Violations Of International Humanitarian Law Research Articles

Beyond retribution: Individual reparations for IHL violations as peace facilitators

Abstract Three decades after the United Nations Security Council invoked its Chapter VII powers to create the ad hoc criminal tribunals, there can be little doubt that the prosecution of individuals responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) contributes to restoring and maintaining peace. While there is little doubt that the reparatory function of justice is just as crucial as retribution, under international law today, reparations for IHL violations remain harrowingly insufficient or borderline non-existent. In scholarship and strategic litigation, various attempts have been made to distil an individual right to reparations from black-letter IHL. This article argues that such approaches are doomed to fail, as procedural aspects of international obligations rarely, if ever, emerge through the evolution of an existing customary international obligation, let alone via the crystallization of a new customary international norm. They are usually triggered by a political shift that makes States adopt novel regulations setting forth the jurisdictional ramifications of enforcing a pre-existing right or obligation. This article thus advances a two-fold argument. First, it asserts that States’ increased compliance with the obligation to provide compensation for violations of IHL attributable to them would contribute to “the restoration and maintenance of peace” just as much as the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations thereof. Second, it argues that the individual right to claim reparations for IHL violations can only be established through a political decision of States, and that the establishment of an international mechanism for Ukraine might be an important precedent for the evolution of the current international system.

Ukraine and Violations of International Humanitarian Law – A Critical Analysis of the Amnesty International Report

Abstract On 4 August 2022, Amnesty International published its report ‘Ukraine: Ukrainian Fighting Tactics Endanger Civilians’, in which it accused Ukraine of violating international humanitarian law ‘by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals’ and in this way putting civilians at risk. According to the report, ‘[s]uch tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure’. The report sparked some controversies. The question that the author attempts to answer in this article is whether there are any factual or legal arguments supporting the conclusions of the report.

‘Nowhere and no one is safe’: spatial analysis of damage to critical civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip during the first phase of the Israeli military campaign, 7 October to 22 November 2023

BackgroundSince the Hamas attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023, the Israeli military has launched an assault in the Gaza Strip, which included over 12,000 targets struck and over 25,000 tons of incendiary munitions used by 2 November 2023. The objectives of this study include: (1) the descriptive and inferential spatial analysis of damage to critical civilian infrastructure (health, education, and water facilities) across the Gaza Strip during the first phase of the military campaign, defined as 7 October to 22 November 2023 and (2) the analysis of damage clustering around critical civilian infrastructure to explore broader questions about Israel’s adherence to International Humanitarian Law (IHL).MethodsWe applied multi-temporal coherent change detection on Copernicus Sentinel 1-A Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery to detect signals indicative of damage to the built environment through 22 November 2023. Specific locations of health, education, and water facilities were delineated using open-source building footprint and cross-checked with geocoded data from OCHA, OpenStreetMap, and Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team. We then assessed the retrieval of damage at and with close proximity to sites of health, education, and water infrastructure in addition to designated evacuation corridors and civilian protection zones. The Global Moran’s I autocorrelation inference statistic was used to determine whether health, education, and water facility infrastructure damage was spatially random or clustered.ResultsDuring the period under investigation, in the entire Gaza Strip, 60.8% (n = 59) of health, 68.2% (n = 324) of education, and 42.1% (n = 64) of water facilities sustained infrastructure damage. Furthermore, 35.1% (n = 34) of health, 40.2% (n = 191) of education, and 36.8% (n = 56) of water facilities were functionally destroyed. Applying the Global Moran’s I spatial inference statistic to facilities demonstrated a high degree of damage clustering for all three types of critical civilian infrastructure, with Z-scores indicating < 1% likelihood of cluster damage occurring by random chance.ConclusionSpatial statistical analysis suggests widespread damage to critical civilian infrastructure that should have been provided protection under IHL. These findings raise serious allegations about the violation of IHL, especially in light of Israeli officials’ statements explicitly inciting violence and displacement and multiple widely reported acts of collective punishment.

The Violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict in the Ukrainian and Polish Dimension: The Criminal Law Discourse

The current Criminal Code of Ukraine has shown that it can effectively respond to the challenges associated with the war unleashed by the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Chapter XX of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine contains a number of articles that qualify the criminal acts of Russian occupiers. First of all, this is Article 438 “Violation of the laws and customs of war”. In its content, it largely reflects the compliance of Ukrainian national criminal law with the provisions of international law in the field of the regulation of responsibility for committing criminal violations of international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflicts). A comparative legal analysis of Ukrainian and Polish legislation was carried out in terms of criminal liability for the violation of the laws and customs of war. Criminal violations of international humanitarian law are punishable under Articles 122–126 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Poland. A detailed analysis of the content of these articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Poland showed a significant difference between the norms of the Polish criminal law in terms of detailing the acts that the Polish legislator defined as a violation of international humanitarian law. In particular, in addition to the general concept of the civilian population, the Polish criminal law proposes as victims persons laying down their arms or having no means of protection, the surrendered, the wounded, the sick, the shipwrecked, medical personnel, the clergy, unifying the concept of all persons enjoying international protection during armed hostilities. This position of the Polish legislator is more constructive and more closely connected with the relevant international legal acts than the corresponding norm of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In addition, § 2 of Article 123 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Poland provides an expanded understanding of ill-treatment of victims, which is not found in Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Also, the Ukrainian legislator ignored those violations of international humanitarian law which are indicated in Article 124 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Poland – which also works in favour of the Polish criminal law, as it tries to comply with the provisions of international humanitarian law to a greater extent.

Responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law

The article examines an important aspect of international law, namely responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) during war, and examines forms of responsibility such as individual, collective, and state responsibility for violations of humanitarian norms. The importance of ensuring compliance with IHL and holding individuals, organizations and states accountable for serious violations such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and aggression was emphasized. It was determined that responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law is aimed at preventing similar violations in the future and restoring violated humanitarian norms and human rights. Emphasis is placed on the important role of responsibility for violations of IHL in maintaining global peace, security and protection of vulnerable groups in conflict.

The Language Barrier: Can the ICC Prosecute Chemical Warfare?

ABSTRACT: International law has come a long way in outlawing chemical weapon usage during warfare. From the 1907 Hague Convention to the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, there exists a comprehensive and mostly successful prohibition and verification regime for chemical weapons. However, the advent of modern warfare in recent conflicts in Syria and in Ukraine demonstrates compliance control is severely lacking for this form of weaponry. Consequently, there is no comprehensive accountability framework for international humanitarian law violations in the form of chemical weapon usage. Without explicit language criminalizing it, this heinous form of war crime ends up slipping under the radar. This article explores these jurisdictional gaps in both international and non-international armed conflicts and recommends ways the international community should cement its commitment to penalizing chemical weapon utilization.

The role of non-governmental human rights organizations in ensuring the collection of evidence for the international criminal court in the context of the war in Ukraine

In Ukraine, starting from February 2022, every day servicemen of the Russian army commit crimes that are a direct violation of international humanitarian law, not only on the front line, but also in the depths of the country, in the central and western regions. The author of the article analyzes the procedure for pre-trial investigation of international criminal crimes and the role of non-governmental public human rights organizations in this process. In addition, the new functions assigned to NGOs as separate non-governmental human rights organizations that have been operating on the territory of Ukraine since the beginning of the full-scale invasion were considered. The legal mechanisms for the involvement of NGOs in the collection of evidence on the ground, as well as the possibility of taking into account the collected information by international justice bodies, were studied. Specific examples and initiatives of the public sector, within the scope of the issue being studied, are given, and the functions, competences, and opportunities for increasing the effectiveness of NGO activity in the conditions of war are defined.&#x0D; It was concluded that non-governmental organizations, including human rights organizations, during the war in Ukraine discovered new areas of work and expanded the possibility of cooperation with state bodies. In turn, law enforcement agencies have provided access to limited information for the NGOs themselves by internal orders, which together increases the effectiveness of the pre-trial investigation of committed crimes. Thanks to this, feedback has been established. Special attention should be paid to the work of foreign NGOs and volunteers, which contributes to the recording of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which current Ukrainian refugees witnessed or became victims of.&#x0D; It was concluded that the main areas of evidence-gathering NGO activity are the following: 1) dissemination of information in the mass media about the condition of refugees who suffered as a result of the crimes of the Russian military, documenting the stories of witnesses of such offenses. In particular, the facts of torture and sexual violence (from the testimonies of refugees from Ukraine) were reported by the mass media in many European countries and beyond; 2) provision of advisory assistance regarding high-quality recording of episodes of criminal acts in order to recognize such evidence as appropriate; 3) peaceful gatherings and protests of public organizations, the active public against Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, which, of course, is of great importance for the international community to recognize their severity and massiveness.&#x0D; It was concluded that the wide international recognition of the war crimes of the Russian Federation creates opportunities for the successful initiation of the International Tribunal or other judicial formats (such as the International Criminal Court, the Extraordinary Chamber) to bring the perpetrators to justice. All international actors collect evidence according to the clear requirements and standards of the International Criminal Court, and subsequently either transfer it to it or accumulate it in the prosecutor’s offices of certain countries for further referral to a designated responsible judicial body.

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

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.