18 results
Dedication
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Index
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 283-288
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Bibliography
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 271-282
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Epigraph
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp xv-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 5 - Assessing Selective Enforcement from an Admissibility Perspective
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 133-186
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter explores the admissibility rules within the Rome Statute, looking at how they have been applied by different organs of the Court, especially the Office of the Prosecutor and the Chambers, in order to analyse whether or not the application contributed to the claims of selective enforcement of international criminal law by the Court. The admissibility rules seek to balance the relationship between national authorities ‘ right to prosecute and that of the Court.
The establishment of the Court coincided with a period when the prevailing perception in international law was that state sovereignty was becoming less important and was thus giving way to individuals in the enforcement of international criminal law. This occurred during the period when the Appeals Chamber Judges at the Yugoslav Tribunal declared that, under international law:
[A] state-sovereignty-oriented approach has been gradually supplanted by a human being oriented approach. Gradually the maxim of Roman law hominum causa omene jus constitutum est (all law is created for the benefit of human beings) has gained a firm foothold in the international community as well.
Despite the perceived evolution referred to in the remarks above, it is still an undisputed legal fact that under international law, states have the right to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all acts committed in their territories and elsewhere by their citizens. Sovereign absolutism insists on the primacy of sovereign states in the management of global affairs.
The state-oriented international system oft en makes states sceptical of the prospect of letting super-international institutions such as the Court (or even the UN) take over their sovereign duties. Part of that scepticism is a result of uncertainty that may result in surrendering some sovereign rights to international forums, as that would mean losing a measure of their control and self-determination. As a result, states tend to ensure that the principle of state sovereignty is highly respected whenever possible, even in areas where they are willing to cede some of their sovereign powers. Therefore, when entering into multilateral treaties such as the Rome Statute, sovereign absolutists tend to lean towards the preservation of traditional sovereign rights.
Still, it is important to underscore the fact that states have different perceptions of both their sovereign rights and their capabilities in exercising them, including criminal jurisdiction over their population.
Contents
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp xi-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 3 - The Office of the Prosecutor and the Politics of Selecting Targets for Prosecution
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 57-96
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The Chief Prosecutor of the Court heads the Office of the Prosecutor and is elected by the Assembly of States Parties for a nine-year term; the first to hold the office was Argentine lawyer Luis Gabriel Moreno Ocampo (2003 – 12). Initially Moreno Ocampo was nominated by the US to be the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Argentine government opposed him because at the time of his nomination, he belonged to the opposition party. In 2011, the Assembly of States Parties unanimously elected Moreno Ocampo's deputy, Fatou Bensouda, a Gambian lawyer, to take over from her former boss.
The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiated information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, before examining them for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court. Its role is also to initiate investigations proprio motu, on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, and this role is subject to judicial review by the Pre-Trial Chamber. Article 53(1) states that the Office of the Prosecutor shall, having evaluated the available information, initiate an investigation unless it determines that there is no reasonable basis upon which to proceed under the Statute. The underlying assumption is that once a situation has been triggered by either a state party or the UN Security Council, the Chief Prosecutor is obliged to initiate an investigation and prosecution.
The factors that the Office of the Prosecutor has to consider when determining whether or not to open investigations are: (a) whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been, or is being, committed; (b) whether the case is, or would be, admissible under Article 17; and (c) the gravity of the crime, the interests of victims and whether there are substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice. These factors constitute the legal framework that the Office of the Prosecutor is expected to apply during its preliminary examinations.
Frontmatter
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp i-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 1 - Introduction
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 1-32
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
On 18 July 1998, representatives attending a United Nations (UN) Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of a Court in Rome, Italy, from states and governments around the world, adopted the Rome Statute – a treaty that established the International Criminal Court (‘the Court’). The Conference and the adoption of the Rome Statute were the conclusion of a protracted process that was started by the UN General Assembly Resolution 44/39 of 4 December 1989. The Resolution had requested the International Law Commission ‘ to address the question of establishing an international criminal court’.
A total of 120 states voted in favour of its adoption, 21 abstained and 7 voted against, including the US, Israel and China. The Court was established on 1 July 2002 when the Rome Statute was ratified by 60 states, 3 giving the Court the mandate to end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.
Prior to the adoption of the Rome Statute and the subsequent establishment of the International Criminal Court, there was growing concern among the proponents of international criminal justice regarding the haphazard creation of tribunals that were primarily focused on single conflicts and hence were selective in nature. Theodor Meron, the Former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Presiding Judge of the Appeals Chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, notes that what was missing – and needed – was a ‘uniform and definite corpus of international humanitarian law that could be applied apolitically to internal atrocities everywhere, and that recognises the role of all states in the vindication of such law’. Louise Arbour, a Canadian lawyer who was Chief Prosecutor of the Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda at the time, spelt out the role that these claims of selective enforcement played in the establishment of a permanent international criminal court when she stated that:
Irrationally selective prosecutions undermine the perception of justice as fair and evenhanded, and therefore serve as the basis for defiance and contempt.
Chapter 2 - The Establishment of the International Criminal Court, and Africa's Role and Early Support
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 33-56
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The architects of the Court had to agree upon the appropriate method to establish a court that would be universally accepted, effective and independent. The draft Statute of the Court, prepared and adopted by the International Law Commission in 1994, indicates that three proposals were contemplated initially: (a) through a UN Security Council or General Assembly resolution; (b) by amending the UN Charter, which would have made the international criminal court an integral part of the UN and hence create binding obligations for all its members; and (c) through a multilateral treaty.
Although the third proposal – that of establishing the Court through a multilateral treaty – was eventually adopted, commentaries on the Draft Statute indicate that the method was initially considered unsatisfactory. There was a concern that such a statute would only be signed and ratified by states where atrocities were unlikely and would be shunned by those states where atrocities would occur.
However, as the negotiations progressed, the option of establishing the court through a multilateral treaty became widely accepted. This is because doubts were cast about the binding effect of the UN General Assembly resolutions, and the legitimacy and legality of UN Security Council resolutions in establishing a permanent international court were also discussed. It is not clear whether amending the UN Charter would have resulted in the creation of a court with universal reach and acceptance, given that the Charter reserves some rights for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Some delegates felt that amending the UN Charter would be a complex exercise. A multilateral treaty was preferred because, unlike a declaration, a treaty creates binding obligations for its parties. When a treaty is accepted and ratified by a state, that treaty – pursuant to its constitutional procedures – has force of law to facilitate cooperation, especially in transferring suspects. In the end, the International Law Commission's report to the UN General Assembly recommended the organisation of an international conference of plenipotentiaries where a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court was to be concluded: the Rome Conference.
Chapter 4 - State Party Referrals, UN Security Council Referrals and the Selection of Situations
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 97-132
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter explores how the referrals of situations by states parties and the UN Security Council reflect their desire to ensure that international rule of law is applied in the global fight to end impunity. The chapter will highlight the referral systems used in other international human rights law machinery – namely the inter-state complaint procedure. The assumption is that the state referral mechanism in the Rome Statute was modelled on the inter-state complaint procedure. Although the state referral mechanism has not been operationalised, its analysis as applied to other human rights mechanisms could give an indication of the likelihood of it being used to refer situations to the Court. It could also be that if state referrals were to be implemented based on inter-state complaint procedures, the courts could end up opening investigations in situations occurring outside the African continent. We will then discuss the development of referral mechanisms in the travaux préparatoires of the Rome Statute and finally analyse the relationship between referral mechanisms and selective targeting, how the UN Security Council has referred situations to the Court and how states parties have also used the referral system.
OUTLINING THE REFERRAL SYSTEM IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
International and regional human rights treaties contain provisions outlining their implementation procedures. These procedures ensure that the treaties are respected and that, in the event of violations, appropriate action is taken to ensure that there is some form of international accountability. To that effect, one of the ways that they ensure accountability is through the inclusion of inter-state complaint procedure. For example, Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that a state party can file a formal complaint with the Human Rights Committee when another state party is not fulfilling its obligations. The constitution of the International Labour Organization, an organisation that, in addition to being concerned with the furtherance of international industrial relations, also aims to protect fundamental human rights and provides that ‘ any of the Members shall have the right to file a complaint with the International Labour Office if it is not satisfied that any other member is securing the effective observance of any Convention, which both have ratified in accordance with the foregoing articles’.
Preface
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp vii-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
A major controversy that has arisen during the International Criminal Court's first decade has been the issue of selective enforcement of international criminal law. This has been prompted by the Court failing to open investigations or prosecutions outside Africa. This book assesses the claims of this nature made against the Court – primarily by some African leaders and ruling elites – and how the criticism has impacted on the role of the Court as a mechanism for promoting the international rule of law. The assumption is that if the claims that the Court, based in The Hague, the Netherlands, focuses selectively on Africa are valid, then the Court's role as an effective mechanism for promoting the international rule of law could be called into question.
The book analyses three key components of the Court's legal framework – the mechanisms that trigger the Court's jurisdiction, admissibility rules and the independence of the Office of the Prosecutor – in order to establish how the Court became engaged in Africa and its problems. It argues that the Court's broad, yet not universal, jurisdiction means that it is expected to intervene in other regions apart from Africa. However, when African politicians and members of the ruling elite claim that the Court is selectively focusing on Africa, they mean that it is targeting sitting heads of state and other government officials, to the exclusion of their political rivals or ordinary citizens.
The underlying theme that emerges from this analysis is that the Court is a victim of realpolitik both at the global and state levels. At the global level, powerful states, particularly the permanent members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, seek to utilise the Court to further their own interests against those states that they consider to be against their own hegemonic interests. At the state level, the ruling elites tend to be comfortable with the Court as long as it targets their political competitors, but are willing to mobilise state apparatus to frustrate the Court if they become the focus of the Court's interventions. Still, since there is no contestation on the principle of ending impunity for atrocity crimes which the Court stands for, perhaps African states have to first play their primary role through their domestic jurisdictions and deny the ‘politicised Court’ any room for intervention.
Chapter 7 - African States’ Reaction to the AU's Call for Non-Cooperation with the Court
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 221-250
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
When the decision not to cooperate with the Court was passed in Sirte in 2009, President al-Gaddafi was the AU Chairperson and his handling of the situation was problematic for the other African states. The representatives from Botswana and Chad – both of which are states parties to the Rome Statute – were opposed to the way in which he failed to allow other delegates at the meeting to present their opinions on the issue. Chad went on to declare its reservations and refusal to abide by the AU's decision. Botswana was categorical in its disagreement with the decision and stated that:
[I]t does not agree with this decision and wishes to reaffirm its position that as a State party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it has treaty obligations to fully cooperate with the Court in the arrest and transfer of the President of the Sudan to the International Criminal Court.
Chad, which at the time of the AU's decision was in a state of diplomatic and armed conflict with Sudan, indicated that it was not ready to abide by the decision. In 2005, the Court had concluded a general framework for cooperation with the government of Chad and subsequently managed to open an administrative and logistical support field office in Chad to facilitate investigations across the border in Darfur. However, Chad's position changed along the way, especially after its relations with Sudan improved. As a result, it allowed President al-Bashir to visit its territory to attend the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) in 2010, 2014 and 2016 without arresting and surrendering him to the Court in accordance with the Rome Statute.
Human Rights Watch warned Chad that by not honouring its obligations under the Rome Statute, ‘ it was risking the shameful distinction of being the first state party to harbour a suspected war criminal’. On 27 August 2010, the Pre- Trial Chamber I informed the UN Security Council and the Assembly of States Parties of Chad's lack of cooperation in arresting and surrendering al-Bashir. The Chadian Interior Minister defended his government's decision by citing the AU non-cooperation decision.
Chapter 8 - Africa and the International Criminal Court: The Lessons and Prospects
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 251-270
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
To take part in the African revolution it is not enough to write a revolutionary song; you must fashion the revolution with the people. And if you fashion it with the people, the songs will come by themselves and of themselves. In order to achieve real action, you must yourself be a living part of Africa and of her thought; you must be an element of that popular energy which is entirely called forth for the freeing, the progress and the happiness of Africa. There is no place outside that fight for the artist or for the intellectual who is not himself concerned with completely at one with the people in the great battle of Africa and of suffering humanity.
At the beginning of this book, the Court was described as a child in its teens trying to find its feet in a very complex international system which is already rooted in well-established principles such as state sovereignty and immunity, and where politics is omnipotent. In the African oral tradition, there is a saying that despair and fear have a nullifying effect upon a man's activity and throw him into confusion. That is why the initiation process in many African societies contains a test of courage. It is an exercise of the will, a struggle with oneself. The saying captures what the Court has been through since its establishment when the Rome Statute entered into force in 2002. It has been thrown into confusion, when those who had first supported it turned their backs on it and continue to threaten it with withdrawal and even decided not to cooperate with it. In Darfur, the Office of Prosecutor had to decide to suspend new investigations due to a lack of foresight from the UN Security Council. The Court is undergoing some form of initiation process to test its resolve and to shake some of the relics of international systems such that humanity can at least actually strike back when confronted with the evil of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and hopefully aggression.
In Africa, the Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta captured the effect that the existence of the Court was having on some of the continent's ruling elite – it was giving them nightmares.
Chapter 6 - The AU and African States’ Shift from Cooperation to Non-Cooperation with the Court
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp 187-220
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The AU and the Court have had a dynamic relationship. They were both inaugurated in 2002 and share the fundamental goal of fighting impunity for the perpetrators of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Despite these shared goals, the two institutions have a complex relationship. We have seen that members of the AU were initially among the key enthusiasts for the establishment of the Court. Their support extended beyond the establishment of the Court to its ratification and, as we will discuss later, some of the African states even resisted pressure from the US to sign bilateral agreements that would prevent them from extraditing US citizens to The Hague.
