Customary International Humanitarian Law Research Articles

Bridging the Accountability Gap

Abstract During non-international armed conflict, war crimes often go unpunished in areas where state authorities are unable to enforce the law. While states are under a customary law obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed on their territory or by their nationals, the Customary International Humanitarian Law Study of the International Committee of the Red Cross has not found that this obligation extends to armed non-state actors (ANSAs). Nevertheless, command responsibility requires the individual commander to punish their forces in case war crimes have been committed and a growing amount of state practice demanding similar commitments — both legally and politically — from these actors as such can be observed over the past two decades. Indeed, ANSAs routinely impose penal sanctions onto their subordinates and often establish judicial structures in order to do so. This article argues that whereas ANSAs should be under some form of obligation to ensure accountability, alternative solutions to makeshift courts and penal proceedings might be better suited to prevent impunity and maintain fair trial guarantees.

Customary international humanitarian law: An overview of Kenya’s state practice in the post-2010 Constitution era

With the exception of the shifta wars in the northern part of the country, Kenya has, for the greater part of its post-colonial history, enjoyed relative conditions of peace. This, in turn, has affected the volume of and quality of knowledge on Kenya’s state practice on international humanitarian law (IHL). The Customary IHL study of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 2005 reviewed state practice in the country at the time, based on materials such as military manuals, national laws and case law. However, since 2005, two significant events have had a direct bearing on the country’s IHL state practice. The first is the ushering in of a new constitutional order through the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and the second is the Kenyan military troops’ incursion into Somalia against the Somali terrorist group, Al-Shabaab. This paper looks at the significant ways in which these two events have led to key additions to Kenya’s state practice, under four main headings: military manuals, national laws, court cases and other sources.

Beteiligung nichtstaatlicher bewaffneter Gruppen in der Bildung des humanitären Völkergewohnheitsrechts: Herausforderungen und mögliche Lösungen

Beteiligung nichtstaatlicher bewaffneter Gruppen in der Bildung des humanitären Völkergewohnheitsrechts: Herausforderungen und mögliche Lösungen

Siege Warfare in the 21stCentury from the Perspective of International Humanitarian Law

Professor Karol Wolfke was an expert in many areas of public international law, including the sources of law, and in particular international custom. His flagship publication in this field was recognized and quoted internationally. Therefore it was not surprising that the International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter referred to as the ICRC) invited Professor Karol Wolfke to contribute to the completion of the Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, the purpose of which was to identify customary rules of international humanitarian law applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts. He reviewed some parts of the Study and also advised during experts’ meetings convened in Geneva by the ICRC. Therefore it seems very appropriate to reflect in Professor Wolfke’s commemorative book on a topic proving the important role of customary law in filling gaps in international treaties. The topic that has been chosen – siege warfare – unfortunately belongs to very hot issues in today’s international relations and law. In recent years Aleppo in Syria has become a symbolic example of political and legal controversies about siege tactics in contemporary armed conflicts. Keywords: siege, warfare, international humanitarian law, armed conflicts

Amnesties and international humanitarian law: Purpose and scope

States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 have an obligation to take measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to their provisions. Moreover, States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or on their territory, and other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction, such as on the basis of universal jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. In accordance with these obligations and the limits they impose, States may adopt certain measures during and in the aftermath of armed conflicts to promote reconciliation and peace, one of which is amnesties. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules pertaining to the granting and scope of amnesties. Specifically, Article 6(5) of Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) provides that, at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict. Importantly, under customary IHL (as identified in Rule 159 of the ICRC customary IHL study), this excludes persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes in NIACs.

Asia-Pacific States and the Development of International Humanitarian Law

This chapter considers the development of international humanitarian law by states from the Asia-Pacific region. It explores the contribution of individual states from the region to the drafting of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. It examines the extent to which state practice and opinio juris from states from the region are used in the formation of customary international humanitarian law rules, using as case studies the ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law study and jurisprudence of the ICTY. The role of national judicial decisions from the region is analysed. The chapter then turns to the use of materials from Asia-Pacific states in leading teachings of publicists, such as the ICRC Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols and the work of expert groups.

Dignified Human Corpse in Disaster: A Need of New Treaty

Humans are the greatest creatures in the world. Our intelligence defined our dignity as human beings and our dignity should be respected. Therefore, human rights is the basic rule of human existence. However, human rights is seldom applied to human corpse. Most countries do not have specific legislation related to the management of human corpse after disaster and additionally, international law also failed to propose a treaty specifically dealing with the management of human corpse after disaster. Therefore, this paper attempts to analyse the related treaties, customary international humanitarian law and soft law pertaining to the management of human corpse. Qualitative methodology with analytical, historical and comparative approaches was used in this study. Results indicate that there are no existing specific treaty that governs the management of human corpse after disaster.

