Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Grave Breaches Charges at the ECCC: An Analysis of International Humanitarian Law in the Duch Case

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 6))

Abstract

This chapter examines an issue that has been less discussed, that of the crimes related to the international armed conflict between Cambodia and Vietnam. In Duch the Court reluctantly sets itself to the task, finding the appellant guilty of a range of grave breaches including wilful killing, torture and wilful deprivation of the rights of fair and regular trial. The judgment can be criticised for a number of reasons, notably for making comments that lack solid legal support and/or cogent arguments as well as for misinterpreting the law as it was at the time the crimes were perpetrated.

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Judgment, Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-E188), Trial Chamber, 26 July 2010 (hereafter Duch Trial Judgment).

  2. 2.

    Wilson 2010–2011, at 476; Sperfeldt 2013, at 1114.

  3. 3.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 111.

  4. 4.

    Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers, with inclusion of amendments as promulgated on 27 October 2004 (NS/RKM/1004/006).

  5. 5.

    Statute of the ICTY, UN Res 827 (1993), 25 May 1993.

  6. 6.

    Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135.

  7. 7.

    Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287.

  8. 8.

    For some unexplained reasons Article 6 ECCC Law uses the adjective ‘inhumane’ rather than ‘inhuman’.

  9. 9.

    The Court notes this difference in relation to GC IV in footnote 732 of Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1.

  10. 10.

    The Court notes this difference in relation to the GCs in footnote 732 of Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1.

  11. 11.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 403.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., § 404 and accompanying footnotes. That being said the ‘grave breaches provisions in the Geneva Conventions are […] insufficiently detailed to work on their own as a criminal code’ and it was thus left to the states to implement national legislation. Öberg 2009, at 166. It must be noted that Cambodia had not criminalized such acts in its own penal code. Quigley however argues that war crimes could have been charged thanks to the monist system of Cambodia. Quigley 2014.

  13. 13.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 405 and accompanying footnotes.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., §§ 406–407.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., § 408.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., § 410.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., § 423.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., § 415.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., § 416.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., § 424.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., § 425.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., § 419.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., §§ 425–426.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., § 422.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., §§ 428–429.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., § 331.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., §§ 433–437.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., § 435.

  29. 29.

    Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, GA Res. 3452 (XXX), 9 December 1975.

  30. 30.

    Convention Against Torture, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.

  31. 31.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, §§ 443 and 453, see also §§ 252–255 and 356.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., § 357.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., § 448.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., § 454.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., §§ 268–269.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., §§ 273–274.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., § 457.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., § 444.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., § 453.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., § 449.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., § 449.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., § 459.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., § 462 and further examples provided in Sect. 2.4.3 (see in particular § 239).

  44. 44.

    Ibid., § 462.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., § 465.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., § 465.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., § 467.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., § 469.

  49. 49.

    Kilpatrick 2011, at 672.

  50. 50.

    ICTY and ICTR as examples.

  51. 51.

    Kilpatrick 2011, at 672.

  52. 52.

    See Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, §§ 26–34.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., § 34.

  54. 54.

    This can be criticised as ‘[j]udicial decisions affect the development of the law of armed conflict insofar as they address legal lacunae […], as they add flesh to the bare bones of treaty provisions or to skeletal legal concepts […], and as they identify and give legitimacy to new legal developments, such as emergent custom.’ (Fenrick 1998, at 78). The ICTY jurisprudence fits the pattern, i.e. it has identified trends in international criminal law.

  55. 55.

    Roberts 2009, at 744. In fact the grave breaches system in GCs proved useful at the time of the adoption of the ICTY Statute ‘when people were grasping at straws to put [international criminal law] together’. Öberg 2009, at 182.

  56. 56.

    Kaufmann and Marschner 2011, at 817.

  57. 57.

    See examples provided below.

  58. 58.

    It is however true that the arbitration tribunal interprets the GCs from a state responsibility, rather than an individual liability, perspective. That being said as Eritrea had not ratified the GCs for a part of time under the temporal jurisdiction of the tribunal, it had to delve into a thorough analysis of the state of customary international humanitarian law at the time. Prisoners of War Ethiopia’s Claim 4 (State of Eritrea and Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia), Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, 1 July 2003, §§ 22–33.

  59. 59.

    Likewise, though in the context of the ICTY case-law, Brown suggested in 1998 the ICTY to ‘draw upon the accumulated national jurisprudence of states in applying in international humanitarian law to criminal tribunals.’ Brown 1998, at 358.

  60. 60.

    Murphy 1984, at 42. As Öberg and Murphy explain separately, the concept of ‘war crimes’ encompasses more offences than the ones listed in the Geneva Conventions. Öberg 2009 and Murphy, at 43.

  61. 61.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 357 and see discussion below.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., § 357.

  63. 63.

    Open Society Justice Initiative, ‘Recent Developments at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, June 2011 Update’ (2011), available at http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/cambodia-eccc-20110614.pdf (visited 15 June 2015), at 25. See also Ehteshamul Bari 2011, at 201.

  64. 64.

    Dubler 2010, at 248.

  65. 65.

    ‘Lessons Learned from the “Duch” Trial. A Comprehensive Review of the First Case before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, December 2009, Report of the Asian International Justice Initiative’s KRT Trial Monitoring Group, at 6.

  66. 66.

    Kilpatrick 2011, at 681.

  67. 67.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 449.

  68. 68.

    See Ibid., footnotes 750–751.

  69. 69.

    Quigley 2014.

  70. 70.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 64.

  71. 71.

    Dinstein correctly explains that the international humanitarian law ‘is brought to bear upon the conduct of hostilities between sovereign States, even if these hostilities fall short of war, namely constitute a mere incident’. Dinstein 2004, at 15–16. See also US, Plaintiff, v Manuel Antonio Noriega, Defendant, US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 808 F. Supp. 791 (1992), Opinion by William M Hoeveler, 8 December 1992, Sassòli et al. 2011, Case No. 158.

  72. 72.

    Dürr 1987, at 265.

  73. 73.

    Pictet 1952, at 20–21. See also Murphy 1984, at 21.

  74. 74.

    Pictet 1958, at 51.

  75. 75.

    Best 1984, at 33.

  76. 76.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 66.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., § 67; Closing Order, Case No. 002/19-09-2007-ECCC-OCIJ-D427, Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, 15 September 2010, §§ 150–155 (hereafter ‘Closing Order Case 002’), § 153.

  78. 78.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 69; Closing Order Case 002, supra note 77, § 152.

  79. 79.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, §§ 72–73.

  80. 80.

    For an overview of its work, see Ratner 1999, 948–953.

  81. 81.

    Report of the Group of Experts for Cambodia Established pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 52/1325, 18 February 1999, § 73.

  82. 82.

    The Co-Investigating Judges reiterate the international nature of the armed conflict in the Closing order on Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan and Ieng Thirith. Closing Order Case 002, supra note 77, §§ 150–155.

  83. 83.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 141.

  84. 84.

    Cayley 2012, at 450.

  85. 85.

    See also Closing Order Case 002, supra note 77, § 1481.

  86. 86.

    ‘The Accused stated that “spies” were classified as such on order of his superiors but were in fact either civilians or combatants’. Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 425.

  87. 87.

    See also Closing Order Case 002, supra note 77, § 1481.

  88. 88.

    Pictet 1958, at 51.

  89. 89.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 141.

  90. 90.

    See e.g. Supreme Court of the United States, Ex Parte Quirin, et al. v Cox, Provost Marshal, 317 US 1 (1942), Chief Justice Stone (published in Sassòli et al. 2011, Case No. 99); In re Territo, 156 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1946). See also discussion in Ka Ho 2009, at 395. Solis notes that ‘nonallegiance is not cited in texts as a precondition for POW status.’ Solis 2010, at 197.

  91. 91.

    Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (UK), Public Prosecutor v Oie Hee Koi and Connected Appeals, 4 December 1967 [1968] AC 829, Lord Hodson. See discussions of the case in Ka Ho 2009 and Dinstein 2004, at 40–41.

  92. 92.

    Ka Ho 2009, at 407–408.

  93. 93.

    Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Tadić (IT-94-1-I), Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995, § 76; Judgment, Tadić (IT-94-1-A), Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, §§ 164–166 (hereafter Tadić Appeal Judgment). See discussion in S. Darcy, Judges, Law and War: The Judicial Development of International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), at 121.

  94. 94.

    See discussion in Dingwall 2004, at 141–142.

  95. 95.

    Tadić Appeal Judgment, supra note 93, § 168; Judgment, Delalić et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, § 263.

  96. 96.

    See e.g. Meron 2000, at 239–278.

  97. 97.

    Tadić Appeal Judgment, supra note 93, § 166. See discussion in Brown, supra note 59, at 400.

  98. 98.

    Interestingly this is noted by the Co-Investigating Judges in Closing Order Case 002, supra note 77, § 1482.

  99. 99.

    Report of the Group of Experts for Cambodia, supra note 81, § 73.

  100. 100.

    Ibid.

  101. 101.

    Öberg 2009, at 174.

  102. 102.

    Best 1984, at 34.

  103. 103.

    Burwell 1973–1974, at 133.

  104. 104.

    Solis explains that the ‘nationality requirement was included in Article 4 to ensure […] non-interference.’ Solis 2010, at 235.

  105. 105.

    See discussion in Roberts 2009, at 753–755.

  106. 106.

    See discussion in Solis 2010, at 236.

  107. 107.

    Tadić Appeal Judgment, supra note 93, § 165.

  108. 108.

    This has particular consequences, notably in relation to the charge of unlawful confinement of civilians. As Dingwall explains ‘there are no explicit restrictions imposed by international humanitarian law upon belligerents detaining their own nationals in the context of an international armed conflict’. Dingwall, at 139–142.

  109. 109.

    Indeed a ‘traditional interpretation of protected persons seemingly gives a government the ability to commit an atrocity listed in Article 147 against their own nationals without consequence or international criminal culpability’. Reeves 2009, at 24. See also Solis 2010, at 236.

  110. 110.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 428.

  111. 111.

    Closing Order Case 002, supra note 77, § 1482.

  112. 112.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 448.

  113. 113.

    In contrast the Co-Investigating Judges clearly distinguish between Vietnamese individuals falling within the remit of either GC III or GC IV. Closing Order Case 002, supra note 77, § 1481.

  114. 114.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, §§ 425 and 433.

  115. 115.

    Ibid., § 457.

  116. 116.

    Ibid., §§ 436, 446, 447, 448, 449.

  117. 117.

    Ibid., § 463.

  118. 118.

    Ibid., § 446.

  119. 119.

    Graham 2005–2006, at 61.

  120. 120.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 424.

  121. 121.

    Levie 1998, at 461, 1969, at 361–368. See also Rosas 1987, at 230.

  122. 122.

    US Military Tribunal, US v Ernst von Weizsaecker et al. (The Ministries Case), Nuremberg, 11–13 April 1949, 14 TWC 308 (Count 3) (published in Sassòli et al. 2011, Case No. 95); Dreierwalde Case, 1 War Crimes Rep 81, 86 as reported in Levie 1962, at 445 at footnote 45; US Court of Military Appeals, United States, Appellee v William L Calley, Jr., First Lieutenant, US Army, Appellant, 22 USCMA 534, 21 December 1973, Judge Quinn.

  123. 123.

    Prisoners of War Eritrea’s Claim 17 (State of Eritrea and Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia), Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, 1 July 2003, §§ 81–86; Prisoners of War Ethiopia’s Claim 4, supra note 58, §§ 82–86.

  124. 124.

    Such an obligation is the ‘expression of the accepted views of civilized nations’. United States v von Leeb and others (The High Command Case), 11 TWC 462, 27–28 October 1948, (published in Sassòli et al. 2011, Case No. 97).

  125. 125.

    Prisoners of War Eritrea’s Claim 17, supra note 123, §§ 92–105; Prisoners of War Ethiopia’s Claim 4, supra note 58, §§ 92–100.

  126. 126.

    Prisoners of War Eritrea’s Claim 17, supra note 123, §§ 106–114.

  127. 127.

    Prisoners of War Eritrea’s Claim 17, supra note 123, §§ 128–138; Prisoners of War Ethiopia’s Claim 4, supra note 58, §§ 104–107.

  128. 128.

