No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Deciphering the landscape of international humanitarian law in the Asia-Pacific
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2020
Abstract
The 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Geneva Conventions on 12 August 1949 provided an opportunity for reflection on international humanitarian law (IHL). This article continues that reflection and presents some fresh scholarship about and from the Asia-Pacific region. The region's plurality leads to a complex and diverse landscape where there is no single “Asia-Pacific perspective on IHL” but there are instead many approaches and trajectories. This fragmented reality is, however, not a mess of incoherence and contradiction. In the following pages, the author argues for and justifies the following assessments. The first is that the norm of humanity in armed conflict, which underpins IHL, has deep roots in the region. This, to some extent, explains why there is no conceptual resistance to IHL, in the way that exists with the human rights doctrine. The second is that there has been meaningful participation of certain States from the region in IHL law-making. Thirdly, some Asia-Pacific States are among those actively contributing to the development of new or emerging areas relevant to IHL, such as outer space, cyberspace and the protection of the environment in armed conflict. This leads to the unavoidable issue of contradiction. How is it that in a region where such findings can be made (i.e., where there is discernible positivity towards the norm of humanity in armed conflict), there are so many armed conflicts with very serious IHL violations emerging? Should we reflect in a more nuanced way on “norm internalization” and “root causes”? These issues will be considered in the second section of the article. This examination leads to a third and final section, a concluding reflection on what all of this reveals about IHL in the Asia-Pacific. The real challenge for progressive humanitarianism, the author contends, is to traverse disciplines and to build on work done in, on and from the region in order to develop more informed and nuanced approaches to understanding the countries and societies of the region, moving on to study the process of norm internalization, and then developing creative and meaningful strategies for strengthening the links between that internalization, actual conduct on the ground, and norm socialization in the wider community.
Keywords
- Type
- Selected articles on international humanitarian law and humanitarian action
- Information
- International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 101 , Issue 911: Children and war , August 2019 , pp. 737 - 770
- Copyright
- Copyright © icrc 2020
Footnotes
*
Thanks to Sandy Sivakumaran and Roger Clark for their helpful suggestions.
References
1 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950); Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950); Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1951); Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1951).
2 See European Court of Human Rights, “Armed Conflicts”, Factsheet, September 2018, available at: www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Armed_conflicts_ENG.pdf (all internet references were accessed in February 2020).
3 Many a quarrel has been and continues to be had over what the geographical concept of “Asia” entails. The present work views the “Asia-Pacific” region as including the countries of South, Southeast and East Asia, which are indisputably part of “Asia”, as well as the countries that are indisputably part of the Pacific Island nations. It does not include the countries of “Central Asia” (e.g. Turkmenistan) and those that are actually part of the “Middle East” (e.g. Iraq). This notion is obviously different from the United Nations’ “Asia-Pacific” grouping, which includes countries that are geographically not part of Asia (e.g. Cyprus and Saudi Arabia) and locates two countries that are in the Pacific region (Australia and New Zealand) in the “Western European and Others” grouping.
4 Examples include Australia's Geneva Conventions Act of 1957, India's Geneva Conventions Act of 1960, Malaysia's Geneva Conventions Act of 1962 and Singapore's Geneva Conventions Act of 1973.
5 For example, Brunei acceded in 1991 and Myanmar in 1992.
6 For example, Australia, Pakistan, Vietnam, the Republic of Korea and China. Vietnam's reservations to the Geneva Conventions are extensive – see: https://tinyurl.com/r67wv3k.
7 Chesterman, Simon, “Asia's Ambivalence about International Law and Institutions: Past, Present and Futures”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Available at: www.springer.com/law/international/journal/40901.
9 Available at: https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil.
10 Available at: https://brill.com/view/journals/kjic/kjic-overview.xml.
11 Available at: www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-international-law.
12 Chesterman, Simon, Owada, Hisashi and Saul, Ben (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Asia and the Pacific, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Linton, Suzannah, McCormack, Timothy and Sivakumaran, Sandesh (eds), Asia-Pacific Perspectives on International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Acharya, Amitav, “Asia Is Not One”, Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 69, No. 4, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 See, generally, Thomas, Nicholas (ed.), Governance and Regionalism in Asia, Routledge, London, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Contrast Yvette Zegenhagen and Geoff Skillen, “Implementation of International Humanitarian Law Obligations in Australia: A Mixed Record”, with Suzannah Linton, “International Humanitarian Law in Indonesia”, both in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
16 See Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, 15 December 1995 (entered into force 27 March 1997), International Legal Materials, Vol. 35, p. 635; South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, 1445 UNTS 177, 6 August 1985 (entered into force 11 December 1986). For analysis, see Roger S. Clark, “Pacific Island States and International Humanitarian Law”, and Satoshi Hirose, “Japan and Nuclear Weapons”, both in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
17 See further below for the Japanese submissions during the advisory proceedings on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons and the complex interplay between Japanese culture, martial practices and IHL.
18 See above note 6. The participation of many Asia-Pacific States in the Convention on the Rights of the Child is heavily diluted by substantial reservations. See the United Nations Treaty Collection website, available at: https://tinyurl.com/rxksp5l.
