Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T10:27:32.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bridging the gap between human rights and humanitarian law: The punishment of offenders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2010

John Dugard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, human rights and humanitarian law were treated as separate fields. Since the 1968 Tehran International Conference on Human Rights, the situation has changed dramatically and the two subjects are now considered as different branches of the same discipline. A number of factors have contributed to this merger, including the growing significance of international criminal law and the criminalization of serious violations of human rights. This is the theme of the present comment.

Type
50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Human rights and international humanitarian law
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 38 , Special Issue 324: 1948—1998 Human rights and international humanitarian law , September 1998 , pp. 445 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1998

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

1 See McCormack, T.L.H. and Simpson, G.J. (eds), The law of war crimes: National and international approaches, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston. 1997, p. 37.Google Scholar

2 Articles 49–50 of the First Geneva Convention, Articles 50–51 of the Second Geneva Convention, Articles 129–130 of the Third Geneva Convention and Articles 146–147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

3 Articles 55 and 56.

4 Article 4 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel. Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) requires States to prosecute offenders under national law.

5 Schindler, Dietrich, “The International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights”, IRRC, No. 208, January-February 1979, p. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 UN Doc. A/CONF.157/24 (Part 1), 13 October 1993, para. 28, in International Legal Materials, Vol. 32, 1993, p. 1661.

7 See “Judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal”, reported in the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41, 1947, p. 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).

9 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973).

10 Article 2.

11 Article 12.

12 Article 4(2)(c).

13 Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

14 Article 13.

15 Article 19.

16 Article 3.

17 Article 19(2).

18 Bassiouni, Cherif, Crimes against humanity in international criminal law, Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1992.Google Scholar

19 Report of the International Law Commission, 48th Session, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L. 522, 31 May 1996.

20 Article 5.

21 Decision of 2 October 1995, Case No. IT-94–1-AR72, p.72, para 141, See International Legal Materials, Vol. 35, 1996, p. 35.

22 See generally on this subject, Graditzky, Thomas, “Individual criminal responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law committed in non-international armed conflicts”, IRRC, No. 322, March 1998, pp. 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 See Protocol I, Article 85(5).

24 Supra (note 21), p. 48, para. 84.

25 Supra (note 21), Separate Opinion of Judge Abi-Saab, p. 5.

26 Supra (note 21), p. 71, para 137.

27 Supra (note 19), Article 20(e)-(g).

28 On 1–2 May 1998 a meeting was held at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, Cambridge (U.K.), to discuss the proposal for a convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of developing, producing, stockpiling or using biological or chemical weapons. The meeting was organized in association with the Harvard Sussex Programme on Chemical and Biological Weapons Armament and Arms Limitation and the Common Security Programme on Disarmament and Security. Professor Matthew Meselson, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology of Harvard University, is the driving force behind the proposal.

29 Law of 16 June 1993. See Andries, A., David, E., Van den Wyngaert, C., Verhagen, J., “Commentaire de la loi du 16 juin 1993 relative à la répression des infractions graves au droit international humanitaire”. Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie, 1994, p. 1133.Google Scholar

30 See Thomas Graditzky, supra (note 22), pp. 38–44.

31 Cassese, Antonio, “On the current trends towards criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 9, 1998, pp. 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar