003).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Cf. Zimmermann, Andreas, Role and Function of International Criminal Law in the International System After the Entry into Force of the Rome Statute of the ICC, in: 45 GYIL 35 at 49-54 (2002).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Jesus-Maria Silva Sanchez, Die Expansion des Strafrechts 14 et subs. (2003) for the development of national criminal law.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Akhavan, Payam, Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities? in: 95 AJIL 7 at 30 (2001).Google Scholar