Source: (2002) Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 35: 1399.
Following World War II, in the aftermath of the Nazi atrocities, international human rights law took on much greater significance. The principles behind the Nuremberg trials were eventually construed as requiring states to prosecute such crimes against humanity. In practice, however, state response to state-sponsored mass atrocities has been erratic at best. Prosecutions are rare. Inaction, amnesties, and pardons are normal. Many people have reconsidered the feasibility of the duty to prosecute, and some have even challenged the validity of the duty to prosecute. Nevertheless, the recent establishment of the International Criminal Court, stemming from the Rome Statute, appears to have reaffirmed the commitment of states to prosecute crimes against humanity. In this context, Raquel Aldana-Pindell examines the merits of the development of victim-focused prosecution norms in international law.
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.
Donate Now