The Rule of Surrender in International Humanitarian Law

Under international humanitarian law it is prohibited to make the object of attack a person who has surrendered. This article explores the circumstances in which the act of surrender is effective under international humanitarian law and examines, in particular, how surrender can be achieved in practical terms during land warfare in the context of international and non-international armed conflict. First, the article situates surrender within its broader historical and theoretical setting, tracing its legal development as a rule of conventional and customary international humanitarian law and arguing that its crystallisation as a law of war derives from the lack of military necessity to directly target persons who have placed themselves outside the theatre of armed conflict, and that such conduct is unacceptable from a humanitarian perspective. Second, after a careful examination of state practice, the article proposes a three-stage test for determining whether persons have surrendered under international humanitarian law: (1) Have persons attempting to surrender engaged in a positive act which clearly reveals that they no longer intend to participate in hostilities? (2) Is it reasonable in the circumstances prevailing at the time for the opposing force to discern the offer of surrender? and (3) Have surrendered persons unconditionally submitted to the authority of their captor?

Unsettled: A Global Study Of Settlements In Occupied Territories

This Article provides the first comprehensive, global examination of state and international practice bearing on Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that an “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This provision is a staple of legal and diplomatic international discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and serves as the basis for criticism of Israeli settlement policy. Despite its frequent invocation in the Israeli context, scholars have never examined – or even considered – how the norm has been interpreted and applied in any other occupation context in the post-WWII era. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) influential Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law lists 107 instances of national practice and UN practice applying or interpreting the prohibition, and all but two relate to Israel. Many questions exist about the scope and application of Art. 49(6)’s prohibition on “transfer,” but they have generally been answered on purely theoretically. To better understand what Art. 49(6) does in fact demand, this Article closely examines its application in all other cases in which it could apply. Many of the settlement enterprises studied in this Article have never been discussed or documented. All of these situations involved the movement of settlers into the occupied territory, in numbers ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands. Indeed, perhaps every prolonged occupation of contiguous habitable territory has resulted in significant settlement activity.Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. Strikingly, the state practice paints a picture that is significantly inconsistent with the prior conventional wisdom concerning Art. 49(6). First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.The deeper understanding – based on a systematic survey of all available state practice – of the prohibition on settlements should inform legal discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including potential investigations into such activity by the International Criminal Court. More broadly, the new understanding of Art. 49(6) developed here can also shed significant light on the proper treatment of several ongoing occupations, from Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus, to the Russian occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, whose settlement policies this Article is the first to document.

The International Humanitarian Law Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities – A Review of The ICRC Interpretive Guide and Subsequent Debate

The phrase "direct participation in hostilities" has a very specific meaning in international humanitarian law (IHL). Those individuals who are clothed with combatant status are authorised to participate directly in hostilities without fear of prosecution, while civilians lose their civilian immunity against direct targeting whilst they participate directly in hostilities. Any civilian activity which amounts to "direct participation in hostilities" temporarily suspends their presumptive civilian protection and exposes them to both direct targeting as a legitimate military target and prosecution for their unauthorised participation in hostilities. Since existing treaty sources of IHL do not provide a definition of what activities amount to "direct participation in hostilities", the ICRC in 2009 released an Interpretive Guide on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities - in the hope of providing a neutral, impartial and balanced interpretation of the longstanding IHL principle of direct participation in hostilities. While not without criticism, the Interpretive Guide aims to respect the customary IHL distinction between "direct participation in hostilities" and mere involvement in the general war effort. The Guide proposes a three-pronged test which establishes a threshold of harm, and requires direct causation together with a belligerent nexus. Collectively, these criteria limit overly-broad targeting policies, while distinguishing occasions of legitimate military targeting from common, criminal activities. Together with these three criteria, the Guide introduces the notion of the revolving door of protection, together with the concept of a "continuous combat function". Both these new concepts have been the subject of criticism, as too the idea that a presumption of non-participation status should apply in cases of doubt. Nevertheless "nothing indicates that the ICRC's interpretive guidance is substantively inaccurate, unbalanced, or otherwise inappropriate, or that its recommendations cannot be realistically translated into operational practice"[1] in a way which will ensure that the fundamental principles of distinction and civilian immunity upon which all of IHL is built are observed.

Displacement and dispossession: redefining forced displacement and identifying when forced displacement becomes pillage under international humanitarian law

Conflict-induced migration is arguably the most urgent humanitarian challenge today. A growing number of people are forced from their homes each year. The dispossession of civilians by armed parties, furthermore, through forced displacement has become a prevalent phenomenon. This article seeks to provide clarity to civilians, humanitarians, and other stakeholders, attempting to reduce civilian vulnerability to forced displacement through the application of international humanitarian law (IHL). While IHL prohibits forced displacement, pillage, and illegal appropriation, a number of problems arise when we try to implement these laws in practice. Establishing the illegality of an act of forced displacement, for example, may require legal analysis on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, whether appropriation by force due to military necessity is legal or illegal is unclear due to a divergence between IHL treaty provisions and customary international humanitarian law (CIHL). In addition, when forced displacement becomes illegal, appropriation or pillage is not defined. This paper views these problems from a Humanitarian Protection perspective. The objective of the article is to provide practical criteria for stakeholders aiming to apply the law in protection of civilians and their property.

Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories

This Article provides the first comprehensive, global examination of state and international practice bearing on Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that an “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This provision is a staple of legal and diplomatic international discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and serves as the basis for criticism of Israeli settlement policy. Despite its frequent invocation in the Israeli context, scholars have never examined – or even considered – how the norm has been interpreted and applied in any other occupation context in the post-WWII era. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) influential Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law lists 107 instances of national practice and UN practice applying or interpreting the prohibition, and all but two relate to Israel. Many questions exist about the scope and application of Art. 49(6)’s prohibition on “transfer,” but they have generally been answered on purely theoretically. To better understand what Art. 49(6) does in fact demand, this Article closely examines its application in all other cases in which it could apply. Many of the settlement enterprises studied in this Article have never been discussed or documented. All of these situations involved the movement of settlers into the occupied territory, in numbers ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands. Indeed, perhaps every prolonged occupation of contiguous habitable territory has resulted in significant settlement activity.Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. Strikingly, the state practice paints a picture that is significantly inconsistent with the prior conventional wisdom concerning Art. 49(6). First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.The deeper understanding – based on a systematic survey of all available state practice – of the prohibition on settlements should inform legal discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including potential investigations into such activity by the International Criminal Court. More broadly, the new understanding of Art. 49(6) developed here can also shed significant light on the proper treatment of several ongoing occupations, from Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus, to the Russian occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, whose settlement policies this Article is the first to document.

TOWARDS FULFILLMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is an international treaty that should be implemented during both peace and wartime. However, the obligations included in the treaty are dependent upon states' attitudes regarding other issues. Non-use of nuclear weapons is directly related to negotiations done for the purpose of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, non-production or accumulation by other means and disarmament. In our day, prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been one of the issues of international law. The present study is of crucial significance due to its endeavor to clarify the general principles of Humanitarian Law in a relationship to the threat of nuclear weapons' up to now, a special norm; significantly limiting or completely prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, has not been accepted in international law. However, customary international humanitarian law regarding the use of nuclear weapons holds great value because of its purpose in eliminating nuclear weapons as a means of war through ascertaining their non-use and also appeasing the importance of nuclear ascendancy. In this respect, the NPT regime and its relationship with international humanitarian law will be discussed. Firstly, the NPT background, formation, main objectives and principles will be analyzed. In order to evaluate the relationship between the NPT and humanitarian law, the humanitarian obligations in general, humanitarian obligations in the context of the NPT and fulfillmen t of these obligations under the NPT should be studied. One of the main parts of the study is nuclear disarmament obligation included in the NPT. In this section, nuclear disarmament obligation in the context of the NPT and the legal framework of possible, general and comprehensive disarmament will be examined.

Israel’s Human Shields Defense

Israel’s Human Shields Defense

From Principle to Practice: US Military Strategy and Protection of Civilians in Afghanistan

During its engagement in Afghanistan, the US military seriously tried to mitigate the risk of civilian casualties from airstrikes only when called for by changes in military doctrine emphasizing the need to gain the support of the population. Consistent efforts by external political and humanitarian actors to reduce casualties by demanding more transparency and clearer lines of accountability for ‘collateral damage’ had little immediate, observable effect. The case study underlines the contingent nature of progress towards protecting civilians in armed conflict even when a military institution formally accepts the principles of customary international humanitarian law, but concludes that, faute de mieux, strategies to enhance protection through greater accountability and attention to the kind of military ordinance used remain central.

The International Humanitarian Law Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities – A Review of The ICRC Interpretive Guide and Subsequent Debate

