A GLOBAL STREAM FROM ADVERSARIAL JUSTICE TO NON-ADVERSARIAL JUSTICE: IS THERE A TENDENCY TO INQUISITORIAL TRADITION IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?

Öz

This paper is divided into two main parts. In the first part, criminal procedural models named as inquisitorial and adversarial procedural systems and the convergence of them are analysed with a comparative perspective. In the second part, our focus will be on the criminal procedural system of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In this paper, the principal criminal procedural systems, which are adversarial system based on common law and inquisitorial system based on civil law, are examined in international courts, especially in the ICC, on a global scale concerning transitions between those traditions. Our purpose is to find an answer to the following question: To what extent is there a “drift” towards more inquisitorial justice at the ICC? To answer this question, one needs to begin with taking a closer look at the concepts of adversariality and inquisitoriality. Our aim is not only to examine the criminal procedural systems, but also to ascertain a functional and effective model considering domestic approaches. The paper puts forward to claim that a more effective criminal procedure model could be created in the cooperation of constituents in international criminal procedure. The unification of constituents in the criminal proceedings demonstrate that the court is not a battleground as in adversarial-common courts; on the contrary, the constituents in the proceedings act with a team spirit. Eventually, it seems that such a criminal procedure at the international level could be exercised within an inquisitorial tradition, which is seen as a more functional model taking into account particularly political and social global developments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Criminal Procedural System
• Inquisitorial Justice
• Adversarial Justice
• Judge
• Prosecutor
• Victim
• Restorative Justice

İtham Ceza Adaleti Sisteminden Tahkik Ceza Adaleti Sistemine Küresel Bir Akım: Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinin Ceza Muhakemesinde Tahkik Geleneğine Bir Eğilim Var mı?

Öz

Kaynakça

1. Ambos K, ‘International Criminal Procedure:’Adversarial’,’Inquisitorial’or Mixed?’ (2003) 3 Third International Criminal Law Review 1
2. ——, Internationales Strafrecht (5 Aufl, C H Beck 2018)
3. Ambos K and Bock S, ‘Germany’ in Alan Reed and Michael Bohlander (eds), Participation in Crime (Domestic and Comparative Perspectives) (1st edn, Ashgate 2013)
4. Askin KD, ‘Reflections on Some of the Most Significant Achievements of the ICTY’ (2002) 37 New English Law Review 903
5. Başak C, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemeleri ve Uluslararası Suçlar (1 bs, Turhan Kitapevi 2003)
6. Burnham W and Kahn JD, ‘Russia’s Criminal Procedure Code Five Years Out’ (2008) 33 1
7. Cesur H, ‘The Analytical Value of the Adversarial-Inquisitorial Dichotomy in Approaches to Proof: The Examples of England and Turkey’ (2018) 6 Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 155
8. Cryer R and others, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2010)

