Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:50:48.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The year in review1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Avril McDonald
Get access

Extract

With the attacks of 11 September 2001 very much casting their shadow, 2002 was a year in which issues concerning both the jus in bello and the jus ad bellum occupied centre stage in international law and relations and dominated the news agenda, but often in a way that promoted confusion and misinformation rather than greater understanding of the law, and, as the year progressed, frustration and despair rather than optimism.

Transnational terrorism was cemented as the declared pre-eminent security concern of many states, and, as a consequence, full speed into the ‘global war on terror’ (hereinafter GWOT), the integrity of international humanitarian law, human rights law and international law in general, including the role of international organisations such as the United Nations, came under increasing challenge. Focal points of rancorous, polarised debate were the fact and the conditions of detention of persons, including minors, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; the applicability and relevance of international humanitarian law in the context of the terrorist threat and the counter-terrorist response; the perceived conflict between human rights and national security; the coming into being of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the US's almost obsessive opposition to it; and, as the year drew to a close, the spectre of the use of force against Iraq without Security Council authorisation by an increasingly belligerent United States and a handful of its allies.

Type
Current Developments
Information
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law , Volume 5 , December 2002 , pp. 255 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 2002

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

3. See ‘Official: Youths Held at Guantánamo Bay’, AP (23 April 2003); ‘Teens held in Guantánamo’, BBC News Online (23 April 2003). <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2970279.stm>.

4. Later renamed Camp Delta.

5. For details of these cases, see the USA report in Correspondents’ Reports in this volume at pp. 626–636.

6. See the Abbasi case in the UK report in Correspondents’ Reports in this volume at pp. 604–606.

7. See ‘Suspected international terrorists detained in the United Kingdom: new visit by the Council of Europe's Anti-Torture Committee’, Council of Europe, 24 March 2004. <http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/gbr/2004-03-24-eng.htm>. See also <http://www.fairtrials.org.uk/.>

8. See, inter alia, Dershowitz, A.M., Why Terrorism Works — Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (New Haven CO, Yale University Press 2002)Google Scholar; Dershowitz, A.M, ‘Commentary’, LA Times (8 11 2001)Google Scholar; ‘Dershowitz: Torture could be justified’, http://CNN.com, 3 March 2003.

9. Dershowitz, A.M., ‘Want to torture? Get a warrant’, Francisco Chronicle (22 01 2002)Google Scholar.

10. With the leaking in 2004 of several so-called ‘torture memoranda’ prepared for the Bush administration in 2002, namely, Memorandum by John C. Woo, US Justice Department, 9 January 2002; Memorandum from Alberto R. Gonzales to President Busy, 25 January 2002; Memorandum from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to the White House, 26 January 2002; Memorandum from William H. Taft to Alberto R. Gonzales, 2 February 2002; Directive by Mr Bush on Treatment of Detainees, 7 February 2002; and, most notoriously, Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340–2340A, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, 1 August 2002. For commentary see Lewis, A., ‘Making Torture Legal’, 51 The New York Review of Books (15 07 2004)Google Scholar <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17230>.

11. Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340–2340A, US Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, 1 August 2002.

12. Who has since been appointed judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

13. Supra n. 11.

14. Ibid., at p. 1.

15. Art. 1 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states: ‘1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.’ But see on this point, infra at p. 285, The decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Kunarac.

16. Elements of Crimes, Art. 8(2)(a)(II) — I, War Crime of Torture. Elements, para. 2. Cassese, A., Gaeta, P. and Jones, J.R.W.D., eds., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary — Materials (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2002) p. 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. General Assembly Resolution 3452 (XXX), UN. Doc. A/10034 (1975), adopted by consensus on 9 December 1975, Art. 1(2).

18. Art. 3.

19. Art. 7(1) ICC Statute prohibits as a crime against humanity (f) torture and (k) other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical harm. Paragraph 2(e) explains that ‘“Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.’

Art. 8 prohibits as a war crime in both an international or a non-international armed conflict torture or cruel and inhumane treatment including biological experiments (Art. 8(2)(a)(ii) and 8(2)(e)(i) and (ii)) and committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment (Art. 8(2)(b)(xxi)).

20. Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić, Zdravko Mucić, Hazim Delić and Esad Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 November 1998, para. 498.

