Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T05:21:36.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

States' entitlement to take action to enforce international humanitarian law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

Kamen Sachariew
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ultimate purpose of dissemination of and compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) is to mitigate the effects of armed conflict and provide the best possible protection for its victims. At the same time, IHL fosters wider acceptance of the ideals of humanity and peace between peoples. The relationship between IHL, the struggle for peace and the prohibition of the use of force is becoming ever clearer as the realization grows that lasting peace, development and peaceful international co-operation can be achieved only on the basis of compliance with international law and respect for human life and dignity.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 29 , Issue 270 , June 1989 , pp. 177 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1989

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 See Bothe, Michael, “The role of national law in the implementation of international humanitarian law” in Studies and essays on international humanitarian law and Red Cross principles, in Honour of Jean Pictet (hereafter Studies and Essays in honour of Jean Pictet), Geneva/The Hague 1984, p. 301 Google Scholar et seq. See also Condorelli, L. and de Chazournes, L. Boisson, “Quelques remarques à propos de l'obligation des Etats de ‘respecter et faire respecter’ le droit international humanitaire ‘en toutes circonstances’”Google Scholar, ibid., pp. 24–25.

2 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Reports 1970, p. 30 et seq., para. 33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC), 1976, Vol. II, p. 75 Google Scholar. Regarding the ILC's work in the area of international crimes, see Spinedi, M., International crimes of State in the UN Work on Codification of State responsibility, Florence 1984, p. 4 et seq. and p. 90 et seq.Google Scholar

4 The text can be found in A/CN.4/L.390, add. 1, p. 3.

5 In his commentary on Article 14 (international crimes) of the second part of the draft instrument on codification, W. Riphagen points out that “an individual State which is considered to be injured only by virtue of Art. 5(e) [on international crimes — K.S.] enjoys this status as a member of the international community as a whole and should exercise its new rights and obligations within the framework of the organized community of States”. W. Riphagen, Sixth Report, A/CN.4/389, p. 26, para. 10.

6 See the ILC's deliberations, in particular Sinclair A/CN.4/SR.1890, pp. 9–10; Flitan, ibid. SR.1892, p. 3. On distinguishing between directly and indirectly concerned States, see also B. Graefrath, “Völkerrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit für internationale Verbrechen”, in Probleme des Völkerrechts 1985, p. 89 et seq.Google Scholar

7 For example, Security Council resolutions 548 of 31.10.1983 and 598 of 20.7.1987.

8 See the many UN General Assembly resolutions on the apartheid policies of the South African government, for example resolutions 39/50 A and 39/72 A of 13.9.1984; or, on the Middle East, resolution 39/146 A of 14.12.1984 and Security Council resolution 592 of 8.12.1986.

9 See, for example, Simma, B., Das Reziprozitätselement im Zustandekommen völkerrechtlicher Verträge, West Berlin 1972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graefrath, S., “Zur Bedeutung der grundlegenden Prinzipien für die Struktur des allgemeinen Völkerrechts” in Probleme einer Strukturtheorie des Rechts, East Berlin 1985, p. 180 Google Scholar et seq.; Sachariew, K., Die Rechtsstellung der betroffenen Staaten bei Verletzungen multilateraler Verträge, East Berlin 1986, particularly pp. 32–44 and 58–82.Google Scholar

10 The ILC attempted to make a distinction between different degrees of injury in Art. 5 of the second part of the draft instrument to codify rules on State responsibility. See the text in A/CN.4/L.390, add. 1, p. 3.

11 See Abi-Saab, G., “The specificities of humanitarian law” in Studies and essays in honour of Jean Pictet, op. cit., p. 270 Google Scholar; Condorelli, L. and de Chazournes, L. Boisson, op. cit., supra note 1, pp. 26–29 Google Scholar; Meron, T., “The Geneva Conventions as customary law”, 81 AJIL 1987, p. 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Pictet, J., Commentary on the First Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, Geneva 1952, p. 25.Google Scholar

13 See Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, ICRC, Geneva 1987, Art. 1, Protocol I, p. 36 Google Scholar, para. 43; see also Bothe/Partsch/Solf, New rules for victims of armed conflicts, The Hague/London/Boston 1982, pp. 38 and 43.Google Scholar

14 The ICRC has frequently reminded States of their duty under Art. 1 of the Conventions and Protocols. See the ICRC's “Appeal for a humanitarian mobilization” in International Review of the Red Cross, No. 244, 01–02 1985, p. 31 Google Scholar. See also Sandoz, Y., “Appel du CICR dans le cadre du conflit entre l'Iran et l'Irak”, Annuaire français du droit international (XXIX), 1983, p. 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Pictet, J., Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, op. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar

16 See Obradović, K., “Que faire face aux violations du droit humanitaire?” in Studies and essays in honour of Jean Pictet, op. cit., pp. 488–490.Google Scholar

17 Pictet, J., Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, op. cit., p. 406.Google Scholar

18 Commentary on the Additional Protocols, Protocol I, Art. 95, p. 1080, para. 3730.Google Scholar

19 See Pictet, J., Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, p. 377.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., p. 375.

21 See also L. Condorelli and de Chazournes, L. Boisson, op. cit. supra note 1, p. 31 Google Scholar: and Commentary on the Additional Protocols. Protocol I. Art. 90. p. 1046. para. 3626.Google Scholar

22 For details on the development of Art. 90, see the Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanita rian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts (CDDH), Bern 1978, vol. IX, p. 194 Google Scholar et seq., particularly (Canada) p. 210, para. 18; the proposed amendment introduced by Japan (CDDH/I/316), ibid., SR.56, p. 194, para. 20 and the “explanations of vote”, ibid., SR.73, p. 435 et seq., particularly p. 444. See also Graefrath, B., “Die Untersuchungskommission im Ergänzungsprotokoll zu den Genfer Konventionen” in Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humoldt-Universität zu Berlin, 1981/1, p. 9 et seq.Google Scholar

23 Commentary on the Additional Protocols, Piotocol I, Art. 91, p. 1056, para. 3656.Google Scholar

24 This opinion is shared by L. Condorelli/L. Boisson de Chazournes, op. cit., pp. 34–35.

25 This view is supported by Kalshoven, F., Constraints on the Waging of War, ICRC, Geneva 1987, p. 130.Google Scholar

26 Such meetings are provided for in Art. VIII of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Art. VIII of the Convention on the Prevention of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, among many other treaties.

27 See Commentary on the Additional Protocols, Protocol I, Art. 7, p. 104, para. 264.Google Scholar

28 Idem, p. 106, para. 214.

29 Idem, pp. 982–987 and the bibliography on p. 973.

30 This view is supported by Pictet, J., Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, op. cit., p. 345 Google Scholar et seq.; de Preux, J., “The Geneva Conventions and Reciprocity”, in International Review of the Red Cross, No. 244, 01–02 1985, p. 25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et seq.; Condorelli, L. and de Chazournes, L. Boisson, op. cit., pp. 19–22 Google Scholar; Abi-Saab, G., op. cit., (footnote 11), pp. 267 and 280.Google Scholar

31 See the position taken by the German Democratic Republic at the 1974–77 Diplomatic Conference, CDDH/I/SR.47, Vol. IX, p. 71, para. 23, and that of Norway, Ibid., p. 15, para. 44.

It should, however, be pointed out that the degree of reciprocity in the so-called “Law of Geneva” and “Law of The Hague” can vary, although there is “a clear tendency” in international humanitarian law as a whole to eliminate considerations of reciprocity.

32 See “Reservations to the Convention on Genocide”, Advisory Opinion: ICJ Reports 1951, p. 23.Google Scholar

33 See Sachariew, K., op. cit. supra note 9, p. 93 Google Scholar; in the same vein, Art. 11, Part. II of the ILC draft articles on State responsibility, A/CN.4/389, p. 21.

34 See, as one example among many, Hanz, M., Zur völkerrechtlichen Aktivlegitimation zum Schulte der Menschenrechte, Europarecht — Völkerrecht, Vol. 8, Munich 1985, particularly p. 45 et seq.Google Scholar

35 See Sachariew, K., op. cit. (footnote 9), p. 99 et seq. and p. 103 Google Scholar et seq.; see also W. Riphagen's commentary in Art. 11, Part II of the ILC draft articles on State responsibility, op. cit. supra note 33, p. 23, para. 5.

36 The 1972 conference of government experts drew up a draft article expressly providing for the use of such measures. This draft was not, however, considered at the Diplomatic Conference. See the Report on the work of the Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, ICRC, Geneva 1972, pp. 184–185 Google Scholar. “Diplomatic or legal measures” are also mentioned in para. 46, p. 37 of the section dealing with Art. 1 of Protocol I in the Commentary on the Additional Protocols, op. cit.

37 This view is supported by Obradović, K., op. cit. supra note 16, p. 490.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., p. 491 et seq.

39 See footnote 14.

40 See Sandoz, Y., op. cit. supra note 14, p. 167.Google Scholar

41 This view is not shared by Condorelli, L. and de Chazournes, L. Boisson, op. cit. supra note 1, p. 32.Google Scholar

42 See Indonesian statement in the Official Records of the 1974–1977 Diplomatic Conference, op. cit. supra note 22, Vol. IX, SR.73, p. 447.

43 Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 348, para. 53.

44 Such as the enforcement measures under Art. XXII of the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources which can be taken with regard to other States and must be “consistent with the Charter of the United Nations”.

45 Switzerland and Austria, for instance, are believed to have appealed belligerents in the Gulf war to respect the Geneva Conventions. See Veuthey, M., “Pour une politique humanitaire” in Studies and essays in honour of Jean Pictet, op. cit. p. 1002 Google Scholar.

Several other examples are given by Cassese, A., “Remarks on the present legal regulation of crimes of States” in Le droit international à l'heure de sa codification. Etudes en honneur de R. Ago, Milan 1987, Vol. III, p. 60 et seq.Google Scholar

46 Questionnaire concerning measures intended to reinforce the implementation of the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, replies sent by governments, ICRC, Geneva 1973, p. 19 et seq.Google Scholar