RESPONSES TO HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS IN NONINTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES AND CONSIDERATIONS ON CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION

Israel Yearbook on Human Rights

Volumn 30, Issue , 2000, Pages 79-102

  Walker, George K ^a  

^a WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924684463     PISSN: 03335925     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/9789004423145_005     Document Type: Chapter

References (98)

1. NATO Bombing Campaign Against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Final Report to the Prosecutor, 39 I.L.M. 1257, 1282-83 (2000);
2. Editorial Comments, "NATO's Kosovo Intervention", 93 Am. l. Int'l L. 824 (1999);
3. D. Kritsiotis, "The Kosovo Crisis and NATO's Application of Armed Force Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", 49 Int'l & Compo L.e. 330 (2000).
4. International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor V. Tadic, 1997, 112 ILR.286.
5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, 999 u.N.T.S. 172 (Arts. 4(2), 6-8(2), II, 15-16, 18);
6. Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, [1996] I.e.l. Rep. 226, 239-40.
7. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, 1155 U.N. T.S. 331 (Arts. 61-62) (hereinafter: Vienna Convention);
8. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, [1997]I.C.J. Rep. 7, 39;
9. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, [1973]I.C.J. Rep. 3, 18.
10. International Law Commission. Report to the General Assembly, (1974) II Y.B. Int'J L. Comm'n 267;
11. Institut de Droit International. The Effects of Armed Conflict on Treaties, Aug. 28, 1985, Arts. 2, 3, 5, 11, 61 (2) A.F.D.I.P. 278, 280-82 (1986).
12. T. Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law 3-10 (1989).
13. Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §§ 102-03 (1987)
14. A further issue isjus cogens and its contours (Vienna Convention, Arts. 53, 64);
15. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 4, 19, 514-17 (5th ed., 1998);
16. I Oppenheim's International Law, § 2 (R. Jennings & A. Watts eds., 9th ed., 1996);
17. Restatement (Third) §§ 102-03, 331, 338(2).
18. S.L. Myers, "U.S. Signs Treaty for World Court to Try Atrocities", N.Y. Times, Jan. 1, 2001
19. R.S. Lee, The International Criminal Court (1999);
20. Symposium, "The International Criminal Court", 34 Int'l Law. 7 (2000);
21. J. Podgers, "War Crimes Court Under Fire", 84 A.B.A.J. 64 (1998);
22. L.S. Wexler, "The Proposed Permanent International Criminal Court: An Appraisal", 29 Cornelllnt'l L. J. 665 (1996).
23. New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921).
24. Convention Respecting Limitation of Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract Debts, 1907, Arts. 1-2, 36 Stat. 2241, 2251-52.
25. J.B. Moore, 5 A Digest of International Law §§ 808-10 (1906);
26. D. Preston, The Boxer Rebellion (2000).
27. E.g., Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, April 16, 1856, 115 C. T.S. 1;
28. G.K. Walker, "Anticipatory Collective Self-Defense in the Charter Era: What the Treaties Have Said", in The Law of Military Operations: Liber Amicorum Professor Jack Grunawalt 365, 366-72 (M.N. Schmitt ed., 1998)
29. Hague Convention (No. III) Relative to the Opening of Hostilities, 1907, 36 Stat. 2259;
30. Hague Convention (No. VI) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (and Annexed Regulations), 1907, 205 C. T.S. 305;
31. Hague Convention (No. XIII) Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, 1907, 36 Stat. 2415;
32. Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, Art. 59;
33. Convention for Exemption of Hospital Ships in Time of War from Payment of All Dues and Taxes Imposed for Benefit of the State, 1904, 35 Stat. 1854;
34. Hague Convention (No. V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in case of War on Land, 1907, 36 Stat. 2310;
35. Hague Convention (No. VIII) Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines, 1907, 36 Stat. 2332;
36. Hague Convention (No. IX) Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, 1907, 36 Stat. 2351;
37. Hague Convention (No. X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention, 1907, 36 Stat. 2371
38. Hague Convention (No. XI) Relative to Certain Restrictions with regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War, 1907, 36 Stat. 2396;
39. Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1925, 94 L.N.T.S. 65;
40. Habana Convention on the Rights and Duties of States in the Event of Civil Strife, 1928, 134 L.N.T.S. 45;
41. Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, 75 U.N. T.S. 287.
42. General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy ("KellogBriand Pact of Paris"), 1928, 94 L.N.T.S. 57 (Arts. 1-2);
43. U.S. Department of State, Treaties in Force 452 (2000).
44. Multilateral Treaty for Renunciation of War: Identical Notes of the United States to Australia et al., June 23, 1928, 22 Am. J. Int'l L. 109 (1928);
45. D.H. Miller, The Peace Pact of Paris: A Study of the Briand-Kellogg Treaty 80-98 (1928).
46. Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, [1986]I.C.J. Rep. 14
47. C. Kahghan, "Jus Cogens and the Inherent Right to Self-Qefense", 31LSA J. Int'l & Compo L. 767, 827 (1997).
48. Annotated Supplement to the Naval Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations 6.2.3.1 (A.R. Thomas & J.C. Duncan eds., 1999);
49. F. Kalshoven, Belligerent Reprisals 27 (1971);
50. United States v. Goering, 1947, 41 Am. J. Int'l L. 172, 216 (1947);
51. International Law Commission, Formulation of the Nlirnberg Principles, [1950] II Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 364, 377 (1950).
52. EC Council Res. 877/82 of 16 Apr. 1982 Suspending Imports of All Products Originating in Argentina. 1982 O.M. (LlI02) I;
53. ECSC Council Decision 82/2211ECSC of 16 ApL 1982 Suspending Imports of All Products Originating in Argentina, [1982] 0.1. (L/136), 21 I.L.M. 547-48 (1982);
54. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, 500 V.N.T.S. 95, and Optional Protocol, ibid., 241;
55. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 and Optional Protocol, ibid. 325;
56. Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, [1980] I. CJ. Rep. 23.
57. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case, [1924] P.C.U. Rep., A/2, 11-12;
58. Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELS!), [1989] I. c.J. Rep. 15, 41-48
59. Interhandel Case, [1959] I. CJ. Rep. 6, 26-27;
60. Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case, 1939, AB176, 18;
61. E.g., Convention for Reciprocal Settlement of Claims, Mex.-U.S., 1923, Art. 5, 43 Stat. 1730, 1734.
62. E.g., Iran v. United States, No. Al15, 5 Iran-U.S. Claims Trib. Rep. 251 (1984);
63. United States ex reI. Merge v. Italian Repub., 14 R.I.A.A. 236 (ltal.-U.S. Conci!. Comm'n 1955);
64. L.M. Goodrich et al., Charter of the United Nations 317-33 (3d ed. 1969);
65. D.P. Moynihan, On the Law of Nations 112-13 (1990);
66. M. Mandelbaum, "The Bush Foreign Policy", Foreign Affairs 5, 11 (No.1, 1991).
67. E.g., Bogota Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), 1948, 119 u.N.T.S.
68. Pact of the League of Arab States, 1945, 70 U.N. T.S. 238.
69. S.D. Bailey & S. Daws, The Procedure of the UN Security Council, Ch. 1.5 (3rd ed., 1998);
70. J. Casteneda, Legal Effects of United Nations Resolutions Ch. 3 (A. Amoia trans. 1969);
71. Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia, 32 ILM. 1192 (1993).
72. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 U.N. T.S. 277.
73. E.g., Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 USC § 818 gives US general courtsmartial jurisdiction to try whoever by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunal; see also Commander's 6.2.5.3.
74. T. Meron, "Rape as a Crime Under International Law", 87 Am. J. Int'l. 425 (1993).
75. Protocol I, Art. 83;
76. Protocol II, Art. 19;
77. Geneva Convention I, Art. 47;
78. Geneva Convention II, Art. 48;
79. Geneva Convention III, Art. 127;
80. Geneva Convention IV, Art. 144.
81. ICC Statute, Art. 13.
82. UN Charter, Arts. 51, 103.
83. ICC Statute, Arts. 86-102.
84. "The Interface of Criminal Jurisdiction and Actions under the United Nations Charter with Admiralty Law", 20 Tul. Mar. L.J. 217 (1996)
85. G.C. Hazard Jr., Foreword, Restatement (Third), ix;
86. H. Wechsler, Introduction, Restatement (Second), vii.
87. Some US Federal Courts reject the factorial approach. Cf Laker Airways v. Sabena, Belgian World Airways, 731 F.2d 909, 948-53 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
88. Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 549 F.2d 597, 614 (9th Cir. 1976)
89. Opin. after remand, 747 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1984);
90. Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 595 F.2d 1287, 1297- 99 (3d Cir. 1979).
91. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 797-99 (1993)
92. B.V. v. Sonmez Denizcilik VE Ticaret A.S., 10 F.3d 1015, 1019- 20 (3d Cir. 1993)
93. E.F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws §§ 2.14-2.27 (3rd ed., 2000).
94. Burnham v. Superior Ct., 495 U.S. 604 (1990) (presence);
95. Perkins v. Benguet Con sol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (general jurisdiction).
96. E.g., Security Council decisions. UN Charter, Arts. 25, 48, 103.
97. Restatement (Third) § 102 cmts. g-h recognize UN Charter Art. 103's trumping authority and other organizations' potential lawmaking authority;
98. Restatement (Third) §§ 331, 338(2) acknowledges jus cogens' potential force.