Rat Project (Ghosh Edit) (2)

8/3/2019 Rat Project (Ghosh Edit) (2)

1/33

PROJECT SUBMISSION ON:

LEGAL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN

LAW

OCTOBER,2011

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

RISHAB RATURI DR.SRSBEDIROLL NO.:323 PROFESSOR OF LAW

FOURTH YEAR

SEVENTH SEMESTER


2/33

PROJECT SUBMISSION IN LEGAL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW


Patiala (Punjab)

Date: ___________

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW,

PUNJAB

PATIALA-147001

DR. SRS BEDI

Professor

SUPERVISORS CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project Entitled: Legal Aspects Of International Humanitarian Law

submitted to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, Patiala in completion of the

requirements for the degree of B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Course, is an original and bonafide research work

carried out by Mr. Rishab Raturi under my supervision and guidance. No part of this study has been

submitted to any University for the award of any Degree or Diploma whatsoever.

_______________________

(Dr. SRS Bedi)


3/33



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The project work on a topic with such complications is a tedious task and hence doing a project

on such a theme requires guidance by the subject teachers. The enlightening experience provided

to me by my teacher, Dr. SRS Bedi who proved to be the guiding source to complete this project

work. As always I owe sincere gratitude for their untiring and instant academic, intellectual

support and guidance.

(Rishab Raturi)


4/33



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION TO HUMANITARIAN LAW .................................................................. 1

1.1. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NATIONAL LEGISLATION........................................... 1

1.2. JUDGMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ................................................ 3

2. KINDS OF INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS ....................................................... 6

2.1. ESSENTIALS OF ARMED CONFLICT.................................................................................... 6

2.1.1. INTERNATIONALARMED CONFLICT.............................................................................. 6

2.1.1.1 APPLICABLE LAW..................................................................................................... 7

2.1.2. INTERNATIONALIZEDARMED CONFLICT....................................................................... 8

2.1.2.1. APPLICABLE LAW ............................................................................................... 8

2.1.2.1.1 Existence Of Organized Armed Groups............................................................ 9

2.1.2.1.2 Engaged In Fighting Of Some Intensity .......................................................... 10

2.1.3. ESSENTIALS OFNONINTERNATIONALARMED CONFLICT............................................ 10

2.1.3.1. NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT TAKES PLACE WITHIN ONE STATE . 10

2.1.3.2. THE PARTY AGAINST GOVERNMENT IS NOT ANOTHER STATE......................... 11

2.1.4. NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF

COMMONARTICLE3 ................................................................................................................ 12

2.1.5. NON-INTERNATIONALARMED CONFLICTSINTHEMEANING OFART.1OFADDITIONAL

PROTOCOLII........................................................................................................................... 13

2.1.5.1. APPLICABLE LAW IN NON INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS ...................... 14

3. THE MARTENS CLAUSE- CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW ............................ 16

4. CERTAIN LEGITIMATE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW ........ 18

4.1KNOWLEDGE OF PROTECTED PERSON.................................................................................. 18

4.2IMMINENT THREAT............................................................................................................... 19

4.3REASONABLENESS................................................................................................................ 19


5/33



4.4PROPORTIONALITY ............................................................................................................... 20

4.5MEDIA SOURCES HAVE LOW PROBATIVE VALUE................................................................. 20

4.6 THE ACCUSED LACKED THE NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION WHICH ARE

ESSENTIAL FOR CRIME OF EXTERMINATION.............................................................................. 21

4.7SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT OF MENS REA IS ABSENT ON PART OF THE ACCUSED .................... 21

4.8OBJECTIVE ELEMENT OF ACTUS REUS IS ABSENT ON PART OF THE ACCUSED................... 22

4.9 DISTINGUISHING SPECIFIC INTENT FROM MOTIVE OF THE ACT LEADING TO

EXTERMINATION ........................................................................................................................ 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 23

BOOKS,ARTICLES AND RESOLUTIONS ....................................................................................... 23

CASES ........................................................................................................................................ 25

WEB SOURCES............................................................................................................................ 28


6/33


RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW 1

1. INTRODUCTION TO HUMANITARIAN LAW1.1. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIONPublic international law governs the relations between States themselves, or with and betweeninternational organizations. It helps maintain a viable international society. As far as armed

conflict is concerned, a distinction is made betweenjus ad bellum or the law that outlaws war

essentially the UN Charter that prohibits the use of force in the relations between States, except

in cases of self defence or collective security1andjus in bello or the law applicable in time of

armed conflict.

There are many different kinds of subjects of international law, or entities that assume rights and

obligations under this legal system. In relation to the issue of the use of force, the State, defined

as a sovereign entity composed of a population, a territory and a governmental structure, is of

course an important bearer of rights and obligations under international law.2

Consequently, it is

responsible for the acts of its functionaries in their official capacity or of de facto agents.

Insurgents and liberation movements also have obligations under international law, and in

particular, under the law of armed conflict. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of

Justice lists the sources of international law as: international conventions or treaties;

international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; the general principles

recognized by civilized nations; and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly

qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of

law.

National legislation needs to be in conformity with a States international obligations. The

national legislation of each State decides on the effects of treaties in their respective jurisdiction.

1Greg R. Vetter, Command responsibility of non- militant superior in the International Criminal Courts, 25:89 Yale

L.J. 89.

2A. Eser,Mental Elements-Mistakes Of Fact And Law, in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court- A

Commentary 899-900 (Antonio Cassessee et al., vol. 1, 2002)


7/33



Many States simply allow treaties to operate as law.3Others require treaties to be converted into

domestic law.

Most humanitarian treaties apply only to international armed conflicts. This is true of the Hague

Regulations, which only apply as conventional law to conflicts between contracting states. 4

Similarly, Geneva Convention IV5 and Additional Protocol I6 apply only to armed conflicts

between two or more contracting parties. However, common article 3 of the Geneva

Conventions,7

which was meant to be construed broadly,8

applies as conventional law to internal

armed conflicts between governments and insurgents if the state in whose territory the conflict

occurs is a high contracting party (or the parties that have ratified the convention) to Geneva

Convention IV.

