Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:50:22.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peace and the laws of war: the role of international humanitarian law in the post-conflict environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2010

Colm Campbell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Résumé

Si la littérature sur les règies du droit international humanitaire qui sʼappliquent en temps de conjlit armé a toujours été riche, l'intérêt pour les effets que peut avoir ce droit au-delà d'un conflit ne sʼest développé que récemment. À la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, par exemple, la justice sʼest manifestée à travers les sentences des Tribunaux de Nuremberg et de Tokyo punissant les criminels d'une guerre révolue. Ce nʼest quʼaujourdʼhui que la communauté Internationale a songé à établir une juridiction internationale permanente chargée de juger également des crimes commis en dehors d'un conflit armé. L'auteur examine les différentes fonctions de la justice : juger pour dissuader, juger pour rétablir le droit, ou juger pour javoriser l'établissment de la paix (notamment, à travers les commissions de la paix — «Truth Commissions»). Le droit international humanitaire peut jouer un rôle important pour que cette dernière tâche puisse être accomplie par la justice.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 82 , Issue 839: Humanitaire action and prevention/Action humanitaire et prévention , September 2000 , pp. 627 - 652
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2000

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

1 The Nuremberg trials have generated a vast body of literature. For some early writing see Ehard, H., “The Nuremberg Trial against the major war criminals and international law”, AJIL, Vol. 43, 1949, p. 223Google Scholar; Cooper, R.W., The Nuremberg Trial, Penguin Books, 1947Google Scholar; Bernstein, V. H., Final Judgment: The Story of Nuremberg, Latimer House, 1947Google Scholar; Woetzel, R. K., The Nuremberg Trials in International Law, Praeger, 1962.Google Scholar

2 See Brackman, A. C., The Other Nuremberg: The Untold Story of the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, Collins, 1989Google Scholar; Minear, R. H., Victors' Justice: the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Princeton University Press, 1971Google Scholar; Piccigallo, P. R., The Japanese on Trial: Allied War Crimes Operations in the East, 1945–1951, University of Texas Press, 1979.Google Scholar

3 See Arendt, H., Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Faber and Faber, 1963Google Scholar; Sharpe, B., Modesty and Arrogance in Judgment: Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, Praeger, 1999Google Scholar; Hausner, G., Justice in Jerusalem, Nelson, 1967.Google Scholar

4 See Murphy, T. J., “Sanctions and enforcement of the humanitarian law of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Geneva Protocol I of 1977”, Military Law Review, Vol. 103, 1984, p. 3Google Scholar, and Bierzanek, R., “The responsibility of States in armed conflicts”, Polish Yearbook of International Law, Vol. XI, 1981–1982, p. 93.Google Scholar

5 See generally, Vinuesa, R. E., “Interface, correspondence and convergence of human rights and international humanitarian law”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1, 1998, p. 69Google Scholar; Dinstein, Y., “Human rights in armed conflict: International humanitarian law”, in Meron, T. (ed.), Human Rights in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 345Google Scholar; Meron, T., “The humanization of humanitarian law”, AJIL, Vol. 94, 2000, p. 239.Google Scholar

6 These developments are examined further below.

7 See Kritz, N. J. (ed.), Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes, 3 Vols., US Institute for Peace Press, 1995Google Scholar; Stotzky, I. P. (ed.), Transition to Democracy in Latin America: the Role of the Judiciary, Westview Press, 1993Google Scholar; McAdams, A. James (ed.), Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law, 1997Google Scholar; Brysk, A., The Politics of Human Rights in Argentina: Protest, Change and Democratization, Stanford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

8 See Huyse, L., “Justice after transition: On the choices successor elites make in dealing with the past”, Law and Social Inquiry, Vol. 20, 1995. p. 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; E. Blankenberg, “The purge of lawyers after the breakdown of the East German communist regime”, ibid., p. 223; M. Los, “Lustration and truth claims: Unfinished revolutions in Central Europe”, ibid., p. 117.

9 For a particularly insightful piece see Cohen, S., “State crimes of previous regimes: Knowledge, accountability and the policing of the past”, Law and Social Inquiry, Vol. 20, 1995, p. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 The literature on the ICTY is fast becoming unmanageable. For some recent writing (other than the sources listed elsewhere in the footnotes) see Murphy, S. D., “Progress and jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia”, AJIL, Vol. 93, 1999, p. 57Google Scholar; K. D. Askin, “Sexual violence in decisions and indictments of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals: Current status”, ibid., p. 97; Jones, J. R., The Practice of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, 2nd ed., Transnational Publishers, 2000,Google Scholar

11 See Morris, V., V., and Scharf, M. P., The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (2 Vols.), Transnational Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar

12 Arsanjani, M. H., “The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”, AJIL, Vol. 93, 1999, p. 22Google Scholar; P. Kirsch and J. T. Holmes, “The Rome Conference on an international criminal court: The negotiating process”, ibid., p. 2; de Guzman, M. McAuliffe, “The road from Rome: The developing law of crimes against humanity”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 22, 2000, p. 335Google Scholar; McGoldrick, D., “The per manent International Criminal Court: An end to the culture of impunity?”, Criminal Law Review, 1999, p. 627.Google Scholar

13 Anonymous, “Human rights in peace negotiations”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1996, p. 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Gaer, F., “UN-Anonymous: Reflections on human rights in peace negotiations”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 19, 1997, p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Stinchcombe, A. K., “Lustration as a problem of the social basis of constitutionalism”, Law and Social Inquiry, Vol. 20, 1995, p. 245, and Los, op. cit. (note 8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 See Weiner, R. O., “Trying to make ends meet: Reconciling the law and practice of human rights amnesties”, St. Mary's Law Journal, Vol. 26, 1995, 857Google Scholar; Roht-Arriaza, N. and Gibson, L., “The developing jurisprudence of amnesty”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1998, p. 843Google Scholar; Cassel, D., “Lessons form the Americas: Guidelines for international responses to amnesties for atrocities”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, 1996, p. 196.Google Scholar

17 Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, Art. 6(5). Emphasis added.

18 Roht-Arriaza/Gibson, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 864–866.

19 Meron, T., “International criminalization of internal atrocities”, AJIL, Vol. 89, 1995, p. 554CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also The Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision in the Appeals Chamber, ICTY, 2 October 1995, case No. IT-94–1-AR72, and Morris/Scharf, supra (note. 11).

20 For a critical examination of this view see Farer, T. J., “Restraining the barbarians: Can international criminal law help?”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 22, p. 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Op. cit. (note 9), p. 10.

22 R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Magistrates and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [1999] 2 All ER 97. See Wilson, R. J., “Prosecuting Pinochet: International crimes in Spanish domestic law”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 21, 1999, p. 927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Cohn, op. cit. (note 9), p. 42.

24 Op. cit. (note 20), p. 92.

25 Akhavan, P., “Justice in The Hague, peace in the former Yugoslavia? A commentary on the United Nations war crime tribunal”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1998, p. 751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Ibid. p. 731.

27 Huyse, op. cit. (note 8), p. 51, and Cohen, op. cit. (note 9), pp. 22–24.

28 Ibid. p. 34.

29 Anonymous, op. cit. (note 13), p. 258.

30 Cogan, J. Katz, “The problem of obtaining evidence for international criminal trials”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 22, 2000, p. 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Pejic, J., “Creating a permanent international criminal court: The obstacles to independence and effectiveness”, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 29, 1998, p. 291.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., p. 741/2.

33 Cohen, op. cit. (note 9), p. 12. See also Alves, J. A. Lindgren, “The Declaration of Human Rights in postmodernity”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 22, 2000, p. 478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 M. Ignatief, “Articles of faith”, Index on Censorship, September/October 1996, quoted in Akhavan, op. cit. (note 25), p.770.

