Christopher Keith Hall: selected academic publications

‘Positive Complementarity in Action’, in: Carsten Stahn and Mohamed M. El Zeidy (eds.), The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 1014.

‘The Role of Universal Jurisdiction in the International Criminal Court Complementarity System’, in: Morten Bergsmo (ed.), Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes, Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010, p. 201.

‘The Danger of Selective Justice: All Cases Involving Crimes under International Law Should Be Investigated and the Suspects, When there is Sufficient Admissible Evidence, Prosecuted’, in: Morten Bergsmo (ed.), Criteria for Prioritizing and Selecting Core International Crimes Cases, Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2nd edition 2010, p. 171.

Developing And Implementing An Effective Positive Complementarity Prosecution Strategy’, in: Carsten Stahn and Göran Sluiter (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009, p. 219.

‘Article 7 – Crimes against Humanity’ (including updating and revising parts by Rodney Dixon and Machteld Boot) in: Otto Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article, Munich: C.H.Beck, Hart, Nomos, 2nd edition, 2008, p. 159.

‘Article 19 – Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court or the Admissibility of a Case’, ibidem, p. 637.

‘Article 55 – Rights of Persons During an Investigation’, ibidem, p. 1089.

‘Article 58 – Issuance by the Pre-Trial Chamber of a Warrant of Arrest or a Summons to Appear’, ibidem, p. 1133.

‘Article 59 – Arrest Proceedings in the Custodial State’, ibidem, p. 1147.

‘Article 72 – Proection of National Security Information’ (updating and revising a previous text by Rodney Dixon and Helen Duffy) ibidem, p. 1361.

‘Article 73 – Third Party Information or Documents’ (updating and revising a previous text by Helen Duffy) ibidem, p. 1379.

The Duty of States Parties to the Convention against Torture to Provide Procedures Permitting Victims to Recover Reparations for Torture Committed Abroad’, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 5 (2007), p. 921.

Justice Should Be Done, but Where? The Relationship Between National and International Courts (with Laura Dickinson, Naomi Roth-Arriaza, Paul Seils and Kimberly Theidon), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), Vol. 101 (2007), p. 289.

UN Convention on State Immunity: the Need for a Human Rights Protocol’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2 (2006), p. 411.

‘Universal Jurisdiction: Developing and Implementing an Effective Global Strategy’, in: Wolfgang Kallek, Michael Rather & Tobias Singelnstein (eds.), International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 2006, p. 85.

The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity’, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, No.1 (2004), p. 121.

‘Contemporary Universal Jurisdiction’, in: Morten Bergsmo (ed.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essay in honour of Asbjorn Eide, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003, p. 111.

‘Universal Jurisdiction: New Uses for an Old Tool’, in: Mark Lattimer and Philippe Sands (eds), Justice for Crimes Against Humanity, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003, p. 47.

Suggestions concerning International Criminal Court Prosecutorial Policy and Strategy and External Relations‘, contribution to an expert consultation process on general issues relevant to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor, 28 March 2003.

‘A Brief Note on More Than a Century of Efforts to Establish a Permanent International Criminal Court’, in: Stephen Livingstone (ed.), Towards a Procedural Regime for he International Criminal Court,  Nottingham: Nottingham University Press, 2002.

‘Universal Jurisdiction: Challenges to Implementation since Pinochet I’, Interights Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2002), p.3.

The First Five Sessions of the UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, No. 4 (2000), p. 773.

‘The Right to Fair Trial under the ICC Statute’, Interights Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1998/1999), p. 60.

‘The Jurisdiction of the Permanent International Criminal Court over Violations of Humanitarian Law’, in: Flavia Lattanzi (ed.), The International Criminal Court: Comments on the Draft Statute, Naples: Editoriale Scientifica, 1998, p. 19.

The Sixth Session of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court‘, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, No. 3 (1998), p. 548.

The Fifth Session of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court‘, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, No. 2 (1998), p. 331.

The First Proposal for a Permanent International Criminal Court‘, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 322 (1998), p. 59.

The Third and Fourth Sessions of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, No. 1 (1998), p. 124.

The First Two Sessions of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 91, No. 1 (1997), p. 177.

‘The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights on the Eve of its Tenth Session’, Interights Bulletin, Vol. 6 (1991).

‘Torture in Turkey: The Legal System’s Response. A Report of the Committee on International Human Rights’ (with Robin L. Dahlberg, Rhoda H. Karpatkin and Jessica Neuwirth) The Record, No. 45 (1990), p. 1.

 

Thank you to Fátima da Camara e Silva, Jonathan O’Donohue and Hugo Relva for their help in compiling this page.

A tribute to Christopher Keith Hall, international justice advocate (1946-2013)

Christopher Keith Hall

Christopher Keith Hall

Christopher Keith Hall, Senior Legal Adviser with the International Justice Project of Amnesty International, died in London on Monday 27 May, 2013.

Christopher was a passionate human rights activist and an ambitious visionary. He was wholeheartedly committed to the cause of international justice, lending his brilliant legal mind to the design of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to the advancement of universal jurisdiction.

His rigorous precision and attention to detail, with respect to both legal notions and language, was legendary among his colleagues. He loved to recall the motto his then boss had impressed upon him during his first days in Amnesty International’s legal office: “accuracy, accuracy, accuracy”. Such a high standard is reflected in his written work, not only for Amnesty International but also in countless academic publications.

Despite his enormous contribution to the development of international criminal law and to Amnesty International’s reputation, he was incredibly humble. He probably never realised that the authority with which Amnesty International now speaks on issues of international justice is, in fact, the authority he personally built in years of work.

He was a brilliant mentor, generous with knowledge, time and advice. Over nearly 25 years at Amnesty International he trained, encouraged and supported two generations of human rights activists, who now continue his work not only at Amnesty International but also in other NGOs, international organisations and academia. I have the privilege to be one of them.

Moving away from the South African model: Amnesties and prosecutions in the practice of 40 truth commissions

‘The value of truth commissions is that they are created, not with the presumption that there will be no trials, but to constitute a step towards knowing the truth and, ultimately, making justice prevail.’
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Fifteen years after the adoption of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, a disproportionate reference to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) dominates both legal/policy discussions about truth-seeking mechanisms and the public perception of truth commissions. This paper aims at verifying whether such hegemony is justified. It argues that the South African TRC cannot be used either as a practical model for future truth commissions or as a representative case study to understand the role of truth commissions in situations of transition.

This paper was presented at the University of Oxford as an Oxford Transitional Justice Research Seminar on 25 January 2010. It was written in the personal capacity of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Amnesty International.

Download the paper: FPizzutelli Moving Away from ZA model

Download the PowerPoint presentation: FPizzutelli Moving Away from ZA model PPT

Listen to the podcast here