Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AS ALEPPO REELS from air strikes, UN chief Ban Ki-moon has warned the use of bunker bombs and other advanced munitions against Syria civilians may constitute a war crime.
Here are five facts about war crimes, and the long, arduous legal process to bring perpetrators to justice.
Violations of the Geneva Conventions adopted in 1949 following World War II are commonly called “war crimes”.
In broad terms, the conventions cover protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners and care for the wounded.
They form the basis of the 1998 Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the world’s only permanent court for prosecuting war crimes – the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Article 8 of the Rome Statute sets out more than 50 examples which could be considered a war crime.
They include wilful killing, torture, taking of hostages, unlawful deportations, intentionally directing attacks against civilians not taking part in hostilities, and deliberately attacking aid and peacekeeping missions.
Using poisonous gases, internationally-banned weapons which cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate” – such as cluster bombs or incendiary weapons – or bullets “which expand and flatten easily in the human body” are also considered a war crime.
International treaties on the laws of war first began being formulated in the mid-1800s.
But most such as The Hague Conventions, adopted in 1899 and in 1907, dealt mainly with the treatment of combatants not civilians.
The first high-profile war crimes trials of the modern era were held in Nuremberg and Tokyo in tribunals set up by the Allies to try German and Japanese leaders.
In May 1993, at the height of the Balkans wars, the United Nations established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) based in The Hague.
Since its inception, the ICTY has indicted 161 people, of whom 83 have been sentenced, including former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic.
Following the genocide in Rwanda, the UN then set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994 in Arusha to prosecute those behind the killings of at least 800,000 people.
Both courts highlighted the need for a permanent war crimes tribunal, which gave rise to the ICC.
The ICC began work in The Hague in 2003, a year after its statute came into force. To date, 124 countries have signed up to the statute, including 34 from Africa – the biggest regional group – and 28 from Latin America and the Caribbean.
A country that has signed up to the treaty or whose citizens have been the victims of crimes may refer cases to the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, for investigation.
Cases may also be referred by the United Nations Security Council or the prosecutor can initiate her own investigations with permission from the judges providing member states are involved, or a non-member state can agree to accept the court’s jurisdiction.
Any group or individual can report alleged crimes, but it is up to prosecutor to first see whether they fall under her jurisdiction.
So far 23 cases have been brought before the court, and four verdicts – three guilty, one acquittal – have been issued.
They include former Congolese militia leader Jean-Pierre Bemba sentenced to 18 years in jail on three counts of war crimes and two charges of crimes against humanity.
Preliminary inquiries or full investigations are also ongoing into situations in 19 countries or territories, with charges yet to be brought.
Syria is not a signatory to the ICC. Nor are the other major players in the complex conflict – Russia, the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
As a result, the prosecutor would need a UN mandate to investigate any alleged crimes committed by the government or the rebels in the five-year war in the country – including the use of chemical weapons.
Attempts to refer Syria to the ICC were vetoed at the UN Security Council in 2014 by Russia and China, to the dismay of human rights groups.
While the war continues, it is unlikely any prosecutions can be brought before the ICC.
Experts believe accountability will have to be tackled in any eventual peace process. Many argue the best scenario would be some kind of hybrid court based in Syria, but perhaps staffed by a mixture of local and international judges.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The thing about war crimes is it appears that only the losing side are held accountable..
@Stephen Duffy: True, although Milosevic was exonerated.
No he wasn’t.
@Marlowemallow:
Milosevic died before a verdict could be reached.
“Syria is not a signatory to the ICC. Nor are the other major players in the complex conflict – Russia, the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia.”
IS is one of the main players. As is the Al Nusra front and dozens of other armed groups. Many ordinary civilians are also complicit in genocide and war crimes in the region because it is, among other things, a partly sectarian civil war.
The only reason why articles such as this focus on recognized states is that 1940′s legal structures are built around the assumption that wars are carried on by European-style nation states. That’s now an archaic assumption.
The toothlessness of war crimes tribunals is another reason why the 1951 Refugee Convention is unfit for purpose in the 21st century. It again assumes a 1940′s context of nation-state structures with basically mutually compatible rules of law and due process etc.
In 2016 the world looks more like Somalia, Libya, Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan etc. States and stateless zones ruled by warlords where, for example, stoning people to death for adultery, honour killings, killing apostates, converts and blasphemers are not only not considered to be serious crimes but are in fact approved of by substantial minorities or even majorities of the civilian population and enforced by either states or other powers within stateless zones.
The Islamic Republic of Mauritania, for example, persecutes activists against the slave trade because they consider slavery to be permitted by Islam and Mohamed’s slave-owning example. In that context alone the exclusion of those involved in war crimes or other serious crime is simply not possible. Cultures define crime differently.
“The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
http://www.unhcr.org/excom/standcom/3ae68cf68/note-exclusion-clauses.html
And what please tell does she do on the Internet to earn so much. I am really really interested to know.
Russia and Syria are killing western backed terrorists…..which is fantastic….kill as many of those western backed killers as you can. The US , UK and the coalition of the killing are gutted….long live Syria. Fcuck the Greater Israel Project.
Wow, your supervisor at the troll factory must be feeling really pleased with himself. LMAO
@Ciarán Masterson: ah i see thank you. Seems that was misinformation circulated in August.
Cam girl I’d presume!!
have your say