Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:38:41.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

War Crimes in Non-international Armed Conflicts under the Statute of the International Criminal Court1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Djamchid Momtaz
Get access

Extract

International humanitarian law applicable in non-international armed conflicts has long been characterized by the absence of universal competence to suppress serious violations of its provisions. This failure has been due to the reluctance of states – which are naturally prone to consider any limitation of their exclusive competence in this field as a threat to their sovereignty – to criminalize such acts under international law.

The first attempt at remedying such a situation was seen in the Draft Statute of an International Criminal Court (ICC), which was prepared by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 1994, and inspired by the draft articles of the Code of Crimes against the Peace and International Security of Mankind, provisionally adopted by the ILC in 1991 at first reading. Under the Draft Statute of the ICC, serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts would be under the jurisdiction of the Court. The ILC had in mind exceptionally serious war crimes, such as those described in the pertinent article of the draft code referred to by the Commission, constituting an extremely grave violation of the principles and laws of international law applicable in armed conflicts. In the commentary on this article, the ILC took care to specify that the expression ‘armed conflict’ covered the non-international armed conflicts that are the focus of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as international armed conflicts.

This first step was of very limited scope. In fact, according to the ILC, in order to be criminalized, the laws and customs of war had to find their origin in general customary international law.

Type
Symposium on the International Criminal Court
Information
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law , Volume 2 , December 1999 , pp. 177 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 1999

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

3. A/49/355, 1 September 1994.

4. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 46th Session. General Assembly Official Records, Supplement Nr. 10. Doc. A/46/10 (1991).

5. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 46th session. UN GAOR 45th Session. Supplement Nr. 10. Doc. A/49/10 (1994). For commentary, see Crawford, J., ‘The ILC Adopts a Statute for an International Criminal Court’, 89 AJIL (1995) pp. 404–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. See Art 22 para. 2; Rapport de la Commission du droit international sur les travaux de sa 43ème session. AG Doc. off. 46ème session. Supplément Nr. 10 Doc. A/46/10 (1991) p. 293. Examples of what would be considered as an exceptionally serious war crime are given in the ILC commentary on Art 22: wilful killing; torture; biological experiments; taking of hostages; injustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war at the end of active hostilities; compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, and ordering the displacement of the civilian population.

7. Ibid., p. 295.

8. Rapport de la Commission du droit international sur les travaux de sa 46ème session, AG Doc. off. 49ème session, Supplément Nr. 10 Doc. A/49/10 (1994) p. 80.

9. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US) Merits (1986) ICJ Rep. para. 218 (Judgment of 27 June).

10. See Condorelli, L., ‘La Cour pénale internationale: un pas de géant (pourvu qu'il soit accompli)’, 103 Revue Générale de droit international public (1999) p. 13Google Scholar.

11. Known by the name of the ‘like-minded group’ were some 50 developing states and medium-size powers. See Kirsch, P. and Holmes, J.T., ‘The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: the Negotiating Process’, 93 AJIL (1999) p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. See, for example, the ICRC's working paper for the Preparatory Commission for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 14 February 1997, pp. 24–33.

13. Report of the Inter-Sessional Meeting from 19 to 30 January 1998 in Zutphen, the Netherlands. A/AC.249/L.13, 4 February (1998) pp. 21–32.

14. See Statement of the Minister of Justice of South Africa at the Diplomatic Conference on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) (Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Lesotho, Mozambique, Mauritius, Seychelles, Namibia, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa). Press release L/Rom/7, 15 June 1998. Joint statement of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Sierra Leone, Terra Viva Nr. 20 Rome 10 July 1998. In response to the question raised by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole of the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentaries, Philippe Kirsch, 73 states declared themselves in favor of the extension of the competence of the International Criminal Court to crimes committed during non-international armed conflicts, whereas 16 states were opposed to it. Terra Viva, Nr. 21 Rome, 13 07 1998Google Scholar.

15. The position adopted by China and India amongst others.

16. Hall, C.K., ‘The fifth Session of the UN Preparatory Committee on the establishment of an International Criminal Court’, 92 AJIL (1998) p. 331CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Switzerland-New Zealand Proposal. A/AC 249/1997/WG.1/DP.2 (1997).

18. A/RES 2444 (XXIII) 19 December 1968, ‘Respect des droits de l'homme en période de conflits armés’, and A/RES 2675 (XXV) 9 December 1970, ‘Problèmes fondamentaux touchant la protection des populations civiles en période de conflits armés’.

19. The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94–1-AR72. Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (2 October 1995) Hereinafter Tadić Jurisdiction Decision.

20. Ibid., paras. 96–136.

21. Meron, Th., ‘The Continuing Role of Custom in the Formation of International Humanitarian Law’, 90 AJIL (1996) p. 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, supra n. 19, at para. 126.

23. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, supra n. 19, paras. 96–127. See Greenwood, C., ‘International Humanitarian Law and the Tadić Case’, 7 EJIL (1996) p. 278CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ascencio, H. and Pellet, A., ‘L'activité du Tribunal Pénal International pour l'ex Yougoslavie (1993–1995)’, 41 AFDI (1995) p. 131Google Scholar.

24. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, ibid., para. 94. M.S. See, ‘La première décision de la Chambre d'appel du Tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie. Tadić (compétence)’, 100 Revue Générale de Droit International Public (1996) p. 125 and Meron, loc. cit. n. 21 at p. 244.

25. The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Opinion and Judgment, Case No. IT-94–1-T, 7 May 1997, para. 617.

26. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, supra n. 19, para. 126. See Bretton, P., ‘Actualités du Droit International Humanitaire applicable dans les conflits armés’, in L'évolution du droit international Mélanges: offerts à Hubert Thierry (Paris, Pédone 1998) p. 63Google Scholar.

27. Cf., Res. 3074 XXVII adopted on 30 November 1973 following the recommendation of the Economic and Social Council relative to the detection and punishment of individuals guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity, foreseeing the application of the principle of aut dedere aut judicare for the presumed authors of those crimes. See David, E., ‘Méthode et formes de participation des Nations Unies à l'élaboration du droit international humanitaire’, in The United Nations and International Humanitarian Law (Paris, Pédone 1996) p. 92Google Scholar.

28. The Security Council considers serious violations of international humanitarian law, whether committed in non-international or international armed conflicts, as capable of constituting a threat to international peace and security. See for example, the Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993) (Presented 3 May 1993), S/25704, para. 10. Reprinted in Basic Documents of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (United Nations 1995) pp. 157 at 163Google Scholar. Indeed, this argument was the legal basis used by the Secretary-General to create both ad hoc Tribunals. See L. Kama, ‘Le Tribunal penal international pour le Rwanda and la repression des crimes de guerre’, in The United Nations and International Humanitarian Law, ibid., p. 254.

29. SC Res. 693 (1991) Salvador, SC Res. 864 (1993) Angola; SC Res. 912 (Rwanda); and SC Res. 918 (Rwanda).

30. Tavernier, P., ‘Vers une juridiction pénale internationale’, in Mutations internationales et evolutions des normes (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France 1994) p. 149Google Scholar.

31. See SC Res. 771 (1992); SC Res. 1012 (1995).

32. UN SC Presidential Statement 1994/12.

33. SC Res. 794 (1992) para. 5 – SC Res. 814 (1993) para. 13.

34. SC Res. 1087(1996).

35. SC Res. 935(1994).

36. Meron, Th., ‘International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities’, 89 AJIL (1995) pp. 554–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Graditzky, T., ‘La responsabilité pénale individuelle pour violation du droit international humanitaire applicable en situation de conflit armé non international’, RICR no. 823 (1998) pp. 29–57Google Scholar.

38. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A/CONF. 183/9, 17 July 1998.

39. Art. 8 para. 2 (c) of the Statute.

40. Art. 8 para. 2 (e) of the Statute.

41. Report of the Commission of International Law on the work of its 48th session. AG Doc. off. 51th session Supplement Nr. 10 Doc. (A/51/10) pp. 139–140. Abi-Saab, R., ‘Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Internal Conflicts’, in Warner, D., ed., Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1997) p. 114Google Scholar.

42. Art. 4 para. 3 (c).

43. Art. 38 paras. 2 and 3.

44. ‘L'implication des enfants dans les conflits armés’, RICR no. 829 (1998) pp. 111–132Google Scholar.

45. Terra Viva no. 14, 2 July 1998.

46. Art. 8(2)(b)(xxxvi) [international armed conflicts] and Art. 8(2)(e)(vii) [non-international armed conflicts].

47. Ibid.

48. Art. 26 of the Statute.

49. Art. 8(2)(e)(i) of the Statute.

50. Art. 8(2)(e)(viii) of the Statute.

51. Art. 8(2)(e)(ii) of the Statute.

52. Art. 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Statute.

53. Art. 8(2)(e)(xii) of the Statute.

54. Art. 8(2)(e)(vi) of the Statute.

55. According to Art. 7(e) of the Statute, by forced pregnancy is meant the illegal detention of a pregnant woman by force, with the intention of modifying the ethnic composition of a population or committing any other serious violations of international law.

56. In its Report dated 29 April 1999 (A/54/87), the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations stressed that all personnel associated with United Nations mandated peacekeeping operations should strictly observe the norms of international humanitarian law and urged the Secretariat to finalize appropriate guidelines for peacekeepers. These guidelines, entitled ‘Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law’, were released on 6 August 1999 as a Secretary-General's Bulletin. ST/SGB/1999/13. Reprinted at p. 563 of this volume.

57. Arsanjani, M., ‘Defending the Blue Helmets: Protection of the U.N. Personnel in the U.N. and International Humanitarian Law’, in The United Nations and International Humanitarian Law, loc. cit n. 27, pp. 117–147Google Scholar.

58. Report of the Commission of International Law on the work of its 48th session. AG Doc. off. 51th session Supplement Nr. 10 Doc. N.U. (A/51/10) p. 125.

59. See Annuaire de l'Institut du droit international, the Edinburgh session, Vol. 53 II, p. 375.

60. GA Res. 26 74 (XXV) para. 5.

61. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, supra n. 19 at para. 119.

62. This is the case with two recent Conventions, namely, the Paris Convention on the Prohibition of the Development of Chemical Weapons and their Destruction of 13 January 1993 and the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and On Their Destruction of 18 September 1997.

63. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, supra n. 19, para. 216. See David, E., ‘Le Tribunal international pénal pour l'ex-Yougoslavie’, 25 Belgian Revue of international law (1992) pp. 576–577Google Scholar

64. The draft articles for a Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind adopted during the first reading incriminate the use of illegal weapons during armed conflicts without distinction. Article 22 of the draft code names war crimes of exceptional gravity. Report of the Commission of International Law on the work of its 43th session. AG Doc. off. 46th session. Supplement Nr. 10 Doc. (A/46/10) (1991), p. 270.

65. Art. 8 para. 2 (b) XX.

66. SC Res. 794 (1992) para. 5.

67. Art. 22 para. 3 of the Statute.

68. Art. 10 provides: ‘Nothing in this Part shall be interpreted as limiting or prejudicing in any way existing or developing rules of international law for purposes other than this Statute.’

69. The trial of Major Criminals: Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal Sitting at Nuremberg,Germany, Part 22 at p. 447 (1950)Google Scholar cited in Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, supra n. 19 at para. 128. Meindersma, C., ‘Violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as violations of the Laws or Customs of War under Article 3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, 42 NILR (1995) p. 380CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, supra n. 19, paras. 118, 119–127.

71. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, ibid., n. 19 at para. 128.

72. Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, ibid., para. 89. See Th. Meron, loc. cit. n. 21, p. 243.

73. Cassesse, A., ‘The International Criminal Tribunal of the Former Yugoslavia and the implementation of International Humanitarian Law’, in The United Nations and International Humanitarian Law, loc. cit. n. 27, p. 239Google Scholar.

74. T. Graditzky, loc. cit n. 37, pp. 35–36.

75. Loi du 16 juin 1993 relative à la repression des infractions graves aux Conventions internationales de Genève du 12 août 1949 et aux Protocols I et II du 8 juin 1977, additionnels a ces Convention. Published in Moniteur belge (1993). Reprinted in an unofficial English translation at p. 541 of this volume.

76. David, E., ‘La loi belge sur les crimes de guerre’, 28 Belgian revue of international law (1995) pp. 668–671Google Scholar.

77. Cf., Case of Spain and others cited by Thomas Graditzky, loc. cit. n. 37, pp. 39–44.

78. Regina v. Brocklebank, Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, 2 April 1996 (Court File No. CMAC-383). 106 Canadian Criminal Cases (3d) at p. 234. For commentary thereon, see Boustany, K., ‘Brocklebank: A Questionable Decision of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada’, 1 YIHL. (1998) p. 371CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79. Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts — Manual — Federal Ministry of Defense of the Federal Republic of Germany (August 1992) para. 1209. Starvation of the civilian population is also criminalised as a war crime in the Slovenian Penal Code, Art 374, which applies in times of armed conflict or peace. Slovene Penal Code, Chapter 35, Criminal Offences Against Humanity and International Law. Official Gazette of Slovenia Nr. 63, 13 October 1994. Entered into force 1 January 1995.

80. Kama, L., ‘Le Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda et la répression des crimes de guerre,’ in The United Nations and International Humanitarian Law, loc. cit. n. 27, pp. 225–257Google Scholar.

81. Art. 123.

82. Pellet, A., ‘Pour la Cour pénale Internationale quand même! Quelques remarques sur sa compétence et sa saisine’, L'observateur des Nations Unies (1998) p. 154Google Scholar. See Art. 8 para. 2(d) and (f) of the Statute.

83. See Momtaz, D., ‘Les règles humanitaires minimales applicables en période de troubles et de tensions internes’, IRRC no. 831 (1998) pp. 487–495Google Scholar.

84. Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.