ORPP logo
Image from Google Jackets

The Role and Extent of a Proportionality Analysis in the Judicial Assessment of Human Rights Limitations Within International Criminal Proceedings.

By: Material type: TextTextPublisher: Boston : BRILL, 2015Copyright date: ©2016Edition: 1st edDescription: 1 online resource (435 pages)Content type:
  • text
Media type:
  • computer
Carrier type:
  • online resource
ISBN:
  • 9789004231412
Subject(s): Genre/Form: Additional physical formats: Print version:: The Role and Extent of a Proportionality Analysis in the Judicial Assessment of Human Rights Limitations Within International Criminal ProceedingsDDC classification:
  • 341.48
LOC classification:
  • KZ7000 .C76 2015
Online resources:
Contents:
Intro -- The Role and Extent of a Proportionality Analysis in the Judicial Assessment of Human Rights Limitations within International Criminal Proceedings -- Copyright -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations -- Table of cases and statutes -- Introduction: Purpose, Methodology and Scope of the Monograph -- 1 Purpose of the Monograph -- 2 Underlying Methodology -- 3 Scope of the Monograph -- 4 Outline of the Chapters -- I: Conceptual Tools for Assessing Limitations upon the Exercise of Human Rights -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Justifications of Interferences with Human Rights -- 2.1 Internal and External Theories of Rights -- 2.2 Internal and External Limits on Rights -- 2.3 Techniques for the Resolution of Conflicts of Values -- 2.3.1 Conflict between Rights and Public Interest Grounds -- 2.3.1.1 Theory of Rights as 'Trumps' -- 2.3.1.2 End-Test (Legitimate Objective) and Broad Proportionality Analysis (Suitability, Less Restrictive Means and Balancing Tests) -- 2.3.1.3 End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Suitability and Less Restrictive Means Tests) -- 2.3.1.4 End-Test and One-Prong Proportionality Analysis (Balancing) -- 2.3.1.5 End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Suitability and Balancing Tests) -- 2.3.1.6 End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Less Restrictive Means and Balancing Tests) -- 2.3.1.7 'Priority to Rights' Principle and Defijinitional Balancing -- 2.3.2 Conflict of Rights -- 2.3.2.1 Terminology -- 2.3.2.2 Interpretative Model: Determination of the Scope of the Conflicting Human Rights -- 2.3.2.3 Transposition of the End-Test and the Broad Proportionality Analysis to Conflict of Rights Situations -- 2.3.2.4 Hierarchy of Human Rights Principle -- 2.3.2.5 Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance' -- 2.3.3 Neighbouring Concepts to Proportionality that are Relevant to Both Types of Conflicts of Values.
2.3.3.1 Role of the Legality Principle -- 2.3.3.2 The 'Essence' of Rights Doctrine -- 3 Conclusion -- II: Institutional and Regulatory Context Underpinning the International Criminal Courts' Human Rights Limitation Analyses -- 1 Legal Basis for Human Rights Enforcement -- 1.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 1.2 The ICC -- 2 Procedural Guarantees at the Investigation and Interrogation Stages -- 2.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 2.2 The ICC -- 3 The Rights of the Accused -- 3.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 3.2 The ICC -- 3.3 Common Considerations: Features of the Right to a Fair Trial -- 4 Victims' Participation Rights -- 5 Substantive Human Rights -- 5.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 5.2 The ICC -- 6 Absence of Derogation Clause and Presence of Limitation and Qualification Clauses within International Criminal Procedural Law -- 6.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 6.1.1 General Framework -- 6.1.2 Presence of a Statutory Limitation Clause -- 6.1.3 Presence of Various Qualifijication Clauses -- 6.2 The ICC -- 6.2.1 General Framework -- 6.2.2 Presence of a Statutory Limitation Clause -- 6.2.3 Presence of Various Qualifijication Clauses -- 6.3 Commonalities -- 7 Role of the Legality Principle under International Criminal Procedural Law and International Criminal Law -- 8 Structural Difficulties in Drawing on a Hierarchy of Human Rights Model for Resolving Conflicts of Rights -- 9 Methods of Interpretation under International Criminal Procedural Law and International Criminal Law -- 10 Conclusion -- III: Formation of a Generic Justificatory Framework for Assessing External Limits upon any Fundamental Right or Defence Right -- 1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 2 The ICC -- 3 Conclusion -- IV: Implied External Limits on the Right to Self-Representation through the Assignment of Defence Counsel and of Standby Counsel -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Conceptions of the Right to Self-Representation.
3 Qualification Clauses Affecting the Exercise of the Right to Self-Representation -- 3.