Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Supreme Court Of Canada's Decision In Ezokola And The Harmonisation Of Article 1f(A) Of The Convention On The Status Of Refugees With International Criminal Law, Alan W. Freckelton
The Supreme Court Of Canada's Decision In Ezokola And The Harmonisation Of Article 1f(A) Of The Convention On The Status Of Refugees With International Criminal Law, Alan W. Freckelton
Alan W Freckelton
Canadian appellate courts have historically taken a very wide view of when there are “serious reasons to believe” that a person has committed the kinds of offences envisaged by Article 1F(a) of the Convention. In particular, they have taken the view that, in some cases at least, mere membership of a particular group is sufficient to exclude a person from protection under the Convention. However, in Ezokola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) the Supreme Court has attempted to reconcile the requirements for responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity at international criminal law, and the requirements for exclusion under …
The Forgotten Nuremberg Hate Speech Case: Otto Dietrich And The Future Of Persecution Law, Gregory S. Gordon
The Forgotten Nuremberg Hate Speech Case: Otto Dietrich And The Future Of Persecution Law, Gregory S. Gordon
Gregory S. Gordon
Among international jurists, the conventional wisdom is that atrocity speech law sprang fully formed from two judgments issued by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT): the crimes against humanity conviction of Nazi newspaper editor Julius Streicher, and the acquittal on the same charge of Third Reich Radio Division Chief Hans Fritzsche. But the exclusive focus on the IMT judgments as the founding texts of atrocity speech law is misplaced. Not long after Streicher and Fritzsche, and in the same courtroom, the United States Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) in the Ministries Case, issued an equally significant crimes against …
"First, Do No Harm:" Interpreting The Crime Of Aggression To Exclude Humanitarian Intervention, Joshua L. Root
"First, Do No Harm:" Interpreting The Crime Of Aggression To Exclude Humanitarian Intervention, Joshua L. Root
Joshua L. Root
The yet to be implemented Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute criminalizes, as the crime of aggression, acts of aggression which by their “character, gravity and scale” constitute a “manifest violation” of the Charter of the United Nations. This article argues that Article 8 bis must be construed so as to exclude from the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction uses of force which are facial violations of the UN Charter but which nonetheless comport with the principles and purposes of the Charter, such as bona fide humanitarian intervention unauthorized by the Security Council. This article applies the Vienna Convention on …