Search results
This book examines the historical evolution of international humanitarian law, in particular the legal and political bases for the penalisation of infractions associated with this body of law. The interaction of law, politics and financial considerations have proved detrimental for staging criminal prosecutions, even to this day, but ultimately have not negated the criminal liability of perpetrators. The book explores the various forms of direct participation in humanitarian law offences and the concept of the doctrine of superior responsibility. It stipulates the liability of those persons who, being in a position of authority, fail to prevent or punish crimes committed by their subordinates. The book deals with the elaboration of a legal theoretical model, defined as the 'duty to control', which attempts to address the gap identified in the relevant law of causation. It traces the evolution of humanitarian law in the context of non-international armed conflicts, with the aim of determining the application of humanitarian and criminal norms therein. Although for the purposes of humanitarian law the distinction between non-international and international conflicts is becoming less significant, people must still be aware of the mechanism known as 'conflict classification'. The world's major powers, with the exception of the UK, have expressly or implicitly widened their judicial jurisdiction by penalising extraterritorial breaches committed in internal armed conflicts. The book focuses on the legislative and judicial efforts of developed nations, mainly from Europe and North America. For these countries, the suppression of extraterritorial crime is not of imminent importance.
legal theoretical model, defined as the ‘duty to control’, which attempts to address the gap identified in the relevant law of causation. Legal nature of the doctrine of superior responsibility The scope of the doctrine of superior responsibility has been the subject of fierce debate since the end of World War II, whereby its application by military tribunals was
Introduction Thus far we have examined various inchoate and direct forms of criminal participation. The following two chapters explore the concept of the doctrine of superior responsibility (alternatively, command responsibility). It stipulates the liability of those persons who, being in a position of authority, fail to prevent or punish crimes committed by their
The book explores the relationship between violence against women on one hand, and the rights to health and reproductive health on the other. It argues that violation of the right to health is a consequence of violence, and that (state) health policies might be a cause of – or create the conditions for – violence against women. It significantly contributes to feminist and international human rights legal scholarship by conceptualising a new ground-breaking idea, violence against women’s health (VAWH), using the Hippocratic paradigm as the backbone of the analysis. The two dimensions of violence at the core of the book – the horizontal, ‘interpersonal’ dimension and the vertical ‘state policies’ dimension – are investigated through around 70 decisions of domestic, regional and international judicial or quasi-judicial bodies (the anamnesis). The concept of VAWH, drawn from the anamnesis, enriches the traditional concept of violence against women with a human rights-based approach to autonomy and a reflection on the pervasiveness of patterns of discrimination (diagnosis). VAWH as theorised in the book allows the reconceptualisation of states’ obligations in an innovative way, by identifying for both dimensions obligations of result, due diligence obligations, and obligations to progressively take steps (treatment). The book eventually asks whether it is not international law itself that is the ultimate cause of VAWH (prognosis).
mentioned in the ICCPR could still feasibly amount to the offence of persecution. 15 Second, failure to enact an equivalent of Article 25 on individual criminal responsibility, or Article 28 on command and superior responsibility, could result in inability on the part of a State to prosecute those who attempt to commit or assist in the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity, or inability to prosecute commanders who fail to repress such crimes. For example, the Finnish ICC Crimes Act completely fails to mention command responsibility
advocates seeking to criminalize the destruction of ecosystems and to establish a legal duty of care for the environment, by holding people of ‘superior responsibility’ to account (Hall 2012 ). Many of the studies which came to be associated with the Humanitarian Initiative focused extensively on the consequences of nuclear weapons for the environment (Toon et al
criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law’, European Journal of International Law, 9 (1998), 2–17. 81 Article 9(1) ICTY Statute. 82 Article 10 ICTY Statute. The ICTR Statute contains the same provision. 83 Article 7 ICTY Statute. Article 6 ICTR Statute is the same. 84 See I. Bantekas, Principles of Direct and Superior Responsibility in International Humanitarian Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002). 85 UN Doc. S/25704, para. 28. 86 See the annual reports of the ICTY for 1999 and 2000. For the trial of Slobodan