Historical Developments in the Enjoyment of the Right to a Fair Trial by Those Accused of Committing Terrorist Acts, with an Emphasis on the Case of Omar Khadr in Canadian Courts in the Light of International Humanitarian soft Law
Tārīkh-i pizishkī i.e., Medical History,
Vol. 12 No. 00 (1399),
13 September 2020
,
Page 1-14
https://doi.org/10.22037/mhj.v12i1.32693
Abstract
Background and Aim: With the spread of terrorist operations in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in the process of combating terrorist activities, for a variety of reasons, including the lack of control tools and the special status of terrorist forces relative to ordinary people, some governments have taken steps to prevent defendants They committed terrorist acts in some instances of human rights and humanitarian law, including the right to a fair trial.
Materials and Methods: This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.
Findings: The new practices have been heavily criticized by writers, lawyers and even non-governmental actors such as the Red Cross. These criticisms led to the drafting and ratification of important non-binding documents by the United Nations. These non-binding documents moved to interpret and reinforce existing rigid norms.
Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.
Conclusion: In analyzing the case law of national courts in the face of soft humanitarian law, two different assumptions can be made: In the first hypothesis, the pattern of behavior of national courts in the face of the soft law environment is also considered by other national courts in the territory of other countries and this behavior of national courts through repetition, in fact, provides a good basis for the formation of international customary norms and rules. In the second hypothesis, national courts resist the formation of new customary norms and rules. Simply put, they do not enforce the soft norms and rules proposed by other courts in the international law literature because they are non-binding and conflict with some of the existing strict principles and rules.
Please cite this article as: Salami S, Beyranvand F, Jafari A. Historical Developments in the Enjoyment of the Right to a Fair Trial by Those Accused of committing Terrorist Acts, with an Emphasis on the Case of Omar Khedr in Canadian Courts in the Light of international Humanitarian Soft Law. Med Hist J, Special Issue on the History of Islam and Iran 2020; 137-149.
- Humanitarian Law; the Right to a Fair Trial; National Courts; International Soft Law
How to Cite
References
Commander W. International Humanitarian Law, the Laws of War. London: Vij Multimedia; 2011. p.3.
Beyranvand F. Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law. MA Dissertation. Tehran: Islamic Azad University; 2013. p.100. [Persian]
Crowe J. Weston K. Principles of International Humanitarian Law. Hague: Edward Elgar; 2013. p.24-43.
Klabbers J. The Concept of Treaty in International Law. London: Kluwer; 1998. p.157.
Klabbers J, Palombella G. The Challenge of Inter-legality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p.2-3.
Sekalala S. Soft Law and Global Health Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p.50-51.
Birger J, Schram O, Wettestad J. Soft Law, Hard Law and Effective Implementation of International Environmental Norms. Global Environmental Politics 2006; 6(3): 104-109.
Morth U. Soft Law in Governance and Regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2004. p.6.
Shelton D. Soft Law. Washington: The George Washington University Law School Publisher; 2008. p.3.
Senden L. Soft Law in European Community Law. Portland: Hart Publishing; 2004. p.112-113.
Roucounas E. A Landscape of Contemporary Theories of International Law. Boston: Brill Nijhoff; 2016. p.575-576.
Schelkle W. EU Fiscal Governance: Hard Law in the Shadow of Soft law?. Columbia Journal of European Law 2008; 13: 10-15.
Senden L. Soft Law and its Implications for Institutional Balance in the EC. Utrecht Law Review 2005; 1(1): 81-90.
Fastenrath U. Relative Normativity in International Law. European Journal of International Law 1993; 4(1): 48-59.
Olivler M. The relevance of 'soft law' as a source of international human rights. The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 2002; 35(2): 294-310.
Boyle A. Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 1999; 48(4): 901-902.
Senden L. Soft Law, Self-Regulation and Co-Regulation in European Law: Where Do They Meet?. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 2006; 9(1): 22-23.
Blutman L. In The Trap of a Legal Metaphor: International Soft Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 2010; 59(3): 607-608.
Thürer D. ‘Soft Law’ the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p.269-277.
Krebs J. The Right to a Fair Trial in the Context of Counter-Terrorism, ANU College of Law. The Australian National University, Ph.D. Dissertation. Melbourne: Australian National University; 2016. p.19-62.
Takahashi Y. The Law of Occupation: Continuity and Change of International Humanitarian Law, and its Interaction with International Human Rights Law. Hague: Brill; 2009. p.523-529.
Takahashi Y. Fair Trial Guarantees in Occupied Territory - The Interplay between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. In: Roberta, A. Quénivet, N. International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Towards a New Merger in International Law. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 2008. p.449-474.
Lippke R. Taming the Presumption of Innocence. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. p.33-56.
Sluiter G, Friman H, Linton S, Zappala S, Vasiliev S. International Criminal Procedure, Principles and Rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p.247-248.
Zeegers K. International Criminal Tribunals and Human Rights Law: Adherence and Contextualization. London: Springer; 2016. p.323-325.
Herman S. The Right to a Speedy and Public Trial. London: Greenwood Publishing Group; 2006. p.100-101.
Settem O. Applications of the 'Fair Hearing' Norm in ECHR Article 6(1) to Civil Proceedings: With Special Emphasis on the Balance between Procedural Safeguards and Efficiency. London: Springer; 2015. p.270-272.
Schleiff V. The right to a fair trial - Requirements of impartiality and independence under Articles 14(1) ICCPR, 8(1) IACHR and 6(1) ECHR in relation to military courts. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag; 2008. p.7-12.
Terrorism Act 2000 c.11, 41 (as amended) the Government Reply to the Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 2005-6, H.C. 910, Terrorism Detention Powers. (2006-07). Cm.6906, 22. Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts 2000/ ukpga_20000011_en_1.
Jackson D. Detention and Treatment of Suspected Terrorists under the European Convention on Human Rights. In: L.Volcansek M, Stack J. Courts and Terrorism: Nine Nations Balance Rights and Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p.89-111.
Chomsky C. Military Commissions in Historical Perspective: Lessons from the United States - Dakota War Trial. In: Aoláin F, Gross O. Guantánamo and Beyond: Exceptional Courts and Military Commissions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. p.55-72.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 29 (States of Emergency), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/ Add.11. 2001. paras.7-15.
Walker C. Terrorism Prosecutions and the Right to a Fair Trial. In: Saul B. Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism. Hague: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014. p.418-436.
Rosen D. Child soldiers in historical and comparative perspective: creating a space for data-driven analysis. In: Drumbl M, Barrett J. Research Handbook on Child Soldiers. Hague: Edward Elgar; 2016. p.166-170.
Newton M. Terrorism - International Case Law Reporter 2008. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p.1050.
Spearin C. Foreign Affairs and Defence. In: Mutimer D. Canadian Annual Review of Politics and Public Affairs 2007. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2014. p.66-67.
Coomaraswamy R. Statement of SRSG Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy On the Occasion of the Trial of Omar Khadr before the Guantanamo Military Commission. 2010. Available at: https://www.children andarmedconflict.un.org/2010/08/10aug10/.
Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr - 2010 SCC 3 - [2010] 1 SCR 44 - 2010-01-29. para.25.
Van Ert G. The Domestic Application of International Law in Canada. In: Bradley C. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. p.517-518.
Grover S. Child Soldier Victims of Genocidal Forcible Transfer: Exonerating Child Soldiers Charged with Grave Conflict-related International Crimes. London: Springer; 2012. p.245.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Maher ARAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009).
Abel R. Law's Wars: The Fate of the Rule of Law in the US 'War on Terror'. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p.644.
Aust H. Complicity and the Law of State Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p.123.
Francis D, Smith D. Journeys: A History of Canada. Toronto: Nelson Education; 2009. p.588.
- Abstract Viewed: 278 times
- pdf (فارسی) Downloaded: 120 times