Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Spieker, Heike
2004.
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law.
p.
129.
Article contents
Extract
Milestones, particularly those as special as the twin-birth of a new century and millenium, lend themselves to rhapsody and the urge to say something positive and forward-looking. The Yearbook is not merely succumbing to this tendency, however, when it observes that, in some important respects, 2000 proved itself an auspicious opening. There was a flurry of activity among states to implement international humanitarian law (IHL), most of it a consequence of states ratifying the several humanitarian law treaties that were concluded in the late-Nineties.
- Type
- Current Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 2000
References
3. See for example the new Belarussian penal code, reproduced in part in this volume at pp. 704 and Correspondents' Reports at p. 425. See also the new Colombian penal code, reproduced in part in this volume at pp. 710 and Correspondents' Reports at pp. 454 et seq.
4. For example, Canada has introduced a wider definition of genocide than that provided for in Art. 6 of the Statute. The Canadian Act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2000, c. 24, provides that genocide is ‘an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons, as such’. For commentary thereon, see the article of W. Schabas in this volume, pp. 337 at 340–341.
5. The Rome Statute itself provides in Art. 10 that ‘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.’
6. For example, criminal complaints were admitted in Belgium against the former Congolese Minister for Foreign Affairs, Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, as well as against four Rwandans, including two nuns, and former Iranian President Rafsandjani, while in France, Libyan President Gadaffi was indicted. These developments are referred to in Correspondents Reports.
7. W. Fenrick, ‘The Law Applicable to Targeting and Proportionality After Operation Allied Force: A View from the Outside’, in this volume, pp. 53 at 79–80.
8. The UN Security Council paid some attention to the question of prevention during its second open meeting on the role of the Security Council in conflict prevention, 20 July 2000. See also Statement by the President of the Security Council, S/PRST/2000/25, 20 July 2000, which stressed ‘the need to create a culture of prevention’.
9. Gourevitch, P., We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda (New York, Picador 1998) p. 170Google Scholar.
10. S/1999/957 of 8 September 1999. See 2 YIHL (1999) p. 214Google Scholar.
11. Ibid., p. 215.
12. By resolution 43/263. It opened for signature and ratification on 5 June 2000 by states that have signed the CRC.
13. M. Happold, ‘The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict’, in this volume at pp. 226 et seq.
14. ‘Children and Armed Conflict.’ Report of the Secretary-General, A/55/163-S/2000/712), 19 July 2000.
15. See ‘Year in Review’, 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 215–216Google Scholar. The SG in his report on children and armed conflict called this resolution ‘a veritable landmark for the cause of children affected by armed conflict. The adoption of this resolution has finally given full legitimacy to the protection of children exposed to conflict as an issue that properly belongs on the agenda of the Council.’ Ibid. at para. 1.
16. Supra n. 14 at para. 2.
17. Ibid., para. 6.
18. Ibid., para. 11 (Recommendation 3).
19. Ibid. Recommendation 4.
20. Ibid., para. 14.
21. The 1998 debate produced a Presidential Statement (S/PRST/1998/181) and a SC resolution (1261 (1999)) on children and armed conflict.
22. See ‘Year in Review’, 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 215–216Google Scholar.
23. A/55/442.
24. Ibid., paras. 7–11.
25. Ibid., para. 11.
26. Ibid., paras. 25–35.
27. Ibid., paras. 36–51.
28. UN Doc. A/54/726, S/2000/59, 31 January 2000; transmitted by way of identical letters dated 31 January 2000 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the General Assembly, the President of the Security Council and the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights.
29. The Independent International Commission on Kosovo, Kosovo Report (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2000)Google Scholar. Available online at http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/thekosovoreport.htm.
30. Ibid. Executive Summary.
31. Rubin, A., ‘Review Article. The Independent International Commission on Kosovo, Kosovo Report (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2000)’, 6 Journal of Conflict and Security Law (2001) pp. 147 at 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32. Ibid., at p. 148.
33. House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Fourth Report on Kosovo: HC 28 — I/II (2000). Available online at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/2802.htm. For commentary on this report, see Wheatley, S., ‘The Foreign Affairs Select Committee Report on Kosovo: NATO Action and Humanitarian Intervention’, 5 Journal of Conflict and Security Law (2001) p. 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar. NATO's action over Kosovo has generated a vast literature. A select bibliography of the Kosovo conflict is provided at pp. 776 et seq. of this volume.
34. Advisory Council on International Affairs, Advisory Committee on Issues of Public International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, Report No. 13, The Hague (04 2000)Google Scholar. Available online in English at http://www.AIV-Advice.nl. For commentary on this report, see Dekker, I. F., ‘Illegality and Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention: Synopsis of and Comments on a Dutch Report’, 6 Journal of Conflict and Security Law (2001) p. 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35. The Truth and Reconciliation Act, 2 March 2000, No. 4 of 2000. http://www.sierra-leone.org/trc.html.
36. E/CN.4/2001/35, 1 February 2001, para. 38.
37. These developments are discussed by S.A. Fernández de Gurmendi and H. Friman in this volume at pp. 289 et seq.
38. These developments are discussed infra in this report at p. 182.
39. Relevant developments are noted in Correspondents' Reports of this volume.
40. The right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Final report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr M. Cherif Bassiouni, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1999/33. Commission on Human Rights, Fifty-sixth session, Item 11 (d) of the provisional agenda. E/CN.4/2000/62, 18 January 2000.
41. E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 1996/18, 29 June 1996; E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20 of 26 June 1997; and E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1 of 2 October 1997.
42. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8 of 2 July 1993; E/CN.4/Sub.2/1996/17 of 24 May 1996; and E/CN.4/1997/104 of 16 January 1997.
43. Report of the independent expert on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, M. Cherif Bassiouni, submitted pursuant to UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/43. E/CN.4/1999/65, 8 February 1999.
44. Supra n. 40 at p. 8.
45. The report recalls ‘the provisions providing a remedy for victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law found in numerous international instruments, in particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at article 8, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at article 2, the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination at article 6, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment at article 11, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child at article 39’.
However, these provisions of international human rights treaties do not specifically refer to nor do they seem to contemplate a right to a remedy for victims of international humanitarian law, as opposed to human rights law. Indeed, it seems that any remedy contemplated arises only in respect of the breach of the human rights specifically guaranteed in the particular treaty, rather than any other human or ‘humanitarian’ rights not articulated in these treaties.
46. E/CN.4/2000/L.51, 14 April 2000.
47. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 20 June 2000, SB/P.I.S./512-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p512-e.htm; ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 21 November 2000, JD/P.I.S./541-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p512-e.htm.
48. ICTR/INFO–9–2–253.EN, Arusha, 5 December 2000. http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2000/253.htm.
49. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 4 December 2000, JL/P.I.S./544-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p544-e.htm.
50. Source: Interview of the author with L. McDowell, Coordinator of ICTY Outreach Program, May 2000.
51. ICTR/INFO–9–2–241.EN. http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2000/241.htm.
52. ICTR/INFO–9–2–242.EN, Arusha, 26 September 2000. http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2000/242.htm.
53. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 14 September 2000, JL/P.I.S./528-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/528-e.htm.
54. Letter dated 12 October 2000 from the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia addressed to the Secretary-General. Annex to Letter dated 2 November 2000 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2000/1063, 3 November 2000.
55. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 24 November 2000, JL/P.I.S./542-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p542-e.htm.
56. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 31 July 2000, JL/P.I.S./521-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p521-e.htm.
57. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 4 December 2000, SB/P.I.S./545-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p545-e.htm.
58. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 6 April 2000, PR/P.I.S./488-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p488-e.htm.; ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 17 May 2000, JL/P.I.S./5017-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p501-e.htm.
59. ICTY Press Release, The Hauge, 25 February 2000, CC/P.I.S./472-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p472-e.htm.
60. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 6 March 2000, JL/P.I.S./482-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p82-E.htm.
61. IT-98-32. See also ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 25 January 2000, JL/P.I.S./464-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p464-e.htm.
62. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 6 March 2000, JL/P.I.S./464-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p464-e.htm.
63. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 21 March 2000, JL/P.I.S./485-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p485-e.htm.
64. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 3 April 2000, PR/P.I.S./478-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p478-e.htm.
65. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 26 April 2000, CC/P.I.S./496-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p496-e.htm.
66. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 13 October 2000, CC/P.I.S./534-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p534-e.htm.
67. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 19 April 2000, JL/P.I.S./492-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p492-e.htm; ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 19 April 2000, PR/P.I.S./494-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p494-e.htm; ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 5 April 2000, JL/P.I.S./487-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p487-e.htm.
68. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 30 May 2000, JL/P.I.S./506-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p506-e.htm.
69. Kvocka et al. IT-98–30/1-T.
70. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 6 March 2000, JL/P.I.S./464-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p476-e.htm.
71. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 6 March 2000, JL/P.I.S./478-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p478-e.htm.
72. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 27 October 2000, JL/P.I.S./537-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p537-e.htm.
73. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 13 December 2000, JL/P.I.S./549-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p549-e.htm.
74. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 20 October 2000, XT/P.I.S./536-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p536-e.htm; ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 10 November 2000, JL/P.I.S./549-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p549-e.htm.
75. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 13 June 2000, PR/P.I.S./510-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p510-e.htm.
76. The Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm.
77. See Benvenuti, P., ‘The ICTY Prosecutor and the Review of the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’, 12 EJIL (2001) p. 503CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Bothe, M., ‘The Protection of the Civilian Population and NATO Bombing on Yugoslavia: Comments on a Report to the Prosecutor of the ICTY’, 12 EJIL (2001) p. 531CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also E. David in this volume at pp. 81 et seq.
78. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 24 November 2000, JL/P.I.S./539-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p539-e.htm.
79. ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 12 December 2000, JL/P.I.S./548-e. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p548-e.htm.
80. The following summaries of the Judgements of the ICTY and ICTR at trial and on appeal highlight the most important factual and legal findings, in particular, where the judgements develop the law.
81. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Dragan Papić, and Vladimir Šantić, also known as “Vlado”, ICTY Case No. IT-95–16-T, Judgement, 14 January 2000, para. 749. See also ICTY Press Release, The Hague, 14 January 2000, JL/P.I.S./462-E. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/462-e.htm.
82. Ibid., paras. 368, 767–769.
83. Ibid., para. 511.
84. Ibid., paras. 517–519.
85. Ibid., para. 520.
86. Ibid., para. 513.
87. Ibid., para. 531.
88. Ibid., para. 537.
89. Ibid.
90. Ibid., para. 540.
91. Ibid., para. 551. Cf., The Prosecutor v. DušKo Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, para. 654.
92. Tadić Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 707.
93. See Tadić Appeals Decision, 15 July 1999, para. 305.
94. Tadić Trial Judgement, supra n. 91, para. 707.
95. KuprešKić Decision, supra n. 81, para. 580.
96. Ibid., para. 581.
97. Ibid., para. 605.
98. Tadić Opinion and Judgement, supra n. 91, paras. 708–710.
99. Ibid. paras, 697, 710.
100. Kupreškić Decision, supra n. 81, para. 618.
101. Ibid., para. 619.
102. Ibid., para. 620.
103. Ibid., para. 621.
104. Ibid., para. 622.
105. Ibid., para. 623.
106. Ibid., para. 625.
107. Ibid., para. 636.
108. Ibid., para. 668.
109. Ibid., para. 679.
110. ‘The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offences or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.’ Ibid. para. 681.
111. Ibid., para. 682.
112. Ibid., para. 683.
113. Ibid., para. 693.
114. Ibid., para. 694.
115. Ibid., para. 718.
116. Ibid., para. 719.
117. Ibid., para. 720.
118. Ibid., para. 727.
119. Ibid., paras. 728–748.
120. Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95–14-T, Judgement, 3 March 2000.
121. Ibid., para. 393.
122. Ibid., para. 94.
123. Ibid., para. 95 et seq.
124. Ibid., paras. 84–85.
125. Ibid., paras. 91 et seq.
126. Ibid., para. 94.
127. Ibid., para. 95.
128. Ibid., para. 122.
129. Ibid., para. 146.
130. Ibid., para. 332.
131. Ibid., para. 337.
132. For summaries of the Trial and Appeals Judgements, see ‘Year in Review’, 1 YIHL (1998) at pp. 139–142Google Scholar and 2 YIHL (1999) at pp. 227–229Google Scholar.
133. The Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski. Case No. IT-95–14/1-A, Judgement, Appeals Chamber, 24 March 2000.
134. See ‘Year in Review’, 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 226–227Google Scholar.
135. Supra n. 133 at para. 183.
136. Ibid., para. 187.
137. Ibid., para. 190.
138. Ibid., paras. 153–154.
139. Prosecutor v. Furundšija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000.
140. Prosecutor v. Furundšija, Case No. IT-95-17.1-T, Judgement, 10 December 1998. See ‘Year in Review’, 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 224–225Google Scholar.
141. Supra n. 139, para. 238.
142. ICTR/INFO-9-2-247.EN, Arusha, 30 October 2000. http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2000/247.htm.
143. See Paust, J. J., ‘The Freeing of Ntakirutimana in the United States and ‘Extradition’ to the ICTR’, 1 YIHL (1998) pp. 205 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar; See also In the Mattter of Surrender of Elizaphan Ntakirutiman, 17 December 1997, also in Vol. 1 of the YIHL at pp. 607 et seq.
144. ICTR/INFO-9-2-245.EN, Arusha, 23 October 2000. http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2000/245.htm.
145. ICTR/INFO-9-2-248.EN, Arusha, 2 November 2000. http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2000/248.htm.
146. Ibid.
147. Ibid.
148. The Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema, Case No. ICTR-096-13, Judgement, 27 January 2000.
149. Ibid., para. 974.
150. Ibid., para. 226.
151. Ibid., para. 227.
152. The Prosecutor v. Omar Serushago, Case No. ICTR-98-39-5, 14 February 2000.
153. See ‘Year in Review’, 2 YIHL (1999) p. 231Google Scholar.
154. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-I9-AR72, Decision (Prosecutor's Request for Review or Reconsideration), 31 March 2000.
155. See ‘Year in Review’, 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 235–236Google Scholar.
156. The Prosecutor v. Georges Ruggiu, Case No. ICTR-97-32-I, Judgement and Sentence, 1 June 2000.
157. Jean Kambanda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR 97-23-A, Judgement, 19 October 2000.
158. This development is discussed by S. Linton in Correspondents' Reports of this volume at p. 472 et seq.
159. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is discussed by A. Tejan Cole in Correspondents' Reports of this volume at pp. 574 et seq. Work to create a Tribunal in Cambodia to try Khmer Rouge leaders is described by D. Boyle in Correspondents' Reports of this volume at pp. 437 et seq.
160. ‘Additional emblem for the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement’, ICRC Press Release 00/38, 12 October 2000.
161. See Z. Meriboute in this volume at pp. 258 et seq.
162. The intention is not to allude to all SC resolutions and Presidential Statements of 2000 but only those concerned with armed conflicts and/or violations of international humanitarian law. Even then, the aim is not to comprehensively summarise and or to analyse all relevant resolutions, but merely to draw attention to their key, and especially humanitarian, aspects, and particularly to specific references to international humanitarian law or breaches of the law, even where the resolution does not itself use the language of the law.
163. See infra p. 220.
164. First Report on the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), S/1999/1223, 6 December 1999.
165. Fifth Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, S/2000/751, 31 July 2000, paras. 53–54.
166. SC Resolution 1315 (2000), adopted by the Security Council at its 4186th meeting on 14 August 2000.
167. Resolution 1260 of 20 August 1999 welcomed the signing of the Lomé Peace Agreement and commended the Government of Sierra Leone for its ‘courageous efforts to achieve peace, including through legislative and other measures already taken towards implementation of the Peace Agreement (…)’ – a thinly veiled reference to the amnesties, power sharing and other concessions to the rebels.
168. S/2000/1091.
169. E/CN.4/Sub.2/Res/2000/24, 18 August 2000.
170. ‘Mass and flagrant violations of human rights which constitute crimes against humanity and which place during the colonial period, wars of conquest and slavery’, E/CN.4/Sub.2/Dec/2000/114, 18 August 2000.
171. Statement by the President of the Security Council, S/PRST/2000/4*, 11 February 2000.
172. The Role of United Nations Peacekeeping in Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration, Report of the Secretary-General, S/2000/101, 11 February 2000. See also Statement by the President of the Security Council, S/PRST/2000/10, 23 March 2000.
173. Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects, Report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, A/54/839, 20 March 2000, para. 12.
174. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999. See ‘Year in Review’, 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 249–250Google Scholar.
175. Supra n. 173, para. 29.
176. Ibid., para. 39.
177. Ibid.
178. Ibid., para. 82.
179. Ibid.
180. Ibid., para. 65.
181. Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (Brahimi Report). UN Doc. A/55/305-S/2000/809, 21 August 2000.
182. Brahami Report, ibid., para 1.
183. Ibid., para. 1.
184. Ibid., para. 3.
185. Ibid., para. 4.
186. Ibid., para. 48.
187. White, N. D., ‘Commentary on the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (The Brahimi Report)’, 6 Journal of Conflict and Security Law (2001) pp. 127 at 130CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
188. Ibid., p. 137.
189. Ibid., para. 7.
190. Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Report of the Panel on United Nations peace operations, S/2000/1081, 20 October 2000.
191. Resource requirements for implementation of the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, Report of the Secretary-General, A/55/507, 27 October 2000.
192. ‘Children and Armed Conflict.’ Report of the Secretary-General, A/55/163-S/2000/712, 19 July 2000, para. 3.
193. See S/2000/75, 31 January 2000.
194. AG/Res. 1706 (XXX-O/OO). http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2000eng/chap.2a.htm.
195. AG/Res. 1709 (XXX-O/OO). URL ibid.
196. See 2 YIHL (1999) p. 216Google Scholar.
197. Judgment on Preliminary Objections of February 4, 2000, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 67 (2000).
198. Ibid., paras. 32 and 33.
199. Ibid., para. 29.
200. Ibid., para. 33.
201. Ibid., para. 34.
202. International Panel of Eminent Personalities (IPEP): Report on the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda and Surrounding Events, 7 July 2000. Reproduced in part in 40 ILM 141 (2001).
203. Ibid., para. 10.1.
204. Ibid., para. E.S.44. See also ‘International Community to blame for Rwanda genocide, says expert panel’, UN Department of Public Information (DPI) (http://www.un.org/News), 7 July 2000.
205. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the actions of the United Nations during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda', S/1999/1257, 16 December 1999. See 2 YIHL (1999) p. 251Google Scholar.
206. Commission d'enquête parlementaire concernant les évenéments du Ruanda: Rapport fait au nom de la Commission d'enquête par MM. Mahoux et Verhofstadt. Belgian Sentate. Session de 1997–1998, 6 décembre 1997. Documents parlementaires, Sénat de Belgique, session 1997/8, Nos. 611/7, 611/9, 611/10, 611/11, 611/12, 611/13, 611/14 et 611/15.
207. Rapport d'Information No. 1271 par la mission d'information de la commission de la Défense Nationale et des Forces Armées et de la Commission des Affaires Étrangères sur les operations militaires menées par la France, d'autres pays et l'ONU au Rwanda entre 1990 et 1994. See 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 251–252Google Scholar.
208. Supra n. 202 at para. 15.40.
209. Ibid., para. 15.81.
210. Supra n. 207.
211. Supra n. 204.
212. Supra n. 202 at para. E.S.40.
213. Ibid., Executive summary, para. 45.
214. Ibid., para. 24.4(A)(IV)(12). See also Lederer, E., ‘Panel Puts Blame on Rwanda Genocide’, AP, 7 07 2000Google Scholar; Crossette, B., ‘Report says U.S. and Others Allowed Rwanda Genocide’, New York Times, 8 07 2000Google Scholar; Lynch, C., ‘West Turned Back on Rwanda Genocide, OAU Report Says’, Washington Post, 8 07 2000Google Scholar; Leopold, E., ‘Reparations Urged for 1994 Rwanda Genocide’, Reuters, 7 07 2000Google Scholar.
215. Supra n. 202, para. 24.4(A)(IV)(15).
216. See ‘Preparatory Committee for the 2001 Review Conference of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)’. Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross,Geneva,14 December 2000.Google Scholar
217. S/2000/1092, 15 November 2000.
218. Explosive Remnants of War: Cluster Bombs and Landmines in Kosovo. Published by the ICRC's Mines-Arms Unit, August 2000, Revised June 2001. See also Herby, P. and Nuiten, A. R., ‘Explosive remnants of war: Protecting civilians through an additional protocol to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’, 83 IRRC (2001) p. 195Google Scholar.
219. Ibid., pp. 9, 36.
220. Ibid., p. 8.
- 1
- Cited by