The doctrine of command responsibility in the midst of war : legal fallacy or reflection of reality

The history of war is blighted with astonishing reminders of man’s ability to cast his sense of humanity aside and inflict unspeakable harm upon one another. The ruthless bombing of Dresden, the callousness of the Nazi concentration camps and the massacre of the Tutsis are but a few of the atrocities that have haunted our past. In response to these atrocities, society has imposed an ever-increasing number of laws and rules to regulate warfare. Amongst these is the doctrine of command responsibility. The doctrine of command responsibility states that a commander is criminally liable for the crimes of his subordinates if he knew or should have known of their crimes. This paper will examine whether the doctrine is an appropriate and realistic legal standard to hold commanders accountable to or whether the doctrine is more a reflection of social sentiment and legal rhetoric. If the doctrine, and indeed the law of war in general, is unrealistic then the law cannot fulfil its purpose - that is, the prevention of atrocities. Instead of being solely a reflection of moral authority and social sentiments the law must also be a tool that guides and shapes the decisions and actions of the military through the chaotic and brutal nature of war...

Security and the War on Terror

The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 marked a turning point in international politics, representing a new type of threat that could not easily be anticipated or prevented through state-based structures of security alone. Opening up interdisciplinary conversations between strategic, economic, ethical and legal approaches to global terrorism, this edited book recognises a fundamental issue: while major crises initially tend to reinforce old thinking and behavioural patterns, they also allow societies to challenge and overcome entrenched habits, thereby creating the foundations for a new and perhaps more peaceful future. This volume addresses the issues that are at stake in this dual process of political closure, and therefore rethinks how states can respond to terrorist threats. The contributors range from leading conceptual theorists to policy-oriented analysts, from senior academics to junior researchers. The book explores how terrorism has had a profound impact on how security is being understood and implemented, and uses a range of hitherto neglected sources of insight, such as those between political, economic, legal and ethical factors, to examine the nature and meaning of security in a rapidly changing world.

France and the Problems of Security and Disarmament after the First World War

Jackson, Peter, 'France and the Problems of Security and Disarmament after the First World War', Journal of Strategic Studies (2006) 29(2) pp.247-280 Special Issue: Enforcing arms limits: Germany post 1919; Iraq post 1991 RAE2008

Operationalizing the Comparative International Human Rights Law Method: A Case Study of CEDAW in National Courts

In this chapter, I focus on how the example of CEDAW illustrates the methodological and conceptual difficulties that future work in comparative international human is likely to encounter. Despite the challenges, I suggest that the worked example of CEDAW has raised interesting lines for empirical analysis, and additional perspectives which may enrich normative inquiry, sufficient to justify comparative international human rights law being regarded as likely to give rise to insights that might not otherwise have emerged, and therefore to be as an approach worth pursuing in the future.

Comparative International Human Rights Law

This chapter locates of international human rights in current discussion of comparative international law, and distinguishes comparative international human rights law from both the 'fragmentation' literature, and from comparative constitutional rights discourse.

The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The placebo effect: international patent law and the protection of traditional plant medicine

Une préoccupation essentielle traverse cette thèse: l'indifférence systémique de la Loi internationale sur la propriété intellectuelle a l'égard des savoirs traditionnels autochtones. De manière générale, un écart semble d'ailleurs croissant entre l'importance des accords internationaux sur les questions d'intérêt commercial et ceux de nature sociale. Les savoirs traditionnels autochtones sur les plantes médicinales sont particulièrement désavantagés dans ce système dichotomique puisqu'ils sont non seulement à l'origine d'énormes profits commerciaux mais se trouvent aussi au cœur de multiples croyances propres à ces sociétés. L'Accord sur les aspects des droits de propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce (ADPIC) de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) a cristallisé le souci de la législation internationale à l'égard d'une protection efficace des intérêts commerciaux. Deux années auparavant, la Convention sur la diversité biologique (CDB) était signée, traduisant une préoccupation à l'égard du développement durable, et elle devenait le premier accord international à tenir compte des savoirs traditionnels autochtones. On considère souvent que ces deux accords permettent l'équilibre du développement commercial et durable, requis par l'économie internationale. Après plus ample examen, on a plutôt l'impression que l'idée d'une CDB défendant, avec succès et efficacité, la nécessité du développement durable et des savoirs traditionnels autochtones contre les pressions opposées de l'ADPIC et de l'OMC est, au mieux, simpliste. La thèse explore également la fonction de la Loi sur les brevets dans la création d’industries, notamment pharmaceutique, et la manière dont ces industries influencent la législation nationale et en particulier internationale. De même, elle traite du rôle que jouent les brevets dans l'affaiblissement et la dépossession des peuples autochtones dotés de savoirs traditionnels sur les plantes médicinales, conduisant à une situation ou ces savoirs sont marginalisés ainsi que leurs détenteurs. La thèse aborde les failles institutionnelles du système juridique international qui permet une telle situation et indique l'urgente nécessité d'examiner attentivement les inégalités économiques et sociales au Nord comme au Sud, et non seulement entre eux. Finalement, la thèse suggère que la législation internationale gagnerait à s'inspirer des diverses traditions juridiques présentes à travers le monde et, dans ce cas particulier, peut être les détenteurs des connaissances traditionnelles concernant les plantes médicinales seront mieux servi par le droit des obligations.

The great asymmetry : America's closest allies in times of war

This dissertation focuses on military cooperation between the United States and its special allies. It argues that alliance expectations determine the level of military cooperation, while two intervening variables - the level of government cohesion and military capabilities - determine its implementation. This study also shows how secondary states deploy strategies to overcome power asymmetries through bilateral concessions, international organizations and by appealing to principle. The focus of the research is on special allies, as they have the most to gain or lose by going along with American plans. My contention is that secondary allies can rarely influence the dominant ally decisively, but they can act autonomously and resist to pressures exerted by the stronger alliance partner. The argument builds on three central claims. First, power asymmetries between allies translate into different assessments of international threats. Second, when disagreements over threats arise, the outcome of intra-alliance bargaining is not necessarily dictated by the preferences of the stronger power. Third, secondary states, as opposed to the dominant partner, face unique constraints when facing major foreign policy decisions, i.e. they face a trade-off between establishing a credible reputation as an alliance partner in a politically feasible way while minimizing domestic audience costs. To examine the theoretical puzzle presented by asymmetric military cooperation, I introduce a causal explanation that builds on neoclassical realism, to zone in on the interaction between systemic and domestic variables. My research makes a contribution to alliance theory and foreign policy decision-making by studying how special allies respond to American decisions in times of threat and how systemic constraints are channeled through state-level variables. To investigate the causal link between threat perception, alliance expectations and domestic constraints, this study relies on the method of structured focused comparison with three detailed case studies. The focus is on the initial decision made by special allies regarding whether or not to participle in joint mobilization with the United States. The decision-making process is presented from the perspective of secondary allied states and measures the explanatory factors that motivated the decision on military cooperation. The case studies are the UK, Canada and Australia’s response to the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq during the period of 2001 to 2003.

Criminal liability of canadian corporations for international crimes

Ce mémoire porte sur la responsabilité pénale des entreprises canadiennes pour des crimes internationaux commis en partie ou entièrement à l’étranger. Dans la première partie, nous montrons que les premiers développements sur la reconnaissance de la responsabilité criminelle d’entités collectives devant les tribunaux militaires établis après la deuxième guerre mondiale n’ont pas été retenus par les tribunaux ad hoc des Nations Unies et par la Cour pénale internationale. En effet, la compétence personnelle de ces tribunaux permet uniquement de contraindre des personnes physiques pour des crimes internationaux. Dans la deuxième partie, nous offrons des exemples concrets illustrant que des entreprises canadiennes ont joué dans le passé et peuvent jouer un rôle criminel de soutien lors de guerres civiles et de conflits armés au cours desquels se commettent des crimes internationaux. Nous montrons que le droit pénal canadien permet d’attribuer une responsabilité criminelle à une organisation (compagnie ou groupe non incorporé) pour des crimes de droit commun commis au Canada, comme auteur réel ou comme complice. Nous soutenons qu’il est également possible de poursuivre des entreprises canadiennes devant les tribunaux canadiens pour des crimes internationaux commis à l’extérieur du Canada, en vertu de la Loi canadienne sur les crimes contre l’humanité et les crimes de guerre, du principe de la compétence universelle et des règles de droit commun. Bref, le Canada est doté d’instruments juridiques et judiciaires pour poursuivre des entreprises soupçonnées de crimes internationaux commis à l’étranger et peut ainsi mettre un terme à leur état indésirable d’impunité.

Étude historique des règles limitant le recours à la force en droit international

Les règles actuelles limitant le recours à la force dans les relations internationales ont, pour la plupart, des origines historiques anciennes. Elles ont été façonnées par l'héritage que nous ont laissé de nombreux auteurs et de nombreuses doctrines comme la doctrine médiévale de la guerre juste. Depuis l'Antiquité jusqu'aux développements les plus récents du droit international, en passant par le Moyen Age et les temps modernes, cette étude s'attache a mettre en lumière les sources des règles contemporaines pour aider le lecteur à mieux comprendre, aujourd'hui, le droit international relatif au recours à la force et aussi, à être mieux équipé pour juger du caractère juste ou injuste d'une guerre. Les notions de légalité et de légitimité de la guerre ont été choisies pour passer en revue les règles en vigueur les plus révélatrices.

L’attribution au Liban du comportement du Hezbollah selon le droit international de la responsabilité de l’État

La guerre de 33 jours qui s’est déroulée au Liban en juillet-août 2006 a donné lieu à une panoplie de questions sur la légitimité du recours à l’usage de la force dont a fait preuve Israël au nom de son droit à la légitime défense. La problématique découlait surtout du fait que l’attaque initiale ayant déclenché cette guerre, en date du 12 juillet 2006, avait été menée par le Hezbollah, un groupe armé dont le statut étatique ou non étatique demeure difficile à cerner. Cette étude propose d’analyser si le Liban doit être tenu responsable pour le comportement du Hezbollah. Un survol de l’histoire du Liban et de la création du Hezbollah illustrera que la relation existant entre ces deux acteurs est d’une rare complexité, faisant en sorte que le rôle du Hezbollah au Liban est contesté de toutes parts. Ce débat aura une incidence certaine sur la question à savoir si le comportement du Hezbollah est attribuable à l’État libanais. Une étude approfondie des règles internationales régissant l’acte « d’attribution », notion centrale au droit de la responsabilité internationale des États, démontrera que la détermination de la nature du lien existant entre un État et une entité dont le comportement est contesté est d’une importance fondamentale. Dans une ère où les acteurs non étatiques sont devenus omniprésents sur la scène internationale et dans le cas du Hezbollah au Liban – une milice armée opérant au sein d’un État particulièrement à souveraineté limitée – le concept de l’attribution lui-même deviendra peut-être obsolète.