Serious Violations Of Humanitarian Law Research Articles

Land Warfare During the Russian-Ukrainian War and International Humanitarian Law

The Russo-Ukrainian War is one of the largest – and probably the most intensive – conflicts of the last several decades. Fought between large, regular, and well-equipped forces of two sides, it naturally provides an extremely wide scope of materials for analysis as to the functioning of ius in bello. At the current stage, however, the evidence is often piecemeal and unclear, particularly taking into consideration the lack of access to documents and to Russian materials. While there is a significant body of evidence to indicate serious violations of humanitarian law, including indiscriminate or deliberate attacks on civilian targets, a detailed analysis requires taking into consideration a broader scope of circumstances which at this point are unclear. One of areas where we have strong evidence, if based on a sample, is the issue of the treatment of the prisoners of war. In general, the initial information seems to indicate widespread and systematic violations of humanitarian law during the conflict.

Law, political economy and war reparation: The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina

AbstractWhat are the after‐effects of the Bosnia and Herzegovinian (BH) transition from a post‐socialist, post‐genocide, and post‐ethno‐nationalist state into a European liberal democracy? This article makes a case for war reparation and argues that while poverty reduction has not been among the stated aims of transitional justice mechanisms, it is of critical importance to study war victims' deprivation in the context of historical patterns of structural injustice and examine liberal reconstruction policies that failed to provide compensation and legal redress for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of humanitarian law. The article uses the historical sociology approach as a method of analysis to investigate how moving away from a socialist to a capitalist economic model, from war to peace, and from one party political system to liberal democracy has resulted in structural injustice and growing levels of poverty that adversely impact most vulnerable Bosnians. The article presents an argument that the lack of post‐war reparation programs, coupled with an inadequate emphasis on political regime change, poverty reduction programs and social and economic rights such as access to welfare, cash assistance, food, transportation, education, pension, and disability benefits to ensure the quality of living is detrimental to everyday lives of war victims and people who live at the bottom of the society.

International humanitarian law after September 11: challenges and the need to respond

The need to enforce and further develop international legal protection after 11 September 2001 has been discussed in prominentforabefore. A wide range of issues (self-defence, humanitarian law, human rights, national laws and regulations, criminal sanctions) must be considered in this context. Different phases of application of the law (international and non-international armed conflict, peace enforcement, post-conflict peace building, etc.) are affected. Misconceptions have been propagated at the highest government levels and have created new problems rather than solving existing ones.Among expert observers, such developments may cause feelings ofdéjà vu. In the years after the adoption of the 1977 Additional Protocols, when one might have expected that all efforts would be taken to accelerate the ratification of these new instruments and ensure respect for their provisions, Protocol I was criticised as being in the service of terror, an allegation that won certain influence although it was promptly and convincingly refuted. Concerns expressed more recently that the application of certain rules of humanitarian law might impede the fight against terrorism may stem from similar ways of thinking. They have made it necessary to explicate in detail that terrorist acts when committed during armed conflict are serious violations of humanitarian law, prohibited without any exception in the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols and other international treaties and customary law, and that only scrupulous respect for international humanitarian law in military campaigns helps to strengthen the determination of all members of the international community to abide by the law in all circumstances.

When Are States Liable Towards Individuals for Serious Violations of Humanitarian Law? The Markovic Case

In February 2002, the Italian Supreme Court rejected an application filed by Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) citizens requesting compensation for the death or injuries suffered by their relatives following the NATO bombing of Radio Televizije Srbiijre (RTS) in 1999. The Supreme Court expanded the application of the ‘political question’ doctrine beyond the limits so far accepted and, certainly, beyond the limits that should be respected in order to ensure compliance with international law. The obligation to pay damages caused to individuals as a result of breaches of humanitarian law could derive from Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV and Article 91 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol. However, textual analysis of these two provisions does not dispel their ambiguity. Subsequent state practice shows that these rules have been interpreted as an interstate obligation and not as conferring a right on individuals. The author suggests a new interpretation intended to reconcile state practice with the right of individuals to seek and obtain compensation. Article 3 and Article 91 could be interpreted as granting individuals a right to compensation in all those cases where the payment of damages is not provided through interstate mechanisms.

When Are States Liable Towards Individuals for Serious Violations of Humanitarian Law? The Markovic Case

In February 2002, the Italian Supreme Court rejected an application filed by Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) citizens requesting compensation for the death or injuries suffered by their relatives following the NATO bombing of Radio Televizije Srbiijre (RTS) in 1999. The Supreme Court expanded the application of the ‘political question’ doctrine beyond the limits so far accepted and, certainly, beyond the limits that should be respected in order to ensure compliance with international law. The obligation to pay damages caused to individuals as a result of breaches of humanitarian law could derive from Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV and Article 91 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol. However, textual analysis of these two provisions does not dispel their ambiguity. Subsequent state practice shows that these rules have been interpreted as an interstate obligation and not as conferring a right on individuals. The author suggests a new interpretation intended to reconcile state practice with the right of individuals to seek and obtain compensation. Article 3 and Article 91 could be interpreted as granting individuals a right to compensation in all those cases where the payment of damages is not provided through interstate mechanisms.

Les crimes internationaux : vers un droit pénal supranational ?

The advent of international criminal courts and the adoption of the Rome Statute aimed at creating a permanent international criminal court raise the question of whether the desire to punish the most odious crimes is leading inexorably to the creation of a supranational criminal law. Is the real intention to create an international legal system binding on States ? And if so, with what end in mind ? We know that international law is not limited to the regulation of relations between sovereign States. If the Westphalian view of international relations still has its followers, one notes increasing emphasis on the defence of humanity through humanitarian law, inciting international law to take a greater interest in protecting human beings. This trend in international law started over a hundred years ago in response to an increasing awareness of the problem. Today the world knows that by waging total war it is in danger of destroying itself. Its awareness of what happened in the past and its fears for the future have led, through international agreements called humanitarian, and in spite of the lack of any specific project, to the implementation of a number of measures intended to prevent any regression. But classic humanitarian law has proved inadequate ; it is not enough to prohibit certain acts, they also need to be sanctioned. This is why, since the end of the Cold War, international law has become steadily more repressive. It has dealt with emergency situations (ex-Yugoslavia, Rwanda) by making violations of international humanitarian law criminal offences and by creating special international jurisdictions to apply sanctions (I). The competence of these ad hoc institutions is limited however and does not enable them to sanction all internationally recognised crimes. Hence the idea of creating a universally competent international court in the future (The International Criminal Court). These new institutions will not completely replace national criminal courts. States and their agents will remain the main actors in the repression of international criminals. Given this situation, States will continue to play an essential role, taking part in prosecutions as they see fit, and retaining sovereignty in criminal matters (II). In fact States accept rather than suffer the application of humanitarian criminal law, not only for legal reasons (States' territorial and personal competence), but also for political reasons (maintaining diplomatic relations, respect for the need for national reconciliation). Clearly, the institutionalisation of the defence of human rights, through the prosecution of serious violations of humanitarian law, and the existence of specific repressive jurisdictions, does not call into question the relational nature of international law, nor the respect for the sovereign equality of all States. Under these conditions, the road to a supranational criminal law could well be long.

Establishing an Individual Complaints Procedure for Violations of International Humanitarian Law

Currently, no judicial or quasi-judicial mechanisms exist with the explicit competence to consider complaints of individuals claiming to be victims of violations of international humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) cannot fulfil this role as it has neither the means, the purpose nor the mandate to make enforceable judicial determinations with regard to claims of individuals alleging to be victims of such violations. Instead, it operates mainly through confidential discussions with governments. Likewise, criminal prosecutions of individual perpetrators before national or international courts, while contributing significantly to improving the implementation of humanitarian law, cannot and should not be the only answer to violations of the law. For one thing, the future International Criminal Court (ICC) will only consider the most serious violations of humanitarian law, leaving numerous other violations uninvestigated. Moreover, criminal prosecutions are concerned with individuals rather than parties to the conflict. The acts that are labelled as international crimes, however, find their basis in the collectivity. Crimes are unlikely to be prevented nor will compliance with their prohibition be significantly improved through criminal prosecution of individuals alone. Similarly, while the ICC may, either upon request or on its own motion, afford reparations to victims of war crimes, these are reparations afforded within the individual responsibility framework of the ICC. The Court may make an order directly against a convicted person rather than against a state or entity.

National Implementation Measures of International Humanitarian Law: Some Practical Aspects

From one perspective, the modern development of international humanitarian law has been a remarkable success. Its rules are among the most detailed and extensive of international law. Its principal treaties enjoy almost universal acceptance. For the other side of the picture, one has only to look at what is happening in most recent armed conflicts to realize that serious violations of humanitarian law are rife all over the world. This leads to the conclusion that it iscompliance— respect for the rules — which is the major challenge facing humanitarian law today rather than its very existence or the adequacy of its provisions.

A tremendous challenge for the International Criminal Tribunals: reconciling the requirements of international humanitarian law with those of fair trial

The two International Criminal Tribunals set up by the United Nations Security Council in 19931 and 19942 are in the process of demonstrating that international repression of serious violations of international humanitarian law is no longer a purely theoretical concept. A total of 21 persons charged with or suspected of committing such breaches have been transferred to the seat of the Arusha Tribunal, and two judgments sentencing the defendants to prison terms have been handed down by the Hague Tribunal. The two Tribunals are competent to hear cases against persons allegedly responsible for serious violations of humanitarian law, but in so doing they are also required, under their respective Statutes, to ensure that the internationally recognized rules relating to the rights of the accused are fully respected at all stages of the proceedings. Article 20 of the Statute of the Tribunal for Rwanda and Article 21 of that of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, modelled on Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, enumerate in detail the rights that must be accorded to every accused person.