No presenta resumen

Following American legal sources, I argue that the use of the reasonable person standard in criminal law is inaccurate and unfair, and, therefore, inconvenient to evaluate human behaviour based on three arguments which address flaws of the standard under analysis. Firstly, this standard is  by definition  abstract, theoretical  and  general, not  reflecting appropriately the person’s sensory and ideational perception of the situation. Secondly, the trend in American legislation and case-law is to apply, in criminal cases, e.g., self-defence, a hybrid criterion, which consists in the consideration of a person’s belief and the correspondence of such a belief to what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances, as opposed to a purely objective standard. The principle of individual criminal culpability underlies this.&n...

No description

Within their different mandates, the ICJ and the ICC have decided on compensation for mass atrocities, including the same factual scenarios and related dual state/individual responsibility. However, no publication has examined these developments jointly and comparatively. Thus, this article seeks to determine how both courts are and should be developing compensation jurisprudence on mass atrocity cases. This article suggests that these two courts should construe a coherent, principle-based, and human rights-oriented international law of compensation for mass atrocities. Despite the differences in the compensation law and practice of the ICJ and the ICC, there are common elements such as the violation of an international obligation (wrongful act/international crime), damages, and the causal link between them. There are also some similarities concerning compensation goals, proof matters, a...

Following American legal sources, I argue that the use of the reasonable person standard in criminal law is inaccurate and unfair, and, therefore, inconvenient to evaluate human behaviour based on three arguments which address flaws of the standard under analysis. Firstly, this standard is by definition abstract, theoretical and general, not reflecting appropriately the person’s sensory and ideational perception of the situation. Secondly, the trend in American legislation and case-law is to apply, in criminal cases, e.g., self-defence, a hybrid criterion, which consists in the consideration of a person’s belief and the correspondence of such a belief to what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances, as opposed to a purely objective standard. The principle of individual criminal culpability underlies this. Thirdly, the reasonable person standard imposes a sort of maj...

No presenta resumen

El artículo no presenta resumen.

Una de las instituciones jurídicas que se puede considerar como característica del derecho internacional contemporáneo -en general- y del derecho penal internacional actual -en particular- es la responsabilidad internacional del individuo generada por crímenes de Derecho Internacional. En tal sentido, podemos afirmar que a diferencia del Derecho Internacional clásico, fundado básicamente en relaciones interestatales, el Derecho Internacional actual tiene como uno de sus objetivos fundamentales la lucha contra la impunidad, al sancionar a los perpetradores de los más serios crímenes internacionales, conductas que vulneran gravemente los intereses fundamentales de la comunidad internacional. Entre estas conductas tenemos a los crímenes de guerra que se producen en conexión con un conflicto armado y que en la actualidad, debido a la proliferación de conflictos armados no internac...

No presenta resumen

No presenta resumen

El artículo no presenta resumen.

Mass atrocities perpetrated in the last years of the last century and those committed in the XXI century have received major attention from a wide arrange of actors. Indeed, these serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, which are constitutive of international crimes, have led to cases before supranational courts. The law and/or practice of international courts within their respective specific mandates demonstrate that there is an increasing international judicial engagement with rendering justice in scenarios of mass atrocities. In this context, the main research question addressed in this article is to identify some of the main contributions of international courts in mass atrocity cases in the XXI century. In this context, three supranational courts are taken into account: the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and the Inter...

Following American legal sources, I argue that the use of the reasonable person standard in criminal law is inaccurate and unfair, and, therefore, inconvenient to evaluate human behaviour based on three arguments which address flaws of the standard under analysis. Firstly, this standard is  by definition  abstract, theoretical  and  general, not  reflecting appropriately the person’s sensory and ideational perception of the situation. Secondly, the trend in American legislation and case-law is to apply, in criminal cases, e.g., self-defence, a hybrid criterion, which consists in the consideration of a person’s belief and the correspondence of such a belief to what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances, as opposed to a purely objective standard. The principle of individual criminal culpability underlies this.&n...

No description

This article discusses, in a general manner, the most important transitional justice mechanisms at which victims of serious human rights violations, constitutive of international crimes such as crimes against humanity, can participate. The analysis is mainly conducted in the light of international law areas such as international human rights law and international criminal law. Transitional justice mechanisms are examined under two categories: transitional justice mechanisms that are mainly of a retributive nature and those that are mainly of a restorative kind. In each category, possibilities, advantages, challenges and limitations faced by the victims of serious human rights violations/international crimes are examined. Some concluding remarks are provided.

El presente artículo presenta de manera general los más importantes mecanismos de justicia transicional, a través de los cuales pueden participar las víctimas de serias violaciones de derechos humanos que pueden constituir crímenes internacionales, tales como crímenes de lesa humanidad. El análisis se desarrolla, principalmente, desde la óptica de áreas del derecho internacional, tales como el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y el derecho penal internacional. Los mecanismos de justicia transicional son considerados en dos categorías: mecanismos de justicia transicional de tipo, principalmente, retributivo y aquellos que son de tipo, principalmente, restaurativo. En cada una de las dos categorías, se examinan las posibilidades, ventajas, desafíos y limitaciones que las víctimas de serias violaciones de derechos humanos/crímenes internacionales pueden enc...

This article discusses, in a general manner, the most important transitional justice mechanisms at which victims of serious human rights violations, constitutive of international crimes such as crimes against humanity, can participate. The analysis is mainly conducted in the light of international law areas such as international human rights law and international criminal law. Transitional justice mechanisms are examined under two categories: transitional justice mechanisms that are mainly of a retributive nature and those that are mainly of a restorative kind. In each category, possibilities, advantages, challenges and limitations faced by the victims of serious human rights violations/international crimes are examined. Some concluding remarks are provided.