The phrase participation in has a very specific meaning in international humanitarian law (IHL). Those individuals who are clothed with combatant status are authorised to participate directly in hostilities without fear of prosecution, while civilians lose their civilian immunity against direct targeting whilst they participate directly in hostilities. Any civilian activity which amounts to participation in temporarily suspends their presumptive civilian protection and exposes them to both direct targeting as a legitimate military target and prosecution for their unauthorised participation in hostilities. Since existing treaty sources of IHL do not provide a definition of what activities amount to participation in hostilities, the ICRC in 2009 released an Interpretive Guide on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities - in the hope of providing a neutral, impartial and balanced interpretation of the longstanding IHL principle of direct participation in hostilities. While not without criticism, the Interpretive Guide aims to respect the customary IHL distinction between participation in and mere involvement in the general war effort. The Guide proposes a three-pronged test which establishes a threshold of harm, and requires direct causation together with a belligerent nexus. Collectively, these criteria limit overly-broad targeting policies, while distinguishing occasions of legitimate military targeting from common, criminal activities. Together with these three criteria, the Guide introduces the notion of the revolving door of protection, together with the concept of a continuous combat function. Both these new concepts have been the subject of criticism, as too the idea that a presumption of non-participation status should apply in cases of doubt. Nevertheless nothing indicates that the ICRC's interpretive guidance is substantively inaccurate, unbalanced, or otherwise inappropriate, or that its recommendations cannot be realistically translated into operational practice[1] in a way which will ensure that the fundamental principles of distinction and civilian immunity upon which all of IHL is built are observed.

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission and Customary International Humanitarian Law

The aim of the article is to highlight several issues concerning the customary international law status of a number of international humanitarian law (IHL) treaty provisions that arose during the proceedings of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission. Specifically, two key issues will be analyzed, namely the Commission's findings that the Geneva Conventions and some provisions of Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law and that international landmine conventions create only treaty obligations and do not yet reflect customary international law. Also, some more detailed conclusions relating to particular problems, such as the issue of the customary nature of the ICRC’s right to visit prisoners of war and its binding character for non-parties to the Geneva Conventions, will be discussed. The 2005 ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s jurisprudence will also be included as a point of reference to identify the customary character of certain provisions. The main conclusion is that the Commission has significantly contributed to the emerging consensus regarding the status of certain norms of international humanitarian law as customary norms. Furthermore, it has identified lacunae in the existing standards of humanitarian law and suggested the development of new norms to fill those gaps.

Anthony Cullen. The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law

The objective of Anthony Cullen's work is to remedy some of the confusion that exists surrounding distinctions that are used to differentiate between different types of non- international armed (at 3). He works towards developing a framework for the characterization of armed conflicts. The author is a research fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law and is participating in the joint British Red Cross and International Committee of the Red Cross project to update the collection of practice underlying the ICRC's study on Customary International Humanitarian Law. Application of humanitarian law to non-international armed conflict is a timely subject in the present political context. One needs only to point to discussions about the so-called global war on terrorism, asymmetrical conflict, and the fight against pirates. Examples where the application of humanitarian law is in question are the US practice of detention without charge or trial of terrorist suspects and targeted killings. They are currently discussed in many academic contributions and have triggered a political debate after high-ranking �

The Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict: Legal Obligations in the Absence of Specific Rules

While a general rule of ‘eco-protection’ in armed conflict may be derived from the basic principles of distinction, proportionality, avoidance of unnecessary suffering and humanity, international humanitarian law provides little by way of more specific rules for the protection of the natural environment except for in extreme situations that can rarely be expected to occur. Nevertheless, opinio juris has changed since the adoption of pertinent instruments in 1977. This development needs to be balanced against a still prevailing general reluctance to accept specific ecological obligations and procedures in military operations. Thus a detailed evaluation of planning and decision-making processes appears necessary. Revisiting the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea and the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, this article argues that certain qualifications made in these documents relating to requirements of ‘imperative military necessity’ are to be assessed in the light of their specific implications and should be used with caution. Furthermore, it is suggested that pertinent consequences of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties deserve further study. To this end, interdisciplinary case studies should be conducted to support fact-oriented evaluations of military requirements, ecological assessments and political effects post-conflict, rather than insisting on thresholds for legal regulation that already appeared to be escapist decades ago and which may prove counter-productive in the years to come. New activities aimed at protecting the natural environment in armed conflict should focus on a reaffirmation of existing rules and their effective implementation.

Africa's toy soldiers, non-state armed groups, and ‘voluntary’ recruitment

Armed conflict on the African continent has witnessed increasing recruitment of child soldiers, often at the hands of non-state armed groups. Unfortunately this practice continues unabated in the face of legal obligations prohibiting the recruitment of child soldiers under international humanitarian law, and international and regional human rights law. While international condemnation of the practice has led to attempts to increase the minimum age for recruitment to 18, a disjuncture persists between the legal obligations states sign up to, and the actual enforcement of these prohibitions at a domestic level. International criminal law jurisprudence emanating from the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court is being monitored closely, as these courts seek to enforce the prohibition in all armed conflicts, and against both state actors and non-state armed groups. International humanitarian law only protects child soldiers who have been unlawfully recruited. In this piece, the authors take a closer look at what amounts to unlawful recruitment in light of customary international humanitarian law, since this body of law also binds non-state actors, even without further criminalising legislation at a domestic level. Moreover, the article briefly explores whether a child can ever void this protected status by volunteering to participate directly in hostilities.