scholarly journals Does International Criminal Court have Jurisdiction over the Destruction of Cultural Property by the Islamic State of Irac and Syria?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Bayu Sujadmiko ◽  
Desia Rakhma Banjarani ◽  
Rudi Natamiharja ◽  
Desy Churul Aini
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Additional Protocol

The cultural property becomes objects of destruction in armed conflicts, such as Syria and Iraq, which were carried out by ISIS squads (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). For ISIS’s actions, the ICC should judge ISIS. However, new problems will arise regarding the jurisdiction of the ICC to judge ISIS. Based on the explanation of this background, the question will arise: How are humanitarian law regulations related to protecting cultural property during armed conflict? And what is the regulation of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the protection of cultural property in armed conflict by ISIS? The research in this article is normative legal research with the statue approach. According to humanitarian law, the research results show that the regulations relating to the protection of cultural property during armed conflict are contained in the 1954 Hague Convention, Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions of 1977. The destruction of cultural property carried out by ISIS is included in war crimes, one of the Rome Statute material jurisdictions. In this case, the Rome Statute applied by the ICC has juridical power to uphold justice and punish, including war crimes committed by ISIS. For the destruction of various cultural property in Iraq and Syria, ISIS can be judge by the ICC through a referral by the UN Security Council based on the provisions stipulated in the 1998 Rome Statute.  

Amnesties and international humanitarian law: Purpose and scope

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (910) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions

States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 have an obligation to take measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to their provisions. Moreover, States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or on their territory, and other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction, such as on the basis of universal jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. In accordance with these obligations and the limits they impose, States may adopt certain measures during and in the aftermath of armed conflicts to promote reconciliation and peace, one of which is amnesties. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules pertaining to the granting and scope of amnesties. Specifically, Article 6(5) of Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) provides that, at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict. Importantly, under customary IHL (as identified in Rule 159 of the ICRC customary IHL study), this excludes persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes in NIACs.

The notion of “protracted armed conflict” in the Rome Statute and the termination of armed conflicts under international law: An analysis of select issues

2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (912) ◽  
pp. 1091-1115
Author(s):  
Dustin A. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
General Category ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Principles And Standards

AbstractLegal controversies and disagreements have arisen about the timing and duration of numerous contemporary armed conflicts, not least regarding how to discern precisely when those conflicts began and when they ended (if indeed they have ended). The existence of several long-running conflicts – some stretching across decades – and the corresponding suffering that they entail accentuate the stakes of these debates. To help shed light on some select aspects of the duration of contemporary wars, this article analyzes two sets of legal issues: first, the notion of “protracted armed conflict” as formulated in a war-crimes-related provision of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and second, the rules, principles and standards laid down in international humanitarian law and international criminal law pertaining to when armed conflicts have come to an end. The upshot of the analysis is that under existing international law, there is no general category of “protracted armed conflict”; that the question of whether to pursue such a category raises numerous challenges; and that several dimensions of the law concerning the end of armed conflict are unsettled.

War Crimes in International Versus Non-International Armed Conflicts: "New Wine in Old Wineskins"?

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 319-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gauthier de Beco
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law

AbstractThis note discusses the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts in the prosecution of war crimes before the International Criminal Court. It analyses the international humanitarian law applicable to both kinds of conflict, and the way in which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia succeeded in prosecuting war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts. It also studies the two war crimes regimes provided for in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The note then examines how Pre-Trial Chamber I dealt with this issue in its Decision on the confirmation of charges against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and the problems it faced in doing so. It concludes with a plea for the abolition of the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts with respect to war crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Fighting Deforestation in Non-International Armed Conflicts: The Relevance of the Rome Statute for Rosewood Trafficking in Senegal

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Pauline Martini ◽  
Maud Sarliève
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts

Abstract This article examines rosewood trafficking in the Casamance region of Senegal to determine whether acts of massive deforestation committed in the context of a non-international armed conflict can be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) as war crimes of pillage and destruction of property under Article 8(2)(e)(v) and (xii) of the Rome Statute, respectively. It examines two of the main challenges resulting from the application of these provisions to acts of massive deforestation in the light of the ICC Elements of Crimes. Firstly, the article addresses the delicate issue of the establishment of a nexus between these acts and the related non-international armed conflict. Secondly, it discusses whether natural resources may qualify as ‘property’ for the purpose of Article 8(2)(e)(v) and (xii). It then offers avenues of reflection regarding the determination of ownership of these resources to fulfil the requirements of the Rome Statute.

The Review Process of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Impact on International Humanitarian Law

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 313-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Hladik
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Former Soviet Union ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Cold War

The end of the Cold War and the disappearance of bipolarity have resulted in a recrudescence of a number of armed conflicts in the world, in particular in the ex-Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. Such conflicts have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law of armed conflicts and a loss of respect for human lives and cultural heritage. They have also demonstrated deficiencies in the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict — the only comprehensive international agreement aimed specifically at protecting movable and immovable cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict.

scholarly journals Legal Protection of Cultural Objects in the Armed Conflict

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-97
Author(s):  
Akbar Kurnia Putra ◽  
Bernard Sipahutar ◽  
Vrandza Iswenanda ◽  
Sulhi Muhammad Daud
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention

This article aims to overview how the International Humanitarian Law regulates the protection of cultural heritages at the event of armed conflict. Applying a normative legal method, this article coclude that the protection for the cultural objects during an armed conflict is regulated in the Hague Convention IV of 1907, the Geneva Conventions IV of 1949, the Hague Convention of 1954, and the Second Protocols to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1999. The Hague Convention of 1954 mentions about safeguarding of the cultural property from any harm as a result of armed conflicts and about respect for the cultural objects. Each nation is responsible to avoid, prevent, and forbid any harfmul acts against cultural property. However, no stipulation is mentioned on how the victims whose cultural objects are destroyed could sue for any destructions. Therefore it is recommended that a special International Body be formed to supervise any harmful activities toward the cultural objects. Such a body might be more than just an International Court of Justice whose function is to settle any objections, sues, or claims from parties whose cultural objecs have been destroyed during armed conflicts.

Implementation of War Crimes in Latin America: An Assessment of the Impact of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-473
Author(s):  
Salvador Herencia Carrasco
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe implementation of the Rome Statute in Latin America continues to face structural gaps caused by a lack of comprehensive implementation of all the elements of the treaty. In the case of war crimes legislation, only seven countries have adopted specific regulations implementing Article 8 of the Rome Statute or grave violations of international humanitarian law. The main problem persists in the fact that there has not been a significant implementation of Additional Protocol 1 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions as a complement to Article 8 of the Rome Statute. Also, regulation has focused on persons and property, leaving the criminalization of means and methods of warfare as well as the use of certain weapons behind.

International Criminalization of Offences Relating to Cultural Property

2019 ◽  
pp. 18-24
Author(s):  
Danil Sergeev
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Values ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Cultural Value ◽  
Direct Connection ◽  
International Protection ◽  
International Instruments

The article evaluates current conditions of international criminalization of offences relating to cultural property and makes a brief historical review of developing international protection of cultural property and elaborating a corresponding notion. Having analyzed the international instruments, the author concludes that offences relating to cultural property may include deliberate seizure, appropriation, demolition as well as any other forms of destruction or damage to objects and items protected under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict committed during international and non-international armed conflicts. These offences do not include such possible acts toward universal cultural values committed either beyond any armed conflict or without direct connection with it. Taking the examples of destruction of Buddhas of Bamiyan, Nimrud, Palmyra, and mausoleums of Timbuktu, the author states that international criminalization of offences relating to cultural property is insufficient, because it does not encompass such cases when objects or items of cultural value are damaged or destroyed under the control of national administrations or with their knowledge.

Kulturgüterschutz im System der Vereinten Nationen

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Memory ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
World Heritage Sites ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Heritage Sites ◽  
Terrorist Groups ◽  
Core Elements

The images of the destroyed Buddha statues of Bamiyan, of the ancient city of Palmyra lying in ruins, and of destroyed World Heritage sites in Timbuktu have received much attention from the international public. At the same time, these cases also reflect a new dimension in the conduct of armed hostilities today, which is increasingly aimed at destroying cultural identities or heritage. Therefore, in addition to the issue of preserving the world's cultural heritage, especially in the context of human rights protection and international humanitarian law, the protection of cultural property is seen as an increasingly important task for the United Nations and its institutions. Pieces of Art, significant written documents, memorials, and places of worship are deliberately destroyed in conflicts by armed or terrorist groups, such as the so-called Islamic State, as they represent core elements of cultural identity. The increasing number of reports on the loss of priceless cultural assets in Syria, Iraq and Mali exemplify this. Increasingly, violent non-state actors are deliberately using the destruction of cultural property as a means of warfare and even "ethnic cleansing." For the international community, this makes the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts and in the field of restoring statehood at the same time increasingly significant. The preservation of this global human memory is one of the greatest challenges of modern social, political, and legal discourses. Although the use of the destruction of cultural property to divide societies, even to erase a collective memory or destroy social structures, has long been part of warfare, this aspect has been insufficiently considered by the media public and especially in academic discourse. With contributions by Frederik Becker, Dr. Manuel Brunner, Paul Fabel, Dr. Martin Gerner, Dario Haux, Ruth Lechner, Prof. Dr. Antionette Maget Dominicé and Vincent Widdig.

scholarly journals Encroachment on Cultural Values in the Occupied Territories of Ukraine in the Context of International Crimes

2020 ◽  
pp. 313-319
Author(s):  
Nataliia PLYSIUK ◽  
Anna GOLUB
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Values ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Crimean Peninsula ◽  
Occupied Territories

The article examines the essence and nature of war crimes through the prism of encroachments on cultural property in the context of the conflict in eastern Ukraine and illegal actions on the Crimean peninsula. The state of protection of cultural property in the occupied territories, the main problems of prosecution for export, damage, destruction of cultural property in the conditions of military conflict are considered. It is analyzed that the issue of protection of cultural values is currently on the table, but Ukrainian domestic science does not contain research on the process of bringing perpetrators to justice. The article highlights the main decisions of the International Criminal Court in cases of encroachment on cultural property during the armed conflict, the decisions of tribunals, analyzes their main aspects that may be useful for Ukraine. It is established that the case law of tribunals and the International Criminal Court is heterogeneous; there is no established and clearly defined list of criteria for determining the grounds for bringing perpetrators to justice, the degree and form of their guilt. There is a heterogeneous understanding of the object of the encroachment and the form of guilt, which can lead to the impossibility of bringing the perpetrators to justice. From the analysis of the essence of war crimes, it was concluded that the relevant acts may be qualified under Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as war crimes. The composition of a war crime under the Rome Statute has also been studied, and possible obstacles to Ukraine’s future trials within the framework of the International Criminal Court have been outlined. The situation with the Bakhchisaray Palace in Crimea is highlighted as an object on which trilateral negotiations have already been initiated, which has the prospect of filing lawsuits in international courts. At present, Ukraine’s actions are aimed only at condemning the international community against the enemy for his illegal actions with cultural property, but the issue of initiating legal proceedings remains open.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document