Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:40:24.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doctrine of Command Responsibility in International Law With Emphasis on Liability for Failure to Punish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Bing Bing Jia
Get access

Extract

The theory of command responsibility is established in the field of international humanitarian law. The practical problems for the application of the theory were especially highlighted in the General Yamashita case, decided by a United States military commission in Manila in October 1945. Defence counsel in the case stated that the theory, as relied upon by the commission, was new law at that point in time, because it asserted that criminal responsibility of a commander would arise even if he was relevant to the crimes committed by his subordinates only by reason of his capacity qua their commander.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , December 1998 , pp. 325 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 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 Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. IV (selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, H.M. Stationary Office, London, 1947–1949) (Law Reports).Google Scholar

2. Ibid., p. 28.

3. Case No. IT-95–14-T, Amended Indictment against Blaskic, 22 November 1996, paras. 5.7 et seq. The original was issued in November 1995, and the General first appeared before the Tribunal on 3 April 1996.

4. Defence Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Indictment Alleging ‘Failure to Punish’ Liability, 4 December 1996.

5. Ibid., p. 36.

6. Defence Motion in Limine Regarding Mens Rea Required for Charges alleging Command Responsibility and for Bill of Particulars re Command Responsibility Portions of Indictment, 4 December 1996. Cf. also, the Defence Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based upon defects in the Form of Indictment, 16 December 1996.

7. W. Parks, ‘Command Responsibility for War Crimes’, 62 Military Law Review (1973) p. 1 at pp. 2–5.

8. E.g., Art. 43 of the Annex of the Hague Convention IV of 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

9. The Trial of Captain Wirz (1865), reported in L., Friedman, The Law of War: A Documentary History, Vol. 1 (New York, Random House 1972) p. 783.Google Scholar

10. See 6 Reports of International Arbitral Awards (1965) p. 160, Zafiro Claim (1925).

11. Art.1(1), Annex to the Convention, ‘Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land’.

12. See A., Roberts and R., Guelff, Documents on the Laws and War, 2nd edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1989) p. 44.Google Scholar

13. Report of the UN Secretary-General pursuant to para. 2 of SC Res. 808 (1993) (S/25704), presented on 3 May 1993, paras. 41–44.

14. Parks, loc. cit. n. 7, p. 13.

15. Friedman, op. cit. n. 9, pp. 868, 870 and 878.

16. Ibid., pp. 880, 882.

17. Contra Parks, loc. cit. n. 7, p. 14.

18. Art. 6. Also, Art. 5 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

19. Law Reports, Vol. IV, p. 87.

20. Law Reports, Vol. I, pp. 108–109.

21. Law Reports, Vol. IV, pp. 128–129.

22. Ibid, p. 88.

23. Ibid., Art. 27(3) of the Law of July 1947.

24. F., Reel, The Case of General Yamashita (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 1949) pp. 41, 84–85, 88, 92 and 118–119.Google Scholar

25. Law Reports, Vol. IV, p. 35.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Cited in Parks, loc. cit. n. 7, pp. 32–33.

29. 327 US 1,14–15.

30. Ibid., 15.

31. The text of the 1929 Convention can be found in League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 118, pp. 343–411.Google Scholar

32. 327 US 17, and fn. 4.

33. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 1946–1949, Vol. XI (Washington D.C., US Government Printing Office 1950) pp. 543–544.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., p. 544.

35. Ibid., p. 555. Cf., the finding concerning General von Kuechler, pp. 568–569; as to General Hollidt, pp. 626–27.

36. Ibid., p. 1260.

37. Ibid., p. 1272.

38. Ibid.

39. ‘Official Transcript’, p. 48 at pp. 442–447, reproduced in Pritchard, R.J. and Zaide, S.M., eds., The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Vol. 20 (New York, Garland Publishing Inc. 1981)Google Scholar. Also, B.V.A., Röling and C.F., Rüter, The Tokyo Judgment, Vol. 1 (Amsterdam, APA-University Press Amsterdam BV 1977) pp. 29–31.Google Scholar

40. ‘Official Transcript’, p. 49 at pp. 845–846.

41. Ibid., p. 49 at p. 848.

42. US Department of Army, The Law of Land Warfare (FM 27–10, 1956), para. 501.

43. ‘The Peers Inquiry Report’, reported in Goldstein, J., Marshall, B. and Schwartz, J., eds.,The My Lai Massacre and Its Cover-Up: Beyond the Reach of Law? (New York, The Free Press, 1976) pp.19 et seq., esp. chap. 12, p. 314. The inquiry was conducted by Major General W. Peers internally within the Army and the Report was submitted in 1970 to the overall US Commander in Vietnam.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., pp. 321–324.

45. Cf., Friedmann, op. cit. n. 9, Vol. II, pp. 1729 et seq.

46. Ibid., p. 1732.

47. United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), Vol. 75, pp. 31, 85, 135 and 287.

48. Cf., however, L. Green, ‘Command Responsibility in International Law’, 5 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems (1995) pp. 319, 341.

49. Identical provisions in the Geneva Conventions II (Art. 50), III (Art. 129), and IV (Art. 146).

50. Identical provisions in the Geneva Conventions II (Art. 52), III (Art. 131), IV (Art. 148).

50. 1125 UNTS pp. 3 and 609.

52. Report of the Work of the Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, 2nd session, 3 May-3 June 1972, Vol. I (Report). The Conference drew 400 experts from 77 States Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

53. Ibid., p. 187, para. 4.118.

54. Ibid., fn. 57.

55. Ibid., pp. 187–88, para. 4.119.

56. Ibid., p. 188, para. 4.122.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid., paras. 4.126 and 4.127, esp. Art. 75B(1).

59. Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Official Records), published by the Swiss Federal Political Department, Bern, 1978, 17 Vols.

60. Official Records, Vol. IX, p. 18, para. 14 (CDDH/I/SR.43, 23 April 1976).

61. Ibid., p. 33, para. 33 (CDDH/I/SR.44, 26 April 1976).

62. Ibid., para. 39.

63. Ibid., p. 45, para. 9 (CDDH/I/SR.45, 27 April 1976).

64. Ibid., pp. 113–114 (CDDH/I/SR.50, 4 May 1976).

65. Ibid., p. 114, para. 31.

66. Ibid., p. 116, para. 41.

67. Ibid., p. 117, para. 47.

68. Ibid., Syria (para. 51), Argentina (para. 55) and Japan (para. 59).

69. Ibid., p. 119, para. 65. For the text of the US amendment, see Official Records, Vol. III, p. 329.Google Scholar

70. Ibid., p. 120, para. 68.

71. Ibid., para. 69.

72. Ibid., para. 72.

73. Ibid., p. 124, para. 7 (CDDH/I/SR.51, 5 May 1976).

74. Ibid., p. 126, para. 13.

75. Ibid., p. 278, para. 59.

76. Ibid., p. 392, para. 20 (CDDH/I/SR.70, 28 April 1977)

77. Ibid., paras. 21 and 24.

78. Ibid., p. 393, paras. 28–29.

79. Ibid., para. 30.

80. Ibid., p. 399, para. 2.

81. Ibid., p. 401, para. 14.

82. Ibid., p. 402, para. 17.

83. Ibid., p. 406, para. 37.

84. Ibid., p. 412, para. 60.

85. Official Records, Vol. VI, p. 307.

86. Ibid., pp. 334–335.

87. Cf., C., Y.Sandoz, Swinarski, and Zimmermann, B., eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Geneva, Martinus Nijhoff 1987) p. 1015, para. 3548.Google Scholar

88. Roberts and Guelff, op. cit. n. 12, p. 463.

89. Ibid., pp. 464–465.

90. Ibid., p. 465. The Netherlands concurred in this statement: ibid., p. 466.

91. Cf., the British Army Act 1955, s. 84(2). As for the structure of the US military justice system, see Commander E.M., Byrne, Military Law, 2nd edn. (Indianapolis, US Naval Institute Press 1991) pp. 14–15. Also, Art. 1213 of the German Manual of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Z Dv 15/2, Federal Ministry of Defence, 1992.Google Scholar

92. This is the effect of Art. 86(1) requiring the States Parties to repress grave breaches of the Protocol, and of Art. 88 concerning mutual assistance between the States Parties in criminal matters.

93. See Response of the Prosecutor to the defence Motion in Limine regarding Mens Rea, dated 20 January 1997, p. 7 and pp. 9 et seq.

94. See supra n. 13, para. 29.

95. Ibid., paras. 35, 37,41–45.

96. Ibid., para. 34. Cf., The Prosecutor v. Tadic, Judgment of the Appeals Chamber (2 October 1995), para. 94.

97. ICJ Rep. (1986) p. 14, paras. 174–179.

98. Section 2 supra.

99. Cf., the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ICJ Rep. (1969) p. 3, paras. 63, 66 and 69.