For how long before you decided to pursue a career in International Law did you have an interest in the area?

~ Sam J Thompson, London South Bank University

Answer: For a couple of years, when I was a University student, at Pisa University. I then met my future professor, Giuseppe Sperduti, who was a prominent international lawyer and a member of the European Commission on Human Rights (he had just been given a chair at Pisa University), and decided to pursue an academic career under his guidance.

Do you allow your personal experiences as the former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to affect your academic positions on Criminal International Law? If so, have your experiences helped or hindered your writings? Can you provide an example? Finally, do you recommend an 'inclusionary' approach when dealing with personal perspectives and academics or would you recommend that we do our best to remain impartial?

~ Sam J Thompson, London South Bank University

Answer: No, I try as much as possible to critically re-examine the judicial decisions I drafted or in which I concurred. For instance, recently I have taken a critical view of the decision on Blaskić (subpoena) by the ICTY Appeals Chamber, which I wrote as a judge.

I would say that my judicial experience has significantly helped my academic writings, for when you are a judge, you have to understand the other judges’ position, and also make an effort to try to persuade them as much as possible of the value of your own position. I could not give any example off the cuff, though.

I would say that, to be scientifically honest, one should endeavour to make clear or explain the (ideological or political) foundations of one’s own thinking, so as to enable the reader to appraise the extent to which those foundations influence our theoretical conceptualization.

If someone wants to get involved in International Criminal Law (or International Law in general) during his/her career; where should he/she start from? What are the first options they should look at? - The question is relevant to both UK students and students of other nationalities.

~ LLB student, University of Leicester

Answer: I would try to do an internship at the ICTY (if possible, at the Office of the Prosecutor, where there are excellent legal officers and prosecutors, who can teach you a lot), and then attempt to get a job there for a couple of years.

How much do you consider international law to have changed and developed since your initial interest in the area, do you consider the international system to be gaining strength and authority, or becoming less important in times of great political international influence?

~ Elizabeth Skinner, University of Leeds

Answer: It has dramatically changed, gaining strength and significance. When I was a student (1954-58) whenever  I said that I was interested in international law, my fellow students or junior teachers would ironically comment: Why are you interested in a field where law does not play any role, for, of course, international law is not law proper: it lacks enforcement! Today nobody would make such a remark any longer.

How effective are the relevant institutions at reducing international crime and how effective is international criminal law on application?

~ Sam J Thompson, London South Bank University

Answer: Not terribly effective. But it is better than nothing. It has a minimal deterrent effect. But it significantly helps victims of appalling crime to gradually reconcile themselves with death, rape and atrocities.

How much do you feel the international criminal law affects our criminal English legal system?

~ Kyrsty Bonham, Staffordshire University

Answer: ICL, through international treaties (on humanitarian law: think of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols; the conventions on genocide, on torture) or the ratification of the statute of international criminal tribunals (ICC), gradually trickles down into the British municipal system and also slowly changes the mindset of judges (as well as that of the military).

I am currently writing a dissertation on the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence advocated by the Bush administration. I am seeking to support the view that this doctrine has the potential to make the world less secure, rather than more secure, and increases the risk of future conflicts.

What is your opinion of the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence in this regard?

~ Rob Cheeseman, University of Derby

Answer: It is very dangerous for peace and international security, as shown by the US-UK attack on Iraq, for it leaves to the attacker to decide whether the target state is about to unleash aggression or is prepared to use weapons of mass destruction. In short, it plays into the hands of Great Powers. It would be acceptable if these Powers were prepared to submit to an ex post appraisal by the UN and, should this appraisal lead to the conclusion that the attack was unlawful and unjustified, to pay compensation to the victim state as well as the relatives of the dead and wounded.

How broadly do you feel that the international crime of genocide should be defined and why?

~ Giulia Bianchi, Erasmus student in the University of Leicester from the University of Florence, Faculty of Law

Answer: The definition in the Genocide Convention is fairly good (except that today we would not use the notion of race, and in addition would broaden the notion of protected group, so as to take account of a “subjective” perception of groups, as suggested by the ICTR and ICTY case law

What do you think about the ICJ sentence of 26/02/2007?

~ Giulia Bianchi, Erasmus student in the University of Leicester from the University of Florence, Faculty of Law

Answer: I have written both in the European Journal of International law and in the Journal of International Criminal Justice that the judgement is in many respects flawed. It is a pity that the Court, confronted for the first time with a case of genocide, has delivered such an ambiguous and inconsistent decision. The ICJ seems better equipped to deal with boundary cases or other bilateral disputes on the law of the sea, etc.

What do you think about the internal self-determination principle? How broadly do you feel it should be defined? Why? Do you think it could base the assumptions to promote democracy? Do you think it could contrast with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states?

~ Giulia Bianchi, Erasmus student in the University of Leicester from the University of Florence, Faculty of Law

Answer: The internal self-determination of people should be narrowly defined, for otherwise it would lead to the disintegration of states and the fragmentation of the international society. Only minorities that are so seriously and systematically discriminated and oppressed that they have no say whatsoever in national government, should be given the right to claim internal self-determination, which basically boils down to respect for the human rights of members of the minority and the rights of the minority as such (even in these cases secession should only exceptionally be allowed).

How broadly do you feel that the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states should be defined? Do you think the economic sanctions against Cuba contrast with this principle? In your opinion which other acts could contrast with it?

~ Giulia Bianchi, Erasmus student in the University of Leicester from the University of Florence, Faculty of Law

Answer: This principle is part and parcel of the old international legal system. Today domestic jurisdiction and the accompanying principle of non-interference into domestic affairs are greatly limited by the human rights doctrine. It is no coincidence that at present only China relies upon the principle of non-interference in internal matters.