When is a conflict international? Time for new control tests in IHL

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (903) ◽  
pp. 1019-1041
Author(s):  
Djemila Carron
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

AbstractThis article clarifies the control a State should have over an armed group for the triggering act of an international armed conflict and for the internationalization of non-international armed conflicts in international humanitarian law. It explains the reasons for the distinction between these two types of attribution and details the specificities of each test, with an innovative approach. The author proposes new control tests for both triggering and internationalization, rejecting the effective and overall control tests regarding internationalization proposed by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. For instance, regarding the internationalization of a non-international armed conflict, a general and strict control test is proposed. Finally, this article addresses specific issues like the difficult question of the control required for an occupation through an armed group.

scholarly journals International Legal Problems of Qualification of Armed Conflicts

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (68) ◽  
pp. 735-757
Author(s):  
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy ◽  
Vitalii Gutnyk
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
International Agencies

The article addresses the qualification problems of armed conflicts. The study was conducted through the analysis of international legal doctrine, international treaties, decisions of international organizations. Attention is paid to the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court. It is noted that International Humanitarian Law has been in place since the beginning of the armed conflict. Therefore, the application of International Humanitarian Law does not require any recognition of the existence of armed conflict (international or non-international); this conflict exists because of armed clashes. It is emphasized that the need to classify the conflict arises in view of domestic and international legal factors (to bring to international criminal justice those who have committed war crimes; state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, etc.). Attention was paid to the non-existence of a single body, which was empowered to determine the existence of an armed conflict. Different international agencies may have different qualifications for the same armed conflict. It is concluded that it is necessary to establish a Committee of Experts under the UN Secretary-General, to avoid different qualifications from the same armed conflict.

Customary Humanitarian Law Today

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

This chapter discusses the revival of customary humanitarian law. It begins by considering the origins of the revival, followed by discussions of the application of customary international law by non-criminal international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice; the customary law jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY); and the customary law jurisprudence of the other international criminal courts.

scholarly journals Responsibility of Serbia for genocide: Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide

Temida ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Mirjana Tejic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Reconciliation Process

On February 26th 2007, International Court of Justice claimed Serbia responsible for failing to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators underlining its' responsibility to cooperate with International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Although it was confirmed genocide has been committed in Srebrenica 1995, Serbia is not obliged to pay financial reparations. Judgment makes distinction between individual and three-fold state responsibility for genocide, based on Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other sources of international law. There are evident disagreements among judges on jurisdiction, interpretation rules, even on meritum of the case. Many questions still remain open especially what precedent effects will have on establishment of state's dolus specialis and how it will influence the reconciliation process in the region.

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 56-64
Author(s):  
Hisakazu Fujita
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Second World War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Fundamental Interest ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Second World

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996 concerning the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons contains many elements that are of fundamental interest from the standpoint of international humanitarian law. Indeed, humanitarian law, which has developed to a remarkable extent since the Second World War, has always lacked an express ruling on nuclear weapons.

The International Court of Justice as a Guardian of the Unity of Humanitarian Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
FABIÁN O. RAIMONDO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

This article seeks to examine whether the International Court of Justicehas developed jurisprudence on international humanitarian law and whether this has exerted any influence on the decisions adopted by other international courts and tribunals. In so doing, it revisits the issue of the value ofjudicial decisions under international law. Finally, it reveals that despite the non-operation of the rule of stare decisis in international law, the Court's jurisprudence on international humanitarian law has been a persuasive precedent for other international courts and tribunals.

War Crimes in International Versus Non-International Armed Conflicts: "New Wine in Old Wineskins"?

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 319-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gauthier de Beco
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law

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.

Impartiality and Neutrality in Humanitarian Law and Practice

1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (273) ◽  
pp. 516-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frits Kalshoven
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On 27 June 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua. The case, involving Nicaragua against the United States of America, is remarkable in many respects, and so is the judgment. I should like to single out two special features: it deals with a situation of armed conflict, and it mentions the Red Cross.

Sources of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Ratner
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient ◽  
Shed Light

This chapter contends that international humanitarian law (IHL) and criminal law (ICL) cast serious doubt on the traditional doctrine and understanding of sources. Article 38 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute inadequately describes key modes for prescribing law in these areas. International courts are particularly important for both areas, perhaps because of their unprincipled approach to the indicia of custom. More fundamentally, IHL and ICL suggest that sources scholarship should see itself not as determining necessary and sufficient methods for the making of law, but rather as a search for relevant inputs that become indicators of law. Under this view, certain processes are more authoritative than others, but all deserve scrutiny. Moreover, a theory of sources must take account of the purpose of understanding sources, which is to promote compliance with rules. IHL and ICL also shed light on the importance of morality and ethics to the law-making process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document