Customary law or "judge-made" law: Judicial creativity at the UN criminal tribunals

International Humanitarian Law Series

Volumn 19, Issue , 2009, Pages 77-101

  Schabas, William ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149376751     PISSN: 13896776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (199)

1. France et al. v. Goring et al., (1946) 22 IMT 203
2. 13 ILR 203
3. 41 American Journal of International Law 1947, 172, p. 219.
4. Prosecutor v. Norman (Case No. SCSL-04-1-4-AR72 (E)), Dissenting Opinion of Justice Robertson, 31 May 2004, para. 18.
5. Continental Shelf Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), [1985] ICJ Reports 29-30, para. 27;
6. Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Louise Doswald Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I, Rules, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. xxxii.
7. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al. (Case No. IT-01-47-AR72), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility, 16 July 2003, para. 12;
8. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic (Case No. IT-96-22-A), Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, 7 October 1997, para. 49 (reference omitted).
9. Also: Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al. (Case No. IT-01-47-AR72), Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge David Hunt, 16 July 2003, para. 3.
10. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, art. 21 (1) (b).
11. There is, to date, only one reference, and it is in a citation from academic literature rather than an authoritative pronouncement of the Court. See: Situation in Uganda (Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05), Update of Proposed Treatment of All Relevant Documents of the Record and Application for Entry of Reasons for Sealing into Public Record, 14 November 2005, para. 8, fn. 3.
12. e.g., Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-T), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, 10 August 1995, paras. 19, 44, 51, 52, 60, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 72, 76, 79, 82, 83.
13. Posecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 94.
14. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. S/RES/935(1994), annez, art. 4;
15. Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, art. 3.
16. Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14-AR108bis), Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997, para. 64.
17. Prosecutor v. Barayagwiza (Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72), Decision (Prosecutor's Request for Review or Reconsideration), 31 March 2000, para. 40.
18. Kajelijeli v. Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A), Judgment, 23 May 2005, para. 209.
19. Prosecutor v. Semanza (Case No. ICTR-97-20-T), Judgment and Sentence, 15 May 2003, para. 341.
20. Also: Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda (Case No. ICTR-95-54A-T), Judgment,. 22 January 2004, para. 695.
21. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999.
22. Also: Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14-A), Judgment, 29 July 2004, para. 97;
23. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski (Case No. IT-95-14/1-A), Judgment, 24 March 2000, para. 133;
24. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-A), Judgment, 20 February 2001, para. 18;
25. Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-A), Judgment, 17 December 2004, para. 309;
26. Prosecutor v. Naletilic et al. (Case No. IT-98-34-T), Judgment, 31 March 2003, para. 183..
27. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), [1986] ICJ Reports 14, §§218, 255, 292 (9).
28. Domingues v. United States (Case 12.28522), Report No. 62/02, Merits, 12 October 2002, paras. 66-67.
29. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, 16 November 1998, para. 302.
30. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 98;
31. Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96-23/1-A), Judgment, 12 June 2002, para. 68;
32. Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14-T), Judgment, 3 March 2000, para. 166;
33. Prosecutor v. Naletilic et al. (Case No. IT-98-34-T), Judgment, 31 March 2003, para. 228.
34. Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli (Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A), Judgment, 23 May 2005, para. 209.
35. Prosecutor v. Kayishema et al. (Case No. ICTR-95-1-A), Judgment (Reasons), 1 June 2001, para. 51.
36. Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14-T), Judgment, 3 March 2000, para. 327.
37. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac (Case No. IT-97-25-T), Judgment, 15 March 2002, para. 353.
38. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic (Case No. IT-96-22-A), Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, para. 51.
39. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 289.
40. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic (Case No. IT-96-22-A), Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, para. 51.
41. Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, 10 December 1998, para. 227;
42. Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-PT), Decision on Joint Defence Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Portions of the Amended Indictment Alleging 'Failure to Punish' Liability, 2 March 1999;
43. Prosecutor v. Jelisic (Case No. IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, para. 61;
44. Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T), Judgment, 22 February 2001, para. 537;
45. Prosecutor v. Milosevic (Case No. IT-02-54-PT), Decision on Preliminary Motions, 8 November 2001, para. 30.
46. Rome Statute, art. 8 (2) (b) (xx).
47. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 290.
48. Also: Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T), Judgment, 22 February 2001, para. 580.
49. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac (Case No. IT-97-25-T), Judgment, 15 March 2002, para. 108.
50. Also: Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-A), Judgment, 21 July 2000, para. 111.
51. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al. (Case No. IT-01-47-PT), Decision on Joint Challenge to Jurisdiction, 12 November 2002, para. 171
52. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 296.
53. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 141;
54. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 305.
55. Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, 10 December 1998, para. 227.
56. Also: Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T), Judgment, 22 February 2001, para. 495, fn. 1210.
57. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 223.
58. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac (Case No. IT-97-25-A), Judgment, 17 September 2003, para. 221.
59. citing Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 223.
60. Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (Case No. IT-95-9-PT), Separate Opinion of Judge David Hunt on Prosecutor's Motion, 27 July 1999, para. 23.
61. Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (Case No. IT-95-9-PT), Decision on the Prosecution Motion Under Rule 73 for a Ruling Concerning the Testimony of a Witness, 27 July 1999, para. 56.
62. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 83.
63. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Separate Opinion of Judge Sidhwa on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 114;
64. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Separate Opinion of Judge Abi-Saab on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995.
65. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic (Case No. IT-96-22-A), Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, 7 October 1997, para. 50;
66. Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (Case No. IT-95-9-PT), Decision on the Prosecution Motion Under Rule 73 for a Ruling Concerning the Testimony of a Witness, 27 July 1999, para. 74.
67. Rwamakuba v. Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide, 22 October 2004, para. 14.
68. Gacumbitsi v. Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A), Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, 7 July 2006, para. 51.
69. Prosecutor v. Kallon (Case No. SCSL-04-15-AR72 (E))
70. and Prosecutor v. Kamara (Case No. SCSL-04-16-AR72 (E)), Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction: Lomé Accord Amnesty, 13 March 2004, para. 82.
71. Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Louise Doswald Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I, Rules, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. X1.
72. Prosecutor v. Kupreskic (Case No. IT-95-16-T), Judgment, 14 January 2000, para. 527.
73. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, paras. 100-108, 125, 128.
74. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999.
75. Also: Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14-T), Judgment, 3 March 2000, para. 97;
76. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski (Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A), Judgment, 24 March 2000, para. 133;
77. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-A), Judgment, 20 February 2001, para. 18;
78. Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-A), Judgment, 17 December 2004, para. 309;
79. Prosecutor v. Naletilic et al. (Case No. IT-98-34-T), Judgment, 31 March 2003, para. 183..
80. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al. (Case No. IT-01-47-AR72), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction with respect to Command Responsibility, 16 July 2003, para. 29.
81. Affirming Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al. (Case No. IT-01-47-PT), Decision on Joint Challenge to Jurisdiction, 12 November 2002.
82. Prosecutor v. Naletelic et al. (Case No. IT-98-34-A), Judgment, 3 May 2006, para. 15 (references omitted).
83. Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-A), Judgment, 17 December 2004, para. 66.
84. Also: Prosecutor v. Strugar (Case No. IT-01-42), Judgment, 31 January 2005, para. 281, fn. 897.
85. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al. (Case No. IT-01-47-AR72), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility, 16 July 2003, para. 55.
86. ICTY Statute, art. 7 (i);
87. ICTR Statute, art. 6 (i);
88. SCSL Statute, art. 6 (i).
89. The concept was endorsed by the Appeals Chamber in Tadic, but was actually summarily developed in an earlier Trial Chamber judgment: Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, 10 December 1998, paras. 210-216.
90. Similarly, an ICTR Trial Chamber had written, in Prosecutor v. Kayishema et al. (Case No. ICTR-95-1-T), Judgment and Sentence, 21 May 1999, paras. 203-205, that the members of a criminal group 'would be responsible for the result of any acts done in furtherance of the common design where such furtherance would be probable from those acts'.
91. Rome Statute, art. 25 (i) (d).
92. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 193.
93. Rwamabuka v. Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide, 22 October 2004, paras. 14-17.
94. Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic (Case No. IT-98-32-T), Judgment, 29 November 2002, para. 195.
95. Followed in: Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana et al. (Case No. ICTR-96-10 & ICTR-96-17-T), Judgment, 21 February 2003, para. 860.
96. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski (Case No. IT-95-14/1-A), Judgment, 24 March 2000, para. 23.
97. Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic (Case No. IT-98-32-T), Judgment, 29 November 2002, para. 227, fn. 586
98. referring to Prosecutor v. Kayishema et al. (Case No. ICTR-95-1-T), Judgment and Sentence, 21 May 1999, para. 147.
99. Also: Prosecutor v. Brdanin (Case No. IT-99-36-T), Judgment, 1 September 2004, para. 391, fn. 926.
100. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic (Case No. IT-96-22-A), Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, 7 October 1997, para. 49 (reference omitted).
101. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic (Case No. IT-96-22-A), Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephen, 7 October 1997, para. 40.
102. Prosecutor v. Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998, para. 587.
103. Followed, by the same trial chamber, in Prosecutor v. Musema (Case No. ICTR-96-13-T), Judgment and Sentence, 27 January 2000, para. 214.
104. Prosecutor v. Kayishema et al. (Case No. ICTR-95-1-T), Judgment and Sentence, 21 May 1999, para. 138.
105. Prosecutor v. Norman (Case No. SCSL-04-14-AR72 (E)), Decision on Preliminary Motion Based on Lack of Jurisdiction (Child Recruitment), 31 May 2004, para. 18.
106. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, 16 November 1998, para. 594;
107. Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (Case No. IT-95-9-PT), Decision on the Prosecution Motion Under Rule 73 for a Ruling Concerning the Testimony of a Witness, 27 July 1999, paras. 40-42 (also paras. 74, 76, 80).
108. Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (Case No. IT-95-9-PT), Decision on the Prosecution Motion Under Rule 73 for a Ruling Concerning the Testimony of a Witness, 27 July 1999.
109. Similarly, in Kajelijeli (Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A), Judgment, 23 May 2005, para. 209, the ICTY Appeals Chamber identified three sources of law, the Statute, the RPE and customary international law.
110. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-T), Opinion and Judgment, 7 May 1997, para. 539.
111. Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda (Case No. ICTR-95-54A-T), Judgment,. 22 January 2004, para. 38.
112. Milosevic (Case No. IT-02-54-PT), Decision on Preliminary Motions, 8 November 2001, para. 38;
113. Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (Case No. IT-95-9-PT), Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson, 18 October 2000, para. 2;
114. Prosecutor v. Barayagwiza (Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72), Decision, 3 November 1999, para. 88.
115. Contra: Prosecutor v. Brdanin (Case No. IT-99-36-PT), Decision on Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on Behalf of Radoslav Brdanin, 8 December 1999.
116. Prosecutor v. Krajisnik et al. (Case No. IT-00-39 & 40-PT), Decision on Momcilo Krajisnik's Notice of Motion for Provisional Release, 8 October 2001, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Patrick Robinson.
117. Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14-AR108bis), Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997, para. 64.
118. But see Judge Hunt, in Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (Case No. IT-95-9-PT), Separate Opinion of Judge David Hunt on Prosecutor's Motion, 27 July 1999, para. 20: 'It may be accepted that the Tribunal is bound by customary international law, as is the United Nations itself'
119. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, (1979) 1155 UNTS 331, art. 53.
120. For example: Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Separate Opinion of Judge Sidhwa on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 74;
121. Prosecutor v. Krajisnik (Case No. IT-00-39-PT), Decision on Motion Challenging Jurisdiction - with reasons, 22 September 2000, para. 14.
