Last updated 09/07/24: 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: 17 February 2009
Throughout its extensive history, the doctrine of belligerent reprisals has caused controversy and provoked debate, none more so than in the Twentieth Century, with its unprecedented developments in the codification of the laws of armed conflict. Belligerent reprisals are prima facie unlawful acts taken against a party to an armed conflict that is violating the law for the purpose of coercing that party to cease its unlawful conduct. Owing to this law enforcement function, belligerent reprisals have historically been treated as lawful acts, provided that they have been carried out in observance of a number of established principles. The rules laid down in international humanitarian law have increasingly limited the scope for taking reprisals by excluding certain categories of persons and objects from being the lawful targets of reprisal actions. While palpable disagreement exists regarding the customary status of the law pertaining to belligerent reprisals, more fundamental dispute arises in relation to the desirability of the actual institution of belligerent reprisals itself.
3. For the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of belligerent reprisals see Kalshoven, F., Belligerent Reprisals (Leiden, Sijthoff 1971)Google Scholar.
4. For a fuller discussion see Darcy, S., ‘The Evolution of the Law of Belligerent Reprisals’, 175 Mil. LR (2003) p. 184Google Scholar.
5. See Greenwood, C., ‘The Twilight of the Law of Belligerent Reprisals’, 20 NYIL (1989) pp. 35, at pp. 39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Darcy, loc. cit. n. 4, at pp. 187–196.
6. The Laws of War on Land (Oxford, 9 09 1880)Google Scholar text reproduced in Schindler, D. and Toman, J., eds., The Laws of Armed Conflict: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1988) pp. 35–48 [hereinafter Oxford Manual]Google Scholar.
7. Signed at Geneva, 27 July 1929, Art. 2, para. 3, text reproduced in Schindler and Toman, op. cit. n. 6, at pp. 339–366.
8. Adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 135, Art. 13, para. 3.
9. Adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 31, Art. 46.
10. Adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 85, Art. 47.
11. Adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 287, Art. 33, para. 3. Protected persons are defined in Art. 4 as ‘Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.’
12. Adopted 14 May 1954, entered into force 7 August 1956, 249 UNTS 240.
13. Ibid., Art. 4, para. 4.
14. Adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3–608.
15. Ibid., Art. 20. For the expanded definition of those categories of persons and the new categories added see Art. 8.
16. Ibid., Art. 51, para. 6.
17. Ibid., Art. 52, para. 1.
18. Ibid., Art. 53.
19. Ibid., Art. 54, para. 4.
20. Ibid., Art. 55, para. 2.
21. Ibid., Art. 56, para. 4.
22. Adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 609. See Nahlik, S.E., ‘Belligerent Reprisals as Seen in the Light of the Diplomatic Conference on Humanitarian Law, Geneva, 1974–1977’ 42 Law and Contemporary Practice 2 (1978) pp. 36, at pp. 63–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23. Protocol II, annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, adopted 10 October 1980, entered into force 2 December 1983, 1342 UNTS 137–255; reprinted in Schindler and Toman, op. cit. n. 6, at p. 179.
24. Ibid., Art. 2, para. 3.
25. Amended Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Amended Protocol II), amended 3 May 1996, 35 ILM 1206, Art. 1, para. 3.
26. See declarations by Germany, Italy and Egypt and strong reservation by the United Kingdom, reprinted in Roberts, A. and Guelff, R., eds., Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2000) pp. 504–507, 511Google Scholar. See also declaration made by France on 11 April 2001, French text available on the international humanitarian law treaty database of the ICRC website at: <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/db8c9c8d3ba9d16f41256739003e6371/d8041036b40ebc44c1256a34004897b2?OpenDocument>, para. 11.
27. See Sofaer, A.D., ‘The Rationale for the United States Decision’, 82 AJIL (1988) p. 784, at p. 785CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28. Prosecutor v. Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-R61, Decision, 8 March 1996, 108 ILR 39, paras. 16–17, p. 47. See also Resolution 2675 (XXV) on the Basic Principles for the Protection of Civilian Populations in Armed Conflicts adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1970, UN GAOR, 25th Sess., Supp., No. 28, UN Doc. A/8028, reprinted in Schindler and Toman, op. cit. n. 6, at pp. 267–268.
29. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskić et al., Case No. IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 January 2000, paras. 527–535.
30. Kalshoven, F., ‘Two Recent Decisions of the Yugoslavia Tribunal’, in Vohrah, L.C., ed., Man's inhumanity to man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassesse (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2003) pp. 481–509Google Scholar; Greenwood, C., ‘Belligerent Reprisals in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, in Fischer, H., Kress, C. and Rolf Lüder, S., eds., International and National Prosecution of Crimes under International Law: Current Developments (Berlin, Anro Spitz 2001) p. 539Google Scholar.
31. Spaight, J.M., War Rights on Land (London, MacMillan 1911) p. 462Google Scholar.
32. See for example Nahlik, loc. cit. n. 22, at pp. 54, 56; Bierzanek, R., ‘Reprisals as a Means of Enforcing the Laws of Warfare: The Old and the New Law’, in Cassese, A., ed., The New International Law of Armed Conflict (Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica 1979) p. 232, at p. 239Google Scholar; Kalshoven, F., ‘Human Rights, the Law of Armed Conflict, and Reprisals’, 11 International Review of the Red Cross (1971) p. 183, at p. 186CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33. See for example Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 30, at p. 481; Kalshoven, F., ‘Belligerent Reprisals Revisited’, 21 NYIL (1990) p. 43, at p. 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Albrecht, A.R., ‘War Reprisals in the War Crimes Trials and in the Geneva Conventions of 1949’, 47 AJIL (1953) p. 590, at p. 592CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34. See for example Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 36; Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 78; Walzer, M.L., Just and Unjust Wars (New York, Basic Books 1992) 2nd edn., p. 215Google Scholar.
35. See for example MajorBristol, M.C.C. III, ‘The Laws of War and Belligerent Reprisals against Enemy Civilian Populations’, 21 Air Force JAG Law Review (1979) p. 397, at p. 421Google Scholar; Best, G., Law and War since 1945 (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1994) p. 311Google Scholar.
36. See for example Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 36; Draper, G.I.A.D., ‘The Enforcement and Implementation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977’, 163 Hague Recueil II (1978) pp. 9, at pp. 34–35Google Scholar; von Glahn, G.The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press 1957) p. 235Google Scholar.
37. Provost, R., ‘Reciprocity in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law’, 65 BYIL (1994) p. 383, at p. 415Google Scholar.
38. Kwakwa, E., ‘Belligerent reprisals in the Law of Armed Conflict’, 27 Stanford JIL (1990) p. 49, at p. 60Google Scholar.
39. McDougal, M.S. and Feliciano, F.P., Law and Minimum World Public Order: The Legal Regulation of International Coercion (New Haven, Yale University Press 1961) p. 689Google Scholar.
40. Best, op. cit. n. 35, at p. 311.
41. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskić et al., supra n. 29, para. 532.
42. Op. cit. n. 6, Art. 84.
43. See Kalshoven, op. cit. n. 3, at pp. 216–263.
44. Bristol, loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 411.
45. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskić et al, supra n. 29, para. 528.
46. For example Art. 50 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, annexed to Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907, states that ‘[n]o general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible’. Art. 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention establishes that ‘[n]o protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed’. Both Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 contain a common provision which sets out that ‘no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility’, Art. 75(4)(b) of Protocol I and Art. 6(2)(b) of Protocol II. On the customary status of the prohibition of collective punishment see Darcy, S., ‘Punitive House Demolitions, the Prohibition of Collective Punishment, and the Supreme Court of Israel’, 21 Penn. State ILR (2003) pp. 477, at pp. 488–491Google Scholar.
47. Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 73. He asserts that this distinction is ‘vital both to civil society and to basic human dignity’, ibid., at p. 59.
48. Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 32, at p. 186. See also Bierzanek, loc. cit. n. 32, at p. 244.
49. Provost, loc. cit. n. 37, at p. 427. The above-cited phrase was adopted almost verbatim by the ICTY in its discussion on belligerent reprisals in Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskić et al., supra n. 29, para. 529.
50. Ibid., at p. 399.
51. See for example Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva (1974 – 1977), (Bern, Government of Switzerland, Federal Political Department 1978) Vol. XIV, at p. 114Google Scholar (CDDH/III/SR.14); ibid., Vol. VI, at p. 166 (CDDH/SR.41), Vol. IX, at p. 75 (CDDH/I/SR.47) [hereinafter Official Records].
52. Ibid., Vol. IX, at p. 62 (CDDH/I/SR.46).
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid., Vol. IX, at p. 453 (CDDH/I/SR.73).
55. As prohibited by Art. 35, para. 2 of Additional Protocol I.
56. 'Aldrich, G.H., ‘Prospects for United States Ratification of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions’, 85 AJIL (1991) p. 1, at p. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Roberts, G.B., ‘The New Rules for Waging War: The Case Against Ratification of Additional Protocol I’, 26 Virginia JIL (1985) p. 109, at p. 143Google Scholar.
57. Noone, M.F., ‘Applying Just war Jus in Bello Doctrine to Reprisals: An Afghan Hypothetical’, 51 Catholic Univ. LR (2001) p. 27, at p. 29Google Scholar.
58. Christopher Greenwood commenting on the enemy civilian population, see Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 61.
59. Walzer, op. cit. n. 34, at p. 214.
60. Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at fn. 106, p. 73.
61. Ibid.
62. Hampson, F., ‘Belligerent reprisals and the 1977 protocols to the Geneva conventions of 1949’, 37 ICLQ (1988) pp. 818, at pp. 840–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63. Ibid., at p. 839.
64. Ibid., at p. 840.
65. See Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 32, at p. 186.
66. See for example Official Records, Vol. IX, at p. 71Google Scholar (CDDH/I/SR.47); Nahlik, loc. cit. n. 22, at p. 56.
67. Sandoz, Y. et al. , eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross 1987) p. 1374Google Scholar.
68. See Provost, loc. cit. n. 37, at pp. 416–417.
69. In re Kappler, Italy, Military Tribunal of Rome, July 20, 1948. ILR, Vol. 15, Case No. 151, p. 471, at p. 477.
70. See generally Garner, J., ‘Community Fines and Collective Responsibility’, 11 AJIL (1917) p. 511CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
71. Art. 4(2)(b).
72. Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 32, at p. 189; Provost, loc. cit. n. 37, at p. 413.
73. Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 79.
74. McDougal and Feliciano, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 689.
75. Detter, I., The Law of War, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2000) p. 302Google Scholar.
76. See Albrecht, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 592.
77. Comments of the representative of Sweden, MrBring, , see Official Records, Vol. VI, at p. 210 (CDDH.SR.42)Google Scholar.
78. Bristol, loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 427. At the time the article was published, Major Bristol was assigned as Chief, International Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters United States Air Forces Europe, Ramstein Air Base, Germany.
79. Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 60.
80. Kalshoven, op. cit. n. 3, at p. 377.
81. Kalshoven, F., ‘Remarks’, American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the 74th Annual Meeting(1980) p. 202, at p. 205Google Scholar.
82. See for example Almond, H.H. Jr, ‘Reprisals: The Global Community is not yet ready to abandon them’, American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the 74th Annual Meeting(1980) p. 202, at p. 211Google Scholar (in response to remarks); Roberts, loc. cit. n. 56, at p. 143; Hampson, loc. cit. n. 62, at p. 841.
83. Roberts, loc. cit. n. 56, n. 186.
84. And it is doubtful whether such use by the United States would have amounted to a belligerent reprisal, see infra.
85. Roberts notes in an earlier footnote the contention that ‘Germany refrained from using chemical weapons partly out of fear of Allied retaliation’, loc. cit. n. 56, at n. 162 [emphasis added].
86. See for example Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 78; Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 72; Bierzanek, loc. cit. n. 32, at p. 244.
87. NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.1, (Official publication of the United States Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard), Art. 6.2.3.3 available at <http://www.nwc.navy.mil/ILD/ild_publications.htm
88. See Kalshoven, op. cit. n. 3, at p. 41.
89. See Darcy, loc. cit. n. 4, at pp. 191–192.
90. McDougal and Feliciano, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 689.
91. Kalshoven, op. cit. n. 3, at p. 367.
92. Oppenheim, L., in Lauterpacht, H., ed., International Law: Disputes, War and Neutrality, 7th edn. (London, Longman 1952) p. 565Google Scholar.
93. de Martens, M., La Paix et la Guerre p. 423Google Scholar cited in Spaight, op. cit. n. 31, at pp. 462–463.
94. Best, op. cit. n. 35, at p. 311.
95. One commentator asserts that ‘[s]trong political and moral foundations exist for the view that reprisals are an instrument of revenge by a victim against the perpetrators of a breach of humanitarian law’, see Provost, loc. cit. n. 37, at p. 415.
96. United States v. Ohlendorf, IV Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals 1, (1950) pp. 493–494Google Scholar.
97. Official Records, Vol. IX, at pp. 61–62 (CDDH/I/SR.46)Google Scholar.
98. Ibid., at p. 74 (CDDH/I/SR.47).
99. official Records, Vol. VI, at p. 210 (CDDH/SR.42)Google Scholar.
100. Official Records, Vol. IX, at p. 74 (CDDH/I/SR.47)Google Scholar.
101. Ibid., at p. 80.
102. See Nahlik, loc. cit. n. 22, at p. 58.
103. Best, op. cit. n. 35, at p. 311.
104. See for example Bristol, loc. cit. n. 35, at pp. 414–415; Nahlik, S.E., ‘From Reprisals to Individual Penal Responsibility’, in Delissen, A.J.M. and Tanja, G.J., eds., Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead: Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1991) p. 165, at p. 173Google Scholar.
105. Hampson, loc. cit. n. 62, at pp. 822–824.
106. Ibid., at p. 822.
107. Ibid., at p. 823.
108. Ibid., at pp. 823–824.
109. Kalshoven, op. cit. n. 3, at p. 341.
110. See for example Bristol, loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 428.
111. Ibid., at p. 403.
112. See for example Almond, loc. cit. n. 82, at p. 211; Roberts, loc. cit. n. 56, at p. 143; Sofaer, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 785.
113. See for example Hampson, loc. cit. n. 62, at p. 822; Sofaer, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 785.
114. Bristol, loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 425.
115. Roberts, loc. cit. n. 56, at p. 143.
116. See for example Provost, loc. cit. n. 37, at p. 421; Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 59.
117. Nahlik, loc. cit. n. 104, at p. 173.
118. Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863; text reproduced in Schindler and Toman, op. cit. n. 6, at pp. 3–23.
119. Ibid., Arts. 27–28.
120. Supra n. 26 (author's translation of French text).
121. Roberts and Guelff, op. cit. n. 26, at p. 511.
122. Sofaer, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 785.
123. Official Records, Vol. IX, at p. 58 (CDDH/I/SR.46)Google Scholar.
124. Ibid.
125. Ibid., at p. 59.
126. Official Records, Vol. IX, at p. 443 (CDDH/I/SR.73)Google Scholar.
127. Official Records, Vol. IX, at p. 73 (CDDH/I/SR.47)Google Scholar.
128. Ibid., at pp. 73–74.
129. McDougal and Feliciano, op. cit. n. 39, at pp. 681–682. See also Bristol, loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 404.
130. Almond, loc. cit, n. 82, at p. 211.
131. Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 56.
132. Kalshoven, op. cit. n. 3, at p. 375.
133. See von Glahn, op. cit. n. 36, at p. 235; Bierzanek, loc. cit. n. 32, at pp. 244–247.
134. Additional Protocol I, Art. 2, para. C and Art. 5.
135. Additional Protocol I, Art. 90, para. 2(c). On some potential problems associated with the Commission see Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 57; Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 76–78.
136. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (1998) UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9, adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, Art. 5, para. 1.
137. See for example Scheffer, D.J., ‘The United States and the International Criminal Court’, 93 AJIL (1999) p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; King, H.T. and Theofrastous, T.C., ‘From Nuremburg to Rome: A Step Backward for US Foreign Policy’, 31 Case Western Reserve JIL (1999) p. 47Google Scholar.
138. Almond, loc. cit. n. 82, at pp. 197, 200.
139. Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 74; Roberts, A., ‘The Laws of War: Problems of Implementation in Contemporary Conflicts’, 6 Duke J Comp. IL (1995) p. 11, at p. 78Google Scholar.
140. See for example Official Records, Vol. VI, at p. 176Google Scholar (CDDH.SR.41), ibid., Vol. IX, at p. 59 (CDDH/I/SR.46) and p. 93 (CDDH/I/SR.48).
141. Roberts, loc. cit. n. 56, at p. 143.
142. Albrecht, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 613.
143. Ibid.
144. Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 75.
145. Hampson, loc. cit. n. 62, at p. 843.
146. Official Records, Vol. IX, at p. 59 (CDDH/I/SR.46)Google Scholar.
147. 8 State Department Bulletin (1943) at p. 507 cited in Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 76.
148. Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at pp. 75–76; Hampson, loc. cit. n. 62, at pp. 841–842.
149. Signed at Geneva, 17 June 1925, entered into force, 8 February 1928; reprinted in Schindler and Toman, op. cit. n. 6, at p. 115. A list of ratifications and reservations are reproduced at ibid., at pp. 121–127.
150. Official Records, Vol. IX, at p. 59 (CDDH/I/SR.46)Google Scholar. See also ibid., at p. 93 (CDDH/I/SR.48).
151. Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 59.
152. Ibid., at p. 60.
153. Kwakwa, loc. cit. n. 38, at p. 76.
154. McCoubrey, Hilaire, International Humanitarian Law: Modern Developments in the Limitation of Warfare, 2nd edn. (Aldershot, Ashgate-Dartmouth 1998) pp. 307–308Google Scholar.
155. Official Records, Vol. VI, at p. 199 (CDDH/SR.41)Google Scholar
156. Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 33, at pp. 54–58.
157. Ibid., at p. 56.
158. Art. 56, para. 1.
159. Art. 57, para. 2(a)(iii).
160. Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 57.
161. Ibid., at p. 58.
162. Official Records, Vol. IX, at p. 62 (CDDH/I/SR.46) and p. 79 (CDDH/I/SR.47)Google Scholar.
163. Ibid., at p. 71 (CDDH/I/SR.47).
164. Bierzanek, loc. cit. n. 32, at p. 239.
165. See Nahlik, loc. cit. n. 104, at p. 173.
166. Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 58.
167. Roberts, loc. cit. n. 56, at p. 145.
168. McDougal and Feliciano, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 689.
169. Greenwood, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 58.
170. Kalshoven, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 60. See also Almond, loc. cit. n. 82, at p. 202.
171. Supra n. 5.
