It concludes that although, in theory, a case can be made along the lines of Ferencz’s proposal, there exist policy and legal impediments that would likely make the recognition of a ‘new’ crime – that would be both wider and narrower in scope than aggression – unpalatable to ICC prosecutors and judges. This is done in accordance with international criminal law on other inhumane acts, and in particular, in light of the ICC’s crimes against humanity jurisprudence.

After identifying various gaps and loopholes associated with the ICC’s aggression definition and its associated jurisdictional provisions as per the 2010 Kampala Amendments – which may justify Ferencz’s alternative – this Chapter subjects a slightly modified version of his proposal to scrutiny. In his view, persons responsible for the illegal use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter, which unavoidably and inevitably results in large numbers of civilian deaths, should be subject to punishment for the perpetration of a crime against humanity. Gillian MacNeil is Assistant Professor at Robson Hall, the Faculty of Law of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.Ben Ferencz, the last surviving Nuremberg-era prosecutor, has recently proposed that the illegal use of force should be prosecuted not as aggression at the International Criminal Court (ICC), but instead as a crime against humanity, namely, as an other inhumane act. This book will be of relevance to anyone interested in international criminal law or criminal law theory. Drawing lessons from an exploration on the way the prohibition on retroactive laws is applied in practice, she proposes a new framework for understanding the clause proscribing the commission of other inhumane acts. The author argues that it is time to revisit the assumption that retroactive criminal laws can never be deployed in a fair legal system. A prohibition on the use of retroactive criminal laws, one which admits no exceptions, is deeply embedded in international law. Second, it may considerably limit the evidentiary burden for the Prosecution concerning the potential responsibility of Russia’s leadership.

Properly understood, the clause is an invitation to courts to create and apply retroactive criminal laws. While a prosecution for other inhumane acts may be viewed as a second-best alternative, using the existing toolbox rather than establishing a new tribunal would have its advantages. The volume proposes that the current approach is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the clause. Andrew Lane is an aspiring barrister and graduate legal researcher at Global Diligence.

This clause is consistently used in spite of the long list of more specific offences forbidden as crimes against humanity. Environmental damage should no longer be viewed as the collateral damage of other human-centric crimes, to be accommodated within human-centric criminal offences, but will be seen as harms in themselves and a core crime ranking among the most serious. This book examines the way international criminal courts and tribunals have interpreted the crimes against humanity proscription of other inhumane acts.

Inhuman Acts by Ocean Tigrox