    ‘Military necessity does not admit of cruelty—that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions.’ Article 16 of the Lieber Code. The ‘Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field’ were promulgated as General Orders Number 100 by President Lincoln on 24 April 1863, in Schindler and Toman 2004, at 3–20.

  129. 129.

    This is so because the Charter to the London Agreement did not include ‘torture’. See discussion in Draper 1976, at 222–223.

  130. 130.

    Draper 1976, at 223 and 230–231.

  131. 131.

    Solis 2010, at 442; Pictet 1958, at 598.

  132. 132.

    That being said, ‘[i]t is difficult in practice to draw a clear line between the thresholds of suffering’. Droege 2007, at 519.

  133. 133.

    See Van der Vyver 2003, at 447.

  134. 134.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 164.

  135. 135.

    The Commentary stresses that ‘[w]hat is important is not so much the pain itself as the purpose behind its infliction.’ Pictet 1958, at 598.

  136. 136.

    In contrast Levie argues that torture can also be done out of sheer sadism, thereby being motiveless. Levie 1962, at 447–448.

  137. 137.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 164.

  138. 138.

    Ibid., § 353. Van der Vyver explains that ‘there is a tendency to regard the definition of torture contained in the Torture Convention as reflecting a consensus “representative of customary international law”.’ Van der Vyver 2003, at 432.

  139. 139.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 357.

  140. 140.

    See e.g. Judgment, Furundžija (Case IT-95-17/1), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, § 162.

  141. 141.

    See e.g. Judgment, Kunarać (Case IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1), Trial Chamber, 22 February 2001, §§ 491 and 493. ‘The definition of torture in the ICTY jurisprudence is particularly notable in that it excludes the requirement, found in Article 1 of the Torture Convention, that at least one of the persons involved in the torture process must be a public official or must at any rate act in an official capacity.’ Roberts 2009, at 757.

  142. 142.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 357.

  143. 143.

    Klayman 1978, at 475–485.

  144. 144.

    Pictet 1958, at 598.

  145. 145.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 441.

  146. 146.

    Ibid., § 452.

  147. 147.

    See discussion on the travaux préparatoires in Sharvit 1984, at 166.

  148. 148.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 468.

  149. 149.

    Levie 1962, at 373.

  150. 150.

    Article 42 GC IV.

  151. 151.

    Civilian Claims, Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27–32 (State of Eritrea and Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia), Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, 17 December 2004, § 121.

  152. 152.

    Hampson 1991, at 510.

  153. 153.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 1, § 468.

  154. 154.

    Ibid., § 469.

  155. 155.

    Ibid., § 238.

  156. 156.

    Goodman 2009, at 378.

  157. 157.

    See paragraphs 185–187 on the definition of a civilian and paragraphs 682–687 on the application law, Judgment, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E313), Trial Chamber, 7 August 2014.

  158. 158.

    The confrontation between the Khmer Rouge and the KRA is likely to qualify as a non-international armed conflict under Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. The Court has only jurisdiction over acts perpetrated in the context of an international armed conflict (Article 6 ECCC Law).

  159. 159.

    The jurisdiction of the Court is limited to acts perpetrated between 17 April 1975 and 6 January 1979 (Article 2 ECCC Law).