19 This paper adopts Axelrod's behavioural definition: “A norm exists in a given social setting to the extent that individuals usually act in a certain way and are often punished when seen not to be acting in this way.” He argues that “[n]orms often precede laws, but are then supported, maintained, and extended by laws”. Axelrod, Robert, “An Evolutionary Approach to Norms”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 4, 1986, pp. 1097, 1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 See Hurst Hannum, “Human Rights”, and Suzannah Linton, “International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law”, both in S. Chesterman, H. Owada and B. Saul (eds), above note 12.
21 Written submissions: Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), India, Japan, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Samoa and Solomon Islands (responses to submissions by Nauru and Solomon Islands), available at: www.icj-cij.org/en/case/95/written-proceedings. Oral submissions: Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Philippines, Samoa and Solomon Islands, available at: www.icj-cij.org/en/case/95/oral-proceedings.
22 Written submissions: Australia, DPRK, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Pakistan and Palau, available at: www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131/written-proceedings. Oral submissions: Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia, available at: www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131/oral-proceedings.
23 S. Hirose, above note 16, p. 446.
24 Ibid.
25 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 257, available at: www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf.
26 Betsy Baker, “Hague Peace Conferences (1899 and 1907)”, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, available at: https://tinyurl.com/vrb9run.
27 For Thailand's treaty participation, see the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) database, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=TH.
28 Pichamon Yeophantong, “The Origins and Evolution of Humanitarian Action in Southeast Asia”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12, p. 83.
29 Ibid.
30 Arms Trade Treaty, 2 April 2013 (entered into force 24 December 2014), available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002803628c4&clang=_en.
31 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, opened for signature 20 September 2017 (not in force).
32 Pichamon Yeophantong, “Understanding Humanitarian Action in East and Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective”, Humanitarian Practice Group Working Paper, Overseas Development Institute, February 2014, p. 1. See also the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry in the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, above note 25, pp. 443–444. For a closer analysis, see P. Yeophantong, above note 28.
33 P. Yeophantong, above note 28, p. 76.
34 For a study that focuses on the global roots of humane treatment of captured enemy fighters, see Linton, Suzannah, “Towards a Global Understanding of the Humane Treatment of Captured Enemy Fighters”, Frontiers of Law in China, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2016Google Scholar.
35 Agus, Fadilah et al. , Hukum Perang Tradisional di Indonesia, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, 1999Google Scholar.
36 ICRC Regional Delegation in the Pacific, Under the Protection of the Palm: Wars of Dignity in the Pacific, ICRC, Geneva, 2009Google Scholar.
37 For more, see Manoj Sinha, “Ancient Military Practices of the Indian Subcontinent”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12; Nirmal, B. C., “International Humanitarian law in Ancient India”, in Mani, Venkateshwara Subramaniam (ed.), Handbook of International Humanitarian Law in South Asia, Oxford University Press India, New Delhi and New York, 2007Google Scholar.
38 For more, see Christopher G. Weeramantry, “Buddhism and Humanitarian Law”, in V. S. Mani (ed.), above note 37; Deegalle, Mahinda, “Norms of War in Theravada Buddhism”, in Popovski, Vesselin et al. (eds), World Religions and Norms of War, United Nations University Press, Tokyo and New York, 2009Google Scholar.
39 For more, see Gurpreet Singh, “Sikh Religion and Just War Theory: An Analytical Study”, Institute of Sikh Studies, available at: www.sikhinstitute.org/jan_2014/3-gurpreetsingh.html; Gurtej Singh, “The Sikh War Code, Its Spiritual Inspiration and Impact on History”, Sikh24, 8 February 2019, available at: www.sikh24.com/2019/02/08/the-sikh-war-code-its-spiritual-inspiration-and-impact-on-history/#.Xl4qqEqnzIU.
40 Notable examples include Bassiouni, Mohamed Cherif, The Shari'a and Islamic Criminal Justice in Time of War and Peace, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2015Google Scholar; Al-Dawoody, Ahmed, The Islamic Law of War, Palgrave Series in Islamic Theology, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baderin, Mashood A. (ed.), International Law and Islamic Law, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2008Google Scholar.
41 See, generally, Aspinall, Edward, Islam and Nation: Separatist Rebellion in Aceh, Indonesia, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watch, Human Rights, Indonesia: The War in Aceh, Vol. 13, No. 4(C), 2001Google Scholar.
42 Soliman M. Santos Jr, “Jihad and International Humanitarian Law: Three Moro Rebel Groups in the Philippines”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12. For a theoretical framework on how to engage with jihadist groups, see Matthias Vanhullebusch, “Dialoguing with Islamic Fighters about International Humanitarian Law: Towards a Relational Normativity”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
43 M. Sinha, above note 37, p. 110.
44 Ibid., pp. 108–109, direct sources omitted. For more, see V. S. Mani, above note 37; Penna, Lakshmikanth R., “Traditional Asian Approaches: An Indian View”, Australian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 9, 1980Google Scholar.
45 For more on China, see Xue, Ru, “Humanitarianism in Chinese Traditional Military Ethics and International Humanitarian Law Training in the People's Liberation Army”, in Linton, S., McCormack, T. and Sivakumaran, S. (eds), above note 12; Lo, Ping-Cheung and Twiss, Sumner B. (eds), Chinese Just War Ethics: Origin, Development, and Dissent, Routledge, London, 2015Google Scholar; Sawyer, Ralph D., Ancient Chinese Warfare, Basic Books, New York, 2011Google Scholar.
46 Zhu, Li-Sun, “Traditional Asian Approaches: A Chinese View”, Australian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 9, 1980Google Scholar.
47 Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. Lionel Giles, available at: http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html.
48 Adachi, Sumio, “The Asian Concept”, in International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law, Henri Dunant Institute & United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Geneva and Paris, 1988, p. 13Google Scholar.
49 Ibid.
50 L.-S. Zhu, above note 46, pp. 144–145.
51 P. Yeophantong, above note 32, pp. 4–6, also analyzing Chinese literature on humanitarianism in China.
52 See China's treaty participation at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesHistoricalBCountrySelectedxsp?xp_countrySelected=CN.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
55 R. Xue, above note 45, especially pp. 98–106.
56 Adachi, Sumio, “Traditional Asian Approaches: A Japanese View”, Australian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 9, 1980, p. 159Google Scholar; Benesch, Oleg, Inventing the Way of the Samurai: Nationalism, Internationalism, and Bushidō in Modern Japan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 Yoichi Hirama, “Sun Tzu's Influence on the Japanese Imperial Navy”, paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Sun Tzu's Art of War (16–19 October 1990), Beijing, 1990, available at: http://hiramayoihi.com/yh_ronbun_senryaku_sonshi.htm.
58 Knutsen, Roald, Sun Tzu and the Art of Medieval Japanese Warfare, Brill, Leiden, 2008Google Scholar.
59 Y. Hirama, above at note 57.
60 See the ICRC's ratification records at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesHistoricalByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=JP&nv=8.
61 Several articles published in the ICRC Mission in Tokyo's Newsletter have addressed the historical relationship between Japan and the ICRC under the title “Historical Relationship between Japan and the ICRC”. See ICRC Newsletter, No. 11, Autumn 2010, p. 6, available at: www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/2010/icrc-bulletin-eng-vol11.pdf); ICRC Newsletter, No. 14, 2013, p. 6, available at: http://jp.icrc.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/92/2013/11/japan-newsletter-eng-vol14.pdf; ICRC Newsletter, No. 15, 2013, p. 3, available at: http://jp.icrc.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/92/2013/11/icrc-japan-newsletter-english-vol15.pdf.
62 See above note 61.
63 See ratification table at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesHistoricalBCountrySelectedxsp?xp_countrySelected=CN.
64 See ICRC Newsletter, No. 11, above note 61, p. 6.
65 See ICRC, “Legal and Financial Advisors”, available at www.icrc.org/en/support-us/audience/legal-and-financial-advisors.
66 Also see Hitomi Takemura, “The Post-War History of Japan: Renouncing War and Adopting International Humanitarian Law”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
67 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, above note 32, pp. 478–480. Other insightful publications are Roy, Kaushik, Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jerryson, Michael and Juergensmeyer, Mark (eds), Buddhist Warfare, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mani, Venkateshwara Subramaniam, “International Humanitarian Law: An Indo-Asian Perspective”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 83, No. 841, 2001Google Scholar.
68 “The Indianisation of Southeast Asia: An Interactive Online Museum”, available at: http://sea-indianisation-museum.weebly.com/.
69 Jana Igunma, “The Ramayana in Southeast Asia”, 21 April 2014, available athttps://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2014/04/the-ramayana-in-southeast-asia-1-cambodia-.html.
70 Torres, Manuel Poejo, “Sun Tzu: The Art of War”, The Three Swords Magazine, Vol. 33, 2018, p. 47Google Scholar, available at: www.jwc.nato.int/images/stories/threeswords/SUNTZU_2018.pdf.
71 The Art of War apparently became an American military education staple after the Vietnam War (for example, the Marine Corps teaching on strategic warfighting is founded on ideas about manoeuvre warfare taken directly from The Art of War): see “The American Experience and Sun Tzu: Highlights of Ways Americans Have Felt the Impact of Sun Tzu's Philosophies”, available at: www.artofwarsuntzu.com/america_experiences_sun_tzu.htm. See also McNeilly, Mark, Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare, Oxford University Press, New York, 2014, pp. 11, 12, 21, 114Google Scholar; Mark Cartwright, “The Art of War”, Ancient History Encyclopedia, available at: www.ancient.eu/The_Art_of_War/.
72 The definitive study is Sandesh Sivakumaran, “Asia-Pacific States and the Development of International Humanitarian Law”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
73 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, 3 vols, Federal Political Department, Berne, 1949 (Diplomatic Conference Final Record). See the following footnotes for specific references.
74 Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 158–170.
75 Official Ceremony for the Signature of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, for the Protection of War Victims, in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(B), p. 534.
76 Ibid., p. 533.
77 Wounded and Sick, 9th Plenary Meeting, in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2, p. 227.
78 Ibid.
79 General Oung was at that time the only Burman to have been educated at Sandhurst, and had been a prisoner of war held in Rangoon Jail by the Japanese. He was deputy inspector-general of police and chief of the Criminal Investigation Department at the time of the killing of Burma's independence leader, Aung San. In August 1949, he was appointed deputy supreme commander of the Burmese Armed Forces. Tucker, Shelby, Burma: Curse of Independence, Pluto Press, London, 2001, p. 150Google Scholar.
80 See S. Sivakumaran, above note 72, pp. 120–121.
81 19th Plenary Meeting (Common Articles), in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(B), p. 337.
82 18th Plenary Meeting (Common Articles), in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(B), p. 330.
83 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (Appeals Chamber), 2 October 1995, para. 70.
84 18th Plenary Meeting (Common Articles), in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(B), p. 329.
85 Ibid.
86 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, p. 1344.
87 18th Plenary Meeting (Common Articles), in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(B), p. 329.
88 Also see Sivakumaran, Sandesh, “Binding Armed Opposition Groups”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
89 18th Plenary Meeting (Common Articles), in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(B), p. 330.
90 See the commentary on common Article 3 in ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2016Google Scholar.
91 Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(B), p. 214.
92 Ibid.
93 Committee III on Civilians, 15th Meeting, in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(A), p. 662.
94 Committee III on Civilians, 12th and 13th Meetings, in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(A), p. 651.
95 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1979).
96 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, “International Humanitarian Law and the Asia-Pacific Struggles for National Liberation”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12, p. 149.
97 Ibid.
98 For more, see Suzannah Linton, “International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law”, in S. Chesterman, H. Owada and B. Saul (eds), above note 12.
99 The declaration addressed the situations to which Article 44(1) could apply (only in occupied territory or in armed conflicts covered by Article 1(4)) and the meaning of “deployment” in para. 3(b); the responsibility of military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon or executing attacks to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources which is reasonably available to them at the relevant time in relation to Articles 51 to 58 inclusive; the meaning of “military advantage” in Articles 51(5)(b) and 57(2)(a)(iii); and the meaning of “total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage” in Article 52. See ratification table at: https://tinyurl.com/rxdvj4w.
100 S. Sivakumaran, above note 72, p. 21.
101 Kalshoven, Frits, “The Diplomatic Conference on Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 1974–1977”, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 8, 1977, pp. 107, 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cited in Sivakumaran, above note 72, p. 265.
102 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1977, Federal Political Department, Berne, Vol. 7, 1977, p. 61Google Scholar, para. 11, and p. 311, para. 159.
103 See ratification table at: https://tinyurl.com/y77xzvdf.
104 Masao Tomonaga, “The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Summary of the Human Consequences, 1945–2018, and Lessons for Homo Sapiens to End the Nuclear Weapon Age”, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Research Study on Impacts of the Use of Nuclear Weapons in Various Aspects, 2013, available at: www.mofa.go.jp/files/000051562.pdf; Sue Rabbitt Roff, Hotspots: The Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Cassell, London and New York, 1995. The testimony of Marshall Islander Lijong Eknilang to the ICJ on the devastation of the tests is unforgettable: see ICJ, Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Request for an Advisory Opinion), CR 1995/33 (Public Sitting), 14 November 1995, pp. 25–28, available at: www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/95/095-19951114-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf.
105 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 729 UNTS 161, 1 July 1968 (entered into force 5 March 1970); Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, adopted at the 50th session of the UN General Assembly by UNGA Res. A/RES/50/245, as contained in UN Doc. A/50/1027, 26 August 1996 (not yet in force); Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, opened for signature 20 September 2017 (not in force).
106 ICJ, Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgement, 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974; ICJ, Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Judgement, 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974. Professor Clark notes, for the record, that
in 1995, New Zealand endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to reopen its 1973 case considering new information about escape of underground radiation. See Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v France) (Order of 22 September 1995) [1995] ICJ Rep 288. Samoa, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands and Micronesia tried, with even less success, to intervene in this effort. Since the Court ignored them, their materials do not appear on the Court's website. See “Applications Submitted by the Governments of Samoa, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands and Federated States of Micronesia”, in New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Manatu Aorere), New Zealand at the International Court of Justice: French Nuclear Testing in the Pacific (1996) 115.
R. Clark, above note 16, p. 201, fn. 10.
107 ICJ, Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Decision (Preliminary Objections), 5 October 2016, ICJ Reports 2016; ICJ, Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India), Decision (Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application), 5 October 2016, ICJ Reports 2016; ICJ, Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan), Decision (Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application), 5 October 2016, ICJ Reports 2016. The first-hand litigator's account – in R. Clark, above note 16, pp. 213–218 – is particularly insightful.
108 ICJ, above note 25. Much insight into the role of the Pacific islands is contained in Roger S. Clark and Madeleine Sann (eds), The Case against the Bomb: Marshall Islands, Samoa, and Solomon Islands before the International Court of Justice in Advisory Proceedings on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden, NJ, 1996. On the role of civil society in New Zealand, see Catherine Dewes, “The World Court Project: The Evolution and Impact of an Effective Citizens’ Movement”, PhD thesis, University of New England, 1998, on file with the author.
109 The treaty details are at note 16.
110 S. Hirose, above note 16, p. 451. Hirose also emphasizes the testimony of the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the ICJ in 1995, to show the disconnect between politicians and ordinary people on the matter of nuclear weapons. Ibid., p. 448.
