scholarly journals Wartime Sexual Acts as Prosecutable War Crimes

DÍKÉ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-123
Author(s):  
Upal Aditya Oikya
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Middle Ages ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Evolutionary Process ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
Civilian Women

Human history is littered with the mass rape of women particularly as a military strategy in warfare, dating back centuries from ancient Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concubines through the Middle Ages to the 20th century ‘comfort women’ of the 2nd World War. Ancient literature explicitly refers to rape or the seizure of vanquished women, who were regarded as the enemy’s property, to become wives, servants slaves, or concubines. The plight of women worsened in the twentieth century when civilian women suffered the most consequences of armed conflicts including rape. Rape served as an oppressive and humiliating tool to severe family identity to dominate, demoralize, and destroy the entire enemy society and way of life. In the past, there appeared to be no international law that specifically dealt with rape in armed conflicts. This was caused by the ambivalent relationship between the law of armed conflict and gender-based crimes. Rape was overlooked as an unfortunate yet inevitable by-product of war. Both international humanitarian and human rights laws did not initially recognize rape as a serious war crime and a fundamental breach of human rights. This deafening legal silence and gap are being addressed through an ongoing evolutionary process by criminalizing wartime predatory sexual acts as a war crime, crimes against humanity, and even genocide. However, with the developments of international law and its practice, for the first time in the history, mass rape and sexual enslavement in the time of war be regarded as ‘crimes against humanity’ in a landmark ruling from the Yugoslav War crime tribunal in the Hague on 22 February 2001. But, even before that, some prior legal instruments for example the Lieber Code, promulgated during the American Civil War regarded [wartime] rape as war crime with capital punishment. Thus, this paper aims to analyze how the historical legal instruments have articulated the extend of criminality and culpability of wartime rapes and other sexual violence and their nexus with crimes of humanity, genocide, and war crimes within the corpus of international norms and criminal prohibitions as well as the historical development of wartime sexual acts as prosecutable war crimes.  

scholarly journals The Crisis of International Criminal Law in Africa: A Regional Regime in Response?

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-311
Author(s):  
Eki Yemisi Omorogbe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract This article considers the African Union’s (AU) proposal for a regional court for international crimes under the Malabo Protocol 2014 (Protocol). It places that within the AU’s rejection of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for African Heads of States that are not party to the Rome Statute and a more general protection of incumbents. It argues that the enthusiasm for establishing a regional criminal court, which lacks jurisdiction to prosecute incumbents, has not been sustained and African states remain committed to the ICC. It shows that nevertheless the Protocol’s provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, although imperfect, better address the specific character of armed conflicts in Africa than current international law, including the Rome Statute of the ICC. It concludes that the regional court for international crimes is unlikely to be established unless the ICC takes further action against incumbent leaders but that the Protocol’s provisions could be used in the development of a more Africa-centric international law.

‘Humanitarian Intervention’

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel S. Rodley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Human Rights Violation

This chapter examines whether so-called humanitarian intervention is a lawful exception to the international law prohibiting use of force when rescuing populations from widespread grave human rights violations, without UN Security Council authorization under Chapter VII. It considers what type or level of human rights violation or abuse justifies ‘humanitarian intervention’ if it were permitted, with reference to the R2P categories of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It discusses the UN Charter provisions and state practice on the prohibition on use of force, and criteria used to determine the legality of action deemed humanitarian intervention. The chapter describes tests that an intervention would have to pass and would be applicable to mitigate culpability, including gravity of the situation, political neutrality, the circumstances of the Security Council’s inability to act, and principles of necessity and proportionality. It argues that there is no humanitarian exception to the prohibition of the use of force in international law.

scholarly journals THE EXPANDING PROTECTION OF MEMBERS OF A PARTY'S OWN ARMED FORCES UNDER INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (04) ◽  
pp. 943-976
Author(s):  
Cóman Kenny ◽  
Yvonne McDermott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Law

AbstractDoes international law govern how States and armed groups treat their own forces? Do serious violations of the laws of war and human rights law that would otherwise constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity fall squarely outside the scope of international criminal law when committed against fellow members of the same armed forces? Orthodoxy considered that such forces were protected only under relevant domestic criminal law and/or human rights law. However, landmark decisions issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) suggest that crimes committed against members of the same armed forces are not automatically excluded from the scope of international criminal law. This article argues that, while there are some anomalies and gaps in the reasoning of both courts, there is a common overarching approach under which crimes by a member of an armed group against a person from the same forces can be prosecuted under international law. Starting from an assessment of the specific situation of the victim, this article conducts an in-depth analysis of the concepts of ‘hors de combat’ and ‘allegiance’ for war crimes and that of the ‘lawful target’ for crimes against humanity, providing an interpretative framework for the future prosecution of such crimes.

The Responsibility to Protect and the Fate of the Rohingya

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-450
Author(s):  
Simon Adams
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Un Security Council

The failure of the international community to adequately respond to patterns of discrimination against the ethnic Rohingya minority in Myanmar (Burma) eventually led to a genocide. The so-called “clearance operations” launched by Myanmar’s military in August 2017 tested the resilience of the international community’s commitment to defending human rights and upholding its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Two years later the UN Security Council has still not adopted a single resolution to name the crime committed against the Rohingya, or to hold the perpetrators accountable. Nevertheless, Rohingya survivors and international civil society have continued to campaign for justice under international law, and to advocate for targeted sanctions to be imposed on those responsible for atrocities. Faced with an inert Security Council, some UN member states have adopted inventive diplomatic measures to uphold their responsibility to protect.

R2P and International Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel S. Rodley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Human Rights Violation

Reluctant for its first two decades to consider states’ human rights performance, the UN gradually developed an extensive network of machinery to examine human rights violations in some states and categories of violation in all states. Action was limited to investigation and condemnation. The overwhelming majority of states and commentators rejected the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ that had had some currency until the UN Charter’s proscription of the use of force by states. It took the UN sixty years to accept that the Security Council could and should take necessary coercive measures, including armed force, to confront the most extreme forms of human rights violation or atrocity such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In doing so, it sanctified a new doctrine and codified its scope. Political and material realities seem to require sober expectations about the UN’s actual ability to protect populations from these atrocities.

The Implementation of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind in the Penal Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Sergey SAYAPIN
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Republic

AbstractThe penal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan includes a number of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. Among these are most of the traditional “core” crimes under international law—genocide, war crimes, and the crime of aggression—as well as some other crimes. Crimes against humanity are not included in the Criminal Code so far but some of their definitional features are shared by so-called “extremist crimes”. In addition to other customary crimes against the peace and security of mankind—such as deliberately attacking internationally protected persons and organizations and abusing internationally protected emblems—the Code also includes more novel crimes, such as participation in foreign armed conflicts. This paper analyses the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan in the light of corresponding treaty-based and customary rules of international law, and suggests further improvements to be made to the Code.

scholarly journals Amnesty for combatants involved in armed condlicts: between peace and justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 418-421
Author(s):  
Diana Ivzhenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Peace And Justice

The article deals with amnesty for combatants, who committed crimes in international armed conflicts or armed conflicts of non-international character in foreign countries, there are also explored conclusions and recommendations of international government and non-government organisations on exemption combatants from criminal liability. It’s obviously, that amnesty does not apply to the perpetrators of such crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, enforced disappearances, and some others. Considering the extended armed conflict in the east of Ukraine, it’s extremely necessary to examine the institution of amnesty within the context of diplomatic and peaceful measures of ending the conflict. As far as Ukraine is concerned, amnesty in Ukraine is a step towards general reconciliation of the society given serious work and understanding within the society is completed. Moreover, in article discussed the question on specificities of amnesty's implementation in context of armed conflict on temporary occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Special attention is focused on binding terms of amnesty for combatants. As a conclusion, author of this article states on some necessary conditions for implementing the amnesty for combatants in post-conflict society. These conditions are: Disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration. This is one of the most controversy and difficult steps. Combatants only then are going to be disarmed when they feel their safety under international and national law. There is a list of human rights violations that may not be pardoned by the amnesty: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The nation and victims of the armed conflict have to know the truth about all violations of human rights according to international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It’s important to understand, that amnesty is one of the institutions in oust-conflict society, that aimed for the end of the conflict, stabilisation of the politica; situation in the country, disarming and reintegration.

Eco-Struggles

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Gillett
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Jus Post Bellum

This chapter examines the provisions of international criminal law applicable to serious environmental harm, particularly during non-international armed conflicts ('NIAC'). After describing incidents of serious environmental harm arising in armed conflicts, the analysis surveys the provisions of international criminal law applicable to environmental harm during NIACs, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression. It then examines the basis for extending to NIACs the protection against military attacks causing excessive environmental harm (set out in Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute), which is currently only applicable in IACs. The examination of this possible amendment of the Rome Statute covers a broad range of instruments and laws forming part of international and national legal codes, all addressing grave environmental harm. Finally, the analysis turns to accountability for environmental harm as a facet of jus post bellum, emphasizing the interconnected nature of environmental harm and cycles of violence and atrocities.

From Reprisals to Criminal Accountability: State Bias and the Prospects of Limiting War Through Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 365-388
Author(s):  
Pablo Kalmanovitz
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Central Element ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Institutional Conditions ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
The Past ◽  
State Agents

Abstract Over the past 25 years, criminal prosecutions for war crimes have become a central element in the long-standing project of governing hostilities in international law. According to many, the threat of criminal prosecutions can be a general deterrent against violations of the laws of war, and can contribute more broadly to the diffusion and domestic appropriation of humanitarian norms. This article discusses some unintended effects of this “anti-impunity turn” in the laws of war in the context of non-international armed conflicts. Specifically, it examines the consequences of the fact that states typically have a monopoly over the means of legitimate criminal investigation for alleged crimes committed in their territory. Far from operating on a level playing field, criminal investigations in war contexts must be undertaken under institutional conditions that tend to favor state agents over non-state opposition groups. The article spells out some implications of this form of state bias and argues that it can contribute to exacerbate conflict and prolong violence in war.

scholarly journals The Role of Customary International Law in Regulating the Activities of Armed Groups in the Field of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 195-204
Author(s):  
R. I. Sharipov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Peremptory Norms

Over the past decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of armed groups involved in armed conflicts around the world, as well as in their impact on the rights and freedoms of the population under their control. Facing various situations of systematic violations of human rights by non-state actors, experts in the field of international human rights law began to consider the theoretical justification for the mandatory nature of the provisions on the observance and protection of human rights for armed groups. In this regard, a number of scholars have turned to the theory of customary international law, the acceptability of which is being investigated by the author of this paper. The author examines the provisions underlying this theory and the persuasiveness of the argumentation used by its supporters. Based on an analysis of the nature of customary international law, its structural elements, their interpretation by the UN International Court of Justice in its decisions and the relationship of customary international law with peremptory norms of jus cogens, the author concludes that the theory under consideration is currently unable to explain the existence of obligations of armed groups in the field of human rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document