Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds.), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Geneva and Cambridge, International Committee of the Red Cross and Cambridge University Press (2005), 2 volumes, ISBN 9780521539258, 4,411 pp., £320.00 (boxed set, hb); Volume I available separately, ISBN 9780521005289, 621 pp., £32.00 (pb).

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eloisa Newalsing
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-67
Author(s):  
Cédric Cotter ◽  
Ellen Policinski

The International Review of the Red Cross, an academic journal produced by the International Committee of the Red Cross (icrc) and published by Cambridge University Press, traces its origins back more than 150 years. Throughout its existence, the publication has featured international humanitarian law (ihl) prominently. Because of this, it is possible to trace how the icrc was communicating publicly about ihl since 1869, allowing researchers to draw conclusions about how that body of law has evolved. In this article, the authors divide the history of the Review into five time periods, looking at trends over time as ihl was established as a body of law, was expanded to address trends in the ways war was waged, was disseminated and promoted to the international community, and how it is interpreted in light of current conflicts. Based on the way the law has been represented in the Review, the authors draw conclusions about the evolution of the law itself over time, and lessons this may provide for those who seek to influence the future development of the law regulating armed conflict.


The ICRC Library is home to unique collections retracing the parallel development of humanitarian action and law during the past 150+ years. With the core of these collections now digitized, this reference library on international humanitarian law (IHL) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a resource available to all, anytime, anywhere.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-597
Author(s):  
Hannes Jöbstl

Abstract During non-international armed conflict, war crimes often go unpunished in areas where state authorities are unable to enforce the law. While states are under a customary law obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed on their territory or by their nationals, the Customary International Humanitarian Law Study of the International Committee of the Red Cross has not found that this obligation extends to armed non-state actors (ANSAs). Nevertheless, command responsibility requires the individual commander to punish their forces in case war crimes have been committed and a growing amount of state practice demanding similar commitments — both legally and politically — from these actors as such can be observed over the past two decades. Indeed, ANSAs routinely impose penal sanctions onto their subordinates and often establish judicial structures in order to do so. This article argues that whereas ANSAs should be under some form of obligation to ensure accountability, alternative solutions to makeshift courts and penal proceedings might be better suited to prevent impunity and maintain fair trial guarantees.


Author(s):  
Fernanda García Pinto

Abstract The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court are two very different entities that simultaneously apply international humanitarian law but do so after their own perspectives. This article proposes a cautious yet critical approach to some of their divergent interpretations (conflict classification, the difference between direct and active participation in hostilities, intra-party sexual and gender-based violence, and the notion of attack) and examines how the broader legal system copes with these points of divergence. The analysis considers the institutional characteristics of these two organizations and the pluralistic nature of international humanitarian law as well as its dynamic rapport with international criminal law in order to highlight the versatility needed to face the challenges posed by contemporary armed conflicts.


2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphna Shraga

In the five decades that followed the Korea operation, where for the first time the United Nations commander agreed, at the request of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to abide by the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Conventions, few UN operations lent themselves to the applicability of international humanitarian law


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Clarke

In an attempt to impose limits on the level of acceptable incidental civilian suffering during armed conflict, international humanitarian law (IHL) articulates a proportionality formula as the test to determine whether or not an attack is lawful. Efforts to comply with that formula during the conduct of hostilities can involve a host of legal and operational challenges. These challenges have inspired a growing body of doctrinal and empirical research. A recent international conference in Jerusalem, co-sponsored by the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and the Occupied Territories and the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, brought together human rights lawyers, military experts and scholars from a variety of disciplines to assess recent developments relating to the proportionality principle in international humanitarian law. This report examines ten conference presentations which offer important insights into: the nature, scope of application and operational requirements of the proportionality principle under IHL; the modalities of investigation and review of proportionality decisions; and the challenges involved in proportionality decision-making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document