Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:29:32.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

La Commission internationale humanitaire d'établissement des faits : un outil obsolète ou un moyen utile de mise en œuvre du droit international humanitaire?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2010

Luigi Condorelli
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The International Fact-Finding Commission mentioned by Article 90 of Additional Protocol I is the only new measure introduced by the Diplomatic Conference of 1914-1911 intended to strengthen implementation of international humanitarian law. (The word ‘humanitarian’ was added to the title by the Commission itself, in order to better express the Commission's limited jurisdiction.) The Commission was established and its rules of procedure were adopted, but never since 1977 has any party to an armed conflict or any other State ever asked the Commission to exercise its activity in a concrete situation. The author (a member of the Commission) examines the reasons of this apparent failure and suggests new ways of understanding Article 90. He has no doubts about the Commission's usefulness, and he calls upon States and the other members of the international community – in particular the United Nations – to accept the Commission as a tool for strengthening respect for international humanitarian law.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 83 , Issue 842 , June 2001 , pp. 393 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

l Article 90, Protocole additionnel aux Conventions de Genéve du 12 août 1949 relatif à la protection des victimes des conflits armés internationaux (Protocole I), 8 juin 1977. – D'aprés le Protocole I, sa dénomination est « Commission internationale d'établissement des faits ». Dés sa premiére réunion, cepen-dant, la Commission a décidé d'inclure dans son nom I'adjectif « humanitaire », afin de mieux mettre en exergue le caractére exclusif de sa compétence, strictement limitée au domaine humanitaire.

2 Protocole I, art. 5.

3 Conventions de Genéve du 12 août 1949, art. 52, 53,132 et 149, respectivement.

4 Fin décembre 2000, 58 États parties au Protocole I avaient fait la déclaration selon I'art. 90.

5 Art. 90, par. 2 c) i) et ii).

6 Protocole additionnel aux Conventions de Genéve du 12 août 1949 relatif à la protection des victimes des conflits armés non internationaux (Protocole II), 8 juin 1977.

7 Art. 50, 51,130 et 147, respectivement.

8 Art. 90, par. 2 a).

9 Art. 90, par. 2 d).

10 Article premier commun aux Conventions de 1949 et au Protocole I.

11 Texte <www.ihffc.org/fr/index.htm>, publicé sur le site web dans RICR, No 800, mars-avril 1993, p. 184.

12 Régtement, art. 18.

13 Art. 90, par. 5 a).

14 Art. 90, par. 5 c).

15 Art. 90, par. 5 a).

16 Art. 90, par. 2 c) ii).

17 Art. 90, par. 7.