.png){kind=icon}
Questions from the OUP Student Law Panel, March 2008.
The Late Antonio Cassese was Professor of International Law at Florence University. He was awarded the Wolfgang Friedmann Memorial Award in 2007 for outstanding contributions to the field of international law. "Mr. Cassese has dedicated his career to the pursuit of international criminal justice and human rights, serving in positions such as President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Chairman of the Council of Europe's Steering Committee for Human rights, President of the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and Chairperson for the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur." Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.
For how long before you decided to pursue a career in International Law did you have an interest in the area?
~ Sam J Thompson, London South Bank University
Answer: For a couple of years, when I was a University student, at Pisa University. I then met my future professor, Giuseppe Sperduti, who was a prominent international lawyer and a member of the European Commission on Human Rights (he had just been given a chair at Pisa University), and decided to pursue an academic career under his guidance.
Do you allow your personal experiences as the former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to affect your academic positions on Criminal International Law? If so, have your experiences helped or hindered your writings? Can you provide an example? Finally, do you recommend an 'inclusionary' approach when dealing with personal perspectives and academics or would you recommend that we do our best to remain impartial?
~ Sam J Thompson, London South Bank University
Answer: No, I try as much as possible to critically re-examine the judicial decisions I drafted or in which I concurred. For instance, recently I have taken a critical view of the decision on Blaski? (subpoena) by the ICTY Appeals Chamber, which I wrote as a judge.
I would say that my judicial experience has significantly helped my academic writings, for when you are a judge, you have to understand the other judges? position, and also make an effort to try to persuade them as much as possible of the value of your own position. I could not give any example off the cuff, though.
I would say that, to be scientifically honest, one should endeavour to make clear or explain the (ideological or political) foundations of one?s own thinking, so as to enable the reader to appraise the extent to which those foundations influence our theoretical conceptualization.
If someone wants to get involved in International Criminal Law (or International Law in general) during his/her career; where should he/she start from? What are the first options they should look at? - The question is relevant to both UK students and students of other nationalities.
~ LLB student, University of Leicester
Answer: I would try to do an internship at the ICTY (if possible, at the Office of the Prosecutor, where there are excellent legal officers and prosecutors, who can teach you a lot), and then attempt to get a job there for a couple of years.
How much do you consider international law to have changed and developed since your initial interest in the area, do you consider the international system to be gaining strength and authority, or becoming less important in times of great political international influence?
~ Elizabeth Skinner, University of Leeds
Answer: It has dramatically changed, gaining strength and significance. When I was a student (1954-58) whenever I said that I was interested in international law, my fellow students or junior teachers would ironically comment: Why are you interested in a field where law does not play any role, for, of course, international law is not law proper: it lacks enforcement! Today nobody would make such a remark any longer.
How effective are the relevant institutions at reducing international crime and how effective is international criminal law on application?
~ Sam J Thompson, London South Bank University
Answer: Not terribly effective. But it is better than nothing. It has a minimal deterrent effect. But it significantly helps victims of appalling crime to gradually reconcile themselves with death, rape and atrocities.
How much do you feel the international criminal law affects our criminal English legal system?
~ Kyrsty Bonham, Staffordshire University
Answer: ICL, through international treaties (on humanitarian law: think of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols; the conventions on genocide, on torture) or the ratification of the statute of international criminal tribunals (ICC), gradually trickles down into the British municipal system and also slowly changes the mindset of judges (as well as that of the military).
I am currently writing a dissertation on the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence advocated by the Bush administration. I am seeking to support the view that this doctrine has the potential to make the world less secure, rather than more secure, and increases the risk of future conflicts.
What is your opinion of the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence in this regard?
~ Rob Cheeseman, University of Derby
Answer: It is very dangerous for peace and international security, as shown by the US-UK attack on Iraq, for it leaves to the attacker to decide whether the target state is about to unleash aggression or is prepared to use weapons of mass destruction. In short, it plays into the hands of Great Powers. It would be acceptable if these Powers were prepared to submit to an ex post appraisal by the UN and, should this appraisal lead to the conclusion that the attack was unlawful and unjustified, to pay compensation to the victim state as well as the relatives of the dead and wounded.
How broadly do you feel that the international crime of genocide should be defined and why?
~ Giulia Bianchi, Erasmus student in the University of Leicester from the University of Florence, Faculty of Law
Answer: The definition in the Genocide Convention is fairly good (except that today we would not use the notion of race, and in addition would broaden the notion of protected group, so as to take account of a ?subjective? perception of groups, as suggested by the ICTR and ICTY case law
What do you think about the ICJ sentence of 26/02/2007?
~ Giulia Bianchi, Erasmus student in the University of Leicester from the University of Florence, Faculty of Law
Answer: I have written both in the European Journal of International law and in the Journal of International Criminal Justice that the judgement is in many respects flawed. It is a pity that the Court, confronted for the first time with a case of genocide, has delivered such an ambiguous and inconsistent decision. The ICJ seems better equipped to deal with boundary cases or other bilateral disputes on the law of the sea, etc.
What do you think about the internal self-determination principle? How broadly do you feel it should be defined? Why? Do you think it could base the assumptions to promote democracy? Do you think it could contrast with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states?
~ Giulia Bianchi, Erasmus student in the University of Leicester from the University of Florence, Faculty of Law
Answer: The internal self-determination of people should be narrowly defined, for otherwise it would lead to the disintegration of states and the fragmentation of the international society. Only minorities that are so seriously and systematically discriminated and oppressed that they have no say whatsoever in national government, should be given the right to claim internal self-determination, which basically boils down to respect for the human rights of members of the minority and the rights of the minority as such (even in these cases secession should only exceptionally be allowed).
How broadly do you feel that the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states should be defined? Do you think the economic sanctions against Cuba contrast with this principle? In your opinion which other acts could contrast with it?
~ Giulia Bianchi, Erasmus student in the University of Leicester from the University of Florence, Faculty of Law
Answer: This principle is part and parcel of the old international legal system. Today domestic jurisdiction and the accompanying principle of non-interference into domestic affairs are greatly limited by the human rights doctrine. It is no coincidence that at present only China relies upon the principle of non-interference in internal matters.
Is it really justified to draw a legal distinction between crimes against humanity and genocide? What purpose is served by the narrow technical discussions on 'dolus specialis' when deciding whether genocide has been committed? Don't you think that victims may feel insulted when their crimes are termed by courts and tribunals as 'lesser crimes' (crimes against humanity) rather than the 'crime of crimes' (genocide)? Since any act possibly constituting genocide, absent the special intent, is in any case a crime against humanity and/or a war crime, should the legal category of genocide be dropped?
~ Guillermo Ot?lora Lozano, Student at Universidad de los Andes (Bogot?, Colombia)
Answer: The distinction is justified, for there may be crimes against humanity that do not involve persecution of an ethnic, national or religious group. Crimes aginst humanity are not lesser crimes, for they may involve the killing, wounding or rape of hundreds or thousands of persons, whereas there may be a crime of genocide consisting of the killing or forced displacement (with the required mens rea) of ten people only.
My question is about war crimes being recognised properly through the Nuremberg and Tokyo trial and how the definition have been widened through the establishment of ICTY,ICTR and the Rome Statute of the ICC, and how war crimes can be applied on the war that is happening in our modern era (west-war on Iraq Afghanistan) however I don't want to be one-sided as there other states also committing crimes during war.
Is there any advice you can give me, to help my dissertation?
~ Anonymous
Answer: The major broadening of the notion was brought about by the seminal decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Tadic (1995), when the Chamber said that war crimes can be also committed in civil wars.
Could you make an argument that there has been an evolution in international law? More specifically, would you agree with the idea of an emergence of modern international law (as a departure from more traditional thought)? What challenges does international law face in today?s world? Are there certain aspects that international law has not been able to regulate?
~ Erin Quijano, University of Oklahoma
Answer: My whole book on International Law tries to show that modern international law is very different from traditional or classical international law.
The main challenges modern international law faces today relate to (i) the legal restraints on resort to war, (ii) the use of force to protect populations or groups against massive violations of human rights, (iii) the regulation of the use of weapons, as well as (iv) the protection of civilians in time or armed conflict.