111 Statement by Ms Andrea Leong, Delegate to the 72nd Session of the UN General Assembly Thematic Discussion on Cluster One: Nuclear Weapons, 12 October 2017.
112 See the collection of seventeen reflections in the Australian National University's 2017 publication on “Nuclear Asia”, available at: https://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/News/nuclear-asia-publication-web.pdf.
113 Keiichiro Okimoto, “The Viet Nam War and the Development of International Humanitarian Law”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
114 Tim McCormack, “Negotiating the Two Additional Protocols of 1977: Interview with the Right Honourable Sir Kenneth Keith”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12, p. 26.
115 K. Okimoto, above note 113, p. 179.
116 Ibid., p. 179; see also pp. 167, 170–172, 174–175, 178.
117 Protocol III to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons), 1342 UNTS 171, 10 October 1980 (entered into force 2 December 1983).
118 K. Okimoto, above note 113, p. 179; see also pp. 174–176. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 UNTS 151, 10 December 1976 (entered into force 5 October 1978).
119 For example, as directly stated in the Dutch Military Manual, cited in Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar (ICRC Customary Law Study), Rule 76, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule76. On the use of herbicides, see K. Okimoto, above note 113, pp. 167–168, 172–174.
120 On the protection of civilians and civilian objects, see T. McCormack, above note 114 (interviewing Sir Kenneth Keith), pp. 17–18; K. Okimoto, above note 113, pp. 166–167. On carpet/aerial bombing, see T. McCormack, above note 114, pp 34–35. On captured fighters, see T. McCormack, above note 114, p. 174. On captured combatants, see K. Okimoto, above note 113, pp. 175–177. On guerrilla warfare, see K. Okimoto, above note 113, pp. 177–178. On attacking works or installations containing dangerous forces, see K. Okimoto, above note 113, p. 168.
121 Statistics from Wilson, Sandra et al. , Japanese War Criminals: The Politics of Justice After the Second World War, Columbia University Press, New York, 2017, pp. 1, 78–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Table 3.2).
122 For recent scholarship, see for example, ibid.; Liu, Daqun and Zhang, Binxin (eds), Historical War Crimes Trials in Asia, Torkel Opsahl Publishers, Brussels, 2016Google Scholar; von Lingen, Kerstin (ed.), War Crimes Trials in the Wake of Decolonization and Cold War in Asia, 1945–1956, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Linton, Suzannah, “Post Conflict Justice in Asia”, in Bassiouni, M. Cherif (ed.), The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice: A World Study on Conflicts, Victimisation and Post-Conflict Justice, Vol. 2, Part III, Intersentia NV, Brussels, 2010Google Scholar, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2036245. Jurisdiction-specific studies include Borch, Fred L., Military Trials of War Criminals in the Netherlands East Indies 1946–1949, Oxford University Press, New York, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzpatrick, Georgina, McCormack, Tim and Morris, Narelle (eds), Australia's War Crimes Trials 1945–51, Brill, Leiden 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cheah, Wui Ling, “An Overview of the Singapore War Crimes Trials (1946–1948): Prosecuting Lower-Level Accused”, Singapore Law Review, Vol. 34, 2016Google Scholar; Linton, Suzannah (ed.), Hong Kong's War Crimes Trials, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012Google Scholar.
123 See above note 122.
124 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 119.
125 S. Sivakumaran, above note 72, pp. 126, 137–138.
126 Ibid., p. 137.
127 Ibid., p. 138. For fresh work on IHL in domestic legal systems, from which national practice and opinio juris on particular issues may be discerned, see the following chapters in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12: Sedfrey M. Candelaria, “International Humanitarian Law in the Philippines Supreme Court”; S. M. Santos Jr, above note 42; Sanoj Rajan, “International Humanitarian Law in the Indian Civilian and Military Justice Systems”; Tek Narayan Kunwar, “Application of the Geneva Conventions in Nepal: Domestication as a Way Forward”; Kristin Rosella, Göran Sluiter and Marc Tiernan, “Application of Grave Breaches at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia”; S. Linton, above note 15; M. Rafiqul Islam and Nakib M. Nasrullah, “The Application of International Humanitarian Law in War Crimes Cases by the International Crimes Tribunals of Bangladesh”.
128 S. Sivakumaran, above note 72, p. 138.
129 Unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of PoWs became a grave breach under AP I's Article 85(4)(b).
130 Hoedong Kim, “The Korean War (1950–1953) and the Treatment of Prisoners of War”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12, pp. 362–363.
131 Ibid., p. 371.
132 Levie, Howard S., “Prisoners of War in International Armed Conflict”, International Law Studies, Vol. 59, 1978, p. 421, fn. 134Google Scholar.
133 For consideration of the PoW issue from the US perspective, see Walter G. Hermes, United States Army in the Korean War: Truce Tent and Fighting Front, Center of Military History, US Army, 1992, Chaps VII, VIII, XVIII, XIX.
134 Also see Baxter, Richard, “Asylum to Prisoners of War”, British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 30, 1950, p. 489Google Scholar.
135 See the biography of Syngman Rhee at: http://www.koreanwar60.com/biographies-syngman-rhee; Heo, Man-ho, “North Korea's Continued Detention of South Korean POWs since the Korean and Vietnam Wars”, Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2002, p. 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
136 Military Armistice in Korea, 4 UST 234, TIAS 2782, signed at Panmunjom, 27 July 1953 (entered into force 27 July 1953), available at: http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/KP%2BKR_530727_AgreementConcerningMilitaryArmistice.pdf.
137 Ibid., Art. III, para. 51.
138 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 182, 23 May 1969, Art. 31(3)(b) (on the use of subsequent practice for treaty interpretation) and Arts 39, 40 (on formal amendment). See the reports of the International Law Commission's Special Rapporteur on the treaties over time, and subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to interpretation of treaties, available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/1_11.shtml.
139 Sassòli, Marco, “Release, Accommodation in Neutral Countries, and Repatriation of Prisoners of War”, in Clapham, Andrew, Gaeta, Paola and Sassòli, Marco (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 1055, para. 40Google Scholar.
140 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 119, Rule 128, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule128#refFn_E202C038_00020.
141 This is strongly tied to the movement known as TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law). The voluminous literature associated with this movement includes Bhupinder S. Chimni, International Law and World Order, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017; Sundhya Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011; Anthony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004; Fidler, David P., “The Asian Century: Implications for International Law”, Singapore Year Book of International Law, Vol. 9, 2005Google Scholar; Antony Anghie et al. (eds), The Third World and International Order, Brill, Leiden, 2003; Fidler, David P., “Revolt Against or from Within the West? TWAIL, the Developing World, and the Future Direction of International Law”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, “The Asian Perspective to International Law in the Age of Globalization”, Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 5, 2001Google Scholar; Anand, Ram P., New Nations and the Law of Nations, Vikas Publications, New Delhi, 1978Google Scholar.
142 Ram P. Anand, “New States and International Law”, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, available at: https://tinyurl.com/umr5jpu.
143 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1975 UNTS 45, 13 January 1993 (entered into force 29 April 1997). This discussion draws from Treasa Dunworth, “The Chemical Weapons Convention in the Asia-Pacific Region”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
144 Walter E. Grunden, “No Retaliation in Kind: Japanese Chemical Warfare Policy in World War II”, in Bretislav Friedrich et al. (eds), One Hundred Years of Chemical Warfare: Research, Deployment, Consequences, Springer, 2017.
145 Sheldon Harris, Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932–1945, and the American Cover-up, revised ed., Routledge, London and New York, 2002, pp. 69, 88–90, 99, 101–104, 126–133, 142–143.
146 Yudin, Boris G., “Research on Humans at the Khabarovsk War Crimes Trial: A Historical and Ethical Examination”, in Nie, Jing-Bao et al. (eds), Japan's Wartime Medical Atrocities: Comparative Inquiries in Science, History, and Ethics, Routledge, London, 2010Google Scholar.
147 Kushner, Barak, Men to Devils, Devils to Men: Japanese War Crimes and Chinese Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2015, Chap. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jeanne Guillemin, “The 1925 Geneva Protocol: China's CBW Charges against Japan at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal”, in B. Friedrich et al. (eds), above note 144.
148 T. Dunworth, above note 143, pp. 269–270.
149 Ibid., p. 269.
150 Steven Freeland and Elise Gruttner, “Critical Issues in the Regulation of Armed Conflict in Outer Space”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
151 Ibid., p. 195.
152 Ibid., p. 189.
153 Ibid.
154 Ibid., p. 195. There are efforts under way to improve the legal situation. The leading endeavour is the Woomera Manual project, named after a village in south Australia that has long been associated with Australian and multinational military space operations. The project is spearheaded by the universities of Adelaide, Exeter, Nebraska and New South Wales – Canberra. The experts involved are working on developing a manual that objectively gathers, articulates, clarifies and streamlines existing international law applicable to space exploration, development and militarization. The project website is available at: https://law.adelaide.edu.au/woomera/.
155 UN Doc. CD/1645, 6 June 2001, available at: https://tinyurl.com/u3ugygu.
156 The draft treaty was updated in 2014 and can be viewed at the website of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, available at: https://tinyurl.com/w7kubqx.
157 Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Space Threat 2018: China Assessment”, 12 April 2018, available at: https://aerospace.csis.org/space-threat-2018-china/.
158 Ibid.
159 Space Act of the Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 21/2013, 2013, available at: http://ditjenpp.kemenkumham.go.id/arsip/terjemahan/11.pdf.
160 Letter dated 9 August 2017 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation, Addressed to the Secretary General of the Conference on Disarmament, Transmitting the Joint Statement by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Tran Dai Quang of 29 June 2017, with Regard to the No First Placement of Weapons of Any Kind in Outer Space, UN Doc. CD/2098, available at: https://undocs.org/cd/2098.
161 Schmitt, Michael N. (ed.), Tallinn Manual on the International Law applicable to Cyber Warfare, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, p. 258CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
162 Deirdre Shesgreen and Bill Theobald, “Alleged North Korean Spy Charged with 2014 Hacking of Sony, Bank Theft, WannaCry Cyberattack”, USA Today, 6 September 2018, available at: www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/06/report-u-s-officials-charge-north-korean-spy-cyberattack-case/1210204002/.
