What This Document Is
This paper, from American University’s Comp Systems of Law & Justice (JLC 402) course, explores the suitability of the inquisitorial versus adversarial legal systems within the context of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It argues that the ICC’s core function – administering justice and preventing future crimes against humanity – is better served by an inquisitorial approach, which prioritizes investigation and establishing a complete record, rather than the competitive “winner-loser” dynamic of an adversarial system.
Why This Document Matters
Students in international law, criminal justice, and political science will find this document valuable. It’s particularly relevant for those studying international courts, comparative legal systems, or the philosophy of law. The paper provides a focused analysis of a key debate surrounding the ICC’s operational structure and its impact on achieving justice and accountability for international crimes. Understanding this debate is crucial for evaluating the ICC’s effectiveness and potential reforms.
Common Limitations or Challenges
This paper presents a specific argument *for* the inquisitorial system. It does not offer a comprehensive overview of all arguments in favor of the adversarial system, nor does it delve into the practical challenges of implementing a purely inquisitorial model within the ICC. It serves as a focused contribution to an ongoing scholarly conversation, not a definitive answer.
What This Document Provides
The full document includes:
* A detailed comparison of the inquisitorial and adversarial legal approaches.
* Definitions of key terms like “justice,” “fairness,” and “truth” as used in a legal context, drawing from Black’s Law Dictionary.
* Citations to scholarly works on the ICC and legal theory (Schiff, Mnookin, Peppet, Tulumello, and Souresh).
* An argument for why the inquisitorial system aligns better with the ICC’s goals of truth-seeking, historical preservation, and preventing future atrocities.
This preview offers a high-level overview of the paper’s central argument and scope. It does *not* include the full definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, the detailed analysis of each legal system, or the complete citations and supporting arguments presented in the full document.