Affordable Access

A Study on the Effect of Amnesty on Gross Human Rights Violations-Ineternational Law Perspective-

Authors
Publisher
단국대학교
Publication Date
Keywords
  • 대규모 인권침해
  • 국내적 사면
  • 보편관할권
  • 국제범죄
  • 피노체트
  • Gross Human Rights Violations
  • Internal Amnesty
  • Universal Jurisdiction
  • International Crimes
  • Pinochet
Disciplines
  • Law
  • Political Science

Abstract

In the 1990s, inetnational commynity witnessed that many countries were moving from the rule of disctatorship to that of democray. Howerer, it appears to be the resultl of compromises between old and new regimes. As a result, those responsible fo gross human rights violations were frequently given amnesties. On the other hand, international community has shown its commitment, by establishing ICTY, ICTR, ICC, to punish those responsible for gross human rights violations. It is argued that amnesties are helpful to prevent further human rights violations from happenig by ending hostilities, necessary for reconciliation a society and a state, and for limited resoureds it is impossible to prosecute all those responsible for human rights violations. On the other hand, some argue the amnesties are unnecessary because of the need of prevention of similar human rights violations, victims rights to remedy, and democracy and the rule of law. Universal jurisdiction has played an important role in securing international human rights by allowing jurisdiction states that do not have any direct interest where international community has interests in prevention and prosecution of gross human rights violations. The more universal jurisdiction states that do not have any direct interest where international commynity has interests in prevention and prosecution of gross human rights violations. The more universal jurisdiction covers, the higher the possibility that a state could exercise jufisdiction, even when the event does not happen in that state. Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction based on universal jurisdiction is not mandatory. International community adopted treaties such as 1949 Geneva Convention, Genocide Convention to provide for prosecution and punishment. Careful interpretation of general human rights treaties such as ICCPR is that those responsible for gross human rights violations are to be prosecuted and punished. International customary law also does not allow amnesties for those responsible gross human rights violations. General human rights treaties reflect state practice and opinio juris, which are elements of customary international law. Sporadic human rights violations and amnesties by states do not guarantee that amnesties for those responsble for human rights violations are allowed in international law. The Security Council is likely to take necessary measures, deciding that human rights violations and/or amnesties by states constitute a threat to international peace and security. According to Rone Statute, the power to accept domestic amnesties of the Secufity Council, and of ICC tribunal, is considerably restricted. Domestic amnesties for human rights violations are restricted by international law and international mechanism. Restriction on allowing amnesties imposed by international law is to guide our policy towards dealing with human rights violations by North Korea.

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.