Book Review: Mohamed Elewa Badar, The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law: The Case for a Unified Approach
Genre
Book reviewDate
2014-05Author
deGuzman, Margaret M.Subject
International criminal courtInternational criminal law
Mens rea
Comparative criminal law
Criminal law
Permanent link to this record
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6934Metadata
Show full item recordDOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6916Abstract
In The Concept of Mens Rea In International Criminal Law: The Case for a Unified Approach, Mohamed Badar makes an important contribution to the literature through a comprehensive review of mens rea law in many of the world’s national legal systems and at international criminal courts and tribunals. Professor Badar demonstrates that in all of these contexts, theorists, legislators, and judges have struggled mightily to identify the appropriate mental states to justify the infliction of punishment. He also illuminates the historical trajectory of the concept beginning as far back as the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi.Citation
Margaret M. deGuzman, Book Review: Mohamed Elewa Badar, The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law: The Case for a Unified Approach, Rutgers Criminal Justice Books Reviews (May 2014).Available at: https://clcjbooks.rutgers.edu/books/the-concept-of-mens-rea/
Citation to related work
Rutgers School of LawHas part
Rutgers Criminal Justice Books ReviewsADA compliance
For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.eduCollections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Book Review: Larry May and Shannon Fyfe, International Criminal Tribunals: A Normative DefenseIn "International Criminal Tribunals: A Normative Defense," Larry May and Shannon Fyfe set out to demonstrate that international tribunals provide “the fairest way to deal with mass atrocity crimes in a global arena.” To do so, the authors take up a wide range of critiques that scholars and others have leveled at international criminal tribunals and argue that although most have some validity, none are fatal to the enterprise of international criminal justice. The authors’ analysis of the various critiques yields both normative arguments about the value of international criminal tribunals and suggestions about how the institutions can be improved. In advancing their normative claims and supporting their prescriptive suggestions, the authors draw on a deep well of philosophical and theoretical concepts, including legitimacy, fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency. The result is a book that not only canvases and addresses the broad array of critiques leveled at international criminal tribunals but adds significantly to the rather scant literature on the philosophical justifications for international criminal justice.
-
The International Criminal Court is Legitimate Enough to Deserve SupportIn Allen Buchanan’s essay, "The Complex Epistemology of Institutional Legitimacy Assessments," 33 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L. J. 323, 323 (2019), he suggests that the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is weak – perhaps so weak that it is unworthy of support. This response argues that Buchanan underestimates the ICC’s legitimacy by misconstruing the institution’s chief justifying function and under-valuing the benefits the institution can provide. Unlike domestic courts, the ICC’s main function is not to uphold the rule of law by deterring crimes, but rather to express global norms in the hopes that over time those norms will permeate the fabric of global society. In light of the complexity of this mandate, and the ICC’s relatively limited resources, it is unsurprising that the institution has faced challenges to its legitimacy in its early years. But these are early years, and we argue that the ICC meets at least to the minimum threshold of legitimacy required to justify giving it support.
-
Commitment to Efficiency and Legitimacy: A Comparative Approach to the Plea Negotiation Systems in the United States and ChinaThe majority of criminal cases are disposed by the mechanism of plea negotiation in the federal jurisdiction of the United States. This procedure has replaced adversarial trial tradition of the U.S. criminal justice system for decades. Since 2014, China has initiated plea negotiation in the criminal justice system. Following the efforts of legislation and judiciary, China has formulated a Sinicized concessional criminal justice system. Up to now, over 86% criminal cases in China are handled with the plea negotiation system without appeals. Motivated by the same goals of procedural economy and systematic efficiency, these two nations have developed the plea negotiation system into the core driver of criminal justice dynamics. This ubiquity has led the similarities appearing in the adversarial system of the US and the inquisitorial system of China substantially and procedurally. In the light of the costs and benefits analysis, it raises research questions as follows: what needs to be ensured where a defendant posits in a plea negotiation process? What are the costs and benefits of defendant’s decision making? Whether this cost-saving procedure achieves systemic efficiency and fairness? What can be rebuilt for improving the current system? This article is aimed to propose some new practical ideas that may improve the transparency and the fairness of plea negotiation process, and finally earn trust from the criminal defendants and the public at large. Through a comparative study, this article outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the plea negotiation systems in the U.S. and China. Thereafter, this article channels the practical measures to rebuild the plea negotiation system in these two nations. It is also aimed to contribute some insights to other nations’ re-consideration of reforming the negotiated criminal justice system in the near future.
