Title: Reason Without Borders: How Transnational Values Cannot Be Contained
Abstract: Part I of this Note will review the influence of international law in early U.S. history as well as the current practice of the U.S. Supreme Court in citing international law, and will briefly explain how principles of international law are imported into U.S. courtrooms. Part II will examine competing legal theories on the proper role for international law in U.S. constitutional interpretation. Part III will argue that although it is proper for U.S. courts to reference international sources in their decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court’s current articulation of how courts should do so is deeply flawed. Part III will conclude by recommending a framework theory for how U.S. federal courts interpreting the U.S. Constitution might properly utilize international law. THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN JUDICIAL ECONOMY AND EQUALITY OF ARMS WITHIN INTERNATIONAL AND INTERNATIONALIZED CRIMINAL TRIALS: A DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops* INTRODUCTION CONVERGING OBJECTIVES BEFORE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS The preservation of the principle of equality of arms is critical for the rule of law and indispensable for a law-based society. Nowadays, this principle, as derivative of the overarching right to a fair trial, has attained the status of a fundamental human rights notion. On the international plane, the legal-political environment in which international and internationalized criminal courts function brings greater attention to the credibility of these institutions. To maintain this credibility and integrity, these institutions should endorse several procedural mechanisms to ensure that trials are conducted in accordance with the principle of equality of arms. Because the prevalence of the principle of equality of arms is instrumental in the protection of individual rights of accused persons, it is an indispensable safeguard against abuse of powers, as well as for the maintenance of separation of powers. International and internationalized criminal courts comprise organs and parties with competing interests. At the same time, several principles applicable before these institutions can result in antagonistic positions and situations from the perspective of the defense acting before these fora. Recent practice before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) displays a tension between the principle of equality of arms and that of judicial economy. t Although the latter does not have the same human rights stan* Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops is Professor of international criminal law at Utrecht University, and defense counsel acting before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL); he practices at Knoops & Partners Advocaten in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 1. See Daryl A. Mundis, From Common Law Towards Civil Law: The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 2 LEIDEN J. INT'L L. 367, 374-76 (2001).
Publication Year: 2004
Publication Date: 2004-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot