INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

War Crimes ◽

Legal Regulation ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Complex Nature ◽

International Crimes ◽

International War ◽

The Moment ◽

International Law Commission

In the article an attempt has been made to analyze the peculiarities of the application of the categories of “international crimes” and “obligations erga omnes” in the context of environmental protection by the means of international law. The interrelation between these categories is investigated and their connection is demonstrated analyzing the work of the International Law Commission of the United Nations on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The tendency towards the formation in international law of a new type of obligations erga omnes aimed at environmental protection is analyzed. It is emphasized that environmental protection can be carried out both in the context of enforcement of obligations erga omnes and international responsibility of states, and in the context of prosecuting individuals for committing international war crimes against the environment. It is worth noting that at the moment the mentioned protection is fragmented and does not cover all elements of the environment. For example, the provisions of the Rome Statute about war crimes against environment relate to international armed conflicts and protect the natural environment only. At the same time the harm to the environment in armed conflicts not of an international character can be equally widespread, long-term and severe. In this regard, special attention is paid to the concept of “environment” as an object of protection under international law. Its complex nature manifested through a significant number of components, including natural resources and artificial elements, as well as the interaction between them, is shown. Thus, it seems necessary to develop such an international legal regulation that could ensure environmental protection, which would cover all elements of the environment and take into account their peculiarities

International Environmental Protection in Armed Conﬂicts: Traditional Legal Regulation and Interpretation Novelties

Lex Russica ◽

10.17803/1729-5920.2021.181.12.084-095 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 84-95

Author(s):

N. A. Sokolova

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Natural Environment ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Legal Regulation ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Wide Range

The paper is devoted to international legal protection of the environment during armed conflicts. The author emphasizes that armed conflicts, both international and non-international, continue to be one of the most serious threats to a healthy environment. An armed conflict taking place in the environment invariably poses a threat to ecosystems.The author summarizes that in international law there are special norms for the protection of natural environment during armed conflicts. At the same time, increasing the level of protection requires a clearer definition of the scope of application of customary law and the further development of treaty rules. While the objectives of protecting the natural environment are linked to the survival and protection of civilians, recognition of environmental protection during armed conflict as such constitutes an important trend. International law calls on States to enter into agreements that provide for additional protection of the natural environment during armed conflicts. The concept of “protecting the natural environment” in international humanitarian law refers to a wide range of obligations that can help protect the natural environment or its parts from damage. A high threshold for potential harm continues to pose the risk that such protection is not fully applicable in practice. There is an obvious tendency to use the potential of the principles of international environmental law when applying the norms of international humanitarian law. Thus, even in cases where the assessment of new means and methods of warfare does not provide scientific certainty with regard to their impact on the natural environment, this does not absolve the parties to the conflict from taking appropriate precautions. It is not enough that there are important rules of international humanitarian law protecting the natural environment during armed conflict; they need to be better disseminated, implemented and enforced, as well as validated and clarified.

The international law commission’s recent work on exceptions to immunity: Charting the course for a brave new world in international law?

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156518000663 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 32 (01) ◽

pp. 169-187

Author(s):

Dire Tladi

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

War Crimes ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Draft Article ◽

International Crimes ◽

State Practice ◽

Brave New World ◽

Main Criticism ◽

Mixed Reaction

AbstractIn the summer of 2017, the International Law Commission adopted a draft article on exceptions to immunity. The Draft Article adopted provides that immunityratione materiaedoes not apply with respect to certain international crimes, namely crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, war crimes, the crime of apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearances. These exceptions do not apply to immunityratione personae. The Draft Article was adopted after a vote and was severely criticized by some members of the Commission. It has also received mixed reaction from states, with some supporting its content while others have opposed it. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Draft Article, there has also been academic commentary, some of which has been critical. The (main) criticism levelled against the Draft Article is that it does not represent existing law and has no basis in the practice of states. This article seeks to evaluate the criticism by considering whether there is any state practice in support of the Draft Article proposed by the Commission.

Methodological Flaws in the ILC's Study on Exceptions to Immunity Ratione Materiae of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction

AJIL Unbound ◽

10.1017/aju.2018.9 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 112 ◽

pp. 9-15 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Qinmin Shen

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

War Crimes ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

General Assembly ◽

Draft Article ◽

Criminal Jurisdiction ◽

International Crimes ◽

The Core ◽

Un General Assembly ◽

International Law Commission

In July 2017, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) provisionally adopted Draft Article 7 on exceptions to immunity ratione materiae of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, by a recorded vote of twenty-one votes in favor, eight votes against, and one abstention. In the view of the majority of ILC members, immunity ratione materiae does not apply to the six international crimes listed in the draft article—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearance—either because of a limitation or because of an exception. The unusual practice of adopting a draft article by recorded vote demonstrated the deep controversy among the ILC members themselves. After all, exceptions to official immunity lie at the core of the project of “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction” that was started a decade ago by the ILC. This divisive Draft Article 7 naturally garnered criticism and equally deep controversy among states in discussions on the ILC's work report at UN General Assembly Sixth Committee in late October 2017.

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

Netherlands International Law Review ◽

10.1007/s40802-019-00143-5 ◽

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.

Legal Protection of the Environment

10.1093/oso/9780198784630.003.0010 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Dieter Fleck

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Natural Environment ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Jus Post Bellum ◽

Post Conflict ◽

Law Commission ◽

Critical Situations

This chapter examines principles and rules on environmental protection in two critical situations: non-international armed conflicts and post-conflict peacebuilding. What kind of environmental obligations apply in bello between a government and rebels? In what sense are parties to the conflict accountable for environmental devastation? May states be liable also for injurious consequences of acts not explicitly prohibited under international law? How can their obligations be enforced? Furthermore, issues of post-conflict peacebuilding are discussed to explore whether specific principles and rules of jus post bellum are relevant for the protection of the natural environment. While certain aspects of the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts appear to be still unclear, some recommendations are developed in support of efforts currently undertaken in the International Law Commission.

War Crimes in Non-international Armed Conflicts under the Statute of the International Criminal Court

Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ◽

10.1017/s1389135900000416 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 2 ◽

pp. 177-192 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Djamchid Momtaz

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal ◽

War Crimes ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Draft Statute ◽

International Law Commission

International humanitarian law applicable in non-international armed conflicts has long been characterized by the absence of universal competence to suppress serious violations of its provisions. This failure has been due to the reluctance of states – which are naturally prone to consider any limitation of their exclusive competence in this field as a threat to their sovereignty – to criminalize such acts under international law.The first attempt at remedying such a situation was seen in the Draft Statute of an International Criminal Court (ICC), which was prepared by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 1994, and inspired by the draft articles of the Code of Crimes against the Peace and International Security of Mankind, provisionally adopted by the ILC in 1991 at first reading. Under the Draft Statute of the ICC, serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts would be under the jurisdiction of the Court. The ILC had in mind exceptionally serious war crimes, such as those described in the pertinent article of the draft code referred to by the Commission, constituting an extremely grave violation of the principles and laws of international law applicable in armed conflicts. In the commentary on this article, the ILC took care to specify that the expression ‘armed conflict’ covered the non-international armed conflicts that are the focus of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as international armed conflicts.This first step was of very limited scope. In fact, according to the ILC, in order to be criminalized, the laws and customs of war had to find their origin in general customary international law.

International Law and War Crimes

10.1093/oso/9780198833857.003.0010 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

William A. Schabas

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal ◽

War Crimes ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Strict Sense ◽

International Crimes ◽

The Hague ◽

International War

If the Kaiser were to be brought to justice, he had to be charged with war crimes in the strict sense. The Commission on Responsibilities is the first forum in which there is an attempt to define international war crimes. Building upon the Hague Conventions adopted before the outbreak of the war, a list of violations of the laws and customs of war is prepared. When the British and the French insist on adding the phrase ‘the laws of humanity’, the Americans object that this is a matter of morality and not law. The Commission also considers whether to establish an international criminal court where such international crimes might be charged.

Legal Protection of the Environment

Just Peace After Conflict ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198823285.003.0009 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 149-164

Author(s):

Dieter Fleck

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Natural Environment ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Jus Post Bellum ◽

Post Conflict ◽

Law Commission ◽

Critical Situations

The Work of the International Law Commission, 2007–2011: Progress and Prospects

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.2.0322 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 106 (2) ◽

pp. 322-340 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Donald McRae

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Organizations ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

General Assembly ◽

Un General Assembly ◽

The Law ◽

Transboundary Aquifers ◽

Law Commission ◽

The Way

On November 17, 2011, the UN General Assembly elected the members of the International Law Commission for the next five years. In the course of the quinquennium that was completed in August 2011 with the end of the sixty-third session, the Commission concluded four major topics on its agenda: the law of transboundary aquifers, the responsibility of international organizations, the effect of armed conflicts on treaties, and reservations to treaties. It was by any standard a substantial output. The beginning of a new quinquennium now provides an opportunity to assess what the Commission has achieved, to consider the way it operates, and to reflect on what lies ahead for it.

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

ERIS – European Review of International Studies ◽

10.1163/21967415-bja10026 ◽

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.