![]() Even neutral organizations with access to information can come up with very diverse estimates for the same metric because of different methodologies and standards for source verification. Often, areas of conflict have very little open access and are too dangerous for organizations to obtain the information. 9ĭifferent reporting organizations can have agendas that lead them either to inflate or deflate the estimate. Uppsala Conflict Data Program ( UCDP) Datasetsįinding reliable figures for any metric of conflict is very difficult. While casualties in war can occur without crimes happening, I still assume that improprieties must occur when there is large-scale fighting. IDPs in order to include the most devastating conflicts. Thus, I include battle related deaths and However, as discussed below, such figures are hard to estimate, and if I only looked at this metric, major conflicts characterized by the occurrence of atrocities would be excluded from the study. It is never lawful to intentionally target civilians. It is fair to assume that those countries with the highest casualties from the intentional targeting of civilians are most likely to haveĬrimes. A major assumption I must make is that those places with the highest casualties and displaced persons are also the most likely to have crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court 7 However, no such database exists that reliably estimates these crimes per country. Thus, an ideal study would find the highest prevalence of these crimes in each country to analyze the situation. Has jurisdiction over crimes (namely genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) 6, not situations with the most death or Goes over the results of the research, including general information about each conflict.ĭiscusses the jurisdictional hurdles for certain conflicts and explores which cases the The fact that Afghanistan is currently under preliminary examination by the Court suggests that theĭiscusses the methodology used to gather these numbers as well as certain assumptions that are made. ICC, we find that the only non-African country that the Court can pursue in which the situation is at least as grave as that in the current ![]() After taking into account the jurisdictional realities of the ICC’s gravity assessment, we can see which conflicts in this timespan have been the most severe. By using these metrics as proxies for the “A key consideration is the number of victims of particularly serious crimes, such as willful killing or rape.” 5įor most conflicts between 20, I have compiled estimates of the number of civilians who have been intentionally targeted, battle related deaths in armed conflict, and internally displaced persons ( IDPs). It particularly looks at the scale of the crimes, including the number of direct and indirect victims the nature of the crimes the manner of commission of the crimes and the impact of the crimes. The assessment “includes both quantitative and qualitative considerations based on the prevailing facts and circumstances.” 3 Has developed a test to decide whether a situation is grave enough to justify opening a formal investigation. If there are conflicts outside of Africa within the jurisdiction of the Court that are graver than the current eight situations, then maybe the Is truly pursuing the worst crimes within its jurisdiction. ![]() By attempting to quantify the gravest situations since 2003, this comment intends to explore this defense to see whether the Only goes after the “most serious” situations, and those situations all happen to be in Africa. ![]() 2Ī common defense to this critique has been that the Has opened situations in eight countries, all in Africa, leading some to argue that the Court has an African bias. The International Criminal Court ( ICC) was established with the hope that it would pursue those persons responsible “for the ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |