Serious Violations Of International Humanitarian Law Research Articles

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.

How does the obligation to investigate alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law apply in ad hoc military coalitions?

This article assesses how the obligation to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) – also referred to as the law of armed conflict – applies in situations where multiple states cooperate militarily in an ad hoc manner. Following an examination of the particular accountability issues raised by ad hoc military coalitions, the article applies doctrinal legal analysis to: (1) the grave breaches regime, (2) the customary obligation to investigate alleged war crimes, (3) the obligation to ensure respect for IHL, and (4) the notion of complicity under international law. It is concluded that the interplay of these different legal regimes and standards requires the investigation of the conduct of other states in a variety of different circumstances during ad hoc military cooperation. However, Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and the potential immunities of state officials from criminal jurisdiction complicate the implementation of these obligations in practice. As such, in addition to the legal conclusions reached regarding the obligation to investigate’s operation in ad hoc military coalitions, more fundamental issues are brought into focus, namely the tension between state sovereignty and current developments towards accountability for serious violations of IHL.

Reparation for victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law: New developments

AbstractThis article aims to determine what important new developments have emerged in reparation for victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). Our hypothesis is that there have been significant new developments in this area of particular relevance to IHL and that reparation for victims of serious violations of IHL is increasingly being incorporated into this body of law as one of its key components. It is submitted that the following developments are evidence of this gradual transformation of IHL: (i) broad recognition of the right of victims of serious violations of IHL to reparation; (ii) extension of the scope of the obligation to provide reparation under IHL to include non-State armed groups and individuals as well as States; (iii) the existence of innovative domestic reparation mechanisms complemented or supervised by regional courts, as evidenced by experiences in Latin America; and (iv) the reparation system of the International Criminal Court as a global mechanism.

The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and the Notion of State Sovereignty

This article explores the relationship between the laws of armed conflict, or international humanitarian law (IHL), and the international legal concept of State sovereignty. Historically, only wars between sovereign States were subject to regulation by the laws of war. From the 19th century onwards, States agreed upon a significant number of IHL treaties and in 1949, despite calls upon sovereignty, they accepted that international law can also regulate non-international armed conflicts by extending a limited part of the IHL rules to this type of conflict. Since then, through the formation of customary international law and, in part, as result of new treaties, it has been accepted that the majority of IHL rules have become applicable to armed conflicts of a non-international character. In addition, international institutions have been set up to prosecute individuals for serious violations of IHL. The author discusses how IHL and sovereignty have influenced each other’s development. The analysis shows that the development of IHL must not be seen as limiting State sovereignty, but rather ought to be regarded as a manifestation of sovereignty, expressed through the formation of this branch of international law by its core subjects: States. At the same time, as a result of the increased reliance on means other than treaties for clarification and development of IHL, the role of States has become more limited; it is reduced to either accepting or rejecting the prospective developments of IHL and any consequential impact on their sovereignty.

The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and the Notion of State Sovereignty

This article explores the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and the State sovereignty. Historically, only wars between sovereign States were subject to regulation by the laws of war. From the 19th century onwards, States agreed upon a significant number of IHL treaties and in 1949, despite calls upon sovereignty, they accepted extension of a limited part of the rules to non-international armed conflicts. Since then, through the formation of customary international law and in part as result of new treaties, it has been accepted that the majority IHL has become applicable to internal conflicts. In addition, international institutions have been set up to prosecute individuals for serious violations of IHL. The author discusses how IHL and sovereignty have influenced each other’s development. The analysis shows that the development of IHL should not be seen as limiting State sovereignty, but rather ought to be regarded as a manifestation of sovereignty, expressed through the formation of this branch of international law by its core subjects: States. At the same time, as a result of the increased reliance on means other than treaties for clarification and development of IHL, the role of States has become more limited; it is reduced to either accepting or rejecting the prospective developments of IHL and any consequential impact on their sovereignty.

The Interplay between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law During International Criminal Trials

The protection regimes of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) partially overlap. Certain unwanted conduct may therefore violate both human rights norms, which – subject to derogation – apply at all times, as well as humanitarian law rules, which only apply during armed conflicts. For the purposes of international criminal law (ICL), such conduct may therefore qualify as both a crime against humanity and a war crime, which are systematic or widespread violations of specific human rights and serious violations of IHL, respectively. The present contribution discusses the interplay between the crimes against humanity and war crimes regimes, including the impact of the existence of an armed conflict on the status of alleged victims of crimes against humanity. It further highlights the risk that certain acts that form part of military operations in times of armed conflict may be qualified as crimes against humanity even though they are not contrary to IHL. The author concludes that crimes against humanity and war crimes have to be considered with care, and kept separate when necessary, in order to avoid any negative impact on the development of IHL and/or IHRL, and to safeguard the rights of the accused under ICL.

Legality of Lethal Autonomous Weapons AKA Killer Robots

Automated warfare including aerial drones that are extensively used in ongoing armed conflicts is now an established part of military technology worldwide. It is only logical to assume that the next step of progression for military technology would be to strengthen the autonomy of weapon systems to the extent that the human is completely removed from the loop. Ongoing discussions at different multilateral fora on the definition of ‘Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems’ (LAWS), mainly focus on a preemptive ban on LAWS on one hand and the justification of the dual use of technology on the other. Those who advocate for a pre-emptive ban on LAWS argue that such weapon systems are not able to or at least highly unlikely to comply with the fundamental principles of proportionality, distinction and precaution in the International Humanitarian Law (IHL).The issue of accountability and criminal responsibility of individuals and States for serious violations of IHL and IHRL in the use of LAWS is also matter of fundamental importance. Considering the dual use of robot technology and already existing degree of autonomy in current warfare, what is essential is to engage in meaningful deliberations to arrive at common understandings on compliance of LAWS with the principles of IHL and IHRL in their use as an essential prerequisite ahead of their deployment in future conflicts.