International Commission Of Inquiry Research Articles

NIZOLARNI TINCH YО‘L BILAN HAL QILISH VOSITASI SIFATIDA XALQARO TERGOV KOMISSIYALARI TUZISHNING XALQARO-HUQUQIY ASOSLARI

At the beginning of the last century, international commissions of inquiry were initially created by States to promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes. After the creation of the United Nations, International Commissions of Inquiry are formed in the international community in order to investigate crisis situations in the international arena, fully inform about cases of violations within the framework of international law and resolve issues of guilt of the perpetrators. At the same time, the activities of international investigative committees are increasingly necessary today to investigate and investigate situations related to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and human rights violations. In short, the commissions have become one of the institutions of international law to which they turn in order to investigate violations committed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. In turn, it is believed that the creation of commissions has its own legal basis in international law. In this article, the author scientifically substantiated the legal framework and effective activities for the creation of international investigative commissions. Comments were also made on the further development of this activity.

XALQARO NIZOLARNI TINCH YO‘L BILAN HAL ETISH VOSITASI SIFATIDA XALQARO TERGOV KOMISSIYALARI AHAMIYATI VA TUSHUNCHASI

At the beginning of the last century, international commissions of inquiry were initially created by States to promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes. After the creation of the United Nations, International Commissions of Inquiry are formed in the international community in order to investigate crisis situations in the international arena, fully inform about cases of violations within the framework of international law and resolve issues of guilt of the perpetrators. At the same time, the activities of international investigative committees are increasingly necessary today to investigate and investigate situations related to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and human rights violations. In short, the commissions have become one of the institutions of international law to which they turn in order to investigate violations committed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. In turn, it is believed that the creation of commissions has its own legal basis in international law. In this article, the author scientifically substantiated the legal framework and effective activities for the creation of international investigative commissions. Comments were also made on the further development of this activity.

Identifying Genocide: The Yazidi Massacre in the Context of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948

In August 2014 ISIS conducted a coordinated attack on the Yazidi population of the Mount Sinjar area. As a result, the entirety of this Yazidi population was displaced[1], and an estimated total of 3,100[2] Yazidis were killed (approximately half were executed, and the rest died whilst fleeing[3]) and 6,800[4] were kidnapped and subjected to numerous abuses, including torture and forced religious conversion. The “genocide” is ongoing[5] and as of August 2014, there are an estimated 3,200[6] women and girls still in ISIS captivity. This article will explore these events in the context of the elements of genocide and with references to the findings of the Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic and the Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Iraq in the light of abuses committed by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and associated group. This article will critically examine if, and to what extent, these attacks constitute a genocide within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (‘Genocide Convention’) 1948.In August 2014 ISIS conducted a coordinated attack on the Yazidi population of the Mount Sinjar area. As a result, the entirety of this Yazidi population was displaced[1], and an estimated total of 3,100[2] Yazidis were killed (approximately half were executed, and the rest died whilst fleeing[3]) and 6,800[4] were kidnapped and subjected to numerous abuses, including torture and forced religious conversion. The “genocide” is ongoing[5] and as of August 2014, there are an estimated 3,200[6] women and girls still in ISIS captivity.This article will explore these events in the context of the elements of genocide and with references to the findings of the Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic and the Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Iraq in the light of abuses committed by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and associated group. This article will critically examine if, and to what extent, these attacks constitute a genocide within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (‘Genocide Convention’) 1948.

Do We Need an International Commission of Inquiry for COVID-19?

This paper considers whether the COVID-19 pandemic requires the establishment of an international commission of inquiry. It considers the reasons to pursue inquiry rather than litigation and what an inquiry's mandate might contain, including how much the inquiry should focus on international law or state responsibility. It then considers who could create such a body, what its composition might look like, different working methods, and how to maximise co-operation. Overall, a forward-looking inquiry aimed at improving global preparedness may be more prudent and realistic than a mechanism focused on legal wrongdoing.

International commissions of inquiry: What difference do they make? Taking an empirical approach

International commissions of inquiry: What difference do they make? Taking an empirical approach

International Commissions of Inquiry in a Networked World: Unveiling the Roles of Diasporas through an Eritrean Case Study

Abstract International Commissions of Inquiry (COIs) have become important components of the human rights fact-finding, accountability and transitional justice architecture. The core task of COIs is to investigate international crises and construe what happened on the ground. The increasing tendency of states under scrutiny to refuse territorial access frustrates COI performance. It leaves COIs with no option but to operate from outside the state. COIs have developed various strategies to overcome the impediment of the uncooperative state, including the use of satellite imagery, conducting extraterritorial public hearings, interviewing individuals in the territory through Skype and other media as well as collecting accounts from individuals in the diaspora. This article focuses on the engagement of COIs with the diaspora. It presents diasporas as actors that may have considerable significance for COIs in a variety of ways, beyond sharing information. The article unveils the distinct roles that diasporic actors may entertain vis-à-vis international inquiries, as subjects in need of protection, information providers, and audience and mobilization forces. Looking at the COI for Eritrea, the article tests how these different roles play out in practice and how they interrelate. It thus sheds light on the capacity of COIs to make a difference extraterritorially for individuals in the diaspora, and on the capacity of diasporic actors to influence COI findings and shape follow up. The Eritrean COI experience illustrates that a purely instrumental approach towards diasporas – one which only regards diasporas as sources of information and which fails to protect extraterritorially or tap into the greater potential of diaspora mobilization – lessens COI effectivity for broader human rights and transitional justice purposes.

International Commissions of Inquiry as Law-Makers

Many contemporary international commissions of inquiry have been established to investigate suspected violations of international law in order to ensure accountability. When reaching findings, commissions interpret legal norms and apply them to the facts. While commissions remain non-judicial bodies and their reports are not binding, this paper considers whether they may yet participate in the incremental development of international law. Their potential law-making role is examined by reference to formal and informal theoretical perspectives. Considering that the classic theory of sources does not acknowledge the law-making role of interpretation, the paper turns to socio-legal theories and in particular Ingo Venzke’s account of ‘semantic authority’. The paper argues that commissions are capable of bearing semantic authority, with the extent of authority linked to their adherence to markers of legal rationality and the disciplining rules of the practice of legal interpretation.

International Commissions of Inquiry and the North Sea Incident: A Model for a MH17 Tribunal?

International Commissions of Inquiry and the North Sea Incident: A Model for a MH17 Tribunal?

Peace-mongering in 1913: the Carnegie international commission of inquiry and its report on the Balkan Wars

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace saw the Second Balkan War of the summer of 1913 as an opportunity to extend its influence and authority. The war seemed made to order for peace advocates in that its causes were disputed, atrocities had been charged from all sides and it was geographically in Europe. The Carnegie Endowment immediately sent an international commission to the Balkans to investigate the causes of the war, and the veracity and responsibility of alleged atrocities. The Commission was also charged with studying the economic and moral losses from the war, and the lessons it could teach ‘civilized people.’ In this paper, I focus on the aims of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and the extent to which the Commission achieved them in the Balkans and in the resulting publication, The Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. I describe how the head of the Carnegie Division of Intercourse and Education conceived of the initiative, and how he worked with the Paris Carnegie office to assemble the international members. I present how political post-war difficulties affected their fieldwork in the Balkans. The Report, scheduled to be published in January 1914, appeared in French in May 1914 and in English in June 1914 – too late to rekindle interest before other events took center stage. The Carnegie Commissioners were successful in meeting many of their aims but the Report's late publication made this moot. Still, the Carnegie Commission to the Balkans and its Report are significant as an international attempt of peace advocates to bring out the horrors of war in the year just before the First World War. They are also significant as early work to document war crimes and human rights abuse, including abuse of non-combatant citizens. In addition, the Report has been used naively as a historical source on the Balkan Wars. I contextualize it as an historical source with its strengths and weaknesses.

International Criminal Law Outside the Courtroom: The Impact of Focusing on International Crimes for the Quality of Fact-Finding by International Commissions of Inquiry

The renaissance of international criminal law in the 1990s not only altered the landscape of international law, but has had an impact on international fact-finding. Analysis of mandates and reports of international commissions of inquiry established by the United Nations reveals that international criminal law concepts have migrated into their investigations, findings and recommendations. This chapter tracks this migration of international criminal law from the courtroom and explores how an increased focus on international criminal law may affect the quality of the fact-finding process. A focus on international crimes has an influence on both substantive and procedural dimensions of fact-finding. Ultimately, these questions lead to an inquiry into the fundamental notion of 'quality'. An international criminal law-focus might contribute to a more rigorous fact-finding methodology, thereby increasing certainty in findings. However, when 'quality' is considered as a wider notion linked to normative and narrative agendas, an international criminal law-focus may limit the utility of fact-finding.

