Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T13:59:43.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual criminal responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law committed in non-international armed conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2010

Thomas Graditzky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two prominent events that occurred midway through this century had a great impact on international criminal law. The first milestone in this area was the trials of the major war criminals held in Nuremberg and Tokyo in the wake of the Second World War. They highlighted the principle of individual criminal responsibility for certain serious violations of the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict; the terms “crimes against the peace”, “war crimes”, and “crimes against humanity” found formal recognition. The second event, following closely on the first, was the adoption of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims. These instruments established a specific framework for the prevention and punishment of the most serious violations of the provisions they contain; the technical term “grave breach” was coined.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 38 , Issue 322 , March 1998 , pp. 29 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 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 With the exception of the internal dimension of crimes against humanity.

2 See the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion of 18 May 1951, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (hereinafter ICJ Reports), 1951, p. 23.

3 Case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 July 1996, para. 31 (not yet published).

4 UN Doc. S/25704, Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), 3 May 1993, p. 13, para. 47.

5 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a “Dale”: Decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction. Decision of 2 October 1995, Case No. IT-94–1-AR72, p. 72, para. 141.

6 See Meron, T., “International criminalization of internal atrocities”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 89, 1995, pp. 559–562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

7 See Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports, 1986, paras 220 and 255, pp. 114 and 129.

8 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, in The Trial of German Major War Criminals: Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, Part 22, London, 1950, p. 447.Google Scholar

9 Op. cit. (note 4), p. 11, para. 37.

10 UN Doc. A/CONF.169/NGO/ICRC/1, Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Cairo, Egypt, Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross, 30 April 1995 (Topic IV), p. 4.

11 Tadic decision, op. cit. (note 5), p. 48, para. 84.

12 UN Doc. S/1994/674 (annex), Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), 27 May 1994, p. 13, para. 42.

13 For example: David, E., “Le Tribunal international pénal pour l'ex-Yougoslavie”, Revue beige de droit international, 1992, pp. 574–575.Google Scholar

14 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, loc. cit. (note 8), pp. 445–447.

15 Statement by Mrs Albright (United States) during the 3217th meeting of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3217, 25 May 1993, p. 15.

16 Statement by Mr Mérimée (France) at the same meeting, ibid., p. 11.

17 Statement by Sir David Hannay (United Kingdom), ibid., pp. 17–18.

18 Statement by Mr Erdos (Hungary) (italics added), ibid., p. 20.

19 Statement by Mr Yafiez-Barnuevo (Spain), ibid., pp. 39–40.

20 On these statements see also the Tadic decision, loc. cit. (note 5), pp. 44–45, para. 75, and p. 54, para. 88.

21 See Submission of the Government of the United States of America concerning Certain Arguments made by Counsel for the Accused in the Case of The Prosecutor of the Tribunal v. Dusan Tadic (Case No. IT-94-I-T), 17 July 1995, pp. 35–36.

22 Joint Statement of 6 August 1992, Official Journal of the European Communities, Commission, No. 7/8, 1992, pp. 108–109.

23 Joint Statement of 5 October 1992, op. cit., No. 10, 1992, pp. 91, and Joint Statement of 2 November 1992, op. cit., No. 11, 1992, p. 102.

24 Council Decision 94/697/CFSP concerning the common position adopted on the basis of Article J.2 of the Treaty on European Union on the objectives and priorities of the European Union vis-à-vis Rwanda, op. cit., No. 10, 24 October 1994, p. 48.

25 (Deutsches) Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten, Handbuch, August 1992, para. 1209 (also in English: Federal Ministry of Defence, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Manual, August 1992). However, a commentary on this manual specifies that Protocol II does not provide for a system of grave breaches and that the repression of violations of the rules of Protocol II ensues solely from national criminal law. Rüdiger Wolfrum, “Zur Durchsetzung des humanitären Völkerrechts”, in D. Fleck, ed., Handbook des humanitaren Volkerrechts in bewaffneten Konflikten, Munich, 1994, paras 1201 and 1209 (also in English: Fleck, D., ed., Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar . The limits imposed by German criminal law on prevention and punishment are discussed below.

26 Annotated Supplement to The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 9 (REV.A)/FMFM 1–10, Washington D.C., 1989, para. 6.2.5. Issued by the Office of the Judge Advocate General and consisting mainly of legal references added to the text of the handbook itself, this supplement is not an official publication of the Department of the Navy or the United States government. Moreover, it will be recalled that the United States is not party to the Additional Protocols.

27 “Sono considerati crimini di guerre anche le infrazioni gravi alle Convenzioni internazionali ed ai Protocolli aggiuntivi alle stesse.” Difesa, Stato Maggiore della, Manuale di diritto umanitario (Vol. I: Usi e Conventioni di Guerra), Rome, 1991, p. 28, para. 85.Google Scholar

28 War Office, The Law of War on Land, Part III of the Manual of Military Law, 1958, para. 626.

29 Department of the Army, The Law of Land Warfare, FM 27–10, 1956, para. 499.

30 Forces, Canadian, Law of Armed Conflict Manual, Second Draft, 1988, paras 1701–1704.Google Scholar

31 “Loi relative à la répression des infractions graves aux Conventions internationals de Genève du 12 août 1949 et aux Protocoles I et II du 8 juin 1977, additionnels à ces Conventions (16 June 1993)”, in Moniteur beige, 5 August 1993, pp. 17751–17755.Google Scholar

32 Andries, A., David, E., Van Den Wijngaert, C., Verhaegen, J., “Commentaire de la loi du 16 juin 1993 relative à la répression des infractions graves au droit international humanitaire”, Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie, 1994, p. 1133 Google Scholar , para. 2.24 (ICRC translation).

33 David, E., “La loi beige sur les crimes de guerre”, Revue beige de droit international, Vol. XXVIII, 1995, pp. 668–671 Google Scholar .

34 Op. cit. (note 32), p. 1174 (ICRC translation).

35 Ibid., pp. 1174–1175.

36 The answer should nevertheless lean towards conflicts covered by Protocol Il alone. See E. David, op. cit. (note 33), p. 671, and A. Andries et at, op. cit. (note 32), pp. 1134–1135.

37 The judge should therefore pay particular attention to the principle of nullum crimen sine lege when exercising jurisdiction over acts committed by a foreigner outside Belgian territory.

38 Código Penal. Law 10/1995, of 23 November.

39 Cases of internal armed conflict more broadly covered by common Article 3 are apparently excluded.

40 Ley orgánica 6/1985, of 1 July, of the Judiciary, Art. 23, para. 4.

41 Penal Code of Finland (translated by Joutsen, M.), in American Series of Foreign Penal Codes, Vol. 27, Wayne State University Law School, Rothman/Sweet&Maxwell, Littletown (Colorado)/London, 1987, Chap. 1, Art. 3, para. 2.1, p. 17 Google Scholar ; Chap. 13, Arts 1 and 2, pp. 48–49. See also Hannikainen, L., Hanski, R., Rosas, A., Implementing humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts: The case of Finland, Nijhoff, Dordrecht/Boston/ London, 1992, pp. 116–118 Google Scholar .

42 Swedish Penal Code, National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm, 1986, pp. 9 and 68.Google Scholar

43 Wet Oorlogsstrafrecht, Nederlandse Wetboeken, Suppl. 226, 1991, pp. 161–167.

44 Code pénal militaire, Federal Law of 13 June 1927, 321.0, Federal Chancellor's Office, 1995 (ICRC translation).

45 Ley de Código penal de la República de Nicaragua, Bibliografías Técnicas, 1997, pp. 4 and 148.

46 War Crimes Act of 1996, Public Law 104–192, 21 August 1996. For the 1997 amendment see also: Congressional Record — Senate, November 9, 1997, p. S12362 and Congressional Record — House, November 12, 1997, p. H10728.

47 See R. Wolfrum, op. cit. (note 25), p. 433.

48 Wehrstrafgesetz, Art. 1, para, a, in G. Erbs, Kohlhaas, M., eds., Strafrechtliche Nebengesetze, Vol. IV, Munich 1990.Google Scholar

49 Penal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany (translated by J. Darby), American Series of Foreign Penal Codes, op. cit., (note 41), Vol. 28, Art. 6, para. 9, p. 50.

50 For a discussion of the problems relating to internal conflicts on the territory of States without specific provisions, see Bothe, M. “War crimes in non-international armed conflicts”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 24, 1994, pp. 243–244 Google Scholar .

51 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, No. 63-FZ of 13 June 1996, Garant-Service, 1996, Arts 12 and 356.

52 Código Penal Português (anotado e comentado: M. Maia Gonçalves), Livraria Almedina, Coimbra, 1996, pp. 93, 727–728.Google Scholar

53 Penal Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 158 of 1957, in Negarit Gazeta, Gazette Extraordinary, Addis Ababa, 1957, Arts 282–284, pp. 87–88.

54 Penal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1990, Art. 142–143. On this point, see: Tadic decision, loc. cit. (note 5), para. 132, pp. 76–77.

55 Penal Code of Slovenia, 1 January 1995 (unofficial translation by the Ministry of Justice), Chap. 35: Criminal offences against humanity and international law, pp. 117–118, Arts 374–377.

56 Militaer Straffelov of 22 May 1902, No. 13, Art. 108 (as incorporated by the law of 26 November 1954, No. 6, and amended by the law of 12 June 1981, No. 65).

57 Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, No. 11, Sections 3 and 4.

58 See note 21 above.

59 Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Decision of 13 October 1995 in the case of Karadzic, S. Kadic v. R., in International Legal Materials, Vol. 34, 1995, p. 1601 Google Scholar . See also pp. 1604–1605. Other decisions relating to this case: US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Decisions of 7 September 1994 and of 2 December 1997 in the case of Jane Doe v. R. Karadzic.

60 Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem, militaire kamer, Decision of 21 February 1996; Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Strafkamer, Decision of 22 October 1996; Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem, militaire kamer, Decision of 19 March 1997; Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Strafkamer, 11 November 1997.

61 Divisional Military Court No. 1, Decision of 18 April 1997 in the case of Judge Advocate v. G. Grabec.

62 Ostre Landsret (Eastern Division of the Danish High Court), Court 3, Decision of 25 November 1994 in the case of Prosecutor v. R. Saric.

63 On this point see the Tadic decision, loc. cit. (note 5), p. 46–47, para. 83.

64 Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, Order establishing partial lack of jurisdiction and the admissibility of a civil suit of 6 May 1994 in the case of E. Javor, K. Kussuran, M. Softie, S. Alic et M. Mujdzic v. X.

65 Fourth Indictment Division of the Paris Court of Appeal, Appeal against an Order establishing partial lack of jurisdiction and the admissibility of a civil suit of 6 May 1994 in the case of E. Javor, K. Kussuran, M. Softie, S. Alic et M. Mujdzic v. X; Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, Decision of 26 March 1996 (same case).

66 Brussels Court of Appeal, Indictment Division, Decision of 17 May 1995 in the case of V. Nt.; Court of Cassation, Second Chamber, F., Decision of 31 May 1995 (same case); District of Brussels Court of First Instance, Council Chamber, Order of 22 July 1996 (same case).

67 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Hungary, Decision No. 53/1993 (X. 13.) AB and Decision No. 36/1996 (IX.4.) AB.

68 See paras 106, 125, and 130 of the Tadic decision, loc. cit. (note 5), pp. 58, 67 and 68.

69 See resolutions S/RES/794 (3 December 1992) and S/RES/814 (26 March 1993).

70 For Rwanda, see S/RES/935 (1 July 1994), S/RES/955 (8 November 1994) and S/RES/978 (27 February 1995). For Burundi, see S/RES/1012 (28 August 1995) and S/RES/1072 (30 August 1996).

71 S/RES/787 (16 November 1992), S/RES/808 (22 February 1993), S/RES/819 (16 April 1993), S/RES/820 (17 April 1993), S/RES/827 (25 May 1993), S/RES/859 (24 August 1993), S/RES/913 (22 April 1994), S/RES/941 (23 September 1994), S/RES/1010 (10 August 1995), S/RES/1019 (9 November 1995), and S/RES/1034 (21 December 1995).

72 Tadic decision, loc. cit. (note 5), p. 44, para. 78.

73 United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 5 of Security Council resolution 955 (1994), 13 February 1995, UN Doc. S/1995/134, pp. 3–4, para. 12.

74 United Nations, Preliminary report of the Independent Commission of Experts established in accordance with Security Council resolution 935 (1994), UN Doc. S/1994/1125, 4 October 1994, p. 20, paras 89–91.

75 United Nations, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty–sixth session (2 May-22 July 1994), UN Doc. A/49/10, p. 78. However, the exclusion of Protocol II leaves aside the question of possible “grave breaches” of common Article 3, which could, in this respect, fall within the jurisdiction of the court.

76 The ILC believes, for example, that conduct classified as a “grave breach” (and therefore to be regarded as a “war crime”) would not necessarily constitute a “serious violation” within the meaning of this article. Ibid., pp. 74–75.

77 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty–first session, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1989, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 53 Google Scholar , para. 105 (our italics).

78 After the above-mentioned comment (note 77), the Commission backtracked briefly. See for example the Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty–seventh session (2 May-21 July 1995), UN Doc. A/50/10, p. 54.

79 UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.532, 8 July 1996.

80 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty–eighth session (6 May - 26 July 1996), UN Doc. A/51/10, pp. 118–119.

81 Ibid., pp. 116–117.

82 Ibid., pp. 119–120.

83 Tadic decision, loc. cit. (note 5), p. 47, para. 83.

84 To be liable to prosecution under Article 3, the conduct in question must contravene a rule of international humanitarian law that is of a customary nature (or a treaty rule, depending on the conditions), must constitute a serious violation and must entail the individual criminal responsibility of the perpetrator. Ibid., pp. 54–55, para. 94.

85 Ibid., p. 71, para. 137. It can be noted that in its judgment of 7 May 1997, the court of first instance essentially declared Tadic guilty on the charges of crimes against humanity and violations of common Article 3. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a “Dale”: Opinion and judgment, 1 May 1997, Case No. IT-94–1-AR72, p. 300.

86 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a “Dule”: Separate opinion of Judge Abi-Saab on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, Case No. IT-94–1-AR72, p. 5.

87 Ibid., p. 7.

88 For example: M. Bothe, op. cit. (note 50), p. 247; 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”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. XLII, 1995, p. 396 Google Scholar ; T. Meron, op. cit. (note 6).

89 ICRC, War Crimes, working paper prepared by the ICRC for the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, 4 pp., and ICRC, Statement of the ICRC before the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, 2 pp.

90 See: United Nations, Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Working group on the definition of crimes, Written proposal submitted by New Zealand and Switzerland, 14 February 1997, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG. 1/DP.2, Written proposal submitted by the United States, 14 February 1997, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/DP.1, Draft consolidated text, 20 February 1997, UN Doc. A/ AC.249/1997/WG. 1 /CRP.2.

91 Ibid., War Crimes, 12 December 1997, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/CRP.9.

92 It is noteworthy that major States such as India and Indonesia are clearly moving in this first direction.