Justicia después de la guerra
Concluidas las hostilidades, ya sean o no conflictos armados formales, las partes deben rendir cuentas por su proceder. Este sentimiento es casi universalmente compartido, independientemente de la propia estructura moral o ética que tengan, aunque los detalles de esta responsabilidad son profundamente controversiales y discutidas. En la Sección 2 de este breve artículo ofrece una base normativa para la justicia después de la guerra que apela a la norma contra la impunidad. Se concluye que los procesos penales, en oposición a los mecanismos no penales, mejor reivindican la norma contra la impunidad. A la luz de esta conclusión la Sección 3 se hace la pregunta ¿cómo debemos alcanzar la justicia después de la guerra? ¿Quién debe ser llevado a juicio? (líderes o soldados de infantería), que instancias deben juzgarlos (los tribunales nacionales o internacionales), que los delitos que se deben imputar (delitos de tipo nacional o crímenes internacionales), los procedimientos que deben seguirse en los juicios, y, ¿cómo? (y por qué) deben ser castigados.
Cómo citar
Licencia
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal DIXI before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
Beth van Schaack. Negotiating at the Interface of Power & Law: The Crime of Aggression. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 49. 2011.
Cámara de Apelaciones. Terrorismo, concierto para delinquir, homicidio, perpetración cargos acumulativos (stl-11-01/I/AC/R176bis). Febrero 16 del 2011.
Carsten Stahn y Mohamed M. El Zeidy (Eds.). The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge University Press. 2011
David Nersessian. Genocide and Political Groups. Oxford University Press. 2010.
David Scheffer. The Merits of unifying Terms: “Atrocity Cri-mes” and “Atrocity Law”.Genocide Studies and prevention 2. 2007. Pág 91.
David Wippman. Atrocities, deterrence, and limits of inter-national justice. Fordham international law journal 23. 1999.
Elies Van Sliedregt. Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law. Oxford University Press. 2012.
Gabriella Blum. The Crime and Punishment of States. Yale Journal of International Law. 2013.
Jens David Ohlin. A Meta-Theory of International Criminal Procedure: Vindicating the Rule of Law. ucla Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 14. (2009).
José E. Alvarez. Crimes of State/Crimes of Hate: Lessons from Rwanda. Yale Journal of International Law 24. 1999
Julian Ku y Nzelibe. Do Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacer-bate Humanitarian Atrocities? Washington University Law Quarterly 84. 2007.
Larry May. Crímenes contra la humanidad. 2004. Cam-bridge University Press.
Larry May. Genocide: A Normative Account. Cambrid-ge University Press. 2010.
Mark Drumbl. Atrocity, Punishment, and Internatio-nal Law. Cambridge University Press. 2007.
Max Pensky. Amnesty on Trial: Impunity, Accountability and the Norms of International Law. Ethics & Global Politics 1. 2008.
Prosecutor vs. Akayesu. Caso N.o ictr-96-4-t, Cámara de Juicio I. Parágrafo 702. Septiembre 2 de 1998.
Prosecutor vs. Francis kirimi Muthaura and Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta. Decisión sobre la Confirmación de Cargos. ICC-01/09-02/11, Cámara de pre-juicio II. (Enero 23 del 2012).
Prosecutor vs. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang. Decisión sobre la confirmación de cargos, Caso N.oICC-01/09-01/11, Cámara de Pre-Juicio II. (Enero 23 del 2012).
Prosecutor vs. Gadafi. Decisión sobre la admisibilidad de la caso contra Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, Sala de Cuestiones Preliminares I, Caso N.o ICC-01/11-01/11. Mayo 31 del 2013).
Robert D. Sloane. The Expressive Capacity of International Punishment: The Limits of the National Law Analogy and the Potential of International Criminal Law.Stan-ford Journal of International Law 43. 2007.
Scott J. Shapiro y Oona A. Hathaway. Outcasting:Enforce-ment in Domestic and International Law. Yale Law Journal 121. 2011.
Shahram Dana. The limits of judicial idealism: should the international criminal court engage consequentialist aspirations?Penn state journal of law & international Affairs 3. 2014.
Goran Sluiter et al. (Eds.). International Criminal Pro-cedure: Principles and Rules. Oxford University Press. 2013.
Timothy William Waters. The Milosevic Trial: An Autopsy. Oxford University Press. 2013.
