No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 November 2021
The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court are two very different entities that simultaneously apply international humanitarian law but do so after their own perspectives. This article proposes a cautious yet critical approach to some of their divergent interpretations (conflict classification, the difference between direct and active participation in hostilities, intra-party sexual and gender-based violence, and the notion of attack) and examines how the broader legal system copes with these points of divergence. The analysis considers the institutional characteristics of these two organizations and the pluralistic nature of international humanitarian law as well as its dynamic rapport with international criminal law in order to highlight the versatility needed to face the challenges posed by contemporary armed conflicts.
This article was written in a personal capacity and does not necessarily reflect the views of the International Criminal Court.
1 “Fragmentation” here refers to “the splitting up of the law into highly specialized ‘boxes’ that claim relative autonomy from each other and from the general law”. International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, 13 April 2006, para. 13, available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf (all internet references were accessed in September 2021).
2 Hall, Christopher Keith, “The First Proposal for a Permanent International Criminal Court”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 38, No. 322, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Charter of the International Military Tribunal: Annex to the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 8 August 1945, Art. 6.
4 Michael Bryant, A World History of War Crimes, Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2016, p. 177.
5 Schabas, William, Unimaginable Atrocities: Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, p. 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 International Military Tribunal, United States v. Von Leeb, in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. 12, 1949, pp. 61–62, 86–92.
7 Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 1: Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC, Geneva, 1952 (ICRC Commentary on GC I), p. 370.
8 See Art. 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions.
9 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 1978) (AP I), Art. 90.
10 Ibid., Art. 85.
11 David Forsythe, The Humanitarians: The International Committee of the Red Cross, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 243.
12 UNSC Res. 827, 25 May 1993, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/166567/files/S_RES_827%281993%29-EN.pdf.
13 UNSC Res. 955, 8 November 1994, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/198038/files/S_RES_955%281994%29-EN.pdf.
14 This requirement was not included in the ICTR Statute.
15 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1. See also Jean-Marie Henckaerts, “Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law: A Contribution to the Understanding and Respect for the Rule of Law in Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 857, 2005.
16 Milena Sterio and Michael P. Scharf (eds), The Legacy of Ad Hoc Tribunals in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019, pp. 59–62.
17 Actually, on the eve of the ICTY's establishment, the ICRC “underline[d] the fact that according to international humanitarian law as it stands today [1993], the notion of war crimes is limited to situations of international armed conflict.” ICRC, “Preliminary Remarks on the Setting-up of an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia”, DDM/JUR/442b, 25 March 1993, para. 4.
18 See M. Sterio and M. P. Scharf (eds), above note 16, p. 313.
19 Ibid., pp. 318–319.
20 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 (entered into force 1 July 2002) (Rome Statute), Art. 21.
21 Ibid., Art. 22.
22 M. Sterio and M. P. Scharf (eds), above note 16, pp. 313–317.
23 Nils Melzer and Etienne Kuster, International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction, ICRC, Geneva, 2019, pp. 31, 295–297.
24 Marco Sassòli, International Humanitarian Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2019, p. 449.
25 Statutes of the International Committee of the Red Cross, 21 December 2017 (entered into force 1 January 2018) (ICRC Statutes), Preamble.
26 Debuf, Els, “Tools to Do the Job: The ICRC's Legal Status, Privileges and Immunities”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 97, No. 897/898, 2016Google Scholar.
27 ICRC, Annual Report: Facts and Figures, Geneva, 2019. This year the ICRC's largest operations were in the Syrian Arab Republic, South Sudan, Iraq, Nigeria, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Somalia and Myanmar.
28 ICRC Statutes, above note 25, Preamble: “The ICRC also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.”
29 Protection activities include restoring family links, forensics and visits to detainees, while assistance activities include economic security, water and habitat, health and physical rehabilitation.
30 ICRC, The ICRC: Its Mission and Work, Geneva, 2009, p. 6.
31 ICC, Understanding the International Criminal Court, The Hague, 2019, p. 3.
32 ICC, “The States Parties to the Rome Statute”, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2b26eybj.
33 ICC, “Facts and Figures”, available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about.
34 ICRC, “International Criminal Court: A Reality at Last”, 2002, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/news-release/2009-and-earlier/59cmvr.htm.
35 See ICTY, Prosecutor v. Simic et al., Decision on the Prosecution Motion under Rule 73 for a Ruling Concerning the Testimony of a Witness (Trial Chamber), 27 July 1999, available at: www.icty.org/x/cases/simic/tdec/en/90727EV59549.htm.
36 In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.
37 Jean Pictet, Le droit humanitaire et la protection des victimes de la guerre, Sijthoff, Leiden, 1973, p. 81.
38 See, for example, Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ICRC, Geneva, 2003.
39 See Carsten Stahn, “Between Constructive Engagement, Collusion and Critical Distance: The ICRC and the Development of International Criminal Law”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2016.
40 Every section of Article 8 of the Elements of Crimes requires that the conduct must have taken place in the context of, and was associated with, an armed conflict.
41 See ICRC, Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention: Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2020 (ICRC Commentary on GC III), paras 418–536.
42 “[A]n armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.” ICTY, Prosecutor v Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (Appeals Chamber), 2 October 1995, para. 70, available at: www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acdec/en/51002.htm.
43 See William Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, pp. 233–234.
44 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj et al., Judgment (Trial Chamber), 3 April 2008, para. 49, available at: www.icty.org/x/cases/haradinaj/tjug/en/080403.pdf.
45 See Vité, Silvain, “Typology of Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law: Legal Concepts and Actual Situations”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 91, No. 873, 2009, pp. 80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis, Dustin A., “The Notion of ‘Protracted Armed Conflict’ in the Rome Statute and the Termination of Armed Conflicts under International Law: An Analysis of Select Issues”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 101, No. 912, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 41, para. 478.
46 ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (Pre-Trial Chamber I), 4 March 2009, para. 60, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/e26cf4/pdf/; ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (Pre-Trial Chamber I), 29 January 2007, para. 233, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/b7ac4f/pdf/.
47 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 41, paras 456–471.
48 ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute (Pre-Trial Chamber II), 15 June 2009, para. 235, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/07965c/pdf/.
49 See ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Trial Chamber I), 14 March 2012, para. 536, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/677866/pdf/; ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Trial Chamber II), 7 March 2014, para. 1158, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/f74b4f/pdf/.
50 ICC, Katanga, above note 49, para. 1218.
51 ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Trial Chamber III), 21 March 2016, para. 149, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/edb0cf/pdf/.
52 Ibid., para. 140.
53 Ibid., para. 663.
54 ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, Geneva, 2009 (Interpretive Guidance), available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf. In producing the Interpretive Guidance, the ICRC did not endeavour to change binding rules of customary or treaty IHL, but to reflect its institutional position as to how existing IHL should be interpreted.
55 Art. 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions.
56 AP I, Arts 43(2), 51(3), 67(1)(e); Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP II), Art. 13(3).
57 Interpretive Guidance, above note 54, p. 43.
58 “[I]t may appear that the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) implied a distinction between the terms ‘active’ and ‘direct’ in the context of the recruitment of children when it explained that: ‘The words “using” and “participate” have been adopted in order to cover both direct participation in combat and also active participation in military activities linked to combat’. Strictly speaking, however, the Committee made a distinction between ‘combat’ and ‘military activities linked to combat’, not between ‘active’ and ‘direct’ participation.” Ibid., fn. 84.
59 Ibid., pp. 46–64.
60 ICC, Lubanga, above note 46, para. 261.
61 Ibid., para. 263.
62 ICC, Lubanga, above note 49, para. 585.
63 Ibid., para. 627.
64 Ibid., para. 628. See also ICC, Katanga, above note 49, paras 1040–1046.
65 ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. 01/04-01/06 A 5, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Against His Conviction (Appeals Chamber), 1 December 2014, para. 324, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/585c75/pdf/.
66 Ibid., para. 340.
67 ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Judgment (Trial Chamber VI), 8 July 2019, paras 1108–1109, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/80578a/pdf; ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/15, Judgment (Trial Chamber IX), 4 February 2021, para. 2770, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/kv27ul/pdf.
68 “Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.” 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 1950) (GC IV), Art. 27.
69 “Women shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected in particular against rape, forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault.” AP I, Art. 76(1).
70 AP II, Art. 4(2)(e).
71 ICRC, Aide-Memoire, Geneva, 1992.
72 See ICTY, Prosecutor v Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 7 May 1997, available at: www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/tjug/en/tad-tsj70507JT2-e.pdfv.
73 Rome Statute, Arts 8(2)(b)(xvii), 8(2)(e)(vi). Notably, in 1997 the ICRC proposed that the war crimes of rape and enforced prostitution, as serious violations of IHL applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts, be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. ICRC, Working Paper on War Crimes Submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997.
74 See 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), Art. 50; 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), Art. 51; Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Art. 150; GC IV, Art. 147; AP I, Arts 11, 85.
75 See ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 15, Rule 156.
76 When interpreting Article 4 of GC IV, the ICTY relied on allegiance and diplomatic protection rather than nationality, making it possible for victim and perpetrator to have the same nationality. ICTY, Tadić, above note 42, paras 168–169.
77 Eve La Haye, War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, p. 119.
78 Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., Case No. SCSL-04-15, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 2 March 2009, paras 1451–1457.
79 Antonio Cassese and Paola Gaeta, Cassese's International Criminal Law, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013, p. 523.
80 Longobardo, Marco, “The Criminalisation of Intra-Party Offences in Light of Some Recent ICC Decisions on Children in Armed Conflict”, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2019, p. 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
81 ICRC Commentary on GC I, above note 7, p. 55.
82 ICC, Lubanga, above note 49, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Odio Benito, para. 19 (emphasis added).
83 ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute (Pre-Trial Chamber II), 9 June 2014, paras 76–80, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/5686c6/.
84 M. Longobardo, above note 80, pp. 622–623.
85 ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Decision on the Defence's Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court in Respect of Counts 6 and 9 (Trial Chamber VI), 9 October 2015, para. 25, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/9eb4ec/pdf.
86 ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Second Decision on the Defence's Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court in Respect of Counts 6 and 9 (Trial Chamber VI), 4 January 2017, para. 40, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/2de239/pdf.
87 Ibid., paras 47–48.
88 Ibid., para. 49.
89 Ibid., para. 51.
90 Ibid., para. 54.
91 ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06 OA5, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Ntaganda Against the “Second Decision on the Defence's Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court in Respect of Counts 6 and 9” (Appeals Chamber), 15 June 2017, para. 48, available at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a3ec20/pdf.
92 Ibid., para. 63.
93 ICC, Ntaganda, above note 67, para. 1199.
94 See ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06 A A2, Judgment on the Appeals of Mr Bosco Ntaganda and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber VI of 8 July 2019 Entitled “Judgment” (Appeals Chamber), 30 March 2021, available at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/zy5pmd/pdf.
95 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, 2016, paras 547–549.
96 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 41, paras 581–583.
97 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, para. 1879.
98 Ibid., para. 1880.
99 ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15, Judgment and Sentence (Trial Chamber VIII), 27 September 2016, para. 15, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/042397/pdf.
100 ICC, Ntaganda, above note 67, para. 916.
101 See ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Separate Opinion of Judge Howard Morrison and Judge Piotr Hofmański on the Prosecutor's Appeal, 30 March 2021, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/jkrk4e/pdf.
102 See ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Separate Opinion of Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa on the Prosecutor's Appeal, 30 March 2021, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/59vx1f/.
103 See ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Partly Concurring Opinion of Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji, 30 March 2021, available at: www.legal-tools.org/doc/eqtq7g/.
104 See ICC, Ntaganda, above note 94, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ibáñez Carranza, paras 1165–1168.
105 See Peters, Anne, “The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2017, p. 676CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
106 ICC, Ntaganda, above note 91, para. 53 (emphasis added).
107 A. Peters, above note 105, p. 681.