Legal Definition War Crime
The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474 was the first “international” trial for war crimes and also the responsibility of the orders. [2] [3] He was convicted and beheaded for crimes he “had to prevent as a knight,” although he maintained that he “obeyed only orders.” The following acts constitute war crimes within the meaning of article 8 of the Rome Statute: The three main pillars of humanitarian law are the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. If some or all of these principles are violated, it could be established that a war crime has been committed. Not all violations committed during the war are legally considered war crimes. To be eligible, they must meet certain criteria of purpose and severity, in particular: A war crime occurs when unnecessary injury or suffering is inflicted on an enemy. Despite the outrage caused by the bombing of a school or a television station in a country, such acts do not necessarily constitute war crimes. Such bombing will only be a war crime if the number of civilian casualties from the attack is excessive in relation to the military advantage gained from the attack. A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the laws of war and gives rise to individual criminal responsibility. [1] Examples of crimes include intentional killing of civilians or prisoners, torture, destruction of civilian property, hostage-taking, perfidy, rape, use of child soldiers, looting, declaration that no quarters will be given, and grave violation of the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity. Despite these developments, countless crimes go unpunished and many war criminals continue to benefit and operate with impunity. War crimes are important in international humanitarian law,[31] as international tribunals such as the Nuremberg trials and the Tokyo trials have been convened there. Recent examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. Immediately after the First World War, the victorious Allied Powers convened a special commission on the responsibility of warwrights and on the enforcement of sentences.
The Commission`s report recommended that war crimes trials be held before the victors` national courts and, if necessary, before an inter-allied tribunal. The Allies drew up an initial list of about 900 suspected war criminals and submitted it to Germany. Although heads of state have traditionally enjoyed immunity from prosecution, the commission`s main target was German Kaiser Wilhelm II, whom most Allies (but not the United States) wanted to hold accountable for numerous violations of the laws of war. However, William sought refuge in the Netherlands, which refused to extradite him, and he was never brought to justice. Most of the alleged war criminals remaining on the list were also able to escape prosecution because Germany was reluctant to hand them over to the Allies. Instead, a compromise was reached in which the Allies allowed a small number of suspects in Germany to be tried before the Supreme Court in Leipzig. These prosecutions resulted in few convictions, with most sentences ranging from a few months to four years in prison. What constitutes a war crime may differ depending on whether an armed conflict is international or non-international. For example, Article 8 of the Rome Statute qualifies war crimes as follows: However, the Court has jurisdiction over these crimes only if they “are part of a plan or policy, or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.” [10] In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, war crimes must also be prosecuted on the basis of universal jurisdiction in countries other than those where the crimes were committed.
This was the case, for example, in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. Murder, rape, torture. Wartime chaos often leads to impunity for crimes committed by warring parties. These crimes are committed against both combatants and innocent civilians. A small number of German World War I servicemen were indicted by the Supreme Court in 1921 for alleged war crimes. To be held responsible for a war crime, the victim must be protected by the Geneva Conventions. GC I, II and III apply to soldiers, while GC IV apply to civilians and “unlawful combatants”. Unlike genocide and crimes against humanity, war crimes must take place in the context of armed conflict. War crimes are violations of international humanitarian law (treaty or customary law) that give rise to individual criminal responsibility under international law. Accordingly, and unlike crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, war crimes must always take place in the context of armed conflict, whether international or non-international. TRIAL International collects and analyses information from victims, victims` associations, witnesses and other reliable sources to develop files on alleged perpetrators of war crimes.
It shall then transmit this information to the competent authorities for further investigation and prosecution. War crimes are serious violations of customary and treaty law of international humanitarian law, which are recognized as offences for which individual responsibility exists. [17] Familiar definitions of war crimes include violations of established martial law protection, but also failure to comply with procedural norms and rules of war, such as Attacks on those who fly a peaceful ceasefire flag, or use the same flag as ruse to carry out an attack on enemy troops. The use of chemical and biological weapons in war is also prohibited by numerous chemical weapons control treaties and the Biological Weapons Convention. Wearing enemy uniforms or civilian clothing to infiltrate enemy lines for espionage or sabotage is a legitimate ruse of war, although fighting in combat or murdering people behind enemy lines is not so disguised as to constitute illegal perfidy. [18] [19] [20] [21] Attacking enemy troops while parachuting them is not a war crime. [22] However, Article 42 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions expressly prohibits the attack on paratroopers disembarking from disabled aircraft and the resulting paratroopers once they have landed. [23] Article 30 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land explicitly prohibits warring parties from punishing enemy spies without trial. [24] The Geneva Conventions are four interdependent treaties adopted and continually expanded from 1864 to 1949, providing a legal basis and framework for international warfare. Each Member State of the United Nations has currently ratified the conventions, which are generally recognized as customary international law and applicable to all situations of armed conflict in the world.
However, the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions adopted in 1977, which contain the most relevant, detailed and comprehensive protection of international humanitarian law for persons and property in modern warfare, are still not ratified by a number of States constantly involved in armed conflicts, namely the United States, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and others. As a result, States maintain different codes and values regarding war behaviour. Some signatories have regularly violated the Geneva Conventions, using either ambiguities in the law or political manoeuvres to circumvent the formalities and principles of the laws. From the outset, war crimes trials were dismissed by critics simply as a “victors` tribunal” because only people from defeated countries were prosecuted and because the accused were accused of acts that were allegedly not criminal at the time they were committed. In support of the trials, the Nuremberg Tribunal cited the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), which strictly prohibits war and makes war a crime for which individuals can be prosecuted.