Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T19:14:48.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Claude C. Emanuelli
Claude C. Emanuelli*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Get access

Summary

This comment takes a critical look at the method used by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its study of customary humanitarian law. It argues that the ICRC study reduces the concept of international custom to its definition under Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. It also argues that the study overlooks some of the problems raised by the application of Article 38. It contends that the positions taken by the ICRC to identify customary rules of humanitarian law are somewhat ambiguous and even slanted. Finally, this comment suggests that, beyond questioning the ICRC study, it is the role of custom as a source of international law that is in question.

Sommaire

Sommaire

Ce commentaire aborde d’un oeil critique la méthode utilisée par le CICR dans son étude du droit humanitaire coutumier. Il affirme que l’étude de la CICR se limite à la conception du droit coutumier telle qu’énoncée à l’article 38 du Statut de la Cour internationale de justice. Il affirme en outre que l’étude ne prête pas attention aux problèmes inhérents à l’application de l’article 38. Il prétend que les conclusions tirées par la CICR afin d’identifier les règles coutumières du droit humanitaire sont parfois ambiguës et même tendancieuses. Au delà des questions qui entourent l’étude de la CICR, ce commentaire conclut en s’interrogeant sur le rôle de la coutume comme source du droit international.

Type
Notes and Comments / Notes et commentaires
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 44 , 2007 , pp. 437 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 2007

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 Geneva Conventions, 12 August 1949, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.

2 Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume 1: Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Introduction” at xxviii-xxix; and Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, “A Contribution to the Understanding and Respect for the Rule of Law in Armed Conflict” (2005) 857 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 175 at 177–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 177.

4 Thus, the second purpose of the study was “to determine whether customary international law regulates non-international armed conflict in more detail than does treaty law and if so, to what extent.” Ibid. at 178.

5 International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August-1 September 1993, “Final Declaration” (1993) 296 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 381, cited in Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxvii; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 176.

6 Meeting of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 23–27 January 1995, “Recommendation II,” (1996) 310 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 84, cited in Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxvii; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 176.

7 Twenty-sixth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, “Resolution 1: International Humanitarian Law: From Law to Action,” Report on the Follow-Up to the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims (1996) 310 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 58, cited in Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxvii; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 176.

8 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2.

9 See Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 187–97.

10 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 (1979), 16 I.L.M. 1391 (1977); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 (1979), 16 I.L.M. 1442 (1977); and Roberts, Adam and Guelff, Richard, eds., Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd edition, Documents 24 and 25 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

11 See Patrick Kelly, J., “The Twilight Of Customary International Law” (2000) 40 Virginia J. Int’l L. 449 at 453 and 461–65.Google Scholar

12 For example, Eritrea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines (bound only by Protocol II), Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.

13 Henckaerts and Dowwald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxi-xlv; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 178–84.

14 Statute of the International Court of Justice, Can. T.S. 1945, No.7.

15 Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 178 and 183; and Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxii and xliv.

16 See Daniel Bethlehem, Q.C., director of the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, The ICRC Customary Law Study: An Assessment, remarks made on 18 April 2005 at the Conference on the Law of Armed Conflict: Problems and Prospects, Chatham House, 18–19 April 2005, <http://www.riia.org/viewdocument.php?documentid=5819> at 2 and 7.

17 “The Court… shall apply:… international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.”

18 Kelly, supra note 11 at 449, 450, 454–55, 458 ff., 473, 478–79, 484 ff., 499, and 516–17.

19 Ibid. at 458, 508 ff..

20 S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), [1927] P.C.I.J. Rep. (Ser. A) No. 10 (7 September).

21 Case Concerning North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), [ 1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3 at para. 77 (20 February) [North Sea]. See also Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 14 at para. 207 (27 June) [Nicaragua].

22 See Kelly, supra note 11 at 499-501 and511–16.

23 See foreword by Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at x; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 178.

24 See Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Merits, [1960] I.C.J. Rep. 6 (12 April). At the domestic level, see The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900); and Goldsmith, Jack L. and Posner, Eric A., “Understanding the Resemblance between Modern and Traditional Customary International Law” (2000) 40 Virginia J. Int’l L. 639 at 641–54.Google Scholar

25 Kelly, supra note 11 at 500 ff.; and Goldsmith and Posner, supra note 24 at 660.

26 Kelly, supra note 11 at 491–92 and 503 ff..

27 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxviii; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 180.

28 Nicaragua, supra note 21 at para. 186.

29 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxvii; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 180.

30 Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others — ex parte Pinochet, 38 I.L.M. 581 ( 1999) [Pinochet]; and Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 at paras. 62 ff.

31 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgement, no. IT-95-17/1 (10 December 1998) at para. 153 (T.C. II); Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Judgment, no. IT-96-23 & 23/1 (22 February 2001) at para. 466 (T.C.I.); and Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, no. 35763/ 97 (21 November 2001) E.C.H.R., [2002] 34 E.H.R.R. 273 (21 November 2001).

32 Amnesty International, Combating Torture: A Manual for Action (London: Amnesty International, 2003), at 2, <http:www.amnesty.org/resources/pdf/combating torture/combating torture.pdf>.

33 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxiii-xxxiv.

34 North Sea, supra note 21 at para. 74.

35 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxviii; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 180.

36 Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 180; and Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxix.

37 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxviii; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 181 .

38 Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 179-80; and Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxvi.

39 Kelly, supra note 11 at 500 ff..

40 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxiv; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 179.

41 Kelly, supra note 11 at 506. Possible exceptions may exist with respect to military and prize courts.

42 For example, see Pinochet, supra note 30; and Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

43 Kelly, supra note 11 at 477.

44 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxiv; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 179.

45 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxiv; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 179.

46 Kelly, supra note 11 at 476 [footnotes omitted].

47 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxiv; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 179.

48 Kelly, supra note 11 at 529–30.

49 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxv-xxxvi; and Henckaerts, supra note 2 at 179.

50 Nicaragua, supra note 21 at paras. 188 ff..

51 Kelly, supra note 11 at 486 and 506–7.

52 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xxxv.

53 Bugnion, François, The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Protection of War Victims (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 2003) at 1121 ff.Google Scholar; and Lorite Escorihuela, A., “Le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge comme organisation sui generis? Remarques sur la personnalité juridique internationale du CICR” (2001) 105 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 581.Google Scholar

54 Foreword by Dr. Abdul Koroma, “Judge at the International Court ofJustice,” in Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 2 at xii.

55 Kelly, supra note 11 at 450–51 .

56 Ibid. at 458–59, 460, 469, 475, 478, 483, 486–87, 492–93, 497–98, 501–2, 507, 516–17, 519–20, 523, and 538–39.

57 Bethlehem, supra note 16 at 4–7.