ICC AND ITS DETERRENCE EFFECT ON GENOCIDE

An analysis of the international criminal court and its deterrence effect on Genocide, Crimes against humanity and war crimes

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 -Introduction3

Problem Statement3

Purpose of the study5

Conceptual Framework/Theory5

Chapter 27

Literature review7

Definition16

Historical Examples18

Legal Restraints19

Importance of Cultural Heritage21

Means of Prevention24

Case study27

Research Questions27

Uganda case28

Central African Republic case37

Track Record39

Challenges42

References45

Chapter 1 -Introduction

Problem Statement

This master's paper, examines diverse facet of worldwide lawless individual fairness, the difficulties in the submission and enforcement of lawful notions and directions of worldwide lawless individual law. Most significantly, the deterrence result of the International Criminal Court (ICC) were analysed to work out if its reality has or will convey about responsibility for conflict misdeeds, genocide and misdeeds contrary to humanity. Limitation and assessments with Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Tribunal for the previous Yugoslavia (ICTY) were considered as well.

The establishment and the reason of  the ICC is distinct in the sense that , its statute makes clear that applicable aggravating and mitigating attenuating components should manifest judicial justifications in periods of responsibility by discouraging the worldwide community as a entire and therefore, assist to the avoidance of such misdeeds (Goldstone, 2000). This oblique quotation to deterrence connected with the affirmation that such misdeeds should not proceed unpunished is not connected to any guidance in relative to what Morris (1995) would call the values of distribution; namely, in what attenuating components it might be befitting to use rehabilitation, deterrence or retribution as rationales for punishment.

The effectiveness of worldwide enclosures has been interrogated and conveyed in divergent outlooks considering the utility and defect of distinct responsibility means for example worldwide lawless individual tests, household prosecutions and reality and reconciliation charges, and furthermore adversities in reconciling apparently divergent goals of chasing fairness and calm in the awaken of serious violations of human privileges (Dugard, 1999; Ratner & Abrams, 2001).

In the aftermath of equipped confrontations or municipal conflicts, the function of the prosecutor is to avert future atrocities by mediating confrontation tenacity between warring factions or distinct ethnic assemblies, establishing  durable calm, direct of regulation, penalty of wrongdoers and reparation to victims of misdeeds (Akhaven, 2001), in any way possible- encompassing full amnesty. When the significance of deterrence is disregarded, it influences worldwide prosecution. In societies where those to blame for atrocities still contain power, lawless individual tests are less probable to be successful. Dictators, infantry commanders or repressive managers will not relinquish power so effortlessly if they worry prosecution after (Bassiouni, 1999 a).

Alternative means like Truth and Reconciliation Commission, will not rendezvous victims' aspirations for justice. Memories of past atrocities come back, which may afresh conceive fertile ground for new conflicts. This occurred in Chile where new efforts begun much subsequent, when Augusto Pinochet was conceded amnesty. Much outlook amnesty as another type of impunity. In supplement, amnesty for misdeeds for example genocide seems to be ethically unacceptable. Some mass misdeeds like the Holocaust and genocide in Rwanda were so awful and alarming to human conscience that reconciliation was ...