The International Criminal Court and Non-International Armed Conflicts

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heike Spieker

Non-international armed conflicts are more numerous, more brutal and entail more blood-shed today than international ones. The Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly upholds the traditional distinction between international and non-international conflicts, and armed conflicts will have to be characterized accordingly. But the tendency to adapt the international humanitarian law (IHL) regime for non-international conflicts to the rules for international ones emerges. Article 7 on Crimes Against Humanity and Article 8(2)(c) and (e) on War Crimes amount to real progress in this respect. Yet, the regulation on war crimes in particular does not provide for comprehensive criminal responsibility of individual perpetrators in non-international conflicts.

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 319-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gauthier de Beco

AbstractThis note discusses the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts in the prosecution of war crimes before the International Criminal Court. It analyses the international humanitarian law applicable to both kinds of conflict, and the way in which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia succeeded in prosecuting war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts. It also studies the two war crimes regimes provided for in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The note then examines how Pre-Trial Chamber I dealt with this issue in its Decision on the confirmation of charges against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and the problems it faced in doing so. It concludes with a plea for the abolition of the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts with respect to war crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.


2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rogier Bartels

Impeding humanitarian access and the starving of civilians is prohibited under international humanitarian law in times of both international and non-international armed conflicts. Such conduct is criminalised under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute) when committed during an international armed conflict. However, without good reason, it is not a war crime when committed during a non-international armed conflict. Contemporary conflicts, such as that in Syria, show that this is a problematic omission. This article addresses the challenges in prosecuting the denial of humanitarian access during international armed conflicts and examines the options to prosecute before the International Criminal Court such denial in times of non-international armed conflict as other war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The author concludes that these options would not suffice and proposes to add to the ICC Statute the starvation of the civilian population, including through impeding humanitarian access, as a war crime for non-international armed conflicts.


Author(s):  
Mohamed Elewa Badar

Article 30 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides a general definition for the mental element required to trigger the criminal responsibility of individuals for serious violations of international humanitarian law. At first sight, it appears that the explicit words of Article 30 are sufficient to put an end to a long-lasting debate regarding the mens rea enigma that has confronted the jurisprudence of the two ad hoc Tribunals for the last decade, but this is not true. Recent decisions rendered by the International Criminal Court evidence the discrepancy among the ICC Pre-Trial Chambers in interpreting the exact meaning of Article 30 of the ICC Statute. The paper challenges that dolus eventualis is one of the genuine and independent pillars of criminal responsibility that forms, on its own, the basis of intentional crimes, and suggests its inclusion in the legal standard of Article 30 of the ICC Statute.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 51-69
Author(s):  
Saud Hassan

In order to end global impunity of perpetration of heinous crimes against humanity and gross violation of human rights and to bring individual perpetrators to justice, international community felt the need for a permanent international criminal court.2 As the armed conflicts and serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law continue to victimize millions of people throughout the world, the reasons for an international criminal court became compelling.3 In many conflicts around the world, armies or rebel groups attack ordinary people and commit terrible human rights abuses against them. Often, these crimes are not punished by the national courts. Here the ICC is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.4 The court only acts in cases where states are unwilling or unable to do so.5 The jurisdiction of the Court is not retrospective and binds only those States that ratify it.6 Unlike the International Court of Justice in The Hague, whose jurisdiction is restricted to states, the ICC has individualized criminal responsibility. However, the role of USA regarding the establishment and continuation of ICC has caused the organization fall in a trouble. The better cooperation of USA and other states could make the organization more active and effective as to its activities. The view of this paper is to analyze the role of USA towards the establishment, continuation and function of the International Criminal Court. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/nujl.v1i0.18525 Northern University Journal of Law Vol.1 2010: 51-69


1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 177-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djamchid Momtaz

International humanitarian law applicable in non-international armed conflicts has long been characterized by the absence of universal competence to suppress serious violations of its provisions. This failure has been due to the reluctance of states – which are naturally prone to consider any limitation of their exclusive competence in this field as a threat to their sovereignty – to criminalize such acts under international law.The first attempt at remedying such a situation was seen in the Draft Statute of an International Criminal Court (ICC), which was prepared by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 1994, and inspired by the draft articles of the Code of Crimes against the Peace and International Security of Mankind, provisionally adopted by the ILC in 1991 at first reading. Under the Draft Statute of the ICC, serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts would be under the jurisdiction of the Court. The ILC had in mind exceptionally serious war crimes, such as those described in the pertinent article of the draft code referred to by the Commission, constituting an extremely grave violation of the principles and laws of international law applicable in armed conflicts. In the commentary on this article, the ILC took care to specify that the expression ‘armed conflict’ covered the non-international armed conflicts that are the focus of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as international armed conflicts.This first step was of very limited scope. In fact, according to the ILC, in order to be criminalized, the laws and customs of war had to find their origin in general customary international law.


Author(s):  
Fleck Dieter

This introductory chapter provides an overview of international humanitarian law. During the past decades, international humanitarian law has been subject to a progressive development which culminated in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Protocols Additional to these Conventions, the 1980 Weapons Convention, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. While many efforts have been made by states to implement their obligations under international humanitarian law, much work remains to be done at international and national levels. This task poses a challenge to political decision-makers and to their legal and military advisers, many of whom must shoulder this workload in addition to other duties and in spite of the pressure of other priorities. Recent achievements of worldwide co-operation in this field are manifold: The interrelationship between humanitarian law and the protection of human rights in armed conflicts is largely accepted and better understood today than ever before. A progressive development of international criminal law has led to increased jurisprudence on war crimes and crimes against humanity by national courts, international ad hoc tribunals, and finally to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 131-150
Author(s):  
Etesam Alabd S. Alwheebe ◽  

This study seeks to clarify the importance of the International Criminal Court as a criminal mechanism in the application of international humanitarian law, and its effectiveness in limiting violations of this law by punishing the perpetrators of these violations as a permanent court, as well as its role in laying the foundations for international criminal justice. It has become necessary to clarify the importance of the Court and its effective role in the application of international humanitarian law, due to the presence of massive and brutal violations of human rights during armed conflicts as well as under the belligerent occupation. Previous legal studies dealt with the issue of the implementation of international humanitarian law, but it is accepted that they focused on the historical aspect of the emergence of international humanitarian law, and they focused on the theoretical aspect of the issue of mechanisms for implementing international humanitarian law more than the practical aspect and therefore did not adequately address the criminal mechanism represented in The establishment of the International Criminal Court and this is the basis on which our study is based. The previous studies lacked the application that enriches any study in this field. This is what we emphasized in our study and given the importance of the topic of the role of the International Criminal Court in the implementation of international humanitarian law and also considering the recentness of some mechanisms for the implementation of international humanitarian law, the studies that dealt with this topic remain insufficient, and many aspects of the study on this topic are still an area for research and study One of these aspects that have not been adequately researched and specifically the criminal mechanism for the implementation of international humanitarian law represented in the International Criminal Court, and this study comes to enrich the practical aspect of the implementation of international humanitarian law.


2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pacifique Manirakiza

AbstractAfrica has been ravaged by armed conflicts and/or oppressive regimes for decades. During those conflicts or oppressive regimes, heinous crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed and made millions of victims. Among these, only a handful number saw some justice. This was possible essentially because the international community took a vigorous stance against the impunity of war criminals and genocidaires by creating international judicial mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), to deal with it. Also, some individual African States have prosecuted international crimes within their municipal courts as well as some western States based on the universal jurisdiction principle. This article analyses the African contribution to the building of the international criminal justice system. It also addresses the African objections against the ICC intervention in Africa and the use of the universal jurisdiction criticized as a form of imperialism and neo-colonialism disguised in a judicial form. It concludes by exploring the feasibility of an African Criminal Court.


1970 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Mohammed

The road to developing an international institutional capacity to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide has been a long one, and has in many ways concluded with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). By looking at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as the ICC, this paper traces the evolution of the concept of individual criminal responsibility to its present incarnation. It argues that while the ICC presents its own unique ‘added value’ to the prosecution of international criminals, its application of justice continues to be biased by the influence of powerful states.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document