Valta ja rikosoikeudellinen vastuu – tuomioistuinten toimivalta käsitellä valtiojohdon tekemiä kansainvälisiä rikoksia
Keywords:
kansainvälinen rikosoikeus, Kansainvälinen rikostuomioistuin, rikosoikeudellinen vastuu, toimivalta, valtiojohto, sotarikoksetAbstract
The criminal jurisdiction of national and international courts over the international crimes of state leadership
There are several instances where state leadership can be held criminally liable for international core crimes. In terms of national courts, state leaders can be tried either in their home state or another state. International alternatives include the International Criminal Court, an ad hoc criminal tribunal, a hybrid tribunal or a so-called internationalised tribunal. The jurisdictional basis of each court rests either in customary law or international arrangements, depending on the court concerned. Each alternative has its pros and cons. The home state typically has numerous jurisdictional bases over crimes perpetrated by its leaders, but its capacity is restricted by politics and the leadership’s constitutional privileges. Trials in home states are also subject to bias. Other states, while being able to ground their jurisdiction in the universality principle, must consider the immunity of foreign state leaders. The significance of international tribunals has greatly risen since the 1990s, but establishing jurisdiction and securing arrests remain major concerns. International procedures are also often delayed and continue to face challenges based on the principle of legality. The issues noted in the article emphasize that international criminal law is not an effective way to influence present conflicts, and that discussions on criminal liability pertaining to present conflicts are bound to remain speculative.
