Off target on the Iraq campaign: a response to Professor Schmitt

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 111-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinah PoKempner ◽  
Marc Garlasco ◽  
Bonnie Docherty
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Civil Society Organisations ◽  
The Military

Law without facts makes a dull subject, and it is one of the peculiarities of international humanitarian law (IHL) that many of the interesting facts are classified or unavailable to those outside the military. This partially explains why IHL until recently has been the redoubt of military lawyers and the International Committee of the Red Cross. That situation is changing, for many reasons.Popular interest in IHL is growing due to concern with responses to terrorism, interventionism (humanitarian and otherwise) and international justice. Civil society organisations have successfully campaigned for both new standards, such as the Landmines Convention, as well as new mechanisms of enforcement, such as the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. At the same time, technology and globalisation have facilitated both real-time battlefront reporting and post-battle analysis by civilians.

scholarly journals The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court: Turning international humanitarian law into a two-headed snake?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Fernanda García Pinto
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Gender Based Violence ◽  
Critical Approach

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.

New Mechanisms for the Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts

The international criminal court (ICC) will serve as a permanent institution dedicated to the enforcement of international humanitarian law sixty days after the sixtieth state has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Treaty of Rome with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 Pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Statute, however, the ICC will have jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the treaty comes into force.2 Consequently, when faced with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in the period prior to the establishment of the ICC, the international community has five options if criminal prosecutions are desired.3 First, additional ad hoc international tribunals, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR) could be established.4 Second, "mixed" international criminal tribunals, which would share certain attributes with the ad hoc Tribunals, could be created.5 Third, the international community could leave the prosecution of alleged offenders to national authorities, provided that the domestic courts are functioning and able to conduct such trials. Fourth, in those instances where the national infrastructure has collapsed, international resources could be made available to assist with the prosecution of the alleged offenders in domestic courts. Finally, the international community could simply do nothing in the face of alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

Foreword by the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (321) ◽  
pp. 603-604
Author(s):  
Laïty Kama
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Review ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Set Up

The decision to devote an issue of the International Review of the Red Cross to a series of articles on the two ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals set up by the United Nations to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda reflects the increasing importance of these courts both for the general public and for legal experts.

Criminal Proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fausto Pocar
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Entire Body ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

AbstractThe ad hoc Criminal Tribunals have shown, by their case law, how practically to go about judicial enforcement of international humanitarian law at the international level and have guided the formation of other international and mixed criminal courts. Following the precedent set at the Nuremberg trials, the most important legacy of the ad hoc Tribunals has been the development and effective enforcement of the entire body of international humanitarian law put into place since the end of World War II, which seeks to maintain a proper balance between prosecuting individuals for grave breaches of international humanitarian law and upholding due process norms including protection of the rights of the accused. The path paved by the ad hoc Tribunals is crucial for the future regulation of the behaviour of States and individuals in times of conflict and has triggered increased attention to and enforcement of international humanitarian law in various other jurisdictions, including, in the first place, in the International Criminal Court. These are some of the author's conclusions following an analysis of the challenges faced by the ad hoc Tribunals.

scholarly journals Dolus Eventualis and the Rome Statute Without It?

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Elewa Badar
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
General Definition ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Dolus Eventualis

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.

Conference of Government Experts: Second Session

1975 ◽  
Vol 15 (172) ◽  
pp. 359-361
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Conventional Weapons

In November 1974, the International Committee of the Red Cross sent governments a provisional mimeographed edition of the report on the work of the Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (Lucerne, 24 September-18 October 1974). This report was also sent to the United Nations Secretary-General, who transmitted it to the First Committee of the General Assembly, whose agenda contained the item: “Napalm and other incendiary weapons”. The printed edition was issued in January 1975, in English, French and Spanish, and was consulted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Weapons at the second session of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Geneva, 3 February-18 April 1975).

The Role of the ICRC in the Development of International Humanitarian Law

1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
War Victims ◽  
Unique Status

AbstractAs a result of its unique status, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been closely involved in the negotiations of humanitarian law treaties. Two of the most recent negotiations – the ban on anti-personnel landmines and the establishment of an International Criminal Court – are presented as case studies. They provide a good indication of the varied and dynamic functions played by the ICRC in the development of international law. This role is complementary to the ICRC's field activities in the world's ``hot spots'', which provide valuable insights into the real problems that war victims face in their daily lives.

scholarly journals Means and methods of combat - differing parameters and requirements of military necessity in international humanitarian law and international criminal law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
James Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Military Necessity

<p>The concept of military necessity is of fundamental importance for International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Criminal Law (ICL) and International Law, generally. States and individuals have used military necessity as a justification when extraordinary situations “require the adoption of measures departing from the normally applicable law in order to protect basic values and fundamental interests.”1 Measures adopted on the grounds of necessity have been accepted at international law by international courts and tribunals, state practice, and international legal doctrine. This paper will analyse and explain the origins of military necessity under IHL, and how military necessity’s use has developed and influenced the behaviour of actors at international law, primarily during times of armed conflict. Furthermore, this paper will seek to establish the role that military necessity plays at ICL. This will be done by analysing various case law examples of international tribunals where the tribunals have been asked to determine whether military necessity constituted a legitimate justification for a particular course of action taken by an individual, primarily in positions of command. This paper will highlight the circumstances where a legitimate finding of military necessity existed, and will contrast this to occasion where actions did not meet the required threshold. It will also seek to determine how military necessity is interpreted and understood by various international organisations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations (UN), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The paper will begin with by providing an overview of the origins of military necessity under IHL and how it has evolved in its interpretation and usage by authors writing on military necessity, and states seeking to utilise it.</p>

scholarly journals Means and methods of combat - differing parameters and requirements of military necessity in international humanitarian law and international criminal law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
James Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Military Necessity

<p>The concept of military necessity is of fundamental importance for International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Criminal Law (ICL) and International Law, generally. States and individuals have used military necessity as a justification when extraordinary situations “require the adoption of measures departing from the normally applicable law in order to protect basic values and fundamental interests.”1 Measures adopted on the grounds of necessity have been accepted at international law by international courts and tribunals, state practice, and international legal doctrine. This paper will analyse and explain the origins of military necessity under IHL, and how military necessity’s use has developed and influenced the behaviour of actors at international law, primarily during times of armed conflict. Furthermore, this paper will seek to establish the role that military necessity plays at ICL. This will be done by analysing various case law examples of international tribunals where the tribunals have been asked to determine whether military necessity constituted a legitimate justification for a particular course of action taken by an individual, primarily in positions of command. This paper will highlight the circumstances where a legitimate finding of military necessity existed, and will contrast this to occasion where actions did not meet the required threshold. It will also seek to determine how military necessity is interpreted and understood by various international organisations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations (UN), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The paper will begin with by providing an overview of the origins of military necessity under IHL and how it has evolved in its interpretation and usage by authors writing on military necessity, and states seeking to utilise it.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document