Comparing International Criminal Tribunals’ Interpretive Approaches to International Humanitarian Law

Viswanath, Raghavi

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-45994-8_4

Raghavi Viswanath⁵

Part of the book series: Global Issues ((GLOISS))

36 Accesses

Abstract

International humanitarian law (IHL) is conventionally described as a set of rules which seek to limit the effects of armed conflicts. These rules, invariably, rely on rule arbiters such as national and international courts. Much of IHL has therefore been made and unmade by international criminal tribunals, which are typically set up with the mandate of enforcing IHL norms. While the work of international criminal tribunals is rigorously documented, their short and fragmented lives have prevented comprehensive studies of their interpretive practices. Here, interpretation is understood as the argumentative praxis which gives fresh meanings to an existing norm. This chapter is an effort to systematically study the interpretive practices of international criminal tribunals vis-a-vis IHL norms: which approaches came to be adopted, what were the origins of these approaches, and what were the motivations behind their application. In so doing, this chapter reviews how interpretive approaches—stood alone and taken cumulatively—shaped the realities and politics of IHL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
International Committee of the Red Cross, The International Review of the Red Cross No 221 (March–April 1981), at 76.
2.
J. Meurant, “Inter Arma Caritas: Evolution and Nature of International Humanitarian Law”, 24 (3) Journal of Peace Research (1987), at 237–249.
3.
J. Pictet, Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law (Dordrecht: Nijhoff, Henry Dunant Institute, 1985), at 23.
4.
J. M. Sorel and V. B. Eveno, “Article 31”, in O. Corten and P. Klein (eds), The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (New York, Oxford University Press, 2011), 804–837, at 806.
5.
I. Venzke, “Sources in Interpretation Theories: The International Law-Making Process” in Besson and D’Aspremont (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law (New York, Oxford University Press, 2017), at 402, 405.
6.
L. Grover, “A Call to Arms: Fundamental Dilemmas Confronting the Interpretation of Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”, 21(3) European Journal of International Law (2010), at 543–583. Grover references D.N. MacCormick and R.S. Summers (eds), Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study (London, Routledge, 1991) to support her point.
7.
I. P. Blischenko, “Judicial Decisions as a Source of International Humanitarian Law”, in A. Cassese (ed.), The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict (Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica, 1979), at 41, 51. For a modern appraisal, see G. Mettraux, International Crimes and the ad Hoc Tribunals (New York, Oxford University Press, 2005), at 13–18.
8.
Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808(1993), U.N. Doc. S/25704, 3 May 1993 (hereafter ICTY Report); Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 5 of Security Council Resolution 955 (1994), U.N. Doc. S/1995/134, 13 February 1995 (hereafter ICTR Report), § 1.
9.
R. Cryer, “Of Custom, Treaties, Scholars and the Gavel: The Influence of the International Criminal Tribunals on the ICRC Customary Law Study”, 11(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law (2006), at 239–263; Sir G. Fitzmaurice, “Some Problems Regarding the Formal Sources of International Law”, (1958) Symbolae Verzijl, at 153, 172.
10.
K. D. Askin “Reflections on Some of the Most Significant Achievements of the ICTY”, 37 New England Law Review (2003), at 4, 903.
11.
Grover, supra note 6, at 550.
12.
O. Ammann, Domestic Courts and the Interpretation of International Law (Brill Nijhoff, 2020), 133–158, at 133.
13.
A. Scalia and B. A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (St. Paul, Thomson/West 2012), at 110.
14.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980), UNTS 1155, at Art. 31(1).
15.
Ammann, supra note 12, at 191, 194.
16.
S. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1980), at 5.
17.
S. Roy, “The Visual Culture of Law in India: A response to Rahela Khorakiwala” in Ballakrishnen and Dezaley (eds), Invisible Institutionalisms: Collective Reflections on the Shadows of Legal Globalisation (Hart Publishing, 2020), at 107, 108.
18.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić (ICTY-94-1-A), Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, para. 296 (hereafter—Tadić); Judgment, Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac (ICTY-97-25-A), Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg, Appeals Chamber, 17 Sept. 2003, para. 13; Decision, The Prosecutor v Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze (ICTR-97-19-AR72), Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, Trial Chamber, 3 November 1999, at 4.
19.
ICTY Report, supra note 8, paras. 19, at 32.
20.
Tadić (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction), (IT-94-1-AR72), Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995, §§ 71–78.
21.
Ibid, §§ 81–84.
22.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-A), Appeals Chamber, 1 June 2001, fn 8, § 474.
23.
Ibid, § 478.
24.
Ibid.
25.
J. Wessel, “Judicial Policy-Making at the International Criminal Court: An Institutional Guide to Analyzing International Adjudication”, 44 Columbia Journal of International Law (2006), at 377.
26.
Cryer, supra note 9, at 260.
27.
See discussion in M. Swart, “Tadić Revisited: Some Critical Comments on the Legacy and the Legitimacy of the ICTY”, 3 Goettingen Journal of International Law (2011), at 985–1009.
28.
ICTY Report, supra note 8, §§ 33–34.
29.
D. Shraga and R. Zacklin, “The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda”, 7 European Journal of International Law (1996), at 501, 504.
30.
ICTR Report, supra note 8, § 12.
31.
D. Jacobs, “International Criminal Law” in J. Kammerhofer and J. D’Aspremont (eds), International Legal Positivism in a Post-Modern World (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015), at 451, 458–66.
32.
M. M. Deguzman, “Article 21, Applicable Law” in O. Triffterer and K. Ambos (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (3rd edn., München: C.H. Beck, 2016), at 933, para. 2.
33.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002), 2187 UNTS 90, Art. 21; A. Kumar, “Custom as a Source Under Article 21 of the Rome Statute”, Asian Journal of International Law (2021), at 1–13.
34.
J. Powderly, “The Rome Statute and the Attempted Corseting of the Interpretative Judicial Function: Reflections on Sources of Law and Interpretative Technique” in C. Stahn, ed., The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (1st edn., New York, Oxford University Press, 2015), at 444, 448.
35.
Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (hereafter Lubanga), Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Trial Chamber, 14 March 2012, § 608.
36.
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga (Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case) (Article 19 of the Statute), ICC-01/04-01/07-1213-tENG, Trial Chamber II, 18 June 2009, (hereafter Katanga), §§ 30–32.
37.
N. B. Novogrodsky, After the Horror: Child Soldiers and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, in C. Jalloh (ed.), “The Sierra Leone Special Court and its Legacy: The Impact for Africa and International Criminal Law” (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2013), at 361–372; Judgment, The Prosecutor v. Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara, Santigie Borbor Kanu, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, Trial Chamber, 20 June 2007 (hereafter AFRC), § 703.
38.
Ibid, §§ 1155, 1089.
39.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay, Moris Kallon and Augustine Gbao, SCSL-04-15-T, Trial Chamber I, 2 March 2009.
40.
Ibid, Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Bankole Thompson Filed Pursuant to Article 18 of the Statute, § 30.
41.
J. D’Aspremont, “The Systemic Integration of International Law by Domestic Courts: Domestic Judges as Architects of the Consistency of the International Legal Order” in Fouchald and Noellkaemper (eds), The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-)Fragmentation of International Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2012), at 151 ff.
42.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 14, at Art. 31 (3).
43.
J Sandorski, “Opieka konsularna a opieka nad jeńcami wojennymi w świetle sprawy kombatantów afgańskich” in J. Biaáocerkiewicz, M. Balcerzak and A. Czeczko-Durlak (eds), Księga Jubileuszowa Profesora Tadeusza Jasudowicza (Toruń: TNOiK, 2004), at 363–398.
44.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić, Zdravko Mucic also known as “Pavo”, Hazim Delic, Esad Landzo also known as “Zenga”, ICTY-96-21-T, Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998 (hereafter Delalić), § 166.
45.
Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I’s 31 March 2006, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Decision Denying Leave to Appeal), ICC-01/04-168, 13 July 2006, § 33.
46.
Final Report: Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law International Law Association Committee on Formation of Customary (General) International Law, (2000) 17, available at www.ila-hq.org/index.php/committees?committeeID=22.
47.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić (IT-95-14-A), Appeals Chamber, 29 July 2004, § 148.
48.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert and Judge Howard Morrison, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (ICC-01/05–01/08), Appeals Chamber, 14 June 2018, § 63.
49.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Tadić (ICTY-94-1-T), Trial Chamber, 7 May 1997, § 639; Judgment, Prosecutor v. Milan Martić (ICTY-95-11-T), Trial Chamber, 12 June 2007, § 50.
50.
W. A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (New York, 5th edn., Cambridge University Press, 2017), at 201.
51.
N. M. Rajkovic, “The Visual Conquest of International Law: Brute Boundaries, the Map, and the Legacy of Cartogenesis”, 31 Leiden Journal of International Law (2018), at 267.
52.
I. Tallgren, “Come and See? The Power of Images and International Criminal Justice”, 17(2) International Criminal Law Review (2017), at 259–280.
53.
Philip Allott famously described treaties as disagreements reduced to writing. His critique was based on the simplification of cultural differences when drawing up a text. P Allott, “The Concept of International Law”, 10 European Journal of International Law (1999), at 43.
54.
Commentary to the 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, at Art. 102.
55.
Rule 38 of the Rules of Procedure, Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. I, at 187–188.
56.
M. Villiger, Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), at 450–462.
57.
Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, at 371.
58.
O. Ammann, “Language Bias in International Legal Scholarship: Symptoms, Explanations, Implications and Remedies”, 33(3) European Journal of International Law (2022), 821–850.
59.
Rome Statute, supra note 33, at Article 50(1).
60.
L. Swigart, “Now you see it, now you don’t: culture at the International Criminal Court” in J. Fraser and B. McGonigle Leyh (eds), Intersections of Law and Culture at the ICC (Edward Elgar, 2020), at 14, 16.
61.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Hans-Peter Kaul to Situation in the Republic of Kenya, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09-1, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 31 March 2010, §§ 37–38.
62.
Judgment and Sentence, Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Chamber, 3 December 2003, §§ 160, 161, 310.
63.
Judgment, The Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15, Trial Chamber, 4 February 2021, § 2328; A. L. Nistor, “Culture as evidence and the construction of (un)certainty in the Dominic Ongwen trial”, Armed Groups and International Law blog, 15 April 2021, available online at https://armedgroups-internationallaw.org/2021/04/15/ongwen-blog-symposium-culture-as-evidence-and-the-construction-of-uncertainty-in-the-dominc-ongwen-trial/ (last visited 5 September 2021).
64.
Ibid.
65.
Transcript, The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, SCSL-2003-OI-PT, § 6018.
66.
Ibid, §§ 5878–5879.
67.
G. Anders, “Testifying about Uncivilized Events: Problematic Representations of Africa in the Trial against Charles Taylor”, 24 Leiden Journal of International Law (2011), at 937.
68.
F. Karl von Savigny, System des heutigen römischen Rechts (Bei Veit und Comp, 1840), at 217.
69.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 14, at Art. 31(1).
70.
Delalić, supra note 44, § 410; Tadić (Decision on Appellant’s Motion for the Extension of the Time-Limit and Admission of Additional Evidence) IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber, 15 October 1998, § 73.
71.
ICTY Report, supra note 8, §§ 33–34.
72.
Ammann, supra note 12, at 140.
73.
Delalić, supra note 44, § 163.
74.
Tadić, supra note 18, §§ 166, 168.
75.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic also known as Pavo, Hazim Delic and Esad Landžo also known as Zenga, IT-96-21, Appeals Chamber, 20 February 2001, § 86; Judgment, The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadz̆ihasanović and Amir Kubura (IT-01-47-T), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2006, § 171.
76.
AFRC, § 734.
77.
Ibid.
78.
A. M. Danner, “When Courts Make Law: How the International Criminal Tribunals Recast the Laws of War”, 59 Vanderbilt Law Review (2006), at 1, 18.
79.
Grover, supra note 6, at 550.
80.
See fn 1273 of Ammann, supra note 12.
81.
J. Klabbers, “Some Problems Regarding the Object and Purpose of Treaties”, 8 Finnish Yearbook of International Law (1997), at 138.
82.
A. Ross, On Law and Justice (Lawbook Exchange, 2004), at 121ff.
83.
Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, International Law Commission, (ILC Draft Articles), UN Doc. A/6309/Rev. 1 (1966), at Art. 27, at 221.
84.
A. Barak, Purposive Interpretation (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2005) (hereafter Barak), at 5.
85.
V. Oosterveld, “Gender and the Charles Taylor Case at the Special Court for Sierra Leone”, 19 William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law (2012), at 7, 25.
86.
C. Kenny and Y. McDermott, “The Expanding Protection of Members of a Party’s Own Armed Forces under International Criminal Law”, 68 International Comparative Law Quarterly (2019), at 943–976.
87.
Judgment and merits, Case concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v. Namibia), ICJ Reports 1999, 13 December 1999, at 1045, 1074, § 45.
88.
D. Robinson, “The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law”, 21 Leiden Journal of International Law (2008), at 925, 931.
89.
Ammann, supra note 12, at 550.
90.
Tadić, supra note 18, § 162.
91.
Hadžihasanović (Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Hunt Command Responsibility Appeal), Case No. IT-01-47-AR72, Appeals Chamber, § 22.
92.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06), Trial Chamber VI, 8 July 2019.
93.
Ntaganda, Second decision on the Defence’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9, ICC-01/04-02/06-1707, § 46.
94.
Decision on Preliminary Motion based on lack of Jurisdiction, Prosecutor v. Sam Hingo Norman, SCSL-2004-14-AR72, 31 May 2005.
95.
Barak, supra note 84, at 15.
96.
Ibid.
97.
Delalić, supra note 44, § 170.
98.
J. Alvarez, “Rush to Closure: Lessons of the Tadić Judgment”, 96 Michigan Law Review. (1998), at 2031, 2093.
99.
Delalić, supra note 44, § 168.
100.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, IT-95-17/1, Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, § 184.
101.
U. Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties. The Modern International Law as Expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1st edn., Springer, 2007), at 579.
102.
H. Lauterpacht, “Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties”, 26 British Yearbook of International Law (1949), at 284.
103.
Ch. Schreuer, “Comments”, in R. Hoffman and C. Tams (eds), International Investment Law and General International Law: From Clinical Isolation to Systemic Integration (1^st edn., Baden Baden, Nomos, 2011), at 2.
104.
J. D. Fearon and A. Wendt, “Rationalism vs. Constructivism: A Skeptical View”, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. A. Simmons (eds). Handbook of International Relations (Sage, 2002), at 52–72.
105.
Tadić, supra note 18, §§ 73, 83.
106.
Alvarez, supra note 98, at 2093.
107.
Tadić, supra note 18, § 91.
108.
Ibid, § 131.
109.
Report of the Secretary General on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone (hereafter SCSL Agreement), UN Doc. S/2000/915, 4 Oct. 2000, § 29.
110.
Ch. Jalloh, “SCSL Symposium: The Continued Relevance of the Contributions of the Sierra Leone Tribunal to International Criminal Law”, Opinio Juris, 15 March 2021, available online at http://opiniojuris.org/2021/03/15/scsl-symposium-the-continued-relevance-of-the-contributions-of-the-sierra-leone-tribunal-to-international-criminal-law/ (last visited on 5 September 2021).
111.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovski, Case No. IT-04-82-T, Trial Chamber, 10 July 2008, para. 293; Tadić, supra note 18, § 81.
112.
R. Bartels, “The Classification of Armed Conflicts by International Criminal Courts and Tribunals”, 20 (4) International Criminal Law Review (2020), at 595–668.
113.
Tadić, § 84; Lubanga (Decision on the confirmation of charges), Pre-Trial Chamber, § 209.
114.
Hadžihasanović, Trial Judgment, supra note 70, § 27.
115.
Ibid.
116.
Lubanga, Confirmation Decision, supra note 108, §§ 210–211.
117.
Defence Observations Pursuant to Regulation 55(3)(b) of the Regulations of the Court, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. icc-01/04-01/07, 1 May 2012, § 2.
118.
Ibid, § 24.
119.
Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Trial Chamber, 7 March 2014, §§ 1212–1215 and 1229.
120.
Bartels, supra note112, fn 57.
121.
Katanga, Minority Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert, Katanga confirmation, fn 382.
122.
AFRC, § 734.
123.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Robertson, supra note 94, §§ 1 and 5.
124.
AFRC, § 734.
125.
Quoting the Tyrer v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, App No 5856/72, A/26, [1978] 2.
126.
R. Higgins, “Some Observations on the Inter-Temporal Rule in International Law”, in J. Makarczyk (ed.), Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century—Essays in Honour of Krysztof Skubilewski (1997), at 181.
127.
G. Fitzmaurice, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951–4: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points”, 33 British Yearbook of International Law (1957), at 203, 210.
128.
G. Nolte, Second report on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to treaty interpretation, UN doc A/CN.4/671, 26 March 2014, § 60.
129.
J. Arato, “Subsequent Practice and Evolutive Interpretation: Techniques of Treaty Interpretation over Time and Their Diverse Consequences”, 9 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2010), at 443.
130.
N. Arajärvi, The Changing Nature of Customary International Law: Methods of Interpreting the Concept of Custom in International Criminal Tribunals (London & New York: Routledge, 2014), at 25.
131.
Hatton and Others v United Kingdom, App no 36022/97 (ECtHR [GC], 8 July 2003), Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Costa, Ress, Türmen, Zupancic and Steiner, § 2.
132.
Tadić, supra note 18, § 18; Joint Separate Opinion of Judges McDonald and Vohrah, The Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović, ICTY-96-22-A, Appeals Chamber, 7 Oct. 1997, § 3.
133.
Judgment and Sentence, Trial of German Major War Criminals (Goering et al.), International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, 1946 (Cmd. 6964, HMSO, London).
134.
Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (adopted 25 May 1993 UN SC Resolution 827), at Art. 5(g) (hereafter ICTY Statute); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 February 1994 and 31 December (adopted 9 November 1994 by UN SC Resolution 955) (hereafter ICTR Statute), at Art. 3(g).
135.
Judgment, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, ICTR-96-4, Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998, §§ 416–417.
136.
Ibid, § 688.
137.
Judgment and Sentence, Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema, Case No. ICTR-96–13-T, Trial Chamber, 27 January 2000, § 228.
138.
Judgment, Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac, Zoran Vukovic, IT-96-23 & 23/1, Trial Chamber, 22 February 2001, § 117.
139.
Judgment, Prosecutor v Zdravko Tolimir, IT-05-88/2-A, Appeals Chamber, 8 April 2015, § 142.
140.
Judgment, Prosecutor v Vidoje Blagojević, Dragan Jokić, IT-02-60-T, Trial Chamber, 17 January 2005, § 544; Tadić, supra note 18, § 638.
141.
Ntaganda, supra note 93, § 62.
142.
S. Deuitch, “Putting the Spotlight on the Terminator: How the ICC Prosecution of Bosco Ntaganda Could Reduce Sexual Violence during Conflict”, 22 William & Mary Journal of Women & Law (2016), at 655.
143.
AFRC, Justice Doherty dissenting, §§ 16-57.
144.
Fish, supra note 16, at 15.
145.
G. P. Lombardi “Legitimacy and the Expanding Power of the ICTY”, 37 New England Law Review (2003), at 4, 889.
146.
SCSL Agreement, supra note 109, at 104.
147.
Fifth Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, S/2000/751, 31 July 2000, § 9ff.
148.
S. Sanusi, “SCSL Practice on Cooperation with the Host State and Third States: A Contribution to Africa and International Criminal Justice”, in C. Jalloh (ed.), The Sierra Leone Special Court and its Legacy: The Impact for Africa and International Criminal Law (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2013), 469–480.
149.
N. Roht-Arriaza, “Institutions of International Justice”, 52 (2) Journal of International Affairs (1999), at 473, 474.
150.
C. Rose, “Troubled Indictments at the Special Court for Sierra Leone: The Pleading of Joint Criminal Enterprise and Sex-Based Crimes”, 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2009), at 353–72.
151.
Concurring Opinion of Judge Van den Wyngaert, The Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/12, 18 December 2012, § 20.
152.
B. A.Simmons and J. Hyeran, “Measuring Norms and Normative Contestation: The Case of International Criminal Law”, Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law (2019), at 2055, available online at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2055 (last visited 5 September 2021).
153.
T. McCormack, “Challenges in Applying Article 8 of the Rome Statute”, in S. Linton, G. Simpson and W. A. Schabas (eds), For the Sake of Present and Future Generations: Essays on International Law, Crime and Justice in Honour of Roger S. Clark (Leiden, Brill, 2015), at 353.
154.
T. Meron, “The Humanization of Humanitarian Law”, 94 American Journal of International Law, (2000), at 239.
155.
R. J. Mathews, T. L. H. McCormack, “The Influence of Humanitarian Principles in the Negotiation of Arms Control Treaties”, 834 International Review of the Red Cross (1999), at 331.
156.
Meron, supra note 154, at 240–241.
157.
Ibid.
158.
Interestingly, in Tadić, the Court observed that “every tribunal is a self-contained system (unless otherwise provided)”, Tadić, supra note 18, § 458.
159.
Furundžija, supra note 100, § 183.
160.
Meron, supra note 154, at 241.
161.
N. B. Novogrodsky, “Litigating Child Recruitment before the Special Court for Sierra Leone”, 7 San Diego International Law Journal (2006), at 421, 425.
162.
ICTY Report, supra note 8; ICTR Report, supra note 8; In Delalić, the Chamber considered deterrence to be the most important aim of punishment. Delalić, supra note 44, § 1234. Subsequently recalled by Trial Judgment, The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskić,.IT-95-14-T, Trial Chamber, 3 March 2000, § 761.
163.
Swart, supra note 27, at 1001.
164.
J. N. Clark, “Courting Controversy: The ICTY’s Acquittal of Croatian Generals Gotovina and Markač”, 11(2) Journal of International Criminal Justice (2013), at 399–423.
165.
Novogrodsky, supra note 161, at 362–364.
166.
Special Court Prosecutor Says He Will Not Prosecute Children, Press Release, Special Court for Sierra Leone (2 November 2002), available online at http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?i leticket=XRwCUe%2baVhw%3d&tabid=196 (last visited 5 September 2021).
167.
Novogrodsky, supra note 161, at 368.
168.
Ibid, at 368.
169.
G. Schwarzenberger, International Law as Applied By International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 1 (3rd edn., Steven and Sons, 1957).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

European University Institute, Florence, Italy
Raghavi Viswanath

Authors

Raghavi Viswanath
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raghavi Viswanath .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Martin Faix
Faculty of Law, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Ondřej Svaček

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Viswanath, R. (2024). Comparing International Criminal Tribunals’ Interpretive Approaches to International Humanitarian Law. In: Faix, M., Svaček, O. (eds) ICC Jurisprudence and the Development of International Humanitarian Law. Global Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45994-8_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45994-8_4
Published: 29 March 2024
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45993-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-45994-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics