Abstract
Following the breakout of the armed conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea in May 1998, the two governments ‘permanently terminate[d] military hostilities between themselves’ pursuant to an agreement signed in Algiers on 12 December 2000. Article 5 of the Agreement provided for the establishment of a Claims Commission which was asked to ‘decide through binding arbitration all claims for loss, damage or injury by one Government against the other’ related to the armed conflict and resulting from ‘violations of international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, or other violations of international law.’ The present chapter discusses the standards the Commission has developed for determining State liability for violations of International Humanitarian Law that occurred during the war. It is submitted that said standards are not entirely in line neither with the mandate the Commission was given nor with the relevant rules of International Humanitarian Law. The chapter will try to provide possible explanations for this inconsistency and will reflect on the possible impact of the Commission’s determinations on proceedings aimed at ascertaining the individual criminal responsibility for war crimes committed during the conflict.
The author is Associate Professor of International Law at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See, e.g., Cryer et al. 2019; Cassese 2003; Ascensio et al. 2000. Under certain conditions, international criminal liability also attaches to the omissive behaviour of superiors (both, military and civilian) who have failed to prevent or repress the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by their subordinates, or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. See Ambos 2002, pp. 823–872.
- 2.
See, e.g., Article 29 of the Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949.
- 3.
Article 25(4) of the ICC Statute reads: ‘No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law.’, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998.
- 4.
Trial Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgement, 10 December 1998, Case No. IT-95-17/1, para 142.
- 5.
See Article 4 of the ILC’s Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Eighth Session, 6 May—26 July 1996, UN GAOR 48th Sess., Supp. No. 10, A/51/10 (1996).
- 6.
See Longobardo 2019, p. 408.
- 7.
- 8.
The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission was established as part of the peace settlement which put an end to the 1998–2000 border war between the two States and was given the task of resolving the various damages claims arising out of the conflict. It operates pursuant to Article 5 of the Agreement between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea, 12 December 2000 (the text is reproduced in Appendix A to this volume). See also Greppi and Poli, Chap. 4.
- 9.
See Pellet 2010, p. 6.
- 10.
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-third Session (2001), UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supplement No. 10, A/56/10, Chapter IV.E.1. The Report also includes the Commentary. See Crawford 2002.
- 11.
Commentary to the ILC Draft Articles (above n 10) p. 31.
- 12.
Ibid., p. 38.
- 13.
Ibid., p. 42.
- 14.
Commentary to the ILC Draft Articles (above n 10) p. 46.
- 15.
- 16.
1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907 (emphasis added). For a detailed reconstruction of the travaux préparatoires of the Hague Convention suggesting that Article 3 was intended by the drafters to grant a right to civilian victims of violations of the Regulations annexed to the Convention to claim damages directly from the enemy party, see Kalshoven 1991. Contra Pictet who, discussing the scope of Article 29 of Geneva Convention IV and drawing a parallel to Article 3 Hague Convention, argues categorically that ‘[t]he Convention does not give individual men and women the right to claim compensation’, concluding that ‘[t]he State is answerable to another contracting State and not to the individual’, Pictet 1958, p. 211. The same conclusion is reached by Provost, who asserts the absence of an individual right to a remedy under IHL, citing the lack of relevant State practice to support the contrary view. See Provost 2002, pp. 45–49.
- 17.
See Sassòli 2002, p. 406. The idea that the sending State should carry responsibility for all illegalities committed by its soldiers can be convincingly evinced from the statements made by the head of the German delegation while discussing the rationale of Article 3 of the Hague Convention during the 1907 Hague Conference; see Brown Scott 1921, p. 140. See also Wolfrum 1995, p. 542; d’Argent 2002, pp. 507–519. Contra, see the stance adopted by the US Military in its 1976 Air Force Pamphlet, holding that ‘… as a general rule, in the absence of some case for fault such as inadequate supervision or training, no obligation arises on the part of a state for other violations of the law of armed conflict committed by individual members outside their general area of responsibility’, quoted in Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005b, p. 3510.
- 18.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Article 91, entitled ‘responsibility’ reads: ‘A Party to the conflict which violates the provisions of the Conventions or of this Protocol shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.’
Contrary to Article 3 of the of the 1907 Hague Convention, Article 91 was from the onset conceived as a provision on the responsibility of State parties towards one another, see Kalshoven 1991, pp. 844–853.
- 19.
ICJ, Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, ICJ Rep 2005, p. 168, para 214.
- 20.
See e.g. the ICJ’s opinions on Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Rep 1996, p. 226, para 26 and on Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Rep 2004, p. 136, paras 102–106. See also the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ report on the case Coard et al. v. United States, Case 10.951, 29 September 1999, Report N° 109/99, paras 39–42. See also the Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi) on Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, 13 April 2006, A/CN.4/L.682, pp. 56–57.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
See de Preux 1987, p. 1056.
- 24.
See Kalshoven 1991, p. 834.
- 25.
EECC, Partial Award: Prisoners of War, Eritrea’s Claim 17, 1 July 2003, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 56 (emphasis added). All awards and decisions rendered by the EECC are available on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/71/. Accessed 9 June 2020.
- 26.
Algiers Agreement (Appendix A to this volume) Article 5, para 1 (emphasis added).
- 27.
Ibid., Article 5, para 13.
- 28.
EECC, Rules of Procedure, Article 19 (Applicable Law), https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/774, Accessed 9 June 2020.
- 29.
The binding nature for the parties of the whole Hague Convention IV—and hence of Article 3 thereof—has been acknowledged by both States as well as by the Commission, see EECC, Partial Award: Central Front, Ethiopia’s Claim 2, 28 April 2004, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 16. On the Commission’s role in determining if and how far the main IHL treaties reflected rules of customary international law, which was made necessary by the circumstance that (at the relevant time) Eritrea was not a party to them, see Venturini, Chap. 15, Sect. 15.3.3.
- 30.
Central Front, Ethiopia 2004 (above n 29) para 29 (emphasis added).
- 31.
EECC, Partial Award: Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim 4, 1 July 2003, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 38.
- 32.
Prisoners of War, Eritrea 2003 (above n 25) para 81.
- 33.
Ibid., para 82 (emphasis added).
- 34.
Central Front, Ethiopia 2004 (above n 29) para 66.
- 35.
EECC, Partial Award: Civilians Claims, Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 and 27–32, 17 December 2004, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 157 (emphasis added).
- 36.
EECC, Partial Award: Central Front, Eritrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 22, 28 April 2004, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 54.
- 37.
EECC, Partial Award: Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–13, 14, 21, 25 & 26, 19 December 2005, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 45 (emphasis added). Analogous allegations regarding the Lalaigash Sub-Zoba shared the same fate, ibid., para 56.
- 38.
EECC, Partial Award: Western and Eastern Fronts—Ethiopia’s Claims 1 & 3, 19 December 2005, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 39.
- 39.
Prisoners of War, Ethiopia 2003 (above n 31) para 88 (emphasis added).
- 40.
- 41.
Ibid., para 89.
- 42.
- 43.
EECC, Decision Number 1: The Commission’s Mandate/Temporal Scope of Jurisdiction, August 2001, PCA Case No. 2001-02, p. 2.
- 44.
Prisoners of War, Ethiopia 2003 (above n 31) para 6. In this respect, it is also worth recalling the provision of the Algiers Agreement establishing that the EECC ‘shall endeavor to complete its work within three years of the date when the period for filing claims closes’, Algiers Agreement (Appendix A to this volume) Article 5, para 12. A very limited amount of time if one considers the amount of evidence to be vetted and the complex nature of the legal aspects involved.
- 45.
Prisoners of War, Ethiopia 2003 (above n 31) para 7.
- 46.
The limited attention to individual claims may be testified by the fact that the overwhelming majority of claims was presented by the two litigants on behalf of the respective governments. Only six claims were presented by Eritrea on behalf of Eritrean nationals, Murphy et al. 2013, p. 57.
- 47.
Algiers Agreement (Appendix A to this volume) Article 5, para 12. According to the initial schedule, the EECC should have completed its work by December 2004. As is known, it took the Commission an additional four years and eight months to render its last award.
- 48.
EECC, Final Award: Eritrea’s Damages Claims, 17 August 2009, para 10.
- 49.
- 50.
For a critical appraisal of the Commission’s handling of claims concerning rape, see Lincoln 2012.
- 51.
Central Front, Eritrea 2004 (above n 36) para 36.
- 52.
- 53.
Central Front, Eritrea 2004 (above n 36) para 39.
- 54.
Ibid., para 40.
- 55.
Contra, see Kidane 2007 who states that the EECC’s approach ‘… provides an effective means of addressing a difficult and important issue and will undoubtedly prove to be one of the most significant contributions of the Commission to the growth of international humanitarian law’, p. 77.
- 56.
Western Front, Aerial Bombardment 2005 (above n 37) para 138.
- 57.
Ibid., para 139.
- 58.
Ibid., para 141.
- 59.
Ibid., para 142.
- 60.
Central Front, Eritrea 2004 (above n 36) para 107.
- 61.
Ibid., para 112.
- 62.
See Colandrea 2006, p. 795.
- 63.
ILC Draft Articles (above n 10) Article 4.
- 64.
See the Commentary to the ILC Draft Articles (above n 10) p. 41. The principle has been confirmed by the ICJ, stating that ‘[a]ccording to a well-established rule of international law, the conduct of any organ of a State must be regarded as an act of that State. This rule is of a customary character.’, Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 29 April 1999, ICJ Rep 1999, para 62 (emphasis added). The ILC Commentary complements the rule by linking responsibility to the fact that the organ is acting in its official capacity. However, as seen above, this qualification does not apply to violations of IHL.
- 65.
In addition to the authorities cited above, reference should also be made to the ILC Draft Article 58 which states that the articles ‘are without prejudice to any question of the individual responsibility under international law of any person acting on behalf of a State’.
- 66.
On the relationship between State and individual criminal responsibility for international crimes see Rosenne 1995; Dupuy 2002; Spinedi 2002; Nollkämper 2003; Condorelli 2003; Fois 2004; Fleck 2007; Kalshoven 2007; Zimmermann 2007. Also of pertinence is the ICJ judgment in the Genocide Case: ICJ, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Rep 2007, p. 43, paras 162–182.
- 67.
EECC, Partial Award: Civilians Claims, Ethiopia’s Claim 5, 17 December 2004, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 90.
- 68.
See, e.g., Prisoners of War, Ethiopia 2003 (above n 31) para 38.
- 69.
See Zimmermann 2007, p. 215 (footnotes omitted).
- 70.
ICC Statute (above n 3).
- 71.
As is known, no statutory limitations exist to the prosecution of war crimes. See Rule 160 of the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, in Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005a, p. 614 ff.
- 72.
According to Nollkaemper, States should provide reparations ‘when state responsibility springs from acts which, although they may lead to individual responsibility, constitute relatively minor transgressions of international law. Examples are isolated killings of protected persons in armed conflicts by low ranking soldiers in breach of official rules and orders’, Nollkämper 2003, p. 622.
- 73.
See Articles 51, 52, 131, 148 of Geneva Conventions I, II, III and IV respectively.
- 74.
EECC, Decision Number 3: Remedies, August 2001, PCA Case No. 2001-02, p. 1.
- 75.
- 76.
Eritrea’s Damages 2009 (above n 48) and EECC, Final Award: Ethiopia’s Damages Claims, 17 August 2009, PCA Case No. 2001-02.
- 77.
See Dybnis 2011.
- 78.
See Murphy et al. 2013, p. 397.
- 79.
Agreement on Peace, Friendship and Comprehensive Cooperation Between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the State of Eritrea; the text is reproduced in Appendix A to this volume. See de Guttry 2019.
- 80.
Weeramantry 2005, p. 472.
- 81.
See, e.g., Prisoners of War, Eritrea 2003 (above n 25) paras 61, 71.
References
Ambos K (2002) Superior Responsibility. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Johns J (eds) The Rome Statute of International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 823–872
Ascensio H, Decaux E, Pellet A (eds) (2000) Droit international penal [International Criminal Law]. Éditions A. Pedone, Paris
Brown Scott J (1921) The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences: Translation of the Official Texts the Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Vol. III. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cassese A (2003) International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Colandrea V (2006) L’attribuzione allo Stato delle gravi violazioni del diritto internazionale umanitario nella giurisprudenza della Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission [EECC case law on attribution to states of serious violations of international humanitarian law]. La Comunità internazionale 61:785–800
Condorelli L (1984) L’imputation à l’État d’un fait internationalement illicite: solutions classiques et nouvelles tendances [Attribution to a State of an Internationally Wrongful Act: Traditional Solutions and New Trends]. Hague Recueil 189(VI):19–215
Condorelli L (2003) Responsabilité étatique et responsabilité individuelle pour violations graves du droit international humanitaire. In: Vorah L et al (eds) Man’s Inhumanity to Man—Essays in Honour of Antonio Cassese. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 211–220
Crawford J (2002) The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility—Introduction, Text and Commentaries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cryer R, Robinson D, Vasiliev S (eds) (2019) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
d’Argent P (2002) Les réparations de guerre en droit international public: la responsabilité internationale des États à l’épreuve de la guerre [War Reparations in Public International Law: The International Responsibility of States and the Test of War]. Emile Bruylant, Brussels
de Guttry A (2019) The 2018 Agreement on Peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea and its Implementation. A Legal Analysis. Archiv des Völkerrechts 57(1): 466–495
de Preux J (1987) Article 91—Responsibility. In: Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmerman B (eds) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva, pp 1053–1058
Dupuy J (2002) International Criminal Responsibility of the Individual and International Responsibility of the State. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Johns J (eds) The Rome Statute of International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1085–1110
Dybnis A (2011) Was the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission Merely a Zero-Sum Game?: Exposing the Limits of Arbitration in Resolving Violent Transnational Conflict. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 33:255–286
Fleck D (2007) Individual and State Responsibility for Violations of the Ius in Bello: An Imperfect Balance. In: Heintschel Von Heinegg W, Epping V (eds) International Humanitarian Law Facing New Challenges. Springer, Berlin, pp 171–206
Fois P (2004) Sul rapporto fra crimini internazionali dello stato e crimini internazionali dell’individuo [On the relationship between international crimes of the state and international crimes of the individual]. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 87:929–954
Freeman A W (1955) Responsibility of States for Unlawful Acts of Their Armed Forces. Hague Recueil 88, Vol. II, pp 267–415
Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (eds) (2005a) Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I—Rules. Cambridge University Press/International Committee of the Red Cross, Cambridge/Geneva
Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (eds) (2005b) Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. II—Practice. Cambridge University Press/International Committee of the Red Cross, Cambridge/Geneva
Kalshoven F (1991) State Responsibility for Warlike Acts of the Armed Forces—From Article 3 of Hague Convention IV to Article 91 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 and Beyond. ICLQ 40:827–858
Kalshoven F (2007) Some Comments on the International Responsibility of States. In: Heintschel Von Heinegg W, Epping V (eds) International Humanitarian Law Facing New Challenges. Springer, Berlin, pp 171–206
Kamenov T (1989) The origin of state and entity responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts. In: Kalshoven F, Sandoz Y (eds) Implementation of International Humanitarian Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 169–227
Kidane W (2007) Civil Liability for Violations of International humanitarian Law: The Jurisprudence of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission. Wisconsin International Law Journal 25:23–87
Klein N (2004) State Responsibility for International Humanitarian Law Violations and the Work of the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission So Far. GYIL 47:214–266
Lincoln R (2012) Too Rough a Justice: The Ethiopia-Eritrea Claims Commission and International Civil Liability for Claims for Rape Under International Humanitarian Law. Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law 20:255–286
Longobardo M (2019) Il progetto di articoli sulla responsabilità degli Stati e le convenzioni di diritto internazionale umanitario [The Draft Articles on State responsibility and international humanitarian law conventions]. In: Annoni A, Forlati S, Salerno F (eds) La codificazione nell’ordinamento internazionale e dell’Unione europea. Editoriale Scientifica, Naples, pp 407–433
Meron T (1989) Human Rights Norms and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Murphy S, Kidane W, Snider T (2013) Litigating War: Mass Civil Injury and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York
Nollkämper A (2003) Concurrence between individual responsibility and state responsibility in international law/ ICLQ 52:615–640
Pellet A (2010) The Definition of Responsibility in International Law. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S, Parlett K (eds) The Law of International Responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pictet J (1958) Article 29. In: Pictet J (ed) Commentary: Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, pp 209–213
Provost R (2002) International Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rosenne S (1995) War Crimes and State Responsibility. Israel Yearbook of Human Rights 24:63–102
Sassòli M (2002) State Responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law. IRRC 84(846):401–433
Simma B (2020) The International Court of Justice. In: Mégret F, Alston P (eds) The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 151–178
Snider T, Nair A (2019) Ten Years on: A Look at the Legacy of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission. In: Yihdego Z, Desta M G, Hailu M B (eds) Ethiopian yearbook of international law 2018. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–34
Spinedi M (2002) State Responsibility v. Individual Responsibility for International Crimes: Tertium Non Datur? EJIL 13:895–899
Thiele C (2013) Der Schutz der Menschenrechte durch den IGH [The protection of Human Rights through the ICJ]. Archiv des Völkerrechts 51:1–41
Tomuschat C (2003) Human Rights: Between Realism and Idealism. Oxford University Press, Oxford
van Houtte H (2009) The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission and International Humanitarian Law. In: Venturini G, Bariatti S (eds) Individual Rights and International Justice, Liber Fausto Pocar. Giuffré, Milan, pp 383–398
Weeramantry J R (2005) Prisoners of War (Eritrea v. Ethiopia), Eritrea’s Claims 17/ Ethiopia’s Claim 4, Partial Awards; Central Front (Eritrea v. Ethiopia), Eritrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22/ Ethiopia’s Claim 2, Partial Awards. AJIL 99:465–472
Wolfrum R (1995) Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law. In: Fleck D (ed) Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 517–550
Zimmermann A (2007) Comment: Responsibility for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and Human Rights Law—Synergy and Conflict? In: Heintschel Von Heinegg W, Epping V (eds) International Humanitarian Law Facing New Challenges. Springer, Berlin, pp 215–222
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sommario, E. (2021). State Responsibility for Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Work of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission: A Reappraisal Ten Years on. In: de Guttry, A., Post, H.H.G., Venturini, G. (eds) The 1998–2000 Eritrea-Ethiopia War and Its Aftermath in International Legal Perspective. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-439-6_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-439-6_22
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-438-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-439-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)