Search results
force to prevent genocide, and the responsibility of developed countries to contribute to peace operations in order to facilitate rapid deployment. At the same time as it adopted the Declaration, CERD considered the specific case of Darfur. Summary records of the Committee suggest it was divided about the legal description of the atrocities.6 Its decision on Darfur, adopted only weeks after presentation of the report of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry commissioned by the Security Council,7 spoke of ‘war crimes, crimes against humanity and the risk of genocide
of state and sub-state terrorism, leading to one of today’s ‘worst humanitarian crises directly caused by war crimes and crimes against humanity for which the Sudanese government is responsible’. 8 According to Amnesty International reports, the Sudanese government is systematically killing the black Sudanese of Darfur, using Arab militias, its air force, and organized starvation. The result has been the brutal killing of hundreds of thousands of black Sudanese and a further 1.8 million displaced people left to starve. Amnesty concludes that ‘there is a large
for humanitarian reasons to the ‘less confrontational idea of a responsibility to protect’, 33 but the substance remains the same. In 2005 at intergovernmental level, the Outcome Document of the UN World Summit (15 September) made it a primary responsibility of states to protect their population against ‘genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing’; if they fail to do so, a ‘timely and decisive response’ becomes the responsibility of the
This book explains the direct link between the structure of the corporation and its limitless capacity for ecological destruction. It argues that we need to find the most effective means of ending the corporation’s death grip over us. The corporation is a problem, not merely because it devours natural resources, pollutes and accelerates the carbon economy. As this book argues, the constitutional structure of the corporation eradicates the possibility that we can put the protection of the planet before profit. A fight to get rid of the corporations that have brought us to this point may seem an impossible task at the moment, but it is necessary for our survival. It is hardly radical to suggest that if something is killing us, we should over-power it and make it stop. We need to kill the corporation before it kills us.
of men accused of war crimes in 1971. This was expressed in protest demonstrations at the many visits of the Jamaat-e-Islami MP and charismatic preacher, Delwar Hossain Sayeedi. Ali Riaz notes how Sayeedi has played a leading role in turning traditional public gatherings for scriptural commentary, known as waz mahfils, into a vehicle for expounding on contemporary politics; and he has described how the preacher’s speeches fired his listeners with hatred for the secularists, which could erupt in violence against the protestors. Waz mahfils have been organised for
In the years since the end of the Second World War, a few exhumations have taken place at Holocaust sites for the purpose of providing evidence in legal investigations.16 In some countries –​ such as Germany and Poland –​the crimes perpetrated during the Holocaust could still potentially become part of a legal investigation since the statute of limitations on the investigation of war crimes has not passed or does not exist.17 However, in recent years, human remains from Holocaust sites have been most commonly recovered when they have been discovered
.S. stealth bombers targeted the Al’Amiriya bunker in Baghdad. Photographs of the charred and twisted bodies of women and children shocked a world which, thanks to General Norman Schwarzkopf and CNN, had seen little of the horrors of the Gulf War. Pentagon officials, who claimed to have intelligence indicating the bunker was a command and control centre, denied knowledge of the civilian presence. Had they known, the attack would probably have been a war crime, since a key principle of international humanitarian law prohibits the direct targeting of civilians. As Article 51
and must be treated humanely and be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities. Enemy combatants also have the legal right to attack military targets, such as military, police, and government personnel and facilities. If the terrorists of 9/11 were combatants, those who flew planes into the World Trade Center were guilty of war crimes. But if the others had worn uniforms and had flown an otherwise empty plane into the Pentagon, their action would not have been a war crime; it would not have been illegal at all. They would have been acting within the legal rights
to create robust institutions and mechanisms to prevent the violation of the rights of populations faced with authorities that seek to perpetrate atrocities against them.3 This quest evolved from an initial approach based on the need to combat entrenched practices such as slavery,4 genocide,5 war crimes and crimes against humanity,6 especially the disproportionate impact of these on populations far removed from sites of power. The end of the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations came with the promise that such practices would be eradicated, with
Palestinian culture, etc. 7 In relation to the conflict that took place during the Gaza war of 2014, in which over 2000 Palestinian soldiers and civilians were killed, as well as over 70 Israelis, it would have to be shown not only that physical destruction involving serious war crimes was committed by both sides but that the crimes committed by Israeli forces constituted genocide, which is by its nature a one-sided crime. Some insight may be gained by comparing