Biographical information to follow


Displaying 1 - 15 of 15. Sorted by year, then title.
Filter by
  • Ferstman, 'España viola la Convención contra la Tortura (el pais)' (2014) El Mundo
    La autora crítica que España se niegue a extraditar a los acusados de torturas acogiéndose a la Ley de Amnistía. Destaca la paradoja de que fuera la Justicia española la que iniciara el proceso para juzgar a Pinochet
  • Ferstman, Criminalizing SexualExpl?i?a?i?n and Abuseby Peacekeepers (United States Insitute for Peace Special Report 2013)
  • Ferstman, 'Limited Charges and Limited Judgments by the International Criminal Court ? Who Bears the Greatest Responsibility?' (2012) 16 The International Journal of Human Rights
    This article considers the limited charges and resulting limited judgment in the Lubanga case at the International Criminal Court. It considers what further steps the Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers may have taken to ensure the full 'establishment of the truth', in the absence of new charges, or with a view to encouraging the Prosecutor to amend charges.
  • Ferstman (ed), Human Security and Non-Citizens: Law, Policy and International Affairs (Cambridge University Press 2010)
  • Ferstman, 'International Criminal Law and Victims? Rights' in W Schabas, N Bernaz (ed), The Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law, Routledge (Routledge 2010)
  • Ferstman, Reparations for Victims of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity: Systems in Place and Systems in the Making (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/Brill Academic 2009)
  • Ferstman, 'The Approach of the United Kingdom to Crimes under International Law: The Application of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction' in W Kaleck, M Ratner, T Singelnstein, P Weiss (ed), International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes (Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007)
    The House of Lords? decisions in the Pinochet case placed the United Kingdom at the forefront of developments on universal jurisdiction, particularly in respect of the recognition that there should be no immunity (ratione materiae) for the most egregious crimes under international law. Nonetheless, the practice of the UK ever since, calls into question the commitment of the Government to make any real progress at all. Aside from the important prosecution of Sarwar Zardad for torture and hostage taking, there is very little sign of commitment to universal jurisdiction, both in respect of criminal and civil cases. The continued ability of the Attorney General to disallow prosecutions on public policy grounds is highly problematic. Further, the few opportunities for victims to directly access justice by seeking an arrest warrant have not met with any success; and in fact the recent failure to implement the warrant in the case of Almog suggests outright obfuscation by the Government in order to avoid application of the law. In civil cases, immunities continue to be the principle stumbling blocks for potential claimants. Here too, the UK Government has taken a stance in direct opposition to such claims. Indeed in Ron Jones v. Saudi Arabia, the UK Government has intervened in support of the application of immunities in favor of the Saudi officials said to be responsible for the torture and the Saudi state itself.
  • Ferstman, 'Reparation for Torture? Considering the impact of the decision of the UK House of Lords in Jones v. Saudi Arabia' (2006) 16  Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention of Torture
  • Ferstman, 'The International Criminal Court?s Trust Fund for Victims: Challenges and Opportunities' (2005) 7 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 1
  • Ferstman, 'The Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court: Practical Considerations' (2002) 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 667
  • Ferstman, 'Domestic Trials for Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Example of Rwanda' (1997) 9 African Journal of International and Comparative Law

Research Interests

public international law international criminal law human rights

Research projects