122. Prosecutor v. Kayishema et al. (Case No. ICTR-95-1-T), Judgment and Sentence, 21 May 1999, para. 88;
123. Prosecutor v. Jelisic (Case No. IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, para. 60, which claims - erroneously - that the International Court of Justice, in its 1951 advisory opinion on the Genocide Convention, 'placed the crime on the level of jus cogens because of its extreme gravity';
124. Prosecutor v. Krstic (Case No. IT-98-33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 541;
125. Prosecutor v. Stakic et al. (Case No. IT-97-24-T), Decision on Rule 98bis Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, 31 October 2002, para. 20;
126. Prosecutor v. Brdanin (Case No. IT-99-36-T), Judgment, 1 September 2004, para. 680.
127. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, 16 November 1998, para. 225;
128. Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, 10 December 1998, paras. 155-157;
129. Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T), Judgment, 22 February 2001, para. 466.
130. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-A), Judgment, 20 February 2001, para. 172, fn. 225.
131. Prosecutor v. Kupreskic (Case No. IT-95-16-T), Judgment, 14 January 2000, para. 530.
132. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A-AR77), Appeal Judgment on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 27 February 2001.
133. 'Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993) ', UN Doc. S/25704(1993), para. 34.
134. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 143.
135. UN Doc. S/1995/134, paras. 11-12.
136. 'Report of the Secretary-General on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone', UN Doc. S/2000/915, para. 12.
137. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 287 (see also para. 296).
138. Prosecutor v. Krstic (Case No. IT-98-33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 580;
139. confirmed by Prosecutor v. Krstic (Case No. IT-98-33-A), Judgment, 19 April 2004, para.. 25.
140. See also: Prosecutor v. Jelisic (Case No. IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, para. 61.
141. Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, 10 December 1998, para. 184.
142. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-A), Judgment, 20 February 2001, para. 112.
143. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, 16 November 1998, paras. 298, 301, 306.
144. Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-PT), Decision on the Joint Defence Motion to Dismiss the Amended Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction Based on the Limited Jurisdictional Reach of Articles 2 and 3, 2 March 1999, para. 20.
145. Prosecutor v. Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998, paras. 49495;
146. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema (Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T), Judgment, 7 June 2001, para. 54;
147. Prosecutor v. Brdanin (Case No. IT-99-36-T), Judgment, 1 September 2004, para. 680;
148. Prosecutor v. Stakić (Case No. IT-97-24-T), Judgment, 31 July 2003, para. 500;
149. Prosecutor v. Krstic (Case No. IT-98-33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 541;
150. Prosecutor v. Jelisic (Case No. IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, para. 60;
151. Prosecutor v. Kayishema et al. (Case No. ICTR-95-1-A), Judgment (Reasons), 1 June 2001, para. 88;
152. Prosecutor v. Rutaganda (Case No. ICTR-96-3-T), Judgment and Sentence, 6 December 1999, para. 46.
153. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, 16 November 1998, para. 195;
154. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema (Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T), Judgment, 7 June 2001, para. 37;
155. Prosecutor v. Brdanin (Case No. IT-99-36-T), Judgment, 1 September 2004, para. 275.
156. Prosecutor v. Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998, paras. 600-613.
157. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski (Case No. IT-95-14/1-A), Judgment, 24 March 2000, para. 126.
158. Also: Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-PT), Decision on the Joint Defence Motion to Dismiss the Amended Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction Based on the Limited Jurisdictional Reach of Articles 2 and 3, 2 March 1999, para. 20.
159. Prosecutor v. Norman (Case No. SCSL-2000-14-AR72 (E)), Dissenting Opinion of Justice Robertson, 31 May 2004, para. 47.
160. Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (Case No. IT-95-9-PT), Decision on the Prosecution Motion Under Rule 73 for a Ruling Concerning the Testimony of a Witness, 27 July 1999, paras. 40-42 (see also paras. 74, 76, 80).
161. Subject to the great exception, the kompetenx kompetenz principle, which is explained in Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995.
162. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 296.
163. Prosecutor v. Taylor (Case No. SCSL-2003-01-I), Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction, 31 May 2004, para. 43.
164. See the Secretary-General's report: 'Crimes against humanity are aimed at any civilian population and are prohibited regardless of whether they are committed in an armed conflict, international or internal in character.' 'Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993) ', UN Doc. S/25704(1993), para. 47.
165. Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 141.
166. Prosecutor v. Seselj (Case No. IT-03-67-AR72.1), Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Jurisdiction, 31 August 2004, para. 13.
167. See: Larry D. Johnson, 'Ten Years Later: Reflections on the Drafting', (2004) 2 Journal of International CriminalJustice 368, at p. 372.
168. Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96-23/1-A), Judgment, 12 June 2002, para. 98.
169. Also: Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14-A), Judgment, 29 July 2004; para. 120;
170. Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-A), Judgment, 17 December 2004, para. 98.
171. Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, 10 December 1998, para. 228.
172. For discussion of this issue, see: Guenael Mettraux, 'Crimes Against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda', (2002) 43 Harvard International Law Journal 237, pp. 270-282.
173. Cherif Bassiouni takes the view that a State plan or policy element is part of the customary law concept of crimes against humanity: M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court: Introduction, Analysis and Integrated Text, Vol. I, Ardsley, New York: Transnational Publishers, 2005, pp. 151-152;
174. M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity, 2nd rev. ed., The Hague: Kluwer Law, 1999, pp. 243-281.
175. Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96-23/1-A), Judgment, 12 June 2002, para. 117.
176. ICTY Statute, art. 5 (h);
177. ICTR Statute, art. 3 (h).
178. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, art. 7 (1) (h).
179. Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al. (Case No. IT-95-16-T), Judgment, 14 January 2000, paras. 579-581
180. Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al. (Case No. IT-95-16-T), Judgment, 14 January 2000, para. 621.
181. Also: Prosecutor v. Krstic (Case No. IT-98-33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 534.
182. Prosecutor v. Naletilic et al. (Case No. IT-98-34-T), Judgment, 31 March 2003, para. 634.
183. Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-A), Judgment, 17 December 2004, para. 101.
184. Also: Prosecutor v. Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14-A) Judgment, 29 July 2004, para. 131;
185. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac (Case No. IT-97-25-A), Judgment, 17 September 2003, para. 185;
186. Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic (Case No. IT-98-32-A), Judgment, 25 February 2004, para. 113;
187. Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al. (Case No. ICTR-99-52-T), Judgment and Sentence, 3 December 2003, para. 1071;
188. Prosecutor v. Ruggiu (Case No. ICTR-97-32-I), Judgment and Sentence, 1 June 2000, para. 21.
189. Prosecutor v. Ruggiu (Case No. ICTR-97-32-I), Judgment and Sentence, 1 June 2000, para. 22;
190. Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al. (Case No. ICTR-99-52-T), Judgment and Sentence, 3 December 2003, para. 1078.
191. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al. (Case No. IT-CH-47-AR72), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility, 16 July 2003, para. 12.
192. Also: Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al. (Case No. IT-01-47-AR72), Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge David Hunt, 16 July 2003, para. 3.
193. Prosecutor v. Karamera et al. (Case Nos. ICTR-98-44-AR72.5, ICTR-98-44-AR72.6Y), Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals: Joint Criminal Enterprise, 12 April 2006, para. 15.
194. See, e.g., Mohamed Shahabuddeen, 'Does the Principle of Legality Stand in the Way of Progressive Development of Law?', (2004) 2 Journal of International CriminalJustice 1007.
195. S. W. v. United Kingdom, Series A, No. 335-B, paras. 35-36;
196. C. R. v. United Kingdom, Series A, No. 335-B, paras. 33-34.
197. See, for example, the comments of J. Goldsmith & E. Posner, 'Notes Toward a Theory of Customary Law', [1998] Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 53.
198. Prosecutor v. Kordic et al. (Case No. IT-95-14/2-PT), Decision on the Joint Defence Motion to Dismiss the Amended Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction Based on the Limited Jurisdictional Reach of Articles 2 and 3, 2 March 1999, para. 23.
199. Also: Prosecutor v. Kvocka (Case No. IT-98-30/1-PT), Decision on Preliminary Motions Filed by Mladko Radic and Miroslav Kvocka Challenging Jurisdiction, 1 April 1999.