Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:19:14.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the authority of the ICRC Customary IHL Study

How does IHL develop?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2022

Marko Milanovic  and
Sandesh Sivakumaran
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the authority of the 2005 International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary international humanitarian law within the international legal system by collecting and analysing citations to the Study in documents containing expressions of State positions, in the judgments of international and domestic courts and tribunals and in the outputs of other influential actors. Our analysis establishes that the Study is increasingly seen as a highly authoritative instrument, such that a particular proposition will be found to reflect customary international law simply on the basis that the Study says so. We argue that the Study's authority will likely only increase over time.

Keywords

customary international lawinternational humanitarian lawInternational Committee of the Red CrossICRCauthoritycitationssources of international law
Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 104 , Issue 920-921: How International Humanitarian Law Develops , August 2022 , pp. 1856 - 1897
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the ICRC.

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.)

Footnotes

*

We are very grateful to Adaena Sinclair-Blakemore for her invaluable research assistance on this project. Many thanks also go to Sangeeta Shah for her careful read and feedback on a draft of this piece.

References

1 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: Rules and Vol. II: Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (the Study).

2 See Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, “Customary International Humanitarian Law: a response to US Comments”, International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC), Vol. 89, No. 866, 2007, pp. 473–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 ICRC, Customary IHL Database, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home (all internet references were accessed in July 2022).

4 As of 25 July 2021, the Study had 1876 total citations (according to Google Scholar). By way of comparison, the Sandoz Commentary on the two Additional Protocols had 891 cites (same source). This is of course just one database, but it is a broadly representative one.

5 ILC, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/73/10, 2018, available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2018/english/a_73_10_advance.pdf.

6 See Talmon, Stefan, “Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ's Methodology Between Induction, Deduction and Assertion”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Roberts, Anthea Elizabeth, “Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, No. 4, 2001, p. 758CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 S. Talmon, above note 6, p. 420.

9 A. E. Roberts, above note 7, p. 758.

10 S. Talmon, above note 6, p. 420.

11 ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment, 3 February 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 123, para. 57.

12 S. Talmon, above note 6, p. 434.

13 ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 114, para. 218: “they are rules which, in the Court's opinion, reflect what the Court in 1949 called ‘elementary considerations of humanity’”.

14 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić aka “Dule”, Case No. IT-94-1, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (Appeals Chamber), 2 October 1995, para. 98: “some treaty rules have gradually become part of customary law. This holds true for common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, as was authoritatively held by the International Court of Justice (Nicaragua Case, at para. 218)”.

15 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgment (Trial Chamber), 7 May 1997, para. 609. The reliance is understandable also for internal institutional reasons.

16 ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgment (Chamber I), 2 September 1998, para. 608. Combined with assertion.

17 SCSL, The Prosecutor v. Sam Hinga Norman, Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-AR72, Decision on Preliminary Motion on Lack of Jurisdiction Materiae: Nature of the Armed Conflict (AC), 25 May 2004, paras 20–3.

18 Tomka, Peter, “Custom and the International Court of Justice”, The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 12, 2013, p. 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 See Scott J. Shapiro, “Authority”, in Jules L. Coleman, Kenneth Einar Himma and Scott J. Shapiro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.

20 For more, see Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2011, arguing that law is genuinely authoritative only if it is in service of its subjects, helping them do what they otherwise ought to do.

21 For an extensive discussion, see Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.

22 See Schauer, Frederick, “Authority and Authorities”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 8, 2008, p. 1934Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., pp. 1940–4.

24 Ibid., pp. 1945–7.

25 Ibid., pp. 1947–50.

26 Ibid., p. 1950.

27 Ibid., pp. 1956–7.

28 See Sandesh Sivakumaran, “Beyond States and Non-State Actors: The Role of State-Empowered Entities in the Making and Shaping of International Law”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2017. We leave aside here the issue of whether (and when) cited authorities actually influence the decision that the court reaches, or whether (as legal realists would argue) judges reach decisions on the basis of their own priors and then seek to justify them by citations to authority.

29 See Caron, David, “The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship between Form and Authority”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2002, p. 866CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 See UN General Assembly, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Compilation of Decisions of International Courts, Tribunals and Other Bodies: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/62/62, 1 February 2007; and subsequent compilations UN Docs A/65/76, A/68/72, A/71/80 and A/74/83.

31 For an extensive discussion, see Bordin, Fernando Lusa, “Reflections of Customary International Law: The Authority of Codification Conventions and ILC Draft Articles in International Law”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 3, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 See S. Sivakumaran, above note 28; F. L. Bordin, ibid., p. 549.

33 P. Tomka, above note 18, pp. 202–3.

34 See also F. L. Bordin, above note 31.

35 Dinstein, Yoram, “The ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law Study”, International Law Studies, Vol. 82, 2006, p. 100Google Scholar. See also Bothe, Michael, “Customary International Humanitarian Law: Some Reflections on the ICRC Study”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 8, 2005, pp. 145–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar (main ambition of the Study to fix loopholes).

36 See Meron, Theodor, “Revival of Customary Humanitarian Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 4, 2005, p. 833CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The gap has also been filled through the jurisprudence of the international criminal tribunals and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

37 The ICRC has various prerogatives under IHL treaties, e.g. Third Geneva Convention, Arts 3, 9 and 125; Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, 1986, amended 1995 and 2006, Art. 5(2).

38 ICRC, International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Resolutions of the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, 7 December 1995, Resolution 1, available at: www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/resolution/26-international-conference-resolution-1-1995.htm.

39 ICRC, “Meeting of Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the Protection of War Victims (Geneva, 23–27 January 1995): Recommendations”, IRRC, Vol. 35, No. 304, 1995, p. 34.

40 ICRC, “Meeting of Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the Protection of War Victims (Geneva, 23–27 January 1995)”, IRRC, Vol. 35, No. 304, 1995, p. 5.

41 Following the resolution of the International Conference, the ICRC convened a steering committee made up of leading academics and research on customary IHL commenced in October 1996. Research was undertaken in national sources, international sources and the ICRC archives. National researchers cooperated in the research of national sources of fifty countries. ICRC delegations and the ICRC Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law collected and analysed legislation and military manuals of other States. The research and consultations took nearly ten years to complete and involved more than 150 experts. See J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: Rules, above note 1, li–lv; Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, “Customary International Humanitarian Law: A Response to US Comments”, IRRC, Vol. 89, No. 866, 2007, pp. 473Google Scholar and 474.

42 See M. Bothe, above note 35, p. 155: “The conclusions are verifiable. The reader does not have to trust the authors; he or she can scrutinise the way by which the authors arrive at their conclusions. This is part of the persuasive character of the Study.”

43 S. Sivakumaran, above note 28.

44 Sivakumaran, Sandesh, “Making and Shaping the Law of Armed Conflict”, Current Legal Problems, Vol. 71, No. 1, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Our search parameters varied depending on the context; with databases we normally searched for terms such as “customary international humanitarian law”, Henckaerts, “ICRC Study” and variations thereof, depending on the capabilities and coverage of each database.

46 We are treating the KSC and ECCC as international courts for these purposes.

47 See T. Meron, above note 36, p. 833 (Study “will be a significant aid to international criminal tribunals”).

48 There are exceptions, e.g. ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995.

49 For the keyword searches used, see above note 45.

50 For the keyword searches used, see above note 45. The terms were translated as appropriate.

51 Available at: https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/annex-1-assessing-authority-of-the-icrc-customary-ihl-study.

52 See M. Bothe, above note 35, pp. 176–8.

53 See, e.g., Aldrich, George H., “Customary International Humanitarian Law – An Interpretation on Behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 76, No. 1, 2005Google Scholar (while accepting that most conclusions of the Study are clearly correct, criticizing the drafting of a great many rules in a rather peremptory fashion); Y. Dinstein, above note 35 (arguing that the practice assembled by the ICRC contains too many instances that have no normative value; with regard to specific rules objecting to the Study's rejection of the concept of unlawful combatancy and its approach to the status of civilians taking a direct part in hostilities (Rules 5 and 6); and to some aspects of Rules 35, 45, 55 and 77; his final assessment of the Study was pessimistic (although coloured somewhat by the authors’ rejection of his own suggestions) to the effect that it will prove unable to bridge the gap between the parties and non-parties to Additional Protocol I – ibid., p. 110); M. Bothe, above note 35, pp. 163–78 (Study methodologically sound and generally correct in its conclusions; takes issue with formulations of Rules 106 and 147, and on some of the expansion of the various rules to non-international armed conflicts, but generally defends the Study); Turns, David, “Weapons in the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar (criticizing the Study's methodology, and especially lack of rigour with respect to some of the Study's rules on weapons (Rules 72–86) and their extension to non-international conflicts); Cryer, Robert, “Of Custom, Treaties, Scholars and the Gavel: The Influence of the International Criminal Tribunals on the ICRC Customary Law Study”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar (a broadly positive assessment of the Study, but criticizing some of its engagement with international criminal law cases and instruments, specifically as to Rules 146, 153, 155 and 156); Daniel Bethlehem, “The Methodological Framework of the Study”, in Elizabeth Wilmshurst and Susan C. Breau (eds), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007 (criticizing the Study's methodology and its tendency to use assertion (“encyclical”) as a way of formulating customary rules; specifically questioning the customary status of Rule 6); Iain Scobbie, “The Approach to Customary International Law in the Study”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid. (a generally positive evaluation with a mainly methodological critique); Karen Hulme, “Natural Environment”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid. (generally positive but doubting the customary status of Rule 45); Steven Haines, “Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid. (doubting the customary status of specific rules on weapons that were derived from treaties, similarly to D. Turns above); David Turns, “Implementation and Compliance”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid. (arguing that the Study in some cases conflates custom with other types of rules, such as general principles of law, and specifically doubting the customary status of Rules 139–43); W. Hays Parks, “The ICRC Customary Study: A Preliminary Assessment”, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, Vol. 99, 2005 (considering Rules 78 and 85 to be more “ICRC agenda items” than statements of customary international law and criticizing the focus on and lack of context of statements included in the Study). Needless to say, the genre of initial academic analyses of the Study lent itself to critique – just saying that the Study is great does not make for an interesting read. For generally positive evaluations of the Study with few if any substantive criticisms that the Study went beyond customary law (but sometimes with other criticisms, such as that the Study did not go far enough, that its drafting could have been improved or that it failed to bring clarity to important issues), see Pemmaraju Srinivasa Rao, “Customary International Humanitarian Law: Some First Impressions”, in Larry Maybee and Benarji Chakka (eds), Custom as a Source of International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, New Delhi, 2006; Djamchid Momtaz, “The ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law – An Assessment”, in L. Maybee and B. Chakka, ibid.; and Philippe Kirsch, “Customary International Humanitarian Law, its Enforcement, and the Role of the International Criminal Court”, in L. Maybee and B. Chakka, ibid.; Dieter Fleck, “International Accountability for Violations of the Ius in Bello: The Impact of the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Volume 11, No. 2, 2006; Anthony Rogers, “Combatant Status”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid.; Michael N. Schmitt, “The Law of Targeting”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid.; Susan C. Breau, “Protected Persons and Objects”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid.; William J. Fenrick, “Specific Methods of Warfare”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid.; Françoise Hampson, “Fundamental Guarantees”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid.; Agnieszka Jachec-Neale, “Status and Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Persons Deprived of their Liberty”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid.; Ryszard Piotrowicz, “Displacement and Displaced Persons”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid.; Charles Garraway, “War Crimes”, in E. Wilmshurst and S. C. Breau, ibid.

54 US Department of State, “Initial Response of U.S. to ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law with Illustrative Comments (November 3, 2006)”, available at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/2006/98860.htm.

55 Ibid.

56 These were Rules 31, 45, 78 and 157. The annex states that these rules were selected “from various sections of the Study, in an attempt to review a fair cross-section of the Study and its commentary. Although these rules obviously are of interest to the United States, this selection should not be taken to indicate that these are the rules of greatest import to the United States or that an in-depth consideration of many other rules will not reveal additional concerns.”

57 J.-M. Henckaerts, above note 41, p. 473.

58 See ILC, Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts: Comments and Observations Received from Governments, International Organizations and Others, UN Doc. A/CN.4/749, 17 January 2022, pp. 29 and 79; ILC, Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties: Comments and Observations Received from Governments, UN Doc. A/CN.4/712, 21 February 2018, p. 17; ILC, Identification of Customary International Law: Comments and Observations Received from Governments, UN Doc. A/CN.4/716, 14 February 2018, pp. 22, 29 and 42–3; US Department of Defense, Department of Defense Law of War Manual, June 2015, updated 2016, available at: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190.

59 “Statement of FCO Legal Adviser at the Meeting of National Committees on International Humanitarian Law of Commonwealth States, 20 July 2005”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 76, 2005, p. 695.

60 Reservations on the part of the UK, expressed a few years later, were along similar lines: the UK government “had reservations about volume I of the study. In particular, some of the examples provided were not, in its view, properly to be regarded as State practice for the purpose of the rules relating to the formation of customary international law. Furthermore, the study sometimes jumped too quickly to the conclusion that a rule had entered into the corpus of that law without sufficient evidence of State practice. On the other hand, volume 2 of the study was a valuable research tool which brought together a large amount of material that would otherwise be difficult to locate. She welcomed the update of that volume being conducted at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, in the University of Cambridge, with funding from the British Red Cross.” Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Summary Record of the 13th Meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/63/SR.13, 7 November 2008, para. 61.

61 ILC, Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, Comments and Observations Received from Governments, International Organizations and Others, UN Doc. A/CN.4/749, 17 January 2022, p. 102 (internal citations omitted).

62 Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Summary Record of the 8th Meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/61/SR.8, 15 November 2006, para. 63.

63 Ibid., para. 34. See also UN Doc. A/C.6/63/SR.13, above note 60, para. 32: “While views clearly differed on the study on customary international humanitarian law conducted by ICRC, it would on the whole be very useful to States.”

64 A/C.6/61/SR.8, above note 62, para. 29: Australia speaking on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ).

65 UN Doc. A/C.6/63/SR.13, above note 60, para. 27.

66 UN General Assembly, Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflicts, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/67/182/Add.1, 28 September 2012, p. 3.

67 UN Doc. A/C.6/63/SR.13, above note 60, para. 74.

68 The Study was debated in the UN General Assembly in 2006 and later; the resolutions adopted only contain an anodyne reference to the Assembly “[w]elcoming the significant debate generated” by the Study – see, e.g., UN Doc. A/RES/61/30, 18 December 2006, p. 2.

69 Letter dated 21 October 2020 from the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/75/544–S/2020/1035, 26 October 2020.

70 ICJ, Case concerning Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Memorial of the Kingdom of Belgium, 1 July 2010, para. 4.74; ICJ, Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Reply of the Kingdom of Belgium to the Question put by Judge Greenwood, 28 March 2012.

71 ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Verbatim Record, CR2005/13, 25 April 2005, p. 32.

72 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Group of Experts on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Responses to Document CCW/GGE/X/WG.1/WP.2, entitled IHL and ERW, dated 8 March 2005, Response from the Federal Republic of Germany, CCW/GGE/XI/WG.1/WP.9, 29 July 2005.

73 ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Written Submission of Greece, 3 August 2011, para. 38; ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Verbatim Record, 14 September 2011, para. 78.

74 Regeringens proposition 2016/17:109: Förstärkt skydd av kulturegendom vid väpnad konflikt och under ockupation, 16 February 2017, pp. 19 and 24, available at: www.regeringen.se/492592/contentassets/805318969a384b8bae0d15898d7b3807/forstarkt-skydd-av-kulturegendom-vid-vapnad-konflikt-och-under-ockupation-prop.-201617109.

75 CCW Group of Experts on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Weapons Review Mechanisms, Submitted by the Netherlands and Switzerland, CCW/GGE.1/2017/WP.5, 7 November 2017. See also Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Humanitarian Access in Situations of Armed Conflict: Handbook on the Normative Framework, Version 1, 2011.

76 Letter Dated 10 April 2017 from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/71/880–S/2017/316, 26 April 2017, para. 128. See also Letter Dated 30 April 2012 from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/66/787–S/2012/289, 3 May 2012; Letter Dated 15 August 2016 from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/70/1016–S/2016/711, 16 August 2016; Letter Dated 3 February 2020 from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/74/676–S/2020/90, 7 February 2020.

77 Letter dated 1 June 2015 from the Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2015/402, 2 June 2015. Rather than the Study as such, Malaysia refers to the list of rules in “J. Henckaerts, ‘Study on customary international humanitarian law: A contribution to the understanding and respect for the rule of law in armed conflict’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 17, No. 857 (International Committee of the Red Cross, March 2005)”. CCW Group of Experts on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Responses to Document CCW/GGE/X/WG.1/WP.2, entitled IHL and ERW, dated 8 March 2005, Response from The Netherlands, CCW/GGE/XII/WG.1/WP.4, 7 November 2015.

78 L'Assemblée fédérale – Le Parlement suisse, Le droit international humanitaire et les conflits armés contemporains, Rapport du Conseil fédéral en réponse au postulat 08.3445 de la Commission de politique extérieure du Conseil des Etats du 20 juin 2008, p. 4: “Aujourd'hui, le Statut de Rome de 1998 et l’étude de 2005 du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR) sur le droit international coutumier fournissent des indications sur l’état actuel du droit international humanitaire.”

79 “La pratique suisse relative à la détermination du droit international coutumier”, available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/sessions/68/pdfs/french/icil_switzerland.pdf: “The Swiss authorities have often relied on the practice of the ICRC to attest to the customary nature of a norm of international law. Despite its internationally contested character, the ICRC's study of customary IHL has been cited on numerous occasions by the Swiss authorities. In particular, the latter underlined that the study contributes to clarifying customary international law in the humanitarian field and to guiding State practice relating thereto.” (our translation)

80 The State of Israel, The Operation in Gaza, 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, footnote 70, available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/israel/opt-operation-gaza-27-dec-2008-18-jan-2009-factual-and-legal-aspects.

81 Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, pp. 28–33, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20120215220215/http://www.bahamousainquiry.org/linkedfiles/baha_mousa/hearings/oral_submission/sub000947.pdf.

82 Ministerio de Defensa, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, Edición Segunda, Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, p. 8-4, available at: http://www.cruzroja.es/pls/portal30/docs/PAGE/DIH/MINISTERIO_DEFENSA/OR7_004.PDF.TOMO%20I.PDF.

83 New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), Manual of Armed Forces Law, Vol. 4: Law of Armed Conflict, Wellington, 2017, para. 3.4.7 (internal citation omitted).

84 Comando General de las Fuerzas Militares, Manual de derecho operacional: Manual FF.MM 3-41 Público, 2009, p. 29, footnote 25: “El presente Manual cita a manera de referencia una serie de normas de derecho consuetudinario recogidas por el CICR, pero no constituye una manifestación de reconocimiento de su valor jurídico como costumbre internacional”, available at: https://searchlibrary.ohchr.org/record/11642?ln=en.

85 Danish Ministry of Defence, Military Manual on International Law relevant to Danish Armed Forces in International Operations, September 2016, Section 5.4.1, available at: https://www.forsvaret.dk/globalassets/fko---forsvaret/dokumenter/publikationer/-military-manual-updated-2020-2.pdf.

86 German Federal Ministry of Defence, Joint Service Regulation (ZDv) 15/2 Law of Armed Conflict – Manual, 1 May 2013, p. 19, available at: https://www.bmvg.de/resource/blob/93610/ae27428ce99dfa6bbd8897c269e7d214/b-02-02-10-download-manual-law-of-armed-conflict-data.pdf.

87 US Department of Defense, above note 58.

88 E.g. ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-AR73.3, Decision on Joint Defence Interlocutory Appeal of Trial Chamber Decision on Rule 98bis Motions for Acquittal (Appeals Chamber), 11 March 2005, footnote 54.

89 E.g. ICC, The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, Case No. ICC-02/05-02/09, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (Pre-Trial Chamber I), 8 February 2010, footnotes 111 and 130.

90 KSC, The Prosecutor v. Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi, Case No. KSC-BC-2020-05-F00026-RED, Public Redacted Version on the Confirmation of the Indictment against Hashum Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi (Basic Court Chamber), 26 October 2020; KSC, The Prosecutor v. Pjetër Shala, Case No. KSC-BC-2020-04/F00007/RED/1, Public Redacted Version of the Decision on the Confirmation of the Indictment Against Pjetër Shala (Basic Court Chamber), 12 June 2020.

91 Judge Cançado Trindade also cited the Study when he sat as a judge of the IACtHR. See IACtHR, Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Concurring Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, 25 November 2006, Series C No. 160, p. 10, para. 36.

92 United Nations, Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission – Partial Award: Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims – Eritrea's Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–13, 14, 21, 25 & 26, 19 December 2005, para. 105, available at: https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVI/291-349.pdf.

93 Ibid., footnote 23 (emphasis added).

94 G. H. Aldrich, above note 53, pp. 516–17. We need not, and do not, express any view as to whether his critique is valid.

95 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Vlastimir Đorđević, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber II), 23 February 2011, para. 2066.

96 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 15 March 2006, para. 51. See also ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić, a.k.a. “Tuta” and Vinko Martinović, a.k.a. “Štela”, Case No. IT-98-34-A, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schomburg (Appeals Chamber), 3 May 2006, para. 15; ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No IT-98-29-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 30 November 2006, footnotes 285 and 299; ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber I), 12 June 2007, footnote 1256.

97 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. IT-03-68-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 3 July 2008, footnote 44 (citing the introduction to the Study).

98 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilović, Case No. IT-01-48, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 16 November 2005, footnote 90.

99 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Galić, above note 96, Partially Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schomburg, para. 19; ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Case No. IT-98-29/1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 12 November 2009, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Liu Daqun, paras 6 and 10.

100 E.g. ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina, Ivan Čermak and Mladen Markač, Case No. IT-06-90-T, Judgment Volume II of II (Trial Chamber I), 15 April 2011, para. 1779; ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Public Redacted Version of Judgment (Trial Chamber III), 24 March 2016, footnotes 20404 and 20405.

101 E.g. ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Case No. IT-05-88-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 30 January 2015, para. 615.

102 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović and Kubura, above note 96, para. 253.

103 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Martić, above note 96, footnote 192.

104 ICC, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06/2666-Red, Public Redacted Version of Judgment on the Appeals of Mr Bosco Ntaganda and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber VI of 8 July 2019 Entitled “Judgment” (Appeals Chamber), 30 March 2021, para. 549 and footnote 1073. Also noting that “[t]he relevant customary rule is set out in rule 129(A) of the ICRC study”. See also ICC, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Trial Chamber III), 21 March 2016, footnotes 342 and 353.

105 ICC, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Trial Chamber II), 7 March 2014, footnote 2122.

106 ICC, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Trial Chamber VI), 8 July 2019, footnote 3156. See also ICC, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx1-Red, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber II's “Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute” (Appeals Chamber), 8 June 2018, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sanji Mmasenono Monageng and Judge Piotr Hofmański, para. 559.

107 ICC, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06/2666-Red, Public Redacted Version of Judgment on the Appeals of Mr Bosco Ntaganda and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber VI of 8 July 2019 Entitled “Judgment” (Appeals Chamber), 30 March 2021, para. 549.

108 ICC, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red, Public Redacted Judgment on the Appeal of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his Conviction (Appeals Chamber), 1 December 2014, footnote 607 and Dissenting Opinion Judge Sang-Hyun Song, footnote 12.

109 ICC, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Trial Chamber VI), 8 July 2019, footnote 2668 (emphasis added).

110 IACtHR, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 25 October 2012, Series C No. 253, para. 141. See also IACtHR, Rochac Heranández et al. v. El Salvador, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 14 October 2014, Series C No. 285, para. 109. See further, IACtHR, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations), 30 November 2012, Series C No. 259, para. 187.

111 IACtHR, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, ibid., para. 212, referring to Rule 1; para. 214, referring to Rule 14; para. 216, referring to Rule 15; para. 234, referring to Rule 12; para. 271, referring to Rules 8–11; para. 272, referring to Rule 52.

112 IACtHR, Case of Jorge Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 15 February 2017, Series C No. 332.

113 IACtHR, Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 20 November 2013, Series C No. 270, para. 349 (internal citations omitted).

114 See also IACtHR, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, above note 110, para. 271.

115 ECtHR, Case of Korbely v. Hungary, Application No. 9174/02, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) (Grand Chamber), 19 September 2008, para. 51 (emphasis added).

116 See also ECtHR, Case of Korbely v. Hungary, ibid., para. 90, referring to “the proposed Rule 47” (emphasis added).

117 ECtHR, Case of Van Anraat v. Netherlands, Application No. 65389/09, Decision on Admissibility (Court, Third Section), 6 July 2010, para. 40.

118 ECtHR, Janowiec and Others v. Russia, Application Nos 55508/07 and 29520/09, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) (Grand Chamber), 21 October 2013, para. 27.

119 ECtHR, Janowiec and Others v. Russia, ibid., footnote 8.

120 ECtHR, Case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, Application No. 13216/05, Judgment (Merits) (Grand Chamber), 16 June 2015, para. 97 (internal citation omitted). See also ECtHR, Case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, Application No. 40167/06, Judgment (Merits) (Grand Chamber), 16 June 2015, para. 95.

121 ECtHR, Case of Tagayeva v. Russia, Application Nos 26562/07, 49380/08, 21294/11, 37096/11, 49339/08 and 51313/08, Judgment (Court, First Section), 13 April 2017, para. 471.

122 ECtHR, Georgia v. Russia (II), Application No. 38263/08, Judgment (Merits) (Grand Chamber), 21 January 2021, paras 290 and 324; ECtHR, Hanan v. Germany, Application No. 4871/16, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) (Grand Chamber), 16 February 2021, para. 80.

123 Judgments of domestic courts can be taken as the practice of States as well as subsidiary means for determining rules of law. On the dual role of domestic courts, see Anthea Roberts, “Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law”, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1, 2011.

124 High Court of Justice, Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence, [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB), Approved Judgment, paras 260–1.

125 England and Wales Court of Appeal, Mohammed & Ors v. Secretary of State for Defence, [2016] 2 WLR 247, Judgment, paras 183 and 235.

126 Ibid., para. 183.

127 Ibid., para. 188.

128 United States Supreme Court, Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct 2749, 29 June 2006, Sections 2796–7, Stevens J Opinion for the Court. See also at Section 2803 for concurrence of Kennedy J.

129 United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit), United States of America v. Irek Ilgiz Hamidullin, 888 F.3d 62, 18 April 2018, pp. 67–8.

130 Ibid., footnote 3.

131 United States District Court (Eastern District of New York), Oran Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F.Supp.2d 257, 29 January 2007, p. 278; United States District Court (Columbia), Falen Gherebi v. Barack H. Obama, 609 F.Supp.2d 43, 22 April 2009, pp. 66–7.

132 United States Court of Military Commission Review, United States of America v. Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul, 820 F.Supp.2d 1141, 9 September 2011, p. 1165, quoting “Jean–Marie Henckaerts, 1 Customary International Humanitarian Law xxxiv-xxxv (Cambridge U. Press 2009)”.

133 Israeli Supreme Court, Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed and Others v. Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, Case No. HCJ 9132/07, Judgment, 30 January 2008, para. 14.

134 Israeli Supreme Court, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel et al., Case No. HCJ 769/02, 14 December 2006, Judgment, paras 23, 29, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42 and 46.

135 Ibid., para. 29.

136 Human Rights Council, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry Established Pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution S-21/1, UN Doc. A/HRC/29/CRP.4, 24 June 2015, footnote 24; Human Rights Council, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN Doc. A/HRC/40/CRP.2, 18 March 2019, footnote 56.

137 Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Prosecutor's Office v. Miroslav Anić, Preliminary Hearing, Case No. S1 1 K 005596 11 Kro, ILDC 1907 (BA 2011), Preliminary Hearing, 31 May 2011, paras 27, 36 and 39; Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Prosecutor v. Predrag Kujundžić a.k.a. Predo, Case No. X-KR-07/442, Judgment, 30 October 2009, para. 414.

138 Stockholm District Court, Public Prosecutor (on behalf of Behram (Hussein) and ors) v. Arklöf (Jackie), Case No. B 4084-04, ILDC 633 (SE 2006), 18 December 2006, para. 138 (translation of International Law in Domestic Courts (ILDC)).

139 E.g. Human Rights Council, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, UN Doc. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, 17 September 2018; UN Doc. A/HRC/29/CRP.4, above note 136.

140 UN Security Council, The International Commission of Inquiry on the Central African Republic, Final Report, UN Doc. S/2014/928, para. 601.

141 UN General Assembly, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/50, 16 August 2012, footnote 10.

142 UN Doc. A/HRC/29/CRP.4, above note 136, para. 33.

143 E.g. Letter dated 22 January 2021 from the Panel of Experts on Yemen addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2021/79, 25 January 2021, footnote 72.

144 E.g. Human Rights Council, Report of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, UN Doc. A/HRC/43/56, 31 January 2020, para. 25.

145 E.g. UN Doc. S/2014/928, above note 140, footnote 57; Human Rights Council, Report of the International Commission of Inquiry to Investigate all Alleged Violations of International Human Rights Law in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/44, 12 January 2012, para. 64.

146 UN Secretary-General, Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, 31 March 2011, para. 183, available at: www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/POC%20Rep%20on%20Account%20in%20Sri%20Lanka.pdf.

147 There is perhaps an oblique reference: “Official statements of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), such as appeals for and memorandums on respect for international humanitarian law, may likewise play an important role in shaping the practice of States reacting to such statements; and publications of the ICRC may assist in identifying relevant practice. Such activities may thus contribute to the development and determination of customary international law, but they are not practice as such” (emphasis added). For draft conclusions on identification of customary international law, see UN Doc. A/73/10, above note 5, Conclusion 4, Commentary, p. 132, para. 9.

148 For draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties, see UN Doc. A/73/10, above note 5, Conclusion 6, Commentary, paras 15–18; and footnote 280.

149 ILC, Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, UN Doc. A/74/10, 20 August 2019, Art. 11, Commentary, para. 7.

150 Ibid., Principle 13, Commentary, para. 12.

151 Ibid., footnote 979.

152 Ibid., footnote 1224.

153 Ibid., footnote 1235.

154 Ibid., footnote 995.

155 ILC, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Sixty-Seventh Session (2015): Topical Summary of the Discussion Held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly During its Seventieth Session, Prepared by the Secretariat, UN Doc. A/CN.4/689, 28 January 2016, para. 53.

156 E.g. Seventh Report on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, by Concepción Escobar Hernández, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/729, 18 April 2019, para. 161; First Report on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts by Marja Lehto, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/720, 30 April 2018, footnote 37; Third Report on Crimes Against Humanity by Sean D. Murphy, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/704, 23 January 2017, para. 287; Marie G. Jacobsson, Special Rapporteur, Third Report on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/C.4/700, 3 June 2016, para. 253.

157 UN General Assembly, First Report on Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law, by Sir Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/663, 17 May 2013, paras 52 and 92.

158 Marie G. Jacobsson, Special Rapporteur, Second Report on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/CN.4/685, 28 May 2015, para. 7 (internal citations omitted). See also para. 166 and footnote 168.

159 Ibid., para. 175.

160 E.g. UN Economic and Social Council, Fundamental Standards of Humanity, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/87, 3 March 2006; UN General Assembly, Situation of Human Rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/HRC/47/58, 27 May 2021.

161 E.g. UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/72/276, 2 August 2017.

162 E.g. UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions: Mass Graves, Highlighting the Multitude of Sites of Mass Killings and Unlawful Deaths Across History and the World, UN Doc. A/75/384, 12 October 2020.

163 E.g. UN General Assembly, Human Rights and Issues Related to Terrorist Hostage-Taking, Report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/47, 4 July 2013.

164 E.g. UN General Assembly, Comprehensive Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka, UN Doc. A/HRC/30/61, 28 September 2015.

165 UN Economic and Social Council, Fundamental Standards of Humanity, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/87, 3 March 2006, p. 2.

166 See the works cited in above note 53.

167 See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4141991227391108598&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en, custom range search for each calendar year. The search was conducted on 19 June 2022.

168 It is not always clear whether a book is in fact a textbook. We have referred to books that we know to be used in teaching. We have also confined ourselves only to textbooks in English, which inevitably provides only a partial picture.

169 Marco Sassòli, International Humanitarian Law, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2019, p. 46.

170 Marco Sassòli, Antoine A. Bouvier, Anne Quintin and Julia Grignon, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, available at: https://casebook.icrc.org/.

171 Nils Melzer, International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Geneva, 2019, p. 22.

172 Ibid., p. 23.

173 Robert Kolb and Richard Hyde, Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart, Oxford, 2008, p. 58.

174 Mary Ellen O'Connell, “Historical Development and Legal Basis”, in Dieter Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021, p. 26, footnote 146.

175 Jean-Marie Henckaerts, “History and Sources”, in Ben Saul and Dapo Akande (eds), The Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020, pp. 17–18.

176 See, e.g., Robert McLaughlin, “Fundamental Guarantees”, in ibid.; Gloria Gaggioli and Nils Melzer, “Methods of Warfare”, in ibid.

177 Emily Crawford and Alison Pert, International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020, p. 41.

178 See Gary D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 19–20.

179 See Nicholas Tsagourias and Alasdair Morrison, International Humanitarian Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, pp. 38 and 107.

180 See Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016, pp. 8 and 25.

181 Geoffrey S. Corn et al., The Law of Armed Conflict: An Operational Approach, Kluwer, New York, 2012, p. 58.

182 F. Schauer, above note 22, pp. 1956–7.

183 See T. Meron, above note 36, p. 834.

184 ECtHR, Marguš v. Croatia, Application No. 4455/10, Judgment (Court, First Section), 13 November 2012, para. 29; ECtHR, Marguš v. Croatia, Application No. 4455/10, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) (Grand Chamber), 27 May 2014, para. 45. See also UN Economic and Social Council, Fundamental Standards of Humanity, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/87, 3 March 2006, p. 7; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston; the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Paul Hunt; the Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Walter Kälin; and the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living, Miloon Kothari: Mission to Lebanon and Israel, UN Doc. A/HRC/2/7, 2 October 2006, footnote 22.

185 Constitutional Court, Decision No. C-291/07, 25 April 2007: “El estudio fue realizado en forma minuciosa por el CICR, a invitación de la Conferencia Internacional para la Protección de las Víctimas de la Guerra (Ginebra, 1993) …”.

186 Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Humanitarian Access in Situations of Armed Conflict, Handbook of the Normative Framework, Version 1.0, 2011, p. 16, available at: https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/humanitarian-access-in-situations-of-armed-conflict-handbook-on-the-normative-framework-en.pdf.

187 Stockholm District Court, Public Prosecutor (on behalf of Behram (Hussein) and ors) v. Arklöf (Jackie), Case No. B 4084-04, ILDC 633 (SE 2006), Judgment, 18 December 2006.

188 UN Doc. A/HRC/40/CRP.2, above note 136, para. 58.

189 United Nations, Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission, above note 92, footnote 23.

190 See United Nations, Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission, above note 93 and accompanying text.

191 United Kingdom Supreme Court, Mohammed (Serdar) v. Ministry of Defence and Another (No 2), [2017] 2 WLR 327, para. 271.

192 England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Mohammed (Serdar) v. Ministry of Defence, [2016] 2 WLR 247, Judgment, para. 241.

193 Hague District Court, Criminal Law Section, Public Prosecutor v. Joseph Mpambara, Case Nos 09/750009-06 and 09/750007-07, Landelijk Jurispr BK0520, Judgment of 23 March 2009; United States Court of Military Commission Review, United States v. Mohammad, 280 F.Supp.3d 1305, 29 June 2017, Section 1325, quoting Klamberg.

194 Commission on Human Rights, Fundamental Standards of Humanity, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/87, 3 March 2006, Section 8.

195 See, e.g., Bemba, above note 104, footnote 387; SCSL, Prosecutor v. Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa (the CDF Accused), Case No. SCSL-04-14-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 28 May 2008, para. 404; SCSL, The Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao (“RUF Case”), Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber I), 2 March 2009, para. 216. See also Mission to Lebanon and Israel, above note 184, footnote 22; “This study … is based on an extensive analysis of State practice (e.g. military manuals) and documents expressing opinio iuris.”