Assistance, direction and control: Untangling international judicial opinion on individual and State responsibility for war crimes by non-State actors

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 243-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy

AbstractDespite the general consistency in the treatment of international humanitarian law by international courts and tribunals, recent decisions have seen significant disagreement regarding the scope of indirect responsibility for individuals and States for the provision of aid or assistance to non-State actors that perpetrate war crimes. The divisions at the international criminal tribunals with regard to the “specific direction” element of aiding and abetting are reminiscent of the divergence between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the question of State responsibility for supporting or assisting non-State actors that engage in violations of international law. This article analyzes this jurisprudence on individual and State responsibility for the provision of support to non-State actors that breach international humanitarian law, and considers the interaction and interrelationship between these related but distinct forms of responsibility.

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.


2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis

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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 103-115
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron

This chapter details the ways in which international criminal tribunals such as the ICTY have contributed to human rights law and protections. In construing the material elements of crimes under international humanitarian law, international criminal tribunals have had recourse to human rights law and jurisprudence, thereby strengthening human rights law and opening new avenues for its penal enforcement. The beginnings of these developments can be traced, first, to the drafting of crimes against humanity clauses in the Nuremberg Charter and, second, to the drafting of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The tribunals have also made immense contributions to strengthening the proscriptions of rape as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocidal acts. With respect to persecution, the ICTY held that persecution is the gross or blatant denial, on discriminatory grounds, of a fundamental right, laid down in international customary or treaty law, reaching the same level of gravity as the other acts prohibited as crimes against humanity.


1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (321) ◽  
pp. 603-604
Author(s):  
Laïty Kama

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (890) ◽  
pp. 267-286
Author(s):  
Miroslav Alimpić

AbstractAmong the increasingly frequent acts of non-compliance with, and grievous violations of, international humanitarian law around the world, especially in non-international armed conflicts, attacks on objects and persons enjoying special protection, and their abuse, as well as the misuse of the distinctive emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, come as no surprise. Although a repressive approach to the problem – through the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators – cannot completely prevent such occurrences, an effective and appropriate judicial stigmatisation can significantly contribute to making them as rare as possible. In this regard, the court proceedings held before the War Crimes Chamber in Belgrade and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague in connection with the events in and around the Vukovar Hospital and Ovčara farm have provided an appropriate judicial response. This is notwithstanding the fact that, at least for now, not all perpetrators have been prosecuted for their acts (or failure to act) at the time of the commission of these grave crimes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-92
Author(s):  
Fadil Muhammad ◽  
Luh Putu Sudini ◽  
I Nyoman Sujana

War is a condition in which one party subdues its opponent to fulfill his will, a physical or non-physical act between two or more human groups to dominate. The formulation of the problem of this research is how the role of International Criminal Law on law enforcement in war crimes against humanity and how the state responsibility in war crimes against humanity in International Criminal Law. This research method uses the type of normative legal research by doing the assessment based on legal materials of the literature and is a process to find the rule of law, legal principles, and legal doctrines to answer the legal issues faced. War crimes and crimes against humanity are two types of international crimes that exist in twenty international criminal types designed by ILC (International Law Commission) to design the establishment of an international criminal tribunal. The conclusion of this study is  the role of International Criminal Law in  war crimes against humanity can be concluded that is contained in conventions contained in International Humanitarian Law contains only command or prohibition only but international criminal law have role in giving criminal sanction against violation of command or prohibition that and the state's responsibility in international criminal law can be an obligation to prosecute international criminal offenders encountered in various instruments of International Law. The form of state responsibility under the Rome Statute is  that States Parties shall have two main obligations:  States  Parties  shall  bring  each  perpetrator  of  genocide,  crimes  against humanity, criminal acts of war and criminal acts of aggression before the courts and the participating States in imposing their jurisdiction in enforcement of International Criminal Law must cooperate fully in the enforcement of International Criminal Law.


2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitomi Takemura

AbstractIt is widely known that the earlier practices of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have been criticized for having dealt with comparably minor war criminals. The implications behind such a criticism may be that an ad hoc international or hybrid criminal tribunal should concentrate on those who were most responsible for the crimes and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The first part of this paper will thus focus on the logic of targeting big fish. Then the recent practices of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals and the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of East Timor have been addressed in this light. Irrespective of the institutional and practical demands of targeting big fish, the concern remains whether there is a normative demand for targeting only senior leaders of mass atrocities. Therefore, the last part of this paper would like to discuss the big fish versus small fish debate by examining the possibilities of a leadership element in ratione materiae of international criminal tribunals.


1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 935-955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly D. Ashkin

This article reviews and analyzes the Furundžija Judgment rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the first international war crimes trial in history to focus virtually exclusively on rape. The judgment addresses what acts constitute rape, whether a non-physical perpetrator can be held individually criminally responsible for rape, and whether rape can constitute torture; it also broadens the purview of Common Article 3 crimes and considers acts which may constitute outrages upon personal dignity. This article discusses how these issues impact upon both international humanitarian law generally and gender jurisprudence specifically.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document