Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:33:50.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Making of Global Legal Culture and International Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

KIRSTEN CAMPBELL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is commonly agreed that international criminal law (ICL) is a ‘hybrid’ legal culture, which mixes the legal traditions of the common law and civil law. However, the precise nature of this legal culture remains a contentious legal and theoretical issue. The paper identifies the two dominant models of ICL within these debates as either a clash of cultures or a sui generis system, and shows how neither satisfactorily engages with the concept of legal culture itself. To address this problem, the paper develops a new account of ICL as a global legal culture. The paper first identifies the distinctive ‘cultural logic’ of ICL, drawing on the example of recent developments in sexual violence offences. It then examines how ICL takes a global legal form, which ‘globalizes’ liberal legal culture. Finally, the paper shows how this process of making the legal culture of ICL ‘global’ creates its cultural contradictions, but also enables the possibility of making a new legal culture at the international level.

Keywords

international criminal justiceinternational criminal lawlegal culturesexual violencewar crimes
Type
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 155 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 15 October 2009, transcript, at 1508, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

2 Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case, 16 June 2009, 18–19, International Criminal Court (ICC).

3 van Sliedregt, E., ‘Introduction: Common Civility – International Criminal Law as Cultural Hybrid’, (2011) 24 LJIL 389CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See, for example, Fairlie, M., ‘The Marriage of Common and Continental Law at the ICTY and Its Progeny, Due Deficit’, (2004) 4 International Criminal Law Review 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Orie, A., ‘Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings Prior to the Establishment of the ICC and in the Proceedings of the ICC’, in Cassese, A., Gaeta, P., and Jones, J. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002)Google Scholar; and Ambos, K., ‘The Structure of International Criminal Procedure’, in Bohlander, M. (ed.), International Criminal Justice (2007)Google Scholar.

5 Fletcher, G., ‘The Influence of the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions on International Criminal Law’, in Örücü, E. and Nelken, D. (eds.), Comparative Law: A Handbook (2007), 104Google Scholar.

6 Delmas-Marty, M. ‘Comparative Criminal Law as a Necessary Tool for the Application of International Criminal Law’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (2009), 97Google Scholar.

7 For discussion of this debate, see Brouwer, A. M., Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence (2005), 117–29Google Scholar.

8 See Mégret, F. ‘“Beyond Fairness”: Understanding the Determinants of International Criminal Procedure’, (2009) 14 UCLA JILFA 39Google Scholar; and Damaska, M., ‘The Competing Visions of Fairness’, (2011) 36 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 365Google Scholar. This focus can be contrasted to the far broader ‘convergence’ debates.

9 See Cotterrell, R., ‘Comparatists and Sociology’, in Legrand, P. and Munday, R. (eds.), Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions (2003), 148Google Scholar; and Damaska, M., ‘Epistemology and the Legal Regulation of Proof’, (2003) 2 Law, Probability, and Risk 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Mégret, supra note 8, at 46.

11 I would like to thank Beverley Brown for her formulation of legal culture as something more than rules and institutions, and for her very useful discussions of this issue.

12 Van Sliedregt, supra note 3.

13 See Bell, J., ‘English and French Law – Not So Different?’, (1995) 48 Current Legal Problems 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an example of this approach in the ICL literature, see Findlay, M., ‘Synthesis in Trial Proceedings? The Experience of International Criminal Tribunals’, (2001) 50 ICLQ 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 P. Legrand, ‘European Legal Systems Are Not Converging’, (1996) 45 ICLQ 52. In the ICL context, see, for example, Tochilovsky, V., ‘International Criminal Justice: “Strangers in the Foreign System”’, (2005) 15 Criminal Law Forum 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See Orie, supra note 4.

16 See, for example, Fairlie, supra note 4, and Orie, supra note 4.

17 See Skilbeck, R., ‘Frankenstein's Monster’: Creating a New International Procedure’, (2010) 8 JICJ 451Google Scholar; and Orie, supra note 4, at 1494.

18 Fletcher, supra note 5, at 105.

19 See F. Mégret, ‘International Criminal Law: A New Legal Hybrid?’ (2003). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1269382.

20 Langer, M., ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’, (2006) 53 American Journal of Comparative Law 835CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 For this reason, discussions of the characteristics of common or civil legal traditions at the international level commonly devolve to discussion of the specific municipal national systems, such as the English or German legal systems.

22 See, for example, Skilbeck, supra note 17; and Tochilovsky, supra note 14.

23 See Whitman, J., ‘The Neo-Romantic Turn’, in Legrand, P. and Munday, R. (eds.), Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions (2003)Google Scholar.

24 See Mégret, supra note 8, at 59.

25 Ambos, supra note 4.

26 Zappala, S., Human Rights in International Criminal Proceedings (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 See Damaska, supra note 8; and Ohlin, J., ‘A Meta-Theory of International Criminal Procedure’, (2009) 14 UCLA JILFA 77Google Scholar.

28 Sloane, R., ‘The Expressive Capacity of International Punishment: The Limits of the National Law Analogy and the Potential of International Criminal Law’, (2007) 43 Stanford JIL 39Google Scholar.

29 Mégret, F., ‘In Defense of Hybridity: Towards a Representation Theory of International Justice’, (2005) 38 Cornell ILJ 742Google Scholar.

30 Cotterrell, R., Law, Culture and Society (2006), 127Google Scholar.

31 Here I follow Kate Nash in her assessment that this definition of culture by Raymond Williams remains the ‘best analysis of the term’: Nash, K., ‘The Cultural Turn in Social Theory’, (2001) 35 Sociology 77Google Scholar, at 90. See also Silbey, S., ‘Legal Culture and Cultures of Legality’, in Hall, J., Grindstaff, L., and Lo, M.-C. (eds.), Sociology of Culture (2010)Google Scholar.

32 Without this, the model of legal culture loses its proper engagement with law, a common weakness of socio-legal accounts of legal cultures: see Cotterrell, supra note 30, at 139.

33 Merry, S., ‘Huma n Rights Law and the Demonization of Culture’, (2003) 26 Polar: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Jameson, F., Postmodernism: The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991), 6Google Scholar.

35 Ibid.

36 The classic discussion of the two dominant critiques of international law as coercive or idealist is Koskenniemi, M., From Apology to Utopia (1989)Google Scholar.

37 Naffine, N., ‘Can Women Be Legal Persons?’, in James, S. and Palmer, S. (eds.), Visible Women (2002), 69Google Scholar.

38 The Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vuković, Case No. IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1, Judgement, Trial Chamber, 2001, para. 470 (‘Kunarac’).

39 For example, see Brownmiller, S., Against Our Will (1975)Google Scholar; and Goldstein, J., War and Gender (2001)Google Scholar.

40 Sexual violence in conflict had not been an international crime as such (where it was prohibited, it was punished as a breach of national military discipline or honour). See Askin, K., War Crimes against Women (1997), 377Google Scholar.

41 This is not to say that that this legal regulation is satisfactory: see Campbell, K., ‘The Gender of Transitional Justice’, (2007) 1 International Journal of Transitional Justice 411CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). For further discussion, see Bohlander, M., ‘Radbruch Redux: The Need for Revisiting the Conversation between Common and Civil Law at Root Level at the Example of International Criminal Justice’, (2011) 24 LJIL 393CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 The Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1, Judgement, Trial Chamber, 1998, para. 178.

44 Ibid.

45 Van Schaak, B., ‘Crimen Sine Lege: Judicial Lawmaking at the Intersection of Law and Morals’, (2008) 97 Georgetown Law Journal 119Google Scholar, at 167.

46 Werle, G., Principles of International Criminal Law (2005), 40Google Scholar.

47 Kunarac, para. 553. See also The Prosecutor v. Cesić, Case No. IT-95-10/1-S, Judgement, 2004, para. 35.

48 For an overview of international human rights standards and international criminal proceedings, see Cryer, R.et al., An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2010), 430CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 See Ambos, supra note 4.

50 Jackson, J. and Doran, S., ‘Evidence’, in Patterson, D. (ed.) A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (1996), 173Google Scholar.

51 Brouwer, supra note 7, at 260–1.

52 Decision on the Prosecution's Motion for the Redaction of the Public Record, Case No. IT-96-21, 5 June 1997, para. 47.

53 See Langer, supra note 20.

54 T. Meron, Completion Strategy Report, 21 May 2004, S/2004/420; Kay, S., ‘The Move from Oral to Written Evidence’, (2004) 2 JICJ 495Google Scholar; Wald, P., ‘To “Establish Incredible Events by Credible Evidence”’ (2001) 42 Harv. ILJ 535Google Scholar.

55 Pashukanis, E., Law and Marxism: A General Theory (1978), 79Google Scholar (original emphasis).

56 Ibid., 121.

57 Ibid., 188.

58 Ibid., 170.

59 Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (1999), 206Google Scholar. See also Chesterman, S., ‘An International Rule of Law?’, (2008) 56 American Journal of Comparative Law 331CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 The Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Case No. IT-96-22, Sentencing Judgement, Trial Chamber, 1996, para. 21.

61 Annual Report of the ICTY, UN Doc. A/49/342; S/1994/1007, 12.

62 See Mégret, supra note 8, at 58.

63 See ibid. for an excellent analysis of these common strategies.

64 Fraser, N., ‘Who Counts? Dilemmas of Justice in a Post-Westphalian World’, Antipode 41 (2009) 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should be noted that Fraser rejects this ‘global–cosmopolitan’ approach.

65 Nijman, J., The Concept of International Legal Personality (2004), 473CrossRefGoogle Scholar (original emphasis).

66 Pashukanis, supra note 55, at 177. Pashukanis goes on to argue that it is the ‘real figure of the injured party, who takes part in the trial either personally or through a representative, which gives the trial its living meaning’.

67 For further discussion of the global legal form, see Campbell, K., ‘From Legitimacy to Legality’, in Thornhill, C. and Ashenden, S. (eds.), Legality and Legitimacy: Normative and Sociological Approaches (2010)Google Scholar.

68 On the implications of this ‘cultural specificity’ of ICL, see Badar, Mohamed Elewa, ‘Islamic Law (Shari'a) and the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’, (2011) 24 LJIL 411CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Mohamed Badar presented this argument at the Common Civility conference, and this paper greatly benefited from our discussion of these issues.

69 Norrie, A., Law and the Beautiful Soul (2005), 29Google Scholar.

70 Pashukanis, supra note 55 (original emphasis). For an overview of the debate concerning the relationship between the legal form and capitalist economic relations, see Head, M., Pashukanis: A Critical Reappraisal (2007)Google Scholar.

71 Cotterrell, supra note 30, at 16–17.

72 Farmer, L., Criminal Law, Tradition and Legal Order (1997)Google Scholar.

73 Norrie, A., Crime, Reason, and History (2000), 19Google Scholar.

74 This reflects the shift from older models of IHL as a legal regime regulating war between states to its more contemporary form, which is increasingly understood as protecting human rights in conflict. For further discussion, see C. Sriram et al., War, Conflict, and Human Rights (2009).

75 The Prosecutor v. Kvocka et al., IT-98-30/1-A, Appeals Judgement, 2005, paras. 395–396.

76 Anderson, N. and Greenberg, D., ‘From Substance to Form’, (1983) 7 Social Text 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 70.

77 See Mégret, supra note 8, at 58.

78 See Brouwer, supra note 7, at 235–8; and Charlesworth, H. and Chinkin, C., The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis (2000), 326–9Google Scholar.

79 See Fitchelberg, A., ‘Democratic Legitimacy and the International Criminal Court: A Liberal Defence’, (2006) 4 JICJ 765Google Scholar.

80 Miéville, C., Between Equal Rights (2005), 267–8Google Scholar (original emphasis). Miéville's work is crucial to this idea of the global legal form.

81 Anderson and Greenberg, supra note 76, at 70.

82 Norrie, A., ‘Pashukanis and the Commodity Form Theory’, (1982) 10 International Journal of the Sociology of Law 419Google Scholar, at 423.

83 Hardt, M. and Negri, A., Empire (2000), xiGoogle Scholar.

84 Žižek, S., ‘Against Human Rights’ (2005) 34 New Left Review 115Google Scholar, at 129.

85 Williams characterizes emergent cultural practices as counterhegemonic (Problems in Materialism and Culture (1980), 42–3). However, I would argue that instead of asking whether ICL is an oppositional or conservative cultural form, a more productive (post-structuralist and post-Marxist) approach is to use the contingency and indeterminacy of this legal culture to produce new cultural forms.

86 Jameson, supra note 34, at 6.

87 C. Koch, ‘Envisioning a Global Legal Culture’, (2003–4) 25 Mich. JIL 2.

88 Ibid.

89 I would like to thank Phil Clark for the very useful idea of ‘structural hybridity’, which he discussed at the Common Civility conference.

90 See Butler, J., Žižek, S., and Laclau, E., Contingency, Hegenomy, Universality (2000)Google Scholar, for an extended discussion of this old philosophical problem.

91 For further discussion of ‘legal antinomy’, see Norrie, supra note 69.

92 Teitel, R., Transitional Justice (2000)Google Scholar.

93 Fletcher, L. and Weinstein, H., ‘A World unto Itself? The Application of International Justice in the Former Yugoslavia’, in Stover, E. and Weinstein, H. (eds.), My Neighbour, My Enemy (2004), 29 at 30Google Scholar.

94 Rejali, D., ‘After Feminist Analyses of Bosnian Violence’, in Lorenzen, L. and Turpin, J. (eds.), The Women and War Reader (1998)Google Scholar.

95 See, for example, Medica Mondiale, It Wouldn't Just Happen Anywhere in the World (2010).

96 Laudan, L., Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology (2006), 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 See Chinkin, C., ‘Due Process and Witness Anonymity’, (1997) 91 AJIL 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 For extensive discussion of the impact of ‘local’ culture upon fact finding, see Combs, N., Fact-Finding without Facts (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Combs also presented on this issue at the Common Civility conference.

99 Mégret, supra note 8.