444 / 464
430
ŠTEFAN VIEDENSKÝ
CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ
The first part covers two studies: “Metamorphoses of international crimes: an
open-ended story” (Pavel Šturma) and “What is ‘international crime’?” (Veronika
Bílková). Both describe difficulties resulting from different views of the doctrine of
international law regarding the use of precise terminology (
e.g.
: international crime,
crime under international law, transnational crimes) and differences in the use of this
terminology by different institutions, lawyers and in international law documents.
The term “international crime” is relatively widely used, yet there is no consensus
on its precise definition. Predominantly it is used in two contexts – the denomination
of a serious breach of key norms (
jus cogens
) of international law by a State (under
the responsibility of the state), on the one hand, and, in particular, serious breaches
committed by individuals (in the context of individual criminal responsibility), on
the other.
The result is that at present the expression “international crime” is most often
associated with areas of individual criminal responsibility for certain particularly serious
breaches (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression). Czech doctrine
to a certain extent defies this rule (prof. Šturma and others), and for these breaches uses
the expression “crimes under international law”; and the term “international crime”
thus remains reserved for the area of responsibility of States. Nevetheless, it seems to be
crucial that the international community shows a common approach concerning these
issues, and there are common values and the protection of the whole international
community through justice and responsibility.
The second part covers several procedural issues: “The Role of International
Organizations in the Fight against International Crime” (Martin Faix) and “Immunity
for the breach of
ius cogens
–
quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi
” What is permissible for
Jove is not permissible for an ox (Vladimír Balaš).
The first study pointed out the essential need for cooperation and coordination
of State activities within international organizations, or through them. Without wide
and professional cooperation effective combat of international crime is impossible.
On the other hand, the study showed a certain paradox where, despite the efforts and
cooperation of institutions such as the UN, ICC, EU or Interpol, existing practice
still does not show desired outcomes in the fight against international crime.
Doc. Balaš devoted his study to the question of the status of high-ranking foreign
state oficials before national courts and international tribunals, in the case where
they are accused of breach of peremptory (
jus cogens
) rules of international law.
The conclusion is: as future development of these issues depends on the principal
actors of international relations and creators of the international legal system – the
sovereign states, it depends only on them to set up clear rules and give a clear note
about what the international community intends to tolerate. Will the international
community find enough courage and power to enforce what almost every individual
regards as self-evident?