163 Andy Greenberg, “The Untold Story of NotPetya, the Most Devastating Cyberattack in History”, Wired, 22 August 2018, available at: www.wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-russia-code-crashed-the-world/.
164 D. Shesgreen and B. Theobald, above note 162.
165 Convention on Cybercrime, ETS No. 185, 23 November 2001 (entered into force 1 July 2004).
166 Binxin Zhang, “Cyberspace and IHL: The Chinese Approach”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12, p. 337. More generally, see ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and Cyber Operations during Armed Conflict, 28 November 2019, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/international-humanitarian-law-and-cyber-operations-during-armed-conflicts; Diamond, Eitan, “Applying International Humanitarian Law to Cyber Warfare”, Law and National Security: Selected Issues, Vol. 67, No. 128, 2014Google Scholar; articles in the symposium on “Cyber War and International Law”, International Law Studies, Vol. 89, 2013; Aslani, Jabbar, “Study on the Legal Dimensions of the Cyber Attacks from IHL Perspective”, International Studies Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2013–14Google Scholar; Droege, Cordula, “Get Off My Cloud: Cyber Warfare, International Humanitarian Law, and the Protection of Civilians”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 94 No. 886, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
167 B. Zhang, above note 166.
168 Ibid.
169 See “Analytical Guide to the Work of the International Law Commission: Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts”, available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/8_7.shtml.
170 For example, Singapore, UN Doc. A/C.6/70/SR.23, para. 122, expressing concern about phrasing the principles in too absolute terms that went beyond what it considered to be a reflection of customary international law; UN Doc. A/C.6/70/SR.23, para. 121, urging that the ILC should concentrate on analyzing how IHL relates to the environment, cautioning about the implications of addressing human rights as part of the topic, and expressing concerns about including NIACs within the scope of the principles.
171 For example, Palau, UN Doc.A/C.6/70/SR.25, para. 27, offering examples of national and regional practice in the form of legislation, case law, military manuals and cooperation through the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway.
172 For example, Federated States of Micronesia, UN Doc. A/C.6/73/SR.29, para. 147, expressing support for the then draft principle 19 (on the general obligations of an Occupying Power to respect and protect the environment of the occupied territory), and desiring specific reference to be made to the link between the protection of human rights and the protection of the environment.
173 For example, Vietnam, UN Doc. A/C.6/70/SR.25, para. 41m expressing concern about the inclusion of NIACs; UN Doc. A/C.6/70/SR.25, para. 42, stressing the need to address rehabilitation efforts, toxic remnants of war and depleted uranium; UN Doc. A/C.6/70/SR.25, para. 40, suggesting that the draft principles should explore environmental impact assessments for deploying weaponry.
174 For example, Malaysia, UN Doc. A/C.6/73/SR.30, para. 67, stressing that “environmental issues were not limited to the natural environment; they included human rights, sustainability and cultural heritage”; UN Doc. A/C.6/73/SR.30, para. 73, commenting in relation to the then draft principle 20 (on the use of natural resources), expressing support for the requirement to engage in sustainable use of natural resources, and underlining the importance of the principles of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and of self-determination, which provide the general framework for the administration and use of an occupied territory's natural resources by an Occupying Power.
175 For example, Republic of Korea, UN Doc. A/C.6/73/SR.30, para. 29, stressing the importance of ensuring that the ILC's work in this area remains in line with the existing rules of IHL; UN Doc. A/C.6/73/SR.30, para. 31, welcoming the tackling of the protection of the environment in NIACs; UN Doc. A/C.6/69/SR.27, para. 73, emphasizing that the principles should address NIACs.
176 For example, New Zealand, UN Doc. A/C.6/70/SR.25, para. 102, stressing that reparation and compensation for the post-conflict phase should be included, and expressing support for the then draft principle II-4 prohibiting reprisals against the environment.
177 For example, Statement by Malaysia to the Sixth Committee, 69th Session, 5 November 2014, cited in Second Report on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, submitted by Marie G. Jacobsson, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc.A/CN.4/685, 28 May 2015, para. 63.
178 Note verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the Secretariat, 19 February 2015, cited in ibid., paras 54–56.
179 Note verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Federated States of Micronesia to the United Nations Secretariat, 29 January 2016, available at: http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../ilc/sessions/68/pdfs/english/poe_micronesia.pdf&lang=E.
180 Ibid., para. 12.
181 Ibid., para. 11.
182 Ibid., para. 13.
183 See Ben Saul, “Counter-Terrorism Law and Armed Conflict in Asia”, and Isabelle Lassée and Niran Anketell, “Reinterpreting the Law to Justify the Facts: An Analysis of International Humanitarian Law Interpretation in Sri Lanka”, both in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
184 18th Plenary Meeting (Common Articles), in Diplomatic Conference Final Record, above note 73, Vol. 2(B), p. 330.
185 Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 20 November 2007, available at: http://www.aseansec.org/21069.pdf. Also see Tay, Simon S. C., “The ASEAN Charter: Between National Sovereignty and the Region's Constitutional Moment”, Singapore Year Book of International Law, Vol. 12, 2008, p. 151Google Scholar.
186 Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS XVI, 26 June 1945, as amended.
187 UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV), “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, UN Doc. A/RES/2625/XXV, 24 October 1970.
188 For an examination of the region's two most populous countries’ approach to the International Criminal Court, see Linton, Suzannah, “India and China Before, At and After Rome”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.16, No. 2, 2018, pp. 283–286, 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
189 As an illustration, see Statement by Mr David Low, Delegate to the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly, on Agenda Item 78 on the Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Sixty-Eighth Session (Cluster 3: Chapters X, XI and XII of A/71/10), Sixth Committee, 1 November 2016, para. 4.
190 See, for example, UN General Assembly and UN Security Council, 13th Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement: Final Document, UN Doc. A/57/759–S/2003/332, Kuala Lumpur, 18 March 2003, Annex I, para. 124. Written information and comments expressing reservations on the ILC's work on “The Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction” were provided by several regional States: see UN Docs A/C.6/66/SR.12, 13, 17 and 29, and also UN Doc. A/65/181 and UN Doc. A/66/93 with Add.1. The cautious approach can also be seen in the Sixth Committee discussions on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction (64th to 72nd Sessions of the General Assembly): UN Doc. A/C.6/64/SR.12, 25 November 2009 (China, Thailand); UN Doc. A/C.6/65/SR.12, 10 November 2010 (India); UN Doc. A/C.6/65/SR.11, 14 January 2011 (Thailand, Republic of Korea, China, Vietnam); UN Doc. A/C.6/67/SR.12, 6 December 2012 (India); UN Doc. A/C.6/67/SR.13, 24 December 2012 (China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia); UN Doc. A/C.6/69/SR.12, 9 December 2014 (India, Vietnam); UN Doc. A/C.6/71/SR.14, 31 October 2016 (India, China, Vietnam, Bangladesh); UN Doc. A/C.6/71/SR.13, 21 December 2016 (Iran speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, Singapore); UN Doc. A/C.6/72/SR.14, 13 November 2017 (Malaysia, Vietnam); UN Doc. A/C.6/72/SR.13, 6 December 2017 (Iran speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, Singapore, Thailand, Bangladesh, China).
191 See, for example, Statement by Mr Wang Guangya (China), 5,158th Meeting of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.5158, 31 March 2005, p. 5.
192 See, for example, Statement by Mr Nambiar (India), 4,568th Meeting of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4568, 10 July 2002, p. 14; Statement by Mr Vinay Kumar (India), 6,778th Meeting of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.6778, 5 June 2012, pp. 12–13; Statement by Mr Dilip Lahiri (India), UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 16 June 1998, para. 10; Statement by Mr Wang Guangya, above note 191. However, on 26 February 2011, China did not exercise the veto and India voted in favour of UNSC Res. 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the ICC. China also declined to veto the referral of Sudan to the ICC in UNSC Res. 1593 of 31 March 2005.
193 Bellamy, Alex J. and Drummond, Catherine, “The Responsibility to Protect in Southeast Asia: Between Non-Interference and Sovereignty as Responsibility”, Pacific Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Twenty-two States, including India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, are members of the Non-Aligned Movement, which has taken a strong position on sovereignty. The Movement's collective position on the right to protect is succinctly summarized in the European Parliament Factsheet on the Responsibility to Protect, available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/factsheet_resptoprotect_6may/factsheet_resptoprotect_6may05.pdf.
194 During the Rome Statute negotiation, China, India and Pakistan were among those refuting the claim that war crimes can be committed in NIAC. See “Article 8: War Crimes”, in Schabas, William A., The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2016Google Scholar; Dörmann, Knut, “War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, with a Special Focus on the Negotiations on the Elements of Crimes”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 7, 2003Google Scholar, available at: www.mpil.de/files/pdf3/mpunyb_doermann_7.pdf.
195 Kim, Sung Won, “Eastphalia Revisited: The Potential Contribution of Eastphalia to Post-Westphalian Possibilities”, Inha Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2018Google Scholar; Fidler, David P., “Eastphalia Emerging”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 17, 2010Google Scholar; Kim, Sung Won, Fidler, David P. and Ganguly, Sumit, “Eastphalia Rising? Asian Influence and the Fate of Human Security”, World Policy Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
196 See, for example, Villatoro, Daniel et al. , “Self-Policing through Norm Internalization: A Cognitive Solution to the Tragedy of the Digital Commons in Social Networks”, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/2/2.html.
197 Ibid., para. 1.5.
198 Suzannah Linton, “Wartime Military Sexual Enslavement in the Asia-Pacific”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
199 Megumi Ochi and Saori Matsuyama, “Ethnic Conflicts in Myanmar: The Application of the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12.
200 S. Linton, above note 15.
201 I. Lassée and N. Anketell, above note 183.
202 H. Kim, above note 130.
203 S. M. Santos Jr, above note 42; S. M. Candelaria, above note 127.
204 Tim McCormack, “International Humanitarian Law in the Asia-Pacific”, in S. Linton, T. McCormack and S. Sivakumaran (eds), above note 12, p. 2.