Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative: UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative : UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes. / Cullen, Miriam.

In: Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, Vol. 25, 14.06.2019, p. 327-350.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Cullen, M 2019, 'Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative: UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes', Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, vol. 25, pp. 327-350.

APA

Cullen, M. (2019). Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative: UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 25, 327-350.

Vancouver

Cullen M. Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative: UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 2019 Jun 14;25:327-350.

Author

Cullen, Miriam. / Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative : UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes. In: Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 2019 ; Vol. 25. pp. 327-350.

Bibtex

@article{f1b85e2341844c2f881e4ad5a1058682,
title = "Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative: UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes",
abstract = "The Security Council’s structure as a small but powerful executive, combined with its primary responsibility for international peace and security, leads to a presumption against the application of ordinary standards of procedural fairness. At the same time, explicit provisions of the Charter and its own rules of procedure indicate that some balance was to be struck. This article questions whether the attainment of international criminal jurisdiction through Security Council decision-making really outweighs the need to ensure procedural integrity in every step of the process. It posits that a lack of procedural fairness in the Council's methods of work at least undermines the justice imperative that the Council so espouses and at most violates an ancillary legal obligation.",
author = "Miriam Cullen",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "14",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "327--350",
journal = "Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations",
issn = "1075-2846",
publisher = "Lynne Rienner Publishers",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative

T2 - UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes

AU - Cullen, Miriam

PY - 2019/6/14

Y1 - 2019/6/14

N2 - The Security Council’s structure as a small but powerful executive, combined with its primary responsibility for international peace and security, leads to a presumption against the application of ordinary standards of procedural fairness. At the same time, explicit provisions of the Charter and its own rules of procedure indicate that some balance was to be struck. This article questions whether the attainment of international criminal jurisdiction through Security Council decision-making really outweighs the need to ensure procedural integrity in every step of the process. It posits that a lack of procedural fairness in the Council's methods of work at least undermines the justice imperative that the Council so espouses and at most violates an ancillary legal obligation.

AB - The Security Council’s structure as a small but powerful executive, combined with its primary responsibility for international peace and security, leads to a presumption against the application of ordinary standards of procedural fairness. At the same time, explicit provisions of the Charter and its own rules of procedure indicate that some balance was to be struck. This article questions whether the attainment of international criminal jurisdiction through Security Council decision-making really outweighs the need to ensure procedural integrity in every step of the process. It posits that a lack of procedural fairness in the Council's methods of work at least undermines the justice imperative that the Council so espouses and at most violates an ancillary legal obligation.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 25

SP - 327

EP - 350

JO - Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations

JF - Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations

SN - 1075-2846

ER -

ID: 204190843