21. Ibid., para. 516.

22. Ibid., para. 551.

23. Ibid., para. 552.

24. Dworkin, A. and Rieff, D., ‘International law since September 11: Introduction’, Crimes of War online magazineGoogle Scholar, <http://www.crimesofwar.org/sept-mag/sept-intro.html>.

25. See inter alia, Ratner, S.R., ‘Jus ad bellum and jus in bello after September 11’, 96 AJIL (2002) p. 905CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roberts, A., ‘Counter-terrorism, Armed Force and the Laws of War’, 44 Survival (2002) p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gasser, H.-P., ‘Acts of terror, “terrorism” and international humanitarian law’, IRRC No. 847 (2002) p. 547Google Scholar; MacPherson, B., ‘Authority of the Security Council to Exempt Peacekeepers from International Criminal Court Proceedings’, American Association of International Law (07 2002)Google Scholar <http:///www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/crisis/200207asil.htm>. A comprehensive list and texts of documents on the issues are available at <http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/crisisindex.htm>.

26. ‘ICRC rejects talk of Geneva Conventions review’, Reuters (21 March 2004).

27. Schmitt, M., ‘Rethinking the Geneva Conventions’, Crimes of War online magazine (30 01 2003)Google Scholar, <http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/genevaConventions/gc-schmitt.html>.

28. Art. 16 provides that ‘No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; this request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.’

29. The range of opposition by states to the resolution is set out in El Zeidy, M., ‘The United States Dropped the Atomic Bomb of Article 16 of the ICC Statute: Security Council Power of Deferrals and Resolution 1422’, 35 Vanderbilt JTL (2002) pp. 1503 at 1518–1524Google Scholar. See <http://www.iccnow.org/documents/otherissues1422.html> <http://www.iccnow.org/documents/otherissues1422.html> for a comprehensive list and full texts of states’ statements on resolution 1422, and <http://www.iccnow.org/documents/otherissues/1422/countrychart20020703.pdf> for a chart detailing the positions of governments.

30. On 25 September, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted resolution 1344 which called attention to the risk to the integrity of the ICC, inter alia, from the ‘link made by some countries between the jurisdiction of the Court and the renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandates for peacekeeping operations [which] could put at risk the whole system of United Nations peacekeeping’. <http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta02%2FERES1300.htm>. On 19 September, the European Parliament adopted a resolution which expressed its regret concerning the adoption of SC resolution 1422. <http://www.iccnow.org/documents/declarationsresolutions/intergovbodies/EP%20Resolution_19-Sept02.pdf>.

31. On 3 July, UN SG Kofi Annan wrote in a letter to US Secretary of State, Colin Powell that ‘the method suggested in the proposal … flies in the face of treaty law since it would force States that ratified the Rome Statute to accept a resolution that literally amends the treaty’. <http://www.iccnow.org/documents/otherissues/1422/SGlettertoSC3July2002.pdf>.

32. See Lattanzi, F., ‘La Corte penale intemazionale: una sfida per le guirisdizioni degli stati’, III Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo (2002) pp. 1365 at 1372–1374Google Scholar;

33. Hanging over the SC debate on resolution 1422 was US veto on 30 June 2002 of the extension of the expiring mandate for the United Nation Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina See <http://www.amicc.org/docs/peacekeeping.pdf. See also Human Rights Watch, ‘The ICC and the Security Council: Resolution 1422: Legal and Policy Analysis’Google Scholar, <http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/docs/14221egal.htm>.

34. See Ambos, K., ‘International criminal law has lost its innocence’, German LJ (1 10 2002)Google Scholar <http://www.germanlawjournal.com>.

35. See Stahn, C., ‘The ambiguities of Security Council Resolution 1422’, 1 EJIL (2003) pp. 85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. See in this volume, Correspondents' Reports, p. 622.

37. See infra at pp. 297–299.

38. See further infra at p. 297.

39. Wiharta, S. and Anthony, I., ‘Major armed conflicts’, Chapter 2 of SIPRI Yearbook 2003 (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2003)Google Scholar.

40. S/2002/1300, 26 November 2002. Issued pursuant to the request of the President of the Security Council dated 21 June 2001 (S/2001/614). For a discussion of the first and second reports of the Secretary-General, see 2 YIHL (1999) at pp. 214–216Google Scholar and 4 YIHL (2001) at pp. 131–132Google Scholar.