The AU's predecessor, the OAU, was actively involved in the negotiations leading up to the Rome Conference. It is reported that on 10 June 1998, during the 34th Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the OAU, meeting in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, adopted the Dakar Declaration on the International Criminal Court. This affirmed the commitment of the African states and NGOs to the establishment of the Court and underlined the importance of the establishment of the Court for Africa and the global community as a whole. Around 43 African states participated in the Rome Conference, with a few states such as Gambia, Somalia, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome absenting themselves.
The relationship between the AU and the Court appeared to have been cordial until the Prosecutor indicated that he was going to file an application for the arrest of the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in 2008. The relationship then deteriorated to such an extent that the negotiations for the signing of a cooperation agreement between the AU and the Court stalled, and the AU Assembly passed a resolution suspending any possibility of the Court opening a Liaison Office at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. According to the Prosecutor's report to the UN Security Council, the Office of the Prosecutor had started negotiations for signing a relationship agreement with the AU in 2004 and continued after the referral of al-Bashir. The turning point in the relationship came when the AU Assembly adopted a resolution of noncooperation with the Court with regard to the arrest and surrender of first al-Bashir 694 and then President Gaddafi.
Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- The International Criminal Court and Africa
- Volume 20
- James Nyawo
-
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017
-
The dynamics of enforcing international criminal justice through the International Criminal Court (ICC) has become a challenging exercise in Africa. At times the uneasy relationship between the ICC, the African Union and a few influential African states has given rise to concerns about the future of international criminal justice in general, and in Africa in particular. Still, the enthusiasts for international criminal justice as enforced by the ICC, interpret the challenges that the ICC is encountering in Africa as part of the growing pains of a new institution in the international system. The distractors have already prepared the ICC's obituary. One of the criticisms levelled against the ICC, and which is the motivation for, and central theme behind, this book is that it has morphed and ceased to be an independent legal institution instead becoming a political tool utilised by politically powerful states in the West against their political opponents in Africa. More specifically the Court is alleged to be selectively enforcing international criminal law by merely officially opening investigations and prosecutions in Africa. Although this book recognises that selective implementation of criminal justice is acceptable both at the domestic and international level, it analyses the legal and political factors behind the Court's focus on international crimes committed in Africa when there are other situations to which the court should potentially turn its attention, such as in Syria, Afghanistan or the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The book seeks to determine whether such a focus implies that Africa has the monopoly over international crimes or whether African victims or perpetrators are any different from those in the Middle East? In addition the book attempts to uncover the basis and the validity of the African Union and some African states' criticisms of the ICC. James Nyawo holds a Doctorate from the School of Law at Middlesex University, UK. He previously held the position of Visiting Lecturer with the Department of International & Cooperative Law at Khartoum University, Sudan and is currently an External Research Fellow at the International Victimology Institute (INTERVICT), Tilburg, Netherlands. He has worked as a humanitarian practitioner and consultant with national, international and UN agencies working with landmine victims, internally displaced persons and refugees in Angola, Uganda (North), South Sudan and Sudan.
