International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron

For half a century, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials and national prosecutions of World War II cases remained the major instances of criminal prosecution of offenders against fundamental norms of international humanitarian law. The heinous activities of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the use of poison gas by Iraq against its Kurdish population are among the many atrocities left unpunished by either international or national courts. Some treaties were adopted that provide for national prosecution of offenses of international concern and, in many cases, for universal jurisdiction; but, with a few exceptions, these treaties were not observed. Notwithstanding the absence of significant prosecutions, an international consensus on the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Principles, the applicability of universal jurisdiction to international crimes, and the need to punish those responsible for egregious violations of international humanitarian law slowly solidified. The International Law Commission, veterans of the Nuremberg and Tokyo proceedings, individuals such as Rafael Lemkin (who advocated the adoption of the Genocide Convention) and a handful of academics (most notably M. Cherif Bassiouni), among others, helped keep alive the heritage of Nuremberg and the promise of future prosecutions of serious violators of international humanitarian law.

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (910) ◽  
pp. 357-363

States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 have an obligation to take measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to their provisions. Moreover, States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or on their territory, and other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction, such as on the basis of universal jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. In accordance with these obligations and the limits they impose, States may adopt certain measures during and in the aftermath of armed conflicts to promote reconciliation and peace, one of which is amnesties. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules pertaining to the granting and scope of amnesties. Specifically, Article 6(5) of Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) provides that, at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict. Importantly, under customary IHL (as identified in Rule 159 of the ICRC customary IHL study), this excludes persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes in NIACs.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 271-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corri Zoli

This short essay focuses on the involvement of Muslim-majority state leadership in the pre-World War II development of international humanitarian law (IHL), including their appeals to Islamic norms. This historical snapshot reveals how national leaders joined debates during conferences leading up to the revised 1949 Geneva Conventions, the heart of modern IHL. Such accounts complicate our assumptions about the cultural and national composition of public international law as “Western,” and shed light on global hierarchies involving modern Arab and Muslim states and their investment in such norms. The essay argues by example that, ultimately, in Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) more emphasis is needed on history, traditions of governance, and states’ distinctive responses to macrostructural pressures—rather than on static notions of identity, resistant narratives, and presumed shared ideologies. TWAIL seeks alternatives to international law’s presumed oppressive role in Western-non-Western power dynamics, and new ideas and opportunities for a “third-world” legal scholarship beyond current global underdevelopment dynamics.


2004 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-369
Author(s):  
Keneth Mengjo

This paper attempts an explanation to some of the complex legal issues surrounding the whole concept of responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law. The arguments here are based on reflections on the draft articles on the responsibility of states for the violations of international humanitarian law adopted by the international law commission as well as opinions of experts on the subject, treaties, conventions international jurisprudence, and internationally recognized principles and customs that govern conduct in armed conflicts so as to limit human suffering particularly of non combatants.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-153
Author(s):  
Vera Ridhani

Abstract In March 2015, the Saudi-led coalition of nine Arab countries commenced its military operations against the Houthi rebels and the forces loyal to President Saleh. This operation included bombing raids to civilians and civilian objects, a blockade in the Gulf of Aden, which is causing widespread humanitarian suffering in Yemen. During the Yemen conflict, the United Kingdom has issued 152 military licenses and export arms to Saudi Arabia with a value of £ 2,8 billion. The arms exported by the United Kingdom and use of weapons by Saudi Arabia has resulted in serious violation of International Humanitarian Law. Furthermore, the United Kingdom, as a state party to the Arms Trade Treaty 2014, has violated Article 6(3) and Article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty for exporting the weapons without conducting mitigation risk and assessment. This article aims to analyze the violations of the Arms Trade Treaty caused by the serious violations of International Humanitarian Law, as well as the violations of United Kingdom’s national law and framework governing arms exports. This article also argues that according to the International Law Commission Article on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, the United Kingdom is responsible for the arms export that has caused damage to Yemen and should carry out compensation as a form of state responsibility. Keywords: Arms Trade Treaty, Export, Transfer   Abstrak Pada Maret 2015, koalisi pimpinan Arab Saudi dan kelompok koalisi melakukan operasi militer melawan pemberontak Houthi dan pasukan yang setia kepada Presiden Saleh. Operasi ini termasuk serangan pemboman terhadap warga sipil dan objek sipil, blokade di Teluk Aden, yang menyebabkan penderitaan kemanusiaan yang meluas di Yaman. Selama konflik Yaman, Inggris telah menerbitkan 152 lisensi militer dan mengekspor senjata ke Arab Saudi senilai £ 2,8 miliar.  Senjata yang diekspor Inggris dan penggunaan senjata oleh Arab Saudi telah mengakibatkan pelanggaran serius Hukum Humaniter Internasional. Lebih lanjut, Inggris sebagai negara pihak Arms Trade Treaty 2014 telah melanggar Pasal 6(3) dan Pasal 7 Arms Trade Treaty karena mengekspor senjata tanpa melakukan mitigasi risiko dan penilaian. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pelanggaran Arms Trade Treaty yang disebabkan oleh pelanggaran serius Hukum Humaniter Internasional, serta pelanggaran hukum nasional Inggris dan kerangka kerja yang mengatur ekspor senjata. Artikel ini juga berpendapat bahwa menurut International Law Commission Article on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Inggris bertanggung jawab atas ekspor senjata yang telah menyebabkan kerusakan di Yaman dan harus melakukan kompensasi sebagai bentuk tanggung jawab negara. Kata Kunci: Ekspor, Perjanjian Perdagangan Senjata, Transfer


Author(s):  
Bruce A. Forster ◽  
Jessica D. Forster

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This paper provides an introduction to the concepts of governance and state weakness, fragility or failure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Selected indices of performance are presented with an emphasis on Sub-Saharan Africa. As noted by the 2005 UK Commission for Africa &ldquo;The most extreme breakdown of governance is war.&rdquo; The paper discusses the concepts and definitions of civil conflict and civil war, and the prevalence of civil war in Sub &ndash;Saharan Africa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Among the costs of civil war are the people who are displaced due to their fear for life amidst the conflict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>If displaced persons exit the country they become refugees. The paper provides an introduction to the evolution of international humanitarian law since World War II to protect non-combatants, including refugees.</span></span></p>


2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (895-896) ◽  
pp. 859-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Weill

AbstractRespect for international humanitarian law (IHL) comes in many forms, one of which is through the practice of domestic courts in addressing IHL-related cases. This article takes a closer look at the structural conditions necessary for the effective enforcement of IHL by domestic courts, elaborates on the spectrum of options that are available to national judges when faced with IHL-related cases, and describes the functional roles of courts in adopting a particular posture. It is demonstrated that even if the structural conditions are fulfilled, this will not necessarily result in the normative application of the law. It appears that national judges are in the process of defining their own roles as independent organs for overseeing the State's acts during armed conflicts. In that regard, the article outlines a few suggestions for future research on the choices courts make and the conditions necessary for them to effectively handle IHL-related cases.


Author(s):  
Hanne Cuyckens ◽  
Christophe Paulussen

Abstract The collapse of the Caliphate, including the resulting surrender of hundreds of fighters to the Syrian Democratic Forces, as well as the tweets from President Trump threatening his allies to release 800 Islamic State fighters if they would not take back their own citizens, has led to an intense debate on what to do with these so-called foreign fighters. Many counter-terrorism experts and international lawyers have argued that these fighters should be brought home and brought to justice before national courts, for moral, legal and long-term security reasons. In the context of national prosecutions, the aim should be to not have a one-size fits all, but rather a tailored approach, ensuring that perpetrators are prosecuted, as much as possible, for the actual crimes they have committed. If we consider foreign fighters to be individuals joining a non-state armed group in an armed conflict, there is by definition an important nexus between foreign fighters and armed conflict. Hence due regard should also be paid to international humanitarian law in the framework of their prosecution. This article will analyse and assess the first cases where the relationship between counter-terrorism and international humanitarian law played a role and aims to provide, based on the direction this discussion is heading, the necessary guidance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document