41. S/PRST/2002/6.

42. Ibid., at para. 4.

43. Ibid., at para. 15.

44. Ibid., at para. 25.

45. Ibid., at para. 30.

46. Ibid., at paras. 33 and 34.

47. Ibid., at para. 40.

48. Ibid., at para. 51.

49. Ibid., at para. 53.

50. S/2002/1154 of 16 October 2002, para. 1.

51. S/2002/1154 of 16 October 2002.

52. Ibid., at para. 6.

53. Ibid., at para. 23.

54. Ibid., at para. 24.

55. Ibid., at para. 25, Action 4.

56. Ibid., at para. 452.

57. Ibid., at para. 68.

58. See further the Year in Review in 4 YIHL (2001) at pp. 263–264Google Scholar.

59. <http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/>.

60. Report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict, S/2002/1299, 26 November 2002.

61. S/2002/1053.

62. S/PRST/2001/21.

63. Ibid., para. 3.

64. Ibid., para. 4.

65. Adopted by the UN General Assembly, A/RES/54/109, 25 February 2000. <http://www.undcp.org/resolution_2000-02-25_l.html.

66. For commentary on the law, see Bantekas, I., ‘The International Law of Terrorist Financing’, 97 AJIL (2002) p. 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67. See ‘Completion of two further conventions against terrorism is urged in General Assembly's Legal Committee: delegates note ongoing efforts of bodies within mandated task’, UN GA Press Release GA/L/3211,4 October 2002. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/gal3211.doc.htm>.

68. A/57/273-S/2002/875, 6 August 2002.

69. See summary and para. 9.

70. Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism. AG/Res. 1840 (XXXII-O/02). Adopted at the second plenary session held on 3 June 2002. <http://www.oas.org/xxxiiga/english/docs_items/AGres1840_02.htm>.

71. Art. 22.

72. <http://www.cicte.oas.org/history.htm>. See also US Dept. of State. ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002’. Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, 30 April 2003. Western Hemisphere Overview. <http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19987.htm>.

73. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., 22 October 2002. The report can be accessed online at <http://www.cidh.org/terrorism/eng/>.

74. Ibid., at para. 4.

75. Ibid., at para. 3.

76. Ibid., at para. 29.

77. 2002/475/JHA. The text of the Decision is available online at <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/1_164/1_16420020622en00030007.pdf> or <http://www.sisde.it/sito/Rivista24.nsf/ServNavig/20.

78. See Amnesty International Press Release. ‘UN: UN Adopts Protocol to Prevent Torture’, AI Index: IOR 40/042/2002 (Public) News Service No: 237, 18 December 2002.

79. For internationalised tribunals, see under the relevant country in the Correspondents' Reports.

80. See further the FRY report in Correspondents' Reports in this volume at pp. 509–510.

81. ‘Judge Claude Jorda, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, reports the continued non-cooperation by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Security Council’, The Hague, 23 October 2002, JDH/P.I.S./706-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p706-e.htm>.

82. ‘Address by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Mrs. Carla Del Ponte, to the United Nations Security Council’, The Hague, 30 October 2002, JJJ/P.I.S./709-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p709-e.htm>.

83. ‘Yugoslavia asked to work with UN war crimes court’, AP (19 12 2002)Google Scholar.

84. ‘ICTY Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte addresses once again “the unsatisfactory co-operation” of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the Office of the Prosecutor’, The Hague, 20 December 2002, FH/P.I.S./721-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p721-e.htm>.

85. Ilic, M. and Walker, T., ‘War criminals' families demand cash kickbacks’, The Sunday Times (London) (14 04 2002)Google Scholar.

86. See Chhatbar, S., ‘ICTR and ICTY pledge to end fee splitting’, Internews (13 03 2002)Google Scholar.

87. <http://www.un.org/Depts/oios/reports/a56_836.pdf>.

88. <http://www.un.org/Depts/oios/reports/a55_759.pdf>.

89. In February, the ICTR announced that it had discharged one defence lawyer, Mr Andrew McCartan (UK), for financial irregularities. See ‘Defence lawyer removed for financial dishonesty’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-299.EN, Arusha, 6 February 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/299.htm>.

90. ‘Legal aid to accused Zoran Zigic withdrawn following the completion of a financial investigation by the Registry’, The Hague, 8 July 2002, CC/P.I.S./686-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p686-e.htm>.

91. See ‘Address by his Excellency, Judge Claude Jorda’, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to the United Nations General Assembly’, The Hague, 29 October 2002, JdH/P.I.S./707-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p707-e.htm>.

92. ‘Extraordinary plenary session of Tuesday 23 April 2002’, The Hague, 24 April 2002, JdH/P.I.S./671 e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p671-e.htm>.

93. Ibid.

94. ‘Visit of the President and Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to Bosnia and Herzegovina’, The Hague, 24 April 2002, JdH/P.I.S./68-le. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p681-e.htm>.

95. ‘Address by His Excellency, Judge Claude Jorda, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to the United Nations Security Council’, The Hague, 26 July 2002, JDH/P.I.S./690-ee. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p690-e.htm>.

96. S/PRST/2002/21 of 23 July 2002.

97. ‘Extraordinary plenary session of 30 September 2002’, The Hague, 1 October 2002, JdH/P.I.S./ 696e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p696-e.htm>.

98. See ‘Address by his Excellency, Judge Claude Jorda, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to the United Nations General Assembly’, The Hague, 29 October 2002, JdH/P.I.S./707-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p707-e.htm>.

99. ‘Address by his Excellency, Judge Claude Jorda’, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to the United Nations Security Council’, The Hague, 30 October 2002, JdH/P.I.S./708-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p708-e.htm>.

100. ‘27th Plenary of the ICTY Judges’, The Hague, 13 December 2002, JdH/P.I.S./718e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p718-e.htm>.

101. ‘Extraordinary plenary session of Tuesday 23 April 2002’, The Hague, 24 April 2002, JdH/P. I.S./671e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p671-e.htm>.

102. ‘Judges’ plenary session adopts reforms concerning defence counsel teams’, The Hague, 19 July 2002, CC/P.I.S./688e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/ADV020205.htm>.

103. <http://www.adcicty.com>.

104. ‘Association of Defence Counsel formally recognised by the ICTY’, The Hague, 19 December 2002, JA/P.I.S./720e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p720-e.htm>.

105. ‘Voluntary surrender of Dusan Fustar to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The Hague, 31 July 2002, CVO/P.I.S./656e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p656-e.htm>; ‘Initial appearance of Dusan Fustar to take place on Wednesday 6 February 2002. The Hague, 5 February 2002, JL/P.I.S./PA042. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p688-e.htm>.

106. ‘Arrest and transfer of Momir Nikolic’, The Hague, 2 April 2002, RC/P.I.S./664. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p664-e.htm>.

107. ‘Initial appearance of Dragoljub to take place on Friday 26 April 2002’, The Hague, 25 April 2002, JL/P.I.S./PA049. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/PA049e.htm>.

108. ‘Transfer of Dragoljub Ojdanic to The Hague’, The Hague, 31 July 2002, JL/P.I.S./672e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p672-e.htm>.

109. ‘Nikola Sainovic and Momcilo Gruban transferred to The Hague’, The Hague, 2 May 2002, JL/P.I.S./673e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p673-e.htm>.

110. ‘Milan Martic and Mile Mrksic transferred to The Hague’, The Hague, 15 May 2002, CC/P.I. S./675e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/675.htm>.

111. ‘Initial appearance of Mile Mrksic to take place on Thursday 16 May 2002’, The Hague, 15 May 2002, CC/P.I.S./PA052. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/ADV020516.htm>.

112. ‘Dusan Knezevic transferred to The Hague’, The Hague, 19 May 2002, JL/P.I.S./676e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/676-e.htm>.

113. ‘Arrest and transfer of Darko Mrdja’, The Hague, 14 June 2002, CVO/P.I.S./680e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/680-e.htm>.

114. ‘Ranko Cesic transferred to The Hague’, The Hague, 17 June 2002, CC/P.I.S./682e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/682-e.htm>.

115. ‘Transfer of Miroslav Deronjic’, The Hague, 8 June 2002, CC/P.I.S./685e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/685-e.htm>.

116. ‘Transfer of Radovan Stankovic’, The Hague, 10 July 2002, CC/P.I.S./687e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/687-e.htm>.

117. Internal Affairs Special Police.

118. ‘Ljubomir Borovcanin: indictment unsealed for his alleged participation in crimes committed after the take-over of the Srebrenica enclave’, The Hague, 30 September 2002, CC/P.I.S./695e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/695-e.htm>.

119. ‘Indictment against General Janko Bobetko unsealed’, The Hague, 20 September 2002, CVO/P.I.S./PA062. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/ADV020920e.htm>.

120. Croatia filed two applications with the Tribunal challenging Bobetko's indictment and the request for his arrest: Application of the Republic of Croatia to Submit an Interlocutory Appeal Against the Warrant of Arrest and Order of Surrender of 20 September 2002, filed on 30 September; and, Request from the Republic of Croatia for a Review of the Judge's Decision of 17 September Confirming the Indictment Against Janko Bobetko and the Order for his Arrest and Surrender of 20 September, filed on 4 October.

121. ‘Appeals Chamber rejects applications made by Croatia in the Prosecutor v. Janko Bobetko case’, The Hague, 29 November 2002, JL/P.I.S./714e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p714-e.htm>.

122. ‘Nenad Banovic released from ICTY custody following an order by Trial Chamber III withdrawing his indictment’, The Hague, 11 April 2002, JL/P.I.S./667e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/667-e.htm>.

123. Ibid.

124. ‘Indictment against Milan Zee withdrawn’, The Hague, 29 July 2002, JL/P.I.S./691e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p691-e.htm>.

125. ‘Indictment against Zoran Marinic withdrawn’, The Hague, 4 October 2002, JL/P.I.S./695e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p695-e.htm>.

126. ‘Provisional release granted to Rahim Ademi and Miodrag Jokic’, The Hague, 20 February 2002, CVO/P.I.S./661-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p661-e.htm>.

127. ‘Dragan Jokic granted provisional release’, The Hague, 28 May 2002, JL/P.I.S./677-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p677-e.htm>.

128. ‘Momcilo Gruban on provisional release’, The Hague, 20 July 2002, CC/P.I.S/689-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p689-e.htm>.

129. ‘Dragoljub Ojdanic and Nikola Sainovic granted provisional release pending appeal by the prosecution’, The Hague, 27 June 2002, JL/P.I.S./683e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p683-e.htm>.

130. ‘The President of the ICTY orders release of Milojica Kos’, The Hague, 31 July 2002, RC/P.I.S./692e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p692-e.htm>.

131. ‘Momir Talic granted provisional release’, The Hague, 20 September 2002, JL/P.I.S./694e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p694-e.htm>.

132. ‘Milorad Krnojelac granted a five-day provisional release for family reasons’, The Hague, 13 December 2002, CC/P.I.S./717-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p717-e.htm>.

133. ‘Drago Josipovic transferred to Spain to serve prison sentence’, The Hague, 9 April 2002, JL/ P.I.S./665e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p665-e.htm>.

134. ‘Vladimor Santic transferred to Spain his serve the remainder of his prison sentence’, The Hague, 12 April 2002, JL/P.I.S./669e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p669-e.htm>.

135. ‘Dusko Sikirica and Damir Dosen transferred to Austria to serve prison sentence’, The Hague, 10 May 2002, CVO/P.I.S./674e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p674-e.htm>.

136. ‘Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic transferred to Norway to serve prison sentences’, The Hague, 28 November 2002, CVO/P.I.S./712e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p712-e.htm>.

137. ‘Dragoljub Kunarac transferred to Germany to serve prison sentence’, The Hague, 12 December 2002, JP/P.I.S./716e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p716-e.htm>.

138. ‘Milosevic case: the Appeals Chamber grants the prosecution's appeal for joinder’, The Hague, 1 February 2002, XT/P.I.S./657-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p657-e.htm>.

139. ‘Milomir Stakic trial to begin on Tuesday 16 April 2002’, The Hague, 1 February 2002, JL/P.I.S./670e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p670-e.htm>.

140. Case No. IT-99-36-PT.

141. ‘The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin & Momir Talic “Randal Case” — Appeals Chamber defines a legal test for the issuance of subpoenas for war correspondents to testify at the Tribunal — Subpoena to Jonathan Randal set aside’, The Hague, 11 December 2002, JL/P.I.S./715-e. <http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p715-e.htm>.

142. See ‘Top Serb changes plea to guilty’, The Guardian (2 10 2002)Google Scholar.

143. Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. 1T-97-25, Judgement, 15 March 2002, para. 107.

