Specifying the Proportionality Test and the Standard of Due Precaution: Problems of Prognostic Assessment in Determining the Meaning of “May Be Expected” and “Anticipated”

Author(s):  
Stefan Oeter

This chapter addresses the challenging legal and operational issues raised by the proportionality requirement to assess the legality of collateral damage. Specifically, the chapter engages closely with the relevant text of Articles 51(5)(b) and 57(2)(b) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The chapter first asks what makes an attack that unavoidably includes incidental loss of civilian lives or civilian property an “indiscriminate attack” under Article 51(5)(b). In more concrete terms, it asks how the formula for collateral damage—“excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”—may be operationalized. The chapter then moves to an analysis of the rule of precautions in Article 57(2)(b), with special emphasis on understanding how the military operator should navigate this rule in light of battlefield realities. The chapter then poses how these rules may be best understood under the regime of international criminal law.

Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack

This chapter identifies three unfortunate gaps in the United States’ federal penal code: The United States lacks a crimes against humanity statute, the war crimes statute has a limited jurisdictional reach and does not conform to US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, and the code lacks express mention of superior responsibility. These gaps significantly hinder the reach of the United States’ prosecutorial authorities and have led to instances of impunity, and incomplete accountability, where perpetrators within US jurisdiction cannot be prosecuted for their substantive crimes and must be dealt with through immigration and other remedies. The chapter then evaluates various proposed amendments to Title 18, drawing upon previous bills, international criminal law, and other federal statutes. It closes by arguing that discrete statutory amendments would enable the United States to exercise leadership in atrocities prevention and response without increasing the risk that US personnel will be subjected to litigation overseas.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-534
Author(s):  
Maria Ereza Rocha de Assis Moura ◽  
Fabíola Girão Monteconrado ◽  
Marcos Zilli

AbstractIn the Brazilian legal system there is no tradition in recognising the applicability of international criminal law over domestic law. In two cases judged by the STF, the Haximu Massacre and Siegfried Ellwanger, only tangential questions were addressed. In the first, the arguments concentrated on examining the legal definition of the crime of genocide and its distinction from homicide. In the second, the questions revolved around the social, historical, and political interpretation of the word "race" in the judgment of a defendant who had published anti-Semitic and "revisionist" books and articles about the Holocaust. Brazil has also demonstrated itself to be somewhat refractory in incorporating the principles of international criminal law when examining the Justice of Transition. In a recent decision, the STF affirmed the constitutionality of Law No. 6,683/79, which granted amnesty to the perpetrators of political crimes and the public agents responsible for torture and the forced disappearance of people during the military dictatorship. In summary, the Justices recognised as valid the political agreement that led to the promulgation of the Amnesty Law in such a way that any alteration of its terms could only be made by the National Congress.


2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer ◽  
Paul David Mora

As a precursor to the United Kingdom's ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2001, the respective Parliaments in the UK adopted two Acts to implement the obligations that treaty imposed on the UK, and to implement the international crimes, as defined in that treaty, into the law of the UK. When the International Criminal Court Act (ICC Act) was being debated in 2001, Baroness Scotland, speaking for the Government, explained that part of the raison d'etre of the Act was that the UK ought not to be seen as a safe haven for international criminals. However, in line with article 11 of the Rome Statute, the jurisdiction of UK courts over such offences, insofar as they were not already covered by the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Genocide Act 1969 (the latter of which was repealed by the ICC Act) only applied prospectively.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Barbu Denisa

In international criminal law, a great role had the Military Courts at Nuremberg and Tokyo, which on the one hand, contributed decisively in their judgments to the shaping of important institutions of international criminal responsibility of individuals as agents of the State, and on the other hand, have demonstrated the need for permanent and strong international criminal jurisdictions. 


2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 141-159
Author(s):  
Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops

AbstractThis article examines a new form of counterterrorism measures exercised by states namely preventative targeting of alleged terrorists. The analysis conducted in this article is based on a judgment of the Israeli Supreme court of 13 December 2006 where this issue was addressed in the context of an international armed conflict. The author critically assesses the various aspects of this judgment in view of contemporary principles of contemporary international (criminal) law. In particular, it focuses on the main question whether this form of counter terrorism complies with the underlying principle of Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, namely the requirement of "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document