Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T06:51:35.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

International Criminal Law and Customary Law for Punishment of the Perpetrators of International Crimes in South Sudan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2023

Kuel Jok*
Affiliation:
Dr John Garang Memorial University, Bor Town, Jongle State, South Sudan

Abstract

The article examines how to address the report of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan, which accuses the Government of South Sudan and the rebels of committing “crimes against humanity” and violating “international humanitarian law” in the war of December 2013. The Commission recommends “an Africa-led, Africa-owned, Africa-resourced legal mechanism, under the aegis of the African Union and with support from the United Nations, to bring those with the greatest responsibility at the highest level to accountability” in a court. Second, the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan asked for establishing a hybrid court in South Sudan to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of “genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”. The Cabinet of South Sudan approved, in its resolution on 29 January 2021, the establishment of the court. On the other hand, the Government of South Sudan rejected accountability for the perpetrators of international crimes in its resolution at the Transition Justice Conference and recommended “amnesty” for those admitting the commission of international crimes in Juba, Malakal, Bor and Bentiu. The research findings show that amnesty threatens peace and security because customary law rejects amnesty. Its implementation generates systematic vengeance from the clan of those killed. The research recommends the establishment of a hybrid court that adopts the complementarity principle in compatibility with the African customary law of blood compensation. The authoritative national criminal courts in South Sudan omit capital punishment on the grounds that (a) killer(s) pay(s) blood compensation, apok or cot, to the survivors of (a) killed person(s) with 51 cattle. The payment changes the penalties of life imprisonment, which international criminal law imposes on the perpetrators of international crimes and the death penalty, which African criminal law imposes on the confirmed killer(s). Finally, the tribunal imposes 10-year terms of imprisonment on the confirmed perpetrators of international crimes.

Abstracto

Abstracto

El artículo examina cómo abordar el informe de la Comisión de Investigación de la Unión Africana sobre Sudán del Sur, que acusa al Gobierno de Sudán del Sur y a los rebeldes de cometer “Crímenes contra la humanidad” y violar el “derecho internacional humanitario” en la guerra de diciembre de 2013. La Comisión recomienda “un mecanismo legal liderado por África, de propiedad de África y con recursos de África, bajo la égida de la Unión Africana y con el apoyo de las Naciones Unidas, para que aquellos con la mayor responsabilidad al más alto nivel rindan cuentas” en una Corte. En segundo lugar, el Acuerdo sobre la Resolución del Conflicto en la República de Sudán del Sur pide el establecimiento de un Tribunal Híbrido en Sudán del Sur para investigar y enjuiciar a los autores de “genocidio, crímenes de lesa humanidad y crímenes de guerra”. El Gabinete de Sudán del Sur aprobó, en su resolución del 29 de enero de 2021, el establecimiento de la Corte. Por otro lado, el Gobierno de Sudán del Sur rechaza la responsabilidad de los perpetradores de crímenes internacionales en su resolución de la Conferencia de Justicia de Transición y recomienda “amnistía” para quienes admitan la comisión de crímenes internacionales en Juba, Malakal, Bor y Bentiu. Los resultados de la investigación muestran que la amnistía amenaza la paz y la seguridad porque el derecho consuetudinario rechaza la amnistía. Su implementación genera una venganza sistemática del clan de los asesinados. La investigación recomienda el establecimiento de una Corte Híbrida que adopte el principio de complementariedad en compatibilidad con el Derecho Consuetudinario Africano de compensación de sangre. Los tribunales penales nacionales competentes en Sudán del Sur omiten la pena capital con base en que (un) asesino(s) paga(n) compensación de sangre, apok o cot, a los sobrevivientes de (a) persona(s) asesinada(s) con 51 cabezas de ganado. El pago cambia las penas de cadena perpetua, que impone el derecho penal internacional a los autores de crímenes internacionales, y la pena de muerte, que impone el derecho penal africano a los asesinos confirmados. Finalmente, el Tribunal impone penas de prisión de 10 años a los autores confirmados de crímenes internacionales.

Abstrait

Abstrait

L’article examine comment aborder le rapport de la Commission d’enquête de l’Union africaine sur le Soudan du Sud, qui accuse le gouvernement du Soudan du Sud et les rebelles d’avoir commis des “crimes contre l’humanité” et d’avoir violé le “droit international humanitaire” lors de la guerre de décembre 2013. La Commission recommande “un mécanisme juridique dirigé par l’Afrique, appartenant à l’Afrique et financé par l’Afrique, sous lʼégide de l’Union africaine et avec le soutien des Nations Unies, pour amener ceux qui ont la plus grande responsabilité au plus haut niveau à rendre des comptes” dans un tribunal. Deuxièmement, l’Accord sur la résolution du conflit en République du Soudan du Sud demande la création d’un tribunal hybride au Soudan du Sud pour enquêter et poursuivre les auteurs de « génocide, crimes contre l’humanité et crimes de guerre ». Le Cabinet du Soudan du Sud a approuvé, dans sa résolution du 29 janvier 2021, la création de la Cour. D’autre part, le gouvernement du Soudan du Sud rejette la responsabilité des auteurs de crimes internationaux dans sa résolution de la Conférence sur la justice transitionnelle et recommande « l’amnistie » pour ceux qui admettent la commission de crimes internationaux à Juba, Malakal, Bor et Bentiu. Les résultats de la recherche montrent que l’amnistie menace la paix et la sécurité parce que le droit coutumier rejette l’amnistie. Sa mise en œuvre génère une vengeance systématique du clan des personnes tuées. La recherche recommande la création de la Cour hybride qui adopte le principe de complémentarité en compatibilité avec le droit coutumier africain de l’indemnisation du sang. Les tribunaux pénaux nationaux faisant autorité au Soudan du Sud omettent la peine capitale au motif qu’un (des) tueur (s) paie (nt) une indemnité de sang, apok ou cot, aux survivants d’une (des) personne (s) tuée (s) avec 51 bovins. Le paiement modifie les peines d’emprisonnement à perpétuité, que le droit pénal international impose aux auteurs de crimes internationaux et la peine de mort, que le droit pénal africain impose au(x) meurtrier(s) confirmé(s). Enfin, le Tribunal impose des peines de 10 ans d’emprisonnement aux auteurs confirmés de crimes internationaux.

抽象的

抽象的

本文探讨了如何应对非洲联盟南苏丹调查委员会的报告,该报告指责南苏丹政府和叛军在 2013 年 12 月的战争中犯下“危害人类罪”并违反“国际人道主义法”。委员会建议“建立一个由非洲主导、非洲所有、非洲提供资源的法律机制,在非洲联盟的支持下并在联合国的支持下,在最高层追究那些负有最大责任的人的责任”。法庭。 其次,⟪解决南苏丹共和国冲突协议⟫要求在南苏丹设立混合法院,调查并起诉“种族灭绝罪、反人类罪和战争罪”的肇事者。 南苏丹内阁在2021年1月29日的决议中批准设立法院。 另一方面,南苏丹政府在过渡时期司法会议决议中拒绝追究国际罪行实施者的责任,并建议对那些承认在朱巴、马拉卡勒、博尔和本提乌犯下国际罪行的人进行“大赦”。 研究结果表明,特赦威胁和平与安全,因为习惯法拒绝特赦。 它的实施引起了被害者部落的系统性报复。 研究建议设立混合法院,采用与非洲血液赔偿习惯法相一致的补充原则。 南苏丹权威的国家刑事法院免除死刑,理由是凶手向拥有 51 头牛的被害人的幸存者支付血液补偿金、apok 或 cot。 这笔付款改变了国际刑法对国际犯罪者判处的无期徒刑和非洲刑法对已确认的凶手判处的死刑。 最后,法庭对已确认的国际罪行实施者判处十年监禁。

خلاصة

خلاصة

تتناول المقالة كيفية معالجة تقرير لجنة التحقيق التابعة للاتحاد الأفريقي بشأن جنوب السودان ، التي تتهم حكومة جنوب السودان والمتمردين بارتكاب “جرائم ضد الإنسانية” وانتهاك “القانون الإنساني الدولي” في حرب ديسمبر 2013. وتوصي المفوضية “بآلية قانونية تقودها أفريقيا ، ومملوكة لأفريقيا ، ومزودة بموارد من أفريقيا ، تحت رعاية الاتحاد الأفريقي وبدعم من الأمم المتحدة ، لتقديم أولئك الذين يتحملون أكبر قدر من المسؤولية على أعلى مستوى للمساءلة” في محكمة. ثانيًا ، يطالب اتفاق حل النزاع في جمهورية جنوب السودان بإنشاء محكمة مختلطة في جنوب السودان للتحقيق مع مرتكبي “الإبادة الجماعية والجرائم ضد الإنسانية وجرائم الحرب” ومقاضاتهم. ووافق مجلس وزراء جنوب السودان في قراره بتاريخ 29/1/2021 على إنشاء المحكمة. من ناحية أخرى ، ترفض حكومة جنوب السودان مساءلة مرتكبي الجرائم الدولية في قرارها الصادر عن مؤتمر العدالة الانتقالية ، وتوصي “بالعفو” عن أولئك الذين يعترفون بارتكاب جرائم دولية في جوبا وملكال وبور وبانتيو. تظهر نتائج البحث أن العفو يهدد السلم والأمن لأن القانون العرفي يرفض العفو. ويولد تنفيذه انتقامًا منهجيًا من عشيرة القتلى. يوصي البحث بإنشاء المحكمة المختلطة التي تتبنى مبدأ التكامل بما يتوافق مع القانون العرفي الأفريقي لتعويض الدم. تلغي المحاكم الجنائية الوطنية الرسمية في جنوب السودان عقوبة الإعدام على أساس أن (أ) القاتل (القتلة) يدفعون تعويضات الدم ، أبوك أو سرير ، للناجين من (أ) قتيل (أشخاص) مع 51 رأسًا من الماشية. يغير الدفع عقوبات السجن المؤبد ، التي يفرضها القانون الجنائي الدولي على مرتكبي الجرائم الدولية وعقوبة الإعدام ، التي يفرضها القانون الجنائي الأفريقي على القاتل (القتلة) المؤكدين. أخيرًا ، تفرض المحكمة أحكامًا بالسجن لمدة عشر سنوات على من ثبت ارتكابهم جرائم دولية.

Type
Article
Copyright
© International Society of Criminology, 2023

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

Amnesty International. 2022. “South Sudan: African Union’s Abandoned Commitment to Justice in Africa: The Case of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan.” Amnesty International, 23 November 2022, retrieved 2 August 2023 (https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr65/6196/2022/en/).Google Scholar
Apuuli, Kasaija Phillip. 2022. “The Establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan and the Special Criminal Court for the Central African Republic: Challenges and Prospects.” Pp. 357–94 in National Accountability for International Crimes in Africa, edited by Emma Charlene Lubaale and Ntombizozuko Dyani-Mhango. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan. 2014. Final Report of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan, Addis Ababa, 15 October 2014, retrieved 2 August 2023 (https://reliefweb.int/report/south-sudan/final-report-african-union-commission-inquiry-south-sudan#:∼:text=The%20findings%20and%20recommendations%20contained,building%20a%20strong%20state%2C%20systems).Google Scholar
Bassiouni, M Cherif. 1992. Crimes Against Humanity in International Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Demleitner, Nora V. 2014. Types of Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Roy. 1976. “Britain and the Armenian Question, 1894–7.” The Historical Journal 19(1):113–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dundas, Charles C. 1921. “Native Laws of Some Bantu Tribes of East Africa.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 51:217–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1951. “Some Features and Forms of Nuer Sacrifices.” Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 21(2):112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evens, T. M. S. 1985. “The Paradox of Nuer Feud and the Leopard-Skin Chief: A ‘Creative’ Solution to the Prisoner’s Dilemma.” American Ethnologist 12(1):84102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannelli, Paul C. 1978. “Credibility of Witnesses.” Case Western Reserve University, School of Law Faculty Publications, No. 399. December 1978, retrieved 21 July 2023 (https//scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/facultypublications/399).Google Scholar
Gluckman, Max. 1965. The Ideas in Barotse Jurisprudence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. 2008. “Organized Violence in the Rift Valley.” March 2008, retrieved 18 July 2023 (https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/kenya0308/8.htm).Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. 2014. “South Sudan: Ethnic Targeting, Widespread Killings. Civilian Protection, Independent Inquiry Needed.” Human Rights Watch, 16 January 2014, retrieved 2 August 2023 (https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/16/south-sudan-ethnic-targeting-widespread-killings).Google Scholar
International Criminal Court. 2011. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Hague: International Criminal Court. Retrieved 2 August 2023 (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf).Google Scholar
International Criminal Court. 2023. “The States Parties to the Rome Statute.” Retrieved 2 August 2023 (https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties).Google Scholar
Jok, Kuel M. 2023. “Violation of the Constitutional Law and International Provisions in the Dismissal of Justices and Judges from South Sudan Judicial Pillar.” African Journal of International and Comparative Law 31(1):114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, R. 2014. “Ritual Formation of Peaceful Publics: Sacrifice and Syncretism in South Sudan (1991–2005).” Journal of Religion in Africa 44(3–4):386410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostenko, R. V. and Rudin, A.. 2018. “Notion and Meaning of Evidence Verification in Criminal Procedure.” Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 9(3):1011–17.Google Scholar
MacCormack, Geoffrey. 1973. “Revenge and Compensation in Early Law.” American Journal of Comparative Law 21(1):6985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, James E. and Beck-Dudley, Caryn L.. 1994. “Are Deontology and Teleology Mutually Exclusively?Journal of Business Ethics 13(8):615–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClean, David and Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Veronica. 2016. Morris: The Conflict of Laws, 9th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
McEvoy, Kieran and Mallinder, Louise. 2012. “Amnesties in Transition: Punishment, Restoration, and the Governance of Mercy.” Journal of Law and Society 39(3):410–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miethe, Terance D. and Lu, Hong. 2005. Punishment: A Comparative Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plate, Liedeke. 2016. “Kinesiology: Towards the Study of Cultural Oblivion.” Memory Studies 9(2):143–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamazuj, Radio. 2023. “Transitional Justice Conference Recommends Protection of Victims, Amnesty for Admission of Crimes.” Radio Tamazuj, 19 May 2023, retrieved 2 August 2023 (https://radiotamazuj.org/en/news/article/transitional-justice-conference-recommends-amnesty-for-admission-of-crimes-protection-of-victims).Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1895] 1762. The Social Contract. Tranlated by H. J. Tozer. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.Google Scholar
Trump White House Archives. 2017. “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States.” 6 March 2017, retrieved 2 August 2023 (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states-2/).Google Scholar
Tunick, Mark. 1992. Punishment: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twining, William. 2013. “Francis Deng on Dinka Culture and Human Rights.” VRÜ Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 46(2):197214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNHCR. 2023. “High Commissioner Addresses Conference for Transitional Justice in South Sudan.” 21 February 2023, retrieved 2 August 2023 (https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2023/02/high-commissioner-addresses-conference-transitional-justice-south).Google Scholar
Valarezo, Andrés Cervantes. 2019. Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wild, Hannah, Madut Jok, Jok, and Patel, Ronak. 2018. “The Militarization of Cattle Raiding in South Sudan: How a Traditional Practice Became a Tool for Political Violence.” Journal of International Humanitarian Action 3(2). Retrieved 17 July 2023 (https://jhumanitarianaction.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41018-018-0030-y).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Jacqueline H. 2014. Local Peace Processes in Sudan and South Sudan. Washington, DC: United States Peace Institute.Google Scholar