Advertisement

Humanitarian Law at Wits’ End: Does the Violence Arising from the “War on Drugs” in Mexico Meet the International Criminal Court’s Non-International Armed Conflict Threshold?

  • Carrie A. ComerEmail author
  • Daniel M. Mburu
Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law book series (YIHL, volume 18)

Abstract

The determination of whether there is an actual non-international armed conflict (NIAC) in the context of the violence in Mexico among the drug cartels themselves and with Mexican governmental authorities is controversial. This paper reopens the debate as to whether the violence meets the Rome Statute’s NIAC threshold when assessed against the International Criminal Court (ICC) tripartite criteria of duration, organisation and intensity. It concludes that the violence generally regarded prima facie meets these criteria and that the ICC’s war crimes provisions would provide an opportunity for accountability for acts of criminality expressly proscribed by Article 8 of the Statute in relation to war crimes, but not expressly criminalised by Article 7 on crimes against humanity.

Keywords

Mexico Armed conflict NIAC International humanitarian law Applicability of IHL Organised crime War on drugs Drug cartels 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors sincerely thank Prof. Dino Kritsiotis for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Any errors, however, remain entirely the authors’.

References

Articles, Books and Other Documents

  1. Bergal C (2011) The Mexican Drug War: The Case for a Non-International Armed Conflict Classification. Fordham Int Law J 34:1042–1088Google Scholar
  2. Bloom CA (2012) Square Pegs and Round Holes: Mexico, Drugs, and International Law. Houston J Int Law 24:345–414Google Scholar
  3. Bunker R, Sullivan J (2010) Cartel Evolution Revisited: Third Phase Cartel Potentials and Alternative Futures in Mexico. Small Wars Insurgencies 21:30–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter A (2013) Changing Lenses: Conflict Analysis and Mexico’s ‘Drug War’. Latin Am Politics Soc 55:139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2008) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cullen A (2008) The Definition of Non-International Armed Conflict in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: An Analysis of the Threshold of Application Contained in Article 8 (2)(f). J Conflict Secur Law 12:419–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahl A, Sandbu M (2006) The Threshold of Armed Conflict. Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre 45:369–388Google Scholar
  8. Dinstein Y (2014) Non-International Armed Conflicts in International Law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felbab-Brown V (2009) The Violent Drug Market in Mexico and Lessons from Colombia. The Brookings Institution Policy Paper 12:1–29Google Scholar
  10. Fleck D (2008) The Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts. In: Fleck D (ed) The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 581–610Google Scholar
  11. Grillo I (2012) El Narco: The bloody rise of Mexican drug cartels. Bloomsbury Publishing, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  12. Guevara A (2013) Propaganda in Mexico’s Drug War. J Strateg Secur 6:131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kerr C (2012) Mexico’s Drug War: Is it really a war? South Texas Law Rev 54:193Google Scholar
  14. Kritsiotis D (2010) The Tremors of Tadić. Israel Law Rev 43:262–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pejic J (2011) The protective scope of Common Article 3: more than meets the eye. Int Rev Red Cross 93:189–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sánchez A (2013) Mexico’s Drug War: Drawing a Line between Rhetoric and Reality. Yale Journal of International Law 38:467–509Google Scholar
  17. UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1998) Committee of the Whole: Summary Record of the 35th Meeting, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.35Google Scholar
  18. UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1998) Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/2/Add.1Google Scholar
  19. UN General Assembly (2014) Human Rights Council: Informe del Relator Especial sobre la tortura y otros tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/68/Add.3Google Scholar

Case Law

  1. IACommHR, Case 11.137 Juan Carlos Abella (Argentina), Merits, 30 October 1997, Report No. 55/97, Doc No. 38, No. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.97Google Scholar
  2. ICC, Prosecutor v Callixte Mbarushimana, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 16 December 2011, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-465-RedGoogle Scholar
  3. ICC, Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut, 7 March 2014, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-3436Google Scholar
  4. ICC, Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424Google Scholar
  5. ICC, Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 21 March 2016, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-3343Google Scholar
  6. ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Décision sur la confirmation des charges, 29 January 2007, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803Google Scholar
  7. ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-2842Google Scholar
  8. ICTR, Prosecutor v Alfred Musema, Judgment and Sentence, 27 January 2000, Case No. ICTR-96-13-TGoogle Scholar
  9. ICTY, Prosecutor v Duško Tadić a/k/a “Dule”, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72Google Scholar
  10. ICTY, Prosecutor v Fatmir Limaj, Haradin Bala and Isak Musliu, Judgment, 30 November 2005, Case No. IT-03-66-TGoogle Scholar
  11. ICTY, Prosecutor v Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovski, Judgment, 10 July 2008, Case No. IT-04-82-TGoogle Scholar
  12. ICTY, Prosecutor v Milan Lukić and Sredoje Lukić, Judgment, 20 July 2009, Case No. IT-98-32/1-TGoogle Scholar
  13. ICTY, Prosecutor v Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj, Judgment, 3 April 2008, Case No. IT-04-84-TGoogle Scholar
  14. ICTY, Prosecutor v Vlastimir Đorđević, Public Judgment with Confidential Annex – Volume I of II, 23 February 2011, Case No. IT-05-87/1-TGoogle Scholar

Treaties

  1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002)Google Scholar

Other Consulted Sources

  1. López JCA (2015) Reiteran petición de investigar a militares en Guerrero por caso Ayotzinapa. http://www.noticiasmvs.com/#!/noticias/reiteran-peticion-de-investigar-a-militares-en-guerrero-por-caso-ayotzinapa-843. Accessed 9 April 2016
  2. UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1998) Information conveyed by New Zealand—International Committee of the Red Cross: Concerns on Threshold for War Crimes Committed in Non-International Armed Conflicts as contained in the Bureau Proposal (A/CONF.183/C.1/L.59), UN Doc. A/CONF.183/INF/11Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Federation for Human RightsThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Special Tribunal for LebanonThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations