Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.785052
Title: Have the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) judges exercised their judicial discretion fairly? : a case study of the formulation and application of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE)
Author: Puchooa, P.
ISNI:       0000 0004 7970 5950
Awarding Body: UCL (University College London)
Current Institution: University College London (University of London)
Date of Award: 2016
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis examines how judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) have exercised their discretion in formulating and applying the criminal doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). The principal goal is to explore whether judicial discretion has been exercised fairly. This thesis is accordingly divided into four Parts. Part 1 explains what it means to exercise discretion fairly in interpreting law at the ICTY. It examines how discretion was present at the ICTY, explores what fairness means in practice and outlines how differences in legal culture influence the exercise of discretion. Part 2 then applies this meaning to evaluate the formulation of JCE. It questions whether the judges exercised their discretion fairly. In doing so, it reveals several flaws of the literature and more importantly draws attention to new material which ICTY judges did not take into account. Part 3 then examines the fairness in applying JCE. Part 4 provides conclusions regarding the fairness of JCE's formulation and application. It also revisits discussions regarding the influence of legal culture at the ICTY which Part 1 discussed. It explores whether any of these discussions influenced the exercise of discretion in formulating and applying JCE.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.785052  DOI: Not available
Share: