scholarly journals The ICC’s Jurisdiction over War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts: An Insurmountable Obstacle for China’s Accession?

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Guan
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Insurmountable Obstacle ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

War Crimes in Internal Conflicts: Article 8 of the ICC Statute

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 193-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Robinson ◽  
Herman von Hebel
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Internal Armed Conflict ◽  
Internal Conflicts ◽  
International Character ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

The development of rules governing non-international, or internal, armed conflicts has long been characterized by a profound tension between concerns of sovereignty and concerns of humanity. Historically, strong sovereignty-oriented interests dictated a slow and cautious pace of progress in this sensitive area. In recent years, however, a growing humanitarian concern for the protection of victims has prompted rapid developments in the regulation of internal armed conflict. This transformation has been greatly assisted by the establishment of the twoad hocTribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda by the Security Council, in 1993 and 1994 respectively, and the operation of these bodies. Clear trends in this area include not only the articulation and recognition of a growing body of norms applicable in internal armed conflicts but also the expanding criminalization of violations of those norms. In a world where most armed conflicts are of a non-international character, these developments are of the greatest significance.From 15 June to 17 July 1998, delegations from 160 countries assembled in Rome to negotiate and adopt a Statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC), with jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

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.

The Historical Development of the Application of Humanitarian Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts to 1949

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Moir
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
International Law ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Similar Magnitude ◽  
International Conflicts ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

That humanitarian rules were applicable in armed conflicts was accepted long before the nineteenth century, but the fact that non-international armed conflicts were regarded as beyond the ambit of international regulation meant that the application of such norms to internal armed conflicts was certainly not a matter of course. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there had been a move towards the application of the laws of warfare to non-international armed conflicts as well as international conflicts, but this was based on the character of the conflicts and the fact that both were often of a similar magnitude, rather than any humanitarian concern to treat the victims of both equally. Not until the nineteenth century did the application of the laws of war to non-international armed conflicts become a widespread issue in international law.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document