Consider, for example, the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua,

which involved United States and contra covert activities against Nicaragua. In this case, the

International Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as ICJ) held that some provisions of the

Geneva Conventions, such as common article 1, which prohibits high contracting parties of the

Conventions from encouraging violations of it, applied to the internal armed conflict in

Nicaragua to the extent that they were customary law, even though Nicaragua raised no claim

against the United States based on the Geneva Conventions in that case.9

Thus, the Court implied

that although some provisions of these instruments do not apply explicitly to internal armedconflicts, they may still apply, especially if they are customary law. In the Nicaragua case, the

3K. Ambos, Der AllgemeineTeil Des Vlkerstrafrechts,(2002)

4Article 2 of Hague Regulations states that [t]he provisions contained in the Regulations . . . do not apply except as

between Contracting Powers

5 Article 2, 6 U.S.T. at 3518.

6Protocol I, art. 1(1)

7

Common articles are articles that appear in each of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.8I.C.R.C., Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative To The Protection Of Civilian Persons In Time Of War 36

(1985) [hereinafter Geneva Convention IV Commentary]. Article 3 must be widely applied because it does not in

any way limit the right of a State to put down a rebellion, nor does it lend credence to the authority of the rebel

party. It merely demands respect for certain rules, which were already recognized as essential in all civilized

countries, and embodied in the municipal law of the States in question, long before the Convention was signed.

91986 I.C.J. at 113-14.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1986000149&ReferencePosition=113http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1986000149&ReferencePosition=113


8/33



ICJ also found that the provisions of common article 3, as well as elementary considerations of

humanity, are customary law. Therefore, rules in humanitarian treaties that implement common

article 3 also apply to internal armed conflicts, which maybe construed in a wider sense as a

manner of protecting the human dignity of persons not actively participating in the war.

Furthermore, this protection is particularly true of the provisions of Additional Protocol II, which

is essentially an enlarged and developed version of common article 3 of the 1949 Geneva

Conventions.10

Indeed, Protocol II contains all the irreducible [protections which are] based on

rules of universal validity to which States can be held, even in the absence of any treaty

obligation or any explicit commitment on their part.11

Such an irreducible core may be what the

ICJ had in mind when it noted in Nicaragua that minimum rules apply to all armed conflicts,

whether they are international or internal. Core humanitarian principles apply to internal armed

conflicts, whether or not a state has ratified the treaties containing them and whether or not they

were intended specifically to apply to internal armed conflicts when first adopted.

1.2. JUDGMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICEThe International Court of Justice has also found that the customary law and the laws of

humanity apply to internal armed conflicts. In the Corfu Channel case, an international dispute

between Albania and the United Kingdom arose after British warships struck mines in the Corfu

Channel in Albanian waters. The ICJ found that Albania had a duty to warn British warships

passing through its territorial waters about mines that it had planted. The Court based its ruling

partly on elementary considerations of humanity.12

In the Nicaragua case,13

the ICJ expanded this ruling to apply to non-international armed

conflicts.14 The Court noted that the 1949 Geneva Conventions are in some respects a

development, and in other respects no more than the expression of fundamental general

11I.C.R.C., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,

at 1340 (1987) [hereinafter Protocols Commentary].

12Corfu Channel (U.K. v.Albania), 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22.

13Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.) 1986 I.C.J. 3.

14Id. at 114.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148


9/33



principles of humanitarian law.15

It found that Common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions,

which contained such fundamental principles and elementary considerations of humanity,

applied as a minimum yardstick to both internal armed conflicts and international armed

conflicts.16

Thus, these elementary considerations of humanity apply to both the contras and the

United States in Nicaragua.

1.3. LAW GOVERNING ARMED CONFLICTSThe law of armed conflict is a set of rules intended to limit the effects of armed conflict for

humanitarian reasons. It is of customary origins, it has been codified in treaties since 1864.17 The

law of armed conflict protects persons not participating in hostilities and restricts the means and

methods of warfare. The law of armed conflict is also known as international humanitarian law.

The Geneva Conventions lay down rules to protect the following groups of people:

First Convention: sick and wounded on the battlefield; Second Convention: sick, wounded and shipwrecked at sea; Third Convention: prisoners of war; Fourth Convention: civilians in time of war.

The four Geneva Conventions are the most widely accepted international treaties. In fact, they

have achieved universal acceptance: they have been ratified by all States in the world. The rules

governing the conduct of hostilities are set out in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

They limit the methods and means of warfare that parties to a conflict may use. In essence, they

regulate the conduct of military operations in an armed conflict by defining proper and

permissible uses of weapons and military tactics.

15Id. at 113.

16Id. at 114.

17International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism inCheng, General Principles of Law

as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 82-5(1st

edn., 2006)


10/33



Several other treaties complement these provisions, such as the Hague Convention of 1954 for

the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the Convention on Certain

Conventional Weapons of 1980, the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-personnel

Mines and on their Destruction, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998.


11/33



2. KINDS OF INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTSBefore we further dwell into the violations of international law, taking into account the aspect of

human dignity, we must first have a broad understanding of what exactly is an International

armed conflict, and what are the various other kinds of conflicts and the rights appurtenant

thereto, to civilians and persons taking up arms. The reason we need to do this is because the

nature of warfare is changing, and now, doesnt necessarily imply two States fighting on a battle

field.

2.1.ESSENTIALS OF ARMED CONFLICT

According to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, an armed conflict

exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence

between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a

State.18

In most countries, military operations are conducted by the armed forces, yet, however,

police or security forces may also be engaged; in such cases they retain their responsibility for

law enforcement. While domestic law and international human rights law remain applicable

(with certain possible derogations) in time of peace as in time of armed conflict, the law of

armed conflictis exclusively applicable in time of armed conflict, whether non-international or

international. The law of armed conflict protects conflict victims and regulates the conduct of

hostilities, thereby protecting the individuals human dignity.

