You are here:
WorldLII >>
Databases >>
Project on International Courts and Tribunals (PICT) Resources >>
2004 >>
[2004] PICTRes 1
[Database Search]
[Name Search]
[Recent Documents]
[Noteup]
[Help]
Hybrid Courts - Description [2004] PICTRes 1 (1 January 2004)
Hybrid Courts
Undoubtedly,
one of the most interesting novelties in the international criminal law
field of the end of 1990s
and beginning of the 2000s is the emergence
of a “third-generation” of criminal bodies (the Nuremberg
and Tokyo Tribunals being the first, and the ICTY, ICTR and ICC being
the second generation), which are called, for lack
of a better term, internationalized
or hybrid criminal bodies.
Currently, the terms are used to indicate three jurisdictions created,
between 1999 and 2001, in East Timor, Kosovo
and Sierra Leone, that is
to say the:
• Crimes Panels of the District Court of Dili;
• “Regulation 64” Panels in the Courts of Kosovo;
• Court for Sierra Leone;
as
well as a fourth one to address crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge in
Cambodia (the so called Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia),
which is currently under negotiation.
Like all international judicial bodies, such as the International Court
of Justice or the European Court of Human
Rights, to cite but two, internationalized
criminal bodies are composed of independent judges, working on the basis
of predetermined rules of procedure, and rendering binding decisions.
They are subject to the same principles governing
the work of all international
judiciaries (e.g., due process, impartiality and independence).
Within the wider class of international judicial bodies, the hybrid courts
belong to a specific order: that of international
criminal bodies. Like
the ICC, ICTY and ICTR, their goal is to sanction serious violations of
international law
(in particular, international humanitarian law, and
human rights law) committed by individuals and, as a consequence, deter
future violations and help to reestablish the rule of law. To do so, internationalized
criminal courts impose criminal
penalties--the critical feature setting
this group apart from all other international judicial bodies. As with
all other existing international criminal bodies, the UN played a key-role
in their creation. Moreover, like the ICTY and
the ICTR, but unlike the
ICC, they are ad hoc institutions, created to address particular situations,
for a limited
amount of time, and are the result of singular political
and historical circumstances. Finally, like all other international
criminal
bodies, in order to carry out their mission, the hybrid courts need to
rely on international cooperation
and judicial assistance by states and
international organizations, although in the case of internationalized
criminal
bodies, cooperation is further complicated by their peculiar
legal status.
Indeed, despite these important similarities, internationalized criminal
bodies do form a family on their own, which
sets them apart from all other
cognate entities. In some cases they are part of the judiciary of a given
country,
while in others, they have been grafted onto the local judicial
system. But in all cases their nature is mixed, incorporating
at the same
time international and national features. Indeed, they all are composed
of international and local
staff (both judges, prosecutor, support staff),
and apply a compound of international and national substantial and procedural
law, hence the term “internationalized” or “hybrid”
criminal courts and tribunals.
Data obtained from the Project on International Courts and Tribunals (PICT)
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/PICTRes/2004/1.html
