The Law and Economics of Humanitarian Law Violations in Internal Conflict

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 394-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Dunoff ◽  
Joel P. Trachtman

The problem of criminal responsibility for human rights atrocities committed in internal conflict provides an appropriate vehicle for examining various theoretical and methodological approaches to international law. The issues raised include the following: Does international law provide for individual criminal responsibility for such acts? How best can these atrocities be prevented? Should international law address these matters or are they better left to domestic law? Why does international legal doctrine distinguish between human rights violations committed in international conflict and the identical acts committed in internal conflict?

2020 ◽  
pp. 359-392
Author(s):  
Gloria Gaggioli ◽  
Pavle Kilibarda

International human rights law and international humanitarian law absolutely prohibit all forms of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT) at all times and against anyone, even the worst of criminals. International criminal law moreover provides for the individual criminal responsibility of perpetrators. Nevertheless, there remains a number of legal and practical challenges to overcome in order to ensure the effectiveness of this prohibition. The most visible challenge pertains to the implementation of the prohibition not only in domestic law but also in the concrete practice of law enforcement officials and other State agents. Other—less visible and insufficiently discussed—challenges concern laws and practices that may indirectly impact the effectiveness of the prohibition of torture and CIDT and whose acceptability under public international law is not crystal clear. For instance, is the prohibition of using evidence obtained through torture/CIDT (so-called exclusionary rule) absolute and applicable in all cases? How far does the international law obligation to prosecute and punish torture/CIDT perpetrators go? To what extent may individual perpetrators of torture/CIDT invoke mitigating circumstances or even justifications to avoid or diminish punishment for the commission of such acts in extreme circumstances? Does the passing of lenient sentences upon individual perpetrators of ill-treatment entail the responsibility of the State as a failure to punish? The present chapter will discuss these issues in light of contemporary international practice of various human rights bodies (treaty bodies and UN special procedures) and international/mixed criminal courts and tribunals.


Author(s):  
van Sliedregt Elies

This book examines the concept of individual criminal responsibility for serious violations of international law, i.e., aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Such crimes are rarely committed by single individuals. Rather, international crimes generally connote a plurality of offenders, particularly in the execution of the crimes, which are often orchestrated and masterminded by individuals behind the scene of the crimes who can be termed ‘intellectual perpetrators’. For a determination of individual guilt and responsibility, a fair assessment of the mutual relationships between those persons is indispensable. By setting out how to understand and apply concepts such as joint criminal enterprise, superior responsibility, duress, and the defence of superior orders, this work provides a framework for that assessment. It does so by bringing to light the roots of these concepts, which lie not merely in earlier phases of development of international criminal law but also in domestic law and legal doctrine. The book also critically reflects on how criminal responsibility has been developed in the case law of international criminal tribunals and courts. It thus illuminates and analyses the rules on individual responsibility in international law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agata Kleczkowska

Summary The paper explores the problem of the formation of the ‘(quasi-) customary law’, as a source of law created by, or contributed to by armed non-state actors (ANSAs). It argues that, despite some views presented in the doctrine of international law, claims of a quasi-customary international law are without foundation in the current state of international law. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part presents the views of legal doctrine concerning the customary law as contributed/created by non-state actors. The second section argues that ANSAs do not form practice and opinio juris which would allow them to create their ‘own’ customary law. The final part presents the possible challenges and consequences of including ANSAs in the process of formation of customary international law as created by States. In summary the conclusions posit that it could be potentially very harmful for international humanitarian law and the protection of human rights.


2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Pollard

The author argues that a State violates international law when it transmits questions for use in the interrogation of an individual by another State, or informally uses for its own national security purposes information received through interrogations by another State, where it knows or should know that there is a real risk that the interrogation will or did involve torture. The sources of law relied upon include: the comprehensive, absolute, and non-derogable prohibition of torture under treaty and customary international law; rules ascribing individual criminal responsibility for complicity or participation in acts of torture; and the secondary rules of State responsibility (using the framework of the Articles adopted by the International Law Commission). The author specifically considers and rejects the argument that territorial and jurisdictional limits on the human rights responsibilities of States preclude responsibility for participation in torture ‘out-sourced’ in this manner to another State.


2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Karska ◽  
Karol Karski

The work of private military and security contractors is extremely controversial from the point of view of international law and of practice. Sometimes there are doubts as to whether some of their activities should be considered legal activities or illegal mercenarism. Like any other entities using force, they can violate human rights as well as international humanitarian law. They provide their services to, amongst others, states and intergovernmental organisations, including the un. This requires a precise definition of the rules under which such contractors operate, both with regard to the law of treaties and the domestic law of the entities using their services. A question also arises as to whether there is any legal limit to their services being used by intergovernmental organisations, i.e. entities deriving their competences from the will of their member states. The work of the un is an interesting example here. The organisation uses such contractors, but on the other hand, it undertakes various activities to eliminate any potential threats in this respect.


Author(s):  
Bożena Drzewicka

Conceptions And Interpretations of Human Rights in Europe and Asia: Normative AspectsThe issue of confronting values between civilizations has become very important. It influences not only the level of international politics but also the international normative activity. It is very interesting for the modern international law and its doctrine. The most important factor of causing huge changes in the system of international law is still the international human rights protection and the international humanitarian law which is related to it. It is very difficult to create one catalogue of executive instruments and procedures but it is possible to influence the attitude toward the basic paradigms. The frictions appear from time to time and move to other planes. The West and Asia are still antagonists in the dialogue on the future of the world. The article is a contribution to the intercivilizational dialogue.


Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman

This chapter considers the consequences of breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law for the responsible international organizations. It concentrates on the obligations owed to injured individuals. The obligation to make reparation arises automatically from a finding of responsibility and is an obligation of result. I analyse who has this obligation, to whom it is owed, and what it entails. I also consider the right of individuals to procedures by which they may vindicate their right to a remedy and the right of access to a court that may be implied from certain human rights treaties. In tandem, I consider the relationship between those obligations and individuals’ rights under international law. An overarching issue is how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialized regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and particularly, their application to individuals.


Author(s):  
Anicée Van Engeland

This chapter considers the extent to which Islamic governance can integrate international humanitarian law (IHL) into its own legal system by examining the case of Iran. It addresses the consequences of the emergence of an Islamic-universal hybrid legal system. The stakes are high because IHL’s efficiency and necessity have been questioned: The existence of the Iranian hybrid system of law can be perceived as a threat by scholars arguing that international law is at risk of fragmentation due to the variety of domestic and regional approaches to fundamental legal standards. The importance of those stakes is illustrated by the Iran-Iraq War: The process of mixing a universal secular legal system with a religious domestic law occurred at a crucial time when Iran was at war with Iraq, with clear effects on the protection of civilians and the conduct of hostilities.


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document