144. Ibid., at para. 58.

145. Ibid., at para. 59.

146. Case No. IT-98-33, Judgement, 2 August 2001.

147. Case No. IT-98-30/1, Judgement, 2 November 2001.

148. ‘In Prosecutor v. Krstic, a distinction was drawn between an accomplice (as a secondary form of participation) and a co-perpetrator (as a direct and principal form of participation, but falling short of that of the principal offender).’ At para. 76.

149. Ibid., at para. 77.

150. Prosecutor v. Dragolub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vuković (Foča), Case Nos. IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1, Appeals Judgement, 12 June 2002, para. 145.

151. Ibid., at para. 147.

152. Ibid., at para. 148.

153. Ibid., at para. 150. See also para. 151.

154. Ibid., at para. 153.

155. Prosecutor v. Milan Simić, Sentencing Judgement, 17 October 2002, para. 12.

156. Ibid., at para. 116.

157. Prosecutor v. Milan Simić, Sentencing Judgement, 17 October 2002, para. 101.

158. Ibid., at para. 116.

159. Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljević, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Judgement, 29 November 2002, at para. 95.

160. See at paras. 130, 143, 166.

161. Ibid., at para. 130.

162. Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljević, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Judgement, 29 November 2002, para. 203.

163. ‘Tribunal proposes joint committee with government of Rwanda to verify allegations of mistreatment of witnesses from Rwanda’, ICTR/INFO-9-3-08.EN, Arusha, 13 March 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/9–3-08.htm.

164. ‘The Registrar decides to withdraw his proposal to establish a joint commission to investigate allegations of mistreatment of witnesses from Rwanda’, ICTR/TNFO-9-3-10.EN, Arusha, 17 April 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/9-3-10.htm>.

165. ‘Statement by the Registrar on the response of the government of Rwanda to the proposal to establish a Joint Commission to investigate the allegations of mistreatment of witnesses coming from Rwanda’, ICTR/INFO-9-3-09.EN, Arusha, 28 March 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESS-REL/2002/9/3-09.htm>.

166. I. Arieff, ‘Annan wants new Prosecutor for Rwanda Tribunal’, Reuters, 29 July 2002.

167. ‘ICTR President welcomes ad litem judges resolution’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-312.EN, Arusha, 15 August 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/312.htm>.

168. ‘ICTR President calls for compensation for victims’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-326.EN, Arusha, 31 October 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/326e.htm>.

169. ‘Catholic priest surrenders to the Tribunal’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-300.EN, Arusha, 7 February 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

‘Father Seromba pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-301.EN, Arusha, 8 February 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

170. ‘Vincent Rutaganira transferred to Arusha’, ICTR/TNFO-9-2-304.EN, Arusha, 4 March 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>; ‘Vincent Rutaganira pleads not guilty’, ICTR/ INFO-9-2-309.EN, Arusha, 26 March 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

171. ‘Nzabirinda pleads not guilty to four counts’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-310.EN, Arusha, 27 March 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLlSH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

172. ‘Bikindi the musician transferred to Arusha’, ICTR/TNFO-9-2-311.EN, Arusha, 28 March 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>; ‘Bikindi the musician pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-313.EN, Arusha, 4 April 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002A/>

173. ‘Former priest arrested in Cameroon; Nzabirinda alias “Biroto” transferred to Arusha’. ICTR/INFO-9-2-308.EN, Arusha, 21 March 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

174. ‘Priest Nsengimana transferred to Arusha’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-314.EN, Arusha, 10 August 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

‘Father Nsengimana pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-315.EN, Arusha, 16 April 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002>.

175. ‘Colonel Leonidas Rusatira arrested in Belgium’, ICTR/TNFO-9-2-316.EN, Arusha, 15 May 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

176. Kimani, M., ‘ICTR drops charges against genocide suspect Leonidas Rusatira,’ InternewsGoogle Scholar. <http://www.internews.org/activities/ictr_reports/ICTRnewsAug02.html>.

177. ‘Augustin Bizimungu transferred to Arusha’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-320.EN, Arusha, 15 August 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

178. ‘Former army chief of staff pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-321.EN, Arusha, 21 August 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

179. ‘Jean-Baptise Gatete transferred to Arusha’, ICTR/1NFO-9-2-322.EN, Arusha, 16 September 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

180. ‘Gatete pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-324.EN, Arusha, 20 September 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/>.

181. ‘First ICTR genocide suspect arrested in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-325.EN, Arusha, 30 September 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/325e.htm>; ‘Col. Renzaho pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO/-9-2-328.EN. Arusha, 21 November 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/328e.htm>.

182. For background on the trial and the accused see ‘Military Trial — The Prosecutor vs Theoneste Bagasora, Anatole Nsengiyumva, Aloys Ntabakuze and Gratien Kabiligi’, Arusha, 15 March 2002.

<http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/bgmilitary.htm>.

183. ‘Military trial opens’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-312.EN, Arusha, 2 April 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/312e.htm>

184. ‘Trial of former Minister of Information starts’, ICTR/INFO-9-2-317.EN, Arusha, 17 June 2002. <http://www.ictr/org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2002/317e.htm>.

185. See Year in Review, 4 YIHL (2001) pp. 298–299Google Scholar.

186. ‘Use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons: current international law and policy statements’, Informal information note to Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies about the ICRC position, <http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList512/0258785B15B3C484C1256CEE00>.

187. <http://www.ihffc.org/>.

188. The following does not mention every SC resolution but only those of particular interest to this readership, and merely highlights the most salient aspects of these resolutions.

189. S/2002/914. <http://www.iss.co.za/AF/profiles/DRCongo/ptaagmt0702.htm>.

190. <http://www.usip.org/library/pa/drc_uganda/drc_uganda_09062002.html>.

191. <http://www.un.org/NewLinks/eebcarbitration/EEBC-Decision.pdfi>.

192. S/2002/515.

193. ‘UN SC Resolution 1397: Constructive Contribution?’, <http://www.nuerdetnok.dk/artikler/>.

194. UN backs Palestinian state’, BBC Online News Report (13 March 2002).

195. See <http://www.kimberleyprocess.com:8080/>.

196. S/2002/987 of 5 September 2002.

197. S/2002/178.

198. See the article by H.-P. Gasser in this volume at p 379.

199. ‘Legal Committee is told observance of humanitarian law critical’, UN General Assembly Press Release GA/L/3208, 2 October 2002.

200. For more detailed commentary see Crook, J., ‘The 2002 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice’, 97 AJIL (2003) p. 352CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

201. ‘Yugoslavia fights genocide case’, BBC World (4 November 2002).

202. ‘Nato creates rapid response force’, BBC Online News Report (21 November 2002).

203. See Wielaard, R., ‘In nod to Bush administration, EU agrees to keep Americans out of war crimes court’, AP (30 09 2002)Google Scholar.

204. See for e.g., ‘EU Slams U.S. Threat to World War Crimes Court’, Reuters (18 June 2002).

205. See the USA report in Correspondents' Reports at pp. 622–624 of this volume.

206. See Wielaard, R., ‘EU legal experts say nations have no right to exempt U.S. military from war crimes trials’, AP (29 08 2002)Google Scholar.

207. Ibid.

208. Milosevic v. the Netherlands, 22 March 2002. Reprinted in 41 ILM (2002) p. 801Google ScholarPubMed. See European Court of Human Rights 171, 27 March 2002. Press release issued by the Registrar.

209. See Keijzer, N., in Correspondents' Reports, 4 YIHL (2001) pp. 593–594Google Scholar.

210. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR): Decision on Request for Precautionary Measures (Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba). Reprinted in 41 ILM (2002) at p. 532Google ScholarPubMed. See also <http://www.humanrightsnow.org/oasconventiononguantanamodetainees.htm>.

211. See Response of US to Request for Precautionary Measures—Detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, IACHR 11 April 2002; American Society of International Law, International Law in Brief (4 06 2002)Google Scholar.

212. Additional Response of US to Request for Precautionary Measures, Detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, IACHR 15 July 2002.

213. IACHR Request to US, Detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, IACHR 23 July 2002.

214. For more details and a discussion see Weissbrodt, D., Fitzpatrick, J. and Newman, F., eds., International Human Rights — Law, Policy and Process, 3rd edn. (Cincinnati OH, Anderson 2001)Google Scholar. Supplement to Chapter 11: The Inter-American System and the Interpretation and Application of Human Rights Instruments (November 2003). <http://wwwl.umn.edu/humanrts/intlhr/chapter11.html>.

215. <http://www.africa-union.org/rule_prot/PROTOCOL-%20PEACE%20AND%20SECURJTY%20COUNCIL%20OF%20THE%20AFRICAN%20UNION.pdf>.

216. The text of the Treaty can be found at <http://fas.org/nuke/control/sort/sort.htm>.

217. The text of the START treaty can be found at <http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/re-sources/start1text.htm>.

218. For an elaboration and detailed analysis of the terms of SORT see Briefing Book on the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty or Treaty of Moscow (Washington DC, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation 2002)Google Scholar.

219. The text of the Joint Declaration on the New Strategic Relationship is at <http://fas.org/nuke/control/sort/joint-decl.html>. See also ‘President Bush, Russian President Putin sign nuclear arms treaty’, Remarks by President Bush and President Putin at signing of Joint Declaration and press availability, The Kremlin, Moscow, Russia, 24 May 2002. <http://fas.org/nuke/control/sort/wh052402.html>.

220. The International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation can be accessed online at the website of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, <http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ460871>. See also International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, Fact Sheet, Bureau of Nonproliferation, Washington, DC, 6 January 2004. <http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/fs/27799.htm>.

221. See ‘International Conference Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation in The Hague concludes’, The Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release, 26 November 2002. <http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0211/doc13.htm>.

222. Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Fact Sheet, Bureau of Nonproliferation, Washington DC, 23 December 2003. <http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/fs/27514.htm>.

223. A. Harris, ‘International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation’, Basic Notes, 18 July 2002. <http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/2002intemational_code.htm>.

224. See John. R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Remarks at the Launching Conference for the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, The Hague, the Netherlands, 25 November 2002. <http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/15488.htm>.

225. ‘Secretary-General welcomes launch of International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation’, UN Press Release SG/SM/8523, 25 November 2002. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SGSM8523.doc.htm>.

226. See Anthony, I., ‘Arms control in the new security environment’, Chapter 14, SIPRI Yearbook 2003 (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2003)Google Scholar.

227. See ‘The G8 global partnership against ‘G-8 global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction’, Kananaskis Summit 2002. <http://www.g8.fr/evian>. Alan. P. Lar-sen, Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, Testimony before the House International Relations Committee, Washington DC, 25 July 2002. <http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rm/2002/12190.htm>.

228. ‘U.S. confident of ousting chemical weapons chief’, Reuters (29 March 2002).

229. ‘Chemical weapons inspector sacked’, CNN, 9 September 2002 <http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/22/chemical.weapons/index.html>; ‘US Diplomatic Offensive Removes OPCW Director-General’, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 64 (05–06 2002)Google Scholar. Online at <http://www.acronym.org.uk/textonly/dd/dd64/64nr01.htm>; ‘Anti-chemical chief sacked’, Radio Netherlands, 23 April 2002. <http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/opcw020423.html>; Lynch, C., ‘Disarmament Agency Director Is Ousted: U.S. Assails Record on Chemical Arms’, Washington Post (23 04 2002)Google Scholar. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A31533-2002Apr22&notFound=true>.

230. For the statement of Jose Bustani before being voted out of his job, see <http://www.opcw.org> (direct link to the statement is <http://www.opcw.org/SSICSP/SSICSP_DG_statement.html>.

231. Monbiot, G., ‘The US wants to depose the diplomat who could take away its pretext for war with Iraq’, The Guardian (16 04 2002)Google Scholar.

232. The meeting had been reconvened after the meeting of the Fifth Review Conference held in Geneva from 19 November to 7 December ended without conclusion of a protocol and with the whole process heading for the rocks. See 4 YIHL (2001) p. 327Google Scholar.

233. For commentary, see O. Meier, ‘The US Rejection of Bioweapons Verification, and Implications for Future Negotiations’, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin No. 21, <http://www.inesap.org/bulletin21/bul21art26.htm>.

234. For further details of the conclusions of the Fifth Review Conference see its Final Report. BWC/CONF.V/17, Geneva 2002.

235. A/57/588—S/2002/1269, 5 November 2002, prepared pursuant to GA resolution 55/281 of 1 August 2001.

236. A/55/985—S/2001/574 and Corr. 1. See 4 YIHL (2001) at pp. 310–311Google Scholar.

237. Ibid., at para. 5.

238. Ibid., at para. 6.

239. Ibid., at para. 8.