International jurisdictions as a tool for scam: A Case-study on the “Sovereign ICJ and the Sovereign ICC for Banking & Redemption”

By Jacques Bellezit*

Introduction: On “Redemption”  or “Accepted For Values” Theory

Redemption theory was theorised by Judge Rooks of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Alberta, in the Meads v Meads case as part of the Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments(OPCA). The aim of the so-called OPCA arguments are to “ to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals”^[1] The Redemption theory is related to the “strawman” theory, stating that each individual has two personalities: One of them is the tangible human person whereas the other one is a legal fiction, created by the State through certain documents (issuing of birth-certificate, ID or social security number).^[2]  Tax-resistance partisans often argue that State documents are issued to the “wrong” or “false” person in order to escape tax liabilities or other forms of the State’s authority (ID or driving licence inspection, etc.): This strawman theory is embodied in what is known as the “capital letter argument”, stating that “JOHN DOE” and “John Doe” are not the same person(!).

This has paved the way for various scams pretending to give keys, methods and pseudo-legal procedures about how to gain back the control or re-buying of the ‘true” person from the State’s clutches or a (high) sum of (hidden) money associated to this “true” person.

Transnational Justice Matters: An ICC Overview

By Rakesh Roshan*

On 1^st July 2017, the International Criminal Court completed 15 years. While there are 24 cases that have been brought before the Court, it has only managed to convict 4 individuals in all these years, but it is hoped that it carries to deliver universal justice in an unprecedented manner.

Source: About ICC

A critical analysis of the Fifth Report of the Special Rapporteur on Immunity of State Officials from Criminal Jurisdiction

By Sujoy Sur

[This article is a critical analysis of the Fifth Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms Concepción Escobar Hernández, on Immunity of State Officials from Criminal Jurisdiction, discussed during the 68^th session of the International Law Commission. It was written as a part of an internship at the International Law Commission, Geneva during its 68^th session in 2016]

The Report A/CN.4/701 can be accessed here. Since it is a lengthy report, a summary of the Report in the form of a conclusion drawn by the Special Rapporteur that there must be exceptions and limitations to the immunity of State Officials can be read onwards page 92 of the Report. This article is not a comprehensive critique of the Special Rapporteur’s report but a mere critique of the methods employed by the Rapporteur and the line of reasoning the Rapporteur tries to establish to make a case for exceptions to immunity of State officials in certain cases. Since diplomatic protection of State Officials is a customary norm, there is a prevailing trend of immunity in its favour, both in terms of Rationae Materie and Rationae Personae. The following analysis must be read in light of this established fact.

The Do’s and Don’ts of Seeking Asylum in the U.K., U.S.A, South Africa and Canada – A complete Procedural Overview

By Shriya Maini*

(This is a complete guide to the procedure of filing a refugee claim in UK, USA, South Africa and Canada. Read on to learn how to seek asylum or file a refugee claim in these countries.)

1. This memorandum describes the procedure of filing a refugee claim in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and then compares it to the modus operandi of three other countries namely United States of America (“USA”), The Republic of South Africa (“South Africa”) and Canada. It discusses at length, the entire procedure of making a claim for asylum, right from when the first application is made by the asylum seeker until the grant or refusal of refugee status by the concerned authorities, in order to facilitate effective comparison between the abovementioned jurisdictions.

Redrafting Genocidal Norms: Requirement versus Ramifications

By Shriya Maini*

(This post is third in the series by where she writes on contemporary issues of international criminal law and human rights. Read the other posts here)

“More case law on genocide established in the last twenty years than in the previous fifty-five illustrate that this is not a Convention in decline, but rather one in renaissance.”

The crime of genocide was described as the “crime of crimes” by William Schabas, denoting the degree of gravity and outrage to human dignity that is incomparable by other international crimes. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 (“Convention”) is an iconic, foundational legal treaty that created a powerful word which is more than mere political rhetoric. By its very nature, the Convention is indispensable, since it (at least in spirit and most parts as norms of jus cogens now) plays an integral role in maintaining civility in international law and progressiveness of the society. However, due to its many shortcomings, I believe

Some teachings from Colombia: transitional justice and victims

By Federico Isaza Piedrahita*

On January 25th the 2261 Resolution of the United Nations Security Council was approved unanimously, which expresses full support and blessing of the international community to the peace process that is underway between the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC-EP).

This resolution allows the international community to serve as guarantor of a tripartite mechanism, seeking, in this first step a “political mission of unarmed international observers” (para. 2), which will be established

Extending the IHL applicable in IACs to NIACs: Re-examining the Tadić and its aftermath

by Shriya Maini*

(This post is part of a series of posts on contemporary issues of international criminal law and human rights.)

In the decades following the adoption of rights by the Geneva Conventions, there is evidence of an inclination towards the application of the rules and principles regarding International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter “IACs”) to Non International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter “NIACs”). This may be seen in the nascent tendency to either ‘apply, or call for the application of’ IHL in situations of armed conflict, without drawing the distinction as to which ‘type’ of conflict (IAC or NIAC) exists and accordingly, which ‘type’ of law is applicable. Prior to highlighting if, how and why International Tribunals have made the laws of IACs applicable to NIACs, I set out three basic facts to be kept in mind while reading this essay.

The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Non-International Armed Conflict in Syria and Iraq (Part II)

By Devaditya Chakravarti*

Read Part I here.

V. Why we need to control the NSAGs (Non-State Armed Groups) ?

The world is as of yet a nascent system grappling with war & violence, proliferating terrorism & traumatic inflictions on innocent civilians. International humanitarian law, traceable to the dawn of humanity’s cultural consciousness, has gradually taken shape & gained strength. So, in fact to some extent, with the intervention of various charters of United Nations, there has been an apparent control over the raging war between NSAGs & the State.

Photo: CICR/HEGER, Boris

The controversial question arises who would be the actual body to control or measure the NSAGs. In this question, there has been only avoidance of responsibility among various states. The lethargic & callous attitude towards the role of NSAGs has been proved to be matter of great import.

As we can longer be dependent on state’s role to control the NSAGs, it is about time that the Non-Governmental Organizations should come forward & take this opportunity to prove their social responsibility is much greater than that of “state”.

The Dog That Didn’t Bark: The curious silence of the UN Security Council on Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir

The Dog That Didn’t Bark^[1]

by Neha Bhat

In March 2005, the UN Security Council (UNSC) referred the Darfur ‘situation’ to the International Criminal Court (ICC), making it the first referral of its kind. UNSC Resolution 1593 was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter with 11 votes in favor,^[2] and 4 abstentions.^[3] The Resolution was hailed as a major step towards strengthening the fight against impunity for the ‘crimes against humanity’ committed in Darfur against the indigenous Fur, Zaghawa and Massalit tribes.

Pursuant to Resolution 1593, the ICC opened preliminary investigations into the Darfur ‘situation’ and on July 14, 2008, then ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo filed an application for issuance of warrant of arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir (Al-Bashir), the sitting President of Sudan, before the Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I). The first warrant of arrest against Al-Bashir was issued by the PTC I on March 4, 2009 covering murder, torture, rape, and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population. On a subsequent application filed by the Prosecutor’s Office, a second warrant of arrest against Al-Bashir was issued by the PTC I on July 12, 2010 on three counts of genocide.

Image Courtesy: International Justice Project

Al-Bashir, and Cursus Curiae of the ICC and South African Supreme Court.

By Sujoy Sur

South African executive’s open defiance of its Supreme Court’s order to arrest Omar Hasan Ahmad Al-Bashir is an issue which had attracted a great many concerns from many corners of the international arena, and rightly so. The concern is that Mr. Al-Bashir is an international criminal and South Africa, a country which  has signed the Rome Statute (ICC) and is a committed actor to international peace and security (member of UNSC and UN Charter), should have have acted in accordance with International law. Instead, South Africa invited Al-Bashir to the African Union summit and allowed him to leave the country despite the Court’s order.

Background

Omar Al-Bashir is the president of Sudan. Yes, the same country which got divided into two, into a new South Sudan, which went on to become the 193rd member of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). A referendum was held in January, 2011 in which majority of the population (99.83%) people voted for a South Sudan. The reason for it’s independence, so to speak, are intertwined with that Al-Bashir’s indictment. South Sudan was deeply affected by Civil Wars which had torn the region apart. The first Sudanese civil war lasted from 1955-1972, the improper culmination of which lead to a second Sudanese civil war from 1983-2005. Many atrocities were committed during this period, out of which Omar Al-Bashir was held “individually criminally responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” committed in Darfur, since 2003. Allegations were pitched against Al-Bashir formally by the Chief Prosecutor of ICC, Luis Moreno Ocampo, in July 2008. An arrest warrant was issued against him by a Pre-Trial chamber composed of judges Akua Kuenyehia of Ghana, Anita Usacka of Latvia, and Sylvia Stenier of Brazil indicting him on five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape) and two counts of war crimes (pillaging and intentionally directing attacks against civilians).