History International Criminal Law

Course : International criminal law Lecture : Hady Credit Hours : 3 Credits Semester Sessions : 3 Semester, 2021/2022 Session Prepared By : Pegyy Dania LECTURE NOTES History Background to the concept of individual responsibility in international law, namely the idea that international law can impose direct responsibility towards individuals. Before World War II Historically, international law was considered a law that only causes rights and obligations to the state. So until World War II (WWII), international law only required it subjugated states to prosecute (by their national laws) the suspected war criminals who are alleged to have violated legal obligations and war habits. For example, a subjugated country must implement a national court (local court) a military tribunal for war crimes. Then, as a conclusion to the PDI, various treaties ending the war included provisions for local courts or military commissions to try individuals people accused of violating the laws and customs of war. e.g. Treaty of Versailles 1919 article 228: “The German government recognizes the rights of the Allies and their associated Powers to prosecute persons who were accused of committing acts of violation of the laws and customs of war to military tribunal (local court) This approach is also clearly visible in the conventions created to regulate war at that time, for example the De Hague IV Convention and the 1907 Hague Rules:  The Hague Rules also include provisions for behavior (code of conduct) for individuals  Article 1 of the Convention requires member states to issued instructions to their armed forces to obey Hague Rules  Article 56 Hague Rules- Violation of the Hague Rules must be the basis Legal Proceedings in local courts (not necessarily criminal courts)  Article 3 of the De Hague Convention IV – If one of the soldiers violates the regulations then the country must be responsible for it. However, these regulations do not clearly stipulate that individuals who committing these violations will be criminally liable international legal perspective. After World War II Nuremberg International Military Tribunal After the end of World War II (WWII) it was decided to form a tribunal specifically to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes under power ally. In August 1945 the London Charter for the International Military Tribunal ( known also as the Nuremberg Charter) was approved. The charter gives the tribunal jurisdiction to try those who commit it three types of crime:  crimes against peace : namely, planning, preparing, start or challenge a war or carry out aggression, or a war constitutes a violation of an international treaty, agreement or guarantee, or participation in joint plans or agreements for the implementation of a condition mentioned above;  War crimes; that is, a violation of the laws or customs of war. These violations include but are not limited to, murder, abuse cruelty or deportation of civilians in controlled locations for enslavement, employment or other purposes, murder or cruel treatment of prisoners of war or people at sea, killing hostages, seizing goods public or private property, without reason destroying cities or villages, or destruction that cannot be justified in terms of military necessity.  Crimes against humanity: namely, extermination, slavery, displacement, or other inhumane acts against civilian populations, before or during war; or prosecution on political, racial grounds or religious in execution or in connection with the crime anything within the tribunal's jurisdiction, regardless of what the action is violate domestic law where the crime occurred. The Tribunal is equipped with procedural law which is based on legal tradition common law. Four justices sat, each representing one confederate country; defendant represented by his lawyer. Twenty-four people were charged, only three of them were acquitted (note. that one of the defendants – Bormann – was tried in absentia and convicted dead) This process is also not flawless. The main criticism of this process is that it imposes responsibility individually retroactive towards individuals for actions that were not at the time they occurred constitutes a criminal offense – this argument is particularly advanced in the case of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.