35 Cohen, op. cit. (note 9), p. 21.

36 Osiel, M. J., “Why prosecute: Critics of punishment for mass atrocity”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 22, 2000, p. 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Akhavan, op. cit. (note 25), p. 742.

38 See Hayner, P., “Fifteen truth commissions – 1974 to 1994: A comparative survey”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 16, 1994, p. 597Google Scholar; Truth Commissions: A Comparative Assessment, Harvard Law School Human Rights Program, 1997; Enselaco, M., “Truth commissions for Chile and El Salvador: A report and assessment”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 16, 1994, p. 657Google Scholar; Popkin, M. and Roht-Arriaza, N., “Truth as justice: Investigatory commissions in Latin America”, Law and Social Inquiry, Vol. 20, 1995, p. 79.Google Scholar

39 Popkin/Roht-Arriaza, op. cit. (note 38), p. 80.

40 Ibid., p. 604.

41 Ibid.

42 This has occurred through the development of the doctrine often referred to (perhaps misleadingly) as Drittwirkung or third party effect. See Harris, D. J., O'Boyle, M. and Warbrick, C., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Buttersworth, London, 1995, pp. 19–22Google Scholar, and Clapham, A., Human Rights in the Private Sphere, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 178–244Google Scholar. For a discussion of the parallel jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, see Weiner, op. cit. (note 16).

43 Popkin/Roht-Arriaza, op. cit. (note 38), p. 85 and pp. 98 f.

44 Ibid., pp. 86–89, and pp. 98 f.

45 Sarkin, J., “The trials and tribulations of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission”, South African Journal of Human Rights, 1996, p. 617Google Scholar; Sarkin, J., “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa”, Commonwealth Law Bulletin, Vol. 23, 1997, p. 528Google Scholar; Asmal, K., Asmal, L. and Suresh, R., Reconciliation Through Truth: A Reckoning of Apartheid's Criminal Governance, 2nd ed., David Philip, Cape Town, 1997.Google Scholar

46 Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Art. 1(4).

47 For some criticisms see Fitzpatrick, J., The International System for Protecting Rights During States of Emergency, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994Google Scholar; Aoláin, F. Ní, “The emergency of diversity: Differences in human rights jurisprudence”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 19, 1995, p. 101Google Scholar; Gross, O., “ ‘Once more into the breach’: The systemic failure of applying the European Convention on Human Rights to entrenched emergencies”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 23, 1998, p. 437.Google Scholar

48 See Gasser, H. P., “A measure of humanity in internal disturbances and tensions: Proposal for a code of conduct”, IRRC, No. 262, January-February 1988, p. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 The text of the Oslo Statement is included in the pamphlet Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, Abo Akademi University Institute for Human Rights, 1991, pp. 13–16.

50 The text of the Declaration is appended to Meron, T. and Rosas, A., “A Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards”, AJIL, Vol. 85, 1991, p. 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 The text is appended to Eide, A., Rosas, A. and Meron, T., “Combating lawlessness in gray zone conflicts through minimum humanitarian standards”, AJIL, Vol. 89, 1995, p. 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 In 1994 the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities decided to transmit the Declaration to the Commission on Human Rights with a view to its adoption (Res. 1994/26).

53 The States participating in the Budapest review meeting of the OSCE (1994) decided to “emphasize the potential significance of a declaration on minimum humanitarian standards applicable in all situations and declare[d] their willingness to actively participate in its preparation in the framework of the United Nations”. Budapest Decision VIII on the Human Dimension, quoted in op. cit. (note 51), p. 215.

54 Cohen, op. cit. (note 9), p. 35.

55 Ibid., p. 98.

56 Ibid.

57 J. Mera, “Truth and justice in the democratic government”, quoted in Roht-Arriaza, op. cit. (note 38), p. 99.

58 Hayner, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 607–8.

59 Cohen, op. cit. (note 9), p. 36.