Why do international criminal tribunals write histories of the origins and causes of armed conflicts? Richard Ashby Wilson conducted research with judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and expert witnesses in three international criminal tribunals to understand how law and history are combined in the courtroom. Historical testimony is now an integral part of international trials, with prosecutors and defense teams using background testimony to pursue decidedly legal objectives. In the Slobodan Milošević trial, the prosecution sought to demonstrate special intent to commit genocide by reference to a long-standing animus, nurtured within a nationalist mindset. For their part, the defense called historical witnesses to undermine charges of superior responsibility, and to mitigate the sentence by representing crimes as reprisals. Although legal ways of knowing are distinct from those of history, the two are effectively combined in international trials in a way that challenges us to rethink the relationship between law and history.

"This book uses empirical research on three international criminal tribunals to understand how law and history are combined in the courtroom"--

This book argues for a more moderate approach to history-writing in international criminal adjudication by articulating the elements of a “responsible history” normative framework. The question of whether international criminal courts and tribunals (ICTs) ought to write historical narratives has gained renewed relevance in the context of the recent turn to history in international criminal law, the growing attention to the historical legacies of the ad hoc Tribunals and the minimal attention paid to historical context in the first judgment of the International Criminal Court. The starting point for this discussion is that, in cases of mass atrocities, prosecutors and judges are inevitably understood to be engaged in writing history and influencing collective memory, whether or not they so intend. Therefore, while writing history is an inescapable feature of ICTs, there is still today significant lack of consensus over the proper place of this function. Since Hannah Arendt articulated her doctrine of strict legality, in response to the prosecutor’s expansive didactic approach in Eichmann, the legal debate on the subject has been largely polarised between restrictive and expansive approaches to history-writing in mass atrocity trials. What has been noticeably missing from this debate is the middle ground. The contribution this book seeks to make is precisely to articulate a framework that occupies that ground. The book asks: what are the lenses through which judges of ICTs interpret historical events and what kind of histories do ICTs write? and what kinds of histories should ICTs produce? Its arguments for a more moderate approach to history-writing are based on three distinct, but interrelated reasons: (1) Truth and Justice; (2) Right to Truth; and (3) Legal Epistemology. Different target audiences may benefit from this book. Court officials and legal practitioners may find the normative framework developed herein useful in addressing the tensions between the competing objectives of ICTs and, in particular, in assessing the value of the history-writing function. Lawyers, historians and other academics may also find the analysis of the strengths, constraints and blind spots of the historical narratives written by ICTs interesting. This issue is particularly timely in view of current debates on the legacies of ICTs. Aldo Zammit Borda is Director of the Centre for Access to Justice and Inclusion at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.

This book addresses the discursive importance of the prosecution’s opening statement before an international criminal tribunal. Opening statements are considered to be largely irrelevant to the official legal proceedings but are simultaneously deployed to frame important historical events. They are widely cited in international media as well as academic texts; yet have been ignored by legal scholars as objects of study in their own right. This book aims to remedy this neglect, by analysing the narrative that is articulated in the opening statements of different prosecutors at different tribunals in different times. It takes an interdisciplinary approach and looks at the meaning of the opening narrative beyond its function in the legal process in a strict sense, discussing the ways in which the trial is situated in time and space and how it portrays the main characters. It shows how perpetrators and victims, places and histories, are juridified in a narrative that, whilst purporting to legitimise the trial, the tribunal and international criminal law itself, is beset with tensions and contradictions. Providing an original perspective on the operation of international criminal law, this book will be of considerable interest to those working in this area, as well as those with relevant interests in International/Transnational Law more generally, Critical Legal Studies, Law and Literature, Socio-Legal Studies, Law and Geography and International Relations.

The International Criminal Court has significantly grown in importance and impact over the decade of its existence. This book assesses its impact, providing a comprehensive overview of its practice. It shows how the Court has contributed to major developments in international criminal law, and identifies the ways in which it is in need of reform.

This book provides the first comprehensive legal analysis of the twelve war-crimes trials held in the American zone of occupation between 1946 and 1949, collectively known as the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT). The judgments these Tribunals produced have played a critical role in the development of international criminal law, particularly in terms of how courts currently understand genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The trials are of tremendous historical importance, because they provide a far more comprehensive picture of Nazi atrocities than the main Nuremberg Trial (IMT). The IMT focused exclusively on the 'major war criminals'-the Goerings, the Hesses, the Speers. The NMT, by contrast, prosecuted doctors, lawyers, judges, industrialists, bankers-the private citizens and lower-level functionaries whose willingness to take part in the destruction of millions of innocents manifested what Hannah Arendt famously called 'the banality of evil'. This book starts by tracing the history of the NMT. It then discusses the law and procedure applied by the NMT, with a focus on the important differences between Control Council Law No. 10 and the Nuremberg Charter and on the protection of the defendants' right to a fair trial. The third section, the heart of the book, provides a systematic analysis of the NMT's jurisprudence. It covers Law No. 10's core crimes, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, as well as the crimes of conspiracy and membership of a criminal organization. This section also analyzes the general principles of liability that the Tribunals applied and on the defenses they did -and did not- recognize. The final section of the book deals with the aftermath of the trials and their historical legacy.

It is often said that criminal procedure should ensure that the defendant is a subject, not just an object, of proceedings. This book asks to what extent this can be said to be true of international criminal trials. The first part of the book aims to find out the extent to which defendants before international criminal courts are able to take an active part in their trials. It takes an in-depth look at the procedural regimes of international courts, viewed against a benchmark provided by national provisions representing the main traditions of criminal procedure and by international human rights law. The results of this comparative endeavour are then used to shed light, from a practical point of view, on the oft-debated question whether (international) criminal trials should be used as a tool for writing history or whether, as claimed by Martti Koskenniemi, pursuing this goal leads to a danger of “show trials”.