References

  • Best G (1984) Civilians in Contemporary Wars. A Problem in Ethics, Law and Fact. Air University Review 35: 29–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown B (1998) Nationality and Internationality in International Humanitarian Law. Stanford Journal of International Law 34:347–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Burwell D (1973–1974) Civilian Protection in Modern Warfare: A Critical Analysis of the Geneva Civilian Convention of 1949.Virginia Journal of International Law 14:123–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Cayley A (2012) Prosecuting Mass Atrocities at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). Washington University Global Studies Law Review 11:445–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall J (2004) Unlawful Confinement as a War Crime: The Jurisprudence of the Yugoslav Tribunal and the Common Core of International Humanitarian Law Applicable to Contemporary Armed Conflicts. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 9:133–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2004) The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Öberg D (2009) The Absorption of Grave Breaches into War Crimes Law. International Review of the Red Cross 91:163–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper G (1976) The Juridical Aspects of Torture. Acta Juridica 221–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Droege C (2007) In Truth the Leitmotiv: The Prohibition of Torture and other Forms of Ill-Treatment in International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 89:515–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubler R (2010) Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch, Judgment, ECCC, Case No 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC (26 July 2010). Australian International Law Journal 17:247–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürr O (1987) Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Problems of Applicability. Journal of Peace Research 24:263–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehteshamul Bari M (2011) Dispensation of Justice by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: A Critical Appraisal. Journal of East Asia and International Law 4:193–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenrick W (1998) The Development of the Law of Armed Conflict through the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In: Schmitt M, Green L (eds) The Law of Armed Conflict: Into the Next Millennium. Naval War College, Newport, pp 77–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman R (2009) Rationales for Detention: Security Threats and Intelligence Value. In Schmitt M (ed) The War in Afghanistan: A Legal Analysis. Naval War College, Newport, pp 371–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham D (2005–2006) The Treatment and Interrogation of Prisoners of War and Detainees. Georgetown Journal of International Law 37:61–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson F (1991) The Geneva Conventions and the Detention of Civilians and Alleged Prisoners of War. Public Law, 507–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Ka Ho T (2009) The Relevancy of Nationality to the Right to Prisoner of War Status. Chinese Journal of International Law 8:395–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann C, Marschner L (2011) Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme aktueller Entwicklungen der Außerordentlichen Kammern an den Gerichten von Kambodscha. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 10:811–821

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick R (2011) Prosecutor v. Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch: In First Round of Proceedings, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia Convicts Former Chairman of Khmer Rouge Interrogation Centre of Atrocity Crimes. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 19:669–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Klayman B (1978) The Definition of Torture in International Law. Temple Law Quarterly 51:449–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Levie H (1962) Penal Sanctions for Maltreatment of Prisoners of War. American Journal of International Law 56:433–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Levie H (1969) Maltreatment of Prisoners of War in Vietnam. In: Falk R (ed), The Vietnam War and International Law, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 361–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Levie H (1998) Enforcing the Third Geneva Convention on the Humanitarian Treatment of Prisoners of War. United States Air Force Academy Journal of Legal Studies 7. Reprinted in: Schmitt M, Green L (eds) Levie on the Law of War. Naval War College, Newport, pp 459–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (2000) The Humanization of Humanitarian Law. American Journal of International Law 94:239–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy T (1984) Sanctions and Enforcement of the Humanitarian Law of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Geneva Protocol I of 1977. Military Law Review 103:3–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (1952) Commentary to the First 1949 Geneva Conventions. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (ed) (1958) Commentary: IV Geneva Convention, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Person in Times of War. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Quigley J (2014) The Cambodian Hybrid Court Is Prosecuting for the Wrong Offenses: A Review Essay. Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, No 25, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner S (1999) The United Nations Group of Experts for Cambodia. American Journal of International Law 93:948–953

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves S (2009) The Expansive Definition of ‘Protected Persons’ in War Crime Jurisprudence. Army Lawyer 23–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts K (2009) The Contribution of the ICTY to the Grave Breaches Regime. Journal of International Criminal Justice 7:743–761

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas A (1987) The Frontiers of International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Peace Research 24:219–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassòli M, Bouvier A, Quintin A (2011) How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law, Vol.2, 3rd edn. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler D, Toman J (2004) The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and other Documents, 4th edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit P (1984) The Definition of Torture in the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 23:147–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Solis G (2010) The Law of Armed Conflict. International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperfeldt C (2013) From the Margins of Internationalized Criminal Justice. Lessons Learned at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Journal of International Criminal Justice 11:1111–1137

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vyver J (2003) Torture as a Crime under International Law. Albany Law Review 67:427–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson P (2010–2011) Observations of the Cambodia Trial of ‘Duch’. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 22:473–482

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Law and Human Rights Unit, Department of Law, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Noëlle Quénivet

Authors
  1. Noëlle Quénivet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noëlle Quénivet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aachen, Germany

    Simon M. Meisenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, Franz von Liszt Institut, Giessen, Germany

    Ignaz Stegmiller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Quénivet, N. (2016). The Grave Breaches Charges at the ECCC: An Analysis of International Humanitarian Law in the Duch Case. In: Meisenberg, S., Stegmiller, I. (eds) The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 6. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-105-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-105-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-104-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-105-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation