Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2010
The purpose of this study is to analyse the normative character of custom in international humanitarian law (IHL), on the basis of the theory and jurisprudence of public international law, in order to arrive at a better understanding of the conduct of States in conflict situations. In so doing, an attempt will be made to determine the possibilities for developing custom in IHL, especially in view of the increasing concern shown by international public opinion for the plight of victims of armed conflicts. The paper will begin with a review of the questions raised by custom as an independent source of humanitarian law (point 1) and go on to take a closer look at the constituent elements of custom in humanitarian law (point 2). It will end with a comparative study of the two approaches to custom in IHL, concentrating on the consequences that the development of custom may have in the future (point 3).
1 On this subject, see Theodor, Meron, Human rights and humanitarian norms as customary law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989, p. 62 Google Scholar
2 A number of States expressed this reservation, known as the “NATO reservation”, among them Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. France, in its declaration accompanying its instrument of accession to Protocol II, notified its intention of not acceding to Protocol I because of “the lack of consensus among the Stales signatory to Protocol I with regard to the precise extent of the obligations incurred by them in the matter of deterrence”. See Protocols of S June 1977 additional to the Genera Conventions of 12 August 1949—Reservations, declarations and communications made at the time of or in reference to ratification or accession, as at 30 June 1990. ICRC. Geneva (DDM/JUR 90/802—PRV 4), duplicated. It should be noted, however, that the Soviet Union, when it ratified Protocols I and II on 29 September 1989. made no reservations (see International Review of the Red Cross, No. 273. 11–12 1989, pp. 591–592).Google Scholar
3 Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. United Nations, New York, 1979, p. 76.Google Scholar
4 Pietro, Vcrri. Dictionnaire du droit international des conflits armés, ICRC, Geneva. 1988. p. 39.Google Scholar
5 The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (reprint), ICRC, Geneva, 1986.
6 The Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 - Commentary, published under the general editorship of Jean S. Pictet; 1 (First Convention), ICRC, Geneva, 1952. p. 413 Google Scholar. Pictet points out that a State that denounces one of the Conventions nevertheless remains bound by the principles contained in it insofar as they are the expression of customary international law.
7 According to Pictet, this prohibition is of paramount importance for the application of the provisions contained in the Conventions. This limitation of the contractual freedom of the States, which conflicts with the idea of the sovereignty of States, is consistent with the deepest nature of the Conventions, even if. as the British delegation pointed out at the Conference of Governmental Experts in 1947. it entailed the risk of the Conventions being more frequently violated. Pictet, , op. cit., p. 72.Google Scholar
8 Shabtai, Rosenne, The law of treaties. A guide to the legislative history of the Vienna Convention, A.W. Sijthoff/Oceana Publications, Leyden/Dobbs Ferry, 1970, p. 254.Google Scholar
9 International Court of Justice (ICJ), Reports of judgments, 1986, p. 95, para. 178.Google Scholar
10 Article 36, para. 2, of the Statute of the ICJ establishes voluntary compulsory jurisdiction. This rule authorizes the Court to give judgment on all legal matters presented to it as long as the parties have declared that they recognize the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. Statute of the International Court of Justice, op. cit., p. 74.Google Scholar
11 ICJ, Reports of judgments, 1984, pp. 424, 425, para. 73.Google Scholar
12 ICJ, Reports of judgments, 1986, p. 93, para. 173, and p. 96. para. 179.Google Scholar
13 ICJ, Reports of judgments, 1986, p. 114, para. 218.Google Scholar
14 ICJ, Reports of judgments, 1949, p. 22.Google Scholar
15 ICJ, Reports of judgments, 1986, p. 113, para. 218.Google Scholar
16 Pellet, A., in Nguyen Quoc, D., Daillier, P. and Pellet, A., Droit international public (3rd ed.). Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris, 1987, p. 297 Google Scholar. para. 213; the practice of the ICRC as a non-governmental organization may create a degree of custom in the rules governing the action taken by the Red Cross in the event of armed conflict. See also Hans-Peter, Gasser, on the normative function of the ICRC's appeals in favour of civilians, in “Armed conflict within the territory of a State”, in Festschrift für Dietrich Schindler, Helbing and Lichtenhahn. Basel. 1989. p. 234 Google Scholar. Concerning the legal status of the ICRC in international law, see Christian, Dominice, “La personnalité juridique internationale du CICR”, in Studies and essays on international humanitarian law and Red Cross principles, in honour of Jean Pictet. Swinarski, Christophe, ed., ICRC/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva/The Hague, 1984, pp. 663–674.Google Scholar
17 ICJ, Reports of judgments 1960, p. 40 Google Scholar, Case concerning Passage over Indian Territory.
18 ICJ, Reports of judgments 1969, p. 42.Google Scholar
19 ICJ, Reports of judgments 1986, p. 98, para. 186.Google Scholar
20 ICJ, Reports of judgments 1969, p. 44, para. 77.Google Scholar
21 Pierre, Boissier, History of the International Committee of the Red Cross: From Solferino to Tsushima, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, p. 120.Google Scholar
22 For the customary content of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (Protection of civilian persons in time of war), see Theodor, Meron, op. cit., pp. 46–50 Google Scholar; also “The Geneva Conventions as customary law” by the same author, in The American Journal of International Law, 1987, pp. 348–370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the customary content of Protocol I (humanitarian law applicable in international armed conflicts), see Penna, L.R., “Customary international law and Protocol I”, in Studies and Essays… in honour of Jean Pictet, op. cit., pp. 201–225 Google Scholar. For the customary content of Protocol II (humanitarian law applicable in non-international armed conflicts), see Gasser, , op. cit., pp. 225–240 Google Scholar. For the customary law contained in Protocols I and II, see also Cassese, Antonio. “The Geneva Protocols of 1977 on the humanitarian law of armed conflict and customary international law”, in UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, Spring and Fall 1984. Vol. 3. Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 55–118.Google Scholar
23 Degan, V.D., “Two modes of generating customary rules of general international law”, in Juqoslavenska Revija za medunarodno Praz, Belgrade, 1988. No. 1, p. 23.Google Scholar
24 See especially Condorelli, Luigi and Boisson de Chazournes. Laurence, “Quelques remarques à propos de l'obligation des Etats à respecter et faire respecter le droit international humanitaire ‘en toutes circonstances’”, in “Studies and Essays… in honour of Jean Pictet, op.cit., pp. 26, 27.Google Scholar
25 Torrione, H., Influence des conventions de codification sur la coutume en droit international public. Editions universitaires de Fribourg, Fribourg, 1989, p. 77.Google Scholar
26 Ibid., p. 301.
27 Ibid., p. 302.
28 Dupuy, E.J., “Coutume sage et coutume sauvage”, in Melanges Rousseau. Pédone, Paris, 1974, pp. 75–87.Google Scholar
29 Ibid., pp. 81, 82.
30 Cahin, P., “Le comportement des Etats comme source de droit et d'obligations”, in Recueil d'études de droit international en hommage à Paul Guqqenheim, Faculty of Law, University of Geneva/Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 1968, p. 250.Google Scholar
31 ICJ, Reports of judgments 1953, pp. 106, 107 Google Scholar, The Minauiers and Ecrehos case.
32 Gasser, . op.cit., p. 232.Google Scholar
33 Malenovsky, J., “Are necessary changes of methods of ascertaining customary rules in international law?”, in Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, Note 983, Wroclaw, 1988. p. 208.Google Scholar
34 Cheng, B., “Custom: the future of general State practice in a divided world”, in The structure and process of international law (Macdonald, R. St. J. and Johnston, Douglas M., eds.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1986, p. 530.Google Scholar
35 Dupuy, , op.cit., p. 85.Google Scholar
36 Meron, , op.cit., p. 74.Google Scholar
