scholarly journals Violation of rules of international humanitarian law and the system of criminal sanctions

2013 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-340
Author(s):  
Dragan Jovasevic

Violation of rules of international humanitarian law during the war or armed conflict creates the need for the application of certain types and measures of criminal sanctions against perpetrators of the most serious crimes against international law in accordance with appropriate judicial procedures. Both - national as well as international judicial systems are familiar with various types of criminal sanctions prescribed by relevant legal sources. This paper discusses the characteristics of these international crimes and sanctions and the preconditions for their application. The application of these criminal sanctions requires that the existence of elements of a particular criminal offence against international law and of the guilt on behalf of the adult perpetrator of such an offence has previously been confirmed.

Author(s):  
Werle Gerhard ◽  
Jeßberger Florian

This chapter turns to war crimes. Here, the chapter narrows the definition of ‘war crimes’ to a violation of a rule of international humanitarian law that creates direct criminal responsibility under international law. It then proceeds to examine the historical development of war crimes as part of international humanitarian law as well as criminal sanctions, war crimes in non-international armed conflict, protected interests, and categories of war crimes. Afterward, the chapter describes the overall requirements for an offence to be deemed a war crime. Next, the chapter explores war crimes against persons, against property and other rights, and against humanitarian operations. It also discusses prohibited methods of warfare and the use of prohibited means of warfare. The chapter ends with a coverage of the multiplicity of offences.


Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser

This book identifies the degree of organization required from non-state armed groups (i) to become party to an armed conflict and thereby bound by applicable international humanitarian law; (ii) to have possible human rights obligations; and (iii) to create a context in which international crimes can be committed. Part I identifies three principal criteria that any party to a non-international armed conflict—including decentrally organized armed groups, transnational groups, or cyber groups—must meet: it must be a collective entity with sufficient capabilities to engage in hostilities and the ability to ensure respect for basic humanitarian norms. Part II conceptualizes contemporary debate and international practice on the question of whether armed groups have human rights obligations. It suggests that the sources and scope of potential human rights obligations of armed groups are understood best on a spectrum, with consideration given to three categories: groups exercising quasi-governmental authority; groups exercising de facto control over territory and population; and groups exercising no territorial control. Part III examines the requisite degree of organization of armed groups to create contexts in which crimes against humanity or genocide can be committed. It argues that the degree of power and organization of groups behind these crimes depends on whether the group instigates or actually commits the crimes. In sum, this book shows that the requisite degree of organization of armed groups to have obligations under different fields of international law cannot be determined in the abstract. It depends on the specificities of each field of law and the circumstances of each case.


2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (879) ◽  
pp. 569-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bothe ◽  
Carl Bruch ◽  
Jordan Diamond ◽  
David Jensen

AbstractThere are three key deficiencies in the existing body of international humanitarian law (IHL) relating to protection of the environment during armed conflict. First, the definition of impermissible environmental damage is both too restrictive and unclear; second, there are legal uncertainties regarding the protection of elements of the environment as civilian objects; and third, the application of the principle of proportionality where harm to the environment constitutes ‘collateral damage’ is also problematic. These gaps present specific opportunities for clarifying and developing the existing framework. One approach to addressing some of the inadequacies of IHL could be application of international environmental law during armed conflict. The detailed norms, standards, approaches, and mechanisms found in international environmental law might also help to clarify and extend basic principles of IHL to prevent, address, or assess liability for environmental damage incurred during armed conflict.


2015 ◽  
pp. 88-103
Author(s):  
Joanna Szymoniczek

Resting places of fallen soldiers – war cemeteries – are monuments to soldiers’ heroism, and thus are of special significance not only for those who have lost their loved ones, but also for entire nations, countries and communities. Therefore, such cemeteries are created under the provisions of relevant authorities, and then put under the special protection of the public. These issues are closely regulated by international law established throughout the twentieth century. Cemeteries are protected by the state on whose territory individual objects are placed. However, the problem of cemeteries is more and more often the responsibility of social organizations. According to the international humanitarian law of armed conflict, specific tasks in this respect are assigned to the tracing services of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, who deal with the registry of exhumation, inhumation and body transfer, hold deposits, establish the fate of victims of war and issue death certificates. Institutions that deal with exploration, keeping records, exhumation of remains and the construction or revaluation of the graves of fallen citizens buried outside the borders of their own countries include the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites, the German People’s Union for the Care of War Graves, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Austrian Red Cross (Österreichisches Schwarzes Kreuz), the American Battle Monuments Commission, the US Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad and the Italian Commissariat General for the Memory of Killed in War (Commissariato Generale per le Onoranze Caduti in Guerra). For political reasons, tasks related to war cemeteries are assigned to social organizations, because their actions are believed to be more effective and less bureaucratic than those of states.


1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (325) ◽  
pp. 671-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Claude Roberge

After years of relentless effort and five weeks of intense and difficult negotiations, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted and opened for signature in Rome on 17 July 1998. This historic event represents a major step forward in the battle against impunity and towards better respect for international humanitarian law. For too long it has been possible to commit atrocities with total impunity, a situation which has given perpetrators carte blanche to continue such practices. The system of repression established by international law clearly has its shortcomings, and the time has come to adopt new rules and set up new institutions to ensure the effective prosecution of international crimes. A criminal court, whether at the national or international level, does not put a stop to crime, but it may serve as a deterrent and, consequently, may help reduce the number of victims. The results achieved in Rome should thus be welcomed, in the hope that the new Court will be able to discharge its mandate to the full.


2019 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted—jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7. deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted — jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies. Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 deals with the issue of regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.7 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (270) ◽  
pp. 177-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamen Sachariew

The ultimate purpose of dissemination of and compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) is to mitigate the effects of armed conflict and provide the best possible protection for its victims. At the same time, IHL fosters wider acceptance of the ideals of humanity and peace between peoples. The relationship between IHL, the struggle for peace and the prohibition of the use of force is becoming ever clearer as the realization grows that lasting peace, development and peaceful international co-operation can be achieved only on the basis of compliance with international law and respect for human life and dignity.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
DARAGH MURRAY

AbstractInternational humanitarian law establishes explicit safeguards applicable to detention occurring in non-international armed conflict. However, debate exists as to whether these treaty provisions establish an implicit legal basis for detention. This article approaches this debate in light of the application of international humanitarian law to non-state armed groups. It examines the principal arguments against implicit detention authority and then applies the law of treaty interpretation to international humanitarian law's detention-related provisions. On the basis of current understandings of international law – and the prohibition of arbitrary detention in particular – it is concluded that international humanitarian law must be interpreted as establishing implicit detention authority, in order to ensure the continued regulation of armed groups. Although, perhaps, problematic from certain states’ perspective, this conclusion is reflective of the current state of international law. However, this is not necessarily the end of the story. A number of potential ‘ways forward’ are identified: implicit detention authority may be (i) rejected; (ii) accepted; or (iii) re-examined in light of the non-state status of armed groups, and what this means for the content of the prohibition of arbitrary detention. These scenarios are examined in light of the desire to ensure: the coherency of international law including recognition of the role of armed groups, the continued effectiveness of international humanitarian law, and state sovereignty. An emphasis is placed on understanding the non-state status of armed groups and what this means for international regulation and the content of imposed obligations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document