Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:35:43.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prisoners of War (Eritrea v. Ethiopia), Eritrea's Claim 17/Ethiopia's Claim 4, Partial Awards: Central Front (Eritrea v. Ethiopia), Eritrea's Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22/Ethiopia's Claim 2, Partial Awards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

J. Romesh Weeramantry
J. Romesh Weeramantry*
Affiliation:
School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 465 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Agreement Between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea, Dec. 12, 2000, 40 ILM 260 (2001)Google Scholar, [hereinafter Agreement]. The Agreement and the awards and decisions of the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission (Commission) are available at <http://www.pcacpa.org>.

2 See Agreement, supra note 1, Art. 5. The Commission first met in March 2001. Pursuant to Article 5(12) of the Agreement, the Commission must endeavor to complete its work within three years from the closing date for the filing of claims. The Commission presently comprises Hans Van Houtte (president), George H. Aldrich (appointed by Ethiopia), John R. Crook (appointed by Eritrea), James C.N. Paul (appointed by Ethiopia), and Lucy Reed (appointed by Eritrea). The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague serves as the registry for the Commission. See generally Hans Van Houtte, Report to the Secretary–General on the Work of the Commission, UN Doc. S/2001/608, Annex II (June 7, 2001) [hereinafter Secretary–General’s Progress Report 2001].

3 The decisions, all issued in August 2001, are general in nature and relate to issues such as the Commission’s mandate and temporal jurisdiction, mass claims procedures, monetary compensation as the appropriate form of remedy, evidence, and the collection and preparation of claims.

4 Prisoners of War (Eri. v. Eth.), Eritrea’s Claim 17, Partial Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n July 1, 2003), 42 ILM 1083 (2003) [hereinafter Award ER17].

5 Prisoners of War (Eth. v. Eri.), Ethiopia’s Claim 4, Partial Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n July 1, 2003), 42 ILM 1056 (2003) [hereinafter Award ET4],

6 Central Front (Eri. v. Eth.), Eritrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22, Partial Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n Apr. 28, 2004), 43 ILM 1249 (2004) [hereinafter Award ERCF].

7 Central Front (Eth. v. Eri.), Ethiopia’s Claim 2, Partial Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n Apr. 28, 2004), 43 ILM 1275 (2004) [hereinafter Award ET2].

8 The two partial awards not covered in this note are the Commission’s most recent, which concern “Civilians Claims”: Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27–32 (Eri. v. Eth.), Partial Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n Dec. 17, 2004), and Ethiopia’s Claim 5 (Eth. v. Eri.), Partial Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n Dec. 17, 2004).

9 Article 5(1) of the Agreement grants the Commission, inter alia, competence “to decide through binding arbitration all claims for loss, damage or injury by one Government against the other, and by nationals . . . of one party against the Government of the other party” (a) relating to the armed conflict and (b) resulting from violations of international humanitarian law, including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Geneva Convention [No. 1] for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3114, 75 UNTS 31; Geneva Convention [No. 2] for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85; Geneva Convention [No. 3] Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12,1949,6 UST 3316,75 UNTS 135; and Geneva Convention [No. 4] Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287 [hereinafter (collectively) Geneva Conventions]) or other violations of international law. That same provision excludes from the Commission’s jurisdiction “claims arising from the cost of military operations, preparing for military operations, or the use of force, except to the extent that such claims involve violations of international humanitarian law.”

10 See supra note 9.

11 Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 33, 35; Award ET4, supra note 5, paras. 24, 26.

12 Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 33–41; Award ET4, supra note 5, paras. 24–32; Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 21; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 15.

13 Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 1 Bevans 631; see Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 22; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 16.

14 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 [hereinafter Additional Protocol I]; see Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 23; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 17.

15 Award ER17, supra note 4, para. 46; Award ET4, supra note 5, para. 37; Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 6; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 7.

16 Award ERCF, supra note 6, paras. 5–7; Award ET2, supra note 7, paras. 6–8. In a number of instances, conflicting evidence led the Commission to reduce the degree of responsibility (and presumably, in future determinations, the amount of compensation awarded) by 25 to 30 percent (as when the resulting uncertainty left the Commission unable to determine precisely who caused the specific damage or destruction). See, e.g., Award ERCF, supra note 6, paras. 69, 78, 84; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 73(5).

17 Award ER17, supra note 4, para. 56; Award ET4, supra note 5, para. 54.

18 Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 11–12; Award ET4, supra note 5, paras. 12–13.

19 See supra note 9.

20 Award ET4, supra note 5, para. 64; see also Award ER17, supra note 4, para. 58.

21 Award ET4, supra note 5, para. 68.

22 Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 59–63.

23 See, e.g., Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 77, 86, 114, 158; Award ET4, supra note 5, paras. 84, 86, 103, 138.

24 Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 50–53; Award ET4, supra note 5, paras. 45–48.

25 Award ET4, supra note 5, para. 61. In support of its position, the Commission referred to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 ICJ Rep. 226, para. 79 (July 8), in which the Court described the Geneva Conventions as constituting “intransgressible principles of international customary law.”

26 Award ET4, supra note 5, para. 62.

27 Id., paras. 126–34.

28 Id., paras. 116–25; Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 128–38.

29 Award ET4, supra note 5, para. 76.

30 See, e.g., Award ERCF, supra note 6, paras. 84, 95; Award ET2, supra note 7, paras. 45, 52, 59, 70.

31 See, e.g., Award ET2, supra note 7, paras. 47, 66, 69, 90, 92, 100.

32 See supra note 9.

33 See Award ET2, supra note 7, paras. 27–31, 78.

34 Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 57.

35 Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 40; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 37.

36 Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 41; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 38.

37 Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 42; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 39.

38 Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 42; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 39.

39 Eritrea recorded the use of approximately 175,000 anti–personnel mines and 45,000 anti–tank mines. See Secretary–General’s Progress Report 2001, supra note 1, at 4.

40 The Commission referred to the following treaties, none of which had been ratified by Ethiopia or Eritrea at time of the conflict: the UN Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Oct. 10, 1980, 1342 UNTS 137’, reprinted in 19ILM 1523; Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby– Traps and Other Devices, Oct. 10, 1980, 1342 UNTS 168, reprinted in 19 ILM 1529; that Protocol as amended at Geneva, May 3, 1996, 35 ILM 1209 (1996); and Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti–personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, Sept. 18, 1997, 36 ILM 1507 (1997).

41 Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 24; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 18.

42 See supra note 40.

43 Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 24; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 18.

44 Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 50.

45 Id., para. 50.

46 Id., para. 51.

47 Id., paras. 110–13.

48 Id., para. 114. The Commission’s finding is based not on the actual use of the landing strip at the time of bombing, but on its potential for future military use. As such, the finding raises a question of consistency with Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, which provides in full (emphasis added):

Attacks [on civilian objects] shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

49 See Award ERCF, supra note 6, paras. 107–14.

50 Julius Stone, of Law and Nations 453 (1974). In this regard, Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 5, and Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 6, also quote a similar expression by Stone from another of his works.

51 See Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 58, 60, 138; Award ET4, supra note 5, paras. 106, 125, 136.

52 See Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 51.

53 See Award ER17, supra note 4, paras. 65, 130, 148.

54 Due regard should be had to the Commission’s position that in dealing only with serious violations that were frequent or pervasive, it was in no way condoning isolated violations. See, e.g., Award ER17, supra note 4, para. 61. Also, it should be noted that where evidence of “occasional rape” was submitted, the Commission, without providing details of the evidence, stated generally that the evidence was deserving of at least criminal investigation. Award ERCF, supra note 6, para. 43; Award ET2, supra note 7, para. 40.

55 See Rona, Gabor, The ICRC’s Privilege Not to Testify: Confidentiality in Action, 84 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 207 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In contrast to the position taken by the ICRC, it should be noted that a U.S. physician who worked for Médecins Sans Frontières in Eritrea testified before die Commission. See Award ERCF, supra note 6, paras. 80, 101.