Violations Of International Humanitarian Law Research Articles

The War in Ukraine: Fact-finding on Violations of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights

The War in Ukraine: Fact-finding on Violations of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights

무력충돌시 문화재 파괴 행위에 대한 국제형사책임의 과제

Since the 1990s, situations in which culturally significant heritage sites serve as symbolic targets for intentional attacks, leading to the 'destruction of enemy communities,' have frequently occurred. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established to prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law within the former Yugoslav territories, addresses prominent cases of intentional attacks and destruction of cultural property during the armed conflict, specifically targeting the annihilation of ethnic identity. This article examines the implications and limitations of international legal norms regarding the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts, focusing on the Dubrovnik Old Town shelling incident, a representative case of cultural property destruction prosecuted by the ICTY. Firstly, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is undeniably a significant violation of values that the international community must protect. The pursuit of individual criminal responsibility for the destruction of cultural heritage within the international criminal tribunal signifies a substantial advancement in international efforts to protect cultural heritage during armed conflicts. The negative impact of the intentional destruction of cultural property on human dignity and universal human values is undeniable. However, ensuring effective protection of cultural property in the current normative context, where attacks on cultural property for military purposes may be justified, remains challenging. Secondly, military necessity, rooted in customary international law, limits attacks on enemy forces to military objectives, focusing on the centralization of enemy forces, balancing the military necessity of concentrated attacks on enemy forces with humanitarian considerations to protect civilian objects. However, determining what qualifies as a military objective can be challenging, as it depends on the circumstances of combat and operations. Regardless of whether the principle of proportionality is applicable, evaluating the military necessity from the perspective of cultural heritage protection is crucial. ICTY recognizes that even when military necessity justifies attacks on civilian objects, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage can have a significant impact on the psychological well-being of civilians and may upset the balance with military superiority. Thus, careful consideration is necessary when assessing the military necessity in cases where the protection of cultural property, with a higher need for protection than general civilian objects, is involved. Moreover, even if a target has dual-use, being considered a military objective, evaluating proportionality in the attack is essential to prevent harm to civilians, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In conclusion, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage should be treated as a threat to the common values of the international community, necessitating appropriate legal and policy responses in line with the actual circumstances of the armed coflict. Military commanders should not only view attacks on cultural heritage as inevitable collateral damage but also recognize the gravity of such acts as war crimes and consider them strategically within military operations.

Armed Conflict, Neutrality, and Disarmament: Violations of International Humanitarian Law and Issues of Accountability in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Armed Conflict, Neutrality, and Disarmament: Violations of International Humanitarian Law and Issues of Accountability in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

International Criminal Law And Victor's Justice:acase Study Of The Tribunal For Rwanda

The background of the study focuses on Rwanda in the situation of selective justice by the victors after the civil war between the Rwanda Patriotic Front and the Rwandan government in 1994 and subsequent atrocities the victors committed. The purpose of the study is to critically examine the credibility and the way the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda selectively discharged its mandate by only prosecuting the defeated individual perpetrators whilst protecting victors’ perpetrators who also committed the same atrocities. The selectivity done by the ICTR was contrary to the Tribunal’s competence enshrined in the Statute that the Tribunal shall prosecute individual perpetrators regardless of their affiliations. Ignoring the selective prosecution discharged by the Tribunal would promote the continued violation of International Humanitarian Law and genocide in Rwanda and in other countries worldwide. The methodology applied under this study is based on analytical review of the literature relating to the topic, because it deeply explains the application of the selective prosecution of the perpetrators. The research also analyzed international instruments like ICTR’s Statute and Geneva Conventions. The analytical method is also complemented by the methodology of case study of the Tribunal for Rwanda. The data collected was subsequently analyzed qualitatively through narrative data analysis approach showing individual prosecution of perpetrators. The findings of the study show that the ICTR discharged its obligations selectively due to the lack of cooperation from the Rwandan State and support from the United Nations Security Council. Had the RPF led government cooperated with the United Nations Security Council, could lead the ICTR to prosecute both individual perpetrators of armed conflict, end impunity, redress successfully, and contributed to the process of national reconciliation and maintenance of peace. The study recommends to the United Nations Security Council to re- evaluate its mandate and call upon the RPF led government to comply with its obligation.

A Short History of Prosecuting Crimes under International Law in Germany

Abstract This article takes the 20th anniversary of the entering into force of the German Code of Crimes against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, CCAIL) as an opportunity to offer a historical review of the prosecution of international crimes in (West-)Germany. Starting from the post-World War II period, it flags early milestones, including efforts to hold accountable before German courts those involved in Nazi atrocities, in state oppression in the German Democratic Republic, in violations of international humanitarian law during the Yugoslav wars, and in dictatorship crimes in Argentina. This article then focuses on the practical implementation of the CCAIL and presents, at a glance, major trends, flaws and lessons learned over the past 20 years. It identifies four major phases: standstill, build-up, implementation and consolidation. This article concludes with a call for German judges and prosecutors to step up their efforts to contribute to a uniform and universal enforcement of international criminal law.

War crimes and ensuring Ukraine's national security through the prism of Russia's armed aggression

Modern democratic states of the world make a lot of efforts to ensure national security, which is one of the priority areas of state activity. In recent years, you have observed armed aggression on the part of individual states, evidence of which is the illegal invasion of the territory of Ukraine by Russian troops in February 2022 and the commission of a number of war crimes by them. The article uses general and special scientific methods. A war crime is a violation of international humanitarian law or national legislation by a serviceman or other person participating in an armed conflict or involved in military activities, with the aim of harming the civilian population, prisoners of war, objects of cultural heritage, etc. Such acts may include, for example, murder, torture, violence, sexual crimes, ethnic cleansing, violence against children, forced displacement of populations and other crimes that entail responsibility under international law. The specified crimes should certainly be considered crimes against humanity, because they are particularly brutal and massive, as well as being exclusively intentional in nature, and are a serious threat to the humanitarian situation both in a specific state and in the whole world in general.

The EU as a Crisis Manager: Ensuring Accountability Under IHL

In 2022, the EU published its Strategic Compass, setting the course for the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in the coming years. The most eye-catching proposal in the Compass is the creation of an EU Rapid Deployment Capacity (EU RDC). The creation of such a multinational force as part of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) toolbox, which may well engage in armed conflicts, is problematic for the attribution of possible violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This paper describes how the EU may be held accountable for the acts committed by the troops it deploys. Then it will discuss how the differences in the organization of EU operations may affect the opportunities for attribution. Finally, the paper recommends the EU’s CSDP operations to have a command and control structure that is fully integrated as this ensures the highest level of certainty when it comes to the attribution of wrongful acts. European Union, EU Rapid Deployment Capacity, International Humanitarian Law, EU Strategic Compass, multinational operations, accountability, CFSP, peacekeeping, crisis management

PELANGGARAN HUKUM HUMANITER INTERNASIONAL DALAM AGRESI ISRAEL TERHADAP PALESTINA TAHUN 2022

Israel and Palestine have been at war with one another for many years. Israel and Palestine believe they are entitled to the same area as a piece of the state's territory, so Israel keeps attacking Palestine. This research talks about Israel's aggression towards Palestine in 2022 and how those violations of international humanitarian law relate to that aggression. In armed conflict, humanitarian law has established mechanisms. In 2022, Israel engaged in several military operations in the Palestinian territory that cost the lives of troops and civilians.

A Weapon is No Subordinate

Abstract The doctrine of superior responsibility is occasionally presented as a potential solution to the ‘responsibility gap’ allegedly created when the employment of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) results in violations of international humanitarian law, which would amount to war crimes. This article analyses several challenges to the applicability of the doctrine of superior responsibility in these circumstances. In fact, superior responsibility is premised on the existence of a superior–subordinate relationship between individuals. The type of control required for this relationship to exist is different from the kind of control exercised over weapons, including AWS. Additionally, the doctrine requires the commission of an underlying crime in all its elements by a punishable subordinate. Nonetheless, superior responsibility remains a useful framework to demarcate the scope of the supervisory duties of the superior in relation to the prevention of war crimes. Understanding the limitations of this doctrine will be important in guiding the discussions concerning the level of human control that should be retained over AWS.

Ukraine’s Position as for the Disintegration of Russian Federation: Political and Legal Aspect

Introduction.The full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war became a consequence of the policy of disintegration of Ukraine, which was consistently implemented by the Russian Federation from the very beginning of Ukraine’s independence. After the full-scale military invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine, which was accompanied by the occupation of the territory, the genocide of the Ukrainian population, the destruction of civilian and critical life support infrastructure, the violation of international humanitarian law, the disintegration of the Russian Federation became a key political topic, one of the discussed ways to end the conventional Russian-Ukrainian war. Before the full-scale invasion in 2022, at the official level Ukraine, as a democratic, European state, did not carry out disintegration activity towards the Russian Federation. The settlement of the armed ethnopolitical conflict with Russia as for the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine was carried out exclusively peacefully. The aim of the study is to study the political and legal dimension of Ukraine’s participation in the disintegration of the Russian Federation. The methodology is based on systeman alysis, content analysis and political analysis. Conclusions. The policy of disintegration became an asymmetric response toRussia’s armed disintegration of Ukraine, precisely the holding of fake referendums on joining the Russian Federation of the occupied regions of Ukraine. Ukraine’s responsecontains fundamentally different tools, including non-standard solutions taking into a ccount Russia’s internal destructive processes and the ethno territorial claims of neighboring states to the RF. Despite the lack of a clear strategy for the disintegration of Russia, the formation of a consolidated disintegration position of Ukraine is being observed with the involvement of the international community in strengthening the processes of disintegration of the aggressor state by supporting democratic freedoms, including the right of nations to self-determination, which the authoritarian regimekeeps within the federation with force. Key words: disintegration, Russian-Ukrainian war, nations, right of self determination.

Criminal responsibility for war crimes in the context of armed aggression against Ukraine

Introduction. Armed conflicts are one of the important problems of our time. They lead to social tension because the rights of not only military personnel, but also the civilian population are violated. At the international level, more and more attention is paid to such issues as war crimes during armed aggression. For Ukraine, the issue of criminal responsibility at the state and international level is relevant. The purpose of the paper is to analyze issues related to criminal responsibility for committing crimes during armed aggression in Ukraine. Results. War crimes during the armed aggression of Russia against Ukraine have been ongoing since 2014. However, with the beginning of a full-scale invasion, they acquired a systematic character. In international humanitarian law, a gross intentional violation of the laws and customs of war is considered a war crime. War crimes are one of the main crimes of international law. The four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and Additional Protocol I to them of June 8, 1977 oblige states to criminalize serious violations of international humanitarian law in their national legislation. Ukraine fulfills this requirement primarily by adding Article 438 "Violation of laws and customs of war" to the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The definition of criminal responsibility for committing war crimes is also contained in such an international act as the Rome Statute. The widest list of war crimes is enshrined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the so-called Rome Statute. The more discovered facts of war crimes in Ukraine appear in the public space, the more the term "genocide" sounds from various international bodies and public figures. The Verkhovna Rada also demanded that war crimes of the Russian Federation should be recognized as genocide against the Ukrainian people. Conclusions. For Ukraine, the problem of criminal responsibility for war crimes is and will be relevant. In the conditions of martial law, it is important that each such crime is discovered and investigated separately. After all, those who commit crimes against humanity should know that they cannot escape criminal responsibility. The specified features of war crimes will allow to distinguish them from other crimes in the future, and will allow to better specify and implement international criminal responsibility for their commission.

Crimes without Humanity?

Abstract The development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) and, more generally, the role of artificial intelligence in warfare, may come to pose unprecedented challenges to criminal law, including by making it harder to link harm to individuals who can be held responsible, due to the pivotal role of the concepts of actus reus, mens rea and causation in that domain. In this context, the notion of meaningful human control has been proposed to address some of the challenges of ensuring accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian law. One possibility might be to link — conceptually, or even legally — meaningful human control with the ‘control theory’ propounded at the International Criminal Court to assign criminal responsibility. Under this theory, the ascription of criminal responsibility to an individual as a direct perpetrator requires an assessment of whether they enjoy an effective ability to decide on the commission of a crime. This article elaborates on some of the issues posed by this approach, proceeding then to consider the most ‘extreme’ instance of AWS, i.e. the deployment of swarms of drones operating autonomously and coordinating their behaviour in a decentralized manner.

Will the centre hold? Countering the erosion of the principle of distinction on the digital battlefield

AbstractThis article argues that the growing involvement of civilians in activities on the digital battlefield during armed conflicts puts individuals at risk of harm and contributes to the erosion of the principle of distinction, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL). The article begins by outlining the ongoing trend of civilianization of the digital battlefield and puts forward brief scenarios to illustrate it. It then examines the narrow circumstances under which such forms of civilian involvement may qualify as direct participation in hostilities under IHL, and discusses what this means for the individuals concerned, particularly from the perspective of their loss of protection under the law. The analysis shows that certain types of State conduct which put civilians in harm's way by inducing them to directly participate in hostilities may constitute standalone violations of IHL and human rights law obligations. Beyond these specific prescriptions, the encouragement of civilian involvement undermines the principle of distinction, with dangerous ripple effects on the interpretation of those rules of IHL that flow from it. Accordingly, the article concludes that States should act to reverse the trend of civilianization of the digital battlefield and refrain as much as possible from involving civilians in the conduct of cyber hostilities.

International humanitarian law violations in northern Uganda: victims' health, policy, and programming implications

Experience of serious violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) results in complex physical disability and psychosocial trauma amplifying poverty and multi-generational trauma and impeding long-term recovery. We use data from a representative sample of victims in the case Prosecutor V. Dominic Ongwen brought before the International Criminal Court. Thirteen years after the 2004 massacre, the victims were significantly worse off than the general war-affected population that did not experience serious violations of IHL. The differences in health and wellbeing persisted for individuals and their households, including children born after the massacre. The victims have significantly lower availability of appropriate health services and medications, including significantly greater distance to travel to these services. These findings call attention to the needs of people having experienced IHL violations, for provision of physical and emotional trauma care to allow for recovery, and better understanding of the short- and long-term impacts of IHL violations.

Responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law

Turning to history, it can be stated that all the time, mankind has experienced wars from time to time, both in the Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the New Age, and even in the Modern Age. Note that the article examines the role of international humanitarian law and its influence on the world order, as well as the facts of the responsibility of some countries for crimes committed by them against other countries and their peoples. All international humanitarian law is built precisely on the fact that it is formally the "law of war", according to which the international community can at least somehow democratize and reduce the existing fact of war itself, for example, in the matter of prisoners of war, which appear in large numbers at the time of a country's military confrontation , and therefore it is necessary to regulate their rights in the captivity of the enemy and ensure their humane treatment towards them (Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War dated August 12, 1949). In our opinion, modern international armed conflicts are quite often started by the aggressor state without any announcement, as it happened in our case, and are carried out with the help of non-traditional forms of warfare. Note that in one case, wars cause the migration of entire peoples from one region to another, which causes economic and political instability, in the other - the almost complete destruction of a nation in the course of hostilities (The Thirty Years' War in Europe from 1618 to 1648, during which almost all of the hostilities were fought on the territory of modern Germany, as a result of which it lost 70% of its population, which was exterminated by the armies of other countries, and the economy of the German principalities was destroyed. With the consequences, the German people fought until the end of the 19th century). Therefore, the very fact of the emergence and continued improvement of international humanitarian law is one of the most important components that can ensure a decrease in the number of wars and related atrocities.

The Application of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law to the Current Las'anod Conflict

In the last days of January 2023, an armed conflict has broken out between the Somaliland government and the local population in the city of Las’Anod, the administrative capital of Sool region of Somalia. Serious acts of violence jeopardizing well-being and lives of people living there have been widely reported by media. This Article focuses and explains how international law protects life, property and human dignity in such critical situations. It presents the applicable human right standards as well as rules of war that must be observed during an armed conflict. Finally, the Article addresses possibility of classifying the situation as violations of international humanitarian law.

Penetrating gunshot wounds to the penis: a case report of combat patient injured in the war in Ukraine

BackgroundThe current war in Ukraine is associated with frequent applications of multiple-launch rocket systems and cruise missiles as well as other various high-energy weapons to cause severe injuries in military personnel including abdomen wounds, vascular injury, and limb amputations as well as genitourinary trauma. The aim of this report is to demonstrate a case of successful penile salvage by restoring its function in a combat patient with gunshot genitourinary trauma in conditions of an interrupted supply of medical equipment.Case presentationWe describe a case of a 48-year-old male patient with a combined shrapnel gunshot wound to the penis with damage to the urethra and combined injury to the soft tissues of the left thigh. Several hours after the injury, the patient underwent primary surgical debridement of the left thigh, ligation of the great saphenous vein of the thigh, primary sutures on the penile urethra and navicular fossa, suturing of the rupture of the head and penis, drainage of the wound, catheterization of the bladder, and epicystostomy. An artificial erection was performed intraoperatively.The urethral catheter was removed 3 weeks after urethral suturing (May 4, 2022). The epicystostomy was removed 5 months after the injury (August 4, 2022) and 2 days after the restoration of spontaneous urination. At the follow-up of 7 months after the injury, the patient has normal urination with minor urinary dribbling, sufficient erection, and ejaculation.ConclusionsWe have shown that in a case of gunshot wounds to the penis and hanging part of the urethra, even in the presence of combined severe purulent lesions of non-urological localizations, it is possible to perform a primary reconstruction of urogenital injuries using a primary urethral suture and applying a negative pressure device. Findings from this case report shed new light on the management of penile gunshot injury in ongoing warfare as well as provide evidence of the possibility to perform adequate management for penile injury in conditions of limited medical resources, violation of international humanitarian law, and under frequent strikes of high-energy weapons.

State and Personal Responsibility: War Crimes, Crimes of Aggression and Genocide in Ukraine

This article examines international crimes committed on the territory of Ukraine since February 24, 2022. Ukraine faces explicit acts of aggression, with a multitude of war crimes—including murder, sexual violence, and deliberate attacks on civilian property and infrastructure—being perpetrated within its borders. Additionally, there are indications of genocidal intent. Urgent attention is required to investigate the violations of international humanitarian law. Further, the article identifies the main causes of war crimes committed by the military: military errors or failures, the use of civilians as “human shields,” insufficient discipline, inadequate inculcation of legal norms related to international humanitarian law and Just War Theory within military ranks, and the use of targeted terror aimed at crushing the enemy’s will to resist. The author examines the interrelation of war crimes and information warfare in light of the importance of discerning truth amidst a sea of disinformation and cover-up. Finally, he explores national and international mechanisms for bringing perpetrators of crimes to justice, as well as seeking compensation for the damage they caused.

THE DEFINITION OF PROTECTED GROUP IN THE CONTEXT OF APPROACH TO GENOCIDE UNDER INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW AND POLISH CRIMINAL LAW

The study seeks to define the group of people protected under the provisions on genocide both in the Polish criminal law and international criminal law. The provisions of the Convention of 9 December 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Statutes of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda contain a very similar definition of genocide. Killings and other acts listed in that legislation, committed in order to exterminate all or part of national, ethnic, racial or religious groups as such are prohibited as genocide. Similar conduct was prohibited in the provision of Article 118 of the Polish Penal Code. However, the protected group has been identified differently. It has been defined much more widely in Polish criminal law than in international law. A perpetrator of genocide acts with the purpose to exterminate all or part of a national, ethnic, racial, political or religious group or a group with a specific worldview. There are two important differences: the first is that international law acts prohibit intentional conduct while Article 118 prohibits purposeful conduct. The second difference is a much narrower definition of groups protected by international regulations. They do not protect a political group and a group with a certain worldview. This study analyses the consequences of this distinction, in particular the possibility of classifying the conduct aiming against a political group and a group with a particular worldview.

PRINCIPLE OF NEUTRALITY AND THE OBLIGATION TO PREVENT INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS: A CASE STUDY OF US MILITARY ASSISTANCE IN RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

Although international law forbids states to use force against each other, every state has an obligation to stop the ongoing violation of international humanitarian law. Consequently, the relevance of the traditional law of neutrality is questionable and often considered obsolete in contemporary armed conflict. The United States of America introduced the doctrine of qualified neutrality. The doctrine allows other states to do something when there is a threat or ongoing violations of the peace and security of humankind. The United States has commonly justified its military assistance to one of the warring parties using the doctrine as in the current Russia-Ukraine War. The United States provides vast military assistance to Ukraine, consisting of weapons and specialized military training to stop Russian aggression. This study aims to assess the qualified neutrality doctrine from an international law perspective and whether the United States can still preserve its neutral status or become a co-belligerent of Ukraine. This study argues that qualified neutrality will not change the status of a neutral state into co-belligerent if it does not involve any use of force measures or, otherwise, these measures shall fall within the framework of the UN Charter and require authorization from the UN.