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 3.2 The ICC -- 4 Emergence of a Justificatory Framework for Reviewing Interferences with the Right to Self-Representation -- 4.1 Ad Hoc Tribunals' Case-Law Prior to the Milošević Appeals Representation Decision -- 4.1.1 The ICTR's Reliance on the Concepts of 'Inherent Powers' and 'Waiver of Rights' as Legal Bases and on 'The Interests of Justice' as an End-Test -- 4.1.2 The ICTY's Limitation Process Based on Various End-Tests -- 4.2 The Milošević Appeals Representation Decision and the Introduction of a Proportionality Analysis -- 4.3 ICTR's Case-Law Subsequent to the Milošević Appeals Representation Decision -- 4.4 ICTY's Case-Law Subsequent to the Milošević Appeals Representation Decision but Pre-dating the Insertion of r 45 ter Qualification Clause into the ICTY Rules -- 4.4.1 Overview of Judicial Trends -- 4.4.2 Status of the Right to Self-Representation as a 'Presumptive' and as a Qualified Defence Right -- 4.4.3 The Emphasis on a Particular Aspect of the 'Interests of Justice' as an End-Test, Namely the Need to End a Substantial and Persistent Obstructive Behavior -- 4.4.4 The Inspiration Drawn from ECHR Authorities Unrelated to the Right to Self-Representation and the Distanciation from the HRC's Case-Law -- 4.4.5 The Focus on the Less Restrictive Means Test in the Tribunal's Proportionality Analysis -- 4.4.6 Different Levels of Judicial Scrutiny in the Tribunal's Proportionality Analysis -- 4.4.7 'Proceduralisation' of the Justificatory Framework -- 4.4.8 Extension of the Scope of the Right to Self- Representation and of its Corresponding Justificatory Framework to Appeals Proceedings -- 4.4.9 Increasing Deference to the Accused's Preferences -- 4.4.10 Extension of the 'Interests of Justice' Criterion to Victim and Witness Protection.
4.4.11 Progressive Judicial Fatigue in the Tribunal's Review of International Human Rights Authorities -- 4.5 ICTY's Case-Law Subsequent to the Insertion of a Qualification Clause into the ICTY Rules -- 5 Elevation of the 'Interests of Justice' to an Overarching Legitimate Objective and the Presence of a Mixed Conflict of Values -- 5.1 Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict of Rights -- 5.2 Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict between a Right and a Public Interest Ground -- 6 Recognition of a Means-Test -- 6.1 Suitability Test -- 6.2 Less Restrictive Means Test -- 7 Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance' -- 8 Recognition of a Strict Proportionality Requirement -- 9 Failure of the Hierarchy of Rights Model to Capture the Judicial Rulings under Review from a Conflict of Rights Perspective -- 10 Adoption of a Teleological Method of Interpretation -- 11 Confrontation of Specific Justificatory Criteria with Generic Justificatory Criteria -- 12 Influence of International Human Rights Law -- 13 Conclusion -- V: Implied External Limits on the Right to Cross-Examination through Absolute Witness Anonymity and Rolling Disclosure Measures -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Terminology -- 3 Impact of the Pre-existing Qualification Clauses Affecting the Right to Cross-Examination on the Judicial Admission of Absolut -- 3.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 3.2 The ICC -- 4 Emergence of a Justificatory Framework for Reviewing Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination -- 4.1 The ICTY and the Conditional Admission of Absolute Anonymity -- 4.1.1 The Tadić Protective Measures Decision -- 4.1.2 Reinforcement of the Conditions Laid Down in the Tadić Protective Measures Decision -- 4.1.3 Relaxation of the Conditions Set Forth in the Tadić Protective Measures Decision -- 4.1.4 Progressive Retreat from the Tadić Protective Measures Decision.
4.2 The ICTY's Judicial Admission of an Intermediary Form of Implied External Limit on the Accused's Right to Cross- Examination -- 4.3 The ICTR's Judicial Admission of Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination -- 4.3.1 Absence of Principled Position on the Validity of Absolute Anonymity Measures -- 4.3.2 The Judicial Endorsement of a Rolling Disclosure Mechanism -- 4.4 The ICC's Judicial Admission of Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination -- 4.4.1 Absence of Principled Position on the Validity of Absolute Anonymity Measures -- 4.4.2 Requests for Victim Anonymity -- 4.4.3 The Judicial Endorsement of a Rolling Disclosure Mechanism -- 5 The Legitimate Objective Requirement and the Presence of a Mixed Conflict of Values -- 5.1 Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict of Rights -- 5.2 Manifestation of a Conflict between a Human Right and a Public Interest Ground -- 6 Recognition of a Means-Test -- 6.1 Suitability Test -- 6.1.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 6.1.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 6.2 Less Restrictive Means Test -- 6.2.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 6.2.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 7 Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance' -- 7.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 7.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 8 Recognition of a Strict Proportionality Requirement -- 8.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 8.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 9 Failure of the Hierarchy of Rights Model to Capture the Judicial Rulings under Review from a Conflict of Rights Perspective -- 10 Adoption of a Teleological Method of Interpretation -- 10.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 10.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 11 Legal Uncertainty Generated by the Multiplicity of Justificatory Criteria -- 11.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 11.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 12 Influence of International Human Rights Law.
12.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law.
Summary: The aim of this monograph is to analyze how international criminal courts /tribunals have resorted to proportionality and other limitation techniques when placing external limits upon the exercise of substantive and procedural human rights triggered by international criminal proceedings.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
No physical items for this record

Intro -- The Role and Extent of a Proportionality Analysis in the Judicial Assessment of Human Rights Limitations within International Criminal Proceedings -- Copyright -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations -- Table of cases and statutes -- Introduction: Purpose, Methodology and Scope of the Monograph -- 1 Purpose of the Monograph -- 2 Underlying Methodology -- 3 Scope of the Monograph -- 4 Outline of the Chapters -- I: Conceptual Tools for Assessing Limitations upon the Exercise of Human Rights -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Justifications of Interferences with Human Rights -- 2.1 Internal and External Theories of Rights -- 2.2 Internal and External Limits on Rights -- 2.3 Techniques for the Resolution of Conflicts of Values -- 2.3.1 Conflict between Rights and Public Interest Grounds -- 2.3.1.1 Theory of Rights as 'Trumps' -- 2.3.1.2 End-Test (Legitimate Objective) and Broad Proportionality Analysis (Suitability, Less Restrictive Means and Balancing Tests) -- 2.3.1.3 End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Suitability and Less Restrictive Means Tests) -- 2.3.1.4 End-Test and One-Prong Proportionality Analysis (Balancing) -- 2.3.1.5 End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Suitability and Balancing Tests) -- 2.3.1.6 End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Less Restrictive Means and Balancing Tests) -- 2.3.1.7 'Priority to Rights' Principle and Defijinitional Balancing -- 2.3.2 Conflict of Rights -- 2.3.2.1 Terminology -- 2.3.2.2 Interpretative Model: Determination of the Scope of the Conflicting Human Rights -- 2.3.2.3 Transposition of the End-Test and the Broad Proportionality Analysis to Conflict of Rights Situations -- 2.3.2.4 Hierarchy of Human Rights Principle -- 2.3.2.5 Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance' -- 2.3.3 Neighbouring Concepts to Proportionality that are Relevant to Both Types of Conflicts of Values.

2.3.3.1 Role of the Legality Principle -- 2.3.3.2 The 'Essence' of Rights Doctrine -- 3 Conclusion -- II: Institutional and Regulatory Context Underpinning the International Criminal Courts' Human Rights Limitation Analyses -- 1 Legal Basis for Human Rights Enforcement -- 1.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 1.2 The ICC -- 2 Procedural Guarantees at the Investigation and Interrogation Stages -- 2.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 2.2 The ICC -- 3 The Rights of the Accused -- 3.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 3.2 The ICC -- 3.3 Common Considerations: Features of the Right to a Fair Trial -- 4 Victims' Participation Rights -- 5 Substantive Human Rights -- 5.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 5.2 The ICC -- 6 Absence of Derogation Clause and Presence of Limitation and Qualification Clauses within International Criminal Procedural Law -- 6.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 6.1.1 General Framework -- 6.1.2 Presence of a Statutory Limitation Clause -- 6.1.3 Presence of Various Qualifijication Clauses -- 6.2 The ICC -- 6.2.1 General Framework -- 6.2.2 Presence of a Statutory Limitation Clause -- 6.2.3 Presence of Various Qualifijication Clauses -- 6.3 Commonalities -- 7 Role of the Legality Principle under International Criminal Procedural Law and International Criminal Law -- 8 Structural Difficulties in Drawing on a Hierarchy of Human Rights Model for Resolving Conflicts of Rights -- 9 Methods of Interpretation under International Criminal Procedural Law and International Criminal Law -- 10 Conclusion -- III: Formation of a Generic Justificatory Framework for Assessing External Limits upon any Fundamental Right or Defence Right -- 1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 2 The ICC -- 3 Conclusion -- IV: Implied External Limits on the Right to Self-Representation through the Assignment of Defence Counsel and of Standby Counsel -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Conceptions of the Right to Self-Representation.

3 Qualification Clauses Affecting the Exercise of the Right to Self-Representation -- 3.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 3.2 The ICC -- 4 Emergence of a Justificatory Framework for Reviewing Interferences with the Right to Self-Representation -- 4.1 Ad Hoc Tribunals' Case-Law Prior to the Milošević Appeals Representation Decision -- 4.1.1 The ICTR's Reliance on the Concepts of 'Inherent Powers' and 'Waiver of Rights' as Legal Bases and on 'The Interests of Justice' as an End-Test -- 4.1.2 The ICTY's Limitation Process Based on Various End-Tests -- 4.2 The Milošević Appeals Representation Decision and the Introduction of a Proportionality Analysis -- 4.3 ICTR's Case-Law Subsequent to the Milošević Appeals Representation Decision -- 4.4 ICTY's Case-Law Subsequent to the Milošević Appeals Representation Decision but Pre-dating the Insertion of r 45 ter Qualification Clause into the ICTY Rules -- 4.4.1 Overview of Judicial Trends -- 4.4.2 Status of the Right to Self-Representation as a 'Presumptive' and as a Qualified Defence Right -- 4.4.3 The Emphasis on a Particular Aspect of the 'Interests of Justice' as an End-Test, Namely the Need to End a Substantial and Persistent Obstructive Behavior -- 4.4.4 The Inspiration Drawn from ECHR Authorities Unrelated to the Right to Self-Representation and the Distanciation from the HRC's Case-Law -- 4.4.5 The Focus on the Less Restrictive Means Test in the Tribunal's Proportionality Analysis -- 4.4.6 Different Levels of Judicial Scrutiny in the Tribunal's Proportionality Analysis -- 4.4.7 'Proceduralisation' of the Justificatory Framework -- 4.4.8 Extension of the Scope of the Right to Self- Representation and of its Corresponding Justificatory Framework to Appeals Proceedings -- 4.4.9 Increasing Deference to the Accused's Preferences -- 4.4.10 Extension of the 'Interests of Justice' Criterion to Victim and Witness Protection.

4.4.11 Progressive Judicial Fatigue in the Tribunal's Review of International Human Rights Authorities -- 4.5 ICTY's Case-Law Subsequent to the Insertion of a Qualification Clause into the ICTY Rules -- 5 Elevation of the 'Interests of Justice' to an Overarching Legitimate Objective and the Presence of a Mixed Conflict of Values -- 5.1 Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict of Rights -- 5.2 Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict between a Right and a Public Interest Ground -- 6 Recognition of a Means-Test -- 6.1 Suitability Test -- 6.2 Less Restrictive Means Test -- 7 Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance' -- 8 Recognition of a Strict Proportionality Requirement -- 9 Failure of the Hierarchy of Rights Model to Capture the Judicial Rulings under Review from a Conflict of Rights Perspective -- 10 Adoption of a Teleological Method of Interpretation -- 11 Confrontation of Specific Justificatory Criteria with Generic Justificatory Criteria -- 12 Influence of International Human Rights Law -- 13 Conclusion -- V: Implied External Limits on the Right to Cross-Examination through Absolute Witness Anonymity and Rolling Disclosure Measures -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Terminology -- 3 Impact of the Pre-existing Qualification Clauses Affecting the Right to Cross-Examination on the Judicial Admission of Absolut -- 3.1 The ICTY and ICTR -- 3.2 The ICC -- 4 Emergence of a Justificatory Framework for Reviewing Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination -- 4.1 The ICTY and the Conditional Admission of Absolute Anonymity -- 4.1.1 The Tadić Protective Measures Decision -- 4.1.2 Reinforcement of the Conditions Laid Down in the Tadić Protective Measures Decision -- 4.1.3 Relaxation of the Conditions Set Forth in the Tadić Protective Measures Decision -- 4.1.4 Progressive Retreat from the Tadić Protective Measures Decision.

4.2 The ICTY's Judicial Admission of an Intermediary Form of Implied External Limit on the Accused's Right to Cross- Examination -- 4.3 The ICTR's Judicial Admission of Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination -- 4.3.1 Absence of Principled Position on the Validity of Absolute Anonymity Measures -- 4.3.2 The Judicial Endorsement of a Rolling Disclosure Mechanism -- 4.4 The ICC's Judicial Admission of Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination -- 4.4.1 Absence of Principled Position on the Validity of Absolute Anonymity Measures -- 4.4.2 Requests for Victim Anonymity -- 4.4.3 The Judicial Endorsement of a Rolling Disclosure Mechanism -- 5 The Legitimate Objective Requirement and the Presence of a Mixed Conflict of Values -- 5.1 Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict of Rights -- 5.2 Manifestation of a Conflict between a Human Right and a Public Interest Ground -- 6 Recognition of a Means-Test -- 6.1 Suitability Test -- 6.1.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 6.1.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 6.2 Less Restrictive Means Test -- 6.2.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 6.2.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 7 Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance' -- 7.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 7.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 8 Recognition of a Strict Proportionality Requirement -- 8.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 8.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 9 Failure of the Hierarchy of Rights Model to Capture the Judicial Rulings under Review from a Conflict of Rights Perspective -- 10 Adoption of a Teleological Method of Interpretation -- 10.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 10.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 11 Legal Uncertainty Generated by the Multiplicity of Justificatory Criteria -- 11.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law -- 11.2 Rolling Disclosure Case-Law -- 12 Influence of International Human Rights Law.

12.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law.

The aim of this monograph is to analyze how international criminal courts /tribunals have resorted to proportionality and other limitation techniques when placing external limits upon the exercise of substantive and procedural human rights triggered by international criminal proceedings.

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, 2024. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries.

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.

© 2024 Resource Centre. All rights reserved.