Research Article: 2024 Vol: 27 Issue: 3
Guan Yonhsheng, Universitas Medan Area
Isnaini M. Hum, Universitas Medan Area
Dr. Wenggedes Frensh, Universitas Medan Area
Citation Information: Yonhsheng G., Hum I.M., Frensh W., (2024). An in-depth examination of the progress and obstacles in the field of international criminal law. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 27(3), 1-11.
International Criminal Law (ICL) is a vital legal framework that deals with crimes that occur beyond national borders and ensures that those responsible for serious human rights and humanitarian law abuses are held accountable. This study offers a thorough examination of progress and obstacles in ICL, with a specific emphasis on significant achievements, legal concepts, and institutional procedures. The report examines the development of ICL, its origins, jurisdictional challenges, and methods of enforcement. In addition, it analyses current obstacles encountered by International Criminal Law (ICL), such as guaranteeing equitable legal proceedings, battling immunity from prosecution, and tackling growing types of cross-border offences. This study seeks to enhance comprehension of the intricacies and prospects in the realm of international criminal law via a thorough analysis.
International Criminal Law, responsibility, legal authority, procedures for implementation, obstacles, progress.
The field of International Criminal Law (ICL) has seen substantial development in the last century to effectively respond to the increasing need for holding individuals accountable and ensuring justice in cases involving severe breaches of human rights and humanitarian law. The formation of international criminal tribunals after World War II constituted a significant milestone in the advancement of International Criminal Law (ICL)(Aminov, 2019; Garland, 2023). The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials established significant precedents for the prosecution of persons accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Subsequently, the domain of International Criminal Law (ICL) has broadened to include a diverse array of global offences, such as acts of aggression, terrorism, and transnational organised crime.
The importance of ICL resides in its function as a legal structure for ensuring that persons are held responsible for the gravest offences according to international law. The purpose of International Criminal Law (ICL) is to establish procedures for examining, charging, and resolving international crimes. Its objective is to provide justice for victims, prevent future acts of violence, and uphold the principles of legal governance on a global scale. Furthermore, ICL plays a key role in promoting reconciliation, peacebuilding, and the recognition of human dignity in countries that have experienced war(Stott et al., 2023; Yakubovich et al., 2021).
This study aims to provide a thorough analysis of the progress and difficulties in the subject of International Criminal Law, as well as to examine the potential consequences for its future. The article will analyse the development of ICL, including its origins and legal foundations, jurisdictional complexities, institutional frameworks for ensuring accountability and enforcement, and current obstacles encountered in the field. Moreover, the article will analyse current advancements and developing patterns in ICL, along with suggestions for tackling significant obstacles and improving the efficiency of the legal structure(Lettieri et al., 2022; Levine & Russell, 2023).
The article covers a broad variety of themes concerning ICL, such as historical developments, legal principles, institutional processes, jurisdictional concerns, enforcement methods, obstacles, advancements, and future prospects. This paper seeks to enhance comprehension of the intricacies and prospects within the realm of International Criminal Law through a thorough examination of these subjects. Additionally, it aims to provide insights for future research and policy endeavours that aim to reinforce accountability and justice on an international scale.
The development of International Criminal Law (ICL) may be traced back to ancient civilizations, where basic legal systems were formed to deal with crimes committed against people and society. Nevertheless, the contemporary advancement of International Criminal Law (ICL) started to form following World conflict II, as the heinous acts done during the conflict made it necessary to establish international systems for holding individuals accountable. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, conducted post-war, were a momentous turning point in the history of International Criminal Law (ICL) by setting the precedent that people might be held liable for offences under international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide(Smirnov, 2020; Zedalis, 2022).
After the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, several international and hybrid courts were created to specifically address the atrocities perpetrated in particular conflicts or areas. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) were created in the 1990s with the purpose of bringing to justice those individuals who were accountable for acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity that occurred during the conflicts in the Balkans and Rwanda, respectively(Klevtsov & Vasyukov, 2021; Mkrtchian, 2019).
