We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2022
This essay explores how the drafters of international humanitarian law (IHL) incorporated the past into their work between 1860 and 2020, and how they approached time, memory and history as indicators for this view of the past. Its sources consist of the complete series of general conventional and customary IHL instruments as well as the leading commentaries on them. For the IHL view of time, the impact of legal principles on the perception of time is scrutinized. Balancing nonretroactivity against customary international law and the humanity principle broadens the temporal scope towards the past, while balancing legal forgetting against imprescriptibility and State succession broadens it towards the future. For the IHL view of memory, dead persons and cultural heritage are seen as crucial vectors. Attention to the fate of the dead has been a constant hallmark of IHL, while care for cultural heritage has an even longer pedigree. For the IHL view of history, the essay highlights that the International Committee of the Red Cross has consistently advocated State duties to the war dead and has organized an archival infrastructure to satisfy the need – later converted into a right – of families and society to search for the historical truth about them.
Furthermore, the responses of IHL drafters to five major historical challenges are examined. First, while in the realm of war crimes impunity prevailed for most of history, after World War II a system of war crimes trials was mounted, culminating in the International Criminal Court. Second, soul-searching about the atrocities of World War II, including the Holocaust, helped create Geneva Convention IV of 1949, which protects civilians in wartime. Third, the human rights idea was not fully embraced by IHL treaty drafters until 1968. Fourth, the IHL approach to civil wars was slow and incomplete, but its appearance in 1949 and coming of age in 1977 were breakthroughs nevertheless. Fifth, colonial conflicts were not recognized as international wars in 1949, when this could have had considerable impact, but only in 1977, when decolonization was largely over. In all cases, the responses to these historical challenges came after long delays. Clearly, the IHL view of the past has to be assessed on a transgenerational scale.
I am very grateful to Bruno Demeyere for providing encouragement and facilitating sources; to Daniel Palmieri, Meera Nayak, Ashley Stanley-Ryan and Jillian Rafferty for answering questions related to this research; to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments; and to the copy editor, Kieran Macdonald.
1 Tresckow, Curt von, Geschichte des deutsch-französischen Krieges 1870 und 1871, Vol. 1, Leuckart, Leipzig, 1871, p. 181Google Scholar. The anecdote can also be found in Higgins, A. Pearce, The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences Concerning the Laws and Usages of War: Texts of Conventions with Commentaries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1909, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar. The full story is in Ranke's Tagebücher.
2 See also Wylie Neville, “Muddied Waters: The Influence of the First Hague Conference on the Evolution of the Geneva Conventions of 1864 and 1906”, in Maartje Abbenhuis, Christopher Barber and Annalise Higgins (eds), War, Peace and International Order? The Legacies of the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Routledge, London, 2018, for a good overview of the Geneva–Hague rivalry.
3 A first mention was found in International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Report on the Work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (January 1 to December 31, 1952), Geneva, 1953, p. 67.
4 For sketches, see Barnett, Michael, Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, and London, 2011, pp. 47–94Google Scholar; Kennedy, David, Of War and Law, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, 2006, pp. 46–98Google Scholar; Baets, Antoon De, “Does Inhumanity Breed Humanity? Investigation of a Paradox”, History and Theory, Vol. 51, No. 3, 2012, pp. 456–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Randall Lesaffer, “Peace through Law: The Hague Peace Conferences and the Rise of the Ius Contra Bellum”, in M. Abbenhuis, C. Barber and A. Higgins (eds), above note 2.
5 For interesting discussions of IHL myths of origin, see Roberts, Adam, “Foundational Myths in the Laws of War: The 1863 Lieber Code and the 1864 Geneva Convention”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2019Google Scholar; Randall Lesaffer, “The Temple of Peace: The Hague Peace Conferences, Andrew Carnegie and the Building of the Peace Palace (1898–1913)”, Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht: Preadviezen, Vol. 140, 2013. For an alternative view – locating the start of IHL in the 1970s, which in the present author's view is profoundly ahistorical – see Alexander, Amanda, “A Short History of International Humanitarian Law”, European Journal of International law, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Lueder, Carl, La Convention de Genève au point de vue historique, critique et dogmatique, Édouard Besold, Erlangen, 1876, p. 226Google Scholar; A. P. Higgins, above note 1, pp. 257–258.
7 Betsy Baker, “Hague Peace Conferences (1899 and 1907)”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, November 2009, para. 30.
8 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, and Vol. 2: Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), available at: www.icrc.org/customary-ihl (all internet references were accessed in March 2022). Recording custom, as in the ICRC Customary Law Study, has undeniable parallels with recording oral tradition. See Vansina, Jan, Oral Tradition as History, James Currey, London, 1985, pp. 29–31, 56–67Google Scholar.
9 For an overview of the sources, see Appendix 1.
10 Constitution of the United States, 1789, Art. 1, Section 9(3).
11 Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen, 1789, Art. 8.
12 Aly Mokhtar, “Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena sine Lege: Aspects and Prospects”, Statute Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2005, p. 46. See also European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg, 2019.
13 See in particular the Motion Adopted by All Defense Council (19 November 1945), Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945–1 October 1946, Vol. 1, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1947, pp. 168–170. Accusations of retroactivity were also levelled against trying Kaiser Wilhelm in 1919 (the trial never took place). See Schabas, William, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020, p. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirsten Sellars, “Founding Nuremberg: Innovation and Orthodoxy at the 1945 London Conference”, in Morten Bergsmo, Cheah Wui Ling and Yi Ping (eds), Historical Origins of International Criminal Law, Vol. 1, Torkel Opsahl, Brussels, 2014, p. 547.
14 Trial of the Major War Criminals, above note 13, pp. 218, 223. For a discussion, see Question of the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: Study Submitted by the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/CN.4/906, 15 February 1966, paras 122–126, stating in para. 125: “It is not very difficult to imagine how world public opinion would have reacted if after the Second World War, on the basis of the principle nulla poena sine lege, the serious crimes committed in connexion with the war or while it was in progress had been allowed to go unpunished.”
15 Trial of the Major War Criminals, above note 13, p. 226.
16 Ibid., p. 254.
17 Ibid., pp. 253–254. The Tribunal referred specifically to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (1907 HC IV), Arts 46, 50, 52, 56; and to the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929 (1929 GC II), Arts 2–4, 46, 51.
18 Hans Kelsen, “The Rule against Ex Post Facto Laws and the Prosecution of the Axis War Criminals”, Judge Advocate Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1945, p. 10; Kelsen, Hans “Will the Judgment in the Nuremberg Trial Constitute a Precedent in International Law?” International Law Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1947, pp. 159–160Google Scholar; Dörmann, Karl, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 8, Vol. 1, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii, 1, 572, Vol. 2, p. 3872.
19 Most legal scholars agree with this conclusion as far as war crimes are concerned. In applying a principle of individual criminal responsibility, however, the Nuremberg Tribunal had in effect created new law and deviated, in this respect, from the nonretroactivity principle. As Hans Kelsen and Gustav Radbruch, among others, have argued, the nonretroactivity principle is not absolute: it has to be balanced against the higher principle of justice, namely that morally abject acts have to be punished even when under domestic law they had not been punishable at the material time.
20 Statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice, Provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 1921, Art. 38(2); Statute of the International Court of Justice, San Francisco, 26 June 1945, Art. 38(1)(b). For the principles of identifying custom, see UNGA Res. 73/203, “Identification of Customary International Law”, 11 January 2019, commenting, in Conclusion 8.2, on the duration of custom: “Provided that the practice is general, no particular duration is required.” However, see also International Law Commission, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/73/10, 2018, Conclusion 8, comment 9 and fn. 19, observing that there is no such thing as “instant custom.” The two-way traffic between custom and convention should be noted: customary law can become conventional law and vice versa. Also, customary international law should not be confused with customary domestic law based on traditional values: their relationship is complicated. See United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, Study of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on Promoting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms through a Better Understanding of Traditional Values of Humankind, UN Doc. A/HRC/22/71, 6 December 2012, para. 36.
21 UNGA Res. 95(I), “Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal”, 11 December 1946.
22 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res. 217(III) A, 10 December 1948, Art. 11(2). See also Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origin, Drafting and Intent, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1999, pp. 52–58.
23 International Law Commission, “Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, with Commentaries”, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, 1950, Principle 2, pp. 374–375.
24 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UNGA Res. 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966, Arts 15, 4(2).
25 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Art. 75; Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP II), Art. 6. See also Michael Bothe, Karl Partsch and Waldemar Solf, New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 2013, pp. 746–747. The 1949 Geneva Conventions III and IV also incorporated nonretroactivity into their sections on penal sanctions: see Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (1949 GC III), Art. 99; Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (1949 GC IV), Arts 65, 67.
26 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 (Rome Statute), Arts 11, 22–24. Article 11 is the ratione temporis provision of the ICC, an application of the nonretroactivity principle.
27 See, more generally, Harriet Moynihan, “Regulating the Past: The European Court of Human Rights’ Approach to the Investigation of Historical Deaths under Article 2 ECHR”, British Yearbook of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017; William Schabas, “Time, Justice, and Human Rights: Statutory Limitation on the Right to Truth?”, in Nanci Adler (ed.), Understanding the Age of Transitional Justice: Crimes, Courts, Commissions, and Chronicling, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 2018, pp. 37–55.
28 In addition, a State Party may declare, for a period of seven years after the entry into force of the Rome Statute, that it does not accept ICC jurisdiction for war crimes. See Rome Statute, above note 26, Art. 124.
29 Forsythe's thesis that the Nuremberg trials had little effect on IHL development is untenable. See Forsythe, David, The Humanitarians: The International Committee of the Red Cross, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Among many sources, see ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2016 (2016 Commentary on GC I), pp. 12, 17; ICRC, Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention: Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2020 (2020 Commentary on GC III), pp. 2–3.
31 Convention (II) with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899 (1899 HC II), preamble recital 9. See also 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, pp. 1186–1187. A prefiguration of the Martens Clause can be found in the preamble of the Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, St Petersburg, 29 November–11 December 1868: “[A]n International Military Commission assembled at St. Petersburg … having by common agreement fixed the technical limits at which the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity, …”. The one-page declaration also mentions “the laws of humanity” twice. See A. P. Higgins, above note 1, pp. 5–7, for text and comment. See also Gustave Moynier, Étude sur la convention de Genève pour l'amélioration du sort des militaires blessés dans les armées en campagne (1864 et 1868), Librairie Joël Cherbuliez, Paris, 1870, pp. 319, 333; Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva 1987, p. 400; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 8, Vol. 1, p. 241. For a still earlier similar formulation, see Tratado de Armisticio between Spain and Colombia, 1820, Art. 14, as cited in Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta and Marco Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, pp. 180, 317 (“las prácticas más liberales, sabias y humanas de las naciones civilizadas”).
32 The clause was originally formulated to address the controversial right to massive armed popular resistance in (mostly small) countries that were invaded and occupied, and the status and treatment of civilians captured during such resistance. Actually, the Martens Clause should be renamed the Lambermont Clause, after its original author, the Belgian diplomat Auguste Lambermont. See Thomas Graditzky, “Bref retour sur l'origine de la clause de Martens: Une contribution belge méconnue (ou: ‘Ceci n'est pas la clause de Martens’)”, in Julia Grignon (ed.), Hommage à Jean Pictet, Schulthess and Yvon Blais, Zürich and Cowansville, 2016.
33 1907 HC IV, above note 17, preamble recital 8; Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (1949 GC I), Art. 63; Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (1949 GC II), Art. 62; 1949 GC III, above note 25, Art. 142; 1949 GC IV, above note 25, Art. 158; AP I, above note 25, Art. 1(2); AP II, above note 25, preamble recital 4. See also Rome Statute, above note 26, preamble recital 2.
34 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, paras 78–79, 84, 87. See also Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 4: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, p. 625; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, p. 1186; K. Dörmann, above note 18, p. 168. The Statutes of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the ICJ echo the Martens Clause because in Article 38 both state that “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” are sources of international law.
35 Rome Statute, above note 26, Art. 22(2). See also Mark Klamberg (ed.), Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court, Torkel Opsahl, Brussels, 2017, pp. 255–256.
36 M. Klamberg, above note 35, p. 256; W. Schabas, above note 13, pp. 215–216. See also Sunstein, Cass, Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, pp. 62–100Google Scholar (“Analogical Reasoning”).
37 See also European Court of Human Rights, Rohlena v. The Czech Republic, Appl. No. 59552/08, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 27 January 2015, paras 28–37, 57–64; Mathias Neuner, “The Notion of Continuous or Continuing Crimes in International Criminal Law”, in Morten Bergsmo, Wolfgang Kaleck and Kyaw Yin Hlaing (eds), Colonial Wrongs and Access to International Law, Torkel Opsahl, Brussels, 2020. See also M. Klamberg, above note 35, pp. 167, 173, 259; W. Schabas, above note 13, pp. 62–63.
38 Antoon De Baets, “The United Nations Human Rights Committee's View of the Past”, in Uladzislau Belavusau and Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias (eds), Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017, pp. 33, 46.
39 “General Comment on Enforced Disappearance as a Continuous Crime”, in Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. A/HRC/16/48, 26 January 2011.
40 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, 2001, Arts 14–15, pp. 59–64; UNGA Res. 56/83, “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts”, 28 January 2002.
41 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UNGA Res. 60/147, 16 December 2005, Principle 22(a).
42 See UNGA Res. 74/180, “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts”, 27 December 2019, para. 9.
43 Higgins, Rosalyn, “Time and the Law: International Perspectives on an Old Problem”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1997, pp. 511–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, UN Doc. A/HRC/30/42, 7 September 2015, para. 48.
