Category: Int’l and Comparative Criminal Law

Can Killing of Innocent Civilians at War be Justified?

POST WRITTEN BY: Syed Alam (’17), J.D. Pace Law School

According to the ICRC Principles of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants Rule 1, one of the pillars of international humanitarian law permits military commanders to direct operations against military objectives. At the same time, however, Rule 1 also requires that military commanders distinguish between civilian and military object. This concept was already codified in St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which states that States engaging in a war should only commit acts that will help them to weaken the military forces of the enemy party.

It is the duty of the military commander to determine who civilians are and who military opponents are. At time of war, every military force faces a threat from their opponent; however, it hardly faces threats from civilians. Thus, civilians should not be harmed during any war. It is the duty of the military commander to take such steps and measures as to prevent harm to civilians.

How do we define civilians? According to article 50(1) of the Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions, 1949, civilians are the persons who do not belong to one of the categories mentioned in articles 4(A)(1)-(3) and 4(A)(6) of the Third Geneva Convention 1949. The categories listed are member of armed forces, member of militias or member of volunteer corps. A person who by any act is not facilitating or acting as part of the armed conflict is a civilian. Additionally, as held by the criminal tribunal in Blaskić, “[i]n case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.” Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Judgement, ¶ 111 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Jul 29, 2004).

According to article 50(3) of the Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions 1949, even if a civilian population includes some armed people, still they do not lose their civilian status. For example, if militants enter a park filled with civilians – an attack cannot be launched in the park even if intended to only target the militants because under the principle of distinction the civilians ought to be protected. The criminal tribunal in Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić further confirmed this principle and held that “[a] population may qualify as ‘civilian’ even if non-civilians are among it, as long as the population is predominantly civilian.” Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Judgement, ¶ 143 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Former Yugoslavia Nov. 30, 2006).

According to article 51 of the Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions 1949, the protections civilian enjoy during wartime include:

  • Protection against any danger arising out of military operations.
  • Civilians should never be the objects of attack. Any act to spread terror among the civilian people is prohibited.
  • Unless and until civilians take direct part in hostilities, civilians enjoy all the protections mentioned in this article.
  • Indiscriminate attacks such as attacks not directed against a specific military object, methods or means of combat that are not specifically applied to a military object, attacks which do not distinguish between civilian object and military object.
  • Any attack done to several military objects, situated within a civilian locality, bombardment upon such area in prohibited.  Any act, which might result into suffering of civilians, is prohibited.
  • Attack towards the civilians by the way of reprisal is prohibited.
  • Civilians should never be used to shield any military object, to immune it from military operations, by any of the parties.

Under article 8 of the Rome Statute, war crime includes grave breaches of Geneva Conventions of 1949 and also violation of any laws and customs of international laws regarding international armed conflict. As discussed above, Geneva Convention of 1949 made it a crime to kill civilians during war. Article 8 of the Rome Statute re-affirms that position. Thus, killing civilians during war is a war crime.

Although international authorities put forth effort to protect civilians, the history speaks for itself – civilians are often not spared. Although, adequate international laws are in place, States engaged in war often overlook this principle of distinction. The law appears clear – civilian killing in war is a crime. The question then is why these international laws are ignored? States have often used the term ‘collateral damage’ to justify the killing of civilians. However, human life is priceless and no cause is big enough to spare innocent human life. The United Nations should find a way to enforce the international laws addressing civilian killing in war for the sake of humanity.

ICC Prosecutor Asked to Reconsider a Matter Involving Israel’s Blockade of Gaza

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On July 16, 2015, a 2-1 majority of Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a strongly worded decision finding what it termed numerous “material” errors in the ICC Prosecutor’s decision not to open a formal investigation of war crimes allegedly committed by members of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in May 2010 when they intercepted and boarded ships that were attempting to penetrate Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, on November 6, 2014 the ICC Prosecutor issued a report explaining that after months of review, she declined to open a formal investigation of the matter. The report was issued under Article 53(1) of the Rome Statute in response to a request of ICC State Parties, including the Union of Comoros, whose vessels were boarded by the IDF during the May 2010 incident. The report concluded that although there was a reasonable basis to believe that members of the IDF willfully killed ten of the 500+ passengers on one of the vessels, caused serious injury to several others, and committed outrages upon personal dignity of others, a formal investigation was unwarranted because the crimes involved, given the surrounding circumstances, would fail to meet the gravity requirement of Article 17(1)(d) of the Rome Statute.

In January 2015, the Union of Comoros invoked the opportunity provided by Article 53(3)(a) to request the Pre-Trial Chamber seized of the matter to review the Prosecutor’s decision not to proceed and to request reconsideration of the decision. Comoros’s application challenged several conclusions in the Prosecutor’s report.

In its July 16, 2015 decision, the Chamber’s majority discounted some of these challenges but agreed with several others regarding the Prosecutor’s alleged failure to properly address factors relevant to the gravity determination.

Addressing standard of review, the majority stated that a request pursuant to Article 53(3)(a) requires a Chamber “to exercise independent judicial oversight” and apply “exacting legal requirements.” It added that “[i]n the presence of several plausible explanations of the available information,” the Prosecutor must open an investigation so that she can “properly assess the relevant facts.”

Applying this standard, the majority faulted the Prosecutor for at times deciding against investigation of matters on which there were conflicting claims. Of particular importance, the majority suggested that the Prosecutor may have “willfully ignored” credible evidence that the IDF fired upon one of the vessels prior to boarding. Such evidence, if established, would support the proposition that there was a systematic plan to attack civilians on that vessel.

Accordingly, the Chamber issued a request to the Prosecutor to reconsider her decision not to investigate the situation.

The Chamber’s decision involves procedural issues regarding a Chamber’s Article 53(3)(a) review that will have to be resolved in the future. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Péter Kovács argued that, among other failings he perceived, the majority “introduced for the first time a standard for reviewing negative decisions undertaken [by a prosecutor pursuant to Article 53(1)] without explaining the legal basis for its endorsement.” In Judge Kovács’s view, “the Pre-Trial Chamber’s role is merely to make sure that the Prosecutor has not abused her discretion in arriving at her decision not to initiate an investigation ….” Reviewing the evidence and submissions, he concluded that the Prosecutor did not abuse her discretion in this matter.

ICC Confirms Case Against Simone Gbagbo

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On May 27, 2015, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision confirming that the ICC case against Ivory Coast national Simone Gbagbo is not jurisdictionally barred to the ICC because of efforts undertaken by Ivory Coast to conduct its own criminal investigations against her.

As discussed in our previous post, the ICC confronted a situation regarding the three Ivory Coast nationals for whom it issued arrest warrants, all of whom were charged with responsibility for alleged crimes against humanity (including murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and other inhumane acts) committed by supporters of defeated President Laurent Gbagbo against civilians in the aftermath of the Ivory Coast presidential election in November 2010. This violence resulted in the death of more than three thousand people.

Pursuant to the ICC arrest warrants, Ivory Coast (Côte d´Ivoire) authorities delivered Laurent Gbagbo and militia commander Charles Blé Goudé to The Hague for ICC prosecution on the crimes alleged in the warrants. But Ivory Coast refused ICC orders to deliver Simone Gbagbo and instead asserted that, pursuant to Articles 17 and 19 of the ICC Statute, her case was not admissible to the ICC on the ground that Ivory Coast was investigating and preparing to prosecute her.

After reviewing Ivory Coast’s arguments and supporting documents, an ICC Pre-Trial Chamber rejected the admissibility challenge because the Chamber determined that although Ivory Coast submitted evidence indicating that it was investigating Ms. Gbagbo for economic crimes, crimes against the State, and certain other matters, it was not prosecuting her for the crimes against humanity for which the ICC sought to prosecute her.

Ivory Coast appealed this decision in an effort to deny ICC jurisdiction over Ms. Gbagbo. In arguments to the Appeals Chamber, it employed several tactics, which included (1) submitting evidence of its investigative actions against Ms. Gbagbo that it undertook after the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision, (2) attempting to challenge several points made by the Pre-Trial Chamber not as factual findings but as legal rulings (which would require more exacting review by the Appeals Chamber), and (3) characterizing acts for which it was investigating Ms. Gbagbo as “preparatory acts” for crimes within ICC jurisdiction.

In addition to Ivory Coast’s arguments, the Appeals Chamber considered arguments by all other concerned Parties. Given the Pre-Trial Chamber’s findings that procedural activities undertaken by Ivory Coast judicial authorities were “sparse and disparate” and did not cover the serious matters that the ICC sought to prosecute, it is perhaps not surprising that Ms. Gbagbo advanced arguments “fully supporting the Appeal.” On the other hand, the ICC Prosecutor and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (representing victims of the Ivory Coast violence) provided arguments supporting the ICC’s admissibility of the case.

In its May 27 decision, the Appeals Chamber rejected all of the arguments submitted by Ivory Coast and by Ms. Gbagbo and confirmed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision that the ICC case against Ms. Gbagbo is admissible.

