Investigating Violations of International Law in Armed Conflict

  • Michael N. SchmittEmail author


This chapter examines the legal norms governing investigations of possible international law violations during an armed conflict. It begins by setting forth those rules derived from the 1949 Geneva Conventions, 1977 Additional Protocols and customary law. Since human rights norms also apply in armed conflicts, the chapter surveys human rights investigatory standards, and how they interact with corresponding international humanitarian law rules. Since international humanitarian and human rights law on the subject lacks granularity, State practice is surveyed in order to tease out prevailing practices that may either reflect on how treaty law is applied or reveal the broad outlines of customary law. The chapter offers conclusions as to the applicable legal standards for such investigations.


Supra Note Armed Conflict Geneva Convention Administrative Inquiry Military Police 
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.




Australian Defence Force


Australian Defence Force Investigative Service


Air Force Office of Special Investigation


Canadian Forces National Investigation Service


Canadian Forces Provost Marshall


Court-Martial Appeal Court


Canadian Military Prosecution Service


Director of Military Prosecutions


International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights


International Committee of the Red Cross


Israel Defence Force


Improvised explosive device


Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force


International humanitarian law


Judge Advocate General


Law of armed conflict


Military Police Complaints Commission


North Atlantic Treaty Organisation


Quick Assessment


Service Prosecuting Authority


United States of America


Uniform Code of Military Justice


United Nations Mission in Somalia


  1. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School (2009) The military commander and the law 408 (electronic update of 2008 version).
  2. Alston Ph (2008) Report of the special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/3 (May 2, 2008)Google Scholar
  3. Amnesty International (2009) Operation “Cast Lead”: 22 days of death and destruction.
  4. Australian Def. Headquarters (2006) Law of armed conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication (ADDP) 06.4Google Scholar
  5. Blank L (2010) The application of IHL in the Goldstone report: a critical commentary, 12 Y.B. Int’l Humanitarian LGoogle Scholar
  6. Bothe M, Partsch KJ, Solf WA (1982) New rules for victims of armed conflictGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan R (2010) Capt. Robert Semrau found not guilty of murder, (July 19)–jury-reaches-semrau-verdict
  8. British Army (2008) The Aitken report: an investigation into cases of deliberate abuse and unlawful killing in Iraq in 2003 and 2004Google Scholar
  9. Canadian Forces Nat’l Investigation Serv (2008) 2008 Annual report 20Google Scholar
  10. Delahunty RJ, Yoo J (2010) What is the role of international human rights law in the war on terror? 59 DePaul L. Rev. 803Google Scholar
  11. Dennis M (2005) Application of human rights treaties extraterritorially in times of armed conflict and military occupation, 99. Am J Int Law 119Google Scholar
  12. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility (2009) Investigation into the office of legal counsel’s memoranda concerning issues relating to central intelligence agency’s use of “Enhanced Investigation Techniques” on suspected terroristsGoogle Scholar
  13. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (David Margolis) (2010) Memorandum of decision regarding the objection to the findings of professional misconduct in the office of professional responsibility’s report of investigation into the office of legal counsel’s memoranda concerning issues relating to the central intelligence agency’s use of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” on suspected terrorists.
  14. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (2009) A review of the FBI’s involvement in and observations of detainee interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and IraqGoogle Scholar
  15. Dep’t of the Army Headquarters & Marine Corps Combat Development Command Headquarters (2006) Counterinsurgency, FM 3–24, MCWP 3–33.5Google Scholar
  16. Dinstein Y (2010) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict (2nd edn)Google Scholar
  17. Government Establishes Independent Public Commission (2010) Israeli ministry of foreign affairs (June 14, 2010)
  18. Human Rights Watch (2005) Promoting impunity: the Israeli military’s failure to investigate wrongdoingGoogle Scholar
  19. Human Rights Watch (2009a) Precisely wrong: Gaza civilians killed by Israeli dronelaunched missiles.
  20. Human Rights Watch (2009b) Rain of fire: Israel’s unlawful use of white phosphorus in Gaza.
  21. Human Rights Watch (2009c) Rockets from Gaza, harm to civilians from Palestinian armed groups’ rocket attacks.
  22. Human Rights Watch (2009d) White flag deaths: killings of Palestinian civilians during operation cast lead.
  23. Human Rights Watch (2010a) “I lost everything”: Israel’s unlawful destruction of property during operation cast lead.
  24. Human Rights Watch (2010b) Turning a blind eye: impunity for laws-of-war violations during the Gaza war.
  25. Int’l Comm. of the Red Cross (1960) Commentary: II Geneva convention for the amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea (J. Pictet ed)Google Scholar
  26. Israel’s Report to the UN Misstates the Truth (2010) B’Tselem (4, February 2010),
  27. Jackson D (2010) Reporting and investigation of possible, suspected, or alleged violations of the law of war, Army Lawyer, June 2010Google Scholar
  28. Joint Committee on Human Rights (2008) Twenty-eighth report. (UK).
  29. Jones AR LTG, Fay GR MG (2004) Army regulation 15-6 investigation of the abu ghraib detention facility and 205th military intelligence brigade.
  30. Lauterpacht H (1944) The law of nations and the punishment of war crimes, 21 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 77Google Scholar
  31. Magarrell L (2008) International center for transitional justice: US inquiry into human rights abuses in the “war on terror”Google Scholar
  32. Mod Announces Baha Mousa Public Inquiry (2008) Gov’t news (May 14)
  33. Mullins C (1921) The leipzig trials: an account of the war criminals’ trials and study of German mentalityGoogle Scholar
  34. Office of the Judge Advocate Gen. (2003) Law of armed conflict at the operation and tactical levels: joint doctrine manual B-GJ-005-104/FP- 021Google Scholar
  35. Open Society Justice Initiative (2010) Comparative analysis of preliminary investigation systems in respect of alleged violations of international human rights and/or humanitarian law 1.
  36. Parks WH (2010) Part IX of the ICRC “Direct participation in hostilities” study: no mandate, no expertise, and legally incorrect, 42 N.Y.U. J Int’l L & Pol 769Google Scholar
  37. Savage C (2010) Case of Soldiers Accused in Afghan Civilian Killings May Be Worst of Two Wars, N.Y. Times, October 4Google Scholar
  38. Schmitt MN (2010) The interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities: a critical analysis, 1 Harv Nat Sec J 5Google Scholar
  39. Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and Military Police Investigation Services (1997) Recommendations of the special advisory group on military justice and military police investigation servicesGoogle Scholar
  40. Staff of S. Comm. on Affairs, Def. and Trade References (2005) The effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system (June 2005)Google Scholar
  41. Staff of S. Comm. on Affairs, Def. and Trade References (2009) Fourth progress report into reforms of Australia’s military justice system: government response (August 2009).
  42. State of Israel (2009) The operation in Gaza, 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: factual and legal aspects.
  43. State of Israel (2010a) Gaza operation investigations: second update.
  44. Taguba Major General Am (2004) Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th military police brigade.
  45. Watkin K (2004) Controlling the use of force: a role for human rights norms in contemporary armed conflict, 98 Am J Int’l L 1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United States Naval War CollegeNewportUSA

Personalised recommendations