Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:50:39.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legitimacy of International Criminal Tribunals and the Current Prospects of International Criminal Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2012

ANTONIO CASSESE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Having identified the differences between the concept of legality and the much more complex concept of legitimacy, the author scrutinizes the legality and the legitimacy of the existing international criminal tribunals. Their legality has been put in doubt only concerning the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), but the criticisms have been or could be overcome. Assessing the legitimacy of these tribunals is instead a more difficult task. In fact, misgivings have been voiced essentially concerning the legitimacy of the ICTY and the STL, but not the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the other international criminal courts. The legitimacy of the STL in particular deserves to be discussed: even assuming that the STL initially lacked some forms of legitimacy, it could achieve it – or confirm it – through its ‘performance legitimacy’. The author then suggests what the realistic prospects for international criminal justice are. Convinced as he is that it is destined to flourish even more, he tries to identify the paths it is likely to take in future years.

Keywords

international criminal justiceinternational criminal tribunalslegalitylegitimacy
Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: International Criminal Court and Tribunals
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 491 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It may suffice to recall J. Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690), Chapters VI–IX, XV; M. Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie (1922); see also, in English, Eisenstadt, S. N. (ed.), On Charisma and Institution Building (1994)Google Scholar; C. Schmitt, Legalität und Legitimität (1932) (English translation: Legality and Legitimacy (2004)); R. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics (1989); D. Dyzenhaus, Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller in Weimar (1997); T. Franck, The Power of Legitimacy among Nations (1990).

2 On these notions, see, among others, Cronin, B. and Hurd, I. (eds.), The UN Security Council and the Politics of International Authority (2008)Google Scholar, particularly the paper by W. Sandholtz, ‘Creating Authority by the Council: The International Criminal Tribunals’, 131–53.

3 ‘Legality and Legitimacy in International Order’, in United Nations University, (2008) 5 Policy Brief, 3.

4 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94–1-T, 2 October 1995, paras. 33–36 (hereafter, Tadić).

5 Tadić, supra note 4, para. 47.

6 Misgivings about the conformity of SC Res. 1757 (2007) to the general principles of international law or to the UN Charter were already articulated on 30 May 2007 by some member states of the UN in the Security Council when that resolution was adopted; see, e.g., Indonesia (S/PV.5685, at 3), South Africa (S/PV.5685, at 4), China (S/PV.5685, at 4–5), Russia (S/PV.5685, at 5); see also Peru (S/PV.5685, at 6).

7 See, e.g., Serra, G., ‘Special Tribunal for Lebanon: A Commentary on Its Major Legal Aspects’, (2008) 4 Journal of Philosophy of International Law and Global Politics 1Google Scholar; K. L. Razzouk, ‘The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Implications for International Law’, (2008) The Global Community: Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 219; M. Odoni, ‘Considerations on the Method Used to Establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’, forthcoming, 1; see also the paper by Fassbender, B., ‘Reflections on the International Legality of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’ (2007) 5 JICJ 1091Google Scholar.

8 Fassbender, supra note 7, at 1091–1105.

9 For a list of such states, see L. Oppenheim and H. Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. 2 (1955), 581, footnote 3.

10 Tadić, supra note 4, paras. 13–25.

11 See Lelarge, A., ‘Le Tribunal spécial pour le Liban’, (2007) 53 AFDI 397CrossRefGoogle Scholar (emphasis in original); Wierda, M., Nassar, H., and Maalouf, L., ‘Early Reflections on Local Perceptions, Legitimacy and Legacy of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’, (2007) 5 JICJ 1065Google Scholar.

12 See Wierda, Nassar, and Maalouf, supra note 11, at 1075–81.

13 Plato, Republic, I, 136.

14 See H. Heine's poem Zu fragmentarisch ist Welt und Leben, part of the ‘Buch der Lieder’, in Die Heimkehr (1823–24): ‘Are our world and life too fragmentary?/I will betake myself to a German Professor./He knows how to set life straight again/He will make an intelligible system out of it;/With his night-caps and night-robe's rags/He will then plug the gaps in the structure of the world’ (translation mine). (German original: Zu fragmentarisch ist Welt und Leben?/Ich will mich zum deutschen Professor begeben./Der weiß das Leben zusammenzusetzen,/und er macht ein verständlich System daraus;/mit seinen Nachtmützen und Schlafrockfetzen/stopft er die Lücken des Weltenbaus’.)