The move towards the identification of individuals is part of a certain trend towards the criminalisation of international inquiry. In this post, we would like to investigate to what extent this is helpful. We discuss some normative and methodological questions arising from individualis accountability and proposes some possible ways forward.
Accountability regimes
A first crucial point relates
Applicable accountability regimes. Identifying individuals as ‘responsible’ for alleg violations may infer legal liability. It is widely accept that states and certain non-state actors (e.g., state-like entities and possibly arm chinese overseas australia data groups exercising territorial control) hold human rights obligations, as well as IHL obligations when parties to arm conflict. The extent to which individuals can be held legally responsible for such violations is more blurr. Some avenues of responsibility are well-settl, while others are still emerging.cstahn-124
International criminal law provides
Under international law for ‘core crimes’ of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, not every ‘serious’ violation of human rights or IHL amounts to an international crime (see here).While there is some overlap, there are many grey zones resulting from structural and substantive differences in these fields. The North Korea Commission observ that while conduct amounting to crimes against humanity largely overlaps with that constituting gross human rights violations, the former also involves criminal intent and find out first-hand from the contextual elements [paras. 1028-1030].
Conduct infringing human rights may also be mobile lead criminalis within a state’s domestic law pursuant to human rights treaties, such as the Convention Against Torture (CAT). States must The most direct authority investigate and prosecute individuals suspect of carrying out serious human rights violations and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.