In rejecting Ivory Coast’s submission of evidence of its investigations subsequent to the evidence it presented to the Pre-Trial Chamber, the Appeals Chamber stated that by making such submissions Ivory Coast was “attempt[ing] to seek a new ruling on admissibility, rather than a review of the proceedings before the Pre-Trial Chamber.” The Appeals Chamber noted that under Article 19(4), “[t]he admissibility of a case … may be challenged only once.” Accordingly, the Chamber held that Ivory Coast couldn’t use this additional information to support what would in effect constitute a second challenge to admissibility. However, an ICC press release reporting on the Appeals Court’s decision notes that Article 19(4) also states that “[i]n exceptional circumstances, the Court may grant leave for a challenge to be brought more than once.”

Ivory Coast became a State Party to the ICC in February 2013. Article 89 of the Rome Statute requires “State Parties [to] comply with [ICC] requests for arrest and surrender.” It will be interesting to see whether Ivory Coast complies with this obligation, or whether it seeks to make use of the “exceptional circumstances” provision to make a second challenge to the admissibility of this case.

ICC Prosecutor Expresses Concern About Upcoming Elections in Burundi

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

In a statement issued on May 8, 2015, the ICC Prosecutor expressed concern about “the growing tensions in [Burundi] and reports that violence ahead of the [forthcoming] elections may escalate, which could lead to the commission of serious crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.” She warned that “[a]ny person who incites or engages in acts of mass violence, including by ordering, requesting, encouraging or contributing in any other manner to the commission of crimes within ICC’s jurisdiction is liable to prosecution before the Court.” She advised that “[her] Office, in accordance with its mandate under the Rome Statute, will be closely following developments in Burundi in the weeks to come and record any instance of incitement or resort to violence.”

As discussed in our previous post, the ICC Prosecutor proactively expressed similar concerns about elections to be held in Nigeria, warning that her Office stood ready to investigate election-related violence in that country that might provide for ICC jurisdiction.

Subsequently, reports indicated that the Nigerian elections proceeded reasonably well. Reuters reported that “[d]espite some technical glitches and the killing of more than a dozen voters by Boko Haram gunmen, the election has been the smoothest and most orderly in Nigeria’s history.” In her May 8 statement, the Prosecutor commented on the Nigerian election and stated that “[t]he recent elections in Nigeria have shown how commitment to peaceful elections by the electoral candidates can prevent mass violence.” While it cannot be determined at this time whether the Prosecutor’s statement in advance of the Nigerian elections contributed to a reasonably peaceful outcome, it may well have done so.

The Prosecutor’s statement about Burundi represents a further step in pursuit of her Office’s policy, articulated in the November 2013 Policy Paper on Preliminary Examination, to “issue public, preventive statements in order to deter the escalation of violence and the further commission of crimes.” Her statement regarding Nigeria addressed a situation in which her Office had previously commenced a preliminary investigation. Although Burundi, as Nigeria, is a State Party to the ICC Statute, the Prosecutor has not as yet opened an investigation into matters in Burundi. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s May 8 statement represents a further initiative to also perform early warning function in line with the OTP’s prevention efforts.

U.S. Commission Calls for ICC Investigation of ISIL

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On April 30, 2015, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) issued its annual report on the condition of religious freedom around the world. In this report, the USCIRF recommends, among other things, that the U.S. Government call upon the UN Security Council to refer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) the widely publicized violence attributed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government advisory body created by Congress through the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). The USCIRF’s statutory mandate includes monitoring religious freedom conditions globally and making recommendations for U.S. policy. IRFA mandates that the USCIRF base such recommendations on international human rights instruments such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and the Helsinki Accords.

The USCIRF’s 2015 annual report, which covers the period from January 31, 2014 through January 31, 2015, addresses troubling humanitarian issues in 33 countries. The report gives special attention to abuses committed in Syria and Iraq by forces associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It states that in both of these countries “ISIL has unleashed waves of terror upon Yazidis and Christians, Shi’a and Sunnis, as well as others who have dared to oppose its extremist views.” The report charges ISIL with responsibility for summary executions, forced conversions, rape, sexual enslavement, abduction of children, and destruction of houses of worship.

Based on these findings, the USCIRF recommends that the U.S. Government “call for or support a referral by the UN Security Council to the [ICC] to investigate ISIL violations in Iraq and Syria against religious and ethnic minorities, following the models used [by the Security Council] in Sudan and Libya.”

The USCIRF’s report and recommendations regarding ISIL (aka ISIS) are in substantial accord with the published statements of the ICC Prosecutor. As written about previously, the ICC Prosecutor has expressed her grave concern about ISIL, while noting that in the absence of a Security Council referral, her office’s ability to investigate ISIL’s activities is limited by the ICC’s jurisdictional requirements.

Related Readings:

  • U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report (2015).