Fact-Finding or Paving the Road to Criminal Justice?: Some Reflections on United Nations Commissions of Inquiry

This article analyses the work of a number of fact-finding commissions established by the United Nations (UN) with a view to assessing their impact on subsequent criminal prosecutions for war crimes and other international crimes and to trigger some reflections on the merits and pitfalls of these bodies. In the first place, the author takes into consideration UN commissions of inquiry leading to the establishment of international criminal tribunals. Fact-finding bodies that have prompted a UN Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court are then examined. The major case in point is the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur that interpreted its mandate in the broadest possible manner and acted as a quasi pre-judicial body. The author then observes that in recent years there has been a gradual shift and many UN commissions of inquiry — even those that were mainly tasked with the investigation of alleged violations of international humanitarian law — have been established by the Human Rights Council and not by the Security Council. Until now though, there has been a dearth of encouraging results corroborating the validity of such a change of approach. In fact, some of the bodies established by the Human Rights Council have attracted criticism, either because of a one-sided or unbalanced mandate or because they could not gain access to the territory where violations of international humanitarian law were being committed. The author concludes that, for the purposes of gathering evidence for future criminal prosecutions, it is advisable not to assign mandates combining investigations into violations of international humanitarian law together with human rights violations. The author also suggests a division of labour among the various UN bodies undertaking fact-finding activities, the drawing of a ready-to-use set of guidelines and the establishment of a roster of independent experts. These are all measures that could foster the prompt and effective deployment of fact-finding missions.

The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Libya – An Assessment

The conflict in Libya 2011 has been closely monitored by an International Commission of Inquiry. As mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council, the International Commission of Inquiry on Libya presented its report on violations of human rights law in Libya’s civil war. Allthough the report is very thourough, some remarks must be made. This analysis assesses the achievements and flaws of the report.The ICIL-Report is a thouroughly researched analysis of the situation in Libya. In an almost flawless manner it addresses the various legal issues of the conflict. Not surprisingly, it fulfills its mandate in an exemplary fashion.However, the Commission missed some opportunities to clarify matters in legal and factual terms. Most importantly, it did not take stand on legal obligations of non-state-actors, extraterritorial application of human rights law and the exact dates of the armed conflicts’ commencement and ceasation.Nevertheless, the report sets the standard for future investigations. It clearly shows which issues must be addressed within the next months, it provides basic facts and basic legal analysis for the international community’s involvement in the reconstruction of the Libyan state. In addition, it provides the ICC with valuable informations to conduct further criminal investigations. The ICIL has shown that the Libyan conflict of 2011 is far away from being resolved.

Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups in Other Situations of Violence: The Syria Example

In February 2012, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic found that opposition groups fighting against the Assad regime are bound by human rights obligations constituting peremptory norms of international law. This finding is innovative for two reasons. First, human rights obligations apply generally to the vertical relation between States and their subjects. Second, whereas is seems accepted that non-state armed groups can have human rights obligations when they control territory, the Commission of Inquiry was unable to confirm that Syrian opposition forces exercised such control over territory. This article examines whether the finding that non-state armed groups are bound by peremptory human rights norms is supported by contemporary international law. Moreover, recent trends in the practice of the United Nations with regard to human rights obligations of non-state actors will be analysed. Even though this article argues that non-state armed groups can have human rights obligations in other situations of violence, it points out particular challenges to their practical application.

How Do We Know Them When We See Them? The Subjective Evolution in the Identification of Victim Groups for the Purpose of Genocide

AbstractDespite more than a decade of jurisprudence from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the manner in which the victim group is defined for the purpose of genocide remains an area in which the espousal of principle is not always matched by practice. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of whether international criminal law identifies the victim of genocide based on objective indicators of the group's existence or based on subjective perceptions in relation to that group. This article tests the claim in the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur that the identification of victim groups has evolved to such an extent that it is now based on a purely subjective standard. This article first considers the Genocide Convention, its travaux preparatoires and the method of identification of victim groups in other areas of international law, concluding that none of these sources offer clear guidance as to whether the victim group is to be understood as a subjective or objective concept. The jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals is then closely analysed. Despite the common claim that the tribunals have been moving towards the adoption of increasingly subjective standards, this article suggests that upon closer analysis such development is not so pronounced. Although the tribunals have shown increased willingness to espouse, in principle, the value of a subjective approach, in reality the tribunals have looked to the same forms of evidence of a group's existence since its earliest jurisprudence. However, although no clear change has occurred in the practice of the ad hoc tribunals, it is becoming increasingly evident that the tribunals are acknowledging the blurred boundaries between objective and subjective indicators of a group's existence. The "evolution" towards a subjective approach referred to in the Darfur Report might be properly understood as a more evolved understanding of the factors which lawyers are quick to regard as objective, but which in the field of sociology have long been regarded as part of subjective processes of group identification. Thus, the issues in this article are framed by the broader debate as to the divergences between the legal and sociological conceptions of genocide is article concludes by placing this discussion in the context of the International Criminal Court's first foray into genocide in the case of The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir.

The UN International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur: New and Disturbing Findings

Find information about UTP Journals. University of Toronto Press is Canada’s leading academic publisher and one of the largest university presses in North America, with particular strengths in the social sciences, humanities, and business. The Book Publishing Division is widely recognized in Canada for its strength in history, political science, sociology, Indigenous studies, and cultural studies. Internationally, UTP is a leading publisher of medieval, Renaissance, Italian, Iberian, Slavic, and urban studies, as well as studies in book and print culture.

Use of White Phosphorous in Gaza and Some Limitations of International Law

Notwithstanding calls for the establishment of an independent and international commission of inquiry to investigate war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups during the Operation Cast Lead, a legal issue is whether the use of certain weapons by the Israeli forces is in contravention of international law. This short paper investigates into that question.

The UN International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur: New and Disturbing Findings

Following a US referral of the Darfur crisis to the United Nations, the UN undertook the UN Commission of Inquiry into Darfur. In late January 2005, following an analysis of the data collected by the UN's COI team, the UN declared that while it found crimes against humanity had been committed by the government of Sudan (GoS) and the Janjaweed (Arab militia), it did not find evidence that the GoS had perpetrated genocide. Herein, Samuel Totten, argues that a correct analysis of the data collected by the COI team would have been genocide. In addition to offering a critique of the COI's analysis, Totten is critical of the hurried, unsystematic, and underfunded investigation.

Divergent Approaches to Determining Responsibility for Genocide: The Darfur Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ's Judgment in the Genocide Case

Internationally sanctioned assessments of genocide are relatively uncommon, and since genocide is usually assessed in the context of an individual's criminal prosecution, assessments of state responsibility for genocide are even rarer. Yet two such analyses have recently been completed: the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur's Report and the International Court of Justice's Judgment on genocide in Bosnia. On a key issue, the methodology for determining whether a state is responsible for genocide, they diverged. Whereas the Darfur Commission determined whether the ‘central government’ of Sudan pursued a state policy or plan for genocide in Darfur, the ICJ stressed that a state commits genocide through the acts of its officials, holding that if a state organ or a person or group whose acts are legally attributable to the state, engages in genocide, then the international responsibility of that state is incurred. This article critically examines the different methodological approaches taken by these two bodies in light of international jurisprudence. It argues that the Darfur Commission erred in focusing its genocide inquiry on whether high-level officials in Sudan's government possessed genocidal intent, rather than on the perpetrators of the underlying criminal acts. In addition, it argues that, whether the Commission's goal was to determine state responsibility or individual criminal responsibility, its approach was at variance with international law as elucidated in the UN ad hoc tribunals and as subsequently confirmed by the ICJ in the Genocide Case. In that regard, the ICJ Judgment reestablishes two sound methodological principles: the existence of a state plan or policy, although probative of intent, is not an implicit element of genocide; and determining state intent (however that may be defined) is not a part of determining state responsibility for genocide.

Accountability for genocide and other gross human rights violations: the need for an integrated and victim-based transitional justice

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

THE REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON DARFUR & GENOCIDAL INTENT – A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur concluded in its Report, dated 25 January 2005, that no genocide had been committed by the Government of Sudan. From the Commission’s perspective, the heinous atrocities committed in Darfur did not reveal ‘the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the African tribal population’ on the part of the Sudanese government. Apparently, the Commission found that the subjective element of the definition of genocide, i.e., genocidal intent, was not complied with in the case of Darfur. This article examines the extent to which the Commission’s conclusion that genocidal intent had been missing on the part of the Sudanese Government is sufficiently well-founded. The content of the part of the Report that considers the question whether or not there was genocidal intent is critically analysed in the light of the components of genocidal intent. While analysing the elements the Commission adduced to show the lack of genocidal intent, the author discusses each relevant element of genocidal intent at length and reveals that there are contending approaches as regards the level of intent that is required to establish genocidal liability. Arguments are presented that indicate why the purposeful standard which the Commission resorted to is debatable and attention is given to a broader interpretation of genocidal intent, i.e., the knowledge standard. By means of her analysis the author demonstrates that the elements the Commission brought forward are, in general, insufficiently convincing evidence to prove the absence of genocidal intent on the part of the central authorities. They appear to be too superfluous, contentious and legally weak.