PIL Week 4 Flashcards
ECHR Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. The Netherlands
PRESCRIBED
The Dutch court granted the United Nations immunity from domestic civil jurisdiction.
158: International law does not support the position that a civil claim should override immunity from suit for the sole reason that it is based on an allegation of a particularly grave violation of a norm of intentional law.
- also stated by ICJ Jurisdictional Immunities 81-97
The Netherlands had CONFLICTING OBLIGATIONS under public international law, which allows states a certain MARGIN OF APPRECIATION. In this case the conflicting obligations were caused by the obligation to observe the immunity of the UN and the obligation to observe the right to a fair trail of the Stichting.
174: Article 6 […] does not go for far as to require a detailed answer to every submission put forward, not is the Court called upon to examine whether an argument is adequately met or the rejection adequately reasoned.
ICT for the Former Yugoslavia: Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic
PRESCRIBED
135-144:
Art. 4 par 3 ITFY sets out different grounds for someone to be punishable for genocide. Aiding and abetting is not named.
Art. 7 par 1 ITFY states that people who have aided and abetted in a crime mentioned in articles 2-5 have individual criminal responsibility.
The Tribunal tried Krstic for aiding and abetting in genocide. On the basis of the national laws of some of the permanent members in the Security Council (which established the Tribunal and the Statute) the Tribunal concluded that for having individual criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting genocide, a person must have the KNOWLEDGE of the intent of the people carrying out the genocide. The person does NOT have to share the intent.