The development of international criminal tribunals and courts has been a significant characteristic of the progression of International Criminal Law (ICL). These institutions have a vital function in prosecuting persons who are accountable for severe breaches of international law and guaranteeing responsibility for significant offences. The formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 is a major achievement in the advancement of International Criminal Law (ICL). It is the first enduring international criminal court with authority over genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
Aside from the International Criminal Court (ICC), many additional international and hybrid tribunals have been created to handle particular conflicts or circumstances in which domestic courts are incapable or unwilling to bring charges against individuals who have committed international crimes. The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) have been instrumental in providing justice to victims and ensuring that those responsible for their crimes are held accountable.
The letter "C." The progression of legal principles and the establishment of precise definitions of crimes in International Criminal Law (ICL).
The development of legal concepts and definitions of crimes in International Criminal Law (ICL) has been influenced by breakthroughs in international law, court rulings, and progress in legal academia. Over the years, the scope of international crimes under International Criminal Law (ICL) has broadened to include a diverse range of offences, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, crimes of aggression, and crimes against peace.
Legal doctrines such as individual criminal liability, command responsibility, and superior commands have been created to enforce accountability for people' conduct and guarantee that those in positions of power are held accountable for crimes committed under their control. In addition, the advancement of customary international law and the formalisation of international treaties and conventions have played a role in the progression of legal concepts and the establishment of definitions of crimes in the field of International Criminal Law (ICL).
There is an increasing acknowledgement of the importance of dealing with new types of international crimes, including as human trafficking, terrorism, cybercrime, and environmental crimes, within the framework of International Criminal Law (ICL). In order to effectively handle the problems presented by emerging kinds of criminal behaviour in the realm of ICL, it is essential to focus on strengthening legal frameworks, improving accountability systems, and fostering international collaboration.
Ultimately, the development of International Criminal Law has been influenced by historical events, the establishment of international criminal tribunals and courts, and progress in legal concepts and the defining of crimes. International Criminal Law (ICL) has significantly contributed to the advancement of justice, accountability, and the rule of law on a global scale by implementing international accountability procedures and developing legal frameworks. Nevertheless, there are still obstacles to overcome in order to guarantee efficient implementation, tackle the lack of accountability, and deal with newly developing types of cross-border offences.
Treaties, conventions, and customary international law are the fundamental elements of International Criminal Law (ICL). They establish the legal structure for identifying and prosecuting crimes that occur on an international level. Treaties and treaties, such as the Geneva treaties and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), define precise offences in international law, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. These agreements delineate the extent of jurisdiction, legal principles, and procedural norms that regulate the prosecution of international crimes(Alkiviadou & Belavusau, 2021; Lettieri et al., 2022).
Customary international law, which is formed by the consistent actions of states and recognised as legally obligatory by the international community, has a significant impact on the evolution of international criminal law (ICL). Principles of customary international law, such as the absolute ban on torture, the principle of non-refoulement, and the prohibition against enforced disappearances, serve as the foundation for determining the components of international crimes and establishing legal standards that regulate the behaviour of states in times of armed conflict and other circumstances.
The interplay between treaties, conventions, and customary international law in international criminal law (ICL) is intricate, since each source plays a role in shaping and explaining legal concepts and standards. While treaties and conventions establish precise rules and responsibilities, customary international law encompasses the fundamental ideas and practices that have developed over time and are universally recognised as legally obligatory on all governments, irrespective of their treaty commitments.
The core principles of International Criminal Law (ICL) are essential legal ideas that provide the basis for the prosecution and judgement of international crimes. ICL upholds the notion of individual criminal responsibility, which means that people are held liable for their activities according to international law, regardless of their official position or affiliation. This concept guarantees that those who are liable for committing international crimes can be held responsible and brought to trial in either home or international tribunals.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) incorporates the notion of individual criminal responsibility. This principle grants the Court jurisdiction over people who are accused of committing acts of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. According to this concept, persons can be legally responsible for their direct involvement in the conduct of international crimes, as well as for giving orders, encouraging, or assisting in the commission of these crimes.
The concept of non-retroactivity is a fundamental aspect of ICL. It strictly forbids the retrospective enforcement of criminal laws on actions that were not deemed illegal at the time they were performed. This concept safeguards the rights of individuals by guaranteeing that they cannot face legal action or penalties for behaviour that was considered legal when it took place. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the concept of non-retroactivity does not prevent the legal pursuit of persons for actions that were considered criminal under customary international law when they were committed.
The core of International Criminal Law (ICL) is around jurisdictional matters, which determine the power of states and international courts to examine, charge, and judge people accused of international offences. The concepts governing jurisdiction in International Criminal Law (ICL) are complex and involve territoriality, nationality, and universal jurisdiction(Cordova & Vargas, 2023; Ovcharova et al., 2019).
Territorial jurisdiction pertains to the legal power of a state to enforce its laws and prosecute crimes that occur inside its geographical boundaries. According to this idea, governments are primarily responsible for investigating and punishing crimes that take place within their own territories. However, difficulties occur in situations where crimes have transnational aspects or when nations are reluctant or unable of prosecuting the individuals responsible.
Nationality jurisdiction confers upon states the authority to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by individuals who are citizens of that state, irrespective of the location where the crimes took place. This principle embodies the concept of loyalty and commitment between a nation and its inhabitants, and serves as a foundation for punishing individuals who engage in criminal activities outside their home country. Nonetheless, conflicts may arise between the idea of territoriality and nationality jurisdiction, resulting in jurisdictional disputes among nations.
Universal jurisdiction is a legal concept that grants nations the authority to bring criminal charges against individuals for certain offences, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, irrespective of the location of the crimes or the nationalities of the offender or victim. Universal jurisdiction is founded on the acknowledgment that certain crimes are extremely abhorrent and violate the moral principles of humanity. Consequently, any state has the authority to pursue certain crimes, regardless of territory or nationality factors. Nevertheless, the implementation of universal jurisdiction is bound by restrictions and criteria set down in international law, which include the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity.
Establishing authority over crimes committed in many countries presents considerable difficulties for nations and global judicial bodies in the examination, legal pursuit, and resolution of transnational offences. An important obstacle is the concept of dual criminality, which holds that they can only prosecute acts that are considered illegal under their own national laws. This need might pose challenges to the prosecution of transnational crimes, particularly in instances where there are disparities in legal systems and definitions of criminal offences.
Another obstacle is the concept of sovereign immunity, which might restrict a state's capability to bring legal action against persons who are working in an official position or on behalf of a foreign state. Sovereign immunity is an enduring concept of international law that shields states and their personnel from legal and criminal responsibility for their official actions. Although there are some cases when sovereign immunity does not apply, such as in specific instances of international crimes, attempting to establish jurisdiction over state officials can be politically delicate and may result in diplomatic conflicts between countries.
Furthermore, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) upholds the concept of complementarity, which mandates that nations must first utilise their own legal systems to address international crimes before the ICC may intervene and exercise jurisdiction. The idea seeks to advance the fundamental obligation of nations to prosecute international crimes and to guarantee that the ICC functions as a last judicial option. Nevertheless, difficulties emerge in situations where nations exhibit reluctance or incapacity to bring criminals to trial, raising doubts regarding the practical efficacy of complementarity.
Ad hoc and hybrid tribunals have been essential in resolving jurisdictional challenges and punishing persons implicated in international crimes inside particular wars or areas. The United Nations Security Council established ad hoc tribunals, namely the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), with the specific purpose of prosecuting individuals accountable for acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity that occurred during the conflicts in the Balkans and Rwanda, respectively.
Hybrid courts, like the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), utilise both international and local legal systems and authority to hold persons accountable for committing international crimes inside particular nations or areas. These tribunals serve as a platform for resolving jurisdictional matters and ensuring responsibility for serious breaches of international law. Additionally, they contribute to the advancement of national legal systems and institutions.
Ultimately, jurisdictional matters play a crucial role in the successful prosecution and resolution of international crimes within the framework of International Criminal Law. The legal basis for asserting jurisdiction over international crimes is established by concepts of territoriality, nationality, and universal jurisdiction. However, complications occur when dealing with crimes that are committed across boundaries. Ad hoc and hybrid tribunals are essential for resolving jurisdictional challenges and enforcing accountability for international crimes in particular conflicts or areas. However, concerns persist regarding the efficacy of complementarity and the principle of sovereign immunity in guaranteeing justice for victims and punishing those responsible.
The core of International Criminal Law (ICL) is around jurisdictional matters, which determine the power of states and international courts to examine, charge, and judge people accused of international offences. The concepts governing jurisdiction in International Criminal Law (ICL) are complex and involve territoriality, nationality, and universal jurisdiction(Lee et al., 2019; Ryabtseva, 2023).
Territorial jurisdiction pertains to the legal power of a state to enforce its laws and prosecute crimes that occur inside its geographical boundaries. According to this idea, states have the main responsibility for investigating and punishing crimes that take place within their jurisdiction. However, difficulties occur in situations where crimes have transnational aspects or when nations are reluctant or unable of prosecuting the individuals responsible.
Nationality jurisdiction confers upon states the authority to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by individuals who are citizens of that state, irrespective of the location where the crimes took place. This principle embodies the concept of loyalty and commitment between a nation and its inhabitants, and serves as a foundation for punishing individuals who engage in criminal activities outside of their own country. Nonetheless, conflicts may arise between the idea of territoriality and nationality jurisdiction, resulting in jurisdictional disputes among nations.
Universal jurisdiction is a legal theory that grants nations the authority to prosecute individuals for certain crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, without considering the location of the acts or the nationality of the offender or victim. Universal jurisdiction is founded on the acknowledgement that certain crimes are extremely abhorrent and violate the moral principles of humanity. Consequently, any state has the authority to pursue certain crimes, regardless of territory or nationality factors. Nevertheless, the use of universal jurisdiction is constrained by constraints and prerequisites established by international law, which encompass concepts of subsidiarity and complementarity.
Establishing authority over crimes committed in many countries presents substantial difficulties for nations and global courts in the examination, legal pursuit, and resolution of transnational offences. An important obstacle is the concept of dual criminality, which means that governments may only prosecute acts that are considered illegal under their own domestic laws. This criterion might pose challenges to the prosecution of transnational crimes, particularly in instances where there are disparities in legal systems and interpretations of criminal offences.
Another obstacle is the concept of sovereign immunity, which might restrict a state's capability to bring legal action against persons who are working in an official position or on behalf of a foreign state. Sovereign immunity is an enduring concept of international law that shields states and their personnel from legal and criminal responsibility for their official actions. Although there are some cases when sovereign immunity does not apply, such as for specific international offences, attempting to establish jurisdiction over state officials can be politically delicate and may result in diplomatic conflicts between countries.
Furthermore, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) upholds the concept of complementarity, which mandates that nations must first utilise their own legal systems to address international crimes before the ICC may intervene and exercise jurisdiction. The purpose of this concept is to advance the main obligation of nations to prosecute international crimes and to guarantee that the ICC functions as a last judicial option. However, difficulties occur in situations when nations are reluctant or unable of prosecuting offenders, raising concerns about the practicality of complementarity.
Ad hoc and hybrid tribunals have been essential in resolving jurisdictional challenges and punishing persons accused of committing international crimes in particular wars or areas. The United Nations Security Council established ad hoc tribunals, namely the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), with the purpose of prosecuting individuals accountable for acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity that occurred during the conflicts in the Balkans and Rwanda, respectively.
Hybrid courts, such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), employ a combination of international and local legal principles and authority to bring charges against individuals for committing international crimes inside particular nations or areas. These tribunals serve as a platform for resolving jurisdictional matters and ensuring responsibility for serious breaches of international law. Additionally, they contribute to the advancement of national legal systems and institutions.
Ultimately, jurisdictional matters play a crucial role in successfully prosecuting and resolving international crimes within the framework of International Criminal Law. The legal basis for asserting jurisdiction over international crimes is established by concepts of territoriality, nationality, and universal jurisdiction. However, complications occur when dealing with crimes that are committed across boundaries. Ad hoc and hybrid tribunals are essential in resolving jurisdictional problems and enforcing accountability for international crimes in particular conflicts or areas. However, there are concerns regarding the effectiveness of complementarity and the principle of sovereign immunity in guaranteeing justice for victims and punishing those responsible.
A key obstacle in International Criminal Law (ICL) is guaranteeing equitable trials and upholding the defendants' due process rights in cases involving international offences. Ensuring a just trial, including the entitlement to a capable, autonomous, and unbiased tribunal, the assumption of innocence, and the entitlement to legal counsel, are essential elements of global law protected in several human rights agreements and legal treaties. Nevertheless, guaranteeing these rights within the framework of international criminal processes poses distinctive obstacles due to the intricacy of the cases, the variety of legal systems included, and the possibility of political intervention(Metz-Dworkin, 2016; Peršak, 2022; Su, 2019).
International criminal tribunals and courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ad hoc tribunals formed by the United Nations Security Council, have the responsibility of resolving matters related to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. These institutions are dedicated to maintaining equitable trial standards and ensuring the rights of defendants to due process, but they frequently encounter practical obstacles. Factors such as the safeguarding of witnesses, difficulties in communication, availability of legal counsel, and the acceptability of evidence can influence the impartiality of trials and give rise to doubts regarding the credibility of judicial procedures.
Furthermore, the act of making international criminal processes political and the deliberate choice of when to apply justice might weaken attempts to guarantee impartial trials and the rights of defendants to a fair legal process. The decision-making procedures of international tribunals and courts can be influenced by political pressures, diplomatic considerations, and power relations among nations. This can result in perceptions of prejudice, uneven treatment, and procedural errors. Therefore, it is necessary to have more openness, responsibility, and compliance with legal norms in global criminal procedures in order to maintain the credibility of the judicial system and foster public trust in the principles of justice.
ICL faces a huge difficulty in addressing impunity and obtaining cooperation from nations in investigating, prosecuting, and enforcing international crimes. Impunity, which refers to the lack of consequences for wrongdoers, erodes the trustworthiness of the legal system and perpetuates patterns of violence, conflict, and violations of human rights. In order to address the issue of impunity, it is necessary to have efficient legal systems, enhance the capabilities of institutions, and ensure that governments have the determination to investigate and bring to justice those who are accountable for committing international crimes.
International criminal tribunals and courts are essential in combating impunity by prosecuting those who are suspected of committing grave crimes of international law. Nevertheless, these establishments frequently have difficulties in obtaining collaboration from nations, especially when influential nations or non-state entities are involved in the perpetration of offences. Challenges such as conflicts over legal authority, protection from legal prosecution for diplomats, and failure to follow court instructions can obstruct the efficient operation of global courts and inhibit endeavours to bring wrongdoers to justice.
Furthermore, the lack of universal jurisdiction and the restrictions imposed by extradition treaties might pose challenges when it comes to prosecuting persons who are suspected of committing international crimes in local courts. States may hesitate to transfer suspects to nations or international courts when they are at danger of receiving unjust treatment, political oppression, or human rights abuses. Consequently, it is imperative to enhance collaboration and synchronisation among governments, international organisations, and civil society entities in order to surmount obstacles to holding individuals accountable for international crimes and guarantee justice for the victims.
Alongside conventional types of international offences, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, the increasing occurrence of emergent transnational crimes presents fresh obstacles for International Criminal Law. The presence of cybercrime, terrorism, human trafficking, and organised criminal networks poses intricate legal, technical, and jurisdictional difficulties that necessitate inventive strategies and cooperative endeavours to successfully tackle.
The global nature of internet and the fast growth of technology provide distinct obstacles for law enforcement and judicial agencies when it comes to dealing with cybercrime. The repercussions of cyberattacks, data breaches, identity theft, and online fraud may be severe for individuals, organisations, and governments. To effectively battle these cyber threats and ensure that those responsible are held accountable, international collaboration and coordination are necessary.
Terrorism presents a substantial menace to worldwide security and stability, as terrorist organisations employ advanced strategies and technology to execute cross-border strikes. The global community has addressed the menace of terrorism by implementing legal structures, such as United Nations Security Council resolutions and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. These frameworks are designed to prevent and combat terrorism by promoting collaboration, sharing intelligence, and implementing law enforcement actions.
Nevertheless, effectively dealing with the fundamental reasons for terrorism, such as poverty, inequality, and political grievances, necessitates a thorough strategy that tackles both the fundamental forces behind radicalization and the structural elements that contribute to the spread of terrorist ideas. Furthermore, it is imperative that measures used to combat terrorism adhere to the principles of human rights, support the principles of legal governance, and foster open communication, reconciliation, and societal unity in order to prevent future radicalization and violence.
Ultimately, the complexities of International Criminal Law necessitate a collaborative approach involving governments, international organisations, and civil society entities in order to successfully tackle them. Promoting equitable legal proceedings and safeguarding the rights of defendants, while also tackling impunity and addressing new types of cross-border crimes, are crucial objectives for promoting justice, accountability, and the rule of law on a global scale.
Recent developments in International Criminal Law (ICL) include the establishment of hybrid tribunals, the expansion of universal jurisdiction, and the implementation of accountability mechanisms. In recent years, there have been notable progressions in International Criminal Law (ICL), including the creation of hybrid tribunals, the widening of universal jurisdiction, and the formulation of new mechanisms for accountability. Hybrid courts, like the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, employ inventive methods to combat impunity for international crimes. They achieve this by blending aspects of both international and local law and jurisdiction. These tribunals serve as a platform for prosecuting persons who are accountable for serious breaches of international law, while also fostering the advancement of national legal systems and institutions.
Universal jurisdiction has become a potent mechanism for ensuring that individuals who commit international crimes are held responsible, irrespective of the location of the crimes or the nationalities of the offender or victim. Recent instances, such as the legal pursuit of individuals who have committed war crimes and violated human rights in domestic courts through universal jurisdiction, illustrate the increasing acknowledgement of the idea that certain offences are very atrocious and morally repugnant, and can be legally pursued by any country.
The implementation of accountability measures, such as truth commissions, reparations programmes, and vetting processes for transitional justice, has played a significant role in fostering justice, reconciliation, and the establishment of the rule of law in countries recovering from violence. These systems offer opportunities for victims to pursue truth, justice, and compensation for past wrongdoings, while also encouraging responsibility for those who committed the crimes and promoting unity and harmony within society.
In the future, there are encouraging opportunities for enhancing global collaboration and synchronisation in the prosecution of foreign offences. Enhanced cooperation among nations, international organisations, and civil society actors is crucial for effectively tackling the issues presented by transnational crimes, establishing responsibility for wrongdoers, and guaranteeing justice for those affected. Efforts to improve the exchange of information, develop skills, and provide legal support will help to achieve more efficient responses to global crimes and reinforce the international legal system in the fight against impunity.
In order to improve the efficiency and credibility of International Criminal Law, many suggestions might be taken into account. First and foremost, it is crucial to provide more assistance and financial resources to international and hybrid tribunals in order to guarantee their autonomy, fairness, and efficiency in the prosecution of foreign offences. In addition, it is important to supplement measures aimed at ensuring responsibility and preventing impunity with actions that aim to avoid the repetition of violence and conflict, tackle the underlying causes of atrocities, and advance human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Engaging civil society, victims' groups, and affected communities is crucial for fostering transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the justice system. It is also vital for ensuring that the perspectives and experiences of those most impacted by international crimes are acknowledged and taken into account in the pursuit of justice and reconciliation.
To summarise, the analysis of International Criminal Law (ICL) has uncovered several significant discoveries and understandings. We have examined the fundamental ideas, origins, and obstacles encountered in International Criminal Law (ICL), such as matters of jurisdiction, the protection of fair trial rights, and the fight against impunity. In addition, we have examined recent progress in International Criminal Law (ICL), including the formation of hybrid tribunals and the broadening of universal jurisdiction. We have also assessed the potential for enhancing international collaboration in the prosecution of international crimes.
The results emphasise the significance of resolving legal issues related to jurisdiction, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial, and strengthening systems for holding individuals accountable in order to advance justice, accountability, and the principles of the rule of law on a global scale. Furthermore, the rise of novel types of transnational offences, such as cybercrime and terrorism, underscores the necessity for inventive strategies and cooperative endeavours to address impunity and foster global collaboration.
In the future, it is crucial to continue doing research, engaging in discussions, and collaborating with governments, international organisations, and civil society actors in order to make progress in the subject of International Criminal Law (ICL). Enhancing legal frameworks, developing institutional capacity, and advocating for human rights and transitional justice are crucial in tackling the issues presented by international crimes and fostering global peace, stability, and the preservation of human dignity.
Alkiviadou, N., & Belavusau, U. (2021). Rien que des mots: Counteracting homophobic speech in European and U.S. law. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 21(4), 374–400.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Aminov, I. I. (2019, May). The significance of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies in criminological and psychological forecasting and prevention of criminal behavior. In 1st International Scientific Conference" Modern Management Trends and the Digital Economy: from Regional Development to Global Economic Growth"(MTDE 2019) (pp. 446-449). Atlantis Press.
Cordova, F. A. G., & Vargas, L. E. I. (2023). THE CRIME OF SICARIATO IN THE TRAINING OF LAW PROFESSIONALS. REVISTA CONRADO, 19(92), 136-145 WE-Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESC.
Garland, D. (2023). The Current Crisis of American Criminal Justice: A Structural Analysis. ANNUAL REVIEW OF CRIMINOLOGY, 6, 43–63.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Klevtsov, K. K., & Vasyukov, V. F. (2021). Obtaining electronic information on criminal cases within the framework of international cooperation. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Pravo, 12(1).
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Lee, B. X., Prabhu, M., Lee, G., Kramer, E., & Blay-Tofey, M. (2019). Violence and health: Merging criminal justice, law, mental health, and public health - Part A: Neuroscience, epidemiology, and revisionist discourse. AGGRESSION AND VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, 46, 156–157.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Lettieri, N., Guarino, A., Malandrino, D., & Zaccagnino, R. (2023). Knowledge mining and social dangerousness assessment in criminal justice: metaheuristic integration of machine learning and graph-based inference. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 31(4), 653-702.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Levine, J. R., & Russell, K. L. (2023). Crime Pays the Victim: Criminal Fines, the State, and Victim Compensation Law 1964-1984(1). AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 128(4), 1158–1205.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Metz-Dworkin, A. (2015). A Call for Sanctions: Argentina's Black Market Currency Whitening and Violations of International Anti-Money Laundering Conventions and Protocols. Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev., 48, 441.
Mkrtchian, S. M. (2019). Criminal and legal protection of relationships in the area of blockchains functioning and cryptocurrency turnover: New challenges. Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of Things: Prerequisites for the Development of ICT, 355-361.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Ovcharova, E., Tasalov, K., & Osina, D. (2019). Tax compliance in the Russian federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America: Forcing and encouraging lawful conduct of taxpayers. Russian Law Journal, 7(1), 4-54
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Peršak, N. (2022). Criminalising Hate Crime and Hate Speech at EU Level: Extending the List of Eurocrimes Under Article 83(1) TFEU. Criminal Law Forum, 33(2), 85–119.
Ryabtseva, E. V. (2023). The problem of using Artificial Intelligence in criminal justice. Russian Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 73–80.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Smirnov, A. М. (2020). Self-Defense of the Rights and Freedoms of Personality in the Sphere of Criminal Law Relations. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, (12), 98-104.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Stott, J. M., Giese, J. T., Gittner, L. S., Forbis Jr, R. E., & Dennis, J. A. (2023). Perspectives on Diversion in the Criminal Justice and Health care Systems. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 39(4), 464-470.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Su, H. C. (2019). From Suppression to Real Freedom of Expression in the Open and Plural Society of Taiwan—The Constitutional Court’s Role in This Progress. Taiwan and International Human Rights: A Story of Transformation, 383-401.
Yakubovich, A. R., Esposti, M. D., Lange, B. C. L., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Parmar, A., Wiebe, D. J., & Humphreys, D. K. (2021). Effects of Laws Expanding Civilian Rights to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense on Violence and Crime: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Public Health, 111(4).
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Zedalis, J. (2022). The Time-traveling Lawyer: Using Time Travel Stories and Science Fiction in Legal Education. British Journal of American Legal Studies, 11(1), 355–378.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Received: 08-Mar-2024, Manuscript No. JLERI-24-14722; Editor assigned: 09-Mar-2024, Pre QC No. JLERI-24-14722 (PQ); Reviewed: 23-Mar-2024, QC No. JLERI-24-14722; Revised: 28-Mar-2024, Manuscript No. JLERI-24-14722(R); Published: 04-Apr-2024