Acknowledgements
- James Nyawo
-
- Book:
- Selective Enforcement and International Criminal Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 25 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 27 February 2017, pp ix-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Rose Teteki Abbey, K. C. Abraham, David Tuesday Adamo, LeRoy H. Aden, Efrain Agosto, Victor Aguilan, Gillian T. W. Ahlgren, Charanjit Kaur AjitSingh, Dorothy B E A Akoto, Giuseppe Alberigo, Daniel E. Albrecht, Ruth Albrecht, Daniel O. Aleshire, Urs Altermatt, Anand Amaladass, Michael Amaladoss, James N. Amanze, Lesley G. Anderson, Thomas C. Anderson, Victor Anderson, Hope S. Antone, María Pilar Aquino, Paula Arai, Victorio Araya Guillén, S. Wesley Ariarajah, Ellen T. Armour, Brett Gregory Armstrong, Atsuhiro Asano, Naim Stifan Ateek, Mahmoud Ayoub, John Alembillah Azumah, Mercedes L. García Bachmann, Irena Backus, J. Wayne Baker, Mieke Bal, Lewis V. Baldwin, William Barbieri, António Barbosa da Silva, David Basinger, Bolaji Olukemi Bateye, Oswald Bayer, Daniel H. Bays, Rosalie Beck, Nancy Elizabeth Bedford, Guy-Thomas Bedouelle, Chorbishop Seely Beggiani, Wolfgang Behringer, Christopher M. Bellitto, Byard Bennett, Harold V. Bennett, Teresa Berger, Miguel A. Bernad, Henley Bernard, Alan E. Bernstein, Jon L. Berquist, Johannes Beutler, Ana María Bidegain, Matthew P. Binkewicz, Jennifer Bird, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Dmytro Bondarenko, Paulo Bonfatti, Riet en Pim Bons-Storm, Jessica A. Boon, Marcus J. Borg, Mark Bosco, Peter C. Bouteneff, François Bovon, William D. Bowman, Paul S. Boyer, David Brakke, Richard E. Brantley, Marcus Braybrooke, Ian Breward, Ênio José da Costa Brito, Jewel Spears Brooker, Johannes Brosseder, Nicholas Canfield Read Brown, Robert F. Brown, Pamela K. Brubaker, Walter Brueggemann, Bishop Colin O. Buchanan, Stanley M. Burgess, Amy Nelson Burnett, J. Patout Burns, David B. Burrell, David Buttrick, James P. Byrd, Lavinia Byrne, Gerado Caetano, Marcos Caldas, Alkiviadis Calivas, William J. Callahan, Salvatore Calomino, Euan K. Cameron, William S. Campbell, Marcelo Ayres Camurça, Daniel F. Caner, Paul E. Capetz, Carlos F. Cardoza-Orlandi, Patrick W. Carey, Barbara Carvill, Hal Cauthron, Subhadra Mitra Channa, Mark D. Chapman, James H. Charlesworth, Kenneth R. Chase, Chen Zemin, Luciano Chianeque, Philip Chia Phin Yin, Francisca H. Chimhanda, Daniel Chiquete, John T. Chirban, Soobin Choi, Robert Choquette, Mita Choudhury, Gerald Christianson, John Chryssavgis, Sejong Chun, Esther Chung-Kim, Charles M. A. Clark, Elizabeth A. Clark, Sathianathan Clarke, Fred Cloud, John B. Cobb, W. Owen Cole, John A Coleman, John J. Collins, Sylvia Collins-Mayo, Paul K. Conkin, Beth A. Conklin, Sean Connolly, Demetrios J. Constantelos, Michael A. Conway, Paula M. Cooey, Austin Cooper, Michael L. Cooper-White, Pamela Cooper-White, L. William Countryman, Sérgio Coutinho, Pamela Couture, Shannon Craigo-Snell, James L. Crenshaw, David Crowner, Humberto Horacio Cucchetti, Lawrence S. Cunningham, Elizabeth Mason Currier, Emmanuel Cutrone, Mary L. Daniel, David D. Daniels, Robert Darden, Rolf Darge, Isaiah Dau, Jeffry C. Davis, Jane Dawson, Valentin Dedji, John W. de Gruchy, Paul DeHart, Wendy J. Deichmann Edwards, Miguel A. De La Torre, George E. Demacopoulos, Thomas de Mayo, Leah DeVun, Beatriz de Vasconcellos Dias, Dennis C. Dickerson, John M. Dillon, Luis Miguel Donatello, Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, Susanna Drake, Jonathan A. Draper, N. Dreher Martin, Otto Dreydoppel, Angelyn Dries, A. J. Droge, Francis X. D'Sa, Marilyn Dunn, Nicole Wilkinson Duran, Rifaat Ebied, Mark J. Edwards, William H. Edwards, Leonard H. Ehrlich, Nancy L. Eiesland, Martin Elbel, J. Harold Ellens, Stephen Ellingson, Marvin M. Ellison, Robert Ellsberg, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Eldon Jay Epp, Peter C. Erb, Tassilo Erhardt, Maria Erling, Noel Leo Erskine, Gillian R. Evans, Virginia Fabella, Michael A. Fahey, Edward Farley, Margaret A. Farley, Wendy Farley, Robert Fastiggi, Seena Fazel, Duncan S. Ferguson, Helwar Figueroa, Paul Corby Finney, Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Thomas E. FitzGerald, John R. Fitzmier, Marie Therese Flanagan, Sabina Flanagan, Claude Flipo, Ronald B. Flowers, Carole Fontaine, David Ford, Mary Ford, Stephanie A. Ford, Jim Forest, William Franke, Robert M. Franklin, Ruth Franzén, Edward H. Friedman, Samuel Frouisou, Lorelei F. Fuchs, Jojo M. Fung, Inger Furseth, Richard R. Gaillardetz, Brandon Gallaher, China Galland, Mark Galli, Ismael García, Tharscisse Gatwa, Jean-Marie Gaudeul, Luis María Gavilanes del Castillo, Pavel L. Gavrilyuk, Volney P. Gay, Metropolitan Athanasios Geevargis, Kondothra M. George, Mary Gerhart, Simon Gikandi, Maurice Gilbert, Michael J. Gillgannon, Verónica Giménez Beliveau, Terryl Givens, Beth Glazier-McDonald, Philip Gleason, Menghun Goh, Brian Golding, Bishop Hilario M. Gomez, Michelle A. Gonzalez, Donald K. Gorrell, Roy Gottfried, Tamara Grdzelidze, Joel B. Green, Niels Henrik Gregersen, Cristina Grenholm, Herbert Griffiths, Eric W. Gritsch, Erich S. Gruen, Christoffer H. Grundmann, Paul H. Gundani, Jon P. Gunnemann, Petre Guran, Vidar L. Haanes, Jeremiah M. Hackett, Getatchew Haile, Douglas John Hall, Nicholas Hammond, Daphne Hampson, Jehu J. Hanciles, Barry Hankins, Jennifer Haraguchi, Stanley S. Harakas, Anthony John Harding, Conrad L. Harkins, J. William Harmless, Marjory Harper, Amir Harrak, Joel F. Harrington, Mark W. Harris, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Van A. Harvey, R. Chris Hassel, Jione Havea, Daniel Hawk, Diana L. Hayes, Leslie Hayes, Priscilla Hayner, S. Mark Heim, Simo Heininen, Richard P. Heitzenrater, Eila Helander, David Hempton, Scott H. Hendrix, Jan-Olav Henriksen, Gina Hens-Piazza, Carter Heyward, Nicholas J. Higham, David Hilliard, Norman A. Hjelm, Peter C. Hodgson, Arthur Holder, M. Jan Holton, Dwight N. Hopkins, Ronnie Po-chia Hsia, Po-Ho Huang, James Hudnut-Beumler, Jennifer S. Hughes, Leonard M. Hummel, Mary E. Hunt, Laennec Hurbon, Mark Hutchinson, Susan E. Hylen, Mary Beth Ingham, H. Larry Ingle, Dale T. Irvin, Jon Isaak, Paul John Isaak, Ada María Isasi-Díaz, Hans Raun Iversen, Margaret C. Jacob, Arthur James, Maria Jansdotter-Samuelsson, David Jasper, Werner G. Jeanrond, Renée Jeffery, David Lyle Jeffrey, Theodore W. Jennings, David H. Jensen, Robin Margaret Jensen, David Jobling, Dale A. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Johnson, Maxwell E. Johnson, Sarah Johnson, Mark D. Johnston, F. Stanley Jones, James William Jones, John R. Jones, Alissa Jones Nelson, Inge Jonsson, Jan Joosten, Elizabeth Judd, Mulambya Peggy Kabonde, Robert Kaggwa, Sylvester Kahakwa, Isaac Kalimi, Ogbu U. Kalu, Eunice Kamaara, Wayne C. Kannaday, Musimbi Kanyoro, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Frank Kaufmann, Léon Nguapitshi Kayongo, Richard Kearney, Alice A. Keefe, Ralph Keen, Catherine Keller, Anthony J. Kelly, Karen Kennelly, Kathi Lynn Kern, Fergus Kerr, Edward Kessler, George Kilcourse, Heup Young Kim, Kim Sung-Hae, Kim Yong-Bock, Kim Yung Suk, Richard King, Thomas M. King, Robert M. Kingdon, Ross Kinsler, Hans G. Kippenberg, Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan, Clifton Kirkpatrick, Leonid Kishkovsky, Nadieszda Kizenko, Jeffrey Klaiber, Hans-Josef Klauck, Sidney Knight, Samuel Kobia, Robert Kolb, Karla Ann Koll, Heikki Kotila, Donald Kraybill, Philip D. W. Krey, Yves Krumenacker, Jeffrey Kah-Jin Kuan, Simanga R. Kumalo, Peter Kuzmic, Simon Shui-Man Kwan, Kwok Pui-lan, André LaCocque, Stephen E. Lahey, John Tsz Pang Lai, Emiel Lamberts, Armando Lampe, Craig Lampe, Beverly J. Lanzetta, Eve LaPlante, Lizette Larson-Miller, Ariel Bybee Laughton, Leonard Lawlor, Bentley Layton, Robin A. Leaver, Karen Lebacqz, Archie Chi Chung Lee, Marilyn J. Legge, Hervé LeGrand, D. L. LeMahieu, Raymond Lemieux, Bill J. Leonard, Ellen M. Leonard, Outi Leppä, Jean Lesaulnier, Nantawan Boonprasat Lewis, Henrietta Leyser, Alexei Lidov, Bernard Lightman, Paul Chang-Ha Lim, Carter Lindberg, Mark R. Lindsay, James R. Linville, James C. Livingston, Ann Loades, David Loades, Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole, Lo Lung Kwong, Wati Longchar, Eleazar López, David W. Lotz, Andrew Louth, Robin W. Lovin, William Luis, Frank D. Macchia, Diarmaid N. J. MacCulloch, Kirk R. MacGregor, Marjory A. MacLean, Donald MacLeod, Tomas S. Maddela, Inge Mager, Laurenti Magesa, David G. Maillu, Fortunato Mallimaci, Philip Mamalakis, Kä Mana, Ukachukwu Chris Manus, Herbert Robinson Marbury, Reuel Norman Marigza, Jacqueline Mariña, Antti Marjanen, Luiz C. L. Marques, Madipoane Masenya (ngwan'a Mphahlele), Caleb J. D. Maskell, Steve Mason, Thomas Massaro, Fernando Matamoros Ponce, András Máté-Tóth, Odair Pedroso Mateus, Dinis Matsolo, Fumitaka Matsuoka, John D'Arcy May, Yelena Mazour-Matusevich, Theodore Mbazumutima, John S. McClure, Christian McConnell, Lee Martin McDonald, Gary B. McGee, Thomas McGowan, Alister E. McGrath, Richard J. McGregor, John A. McGuckin, Maud Burnett McInerney, Elsie Anne McKee, Mary B. McKinley, James F. McMillan, Ernan McMullin, Kathleen E. McVey, M. Douglas Meeks, Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, Ilie Melniciuc-Puica, Everett Mendoza, Raymond A. Mentzer, William W. Menzies, Ina Merdjanova, Franziska Metzger, Constant J. Mews, Marvin Meyer, Carol Meyers, Vasile Mihoc, Gunner Bjerg Mikkelsen, Maria Inêz de Castro Millen, Clyde Lee Miller, Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, Alexander Mirkovic, Paul Misner, Nozomu Miyahira, R. W. L. Moberly, Gerald Moede, Aloo Osotsi Mojola, Sunanda Mongia, Rebeca Montemayor, James Moore, Roger E. Moore, Craig E. Morrison O.Carm, Jeffry H. Morrison, Keith Morrison, Wilson J. Moses, Tefetso Henry Mothibe, Mokgethi Motlhabi, Fulata Moyo, Henry Mugabe, Jesse Ndwiga Kanyua Mugambi, Peggy Mulambya-Kabonde, Robert Bruce Mullin, Pamela Mullins Reaves, Saskia Murk Jansen, Heleen L. Murre-Van den Berg, Augustine Musopole, Isaac M. T. Mwase, Philomena Mwaura, Cecilia Nahnfeldt, Anne Nasimiyu Wasike, Carmiña Navia Velasco, Thulani Ndlazi, Alexander Negrov, James B. Nelson, David G. Newcombe, Carol Newsom, Helen J. Nicholson, George W. E. Nickelsburg, Tatyana Nikolskaya, Damayanthi M. A. Niles, Bertil Nilsson, Nyambura Njoroge, Fidelis Nkomazana, Mary Beth Norton, Christian Nottmeier, Sonene Nyawo, Anthère Nzabatsinda, Edward T. Oakes, Gerald O'Collins, Daniel O'Connell, David W. Odell-Scott, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Kathleen O'Grady, Oyeronke Olajubu, Thomas O'Loughlin, Dennis T. Olson, J. Steven O'Malley, Cephas N. Omenyo, Muriel Orevillo-Montenegro, César Augusto Ornellas Ramos, Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator, Kenan B. Osborne, Carolyn Osiek, Javier Otaola Montagne, Douglas F. Ottati, Anna May Say Pa, Irina Paert, Jerry G. Pankhurst, Aristotle Papanikolaou, Samuele F. Pardini, Stefano Parenti, Peter Paris, Sung Bae Park, Cristián G. Parker, Raquel Pastor, Joseph Pathrapankal, Daniel Patte, W. Brown Patterson, Clive Pearson, Keith F. Pecklers, Nancy Cardoso Pereira, David Horace Perkins, Pheme Perkins, Edward N. Peters, Rebecca Todd Peters, Bishop Yeznik Petrossian, Raymond Pfister, Peter C. Phan, Isabel Apawo Phiri, William S. F. Pickering, Derrick G. Pitard, William Elvis Plata, Zlatko Plese, John Plummer, James Newton Poling, Ronald Popivchak, Andrew Porter, Ute Possekel, James M. Powell, Enos Das Pradhan, Devadasan Premnath, Jaime Adrían Prieto Valladares, Anne Primavesi, Randall Prior, María Alicia Puente Lutteroth, Eduardo Guzmão Quadros, Albert Rabil, Laurent William Ramambason, Apolonio M. Ranche, Vololona Randriamanantena Andriamitandrina, Lawrence R. Rast, Paul L. Redditt, Adele Reinhartz, Rolf Rendtorff, Pål Repstad, James N. Rhodes, John K. Riches, Joerg Rieger, Sharon H. Ringe, Sandra Rios, Tyler Roberts, David M. Robinson, James M. Robinson, Joanne Maguire Robinson, Richard A. H. Robinson, Roy R. Robson, Jack B. Rogers, Maria Roginska, Sidney Rooy, Rev. Garnett Roper, Maria José Fontelas Rosado-Nunes, Andrew C. Ross, Stefan Rossbach, François Rossier, John D. Roth, John K. Roth, Phillip Rothwell, Richard E. Rubenstein, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Markku Ruotsila, John E. Rybolt, Risto Saarinen, John Saillant, Juan Sanchez, Wagner Lopes Sanchez, Hugo N. Santos, Gerhard Sauter, Gloria L. Schaab, Sandra M. Schneiders, Quentin J. Schultze, Fernando F. Segovia, Turid Karlsen Seim, Carsten Selch Jensen, Alan P. F. Sell, Frank C. Senn, Kent Davis Sensenig, Damían Setton, Bal Krishna Sharma, Carolyn J. Sharp, Thomas Sheehan, N. Gerald Shenk, Christian Sheppard, Charles Sherlock, Tabona Shoko, Walter B. Shurden, Marguerite Shuster, B. Mark Sietsema, Batara Sihombing, Neil Silberman, Clodomiro Siller, Samuel Silva-Gotay, Heikki Silvet, John K. Simmons, Hagith Sivan, James C. Skedros, Abraham Smith, Ashley A. Smith, Ted A. Smith, Daud Soesilo, Pia Søltoft, Choan-Seng (C. S.) Song, Kathryn Spink, Bryan Spinks, Eric O. Springsted, Nicolas Standaert, Brian Stanley, Glen H. Stassen, Karel Steenbrink, Stephen J. Stein, Andrea Sterk, Gregory E. Sterling, Columba Stewart, Jacques Stewart, Robert B. Stewart, Cynthia Stokes Brown, Ken Stone, Anne Stott, Elizabeth Stuart, Monya Stubbs, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, David Kwang-sun Suh, Scott W. Sunquist, Keith Suter, Douglas Sweeney, Charles H. Talbert, Shawqi N. Talia, Elsa Tamez, Joseph B. Tamney, Jonathan Y. Tan, Yak-Hwee Tan, Kathryn Tanner, Feiya Tao, Elizabeth S. Tapia, Aquiline Tarimo, Claire Taylor, Mark Lewis Taylor, Bishop Abba Samuel Wolde Tekestebirhan, Eugene TeSelle, M. Thomas Thangaraj, David R. Thomas, Andrew Thornley, Scott Thumma, Marcelo Timotheo da Costa, George E. “Tink” Tinker, Ola Tjørhom, Karen Jo Torjesen, Iain R. Torrance, Fernando Torres-Londoño, Archbishop Demetrios [Trakatellis], Marit Trelstad, Christine Trevett, Phyllis Trible, Johannes Tromp, Paul Turner, Robert G. Tuttle, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Peter Tyler, Anders Tyrberg, Justin Ukpong, Javier Ulloa, Camillus Umoh, Kristi Upson-Saia, Martina Urban, Monica Uribe, Elochukwu Eugene Uzukwu, Richard Vaggione, Gabriel Vahanian, Paul Valliere, T. J. Van Bavel, Steven Vanderputten, Peter Van der Veer, Huub Van de Sandt, Louis Van Tongeren, Luke A. Veronis, Noel Villalba, Ramón Vinke, Tim Vivian, David Voas, Elena Volkova, Katharina von Kellenbach, Elina Vuola, Timothy Wadkins, Elaine M. Wainwright, Randi Jones Walker, Dewey D. Wallace, Jerry Walls, Michael J. Walsh, Philip Walters, Janet Walton, Jonathan L. Walton, Wang Xiaochao, Patricia A. Ward, David Harrington Watt, Herold D. Weiss, Laurence L. Welborn, Sharon D. Welch, Timothy Wengert, Traci C. West, Merold Westphal, David Wetherell, Barbara Wheeler, Carolinne White, Jean-Paul Wiest, Frans Wijsen, Terry L. Wilder, Felix Wilfred, Rebecca Wilkin, Daniel H. Williams, D. Newell Williams, Michael A. Williams, Vincent L. Wimbush, Gabriele Winkler, Anders Winroth, Lauri Emílio Wirth, James A. Wiseman, Ebba Witt-Brattström, Teofil Wojciechowski, John Wolffe, Kenman L. Wong, Wong Wai Ching, Linda Woodhead, Wendy M. Wright, Rose Wu, Keith E. Yandell, Gale A. Yee, Viktor Yelensky, Yeo Khiok-Khng, Gustav K. K. Yeung, Angela Yiu, Amos Yong, Yong Ting Jin, You Bin, Youhanna Nessim Youssef, Eliana Yunes, Robert Michael Zaller, Valarie H. Ziegler, Barbara Brown Zikmund, Joyce Ann Zimmerman, Aurora Zlotnik, Zhuo Xinping
- Edited by Daniel Patte, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 20 September 2010, pp xi-xliv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation