Domestic implementation, of international criminal justice : Function of implementing legislation
| Project/Area Number |
15530037
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
International law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Waseda University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
FURUYA Shuichi Waseda University, Waseda Law School, Professor, 大学院・法務研究科, 教授 (50209194)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2003 – 2004
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2004)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,500,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥1,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥1,400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,400,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | International Criminal Court / Extraordinary Chamber / Special Court for Sierra Leon / Hybrid tribunals / Implementing legislation |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
In the research project of this year, implementing legislations in terms of the International Criminal Court(ICC) were examined from a comparative point of view. In particular, following points were focused : (1)role of domestic procedures and organs in executing an arrest warrant issued by the ICC ; (2)role of domestic courts in transferring accused to the ICC ; (3)domestic measures to seize the property of a person who was convicted by the ICC ; (4)applicability of domestic penal rules to the execution of sentences declared by the ICC.
Through this examination, this investigator came to the following conclusion : In the state which has an ICC implementing legislation besides existing criminal laws, the implementing function of that legislation is generally so effective to succeed to link ICC Statute with domestic legal system. On the contrary, in the state which bases the implementation of ICC Statute on existing criminal laws and procedure, its purpose is not necessarily attained. In some states, relation between their national courts and the ICC is not considered as "vertical" one as in the case of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR). Those states constitute domestic implementing system for the ICC just as quasi inter-state penal cooperation (an intermediate between "vertical" and "horizontal" systems). In this respect, effective implementation of the ICC system cannot be fully expected because it is dependent on the discretionary power of judiciary of the state concerned.
As to the civil procedure concerning seizure of property for compensation to victims, the way of implementation varies from state to state. Remarkably, some states do not respond at all to the compensation for victims that is clearly incorporated in the ICC system.
|
Report
(3 results)
Research Products
(6 results)
