Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:01:35.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s Fallout

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Theodor Meron
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 236 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Opinion and Judgment, Case IT–94–1–T (May 7, 1997) [hereinafter Tadić], excerpted in 36 ILM 908 (1997), summarized in Michael, P. Scharf, Case note, 91 AJIL 718 (1997)Google Scholar.

2 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 62, para. 109 (June 27) [hereinafter Nicaragua]; Tadić, 36 ILM at 927, para. 585.

3 Tadić, 36 ILM at 929, paras. 592–95.

4 Id. at 928, para. 588.

5 Id. at 928, para. 588, and 929, para. 595.

6 Id. at 922, para. 569.

7 Id. at 933, para. 607.

8 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge McDonald Regarding the Applicability of Article 2 of the Statute, Case IT–94–1–T (May 7, 1997), 36 ILM at 970, 979, para. 34.

9 Id. at 974, para. 15.

10 Id. at 977, para. 27.

11 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case IT–94–1-AR72 (Oct. 2, 1995), 35 ILM 32, 54, para. 70 (1996) [hereinafter Interlocutory Appeal].

The appeals chamber regarded one of the agreements concluded between the parties to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina as based on common Article 3, and thus as a reflection of the views of those parties that the conflict was of an internal character, and, furthermore, as an implicit recognition of the internal character of the conflict by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Id. at 55, para. 73. It is doubtful, however, that the parties to the conflicts had a shared conception of their nature. The appeals chamber itself recognized that another agreement reflected the international aspects of the conflicts. Id. In his detailed discussion of the entire web of agreements, Yves Sandoz refrained from drawing any conclusions regarding the nature of the conflicts. With regard to one of the agreements, he observed that it fell under the category of “special agreements” that could be concluded in either international or noninternational conflicts. All of the agreements were reached under great pressure of time. Obviously, the ICRC’s primary concern was to encourage the maximum application of international humanitarian law. Yves, Sandoz, Réflexions sur la mise en oeuvre du droit international humanitaire et sur k rôle du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge en ex-Yougoshwie , 3 Revue Suisse de Droit International et de Droit Européen 461, 466, 471 (1993)Google Scholar.

12 Id. at 56–57, paras. 74–77.

13 Theodor, Meron, The Continuing Role of Custom in the Formation of International Humanitarian Law , 90 AJIL 238 (1996)Google Scholar.

14 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Review of Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61, Case IT–94–2-R61, para. 30 (Oct. 20, 1995); Prosecutor v. Mrksić, Confirmation of Indictment, Case IT–95–13-I (Nov. 7, 1995); Prosecutor v. Mrksić, Review of Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61, Case IT–95–13-R61, para. 25 (Apr. 3, 1996); Prosecutor v. Karadzic, Review of Indictments Pursuant to Rule 61, Case IT–95–5-R61, IT–95–18-R61, para. 88 (July 11, 1996).

15 Amicus Curiae Brief Presented by the Government of the United States at 26–34, Motion Hearing, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case IT–94–1-T (July 25, 1995) [hereinafter Amicus Brief].

16 See, e.g., James, C. O’Brien, The International Tribunal for Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia , 87 AJIL 639 (1993)Google Scholar; Theodor, Meron, International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities , 89 AJIL 554, 556 (1995)Google Scholar; Theodor, Meron, War Crimes in Yugoslavia and the Development of International Law , 88 AJIL 78, 80–81 (1994)Google Scholar. For a trenchant critique of the appeals chamber’s decision, see George, H. Aldrich, Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia , 90 AJIL 64, 66—67 (1996)Google Scholar.

17 Amicus Brief, supra note 15, at 28.

18 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Separate Opinion of Judge Abi-Saab on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case IT–94–1-AR72, at 5–6 (Oct. 2, 1995).

19 Amicus Brief, supra note 15, at 35–36.

20 U.S. Dep’t of the Army, The Law of Land Warfare, para. 506(b) (Field Manual No. 27–10, 1956).

21 International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: Commentary 46 (Oscar M. Uhler & Henri Coursier eds., 1958).

22 Interlocutory Appeal, supra note 11, 35 ILM at 55, para. 72.

23 Prosecutor v. Rajić, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61, Case IT–95–12-R61 (Sept. 13, 1996), summarized in Olivia Swaak-Goldman, Case note, 91 AJIL 523 (1997).

24 Id., para. 12.

25 Id., para. 21.

26 Id., paras. 22–23.

27 Id., paras. 24–26.

28 Id., para. 37.

29 Id., paras. 25–26.

30 Nicaragua, 1986 ICJ Rep. at 61–65, paras. 105–16.

31 Id. at 114, para. 219.

32 See Aldrich, supra note 16.

33 See O’Brien, supra note 16.

34 Christopher, Greenwood, International Humanitarian Law and the Tadic Case, 7 Eur. J. Int’l L. 265, 269–75 (1996)Google Scholar.

35 Nguyen, Quoc Dinh, Patrick, Daillier & Alain, Pellet, Droit International Public 903 (1994)Google Scholar. See also Christopher, Greenwood, Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law , in Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts 39, 50 (Dieter, Fleck ed., 1995)Google Scholar.

36 Yoram, Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence 6 (2d ed. 1994)Google Scholar.

37 Id. at 7.