2.1.1. INTERNATIONALARMED CONFLICTAn international armed conflict is a declared war or any other armed confrontation between two

or more States, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. It has to be emphasized

that no minimum level of intensity, military organization or control over territory is required for

an international armed conflict to be recognized as such. An international armed conflict may

consist merely of low-level combat (or there may even be no combat at all), small-scale

incursions into enemy territory, or an invasion that meets no resistance.

18Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on

Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995 (ICTY Appeals Chamber), P. 70


12/33



2.1.1.1 APPLICABLE LAW

There are over 30 international instruments in force dealing with the law of international armed

conflict. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (herein after referred to as GC I IV) relating

to the protection of the persons not taking part in hostilities are applicable. The Fourth Geneva

Convention also applies in all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High

Contracting Party, even if the occupation meets with no armed resistance.19

Additional Protocol I

of 1977 (herein after referred to as AP I), which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 1949,

applies in international armed conflict, in situations of occupation20

, and in armed conflicts in

which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist

regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the

United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly

Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United

Nations.21

Other international instruments regulate the conduct of hostilities on land22

or at sea23

, the

protection of cultural property24

, the prohibition or limitation on the use of numerous types of

weapons, as was in the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention,

the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its five Protocols, the 1993

Convention on Chemical Weapons and the 1997 Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines. Incases not covered by conventions, protocols or other international agreements, or in the event

such agreements are denounced, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and

authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, the principles of

humanity and the dictates of public conscience.25

19Article 2 Common to the four Geneva Conventions.

20

I.C.R.C., Commentary On The Additional Protocols Of 8 June 1977 To The Geneva Conventions Of 12 August1949, At 1340 (1987) [hereinafter Protocols Commentary]. Art. 1(3)

21Id. Additional Protocol I, Art. 1(4)

22Fourth 1907 Hague Convention and its annexed Regulations

23Tenth 1907 Hague Convention

241954 Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property, completed by two Protocols, of 1954 and 1999

25Supra 41, Art. 1(2); Supra 11, GC I, Art. 63; GC II, Art. 62; GC III, Art. 142; GC IV, Art. 158


13/33



With regard to situations of international armed conflict an important distinction is made

between combatants and non-combatants. All those not qualifying as combatants are non-

combatants, who are not entitled to participate in hostilities but who are entitled to protection

against the dangers arising from military operations.26

Persons, other than medical personnel and chaplains, who do not have combatant status, are

classified as civilians. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person must be

considered to be a civilian. The law of armed conflict does not prohibit direct participation in

hostilities. However, civilians directly participating in hostilities are not entitled to combatants

privilege, and are therefore not immune from prosecution for lawful acts of war. Civilians are

entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Third Geneva Convention only where they are

specifically authorized to accompany the armed forces without being a part thereof.27

In all other

cases, the Fourth Geneva Convention sets out rules for the protection of civilians finding

themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not

nationals. Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Convention sets out rules for the protection of

civilians against the effects of hostilities.

2.1.2. INTERNATIONALIZEDARMED CONFLICTAn internal armed conflict is considered to be internationalized when it involves the armed

forces of one or several foreign States. These States intervene either by deploying their own

forces in the conflict or by exercising overall control over local forces.

2.1.2.1.APPLICABLE LAW

It is not sufficient to establish that an armed conflict is internationalized to determine which law

is applicable. Four different situations need to be considered:

The relationship between two foreign States intervening on behalf of opposing parties tothe conflict is governed by the law of international armed conflict.

26Supra 41, Art. 51

27Supra 11, GC III, Art. 4 (4) and (5)


14/33



The relationship between the local government and a foreign State intervening on behalfof insurgents is governed by the law of international armed conflict.

The relationship between the local government and insurgents is governed by the law ofnon-international armed conflict.

The relationship between insurgents and a foreign State intervening on behalf of the localgovernment is governed by the law of non-international armed conflict.

The bare essential of an International armed conflict requires the presence of two states that have

declared a state of war on one another. It was this kind of an armed conflict that had moved

Henry Dunant during the Battle of Solferino. In The Use of Force Committee in its Initial Report

on the Meaning of Armed Conflict in International Law at the Rio de Janeiro biennial meeting of

the International Law Association in August 2008 concluded that all armed conflicts have as a

minimum of two necessary characteristics which are the presence of organized groups that are

engaged in intense armed fighting:28

Existence of organized armed group, and Engaged in

fighting of some intensity.

2.1.2.1.1 Existence Of Organized Armed Groups

Organized armed groups are considered to be under responsible command, exercising such

control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military

operations and to implement this Protocol.29The term organized armed group, however, refers

exclusively to the armed or military wing of a non-State party: its armed forces in a functional

sense.30

Article 43(1) of Additional Protocol 1 states: The armed forces of a Party to a conflict

consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible

to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates.

28 J. Pictet, Commentary on the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick

in Armed Forces in the Field[ICRC, Geneva, 1952], p. 32; General Devastation (Germany) case, Oberlandesgericht

of Dresden, 21 March 1947, 15 AD 417-418; http:// www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/36042.htm29

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 'The Responsibility to Protect[Clarendon Press,

Oxford, 2001], p. 3-4;R vJones, Milling et al., House of Lords, [2006] UKHL 16, 29 March 2006; Brems, Human

Rights: Universality or Diversity[1st edn. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 2001], p. 178-80

30Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, Case No. IT-4-84-T, Judgment (ICTY Trial Chamber Apr. 3, 2008); Prosecutor v.

ordi and ere Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgment (ICTY Appeals Chamber Dec. 17, 2004)


15/33



2.1.2.1.2 Engaged In Fighting Of Some Intensity

This second requirement was also deliberated upon, and it was seen that wherever an armed

conflict takes place, there inevitably exists fighting of a certain level of intensity. However, the

threshold of this intensity was not demarcated.

2.1.3. ESSENTIALS OFNONINTERNATIONALARMED CONFLICTNon-international armed conflicts are armed confrontations occurring within the territory of a

single State and in which the armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central

government.31 Internal disturbances and tensions32 (such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of

violence, or other acts of a similar nature)33 do not amount to a non-international armed conflict.

2.1.3.1.NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT TAKES PLACE WITHIN ONE STATE

Non-international armed conflicts do not include conflicts in which two or more States are

engaged against each other. When a foreign State extends its military support to the government

of a State within which a non-international armed conflict is taking place, the conflict remains

non-international in character.34

Regarding the threshold relating to non international armed conflicts, common Article 3 merely

requires that the armed conflict not be of an international character and occurin the territory

31HH & Others v. Secretary of State for Home Department, Somalia CG [2008] UKAIT 00022 (United Kingdom:

Asylum & Immigration Tribunal); People v. Sipult, 234 Cal. App. 2d 862, 44 Cal. Rptr. 846 (2d Dist. 1965)

32Hamdan v.Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) , citing the (then) Legal Adviser to the State Department, W. H. Taft,

IV, The Law of Armed Conflict after 9/11: Some Salient Features, (2003) 28 Yale Journal of International Law

319-323, 322; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR 96-13-A, Judgment and Sentence, 164 (Jan. 27, 2000);Prosecutorv. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR 96-3, Judgment and Sentence, 59 (Dec. 6, 1999)

33Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation[1st edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden 2005], p. 109-11

34Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of

International Armed Conflict (Protocol I) [1977] 1125 UNTS 3 ; J. Kunz, The Laws of War, [ 50th

edn. AJIL,

1956], p. 313


16/33



of one of the High Contracting Parties.35

However, the threshold is higher under Additional

Protocol II. By Article 1(1), the Protocol only applies to conflicts between the armed forces of a

High Contracting Party and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which,

under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of the territory as to enable them

to carry out sustained and concerted military operations though it is possible for there to be an

inter-connection between two separate conflicts, as in those of Liberia and Sierra Leone.36

2.1.3.2.THE PARTY AGAINST GOVERNMENT IS NOT ANOTHER STATE

Another ingredient for a conflict to be a non-international armed conflict is that the party against

a government need not be a state. In this particular case armed state-based conflict can be

considered which can be further elaborated by stating that an armed conflict is a contested

incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between

two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state.37

Also the concept Intra state

conflicts can be involvedthat take place within a state and are fought between a state and one or

more rebel group.38This brings into account the fact that there must be present certain protective

legal safeguards for these rebel groups. This is the point of introduction of common article 3 of

the Geneva Conventions.

35 Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, Case No. IT-4-84-T, Judgment (ICTY Trial Chamber Apr. 3, 2008), Prosecutor v.

ordi nd ere, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgment (ICTY Appeals Chamber Dec. 17, 2004)

36The International Court of Justice has opined that Common Article 3 represents customary international law in

both international and non-international armed conflict. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against

Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 4 (June 27), at paras. 118-120.; People v. Watkins, 238 Ill. App.

3d 253, 179 Ill. Dec. 422, 606 N.E.2d 254 (1st Dist. 1992)

37Retrieved from http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/UCDP/data_and_publications/definitions_all.htm#i on 21

st

September, 2011; Prosecutorv. Semanza, Case No. ICTR 97-20-T, Judgment and Sentence, 311 (May 15, 2003)

38 Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Case No. IT-96-23-A & IT-96-23/1-A, Judgment (ICTY Appeals Chamber June 12,

2002), Prosecutor v. ilosevi, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (ICTY

Appeals Chamber June 16, 2004)


17/33



2.1.4. NON-INTERNATIONALARMED CONFLICTS WITHINTHEMEANING OFCOMMONARTICLE3Common Article 3 applies to armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the

territory of one of the High Contracting Parties. These include armed conflicts in which one or

more non-governmental armed groups are involved.39 Depending on the situation, hostilities may

occur between governmental armed forces and non-governmental armed groups or between such

groups only.40

As the four Geneva Conventions have universally been ratified now, the

requirement that the armed conflict must occur in the territory of one of the High Contracting

Parties has lost its importance in practice.41

In order to distinguish an armed conflict, in the

meaning of common Article 3, from less serious forms of violence, such as internal disturbances

and tensions, riots or acts of banditry, the situation must reach a certain threshold of

confrontation.42

It has been generally accepted that the lower threshold found in Article 1(2) of Additional

Protocol II, which excludes internal disturbances and tensions from the definition of Non

International Armed Conflict also applies to common Article 3. Two criteria are usually used in

this regard:43

firstly, the hostilities must reach a minimum level of intensity.44

This may be the

case, for example, when the hostilities are of a collective character or when the government is

39P. Norton, Between the Ideology and Reality: The Shadow of the Law of Neutrality, [17 Harvard International

Law Journal 1976] 249 at 259.

40 E. Lauterpacht, The Legal Irrelevance of the State of War, [ASIL Proceedings 1968], p. 63; Prosecutorv.

Seromba, Case No. ICTR-2001-66-I, Judgment, P 320

41Bassiouni & Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law[1st edn.

Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1995], p. 92-9

42

General Devastation (Germany) case, Oberlandesgericht of Dresden, 21 March 1947, 15 AD 417-418; Jorgic vGermany, no.74613/01, ECHR, 12 July 2007; People v. Satterthwaite, 72 Ill. App. 3d 483, 29 Ill. Dec. 3, 391

N.E.2d 162 (4th Dist. 1979)

43The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Judgment, (ICTY) IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997, para. 561-568; The Prosecutor v.

Fatmir Limaj, Judgment,( ICTY) IT-03-66-T, 30 November 2005, P. 84.

44Re List (Hostages Trial), US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 15 AD 636-637.; Brdjanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T,

Judgment, P 704; Prosecutorv. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Judgment, P. 413 (Dec. 13, 2005)


18/33



obliged to use military force against the insurgents, instead of mere police forces;45

second, non-

governmental groups involved in the conflict must be considered as parties to the conflict,46

meaning that they possess organized armed forces. This means for example that these forces

have to be under a certain command structure and have the capacity to sustain military

operations.47

2.1.5. NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS IN THEMEANING OFART. 1 OFADDITIONALPROTOCOLII

A more restrictive definition of Non International Armed Conflict was adopted for the specific

purpose of Additional Protocol II. This instrument applies to armed conflicts which take place

in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces

or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command,48 exercise such control

over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military

operations and to implement this Protocol.49

This definition is narrower than the notion of Non International Armed Conflict under common

Article 3 in two aspects. Firstly, it introduces a requirement of territorial control, by providing

that non-governmental parties must exercise such territorial control as to enable them to carry

out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.50 Secondly,

Additional Protocol II expressly applies only to armed conflicts between State armed forces and

45People v.Bamba, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1113, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 450 (1st Dist. 1997) ; State v. Washington, 135 Wash.

App. 42, 143 P.3d 606 (Div. 1 2006), review denied, 160 Wash. 2d 1017, 161 P.3d 1028 (2007); People v. Castro,

138 Cal. App. 4th 137, 41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (2d Dist. 2006) ; Cramerv. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945)

46Re Christiansen, Special Court (War Criminals), Arnhem, 12 August 1948, 15 AD 412-413, Marri v. Pucciarelli,

534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008); Prosecutorv dragoljub kunarac radomir kovac and zoran vukovic Trial Judgement,

para 429

47D. Schindler, The Different Types of Armed Conflicts According to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, [

Vol. 163, RCADI, 1979], p.14;Blagojevi_ and Joki_ Trial Judgment, para. 574

48Brems, Human Rights: Universality or Diversity[1st edn. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 2001], p. 152-7

49Additional Protocol II, art. 1, para. 1.

50Re Rauter, Holland, Special Court of the Hague, 4 May 1948, 15 AD 539-540.; Prosecutorv.Blaskic, Case No.

IT-95-14-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment (July 29, 2004)
http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9


19/33



dissident armed forces or other organised armed groups. Additional Protocol II develops and

supplements common Article 3 without modifying its existing conditions of application.51

The

Statute of the International Criminal Court, in its article 8, para. 2 (f), confirms the existence of a

definition of a non-international armed conflict not fulfilling the criteria of Protocol II.52

2.1.5.1.APPLICABLE LAW IN NON INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS

The law of non-international armed conflict distinguishes two situations: that in which the armed

group has achieved a certain minimum control over a territory and that in which it has not. The

applicable law depends on which situation holds. Only a few provisions of the law of armed

conflict specifically concern non-international armed conflict; most of the applicable legal

framework is therefore provided by customary law of armed conflict. However, in general, the

following instruments of the law of armed conflict apply:53

Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949; Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1954 for the protection of cultural property; the

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, its Protocols I to IV (through

amended Article 1) and Protocol V; the Ottawa Convention of 1997 banning anti-person-

nel mines; the Second Protocol of 1999 to the Hague Convention for the protection of

cultural property; the Optional Protocol of 2000 to the Convention on the Rights of the

Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict; Protocol III of 2005 additional to

the Geneva Conventions.

Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is the most fundamental provisionapplicable to non-international armed conflict. It constitutes a summary of the essential

rules applicable in all armed conflicts.

51Additional Protocol II, art. 1, para. 1.

52Statute of the ICC, art. 8para. 2 (f): It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when

there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such

groups.

53See, Commentary to the Additional Protocols of 8

thJune 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12

thAugust, Official

Record VI 54 (1949)


20/33



Whenever an armed group has achieved a certain minimum control over a territory, Additional

Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions, which develops and supplements Common

Article 3, is applicable in addition to the other instruments abovementioned. Additional Protocol

II contains, in particular54

:

an extended list of fundamental rights and protections; precise provisions regarding persons whose liberty has been restricted; provisions relating to prosecution and punishment of criminal offences related to internal

armed conflicts, including a call for a broad amnesty at the end of the hostilities;

more detailed provisions on wounded, sick and shipwrecked persons, and on medicalunits, transport and personnel;

more precise provisions on the protection of the civilian population, including theprohibition of forced movement of civilians, unless the security of the civilians involved

or imperative military reasons so demand.

These written obligations are complemented by customary law, which derives from a general

practice accepted as law. Domestic law and international human rights law, if need be with

derogations, are fully applicable in non-international armed conflict (e.g. for persons arrested or

detained). Derogations from guaranteed human rights must be compatible with the obligations of

the State concerned under the law of armed conflict, in particular Art. 3 common to the Geneva

Conventions.

54Id.


21/33



3. THE MARTENS CLAUSE- CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAWThe preamble to Protocol II states that in internal armed conflicts not covered by the law in

force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the

dictates of the public conscience.55

This provision originally appeared in the Hague Convention

as the Martens clause, where it read,

[I]n cases not included in the Regulations . . . the inhabitants and the belligerents remain

under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from

the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates

of the public conscience.

56

Since the clause is located in the preamble, not the text, commentators have cast some doubt on

its legally binding character.57 Nevertheless, tribunals have used the Martens clause from the

Hague Regulations to apply the customary law, the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the

public conscience relating to international armed conflicts to cases not covered by conventional

obligations.58 Even though the Martens clause has been declared binding as customary law only

in its broader form and in the context of international armed conflicts, the International

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary on the Martens clause in Protocol II notes that

if a case is not covered by the law in force, whether this is because of a gap in the law or because

the parties do not consider themselves to be bound by common Article 3, or are not bound by

Protocol II, this does not mean that anything is permitted.

The human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of

the public conscience. This clarification prevents a contrary interpretation. Since they reflect

public conscience, the principles of humanity actually constitute a universal reference point and

5516 I.L.M. at 1443.

56Although the Martens clause in Protocol II does not mention established custom, this does not mean that the

drafters of Protocol II rejected its application to internal armed conflicts.

