Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:37:51.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Soul of an Army’: A Defence of Military Court Trials for Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2020

Conor Donohue
Conor Donohue*
Affiliation:
Legal Officer, New Zealand Defence Force; conor.donohue@outlook.com.
Get access

Abstract

Military justice as a body of law was subject to much criticism in the preceding decades before undergoing significant reforms to ensure that fair trial rights could be achieved. However, modern military justice systems are appropriate mechanisms for addressing law of armed conflict (LOAC) violations committed by service members. It is argued that the goals of military justice are consistent with LOAC, and that military justice has a valid legal basis to try violations. Such trials have a large body of precedent. The purported disadvantages of military trials are sufficiently mitigated to prevent cover-ups and unfair trials. Furthermore, military justice offers several benefits that cannot be achieved in a civilian or international forum. It is concluded that although military legal systems are imperfect, their role in the enforcement of international criminal law is worthy of further debate.

Keywords

military justiceinternational criminal lawwar crimesmilitary courtslaw of armed conflict (LOAC)
Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 24 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

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

My thanks to the participants of the 14th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law and the editors of the Israel Law Review for their valuable feedback. The views expressed in this article are the author's personal views and should not be taken to represent the official position of the New Zealand Defence Force or New Zealand Government.

References

1 George Washington, ‘General Orders: Head Quarters, Cambridge, January 1, 1776’ in John C Fitzpatrick (ed), The Writings of George Washington, vol 4 (Government Printing Office 1931) 202–03.

2 Eisenhower, Dwight D, ‘Letter to John SD Eisenhower (22 May 1943)’ in Galambos, Louis (ed), The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower: The War Years (Johns Hopkins University Press 1970)Google Scholar.

3 Whiting, William, Military Government of Hostile Territory in the Time of War (John L Shorey 1864) 25Google Scholar; de Hart, William C, Observations on Military Law and the Constitution and Practice of Courts Martial (D Appleton & Co 1864) 17Google Scholar.

4 Whiting (n 3) 24.

5 R (O'Brien) v Military Governor of the Military Internment Camp, North Dublin Union [1924] 1 IR 32 (CA) 38 (Molony CJ).

6 Close v Maxwell [1945] NZLR 688 (CA) 692.

7 Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz (Federal Constitutional Law) (Austria), art 84.

8 Wehrstrafgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 24 Mai 1974 (BGBI I S 1213) (Military Penal Code 1974) (Germany); Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana 1947 (Constitution of Italy), art 103(3).

9 eg, Trial of Wagner (1946) 13 LRTWC 118 (Permanent Military Tribunal, France).

10 eg, New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), Manual of Armed Forces Law: Commander's Handbook on Military Law, DM 69 (2 ed) vol 1 (2008) para 7.2.9; Joint Services Committee on Military Justice, Manual for Courts-Martial United States (Department of Defense 2019), Part II, Ch III, r 306(a); United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence, Manual of Service Law, vol 1 (2013) paras 1-6–1-8.

11 Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 (NZ) (AFDA), s 102.

12 UK Ministry of Defence (n 10) vol. 1, paras 1-6–1-11.

13 Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC s 815 (UCMJ), art 15.

14 eg, AFDA (n 11) s 102(1).

15 Moriarity v R 2015 SCC 55; [2015] 3 SCR 485, [46] (Cromwell J).

16 Généreux v R [1992] 1 SCR 259, 293.

17 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 91 (Rome Statute), preamble.

18 Eisenhower (n 2).

19 eg, Trial of General Anton Dostler 1 LRTWC 22 (US Military Commission 1945).

20 Warden v Bailey (1811) 4 Taunt 67.

21 Solis, Gary D, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Green, Leslie C, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (3rd edn, Manchester University Press 2008) 26–65Google Scholar.

23 Mackmin, Sara, ‘Why Do Professional Soldiers Commit Acts of Personal Violence that Contravene the Law of Armed Conflict?’ (2007) 7 Defence Studies 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 80.

24 Houlder, Bruce, ‘The Self-Interest of Armed Forces in Accountability for Their Members for Core International Crimes: Carrot Is Better than Stick’ in Bergsmo, Morten and Song, Tianying (eds), Military Self-Interest in Accountability for Core International Crimes (2nd edn, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher 2018) 85, 92–93Google Scholar.

25 Roberta Arnold, ‘Prosecuting Members of the Armed Forces for Core International Crimes: A Judicial Act in the Self-Interest of the Armed Forces?’ in Bergsmo and Song (n 24) 341, 351.

26 UK Ministry of Defence, The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Joint Service Publication 383 (2004) para 1.8.

27 NZDF, Manual of Armed Forces Law: Law of Armed Conflict, vol 4 (2nd edn, Defence Manual (DM) 69 2017) para 2.2.7.

28 Morten Bergsmo and Tianying Song, ‘Ensuring Accountability for Core International Crimes in Armed Forces: Obligations and Self-Interest’ in Bergsmo and Song (n 24) 1, 16.

29 Houlder (n 24) 94.

30 Grant v Gould (1792) 2 H Bl 69, 126 ER 434 (CP).

31 UCMJ (n 13) s 802, art 2(a)(1); AFDA (n 11) s 6; National Defence Act, RSC 1985 cN-5 (Can) (NDA), s 60(1)(a)–(b); Armed Forces Act 2006 (UK) (AFA), s 367(1).

32 Human Rights Committee, El Abani v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Communication No 1640/2007 (views of 26 July 2010), UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007, Annex, para 7.8.

33 AFDA (n 11) s 74(1); Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Aus) (DFDA), s 61(1); NDA (n 31) s 130(1); AFA (n 31) s 42(1); Bas Van Hoek, ‘Military Criminal Justice in the Netherlands: The “Civil Swing” of the Military Judicial Order’ in Alison Duxbury and Matthew Groves (eds), Military Justice in the Modern Age (Cambridge University Press 2016) 218, 220–21.

34 AFDA (n 11) s 74(4).

35 NDA (n 31) s 70.

36 Bandang v Public Prosecutor [1998] 4 MLJ 629 (HC), 630–31.

37 AFDA (n 11) s 74(1).

38 O'Callahan v Parker 395 US 258 (1969), 272–73; White v Director of Military Prosecutions [2007] HCA 29, (2007) 231 CLR 570; Déry v R 2017 CMAC 2 (Can).

39 Solorio v US 483 US 435 (1987).

40 R v Stillman 2019 SCC 40; 436 DLR (4th) 193, [86]–[96].

41 Groves, Matthew, ‘The Civilianisation of Australian Military Law’ (2005) 28 UNSW Law Journal 364Google Scholar, 379–81.

42 Rain Liivoja, Criminal Jurisdiction over Armed Forces Abroad (Cambridge University Press 2017).

43 Re Aird, ex p Alpert [2004] HCA 44, [124]–[125] (Kirby J).

44 eg, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion [1949] ICJ Rep 174, 202–03 (Judge Hackworth dissenting) and 206–07 (Judge Badawi Pasha dissenting).

45 Liivoja (n 42) 244–45; Aurel Sari, ‘The Jurisdictional Immunities of Visiting Forces under Public International Law: A Case Study of the European Security and Defence Policy’, PhD thesis, University College London, 2008, 80; Joop Voetelink, Status of Forces: Criminal Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Abroad (TMC Asser Press 2015) 155.

46 Liivoja (n 42) 245.

47 Sari (n 45) 78.

48 Liivoja (n 42) 245.

49 Mohy-Ud-Din v The King Emperor (1946) 8 FCR 94 (Ind), 105.

50 Liivoja (n 42) 251 (citations omitted).

51 Seyersted, Finn, ‘Jurisdiction over Organs and Officials of States, the Holy See and Intergovernmental Organisations (1)’ (1965) 14 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 31Google Scholar, 33–34; see also Liivoja (n 42) 252.

52 Seyersted (n 51) 34.

53 Sari (n 45) 77.

54 Casablanca Arbitration (France v Germany) (1909) 3 American Journal of International Law 755 (PCA), 758 (emphasis added).

55 A-G of the Government of Israel v Eichmann (1961) 36 ILR 5 (Israel DC), 26.

56 William A Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2016) 346.

57 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment [2002] ICJ Rep 3, [43].

58 Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v France), Application of the Republic of the Congo instituting Proceedings, General List No 129, 9 December 2002.

59 Charter of the United Nations (entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI.

60 Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v France), Order of 16 November 2010 [2010] ICJ Rep 635.

61 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ), s 7(2).

62 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3 (AP I), art 43(1).

63 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (International Committee of the Red Cross and Martinus Nijhoff 1987) para 1675.

64 International Committee of the Red Cross, 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, Status of Ratifications, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=470.

65 Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 135 (GC III), art 84.

66 Francis Lieber, ‘General Orders No 100: Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field’, 24 April 1863, art 13, https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Lieber_Collection/pdf/Instructions-gov-armies.pdf.

67 Gideon M Hart, ‘Military Commissions and the Lieber Code: Toward a New Understanding of the Jurisdictional Foundations of Military Commissions’ (2010) 203 Military Law Review 1.

68 Trial of Private Mathew Patterson, Company A, 19th US Infantry (General Court Martial Orders No 46, Court Martial Headquarters Department of Texas, 29 May 1871); Trial of Corporal John Lowney, Company D, 3rd Missouri Cavalry (General Orders No 32, Military Commission Headquarters Department of the Missouri, 29 April 1863).

69 Trial of Private Peter O'Brien, Company B, 8th Regiment, Illinois Volunteers (General Order No 18, Military Commission Headquarters Department of the Missouri, 7 December 1861); Trial of First Sergeant Charles Adams, Company G, 1st Missouri Light Artillery (General Orders No 23, Military Commission Headquarters Department of the Missouri, 20 January 1862).

70 Trial of Private Elijah Collard, of Captain HP Hawkin's Company of Missouri Cavalry (General Orders No 25, Military Commission Headquarters Department of the Missouri, 24 January 1862).

71 Trial of James Fitzgerald (General Order No 27, Military Commission Headquarters Department of the Missouri, 8 December 1862); Trial of John F Bouse (General Orders No 33, Military Commission Headquarters Department of the Missouri, 1 May 1863).

72 George Witton, Scapegoats of the Empire: The True Story of Breaker Morant's Bushveldt Carbineers (Oxford City Press 2010).

73 eg, Trial of Yamashita 4 LRTWC 1 (US Military Commission 1946); Trial of Schonfeld (1946) 11 LRTWC 64 (UK Military Court); Trial of von Leeb 12 LRTWC 1 (US Military Tribunal 1948) (German High Command Trial).

74 Trial of Wielen (1947) 11 LRTWC 31 (UK Military Court) (Stalag Luft III Case); Trial of von Falkenhorst (1946) 11 LRTWC 18 (UK Military Court); Trial of Klein 1 LRTWC 46 (US Military Commission 1945) (Hadamar Trial).

75 GC III (n 65) art 84.

76 Solis (n 21) 399.

77 ibid 397–99.

78 Jeannine Davanzo, ‘An Absence of Accountability for the My Lai Massacre’ (1999) 3 Hofstra Law & Policy Symposium 287, 294–96.

79 R v Matchee 2004 CM 14 (Can).

80 Government of Canada, ‘Charges against Ex-Master Corporal Clayton Matchee Withdrawn’, 15 September 2008, https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2008/09/charges-against-ex-master-corporal-clayton-matchee-withdrawn.html.

81 Brown v R (CMAC Canada, 6 January 1995).

82 R v Brocklebank (1996) 106 CCC (3d) 234 (CMAC).

83 R v Sox (CMAC Canada, 4 July 1996).

84 R v Boland (CMAC Canada, 16 May 1995).

85 R v Seward (CMAC Canada, 27 May 1996).

86 R v Semrau 2010 CM 4010 (Can).

87 Re Civilian Casualty Court Martial (2011) 259 FLR 208 (Chief Judge Advocate), [101].

88 R v Payne (Court Martial UK, 30 April 2007) (Payne, Sentencing Transcript), 15, 17.

89 R v Payne (Court Martial UK, 13 February 2007) (Payne, No-Case Ruling).

90 UN Economic and Social Council, Draft Principles Governing the Administration of Justice through Military Tribunals (13 January 2006), UN Doc E/CN4/2006/58, Principle 9.

91 Quoted in Joshua ES Phillips, None of Us Were Like This Before: American Soldiers and Torture (Verso 2012) 118.

92 Wolfsfeld, Gadi, ‘The Role of the Media in Violent Conflict in the Digital Age: Israeli and Palestinian Leaders’ Perceptions’ (2018) 11 Media, War & Conflict 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 eg, US v Smith (Army Ct Crim App, 27 October 2008); US v Harman 68 MJ 325 (CAAF 2010); US v Graner 69 MJ 104 (CAAF 2010).

94 Christopher Waters, ‘Democratic Oversight through Courts and Tribunals’ in Duxbury and Groves (n 33) 36, 42.

95 Ivan Arreguín-Toft, ‘The [F]Utility of Barbarism: Assessing the Impact of the Systematic Harm of Non-Combatants in War’, paper presented at the annual convention of the American Political Science Association, 2003.

96 Elizabeth Santalla Vargas, ‘Military or Civilian Jurisdiction for International Crimes? An Approach from Self-Interest in Accountability of Armed Forces in International Law’ in Bergsmo and Song (n 24) 397, 398.

97 ibid; Guzmán v Mexico (2006) Inter-Am Comm HR, Report of 28 February 2006.

98 Farmer, Arthur E and Wels, Richard H, ‘Command Control – Or Military Justice’ (1949) 24 New York University Law Quarterly Review 263Google Scholar, 267.

99 ‘Can Military Trials Be Fair? Command Influence over Courts-Martial’ (1950) 2 Stanford Law Review 547, 547–48.

100 West, Luther C, ‘A History of Command Influence on the Military Judicial System’ (1970) 18 UCLA Law Review 1Google Scholar, 151.

101 Santalla Vargas (n 96) 412.

102 ‘Can Military Trials be Fair?’ (n 99) 548.

103 Oliver, Kendrick, ‘Atrocity, Authenticity and American Exceptionalism: (Ir)Rationalising the Massacre at My Lai’ (2003) 37 Journal of American Studies 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 247–48.

104 Bennett, Huw, ‘The Baha Mousa Tragedy: British Army Detention and Interrogation from Iraq to Afghanistan’ (2014) 16 British Journal of Politics and International Relations 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 216.

105 Houlder (n 24) 88.

106 Harris Prendergast, The Law Relating to Officers in the Army (Parker, Furnivall and Parker 1899) 123–28.

107 Warden v Bailey (n 20) 89.

108 R v Celliers [1903] ORC 1 (HC) (South Africa), 5–6.

109 DFDA (n 33) s 87(1); AFDA (n 11) s 102(1).

110 Australian Defence Force (ADF), Discipline Law Manual (ADFP 06.1.1), vol 3 (4th edn, 2009) para 4.47; NZDF (n 10) vol. 1, para 4.2.3; UK Ministry of Defence (n 10) 1-6–1-16.

111 AFDA (n 11) s 102(1).

112 R v Bannister-Plumridge (Court Martial NZ, 13 February 2019) [68]; aff'd [2019] NZHC 1909 (CMAC).

113 UCMJ (n 13) s 837 art 37(a).

114 Mark L Johnson, ‘Confronting the Mortal Enemy of Military Justice: New Developments in Unlawful Command Influence’ [2007] Army Lawyer 67.

115 eg, US v Upshaw 49 MJ 111 (CAAF 1998).

116 eg, US v Youngblood 47 MJ 338 (CAAF 1997).

117 Johnson (n 114) 75.

118 ADF (n 110) vol 3, para 1.52.

119 ibid vol 3, paras 1.81–1.82.

120 William C Westmoreland, ‘Military Justice: A Commander's Viewpoint’ (1971) 10 American Criminal Law Review 5, 6.

121 Koster v US 685 F 2d 407 (1982), 414.

122 Bergsmo and Song (n 28) 15; Arnold (n 25) 351.

123 Bergsmo and Song (n 28) 16.

124 Arnold (n 25) 350–51.

125 Hansen, Victor, ‘The Impact of Military Justice Reforms on the Law of Armed Conflict: How to Avoid Unintended Consequences’ (2013) 21 Michigan State International Law Review 230Google Scholar, 251.

126 AP I (n 62) art 87(1); Rome Statute (n 17) art 28.

127 In re Yamashita 327 US 1 (1946) (Yamashita (SC)).

128 Santalla Vargas (n 96) 414–15 (citations omitted).

129 ibid 416; ICTY, Prosecutor v Halilović, Judgment IT-01-48-A, Appeals Chamber, 16 October 2007, [182].

130 Hansen (n 125) 260.

131 ibid 261.

132 Aurel Sari, ‘The Status of Armed Forces in Public International Law: Jurisdiction and Immunity’ in Alexander Orakhelashvili (ed), Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law (Edward Elgar 2015) 319, 326.

133 Halilović (n 129) [182] (emphasis added).

134 ICC, Prosecutor v Bemba Gombo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III's ‘Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute’, ICC-01/05-01/08 A, Appeals Chamber, 8 June 2018 (Bemba Gombo, Appeal Judgment), [168].

135 National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v Southern Africa Human Rights Litigation Centre [2014] ZACC 30, 2015 (1) SA 315 (CC), [81].

136 ICC, Prosecutor v Bemba Gombo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute ICC-01/05-01/08, Trial Chamber III, 21 March 2016, [697].

137 ibid [729].

138 Bemba Gombo, Appeal Judgment (n 134) [182].

139 Christina M Cerna, ‘The Inter-American System and Military Justice’ in Duxbury and Groves (n 33) 325, 326.

140 ibid 331.

141 eg, Findlay v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 221; Généreux (n 16).

142 Rowe, Peter, ‘A New Court to Protect Human Rights in the Armed Forces of the UK: The Summary Appeal Court’ (2003) 8 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 201CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 Court Martial Act 2007 (NZ), s 11(1).

144 Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil 1988 (Constitution of Brazil), art 123.

145 Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie (Judicial Organisation Act) (The Netherlands), art 55.

146 R v Pett 2020 CM 4002 (Can), [144].

147 R v D'Amico 2020 CM 2002 (Can), [81].

148 Van Hoek (n 33) 225–26.

149 NDA (n 31) s 230.

150 ibid s 245.

151 Waters (n 94) 39–40.

152 Arne Willy Dahl, ‘Military Justice and Self-Interest in Accountability’ in Bergsmo and Song (n 24) 21, 23.

153 Davies v R [2019] NZHC 1017 (CMAC), [85]; McCartin v R [2016] NZHC 1807 (CMAC), [49].

154 Beaudry v R 2018 CMAC 4, 430 DLR (4th) 557, [71]–[72].

155 R v Stillman (n 40).

156 Ramos v Louisiana 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020).

157 Eugene R Fidell, ‘Is Military Jury Unanimity Now in the Cards?’, Global Military Justice Reform, 20 April 2020, https://globalmjreform.blogspot.com/2020/04/is-military-jury-unanimity-now-in-cards.html.

158 Richard V Meyer, ‘Following Historical Precedent: An Argument for the Continued Use of Military Professionals as Triers of Fact in Some Humanitarian Law Tribunals’ (2009) 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice 43, 44.

159 ibid 46.

160 ibid 47–48.

161 Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (3 May 1993), UN Doc S/25704, art 13(1), adopted by UNSC Res 827 (25 May 1993), UN Doc S/RES/827 (1993); UNSC Res 955 (8 November 1994), UN Doc S/RES/955, art 12; Rome Statute (n 17) art 36(3).

162 Cerna (n 139) 340–43.

163 Case of Radilla-Pacheco v Mexico (2009) Inter-Am Ct HR, Judgment of 23 November 2009, (Ser C) No 209, [313].

164 The ‘Kouwenhoven’ Case (2017) 181 ILR 568 (The Netherlands CA) 700; JuRI-Nepal v Government of Nepal (2014) 158 ILR 476 (Nepal SC), 518–19.

165 James Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2019) 442.

166 Dahl (n 152) 28.

167 Rome Statute (n 17) art 68(3).

168 E John Gregory, ‘The Deployed Court-Martial Experience in Iraq’ [2012] Army Lawyer 6, 14.

169 R v Semrau 2010 CM 1003 (Can) 8, [22].

170 Franklin D Rosenblatt, ‘Awakening Self-Interest: American Military Justice in Afghanistan and Iraq’ in Bergsmo and Song (n 24) 295, 302.

171 ibid 321–22.

172 Stillman (n 40) [71].

173 ICTY, Prosecutor v Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995, [70]; Solis (n 21) 182–83.

174 Solis (n 21) 183.

175 ICTY, Prosecutor v Limaj, Judgment, IT-03-66-T, Trial Chamber II, 30 November 2005, [168].

176 Solis (n 21) 183.

177 ICTY, Prosecutor v Boškoski, Judgment, IT-04-82-T, Trial Chamber II, 10 July 2008, [190].

178 Steven Haines, ‘Northern Ireland 1968–1998’ in Elizabeth Wilmshurst (ed), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford University Press 2012) 117, 143.

179 Shannon v Fanning [1984] IR 569 (SC), 586.

180 Haines (n 178) 143.

181 Solis (n 21) 182.

182 Yamashita (SC) (n 127) 34–35 (Murphy J dissenting).

183 Liivoja (n 42).

184 R v Blackman [2014] EWCA Crim 1029, [2015] 1 WLR 1900 (CMAC) (Blackman, 2014 Sentence), [8]–[10].

185 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (UK), s 9.

186 Blackman, 2014 Sentence (n 184) [77].

187 R v Blackman [2017] EWCA Crim 190 (CMAC) (Blackman, 2017 Conviction).

188 R v Blackman [2017] EWCA Crim 325 (CMAC) (Blackman, 2017 Sentence), [21].

189 Rome Statute (n 17) art 30(1) (emphasis added).

190 eg, Criminal Law Act 1967 (UK), s 6.

191 Kate Grady and Penny Cooper, ‘Case Comment – Homicide: R v Blackman’ (2017) 7 Criminal Law Review 557, 560.

192 Re Civilian Casualty Court Martial (n 87) [156].

193 Blackman, 2017 Conviction (n 187) [114].

194 eg, Bici v Minister of Defence [2004] EWHC 786 (QB), The Times, 11 June 2004; Dow v Johnson 100 US 158 (1880); Freeland v Williams 131 US 405 (1889).

195 Lawrence v New Zealand Defence Council (1977) 1 NZCMAR 73 (CMAC), 78.

196 Assembly of States Parties, ‘Elements of Crimes’ in Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, First Session, 3–10 September 2002, UN Doc ICC-ASP/1/3.

197 ICC, Prosecutor v Katanga, Confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/04-01/07, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 30 September 2008, [380].

198 Mowers v R (1953) 1 CMAR 137 (Can).

199 ICTY, Prosecutor v Kunarac, Judgment, IT-96-23, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002, [59].

200 ICTR, Prosecutor v Akayesu, Judgment, ICTR-96-4-A, Appeals Chamber, 1 June 2001, [443].

201 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287, art 4.

202 eg, ICC, Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Ntaganda against the ‘Second Decision on the Defence's Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9’, ICC-01/04-02/06 OA 5, Appeals Chamber, 15 June 2017; for a criticism of the ICC decision see Kevin Jon Heller, ‘ICC Appeals Chamber Says a War Crime Does Not Have to Violate IHL’, Opinio Juris, 15 June 2017, http://opiniojuris.org/2017/06/15/icc-appeals-chamber-holds-a-war-crime-does-not-have-to-violate-ihl/.

203 Dubé v R (1983) 4 CMAR 288 (Can); NZDF (n 10) vol 1, para 4.2.19.

204 Payne, No-Case Ruling (n 89) [16].

205 ibid; Payne, Sentencing Transcript (n 88) 15, 17.

206 Rasiah, Nathan, ‘The Court-Martial of Corporal Payne and Others and the Future Landscape of International Criminal Justice’ (2009) 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 184.

207 eg, Ferriday v Military Board (1973) 129 CLR 252; Cheeseman v R [2019] EWCA Crim 149, [2019] 1 WLR 3621 (CMAC); Kucek v R (1954) 1 CMAR 229 (Can); US v Cannon 74 MJ 746 (Army Ct Crim App 2015).

208 eg, Butler v R (1954) 1 CMAR 241 (Can); Burns v Wilson 346 US 137 (1952); Lawrence v A-G (1999) 1 NZCMAR 341 (CA).

209 LeBlanc v R 2011 CMAC 2; Re Potter's Appeal (1980) 43 FLR 329 (Cts-Mtl App Trib); Re Lamperd and the Courts Martial Appeal Tribunal (1983) 46 ALR 371 (HCA).

210 R v Payne, Charge Sheet, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldlwa/50719ws1.pdf.

211 AP I (n 62) art 87(1); Rome Statute (n 17) art 28.

212 Payne, No-Case Ruling (n 89) [38].

213 ibid [66]; Rasiah (n 206) 184–85.

214 Rasiah (n 206) 192.

215 eg, NZDF (n 27) vol. 4, para 17.4.1–17.4.6.

216 eg, AFDA (n 11) s 39.

217 eg, Ellams v R (Summary Appeal Court NZ, 11 October 2013); Nicholls v R (Summary Appeal Court NZ, 13 September 2013); Nicholls v R (No 2) (Summary Appeal Court NZ, 29 April 2014).

218 Re Civilian Casualty Court Martial (n 87) [152]–[156].

219 Brocklebank (n 82).

220 Re Civilian Casualty Court Martial (n 87) [20]; HCJ 3003/18, Yesh Din v IDF Chief of Staff (Supreme Court of Israel, 24 May 2018).

221 Solis (n 21) 474.

222 Warden v Bailey (n 20) 89; Lawrence v New Zealand Defence Council (n 195) 78.

223 eg, Fitch v R (1954) 1 CMAR 249 (Can); Parker v Levy 417 US 733 (1974); Stuart v Chief of Army [2003] ADFDAT 3, (2003) 177 FLR 158.

224 R v Mathieu (CMAC Canada, 6 November 1995).

225 See, eg, Heaphy, Matthew, ‘Does the United States Really Prosecute Its Service Members for War Crimes? Implications for Complementarity before the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 21 Leiden Journal of International Law 165Google Scholar.