This essay discusses the attitude of the judges of international criminal courts and tribunals according to the paradigm of judicial activism and judicial restraints often applied to the style of supreme court justices at the national level. Although one must be cautious in transposing such domestic paradigms at the international level, the author argues that such a paradigm can be usefully applied to judges in international criminal justice. It is submitted that international judges at the UN ad hoc Tribunals have been predominantly active, in particular in the first phase of existence of these tribunals (1994-1998). Moreover, it is also indicated that the justification for such an active approach was justified by the need to fill the gaps in the law and the existence of limited judicial precedents. It is subsequently clarified that with the advent of the International Criminal Court Statute (1998), States made it clear that they wanted to restrain the power of judges and limit their judicial creativity. The conclusion, however, is that such a choice is not entirely persuasive. The author argues that there still is room for judicial activism in international criminal law and that activism in such a context would indeed be an appropriate choice.
|Titolo:||Judicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint in International Criminal Justice|
|Data di pubblicazione:||2009|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||2.1 Contributo in volume (Capitolo o Saggio)|