57See, Miyazaki, The Martens Clause and International Humanitarian Law, in Studies And Essays On International

Humanitarian Law And Red Cross Principles In Honour Of Jean Pictet433, 436 (1984)

58United States v. Von Leeb, 11 Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals 1 (1950)


22/33



apply independently of the Protocol.59

The inclusion of the Martens clause in Protocol II is thus a significant development: despite its

placement in the preamble, it shows that international law exists outside of common Article 3

and that Protocol II binds parties to internal armed conflicts--whether guerrillas or states--in the

conduct of those conflicts. In contrast to the clauses in treaties on international armed conflicts, 60

the Martens clause in Protocol II does not refer to customary law. Some commentators argued

that this is so because the attempt to establish rules for a non-international conflict only goes

back to 1949 and that the application of common Article 3 in the practice of States has not

developed in such a way that one could speak of 'established custom' regarding non-

international conflicts.61

This argument ignores the intent of the drafters of Protocol II. The absence of a reference to

customary law does not show that the drafters of Protocol II rejected outright the possible

application of customary law to internal armed conflicts. It is true that the Martens clause in

Protocol II never referred to customary law, even in the first ICRC draft,62

because the drafters

believed that regulating internal armed conflicts was too recent a matter for State practice to

have sufficiently developed in this field.63

The United Nations also has supported the principle

that internal armed conflicts are subject to legal restraints. United Nations General Assembly

Resolution 2444, entitled Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts64

recognizes thenecessity of applying basic humanitarian principles in all armed conflicts.

59

See, Commentary to the Additional Protocols of 8

th

June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12

th

August, OfficialRecord VI 54 (1949).

60Id.

61Supra 42

62Supra 60

63Id.

64G.A. Res. 2444, 23 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 18) at 50, U.N. Doc. A/7218 (1969)


23/33



4. CERTAIN LEGITIMATE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL

HUMANITARIAN LAW

Though it may prima facie seem that the protection is attributed only to the civilians and

soldiers, however, this isnt only a one sided law. As a matter of fact, there exist protections

guaranteed, even to those individuals who have been held liable for the wrongs done. These

persons, by way of various legal interpretations, or even otherwise, can take defense which have

been enlisted as below. These go to show that protection of human dignity is for both the persons

on who wrong is done, and those who have apparently done the wrong.

4.1KNOWLEDGE OF PROTECTED PERSON

Article 5 of the Geneva Convention IV contains a general limitation on the rights of civilians,

which may function to curtail freedom of movement: the rights and privileges of a protected

person may be suspended if the person is suspected of/engaged in activities hostile to the security

of the State. Moreover, specific provision for lawful confinement of civilians is made in articles

41-43, 68 and 78 of the Geneva Convention IV: internment of civilians is permissible for

imperative reasons of security, provided the procedural safeguards required by article 43 are

satisfied; and civilians in occupied territories can be confined as a penalty.65

Further, civilian

protected persons in territory not under occupation, may be detained pending proceedings or

serving a sentence involving loss of liberty.66

In contrast, no prohibition of unlawful confinement of civilians is expressly contained in article 3

common to the Geneva Conventions, or Additional Protocol II, the key sources of law applicable

in internal armed conflicts. Consequently, the received wisdom has been that unlawful

65Ibid., article 68; it is lawful to detain civilians protected persons in occupied territory who are accused/convicted

of an offence (Geneva Convention IV, article 76)

66See Lindsay Moir, The Law of Internal Armed ConflicT[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002], p.3052,

and JeanFranois Quguiner, Dix ans aprs la cration du Tribunal pnal international pour lexYougoslavie:

valuation de lapport de sa jurisprudence au droit international humanitaire [85 edn. International Review of the

Red Cross, June 2003], p. 278


24/33



imprisonment of civilians during international armed conflict is a war crime, while the same

conduct in the context of an internal armed conflict is not.

4.2IMMINENT THREAT

The danger must constitute an imminent and unlawful use of force. Force is not specified and

can be understood to extend to both a physical attack and psychic threat. The use of force can be

regarded as imminent when there is a direct threat of force, or the force is already

deployed/taking place, or is ongoing. Self-defence is not allowed once the danger has been

averted or the attack has ended. The use of force must be unlawful to exempt the act of defence

from criminal liability.67

Unlawful must be construed in the light of applicable treaties and

principles of the law of armed conflict. In war, killing another person, if he is an enemy

combatant, is not a crime. As we saw earlier, two types of self-defence can be distinguished.

Each is regulated by different rules: one by the laws of war and the other by criminal law, more

specifically.68

4.3REASONABLENESS

Article 31(1)(c), the Court can resort to the rule that committing a war crime in self-defence is

allowed despite culpa in causa when the initiative of the unlawful conduct lies with the attacker.

In this, the Court can apply a Garantenstellung.69

After all, in cases of provocation, a peace-

keeper, because of his training and qualification, could be expected to have more resistance to

temptation than an ordinary citizen.70 Particularly in this case the attack of Durako army on CLA

cadres and confining them invites an reasonable reaction from CLA of confining UDF cadres so

that future armed conflicts and casualities can be avoided.

67

Witcherv. Fairlawn, 113 Ohio App. 3d 214, 680 N.E.2d 713 (9th Dist. Summit County 1996) ;Marquardtv.State, 164 Md. App. 95, 882 A.2d 900 (2005) , The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)

68Retrieved from http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Sliedregt.pdf on 30th October, 2011; Sweaney v. United Loan &

Finance Co., 205 Kan. 66, 468 P.2d 124 (1970) ,ReTerrito, 156 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1946) ,Fowlerv. Valencourt,

334 N.C. 345, 435 S.E.2d 530 (1993) .

69SC Resolution 248 (1968) of 24

thMarch; also see SC Resolution 262 (1968) of 31

stDecember

70R vJones, Milling et al., House of Lords, [2006] UKHL 16, 29 March 2006.
http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BE


25/33



4.4PROPORTIONALITY

In the Kordic & Cerkez case, the defence in vain argued that the Bosnian Croats were victims of

Muslim aggression in Central Bosnia and that they fought a war of self-defence.71

The ICTY

Trial Chamber noted, however, that, defences however form part of the general principles ofcriminal law which the International Tribunal must take into account in deciding cases before

it.72 So, the act of CLA in confining UDF cadres is rationally proportional.

4.5MEDIA SOURCES HAVE LOW PROBATIVE VALUE

The allegations of crime of extermination that are attributed are, many times and oft, based on

the media reports thereby violating the principle of Probandi necessitas incumbit illi qui agit73

which states that the prosecution must prove every allegation against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt.74 Evidence is not reliable when it is unable to give acute portrayal of the event

be it NGO reports or newspaper reports.75 The ICTY Trial Chamber, in the case ofProsecutor v.

Ramush Haradinaj, Irdiz Balaj, Lahi Brahimaj,76 denied admission of media reports stating that

the reliability of their content is too low and that cannot be said to be impartial. Similarly, the

trial chamber considered written media reports as inadmissible stating that these reports would

not meet the reliability and probative value requirements without a witness to testify to the

accuracy of the information contained therein.77

Such reports cannot be relied upon as evidences

as it infringe the right to fair trial.78

71Kordic and Cerkez Judgement, P. 448,.

72 Ibid, P. 449

73The necessity of proving lies with him who sues. Henry Campbell Black, M, Blacks Law Dictionary, 1201 (West

Publishing Co.)74

Article 66(3) of the ICC statute.

75Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A ( Dec 17, 2004).

76Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj, Irdiz Balaj, Lahi Brahimaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T (April 3, 2008).

77Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic, Case No. IT-98-29/1-A.

78Article 14(3)(e) International covenant on civil and political rights. Adopted & Opened for signature, ratification

and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966


26/33



4.6THE ACCUSED LACKED THE NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION WHICH ARE

ESSENTIAL FOR CRIME OF EXTERMINATION

Positive interpretation of Art 30 (2) of the Rome Statute which states it is sufficient that the

perpetrator is aware that that consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events, thereby

referring to intention, and Art 30 (3) of the Rome Statute which mentions of an awareness that a

consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events demonstrate that for knowledge and

intent it is sufficient the awareness that a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of

events, and awareness of possibility is not sufficient.

4.7SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT OFMENSREAIS ABSENT ON PART OF THE ACCUSED

The express language of Article 30(1) of the Rome Statute denotes that the provision is meant to

function as a default rule for all crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, unless otherwise

provided. This reference to intent and knowledge reflect the concept ofdolus, which requires

the existence of a volitional element on the part of the suspect.79

This volitional element

encompasses those situations in which the suspect: (i) knows that his or her actions or omissions

will bring about the objective elements of the crime; and (ii) undertakes such actions or

omissions with the express intent to bring about the objective elements of the crime. 80 As

reiterated in the Tadic case,81 the mens rea for crime against humanity constitutes the

perpetrators knowledge that there is an attack on the civilian population and that his actscomprise part of the attack. Further, he should be aware of the risk that his action might bring

about serious consequence for the victim.82

79The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/08, P.357

80

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEng, P 315, 352. The mentioned decision included in the footnote 430 the followingreferences: ESER, A., Mental Elements-Mistakes of Fact and Law, in CASSESSE, A., GAETA, P. & JONES, J.

(Ed.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court- A Commentary, Vol. I, Oxford, Oxford University

Press, 2002, pp. 899-900.

82Supra note 7, p114


27/33



4.8OBJECTIVE ELEMENT OF ACTUS REUS IS ABSENT ON PART OF THE ACCUSED

Application of Art 30(3) requests knowledge in the sense of awareness of the attack; awareness

that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.

Furthermore, no knowledge of every single detail of the attack policy is required, as was held inthe Tadic case.83

4.9DISTINGUISHING SPECIFIC INTENTFROM MOTIVEOF THE ACT LEADING TO

EXTERMINATION

The law is clear that specific intent needs to be distinguished from motive. The Commission

formed by the virtue of U.N. Security Council resolution 1564 recognized that in most cases the

specific intent must be inferred from the conduct and circumstances of the attack.84

4.10 CONCLUSION

For any good that must have been said about International humanitarian law, there exists a strong

possibility that its opposite has also been asserted. Some may describe it as resilient, while others

term it as hopelessly fragile; some may be impressed by the multiple levels and forms of

participation, while others simply regard this as a mask that conceals the reality of unequal

access. This project attempted to examine the intricate relationship between wrong doers and

persons to whom wrong is done in an International conflict and, further, also bring to light

certain dogmas that are prevalent in the setup.

84See also, S.C. Res. 1672, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1672 (Apr. 25, 2006); State v. Fecteau, 121 N.H. 1003, 437 A.2d 294

(1981)


28/33



BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS,ARTICLES AND RESOLUTIONS

1. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation [1st edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden2005]

2. Bassiouni & Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute inInternational Law[1st edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1995]

3. Brems, Human Rights: Universality or Diversity [1st edn. Martinus Nijhoff, TheHague 2001], p. 152-7

4. Commentary to the Additional Protocols of 8 th June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of12

thAugust, Official Record VI 54 (1949).

5. D. Schindler, The Different Types of Armed Conflicts According to the GenevaConventions and Protocols, [ Vol. 163, RCADI, 1979]

6. E. Lauterpacht, The Legal Irrelevance of the State of War, [ASIL Proceedings 1968]7. Eser A, Mental Elements-Mistakes Of Fact And Law, in The Rome Statute of the

International Criminal Court- A Commentary 899-900 (Antonio Cassessee et al., vol. 1,

2002)

8. Greg R. Vetter, Command responsibility of non- militant superior in the InternationalCriminal Courts, 25:89 Yale L.J. 89.

9. Henry Campbell Black, M, Blacks Law Dictionary,1201 (West Publishing Co.)10.I.C.R.C., Commentary On The Additional Protocols Of 8 June 1977 To The Geneva

Conventions Of 12 August 1949, At 1340 (1987) [hereinafter Protocols Commentary].

11.International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,The Responsibility toProtect[Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001]


29/33



12. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism in Cheng,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 82-5(1

stedn.,

2006)

13.J. Kunz, The Laws of War, [50th edn. AJIL, 1956]14.J. Pictet, Commentary on the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of

the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field[ICRC, Geneva, 1952]

15.JeanFranois Quguiner, Dix ans aprs la cration du Tribunal pnal internationalpour lexYougoslavie: valuation de lapport de sa jurisprudence au droit international

humanitaire [85 edn. International Review of the Red Cross, June 2003]

16.K. Ambos, Der AllgemeineTeil Des Vlkerstrafrechts,(2002)17.Lindsay Moir, The Law of Internal Armed Conflict [Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2002]

18.Miyazaki, The Martens Clause and International Humanitarian Law, in Studies AndEssays On International Humanitarian Law And Red Cross Principles In Honour Of

Jean Pictet

19.P. Norton, Between the Ideology and Reality: The Shadow of the Law of Neutrality, [17Harvard International Law Journal 1976]

20.S.C. Res. 1672, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1672 (Apr. 25, 2006); State v. Fecteau, 121 N.H. 1003,437 A.2d 294 (1981)

21.SC Resolution 248 (1968) of 24th March; also see SC Resolution 262 (1968) of 31stDecember

22.W. H. Taft, IV, The Law of Armed Conflict after 9/11: Some Salient Features, (2003)28 Yale Journal of International Law


30/33



CASES

1. Brdjanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T2. Corfu Channel (U.K. v.Albania), 1949 I.C.J.3. Cramerv. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945)4. Fowlerv. Valencourt, 334 N.C. 345, 435 S.E.2d 530 (1993) .5. General Devastation (Germany) case, Oberlandesgericht of Dresden, 21 March 1947, 15

AD

6. Hamdan v.Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)7. HH & Others v. Secretary of State for Home Department, Somalia CG [2008] UKAIT

00022 (United Kingdom: Asylum & Immigration Tribunal);

8. Jorgic v Germany, no.74613/01, ECHR, 12 July 2007;9. Kordic and Cerkez Judgement, para. 448,.10.Marquardtv. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 882 A.2d 900 (2005) ,11.Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008);12.Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.) 1986

I.C.J.

13.Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits,1986 ICJ

14.People v.Bamba, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1113, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 450 (1st Dist. 1997) ;15.People v. Castro, 138 Cal. App. 4th 137, 41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (2d Dist. 2006) ;16.People v. Satterthwaite, 72 Ill. App. 3d 483, 29 Ill. Dec. 3, 391 N.E.2d 162 (4th Dist.

1979)
http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0343283987&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0003484&SerialNum=1997217755&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=EB869AF9http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=WLUK1.0&vr=2.0&DB=147&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986000148http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000162&SerialNum=2007249094&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000711&SerialNum=1993205724&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BE


31/33



17.People v. Sipult, 234 Cal. App. 2d 862, 44 Cal. Rptr. 846 (2d Dist. 1965)18.People v. Watkins, 238 Ill. App. 3d 253, 179 Ill. Dec. 422, 606 N.E.2d 254 (1st Dist.

1992)

19.Prosecutorv dragoljub kunarac radomir kovac and zoran vukovic Trial Judgement, para429

20.Prosecutorv.Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A21.Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A ( Dec17, 2004).22.Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for

Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995 (ICTY Appeals Chamber)

23.Prosecutorv.Dusko Tadic, Judgment, (ICTY) IT-94-1-T, 7 May 199724.Prosecutorv. Fatmir Limaj, Judgment,( ICTY) IT-03-66-T, 30 November 200525.Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, Case No. IT-4-84-T, Judgment (ICTY Trial Chamber Apr. 3,

2008);

26.Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, Case No. IT-4-84-T, Judgment (ICTY Trial Chamber Apr. 3,2008)

27.Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/0828.Prosecutor v. ordi nd ere, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgment (ICTY Appeals

Chamber Dec. 17, 2004)

29.Prosecutor v. ordi and ere Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgment (ICTY AppealsChamber Dec. 17, 2004)

30.Prosecutorv. Kunarac, Case No. IT-96-23-A & IT-96-23/1-A31.Prosecutorv. ilosevi, Case No. IT-02-54-T


32/33



32.Prosecutorv. Musema, Case No. ICTR 96-13-A33.Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic, Case No. IT-98-29/1-A.34.Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj, Irdiz Balaj, Lahi Brahimaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T

(April3, 2008).

35.Prosecutorv. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR 96-336.Prosecutorv. Semanza, Case No. ICTR 97-20-T37.Prosecutorv. Seromba, Case No. ICTR-2001-66-I38.Prosecutorv. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T39.R v Jones, Milling et al., House of Lords, [2006] UKHL 16, 29 March 2006; Brems,

Human Rights: Universality or Diversity[1st edn. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 2001]

40.R vJones, Milling et al., House of Lords, [2006] UKHL 16, 29 March 2006.41.Re Christiansen, Special Court (War Criminals), Arnhem, 12 August 1948, 15 AD42.Re List (Hostages Trial), US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 15 AD43.Re Rauter, Holland, Special Court of the Hague, 4 May 1948, 15 AD44.ReTerrito, 156 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1946)45.State v. Washington, 135 Wash. App. 42, 143 P.3d 606 (Div. 1 2006), review denied, 160

Wash. 2d 1017, 161 P.3d 1028 (2007);

46.Sweaney v. United Loan & Finance Co., 205 Kan. 66, 468 P.2d 124 (1970)47.The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)48.United States v. Von Leeb, 11 Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military

Tribunals 1 (1950)
http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000661&SerialNum=1970131044&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BE


33/33


49.Witcherv. Fairlawn, 113 Ohio App. 3d 214, 680 N.E.2d 713 (9th Dist. Summit County1996) ;

WEB SOURCES

1. http:// www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/36042.htm2. http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Sliedregt.pdf;3. http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/UCDP/data_and_publications/definitions_all.htm#i;
http://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BEhttp://international.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&ordoc=0289589978&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=0000578&SerialNum=1996171689&FindType=Y&AP=&spa=intraj-000&rs=WLIN9.08&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&mt=WestlawInternational&vr=2.0&pbc=DFE3D5BE

Documents

Rat Project (Ghosh Edit) (2)