Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:58:33.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soldiers as Victims at the ECCC: Exploring the Concept of ‘Civilian’ in Crimes against Humanity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2017

RACHEL KILLEAN ,
EITHNE DOWDS  and
AMANDA KRAMER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The inspiration for this article came from a call for amicus curiae briefs issued in April 2016 by the Office of the Co-Investigating Judges in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). The call sought guidance on: whether, under customary international law applicable between 1975 and 1979, an attack by a state or organization against members of its own armed forces may amount to an attack directed against a civilian population for the purpose of constituting a crime against humanity under Article 5 of the ECCC Law. We argue that customary international law justifies a finding that an attack on members of the armed forces can constitute crimes against humanity. In particular, the article focuses on the importance placed on the persecution element of crimes against humanity in the post-Second World War jurisprudence, and the broad interpretation of the term ‘civilian’. The article also examines the jurisprudence of contemporary international courts, finding that in some cases the courts have interpreted the term ‘civilian’ as incorporating hors de combat. However, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Court (ICC) have moved towards a more restrictive interpretation of the term ‘civilian’, potentially excluding members of the armed forces. We argue that this move is regressive, and against the spirit in which the offence of crimes against humanity was created. The ECCC has an opportunity to counter this restrictive approach, thereby narrowing the protection gap which crimes against humanity were initially created to close.

Keywords

civiliancrimes against humanityExtraordinary Chamber in the Courts of Cambodiainternational criminal lawvictims
Type
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 685 - 705
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2017 

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 Kiernan, B., ‘The Demography of Genocide in Southeast Asia’, (2003) 35 (4) Critical Asian Studies 585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Prosecutor v. Kaing Guek Eav (Case 001), Appeal Judgment, 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, A. Ch., 3 February 2012; and Prosecutor v. Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan (Case 002/01), Trial Judgment, 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, T. Ch., 7 August 2014.

3 Prosecutor v. Meas Muth (Case 003), Call for Submissions by the Parties in Cases 003 and 004 and Call for Amicus Curiae Briefs, 003/07-09-2009-ECCC-OCIJ, Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, 19 April 2016.

4 Case 001, Trial Judgment, 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/TC, T.Ch., 26 July 2010, paras. 304–5; and Case 002/01, Trial Judgment, supra note 2, paras. 183–6.

5 Case 003, Call for Submissions, supra note 3, para. 5.

6 ‘Case 003’, ECCC, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/en/case/topic/286 (accessed 7 June 2016).

7 ‘Case 004’, ECCC, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/en/case/topic/98 (accessed 7 June 2016); and ‘Case 004/01’, ECCC, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/en/case/topic/1662 (accessed 7 June 2016).

8 Case 003, Call for Submissions, supra note 3, para. 4.

9 The Prosecutor v. Mrkšić et al., Trial Judgement, Case No. IT-95-13/1-T, T. Ch. II, 27 September 2007, para. 460.

10 For details, see B. Kiernan, The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979 (2008), Ch. 8.

11 R. Moss, ‘Cadre addresses KR purges’, Phnom Penh Post, 23 April 2015.

12 Ciorciari, J. and Chhang, Y., ‘Documenting the Crimes of Democratic Kampuchea’, in Ramjo, J. and Van Schaak, B. (eds.), Bringing the Khmer Rouge to Justice. Prosecuting Mass Violence Before the Cambodian Courts (2005), 221 Google Scholar at 241, 280.

13 Ibid., at 260.

14 K.D. Jackson, Cambodia, 1975–1978: Rendezvous with Death (1989), at 3; Heder, S. and Tittemore, B.D., Seven Candidates for Prosecution: Accountability for the Crimes of the Khmer Rouge (2001)Google Scholar, at 35–6.

15 Kiernan, supra note 10, at 244.

16 Heder and Tittemore, supra note 14, at 39, citing ‘Weekly Report of the Sector 5 Committee’, May 21 1977 (DC-Cam document with no cataloguing mark visible).

17 R.J. Fey, Genocide and International Justice (2009), 91.

18 Case 003, Call for Submissions, supra note 3, para. 4.

19 Kiernan, supra note 10, at 298–9. See also J.D. Ciorciari, ‘The Khmer Krom and the Khmer Rouge Trials’, Documentation Center of Cambodia (August 2008).

20 Case 002, Closing Order, 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/, Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, 15 September 2010, paras. 1336–449.

21 Ibid., para. 210.

22 Ciorciari and Chhang, supra note 12, at 247.

23 J.A. Tyner, The Killing of Cambodia: Geography, Genocide and the Unmaking of Space (2008), 114.

24 ‘The International Co-Investigating Judge Charges Im Chaem in absentia in Case 004’, ECCC, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/international-co-investigating-judge-charges-im-chaem-absentia-case-004; ‘Mr Yim Tith charged in Case 004’, ECCC, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/mr-yim-tith-charged-case-004; ‘The International Co-Investigating Judge charges Ao An in Case 004’, ECCC, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/international-co-investigating-judge-charges-ao-case-004; and ‘Mr Meas Muth charged in Case 003’, ECCC, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/mr-meas-muth-charged-case-003 (all accessed 7 June 2016).

25 Ibid.

26 R.C. DeFalco, ‘Cases 003 and 004 at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal: The Definition of “Most Responsible” Individuals According to International Criminal Law’, (2014) 8(2) Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal 45, at 57.

27 Heder and Tittemore, supra note 14, at 99–113.

28 ‘Meas Muth, Trial: Profiles’, Trial International, available at trialinternational.org/latest-post/meas-muth/ (accessed 7 Februay 2017).

29 ‘Mr Meas Muth charged in Case 003’, supra note 24.

30 DeFalco, supra note 26, at 56.

31 D. Gillison, ‘Extraordinary Injustice’, The Investigative Fund, 27 February 2012, available at www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/international/1612/extraordinary_injustice/ (accessed 7 June 2016).

32 G. Wright, ‘Khmer Rouge Tribunal Charges Ta An with Genocide’, The Cambodia Daily, 15 March 2016.

33 DeFalco, supra note 26, at 56.

34 OCIJ Charges Im Chaem, supra note 24.

35 J. Ferrie, ‘Khmer Rouge crimes in legal limbo’, The National, 24 July 2011.

36 OCIJ Charges Yim Tih, supra note 24.

37 Prosecutor v. Ao An and Yim Tith, International Co-Prosecutor's Response to the International Co-Investigating Judge's call for Submissions Regarding Crimes Against Humanity, International Co-Prosecutor Amicus No. D306/2, 19 May 2016; Bassiouni, M.C., Crimes against Humanity: Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application (2011), 5–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discusses the purposes behind the creation of CAH, including the primary purpose stated above, as well as such purposes as an attempt to further the norms of warfare.

38 Amicus, ibid., paras. 10 and 14.

39 Bassiouni, M.C., Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law (1999), at 44–60 Google Scholar.

40 Prosecutor v. Martic, Appeal Judgement, ICTY Case No. IT-95-11-A, A.Ch., 8 October 2008, para. 299.

41 Schmitt, M.N., ‘Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance’, (2010) 50 (4) Virginia Journal of International Law 795 Google Scholar, at 798.

42 1949 Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 UNTS 287, Art. 4.

43 Ibid.

44 ‘Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949: Commentary of 1958’ (Art. 4, para. 4), International Committee of the Red Cross, available at ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/18e3ccde8be7e2f8c12563cd0042a50b (accessed 15 January 2017).

45 Bassiouni, supra note 39, at 61.

46 Case No. 35 (The Justice Trial: Trial of Josef Altstötter and Others), UNWCC, 30 November 1947.

47 Cassese, A., International Criminal Law: Cases and Commentary (2013), 154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Ibid., at 155.

49 A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (2003), 64.

50 ‘Joint Declaration by France, Great Britain and Russia’, Armenian National Institute, 24 May 1915, available at www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.160/current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html (accessed 5 July 2015).

51 Moir, L., ‘Crimes Against Humanity in Historical Perspective’, (2006) 3 New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 101 Google Scholar, at 108.

52 Cassese, supra note 49, at 64.

53 Amicus, supra note 37, para. 7.

54 Moir, supra note 51, at 109.

55 Amicus, supra note 37, para 7; Moir, supra note 51, at 112.

56 Wexler, L.S., ‘The Interpretation of the Nuremberg Principles by the French Court of Cassation: From Touvier to Barbie and Back Again’, (1994–1995) 32 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 289 Google Scholar, at 298.

57 Moir, supra note 51, at 112.

58 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis, Art. 6(c).

59 1945 Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and against Humanity, Art. II.

60 A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (2008), 118.

61 Dautricourt, J.Y., ‘Crime Against Humanity: European Views on Its Conception and Its Future’, (1949–1950) 40 (2) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 170 Google ScholarPubMed, at 174.

62 Resolution of the VIII Conference for the Unification of Penal Law, Brussels, 10 and 11 July 1947.

63 1950 Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations; and 1970 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 754 UNTS 73. Art. I(b).

64 ILC Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 1954 YILC, Vol. II, at 150–2.

65 E.g., ibid.

66 International Law Commission Report on the Nuremberg Principles, 5 UN GAOR, Supp. No. 12, UN Doc. A/1316 (1950).

67 Wexler, supra note 56, at 310.

68 Case No. 35, supra note 46; and In re Pilz. Holland, District Court of The Hague (Special Criminal Chamber), 21 December 1949; Special Court of Cassation, 5 July 1950.

69 Viout, J-O., ‘The Klaus Barbie Trial and Crimes against Humanity’, (1999) 3 Hofstra Law & Policy Symposium 155 Google Scholar, at 163.

70 Ibid., at 164.

71 Ibid., at 155–66 (emphasis added).

72 Doman, N.R., ‘Aftermath of Nuremberg: The Trial of Klaus Barbie’, (1989) 60 University of Colorado Law Review 449 Google Scholar, at 460–1.

73 Wexler, supra note 56, at 339.

74 Ibid., at 342.

75 Republic of France v. Paul Touvier, Cour d'appel de Paris, 13 April 1992, para. 352.

76 Bassiouni, supra note 39, at 61.

77 Case No. 35, supra note 46; and In re Pilz, Holland, supra note 68.

78 Cassese, supra note 60, at 122.

79 R. (StS 19/48) case, Supreme Court for the British Occupied Zone, 27 July 1948.

80 Ibid., at 47.

81 P. and others case, Germany, Supreme Court in the British Occupied Zone, 7 December 1948, at 228.

82 H. case, Germany, Supreme Court in the British Occupied Zone, 18 October 1949, at 233–4, 238, 241–4.

83 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1125 UNTS 3.

84 Ibid.

85 International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), para. 1909.

86 Bassiouni, supra note 39, at 198.

87 1994 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (as last amended on 13 October 2006), Art. 3.

88 1993 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (as amended on 17 May 2002), Art. 5.

89 Nuremberg Charter, supra note 58, Art. 6(c).

90 The Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-T, T. Ch., 2 October 1995, para. 141.

91 The Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Trial Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, T.Ch., 26 February 2001, para. 33.

92 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010), 2187 UNTS 3, Art. 7.

93 von Hebel, H. and Robinson, D., ‘Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the Court’, in Lee, R.S. (ed.) The International Criminal Court: The Making of The Rome Statute Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999), 97 Google Scholar.

94 For definition see J. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Law, Volume 1: Rules (2005), Rule 47.

95 The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Trial Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 2 September 1998, para. 582.

96 The Prosecutor v. Kayishema, Trial Judgement, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, T. Ch. II, 21 May 1999, para. 127 (emphasis in original).

97 The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Trial Judgement, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, T.Ch. I, 18 December 2008, paras. 2175 and 2239; and The Prosecutor v. Ndindiliyimana et al., Trial Judgement, Case No. ICTR-00-56-T, T.Ch. II, 17 May 2011, paras. 2095–6 and 2140.

98 The Prosecutor v. Ndindiliyimana, Nzuwonemeye, Sagahutu, Appeal Judgement, Case No. ICTR-00-56-A, A.Ch., 11 February 2014, para. 216.

99 The Prosecutor v. Tadić, Trial Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-T, T.Ch., 7 May 1997, para. 643.

100 The Prosecutor v. Kupreškíc, Trial Judgement, Case No. IT-95-16, T.Ch., 14 January 2000, para. 547.

101 Ambos, K. and Wirth, S., ‘The Current law of Crimes Against Humanity: An Analysis of UNTAET Regulation 15/2000’, (2002) 13 (1) Criminal Law forum 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 22.

102 The Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Trial Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14, T.Ch., 3 March 2000, para. 214.

103 The Prosecutor v. Martić, Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-95-11, A.Ch., 8 October 2008, para. 300.

104 The Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14-A, A.Ch., 29 July 2004, para. 113.

105 Mrkšić, supra note 9, para. 461.

106 Ibid., para. 460.

107 The Prosecutor v. Martić, Trial Judgement Case No. IT-95-11-T, T. Ch., 12 June 2007, para. 56; Martić Appeal Judgement, supra note 103, paras. 273 et seq.

108 The Prosecutor v. Katanga, Trial Judgment, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, T.Ch. II, 7 March 2014, para. 801.

109 R. Bartels, ‘Two Cheers for the ICTY Popovic et al. Appeals Judgment: Some Words on the Interplay Between IHL and ICL’, EJIL: Talk!, 4 February 2015, available at www.ejiltalk.org/two-cheers-for-the-icty-popovic-et-al-appeals-judgement-some-words-on-the-interplay-between-ihl-and-icl/ (accessed 6 June 2016).

110 Ambos and Wirth, supra note 101, at 25.

111 Ibid., at 25 (emphasis added).

112 Tadić case, supra note 99, para. 638; Akayesu case, supra note 95, para. 582, n. 146; The Prosecutor v. Bemba Gombo, Trial Judgment, Case No. ICC-01/05 -01/08, T.Ch. III, 21 March 2016, para. 153.

113 Katanga case, supra note 108, para. 802.

114 Luban, D. ‘A Theory of Crimes Against Humanity’, (2004) 29 (1) Yale Journal of International Law 85 Google Scholar, at 101 (footnote 59).

115 Amicus, supra note 37, para. 10.

116 Wright, supra note 32.

117 OCIJ Charges Yim Tith, supra note 24.

118 Case 001 and Case 002/01, supra note 4.

119 See Viout, supra note 69.

120 Touvier case, supra note 75.

121 R. (StS 19/48) case, supra note 79.

122 P. and others case, supra note 81.

123 H. case, supra note 82.

124 Cassese, supra note 60, at 122; and Dautricourt, supra note 61, at 170.

125 Akayesu, supra note 95, para. 582.

126 Blaškić, supra note 102.

127 Case 003, Call for Submissions, supra note 3, para. 5.

128 Viout, supra note 69, at 164.

129 Case 003, Call for Submissions, supra note 3, para. 5.

130 Luban, supra note 114.

131 Singh, H., ‘Critique of the Mrkšić Trial Chamber (ICTY) Judgment: A Re-evaluation on Whether Soldiers Hors de Combat Are Entitled to Recognition as Victims of Crimes Against Humanity’, (2009) 8 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 247–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

132 See Kupreškíc case, supra note 100, paras. 547–9; The Prosecutor v. Jelisíc, Trial Judgement, Case No. IT-95-10-T, T.Ch., 14 December 1999, para. 54.