45 See Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, UNGA Res. 2391 (XXIII), 26 November 1968 (Convention on Non-Applicability), preamble recital 3: “Noting that none of the solemn declarations, instruments or conventions relating to the prosecution and punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity made provision for a period of limitation.” The UN Secretary-General had defended this principle in 1966: see Question of the Non-Applicability, above note 14, paras 121–160, especially paras 129–140 (mentioning the silence in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 in para. 138). See also Lerner, Natan, “The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes”, Israel Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1969, pp. 520–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 See also Christine Van den Wyngaert and John Dugard, “Non-Applicability of Statute[s] of Limitations”, in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta and John Jones (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 877; Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, p. 981.
47 Convention on Non-Applicability, above note 45. The Convention was approved by fifty-eight votes against seven, with thirty-seven abstentions and twenty-five absentees. See also C. Van den Wyngaert, above note 46, pp. 875, 887. Another reason for the relative lack of success of the Convention lay in its Article 1, which stipulated that no time bars should apply for gross crimes “irrespective of the date of their commission”. Many thought that this violated the nonretroactivity principle. A final reason was the special mention of apartheid as a crime against humanity.
48 “List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 857, 2005, Rule 160; C. Van den Wyngaert, above note 46, p. 887; M. Klamberg, above note 35, p. 311.
49 Rome Statute, above note 26, preamble recital 9.
50 Ibid., Art. 29. See also ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 8, Vol. 1, p. 616.
51 AP II, above note 25, Art. 6. The original proposal came from the United States; the article was adopted by consensus. In explaining its vote, the Soviet Union stated, however, that the provision could not be construed so as to enable perpetrators of atrocity crimes to evade punishment. See ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 8, Vol. 1, p. 612.
52 “List of Customary Rules”, above note 48, Rule 159. See also AP I, above note 25, Art. 75. For the definition of jus cogens, see Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), 23 May 1969, Art. 53 (“a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted”). For a list of extant or emerging jus cogens obligations, see “Jus Cogens”, in Francesco Forrest Martin et al., International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases and Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 34–36; for the notion of derivative jus cogens obligations (having jus cogens status because of their necessity in ensuring the protection of other jus cogens norms), see ibid., pp. 36–39.
53 Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Amnesties, Geneva, 2009, p. 43; International Law Commission, Third Report on Crimes against Humanity by Sean D. Murphy, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/704, 23 January 2017, paras 285–297; Pierre Hazan, Amnesty: A Blessing in Disguise? Making Good Use of an Important Mechanism in Peace Processes, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva, 2020, pp. 8–10.
54 Article 16 of the Rome Statute is a provision to defer investigation or prosecution; Article 53(2) is a provision not to initiate prosecution when it is “not in the interests of justice”.
55 VCLT, above note 52, Art. 62.
56 Ibid., Arts 38, 43, 73; Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, 23 August 1978, preamble recital 6, Art. 5; Olivier Corten and Pierre Klein (eds), The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011, pp. 1648–1649; Sarah Joseph and Melissa Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials and Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013, pp. 908–909; Trindade, Antônio Augusto Cançado, “Basic Considerations of Humanity in Relation to State Succession”, in International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, pp. 164–166.
57 Human Rights Committee, “General Comment No. 26 (61) on Issues Relating to the Continuity of Obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.8/Rev.1, 8 December 1997, para. 4.
58 See Antoon De Baets, “The Posthumous Dignity of Dead Persons”, in Roberto Parra and Douglas Ubelaker (eds), Anthropology of Violent Death: Theoretical Foundations for Forensic Humanitarian Action, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2022 (forthcoming), Chap. 1.
59 ICC, “Policy on Cultural Heritage”, The Hague, 2021, paras 70–74, 79, 87.
60 G. Moynier, above note 31, p. 273. See also C. Lueder, above note 6, pp. 267, 333.
61 See also First International Conference of the Red Cross, Vœux de la Conference Internationale, Paris, 1867, Art. 8; Protocole de la Conférence internationale réunie à Genève en octobre 1868, Fick, Geneva, 1868, pp. 18–19, 26–27. Discussion in G. Moynier, above note 31, pp. 271–285; C. Lueder, above note 6, pp. 269–273.
62 G. Moynier, above note 31, p. 279; C. Lueder, above note 6, pp. 269, 272; Paul des Gouttes, La Convention de Genève pour l'amélioration du sort des blessés et des malades dans les armées en campagne du 27 juillet 1929: Commentaire, ICRC, Geneva, 1930, p. 33. ICRC forensic expert and present UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Morris Tidball-Binz has called the association of cadavers with epidemics a myth: see his “Managing the Dead in Catastrophes: Guiding Principles and Practical Recommendations for First Responders”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 866, 2007, pp. 426–427, 439–441.
63 1899 HC II, above note 31, Arts 14, 19; 1907 HC IV, above note 17, Arts 14, 19.
64 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, Geneva, 6 July 1906, Arts 3–4; see also Hague Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Arts 16–17. See further A. P. Higgins, above note 1, pp. 37, 382; Renault, Louis, “La Conférence de revision de la Convention de Genève”, Bulletin International des Sociétés de la Croix-Rouge, Vol. 37, No. 148, 1906, pp. 234–235Google Scholar, 241–242.
65 See, for example, 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, p. 572.
66 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, Geneva, 27 July 1929 (1929 GC I), Arts 3–4; 1929 GC II, above note 17, Arts 41, 76; 1949 GC IV, above note 25, Art. 16; AP I, above note 25, Arts 17, 19, 61. See also P. des Gouttes, above note 62, pp. 26–35.
67 Wels, Welmoet, Dead Body Management in Armed Conflict: Paradoxes in Trying to Do Justice to the Dead, Jongbloed, The Hague and Leiden, 2016, pp. 5–6Google Scholar.
68 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 8, Vol. 1, pp. 406–427, Vol. 2, 2655–2774 (Rules 112–117), based on 1949 GC I, above note 33, Arts 15–17; 1949 GC II, above note 33, Arts 18–21; 1949 GC III, above note 25, Arts 120–121; 1949 GC IV, above note 25, Arts 129–131; AP I, above note 25, Arts 17, 32–34; AP II, above note 25, Art. 8; Rome Statute, above note 26, Art. 93.
69 “Case No. 82: Trial of Max Schmid – United States General Military Government Court at Dachau, Germany, 19th May, 1947”, in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. 13, United Nations War Crimes Commission, London, 1949, pp. 151–152. Not only is the Schmid trial briefly analyzed in this reference, but so are four similar cases of Japanese perpetrators.
70 Finalized draft text of the Elements of Crimes, adopted by the 23rd meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, New York, 30 June 2000, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.2, Addendum, 6 July 2000, as adopted by the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, First Session, 3–10 September 2002, Official Records, UN Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3, 25 September 2002, and ICC-ASP/1/3/Corr.1, 31 October 2002 (Elements of Crimes), Arts 8(2)(b)(xxi), 8(2)(c)(iv), Element 1 (fn. 49 and 57 respectively). See also 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, pp. 210, 227, 541.
71 Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 1: Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC, Geneva, 1952, pp. 178–179; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, pp. 583–584, 587, 589, 595–596.
72 J. Pictet, above note 71, p. 177; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, p. 587; A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, p. 286; Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, pp. 370, 378. Sea burial is also discouraged: ICRC, Commentary on the Second Geneva Convention: Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017, pp. 643–644.
73 1949 GC I, above note 33, Art. 15; AP I, above note 25, Art. 34.
74 Anna Petrig, “The War Dead and Their Gravesites”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 91, No. 874, 2009, pp. 365–368.
75 Permanent Court of Arbitration, Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands, United States), 1928, in Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. 2, UN, New York, 2006, p. 845. For an analysis of the delicate balance between stability and change required in applying the doctrine of intertemporal law, see T. O. Elias, “The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 74, No. 2, 1980. For a brilliant interpretation of the doctrine with the help of John McTaggart's philosophy of time, see Wheatley, Steven, “Revisiting the Doctrine of Intertemporal Law”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. The case discussed was the 2019 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Chagos Archipelago.
76 For possible complications, however, see M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, pp. 194–195; International Law Commission, above note 40, pp. 54, 57–59, 63–64.
77 See also UN Commission on Human Rights, Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, 8 February 2005, Principle 3: “A people's knowledge of the history of its oppression is part of its heritage”.
78 1899 HC II, above note 31, Art. 56; 1907 HC IV, above note 17, Art. 56.
79 1899 HC II, above note 31, Arts 27, 46, 56; 1907 HC IV, above note 17, Arts 27, 46, 56; Hague Convention (IX) Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Art. 5; 1929 GC II, above note 17, Arts 34, 77; AP I, above note 25, Arts 38, 52–53, 85; AP II, above note 25, Art. 16; Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Art. 1. See also A. P. Higgins, above note 1, p. 270; J. Pictet, above note 34, p. 615; A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, p. 1528; Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, pp. 639–649, 1465–1469; M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, pp. 371–376, 789–792.
80 Rome Statute, above note 26, preamble recital 1.
81 Ibid., Arts 7(1)(h), 7(2)(g).
82 See ibid., Arts 8(2)(b)(ix) and 8(2)(e)(iv), and the corresponding Elements in Elements of Crimes, above note 70.
83 “List of Customary Rules”, above note 48, Rules 38–41, 147. See also K. Dörmann, above note 18, pp. 215–218; M. Klamberg, above note 35, pp. 89–90, 130; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 8, Vol. 1, pp. 127–138.
84 1899 HC II, above note 31, Art. 14; 1907 HC IV, above note 19, Art. 14; 1929 GC I, above note 66, Art. 4; 1929 GC II, above note 17, Arts 77–80; 1949 GC I, above note 33, Arts 16–17; 1949 GC III, above note 25, Arts 77, 120, 122–123; 1949 GC IV, above note 25, Arts 113, 137, 140; AP I, above note 25, Arts 33, 78; “List of Customary Rules”, above note 48, Rule 123. See also A. P. Higgins, above note 1, p. 43; P. des Gouttes, above note 62, pp. 31, 35; J. Pictet, above note 71, pp. 167–168; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, p. 568; Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 3: Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1960, pp. 581–584; 2020 Commentary on GC III, above note 30, pp. 17, 19, 1744–1765, especially 1748 (para. 4812); Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, p. 858.
85 A complete overview is available at: https://international-review.icrc.org/latest-reviews.
86 ICRC, Rules Governing Access to the Archives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 2017, Art. 5. See also 2020 Commentary on GC III, above note 30, pp. 21–22.
87 Available at: https://arolsen-archives.org/en. See also Henning Borggräfe, Christian Höschler and Isabel Panek (eds), A Paper Monument: The History of the Arolsen Archives – Catalogue of the Permanent Exhibition, Arolsen Archives, Bad Arolsen, 2019, pp. 8–18. For the role of the ICRC, see ibid., pp. 17–19, 171–183, 203.
88 G. Moynier, above note 31, p. 280; C. Lueder, above note 6, p. 270; P. des Gouttes, above note 62, p. 31.
89 J. Pictet, above note 71, p. 164; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, pp. 552, 564, 579, 586; 2020 Commentary on GC III, above note 30, pp. 1658, 1668; J. Pictet, above note 34, p. 505.
90 1899 HC II, above note 31, Art. 46; 1907 HC IV, above note 17, Art. 46; 1929 GC II, above note 17, Arts 8, 36, 77. See also 1949 GC IV, above note 25, Arts 27, 116.
91 G. Moynier, above note 31, p. 280. See also C. Lueder, above note 6, p. 238.
92 P. des Gouttes, above note 62, pp. 28–31, also xvii–xviii (Max Huber).
93 1949 GC IV, above note 25, Art. 26.
94 M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, p. 194.
95 Trial of the Major War Criminals, above note 13, pp. 44, 232–233, 266, 290. See also Finucane, Brian, “Enforced Disappearance as a Crime under International Law: A Neglected Origin in the Laws of War”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2010, pp. 175–186Google Scholar.
96 Amnesty International USA, “Disappearances”: A Workbook, New York, 1981, pp. 1–2, 21–23.
97 UNGA Res. 33/173, “Disappeared Persons”, 20 December 1978, para. 3.
98 AP I, above note 25, Arts 32, 90 (emphasis added). See also AP II, above note 25, Art. 8; “List of Customary Rules”, above note 48, Rules 105, 117, 125. See also Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, pp. 343–347; A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, p. 276.
99 UNGA Res. 3220(XXIX), “Assistance and Co-operation in Accounting for Persons Who Are Missing or Dead in Armed Conflicts”, 6 November 1974.
100 Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, p. 345. According to the travaux préparatoires, the date of birth is 1 June 1976.
101 See also Antoon De Baets, Responsible History, Berghahn, New York and Oxford, 2009, pp. 157–165; A. De Baets, above note 38, pp. 40–43.
102 On the other hand, the concept of “a family” was deliberately not defined. See Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, pp. 346, 375.
103 Rome Statute, above note 26, Arts 68(5), 84(1), 87(4).
104 Ibid., Arts 7(1)(i), 7(2)(i). See also “List of Customary Rules”, above note 48, Rule 98.
105 Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, p. 346; M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, p. 196.
106 Rome Statute, above note 26, Art. 93(1)(g); “List of Customary Rules”, above note 48, Rules 158, 161; A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, pp. 278–284; Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, pp. 346–347.
107 See P. des Gouttes, above note 62, p. 212; Hall, Christopher, “The First Proposal for a Permanent International Criminal Court”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 38, No. 322, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In 1870 Moynier had still pleaded against adjudication of IHL violations: see G. Moynier, above note 31, p. 299.
108 Hague Convention (I) of 1899 and Hague Convention (I) of 1907 are conventions for the pacific settlement of international disputes. See also 1907 HC IV, above note 17, Art. 3; A. P. Higgins, above note 1, pp. 44, 53. The 1906 Geneva Convention did contain a provision on repression of abuses (Art. 28), but it only addressed individual acts of robbery and ill-treatment of the sick and wounded in times of war and usurpations of military insignia. The first 1929 Geneva Convention (Arts 29–30) called upon States to introduce legislation for the repression in time of war of any act contrary to the Convention, to institute on request enquiries concerning violations, and, if corroborated, to repress those violations.
109 Treaty of Versailles, 28 June 1919, Arts 227–230. Article 227, though, charged Kaiser Wilhelm II with the “supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties”. In this, the Treaty of Versailles followed the recommendations of the Report of the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, 29 March 1919, reproduced in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 1–2, 1920, citing “the laws of humanity” on many occasions.
110 A first literal mention of the expression “war crimes” was found in the First Draft Convention Adopted in Monaco (Sanitary Cities and Localities), 27 July 1934, Additional Art. The term is also mentioned in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, Annexed to the London Agreement, London, 8 August 1945, Article 6(b), but not in the Geneva Conventions of 1929 or 1949. It appears in AP I, above note 25, Arts 75, 85; Rome Statute, above note 26, Art. 8; “List of Customary Rules”, above note 48, Rules 151–153, 156–161.
111 W. Schabas, above note 13, pp. 3–4, 117.
112 1949 GC I, above note 33, Arts 49–54; 1949 GC II, above note 33, Arts 50–53; 1949 GC III, above note 25, Arts 129–131; 1949 GC IV, above note 25, Arts 146–148; AP I, above note 25, Art. 85–91; AP II, above note 25, Art. 6. See also 1929 GC I, above note 66, Arts 28–30. For the reluctance, see M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, p. 577; A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, pp. 616–620.
113 Rome Statute, above note 26, Art. 8. See also “List of Customary Rules”, above note 48, Rules 158–161.
114 See website of the Dutch Red Cross, available at: www.drk.de/das-drk/geschichte/das-drk-von-den-anfaengen-bis-heute/?page=1940-2112. See also A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, p. 616; D. Forsythe, above note 29, pp. 44–50.
115 François Bugnion, “Dialogue with the Past: The ICRC and the Nazi Death Camps”, 5 November 2002, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/6ayg86.htm.
116 Édouard Chapuisat, “The Activity of the International Committee of the Red Cross during the War, 1939–1945”, Nobel Lecture, 1944, available at: www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1944/red-cross/lecture; J. Pictet, above note 71, p. 14; 2020 Commentary on GC III, above note 30, p. 2.
117 1907 HC IV, above note 17, Arts 42–56.
118 Léopold Boissier, “Some Aspects of the Mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross”, Nobel Lecture, 1963, available at: www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1963/red-cross/lecture.
119 For the whole story, see J. Pictet, above note 34, pp. 3–11.
120 “A Brief History of the International Review of the Red Cross”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 100, No. 907–909, 2018, p. 30. The Jewish victims were briefly discussed in four reports about ICRC activities in World War II published in 1947 (one report) and 1948 (three reports).
121 ICRC, The Work of the ICRC for Civilian Detainees in German Concentration Camps from 1939 to 1945, Geneva, 1975 (first published 1946).
122 Jacques Meurant, “Review and Analysis of Two Recent Works: The International Committee of the Red Cross – Nazi Persecutions and the Concentration Camps”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 29, No. 271, 1989, pp. 375–376. It is unclear whether the ICRC Assembly of July 1979 had particular time-bound reasons to approve the Holocaust study, but the moment incidentally coincides with the trend of increasing Holocaust awareness following the 1978 television series Holocaust.
123 Jean-Claude Favez, with Geneviève Billeter, Une Mission impossible? Le CICR, les déportations et les camps de concentration nazis, Payot, Lausanne, 1988 (English translation 1999).
124 Cornelio Sommaruga, “Annex: The ICRC's Point of View”, in J. Meurant, above note 122, pp. 394–397.
125 Quote in “Fiftieth Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz Concentration Camp”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 35, No. 304, 1995, pp. 109–110. Quote also in ICRC, “Commemorating the Liberation of Auschwitz”, statement, 27 January 2005, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/statement/68zeb2.htm. See also Cornelio Sommaruga, “Press Conference Given by the President of the ICRC (Geneva, 30 May 1995)”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 35, No. 306, 1995.
126 Among others, see Peter Maurer, “Remembering the Shoah: The ICRC and the International Community's Efforts in Responding to Genocide”, 28 April 2015, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/remembering-shoah-icrc-and-international-communitys-efforts-responding-genocide-and.
127 For the first IHL reports about the Universal Declaration, see the contributions by Claude Pilloud and Jean-Georges Lossier in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 31, No. 364, 1949, pp. 252–264.
128 See Kolb, Robert, “The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: A Brief History of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 Geneva Conventions”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 38, No. 324, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sayapin, Sergey, “The International Committee of the Red Cross and International Human Rights Law”, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
129 See William Schabas (ed.), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Travaux Préparatoires, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, pp. cxix–cxxiii; and, particularly, Jaime Oraá Oraá, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, in Felipe Gómez Isa and Koen De Feyter (eds.), International Protection of Human Rights: Achievements and Challenges, University of Deusto, Bilbao, 2006, pp. 117–132.
130 The 1929 Geneva Conventions were not mentioned during the travaux préparatoires of the Universal Declaration.
131 See J. Pictet, above note 71, pp. 20–22; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, pp. 29, 139; J. Pictet, above note 84, pp. 14–16; J. Pictet, above note 34, pp. 12–14.
132 M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, p. 30.
133 AP I, above note 25, Art. 72. See also M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, pp. 729–730. It is also recalled that Article 32 spoke about a right of families to know the fate of their relatives.
134 Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights (Tehran), UN Doc. A/CONF.32/41, 22 April–13 May 1968, Proclamation, para. 10, and Resolutions, Part 23; Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, pp. 1326–1327; Meron, Theodor, “The Humanization of Humanitarian Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94 No. 2, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
135 Uppsala Conflict Data Program, “UCDP Charts, Graphs and Maps”, available at: https://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/charts.
136 A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, p. 720.
137 T. Meron, above note 134, pp. 273–275. See also Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1991/55, 12 August 1991; Fundamental Standards of Humanity: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/HRC/8/14, 3 June 2008, paras 38–39; “The Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Emergency”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 79, No. 4, 1985.
138 “Fundamental Standards of Humanity: 56th Annual Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, Agenda Item 17: Statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross”, 14 April 2000, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/statement/57jqcv.htm.
139 ICJ, Nuclear Weapons, above note 34, para. 25. See also A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, pp. 728–735.
140 Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, p. 1341. For more on the role of the Lieber Code, see A. Roberts, above note 5.
141 “Commission chargée de préciser les fonctions de la Croix Rouge en cas de guerre civile”, in Neuvième conférence internationale de la Croix-Rouge tenue à Washington du 7 au 17 mai 1912: Compte-rendu, American Red Cross, Washington, 1913, pp. 23, 39–40, 45–49, 60–61, 85, 197, 199–208. The Tenth Red Cross Conference of 1921 also discussed the issue.
142 J. Pictet, above note 71, pp. 39–40; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, pp. 134–135.
143 Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, p. 41; M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, pp. 37–38.
144 J. Pictet, above note 71, p. 42; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, pp. 135–138, 163, 169; Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 2: Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, ICRC, Geneva, 1960, p. 23; J. Pictet, above note 84, p. 31; J. Pictet, above note 34, pp. 30–31; Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, p. 46.
145 Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, pp. 1335–1336; M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, pp. 7, 12, 695–696.
146 See also Maurer, Peter, “Changing World, Unchanged Protection? Seventy Years of the Geneva Conventions”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 100, No. 907–909, 2018, p. 399Google Scholar.
147 Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, p. 42.
148 Charter of the United Nations, San Francisco, 26 June 1945, Arts 1(2), 55.
149 W. Schabas, above note 13, p. 102.
150 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, p. 127 (emphasis added).
151 This colonial mode of thought is also visible in the 1948 Genocide Convention because its Article XII does not impose an extension of the Convention to non-self-governing territories.
152 A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, p. 679.
153 S. Wheatley, above note 75, pp. 499, 504–507.
154 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970, Annex, Principle 5.6.
155 AP I, above note 25, Art. 1. See also Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmerman (eds), above note 31, pp. 41–47, 54, 1319; M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, pp. 2, 8, 37–40, 47–49, especially p. 47.
156 A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31, p. 43.
157 M. Bothe, K. Partsch and W. Solf, above note 25, p. 50.
158 Ibid., pp. 7–8, 693–694.
159 There is, however, also the benefit of hindsight when it comes to determining which law is applicable at which time. See S. Wheatley, above note 75, pp. 486, 503, 505–506, 508–509.
160 Evidently, many concepts and values can legitimately be transferred to the past.
161 For overviews of what have been called “international law's method wars”, see Fitzmaurice, Andrew, “Context in the History of International Law”, Journal of the History of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orford, Ann, International Law and the Politics of History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Natasha Wheatley, “Law and the Time of Angels: International Law's Method Wars and the Affective Life of Disciplines”, History and Theory, Vol. 60, No. 2, 2021.
162 For examples of eurocentrism, see G. Moynier, above note 31, p. 335; L. Renault, above note 64, p. 231; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, p. 134; B. Baker, above note 7, para. 11; “A Brief History of the International Review of the Red Cross”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 100, No. 907–909, 2018, p. 26. For an incisive critique, see Frédéric Mégret, “The Universality of the Geneva Conventions”, in A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 31.
163 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 30, pp. 12, 17; 2020 Commentary on GC III, above note 30, pp. 2–3.
164 John Dalberg (Lord Acton), Lectures on the French Revolution, ed. John Figgis and Reginald Laurence, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, IN, 2000 (first published 1910), available at: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/acton-lectures-on-the-french-revolution-lf-ed.
