Advertisement

Discrepancies Between International Humanitarian Law on the Battlefield and in the Courtroom: The Challenges of Applying International Humanitarian Law During International Criminal Trials

  • Rogier BartelsEmail author

Abstract

International humanitarian law and international criminal law are distinct but related fields. The application of international humanitarian law to concrete facts by international tribunals and courts has contributed to the development and clarification of this body of law. However, using a law in the courtroom that was created instead, to be applied on the battlefield poses significant challenges. In the process of such use, the law may have been distorted to fit facts that it was not envisioned to cover. Its use is as a means to punish unwanted behaviour during armed conflicts and to combat impunity risks contorting the balance on which international humanitarian law is based: military necessity and humanity. This chapter highlights some findings by international criminal tribunals and courts that do not sit easily with international humanitarian law as applied by armed forces, and discusses the consequences that applying the laws of armed conflict during criminal trials may have for this branch of international law.

Keywords

Supra Note Armed Conflict Appeal Chamber Rome Statute Trial Chamber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

Online Documents

  1. Ferguson J (2010) Sudan rebels tell war stories over sheep feast. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/12/14/sudan.darfur.rebels/index.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2012
  2. Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005a) ICRC study on Customary International Humanitarian Law. www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home
  3. Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC (2010) ICC Prosecutor: alleged war crimes in the territory of the Republic of Korea under preliminary examination. http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/press%20releases%20(2010)/pr608. Accessed 7 April 2012

Literature

  1. Akhavan P (2008) Reconciling crimes against humanity with the laws of war: human rights, armed conflict, and the limits of progressive jurisprudence. J Int Crim Justice 6(1):21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson K (2009) The rise of international criminal law: intended and unintended consequences. Eur J Int Law 20(2):331–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels R, Wagner N (2008) Prosecutor v. Galić: commentary. In: Klip A, Sluiter G (eds) Annotated leading cases of international criminal tribunals 15—The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, vol 14. Antwerp, Intersentia, pp 683–701Google Scholar
  4. Bianchi A, Naqvi Y (2011) International humanitarian law and terrorism. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Bothe M (2004) The historical evolution of international humanitarian law, International Human Rights Law, Refugee Law and International Criminal Law. In: Fischer H et al (eds) Crisis management and humanitarian protection: Festschrift fur Dieter Fleck. BWV, Berlin, pp 37–45Google Scholar
  6. Boyle T (2001) Proportionality in decision making and combat actions. In: Hector M, Jellema M (eds) Protecting civilians in 21st-century warfare: target selection, proportionality and precautionary measures in law and practice. Wolf Legal Productions, Nijmegen, pp 29–37Google Scholar
  7. Combs N (2010) Fact-finding without facts: the uncertain evidentiary foundations of international criminal convictions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cryer R (2006) Of custom, treaties, scholars and the Gavel: the influence of the International Criminal Tribunals on the ICRC Customary Law study. J Confl Secur Law 11(2):239–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cryer R et al (2010) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danner A (2006) When courts make law: how the international criminal tribunals recast the laws of war. Vanderbilt Law Rev 59:1–68Google Scholar
  11. Darcy S (2010) Bridging the gaps in the laws of armed conflict? International criminal tribunals and the development of humanitarian law. In: Quénivet N, Shah-Davis S (eds) International law and armed conflict: challenges in the 21st century. T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague, pp 319–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson G, Dixon M (2006) The protection of states’ national security interests in cases before the ICTY: a descriptive and prescriptive analysis of Rule 54 bis of the rules and procedure and evidence. In: Abtahi H, Boas G (eds) The dynamics of international criminal justice. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 95–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dinstein Y (2004) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dinstein Y (2010) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dörmann K (2002) Elements of war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Dörmann K (2003) The legal situation of ‘unlawful/unprivileged combatants. Int Rev Red Cross 85(849):45–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doswald-Beck L (2011) Human rights in times of conflict and terrorism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Fenrick W (1997) International humanitarian law and criminal trials. Transnatl Law Contemp Probl 7:23–44Google Scholar
  19. Fenrick W (1998) The development of the law of armed conflict through the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. J Armed Confl Law 3(2):197–232Google Scholar
  20. Fleck D (2003) International humanitarian law after September 11: challenges and the need to respond. Yearb Int Humanit Law 6:41–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fleck D (2008) The handbook of international humanitarian law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Graditzky T (1999) War crime issues before the Rome diplomatic conference on the establishment of the International Criminal Court. UC Davis J Int Law Policy 5:199–218Google Scholar
  23. Green L (1999) The international judicial process and the law of armed conflict. Chitty’s Law J Family Law Rev 47:1–36Google Scholar
  24. Greenwood C (1998) The development of international humanitarian law by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Max Planck Yearb U N Law 2:97–140Google Scholar
  25. Greenwood C (2001) Belligerent reprisals in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In: Fischer H et al (eds) International and national prosecution of crimes under international law: current developments. Anro Spitz, Berlin, pp 539–557Google Scholar
  26. Greenwood (2004) Command responsibility and the Hadzihasanovic decision. J Int Crim Justice 2(2):598–605.Google Scholar
  27. Hampson F (1992) Proportionality and necessity in the Gulf conflict. Am Soc Int Law Proc 45:45–58Google Scholar
  28. Hampson F (1993) Means and methods of warfare in the conflict in the Gulf. In: Rowe P (ed) The Gulf War 1990–91 in International and English Law. Routledge, London, pp 89–110Google Scholar
  29. Hayashi N (2006) The role of judges in identifying the status of combatants. Acta Societatis Martensis 2:69–92Google Scholar
  30. Heinsch R (2007) Die Weiterentwicklung des Humanitären Völkenrechts durch die Strafgerichtshöfe für das ehemalige Jugoslawien und Ruanda. BWV Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. Heintschel von Heinegg W (2003) Criminal international law and customary international law. In: Zimmermann A (ed) International criminal law and the current development of public international law. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 27–47Google Scholar
  32. Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005b) Customary international humanitarian law: Rules, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2008) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 90(872):991–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. International Humanitarian Law Clinic at Emory University School of Law (2012) Operational law experts roundtable on the Gotovina Judgment: military operations, battlefield reality and the judgment’s impact on effective implementation and enforcement of International Humanitarian Law, Emory IHL Clinic (“Emory IHL Clinic”). http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/NEWWEBSITE/Centers_Clinics/IHLC/Gotovina_Meeting_Report.pdf
  35. Kalshoven F (2003) Two recent decisions of the Yugoslavia Tribunal. In: Vohrah LC (ed) Man’s inhumanity to man: essays in honour of Antonio Cassese. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 481–509Google Scholar
  36. Kalshoven F (2004) From international humanitarian law to international criminal law. Chin J Int Law 3:151–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalshoven F (2011) Constraints on the waging of war: an introduction to international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kolb R, Hyde R (2008) An introduction to the international law of armed conflicts. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Kress C (2001) War crimes committed in non-international armed conflict and the emerging system of international criminal justice. In: Dinstein Y (ed) Israel yearbook on human rights, vol 30. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 103–179Google Scholar
  40. Kuhli M, Günther K (2011) Judicial lawmaking, Discourse theory, and the ICTY on belligerent reprisals. Ger Law J 12:1261–1278Google Scholar
  41. Melzer N (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. ICRC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Meron T (1998a) The Hague Tribunal: working to clarify international humanitarian law. Am Univ Int Law Rev 13:1511–1517Google Scholar
  43. Meron T (1998b) War crimes law comes of age. Am J Int Law 92:462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meron T (1998c) Panel commentary: War crimes tribunals: the record and prospects: the contribution of the ad hoc tribunals to international humanitarian law. Am Univ Int Law Rev 13:1383–1411Google Scholar
  45. Mettraux G (2009) The law of command responsibility. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Neuner M (2002) The power of international criminal tribunals to produce evidence. In: Roggemann H, Šarčevićeds P (eds) National security and international criminal justice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 163–193Google Scholar
  47. Oppenheim L (1952) International law: A treatise, volume II - Disputes, war and neutrality, 7th edn. Edited by Lauterpacht H, Longmans Green & Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY (2000) Final report to the prosecutor by the Committee established to review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Int Legal Mater 38:1257–1283 (“Final Report to the Prosecutor”)Google Scholar
  49. Pictet J (ed) (1958) Commentary: IV Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. ICRC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  50. Pictet J (1966) The principles of international humanitarian law. ICRC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  51. Preux J (1960) Commentary on the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, vol 3. ICRC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  52. Raimundo F (2008) General principles of law in the decisions of international criminal courts and tribunals. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 73–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (2006) Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006Google Scholar
  54. Rogers A (2004) Law on the battlefield. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  55. Sadat L (ed) (2011) Forging a convention for crimes against humanity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Sandoz Y (2009) The dynamic but complex relationship between international penal law and international humanitarian law. In: Doria J et al (eds) The legal regime of the ICC: essay in honour of Prof. I.P. Blishchenko. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, pp 1049–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sandoz Y et al (eds) (1987) ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. ICRC, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  58. Sassòli M (2009) Humanitarian law and international criminal law. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 111–120Google Scholar
  59. Sassòli M, Olsen LM (2000) The judgment of the ICTY Appeals Chamber on the merits in the Tadic case. Int Rev Red Cross 82(839):733–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schabas W (2001) Introduction to the International Criminal Court, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  61. Scheffer D (2011) All the missing souls: a personal history of the war crimes tribunals. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  62. Simma B (2012) Reciprocity. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, vol 32. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  63. Sivakumaran S (2011) Re-envisaging the international law of internal armed conflict. Eur J Int Law 22(1):219–264Google Scholar
  64. The State of Israel (2010) Gaza Operation investigations: second update, July 2010. http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/1483B296-7439-4217-933C-653CD19CE859/0/GazaUpdateJuly2010.pdf
  65. Sluiter G (2009) ‘I beg you, please come testify’: the problematic absence of subpoena powers at the ICC. New Crim Law Rev 12(4):590–608Google Scholar
  66. Sofaer A (1988) The rationale for the United States decision. Am J Int Law 82:784–787Google Scholar
  67. United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (2004) The manual of the law of armed conflict. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  68. United States Department of Defense (1992) Conduct of the Persian Gulf War (final report to congress). Int Legal Mater 31:612Google Scholar
  69. Van den Herik L (2005) The contribution of the Rwanda Tribunal to the development of international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  70. Van de Herik L (2009) A quest for jurisdiction and an appropriate definition of crime: Mpambara before the Dutch Courts. J Int Crim Justice 7:1117–1132Google Scholar
  71. Van Schaack B, Slye R (2007) International criminal law and its enforcement: cases and materials. Foundation Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Wagner (2003) The development of the grave breaches regime and of individual criminal responsibility by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’. Int Rev Red Cross 85(850):351–383Google Scholar
  73. Watts S (2009) Reciprocity and the law of war. Harv Int Law J 50(2):365–434Google Scholar
  74. Werle G (2009) Principles of international criminal law, 2nd edn. TMC Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Witteveen M (2010) Closing the gap in truth finding: from the facts of the field to the judge’s chambers. In: Smeulders A (ed) Collective violence and international criminal justice: an interdisciplinary approach. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  76. Wuerzner C (2008) Mission impossible? Bringing charges for the crime of attacking civilians or civilian objects before international criminal tribunals. Int Rev Red Cross 90(872):907–930Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Defence AcademyBredaThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations