国际刑事法院对奴隶制的解释:调和法律边界?

Sara Palacios-Arapiles
{"title":"国际刑事法院对奴隶制的解释:调和法律边界?","authors":"Sara Palacios-Arapiles","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the interpretation of the definition of slavery/ enslavement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Ongwen case (2021) and its application to the facts of the case at hand. This examination is warranted because Ongwen represents the first case in which the ICC was tasked with deciding whether the crime of enslavement had been committed. This article illustrates that the ICC has been outward-looking, finding that judgments of other courts largely featured in the reasoning of the ICC when interpreting slavery. The detailed study in this article further reveals that, either directly or indirectly, the ICC more specifically drew on the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Kunarac case. The article shows that, in doing so, the ICC reconciled legal borders by incorporating in its decision elements of general international law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law instruments to inform its understanding of slavery/enslavement. The article highlights that the ICC contributed to norm consolidation globally.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Interpretation of Slavery before the International Criminal Court: Reconciling Legal Borders?\",\"authors\":\"Sara Palacios-Arapiles\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18757413_02501023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the interpretation of the definition of slavery/ enslavement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Ongwen case (2021) and its application to the facts of the case at hand. This examination is warranted because Ongwen represents the first case in which the ICC was tasked with deciding whether the crime of enslavement had been committed. This article illustrates that the ICC has been outward-looking, finding that judgments of other courts largely featured in the reasoning of the ICC when interpreting slavery. The detailed study in this article further reveals that, either directly or indirectly, the ICC more specifically drew on the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Kunarac case. The article shows that, in doing so, the ICC reconciled legal borders by incorporating in its decision elements of general international law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law instruments to inform its understanding of slavery/enslavement. The article highlights that the ICC contributed to norm consolidation globally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":167092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了国际刑事法院(ICC)在翁文案(2021年)中对奴隶制/奴役定义的解释及其对本案事实的适用。这一审查是有必要的,因为翁文案是国际刑事法院第一个负责决定是否犯下奴役罪的案件。这篇文章说明了国际刑事法院一直是外向型的,发现其他法院的判决在国际刑事法院解释奴隶制时的推理中很大程度上具有特色。本文的详细研究进一步表明,国际刑事法院直接或间接地更具体地借鉴了前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭(前南问题国际法庭)在库纳拉克一案中的判决。这篇文章表明,在这样做的过程中,国际刑事法院通过将一般国际法、国际人权法和国际人道主义法文书的要素纳入其决定,从而调和了法律边界,使其了解奴隶制/奴役。文章强调,国际商会促进了全球规范的巩固。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Interpretation of Slavery before the International Criminal Court: Reconciling Legal Borders?
This article examines the interpretation of the definition of slavery/ enslavement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Ongwen case (2021) and its application to the facts of the case at hand. This examination is warranted because Ongwen represents the first case in which the ICC was tasked with deciding whether the crime of enslavement had been committed. This article illustrates that the ICC has been outward-looking, finding that judgments of other courts largely featured in the reasoning of the ICC when interpreting slavery. The detailed study in this article further reveals that, either directly or indirectly, the ICC more specifically drew on the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Kunarac case. The article shows that, in doing so, the ICC reconciled legal borders by incorporating in its decision elements of general international law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law instruments to inform its understanding of slavery/enslavement. The article highlights that the ICC contributed to norm consolidation globally.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信