Building a Global Criminal Justice System at the Domestic Level
The Joined Up Justice project is a 5 year research project funded by the European Research Council (ERC-advanced grant). This 5 year project aims to develop parameters for a coordinated system of global justice at the domestic level. The prosecution of foreign nationals who have committed international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide) outside the territory of the forum state (the state that tries these crimes), is the focus of the project.
While the project’s focus is on international criminal law (ICL), international refugee law (IRL) is the starting point; it is the metaphorical canary in the coal mine that flags up questions at the heart of ICL. Many of the domestic prosecutions of international crimes are asylum and migration related and call for a joined up and coordinated system of justice where there is a clear focus on who should be prosecuted. To date, no such system exists.
This comes with problems. First, article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention, the so-called exclusion clause, stipulates that those who are suspected of having committed international crimes are undeserving of protection and should be prosecuted. But there is no uniform understanding of ‘undeserving’. At the same time, ICL lacks an overarching policy of who is 'deserving' of prosecution. Many excluded asylum claimants remain unprosecuted and exist in a legal limbo.
Second, asylum related prosecutions have a distorting effect. It comes with a focus on low-level and ‘low cost’ defendants (from weak countries).
Third, ad hoc prosecutorial decision-making premised on asylum applications hampers developing a long-term approach to the enforcement of international criminal law.
Through empirical research in eight countries (Australia, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, France and The Netherlands) and comprehensive case-analysis the project will, among other things, map who is ‘deserving’ of prosecution. It will also clarify the scope of ‘undeserving’ and draw the line between criminal complicity and non-criminal association, addressing the ICL-IRL mismatch that leaves many in limbo. It will result in a proposal for a system of ‘jurisdiction allocation’ based on subsidiarity and burden-sharing plus a resettlement proposal premised on a ‘right to start again’.
News & Updates
recent interview with Ligeia Quackelbeen about her research on the role of ICC judges and the legitimacy of the court:
“Ligeia Quackelbeen of the Department of Criminal Law at Tilburg University delves into the multiple roles of ICC judges—not just as interpreters of the law, but as potential law makers in the absence of a permanent legislative body. While the trias politica structure of the ICC aims to balance power, it often leaves judges with significant leeway. This power has led to landmark judicial developments in international criminal law, but it also raises questions about legitimacy and the appropriate limits of judicial authority.”