9. Damaška MR, ‘International Criminal Court between Aspiration and Achievement’ (2009) 14 University of California Los Angeles Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 19
10. Delmas-Marty M, ‘Global Crime Calls for Global Justice’ (2002) 10 European Journal Crime Criminal Law & Criminal Justice 286
11. Deu TA, ‘The Inquisitorial-Accusatorial Dichotomy in Criminal Proceedings: Meaning and Usefulness’ (Internatıonal Assocıatıon of Procedural Law 2009)
12. Diehm JW, ‘The Introduction Of Jury Trials And Adversarial Elements into The Former Soviet Union And Other Inquisitorial Countries’ (2001) 11 J. Transnational Law & Policy 1
13. Tezcan D, Erdem MR and Önok M, Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku (6 bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021)
14. Eser A, ‘“Adversatorish” Versus “Inquisitorisch”- Auf Der Suche Nach Optimalen Verfahrensstrukturen’, Prof. Dr. Feridun Yenisey’e Armağan, vol I (1 bs, Beta Yayınevi 2014)
15. ——, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol II (Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta and John RWD Jones eds, 1st edn, Oxford University Press 2002)
16. Esmein A, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France, vol 5 (John Murray 1914)
17. Exum JJ, The Essence of the Rules: A Comparison of Turkish and U.S. Criminal Procedure, Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (Jelani Jefferson Exum and Ayşe Tezel eds, Yenisey Feridun tr, 1st edn, Beta Yayınevi 2009)
18. Fouladvand S, ‘Complementarity and Cultural Sensitivity: Decision-Making by the ICC Prosecutor in Relation to the Situations in the Darfur Region of the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)’ (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Sussex 2012)
19. Freiberg A, ‘Post-Adversarial and Post-Inquisitorial Justice: Transcending Traditional Penological Paradigms’ (2011) 8 European Journal of Criminology 82
20. Gordon GS, ‘Complementary and Alternative Justice’ (2009) 88 Oregon Law Review 101
21. Graefrath B, ‘Universal Criminal Jurisdiction and an International Criminal Court’ (1990) 1 European Journal of International Law 67
22. Guerra A and others, ‘Deterrence, Settlement, and Litigation under Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Systems’ [2022] Public Choice 1
23. Jackson J, ‘Finding the Best Epistemic Fit for International Criminal Tribunals Beyond the Adversarial–Inquisitorial Dichotomy’ (2009) 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice 17
24. Jessberger F and Geneuss J, ‘The Many Faces of the International Criminal Court’ (2012) 10 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1081
25. Kaya S, 2017 Anayasa Değişiklikleri Çerçevesinde Anayasa Yargısı (1 bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2018)
26. ——, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararları Çerçevesinde Bireysel Başvuruya Konu Olan Haklar’ (2018) XXII Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 57
27. Kirchengast T, ‘Mixed and Hybrid Systems of Justice and the Development of the Adversarial Paradigm: European Law, Inquisıtorial Processes and the Development of Community Justice in the Common Law States’ [2019] Revista Da Faculdade Direito Universidade Federal Minas Gerais 513
28. Koca M and Üzülmez İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (15 bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022)
29. Kress C, ‘The Procedural Law of the International Criminal Court in Outline: Anatomy of a Unique Compromise’ (2003) 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice 603
30. Kunter N, Yenisey F and Nuhoğlu A, Muhakeme Hukuku Dalı Olarak Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 16. Bası, İstanbul 2008, (16 bs, Beta Yayınevi 2008)
31. Marlies G, ‘Do International Criminal Courts Require Democratic Legitimacy’ (2012) 23 The European Journal of International Law 43
32. McClelland GA, ‘A Non-Adversary Approach to International Criminal Tribunals’ (2002) 26 Suffolk Transnational Law Review 1
33. McEwan J, ‘From Adversarialism to Managerialism: Criminal Justice in Transition’ (2011) 31 Legal Studies 519
34. Mundis DA, ‘From “Common Law” Towards “Civil Law”: The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 367
35. Nevins-Saunders E, ‘Judicial Drift’ (2020) 57 American Criminal Law Review 331
36. Osakwe C, ‘Modern Soviet Criminal Procedure: A Critical Analysis’ (1983) 57 Tulane Law Review 439
37. Özbek VÖ, Doğan K and Bacaksız P, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (15 bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022)
38. Öztürk B and others, Nazari ve Uygulamalı Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Bahri Öztürk ed, 16 bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022)
39. Öztürk EÇ, ‘The International Criminal Court: Jurisdiction and the Concept of Sovereignty’ (2014) 10 European Scientific Journal 141
40. Parisi F, ‘Rent-Seeking through Litigation: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems Compared’ (2002) 22 International Review of Law and Economics 193
41. Roberts A, ‘Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law’ (2011) 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 57
42. Rothe DL and Collins VE, ‘The International Criminal Court: A Pipe Dream to End Impunity?’ (2013) 13 International Criminal Law Review 191
43. Schabas WA, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2011)
44. Schrag M, ‘Lessons Learned from ICTY Experience’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 427
45. Sklansky DA, ‘Anti-Inquisitorialism’ (2008) 122 Harvard Law Review 1634
46. Solomon Jr PH, ‘Post-Soviet Criminal Justice: The Persistence of Distorted Neo-Inquisitorialism’ (2015) 19 Theoretical Criminology 159
47. Souresh A, ‘The Adversarial vs Inquisitorial Dichotomy in International Criminal Law: A Redundant Conversation’ (2019) 5 International Comparative Jurisprudence 81
48. Soyaslan D, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (8 bs, Yetkin Yayınları 2020)
49. Telli K, Cezasızlık Olgusuna Karşı Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemeleri ve Uluslararası Suçlar (1 bs, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2015)
50. Tochilovsky V, ‘Proceedings in the International Criminal Court: Some Lessons to Learn from ICTY Experience’ (2002) 10 Europeanjournal Crime Criminal Law & Criminal Justice 268
51. Tokdemir S, ‘Honor Crimes in Turkey: Rethinking Honour Killings and Reconstructing the Community Using Restorative Justice System’ (2013) 4 Law & Justice Review 75
52. ——, ‘International Criminal Court within Global Realities, And Desires beyond the Cuff Mountain: “Is the ICC A Proper International Institution?’ (2013) XVII EÜHFD 163
53. ——, ‘The Powers of the Prosecutor in the Turkish Criminal Justice System’ (Thesis of Master (unpublished), University of Sussex (Law School) 2013)
54. ——, ‘Ceza Adaleti Sistemine Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: Tamamlayıcı Bir Sistem Olarak “Onarıcı Adalet” Mekanizması’ (2017) 21 Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 75
55. ——, Ceza Hukukunda Akim Kalmış Azmettirme (1. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022)
56. Tokdemir S and Çelik Ö, ‘Kamu Davası ve Toplumsal Algılar’, Prof. Dr. Feridun Yenisey’e Armağan, vol I (Beta Yayınevi 2014)
57. Tulkens F, ‘The Paradoxical Relationship between Criminal Law and Human Rights’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 577
58. Ünver Y and Hakeri H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (19 bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022)
59. Vogler R, A World View of Criminal Justice (1st edn, Ashgate 2005)
60. ——, ‘Making International Criminal Procedure Work: From Theory to Practice’ in Ralph Henham and Mark Findlay (eds), Exploring the Boundaries of International Criminal Justice (Ashgate 2011)
61. Yapar ME, Ceza Muhakemesinde İddia Pazarlığı (1 bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2013)
62. Yenisey F and Nuhoğlu A, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku Ders Kitabı (2 bs, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayınları 2014)
63. ——, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (10th edn, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022)
64. Zafer H, ‘Ulusal Hukuk Sistemlerinin Roma Statüsü Ile Uyumlaştırılması-Alman Modeli’ (2007) 6 MÜHFD (Aydın Aybay’a Armağan) 289
65. The Turkish Criminal Procedure Code numbered as 5271 (enter into force in 2005).
66. The International Criminal Court accessed 19 December 2022
67. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court accessed 19 December 2022
68. exculpatory accessed 19 May 2022
69. exculpatory accessed 19 May 2022
70. Rules of Procedural and Evidence,
71. accessed 07 December 2022
72. Kepreskic accessed 14 December 2022
73. ICTY accessed 19 December 2012