![]() ![]() The current approach to the prohibition on other inhumane acts risks undermining the legitimacy of the law. This approach would ensure more careful attention to the concerns underlying the prohibition on retroactive criminal law: notice, restraint of arbitrary power and legitimacy. It is not a substantive prohibition which simply requires interpretation it is a direction to courts and tribunals to act as law-maker and an invitation to create and apply new criminal laws. I argue that the fundamental difficulty is that the prohibition on other inhumane acts has been misconceived. The current approach to the prohibition on other inhumane acts can neither account for some existing results nor offer certainty in future trials. ![]() I argue both that the methodologies used were flawed and that the resulting interpretation is highly problematic. In this chapter, I analyse the way in which the ad hoc tribunals and ICC have interpreted the prohibition on other inhumane acts. This provision permits authorities to charge an accused for acts which are not specifically prohibited. The mechanism through which crimes against humanity are able to evolve is the prohibition on other inhumane acts. It was always intended that the law of crimes against humanity would continue to evolve in order to effectively respond to atrocity crimes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |