| 000 | 11668nam a22005293i 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | EBC4397543 | ||
| 003 | MiAaPQ | ||
| 005 | 20240729130301.0 | ||
| 006 | m o d | | ||
| 007 | cr cnu|||||||| | ||
| 008 | 240724s2015 xx o ||||0 eng d | ||
| 020 |
_a9789004231412 _q(electronic bk.) |
||
| 020 | _z9789004231429 | ||
| 035 | _a(MiAaPQ)EBC4397543 | ||
| 035 | _a(Au-PeEL)EBL4397543 | ||
| 035 | _a(CaPaEBR)ebr11161625 | ||
| 035 | _a(CaONFJC)MIL879113 | ||
| 035 | _a(OCoLC)932593795 | ||
| 040 |
_aMiAaPQ _beng _erda _epn _cMiAaPQ _dMiAaPQ |
||
| 050 | 4 | _aKZ7000 .C76 2015 | |
| 082 | 0 | _a341.48 | |
| 100 | 1 | _aCroquet, Nicolas A. J. | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | _aThe Role and Extent of a Proportionality Analysis in the Judicial Assessment of Human Rights Limitations Within International Criminal Proceedings. |
| 250 | _a1st ed. | ||
| 264 | 1 |
_aBoston : _bBRILL, _c2015. |
|
| 264 | 4 | _c©2016. | |
| 300 | _a1 online resource (435 pages) | ||
| 336 |
_atext _btxt _2rdacontent |
||
| 337 |
_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia |
||
| 338 |
_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier |
||
| 505 | 0 | _aIntro -- 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. | |
| 505 | 8 | _a2.3.3.1 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. | |
| 505 | 8 | _a3 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. | |
| 505 | 8 | _a4.4.11 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. | |
| 505 | 8 | _a4.2 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. | |
| 505 | 8 | _a12.1 Absolute Anonymity Case-Law. | |
| 520 | _aThe 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. | ||
| 588 | _aDescription based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources. | ||
| 590 | _aElectronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, 2024. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries. | ||
| 650 | 0 | _aInternational criminal law. | |
| 650 | 0 | _aProportionality in law. | |
| 650 | 0 | _aInternational law and human rights. | |
| 655 | 4 | _aElectronic books. | |
| 776 | 0 | 8 |
_iPrint version: _aCroquet, Nicolas A. J. _tThe Role and Extent of a Proportionality Analysis in the Judicial Assessment of Human Rights Limitations Within International Criminal Proceedings _dBoston : BRILL,c2015 _z9789004231429 |
| 797 | 2 | _aProQuest (Firm) | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 |
_uhttps://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/orpp/detail.action?docID=4397543 _zClick to View |
| 999 |
_c106114 _d106114 |
||