While the idea of “female criminal” is in general far from traditional stereotypes, the possibility that a woman perpetrates international crimes is even inconceivable, as if by nature she couldn’t commit such aberrant offenses. As a matter of fact, the said stereotype puts such women in a condition between a sensationalistic and an invisible spot, without looking and analyzing reality. The paper illustrates cases where women were indicted and tried for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes before international criminal courts, starting from WWII, trying to assess if, how and to what extent the defendant’s gender influenced the proceedings
The United States and Israel are acting as rogue States by refusing to accept the authority of the ICC
Targeted Killings Through Armed Drones and the Case of Iranian General Quassem Soleimani
Executive Order on Blocking Property Of Certain Persons Associated With The International Criminal Court (June, 11, 2020)
The first criminal trial worldwide on State-run torture in Syria started in Koblenz, Germany, on 23 April 2020. The defendants are two former high officials of the Syrian General Intelligence Service of President Bashar al-Assad and face charges for international crimes committed in the Al-Khatib prison of Damascus. The trial marks a historical achievement in international criminal justice; in fact, it is the first trial based on the principle of universal jurisdiction against Syrian State officials. Moreover, the Al-Kathib trial, together with other proceedings held in a few other European States, is currently the only way to ensure accountability for the grave crimes committed within the Syrian conflict
The recent referral of the Venezuelan case to the International Criminal Court by several State Parties to the Rome Statute has been deeply covered by the media in Latin America. This piece highlights the lack of effectiveness of the referral per se, then pointing out the options for States really eager to implement the international criminal justice system
The recent convictions of Karadžić and Mladić by the ICTY offer a good example of the difficulties surrounding mitigating circumstances under International Criminal Law. This paper – not sharing the view of the majority of scholars (according to whom the ICTY case-law is not plausible) – supports the idea that there is a link between the aims of sentencing and the mitigating circumstances in each case. An empirical survey shows, indeed, the symbolic function of sentencing and – as in the recalled ICTY judgments – the importance of a deep reeducation of the defendant by virtue of International Law norms.
After a brief overview of the Italian and the international legal framework against illicit trafficking of cultural property, the Author strives to verify the coherence of the forthcoming reforming law currently under discussion with the international law, focusing in particular on the provisions of the new Nicosia Convention, highlighting, from this perspective, some possible critical concerns.
The present paper critically analyzes the European legislation on smuggling of migrants. According to the author's opinion, the communitarian legislator and the majority of the European countries have confused this specific crime, regulated by international law in Palermo Convention, with the felony of facilitating illegal immigration. This undue overlap between different types of crime generates multiple and complex problems. In first place, the article studies the requirements of smuggling of migrants in international law. In second place, it examines the reasons why is not possible to conceive this crime and the felony of facilitating illegal immigration as functional equivalents. Finally, the paper proposes to distinguish clearly the elements of both crimes and their respective application ambits.