Hybrid courts as an institute of transitional justice

---

This article examines a new phenomenon in international criminal justice, namely so-called hybrid or internationalized courts, in which foreign judges participate along with national judges. The nature of hybrid courts is underlined as one of the elements of transitional justice that is supported by the United Nations in the interest of countries that are just gaining their statehood or are rebounding after civil wars. The example of specific hybrid judicial institutions reveals the question of the quantitative composition of such courts and countries that most often delegate their representatives to such structures. The advantages and disadvantages of such courts are analyzed and problems are identified that are related to the definition of the law to be applied. In particular, three options are possible: firstly, the procedural rules of hybrid courts are derived from the national system of the country in question; secondly, these rules are derived from the workings of an international tribunal; and thirdly, the rules are derived from legislation that is specially passed for the purpose of a they hybrid tribunal. Particular attention is paid to the difficulties of the psychological and socio-cultural nature that arise when foreign judges work in an alien professional environment. The problem of revising the decisions of hybrid courts is touched upon, and a conclusion is made about the extremely meager procedural resources available for this revision. The possibility of using a hybrid approach in constitutional justice is considered, using Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ukraine as examples. Emphasis is placed on some of the problems that arise in the selection of judges in designated international tribunals.

About the author: Oleksandr Yevsieiev – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Scientific Adviser to the Ukrainian Constitutional Court, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Citation: Yevsieiev O. (2017) Gibridnye sudy kak institut tranzitivnogo pravosudiya [Hybrid courts as an institute of transitional justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.47–61. (In Russian).

References

Antonov A. (2014) Osobennosti organizatsii i funktsionirovaniya konstitu­tsionnogo suda Bosnii i Gertsegoviny [Peculiarities of the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Hercegovina]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.5, pp.29–38. (In Russian).

Antonov A. (2015) Trebovaniya provedeniya effektivnogo rassledovaniya prestupleniy i nekotorye aspekty ikh realizatsii v svyazi s vooruzhyonnymi konfliktami [The demands of realizing the effective investigation of crimes and some aspects of their implementation in connection with military conflicts]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.2, pp.100–114. (In Russian).

Baylis E. (2007) Parallel Courts in Post-Conflict Kosovo. The Yale Journal of International Law, vol.32, no.1, pp.1–59.

Blokhin P. (2013) Reforma sudebnoy vlasti v Vengrii i evropeyskie standarty spravedlivogo pravosudiya [Judicial reform in Hungary and European standards of fair justice]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.5, pp.67–84. (In Russian).

Bobrinskiy N.A. (2014) K voprosu o kontseptsii pravosudiya perekhodnogo perioda [On the problem of the conception of transitional justice]. Biblioteka kriminalista, no.1, pp.328–337. (In Russian).

Carter L., Pocar F. (eds.) (2013) International Criminal Procedure: The Interface of Civil Law and Common Law Legal Systems, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cassese A. (2004) The Role of Internationalized Courts and Tribunals in the Fight Against International Criminality. In: Romano C.P.R., Nollkaemper A., Kleffner J.K. (eds.) Internationalized Criminal Courts and Tribunals: Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo, and Cambodia, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.3–13.

Dickinson L. (2003) The Promise of Hybrid Courts. The American Journal of International Law, vol.97, no.2, pp.295–309.

Egorov S.A. (2014) Gibridnye (smeshannye) sudy [Hybrid (mixed) courts]. In: Tolstykh V.L. (ed.) Instituty mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya [Institutions of international justice], Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, pp.445–460. (In Russian).

Golovko L.V. (ed.) (2016) Kurs ugolovnogo protsessa [Course of criminal proceedings], Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).

Kayumova A.R. (2009) Perspektivy razvitiya sistemy mezhdunarodnoy ugolovnoy yustitsii: smeshannye gibridnye tribunaly i internatsionalizirovannye sudy [Perspectives of developing a system of international criminal justice: mixed hybrid tribunals and internationalized courts]. In: Trikoz E.N., Bogush G.I. (eds.) Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravosudie: sovremennye problemy [International criminal justice: current problems], Moscow: Institute for Law and Public Policy, pp.459–466. (In Russian).

Kleffner J.K., Nollkaemper A. (2004) The Relationship Between Internationalized Courts and National Courts. In: Romano C., Nollkaemper A., Kleffner J. (eds.) Internationalized Criminal Courts and Tribunals: Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo, and Cambodia, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.359–378.

Lozhnikov I.S. (2005) Mezhdunarodnoe sodeystvie natsional'nomu pravosudiyu v otnoshenii prestupleniy, sovershyonnykh v period Demokraticheskoy Kampuchii [International help to national justice in investigating crimes committed during the Democratic Kampuchea]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no.2, pp.148–160. (In Russian).

Mezyaev A. (2009) Spetsial'nyy sud po Kambodzhe. “Krasnye kkhmery” i SShA [The Special court for Cambodia. Khmer Rouge and the United States]. Available at: http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2009/04/12/9399-9399.html (accessed: 21.07.2017).

Mil'chakova O.V. (2014) Konstitutsionnyy control' v stranakh byvshey Yugoslavii [Constitutional control in the countries of the former Yugoslavia], Moscow: DPK-Press. (In Russian).

Mydans S. (2017) 11 Years, $300 Million and 3 Convictions. Was the Khmer Rouge Tribunal Worth It? The New York Times, 10 April. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/world/asia/cambodia-khmer-rouge-united-nations-tribunal.html?_r=0 (accessed: 21.07.2017).

Nouwen S.M.H. (2006) ‘Hybrid Courts’: The Hybrid Category of a New Type of International Crimes Court. Utrecht Law Review, vol.2, no.2, pp.190–214.

Pashin S.A. (2011) Stanovlenie pravosudiya [The rise of justice], Moscow: R-Valent. (In Russian).

Rogozhin S.L. (2001) Belgrad – chetvyortyy Rim? Politologicheskiy i yuri­dicheskiy analiz sotsial'nogo eksperimenta v Kosovo [Is Belgrad the fourth Rome? A political and judicial analysis of social experiment in Kosovo]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no.4, pp.22–38. (In Russian).

Romano C.P.R. (2004) The Judges and Prosecutors of Internationalized Criminal Courts and Tribunals. In: Romano C.P.R., Nollkaemper A., Kleffner J.K. (eds.) Internationalized Criminal Courts and Tribunals: Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo, and Cambodia, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.235–270.

Shinkaretskaya G.G. (2014) Smeshannye ugolovnye tribunaly – novyy vid pravosudiya [Mixed criminal tribunals – a new kind of justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii, no.2, pp.294–303. (In Russian).

Simič O. (ed.) (2017) An Introduction to Transitional Justice, New York: Routledge.

Tochilovsky V. (2014) International Criminal Justice: “Strangers in the Foreign System”. Criminal Law Forum, vol.15, no.3, pp.319–344.

Tolstykh V.L. (2011) Mezhdunarodnye gibridnye sudy i tribunaly: obshchiy obzor [International hybrid courts and tribunals: a general review]. Kazanskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no.4, pp.131–142. (In Russian).

Weiner Ph. (2015) The Right to a Competent Judge: Selecting, Training and Assigning International Criminal Judges. In: Sarvarian A., Baker R., Fontanelli F., Tsevelekos V. (eds.) Procedural Fairness in International Courts and Tribunals, London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, pp.250–265.

Wenaweser C., Cockayne J. (2017) Justice for Syria?: The International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism and the Emergence of the UN General Assembly in the Realm of International Criminal Justice. Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol.15, no.2, pp.211–230.