The chequered history of the criminalisation of aggression as a crime under international law has reached an important milestone with the adoption of the Kampala Resolution on the Crime of Aggression (2010). This resolution provides for the definition of the crime of aggression to be included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as for conditions for the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over the crime. The second edition of this volume contains an overview and discussion of the historical and normative processes (legal and political) that culminated in the adoption of the Kampala Resolution. The different components of the resolution are critically assessed against the background of the various political and legal responses to aggression, while taking into account contemporary developments in the field of international criminal law. The volume is primarily but not exclusively concerned with the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute. It also includes a chapter on national and regional criminal justice responses to aggression, notably developments concerning the amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, which also provides for the criminalisation of aggression.

Do International Criminal Tribunals trigger social change, provide reconciliation, stabilize fragile post-conflict societies? Many authors claim they do, but they base their assumptions mainly on theoretical considerations and opinion polls. The editors and authors of this book take a different position: based on extensive field research in nine European and African countries, they examine whether tribunal decisions resulted in changes in media frames about the conflicts which gave rise to the creation of these tribunals. International Tribunals hardly ever shape or change the grand narratives about wars and other conflicts, but they often manage to trigger small changes in media frames which, in some cases, even lead to public reflexion about guilt and responsibility and more awareness for (the respective enemy's) victims. On an empirical basis, this book shows the potential of International Criminal Justice, the possibilities, but also the limits of International Criminal Tribunals. Volume 2 presents the evidence from Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan and South Sudan.

Do International Criminal Tribunals trigger social change, provide reconciliation, stabilize fragile post-conflict societies? Many authors claim they do, but they base their assumptions mainly on theoretical considerations and opinion polls. The editors and authors of this book take a different position: based on extensive field research in nine European and African countries, they examine whether tribunal decisions resulted in changes in media frames about the conflicts which gave rise to the creation of these tribunals. International Tribunals hardly ever shape or change the grand narratives about wars and other conflicts, but they often manage to trigger small changes in media frames which, in some cases, even lead to public reflexion about guilt and responsibility and more awareness for (the respective enemy's) victims. On an empirical basis, this book shows the potential of International Criminal Justice, the possibilities, but also the limits of International Criminal Tribunals. Volume 1 presents the evidence from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Serbia and Croatia.

This unique two-volume book covers virtually the whole spectrum of international conflict and security law. It proceeds from values protected by international law (Part I), through substantive rules in which these values are embodied (Part II), to international and domestic institutions that enforce the law (Part III). It subsequently deals with current challenges in the application of rules of international conflict and security law (Part IV), and crimes as the most serious violations of those rules (Part V). Finally, in the section on case studies (Part VI), lessons learnt from a number of conflict situations are discussed. Written by an international team of experts representing all the major legal systems of the world, the book is intended as a reference work for students and researchers, domestic and international judges, as well as for legal advisers to governments and international and non-governmental organisations. Sergey Sayapin is Associate Professor and Associate Dean at KIMEP University, School of Law in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Rustam Atadjanov is Assistant Professor at KIMEP University, School of Law in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Umesh Kadam is formerly Additional Professor at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, India and Legal Adviser with the International Committee of the Red Cross. Gerhard Kemp is Professor of Law at the University of Derby in the United Kingdom.  Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar is Associate Professor at KIMEP University, School of Law in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Noëlle Quénivet is Professor in International Law at the University of the West of England, Bristol Law School in the United Kingdom.

This book addresses potential avenues of criminal liability for public health crisis management in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, under national and international criminal law, especially for causing death and bodily harm. The national case studies are geographically representative and follow a common research grid. Each national case study is prefaced by an overview of the detection and subsequent spread of the pandemic in the country concerned. The relevant legal and constitutional frameworks that governed the government and corporate conduct in the face of the pandemic are also discussed, followed by the consideration of forms of criminal liability. Government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic differed vastly in terms of both the choice of strategies adopted (herd immunity, test-and-trace, lockdown, etc) and the quality and speed of government implementation of those strategies and associated interventions. Both factors impacted the number of infections and casualties. It is therefore appropriate to consider forms of criminal liability for failure of individual members of government, including specific public authorities, to act to the best of their abilities, as timely as possible, and in accordance with expert advice.