Complaint Regarding the Israeli Actions Against the Maritime Flotilla for the Gaza Strip

2019 ◽  
Vol 181 ◽  
pp. 488-567

War and armed conflict — International armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Status of armed conflict — Law of armed conflict — Armed conflict at sea — Whether armed conflict between non-State organization and Israel — Terrorism — Use of terrorist methods — Relevance — Prerequisites for determining existence of armed conflict — Whether necessary to determine whether armed conflict international or non-international in character — Distinction between war crime and ordinary crime — War crimes — Nexus requirement — Attack in law governing conduct of hostilities — Military objective — Law governing armed conflict at sea — Right to a naval blockade — Status of merchant vessel breaching naval blockade — Status of goods on merchant vessel breaching naval blockade — Contraband — Enforcement of naval blockade on high seas — Naval blockade in law of international armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Whether power to impose a naval blockade applicable — Distinction between members of non-State organized armed groups and civilians — Journalists and war correspondents — Civilian taking a direct part in hostilities — Proportionality — International criminal law — Humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping missions — Wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body or health — Deportation and forcible transfer — Humiliating and degrading treatment — Unjustifiably delaying return home of a person detained after enforcement of naval blockade — Pillaging and unlawfully destroying, appropriating or seizing property — Crimes against humanity — Contextual element of widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population — Person hors de combat in law of armed conflict and international criminal law — Whether criminal investigation to be instigated — Whether sufficient reason to believe crime committed to detriment of German and non-German nationalsInternational criminal law — War crimes — Crimes against humanity — Law of armed conflict — Armed conflict at sea — Humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping missions — Wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body or health — Deportation and forcible transfer — Humiliating and degrading treatment — Unjustifiably delaying return home of a person detained after enforcement of naval blockade — Pillaging and unlawfully destroying, appropriating or seizing property — Crimes against humanity — Contextual element of widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population — Person hors de 489combat — Whether criminal investigation to be instigated — Whether sufficient reason to believe crime committed to detriment of German and non-German nationalsSea — Armed conflict at sea — Treaties — Customary international law — Right to a naval blockade — Legal prerequisites — Status of merchant vessel breaching naval blockade — Status of goods on merchant vessel breaching naval blockade — Contraband — Enforcement of naval blockade on high seas — Naval blockade in law of armed conflict — Whether power to impose a naval blockade applicable — Whether criminal investigation to be instigated — Whether sufficient reason to believe crime committed to detriment of German and non-German nationalsJurisdiction — Universal jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction in case of attack on marine traffic — Passive personality principle — Law of Germany including discretion not to exercise universal jurisdiction — Immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction — The law of Germany

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Conor Donohue

Military justice as a body of law was subject to much criticism in the preceding decades before undergoing significant reforms to ensure that fair trial rights could be achieved. However, modern military justice systems are appropriate mechanisms for addressing law of armed conflict (LOAC) violations committed by service members. It is argued that the goals of military justice are consistent with LOAC, and that military justice has a valid legal basis to try violations. Such trials have a large body of precedent. The purported disadvantages of military trials are sufficiently mitigated to prevent cover-ups and unfair trials. Furthermore, military justice offers several benefits that cannot be achieved in a civilian or international forum. It is concluded that although military legal systems are imperfect, their role in the enforcement of international criminal law is worthy of further debate.


2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-826
Author(s):  
LARISSA VAN DEN HERIK ◽  
ELIES VAN SLIEDREGT

Of the three existing core crimes in international criminal law, crimes against humanity is the most elusive one, a chameleonic crime that can change colour over time, since it does not possess an unambiguous conceptual character. The characterizing element of genocide obviously is the specific intent to destroy. War crimes must have a nexus with an armed conflict. The identifying element of crimes against humanity is more difficult to pin down as the contextual elements have changed over time.


Author(s):  
Matthew Gillett

This chapter examines the provisions of international criminal law applicable to serious environmental harm, particularly during non-international armed conflicts ('NIAC'). After describing incidents of serious environmental harm arising in armed conflicts, the analysis surveys the provisions of international criminal law applicable to environmental harm during NIACs, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression. It then examines the basis for extending to NIACs the protection against military attacks causing excessive environmental harm (set out in Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute), which is currently only applicable in IACs. The examination of this possible amendment of the Rome Statute covers a broad range of instruments and laws forming part of international and national legal codes, all addressing grave environmental harm. Finally, the analysis turns to accountability for environmental harm as a facet of jus post bellum, emphasizing the interconnected nature of environmental harm and cycles of violence and atrocities.


2019 ◽  
Vol 181 ◽  
pp. 568-704

Economics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Liberia — UN Security Council Resolutions 1343 (2001) and 1408 (2002) — Implementation of arms embargo under Dutch law — Whether sanctions regime violatedInternational criminal law — Difference between perpetrator and accomplice liability — Complicity in war crimes — Requirement that defendant promoted or facilitated the commission of war crimes — Conditional intent — Whether defendant consciously accepted the probability that war crimes would be committed in connection with his material support — Risk of doing business with a government engaged in international criminal activityInternational criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility and weight of witness statements — Factors relevant to assessing witness statements obtained in post-conflict environment — Coercion of witnesses — Whether inconsistencies in witness statements requiring acquittalInternational criminal law — Circumstances excusing unlawful conduct — National emergency — Whether violations of arms embargo and laws and customs of war justified by right to self-defence under international lawJurisdiction — Universal jurisdiction — War crimes — Prosecution of a Dutch national for offences committed abroad — Whether conduct of investigation by Dutch authorities making prosecution inadmissible — Whether amnesty scheme in Liberia barrier to prosecution — No violation of fair trial rightsWar and armed conflict — Existence of armed conflict — Whether armed conflict international or internal — Limited gap between norms applicable to international versus non-international armed conflict — Whether violations of laws and customs of war giving rise to individual criminal liability under Dutch law — The law of the Netherlands


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 788-821
Author(s):  
Talita de Souza Dias

The principle of fair labelling has informed the creation of international crimes and other concepts of international criminal law since the modern inception of this discipline. In particular, it was the symbolic and condemnatory import of international labels such as genocide and crimes against humanity that partly motivated their introduction as offences separate from domestic ordinary crimes. Paradoxically, fair labelling has received marginal attention in legal scholarship and practice. Moreover, frequent instances of relabelling known as ‘recharacterisation of crimes’ may not be entirely consistent with that principle, inviting further analysis thereof. In this context, the purpose of this article is to provide a more systematic and comprehensive analysis of the principle of fair labelling in international criminal law, particularly in light of the phenomenon of recharacterisation of crimes. Its central claim is that fair labelling is as a fair trial right which precludes recourse to recharacterisation in certain circumstances.


Author(s):  
Schwöbel-Patel Christine

The ‘core’ crimes set out in the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute - the crime of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression - are overwhelmingly assumed to be the most important international crimes. In this chapter, I unsettle the assumption of their inherent importance by revealing and problematising the civilizational, political-economic, and aesthetical biases behind designating these crimes as ‘core’. This is done by shedding light on discontinuities in the history of the core crimes, and unsettling the progress narrative ‘from Nuremberg to Rome’. More specifically, crimes associated with drug control are placed in conversation with the accepted history of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to exemplify a systematic editing of the dominant narrative of international criminal law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document