Abstract

Although the concept of ‘international crimes’ is widely employed in academic work and in the writings of many important publicists as forming part of the regime of general international law, it has entered the realms of international and domestic practice in a rather inconsistent manner. While domestic tribunals have found legal bases in international crimes for making reparations for gross violations of humanitarian law, international jurisdictions have been much more reluctant to use these rules to attribute state responsibility for the same violations. Therefore, a body of law trumping state immunity in favor of the claimant for alleged international crimes has developed in domestic jurisdictions, standing in sharp contrast with international tribunals’ reluctance to expand the scope of state obligations arising from the commission of international crimes.