![]() ![]() ![]() Offering the first balanced and in depth analysis of the International Criminal Tribunals, the volume provides an important insight into what lessons have been learned, and how a deeper understanding of the successes and failures can benefit the international legal community in the future. ![]() Furthermore, the book is concerned with how many criminals, over whom the ICTY and the ICTR wield jurisdiction, have actually been prosecuted and at what cost. The authors investigate to what extent the ICTY and the ICTR have delivered the expected results, whether they have been able to contribute to 'the maintenance of peace', 'stabilization' of the conflict regions, or even managed to provide 'reconciliation' to Rwanda. The second confronts the output (the procedures and decisions) of the ICTY and the ICTR with the tasks both tribunals were assigned by the UN Security Council, the General Assembly, and by key organs (the president and the chief prosecutors). The first asks to what extent the input (creation) of, the ICTY and the ICTR can be regarded as legitimate in light of the legal and public debate in the early 1990s. Bachmann and Fatic look back at the achievements and shortcomings of both tribunals from an interdisciplinary perspective informed by sociology, political science, history, and philosophy of law and based upon on two key notions: the concepts of legitimacy and efficiency. If we agree with the presumption that ‘drones are here to stay’ regardless of the moral/academic debates which they stimulate (an undeniable fact which must be taken into consideration) and if we accept the claim that targeted killing is legitimate under international law if we assume that states are in constant war against terrorist organizations (which gives them the right of extrajudicial elimination of militants), the claim that targeted killings via drones will reduce civilian casualties to the greatest possible extent, being that the technology involved in such operations involves the most accurate weapons available, can still be challenged.īoth the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) are now about to close. unlike political assassination, targeting terrorists does not require a complex political evaluation of the victims’ cause, determining who is and who is not a political enemy.” (Meisels 2017). targeted killing does not take aim at protected civilians who are unengaged in military activity. Ordinary citizens remain, so far as possible, immune from attack. In her paper “Targeted Killing with Drones? Old Arguments, New Technologies” Meisels offers the following claim to justify targeted killings conducted through the use of drones as the most efficient and just method of eliminating terrorists: “Targeted killing aims at its victims narrowly and attempts to avoid collateral deaths. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |