Agenda Internacional

URI permanente para esta comunidadhttp://54.81.141.168/handle/123456789/174837

ISSN: 1027-6750
e-ISSN: 2311-5718

Agenda Internacional es la revista académica del Instituto de Estudios Internacionales (IDEI) de la PUCP que, desde su origen en 1994, tiene como objetivo brindar un aporte multidisciplinario sobre los principales aspectos de la realidad internacional. En tal sentido, son bienvenidas contribuciones desde el mundo del derecho, la ciencia política, las relaciones internacionales, la economía, la historia y otras ramas del conocimiento siempre que brinden un aporte desde una perspectiva internacional. Desde 2005 la revista se publica con una periodicidad anual.

Explorar

Filtros

20161

Ajustes

Autorsearch.filters.applied.operator.equals: search.filters.author.Saucier Calderón, Jean-PaulTemasearch.filters.applied.operator.equals: search.filters.subject.Corte Internacional de Justicia

Resultados de búsqueda

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
  • No hay miniatura disponible
    ÍtemTexto completo enlazado
    La intención específica en el caso Croacia vs. Serbia: apuntes críticos sobre el fallo de la Corte Internacional de Justicia
    (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Fondo Editorial, 2016-09-23) Saucier Calderón, Jean-Paul
    After having discussed the case’s historical background and the parties’ arguments with emphasis on genocidal intent, the author offers critical comments on the ICJ’s decision. He calls into question the limitations imposed by the Court’s inferential standard and its interpretation in the Croatia v. Serbia case. Although the existence of a plurality of subjective elements in this case did not necessarily entail that there must have been a finding of genocidalintent, it appears that such a plurality has been addressed in a manner that is inconsistent with the Court’s case law, and involves excluding the possibility that genocidal intent may exist concurrently with other non-genocidal subjective elements. The Court’s position overlooks the distinction between motive and intent that has been discussed on many occasions by international criminal tribunals. That distinction could have offered a valuable framework to understand —at least partially— the interplay between different subjective elements displayed in this case. The Court’s questionable position on genocidal intent is also evidenced by its lack of a clear position on the plural reality of intent that encompasses volitional and knowledge elements. Finally, the author engages a discussion on the possibility that the Court has adopted an abstract perspective while an approach focusing on the perpetration of the alleged genocidal acts could have been more respectful of the Convention’s spirit and letter.