DESAFIOS DO DIREITO CRIMINAL INTERNACIONAL ENTRE REALPOLITIK E NORMATIVIDADE
Palavras-chave:
Direito Criminal Internacional, Realpolitik, Tribunais Internacionais, International Criminal Law, International CourtsResumo
Boa parte dos desafios do direito internacional atual dizem respeito a sua localização epistemológica. Decisões na Corte Internacional de Justiça são carregadas, até pela própria natureza da Corte, de conflituosidade entre estados, falhando por vezes na efetividade das decisões da Corte. Critica-se, ainda, o direito criminal internacional por não ter eficácia em algumas situações como o mandado de prisão contra Omar al Bashir, que continuou exercendo a Presidência do Sudão até abril de 2019 (mesmo tendo contra si mandado de prisão do Tribunal Penal Internacional – TPI), e o tratamento da Corte para a situação do Afeganistão (perante o TPI). Na realidade, deve-se avaliar se esta suposta ineficiência do tribunal seria resultado de problemas jurídicos ou políticos. Há limites operacionais para o direito internacional e para o direito criminal internacional que estão além da esfera jurídica, em desafios jamais enfrentados por operadores do direito em outras áreas, em especial porque o TPI não opera a partir de uma estrutura estatal nacional, mas depende da boa vontade de estados.
The main focus of this article os to check the limits of applicability of international criminal law regarding to political obstacles. The key question is related to verifying how much international criminal law could become a mere instrument of some states’ realpolitik. Even if international law is marked by a strong idealism, it still seems far from their central objective. The article has two essential aspects of development: on the first the structural epistemology of international criminal law and realpolitik are studied, while on the second part the focus is on a series of case studies to check how does international law finds balance between two seemingly antagonic points, normativity and politics. The studied cases are Nicaragua v. USA, as a base for comparison with international criminal law, the Omar al Bashir case , related to the cooperation (or the lack thereof) between state parties of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court and the situation in Afghanistan, before the ICC, still developping.
Referências
American Academy of Family Physicians. AAFP Letter to Domestic Policy Council Director Opposing Systemic Racism. 10th June 2020.
Akhavan, Payam. Are International Criminal Courts a Disincentive to Peace?: Reconciling Judicial Romanticism with Political Realism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Human Rights Quarterly, v. 31, n.3, august 2009, p.624-654.
Bolton, John Robert. Protecting American Constitutionalism and Sovereignty from International Threats. Washington: Federalist Society, 10 september 2018.
Bolton, John Robert. The Room Where it Happened. A White House Memoir. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020.
Cançado Trindade, Antônio Augusto. Os Rumos do Direito Internacional Contemporâneo: de um jus inter gentes a um novo jus gentium no século XXI. In: Cançado Trindade, Antônio Augusto. O Direito Internacional em um Mundo em Transformação. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 2002 (Artigo originalmente publicado em 2001), p.1039-1109.
Casella, Paulo Borba. Fundamentos do Direito Internacional Pós Moderno. São Paulo: Quartier Latin: 2008.
Cobban, Helena. Think Again, International Courts. Foreign Policy, 20 october 2009.
Coleman, Andrew. The International Court of Justice and Highly Political Matters. Melbourne: Melbourne University. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2003, v.4 i.1, p.29-76.
Del Ponte. Carla. Del Ponte Says UN Caved to Rwandan Pressure. National Post, 17 september 2003.
Fitzmaurice, Andrew. Scepticism of the Civilizing Mission of International Law. In: Koskenniemi, Martti; Rech, Walter; Fonseca, Manuel Jiménez. International Law and Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, p.359-384.
International Court of Justice (ICJ). Certain Expenses Of the United Nations. Judges Winiarski (President), Alfaro (Vice-President), Basdevant, Badawi, Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo , Spiropoulos, Percy Spender, Gerard Fitzmaurice, Koretsky, Tanaka, Bustamante y Rivero, Jessup, Morelli. Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962.
_____. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA). Application instituting Proceedings, 9 April, 1984.
_____. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA). Counter-Memorial of the United States of America, 17 August 1984.
_____. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA) Judges Singh (President), De Lacharriére (Vice-President), Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Schwebel, Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni, Evensen, Colliard (ad hoc). Judgment of 27 June 1986.
International Criminal Court. Pre-Trial Chamber II. Situation in the Republic of Kenya. Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova (Presiding); Judge Hans-Peter Kaul; Judge Cuno Tarfusser. Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, 31 March 2010.
_____. Pre-Trial Chamber III. Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Fatou Bensouda (Prosecutor). Public Redacted Version of “Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to article 15”, 20 November 2017.
_____. Pre-Trial Chamber II. Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Presiding); Judge Tomoko Akane; Judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala. Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 12 April 2019.
_____. Pre-Trial Chamber II. Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Presiding). Concurring Separate opinion to Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 12 April 2019.
_____. Pre-Trial Chamber II. Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Presiding). Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 07 June 2019.
_____. Pre-Trial Chamber II. Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Presiding); Judge Tomoko Akane; Judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala. Decision on the Prosecutor and Victims’ Requests for Leave to Appeal the ‘Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of anInvestigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’, 17 September 2019.
_____. Appeals Chamber. Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Judge Piotr Hofmański (Presiding); Judge Howard Morrison; Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza; Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa; Judge Kimberly Prost. Judgment of on the appeal against the decision on the authorisation of an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 05 march 2020.
_____. Appeals Chamber. Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Separate opinion of Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranzato the Judgment on the appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II on the authorisation of an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 05 march 2020.
_____. Statement of the International Criminal Court on recent measures announced by the US, 11 june 2020.
International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Appeals Chamber. The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić. Judges Cassese (Presiding), Li, Deschênes, Sidhwa. Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 02 october 1995.
Kahn, Paul. From Nuremberg to the Hague: The United States Position in Nicaragua v. United States and the Development of International Law. New Haven: Yale University. Yale Journal of International Law, v.1, i.1, art.2, p.1-62, winter 1987.
Koskenniemi, Martti. The Fate of Public International Law: Between Technique and Politics. London: Blackwell. Modern Law Review, v.79, n.1, January 2007, p.1-30.
_____. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations:The Rise and Fall of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
_____. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, revised.
_____. The Politics of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. European Journal of International Law, v.1, n.1, 1990, p. 4-32.
_____. The Politics of International Law. Oxford: Hart, 2011.
Lauterpacht, Hersch. The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933.
Moreno-Ocampo, Luis. Q&A with the ICC Prosecutor. The Star, 14 november 2011.
_____. Libya: ICC Prosecutor Warns Cash Cuts Puts Probes at Risk. Entrevista concedida ao Radio Netherlands Worldwide. Publicizado em 17 de dezembro de 2011. Disponível ainda em https://allafrica.com/stories/201112180045.html.
Onuma, Yasuaki. Direito Internacional em Perspectiva Transcivilizacional. Belo Horizonte: Arraes, 2017. Tradução organizada por Masato Ninomyia e Paulo Casella.
Oppenheim, Lassa Francis Lawrence. The Science of International Law: its task and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. American Journal of International Law, v.2, n.2, april 1908, p.313-356.
Peskin, Victor. International Justice in Rwanda and the Balkans: Virtual Trials and the Struggle for State Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Rochau, August Ludwig von. Grundsätze der Realpolitik: angewendet auf die staatlichen Zustände Deutschlands. Stuttgart: Göpel, 1853.
Ross, Alf. Sobre el derecho y la justicia. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA, 1963. Tradução Genaro Carrió.
_____. Teoria de las Fuentes del Derecho. Una Contribución a la teoría del derecho positivo sobre la base de investigaciones historico-dogmáticas. Madrid: CEPC, 1999. Tradução José Luis Muñoz, Aurelio de Prada Garcia, Pablo Lopez Pietsch.
_____. The United Nations. Peace and Progress, Totowa: Bedminster Press, 1966.
South Africa. High Court. Gauteng Division. Pretoria. The South Africa Litigation Centre v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; The Director General of Justice and Constitutional Development; The Minister of Police; The Commissioner of Police; The Minister of International Relations and Cooperation; The Director General of International Relations and Cooperation; The Minister of Home Affairs;The Director General of Home Affairs; The National Commissioner of the South African Police Service; The National Director of Public Prosecutions; The Head of the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation; The Director of the Priority Crimes Investigation Unit. Case 27750/2015. Judge H.J. Fabricius. Order of 14 June 2015.
_____. High Court. Gauteng Division. Pretoria. The South Africa Litigation Centre v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; The Director General of Justice and Constitutional Development; The Minister of Police; The Commissioner of Police; The Minister of International Relations and Cooperation; The Director General of International Relations and Cooperation; The Minister of Home Affairs;The Director General of Home Affairs; The National Commissioner of the South African Police Service; The National Director of Public Prosecutions; The Head of the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation; The Director of the Priority Crimes Investigation Unit. Case 27750/2015. Judges D. Mlambo (President); A.P. Ledwaba; H.J. Fabricius. Judgment of 24 June 2015.
_____. Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; The Director General of Justice and Constitutional Development; The Minister of Police; The Commissioner of Police; The Minister of International Relations and Cooperation; The Director General of International Relations and Cooperation; The Minister of Home Affairs;The Director General of Home Affairs; The National Commissioner of the South African Police Service; The National Director of Public Prosecutions; The Head of the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation; The Director of the Priority Crimes Lilitgation Unit. v. The South Africa Litigation Centre. Amicus Curiae: Helen Suzman Foundation; The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies; The International Refugee Rights Initiative; Peace and Justice Initiative; Centre for Human Rights. Case 867/2015. Judges Lewis; Ponnan; Shongwe; Majiedt; Wallis. Judgment of 15 March 2016.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945.
Tama, Noreen. Nicaragua v. United States: The Power of the International Court of Justice to Indicate Interim Measures inPolitical Disputes. University Park: Pennsylvania State University. Penn State International Law Review, v.4, n.1,art 5, p.65-87.
Tonetto, Fernanda Figueira. O Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos: a Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos e a Construção dos Valores Intangíveis da Humanidade. In: Guerra, Sidney; Pinto, Felipe Chiarelo de Souza; Guerra, Caio Grande. 70 anos da Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos. Curitiba: Instituto Memória, 2018, p.42-73.
United Nations. Security Council. Resolution 1593 (2005).
_____. Security Council. Resolution 1970 (2011).
United States of America. U.S. Statement on Withdrawal From Case Before Court. 18 january 1985.
United States of America. American Service-Members Protection Act. ASPA. Public Law 107-206.
United States of America. U.S. Embassy Khartoum reiterates that the United States has made its position with respect to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s travel clear. 2017
_____. Executive Order on Blocking Propriety of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court. Issued on 11 June 2020.
Weiner, Allen. Prudent Politics: The International Criminal Court, International Relations and Prosecutorial Independence. St.Louis: Washington University Global Studies Law Review, v.12, i.3, 2013, p.545-562.
