International Law and War Crimes Prosecution

This essay critically discusses the statement 'Can international law change the world?' in relation to war crimes prosecution. It covers the history and principles of international law, war crimes and their prosecution, and the role of the UN and Geneva Conventions.

International Law
1

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
Can international law change the world” critically discuss this statement in relation to
Prosecution of war crimes............................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................8
REFRENCES ..................................................................................................................................9
2

INTRODUCTION
International laws are those laws which are used over making universal declaration making
distend over doing war reduced in more effective way. Also they promoted international
platforms for reducing factors giving rise to war. War crime means those conflicts which takes
place due to the any kind of misunderstanding accrued within different countries leading towards
distressed caused in functioning of country. War crimes are based over certain indecent actions
that takes place over various kinds of attributes leading towards in human activities. These
crimes lead towards causing dis balance within the peace at global and domestic level. Through
war crimes more and more warfare perspectives are achieved over prosecuting people involved
within war. This is an important concept to be studied as it helps in attaining knowledge about
conditions faced by prosecutors during the time of war. In the essay deep discussion is done
about war prosecutions and war crimes by covering important aspects in relation to it. It is one
of the most important party used for studying history of law related to punishment.
MAIN BODY
Can international law change the world” critically discuss this statement in relation to
Prosecution of war crimes
War crimes means those violations that has been taking place due to violation of
international humanitarian law that makes individuals criminal responsibility mentioned within
international law. Further, these crimes are violation of laws related to war giving rise over
individual criminals responsible over actions through combating about intentional killing
civilians or killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages and destroying civilian property,
deception over various kinds of crime like perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, the
conscription of children in the military, committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of
no quarter despite surrender, and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military
necessity (Schindler, 2019). The formal concept of war crime has been identified over emerging
codification and customary international law which is applicable over warfare between sovereign
states are Lieber Code (1863) of the Union Army in the American Civil War and the Hague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907 within international war. As the Second World War ended the
war-crime trials over the leaders of various countries lead upon forming Nuremberg principles of
3

law as per the fact upon international criminal law that is based over war crime. In 1949 the
Geneva Conventions were formed legally within which new war crimes are established over
state exercising universal jurisdiction. Also in 20th century and early 21st century makes
international courts defined in relation to categories of war crime related to civil war. The
Geneva Conventions are four treaties which has been adopted with continuous expansion from
the year 1864 to 1949 which has helped in representing about legal basis and framework over
conducting war within international law. The conviction is accepted universally and followed
with every single members of United Nation making convention to be accepted all over the
glob in the form of international law. These laws are applied within every situation
(Turgumbayev and et. al., 2021). The Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, which
were adopted in 1977 and contain the most pertinent, detailed, and comprehensive protections of
international humanitarian law for persons and objects in modern warfare, have yet to be ratified
by several states, including the United States, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. As a result,
states have different codes and values when it comes to wartime behaviour. Some signatories
have routinely violated the Geneva Conventions by avoiding the laws' formalities and principles
through legal ambiguity or political manoeuvring. The First Geneva Convention for the Relief of
Wounded and Sick Armed Forces in the Field, the Second Geneva Convention for the Relief of
Wounded and Sick Armed Forces in the Field, and the Third Geneva Convention for the Relief
of Wounded and Sick Armed Forces in the Field were revised and expanded, with a fourth added
in 1949: the First Geneva Convention for the Relief of Wounded and Sick Armed Forces in the
Field, the Second Geneva Convention for the Relief of Wounded and Sick Armed Force
(Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in
the Field was adopted in 1864, significantly revised and replaced by the 1906 version, the 1929
version, and later the First Geneva Convention of 1949). Second Geneva Convention for the
Relief of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Armed Forces at Sea (Convention for the
Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at
Sea was adopted in 1906, significantly revised and replaced by the Second Geneva Convention
of 1949). The Third Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War is a treaty that
governs the treatment of prisoners of war (Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of
War was adopted in 1929, significantly revised and replaced by the Third Geneva Convention of
1949). According to Human Rights Watch, the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen, which
4

began on March 26, 2015, included airstrikes that appeared to violate international humanitarian
law. The Fourth Geneva Convention on Civilian Protection in Time of War (first adopted in
1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV). On July 1, 2002, the International
Criminal Court, a treaty-based court based in The Hague, was established to prosecute war
crimes committed on or after that date. The court has been condemned by a number of countries,
including the United States, China, Russia, and Israel. The United States will continue to
participate as an observer. The citizens of non-contracting states have jurisdiction if they are
accused of committing crimes on the territory of one of the state parties, according to Article 12
of the Rome Statute.
War Crimes Prosecution (Rule 158). According to Rule 158, states must investigate
alleged war crimes committed on their territory by their nationals or armed forces and, if
necessary, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they
have jurisdiction and, if necessary, prosecute suspects. This rule has been established as a norm
of customary international law by state practise, and it applies in both international and non-
international armed conflicts. When combined with Rule 157, this rule means that states must
exercise the criminal jurisdiction granted to their courts by national legislation, whether that
jurisdiction is limited to territorial and personal jurisdiction or includes universal jurisdiction,
which is mandatory for grave violations(Rava and et. al., 2017). Armed conflicts, both
international and non-international, According to the Geneva Conventions, states must seek out
and prosecute or extradite people accused of or ordered to commit grave violations. A number of
treaties that apply to both international and non-international armed conflicts include the
obligation to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of international law violations. In the
preamble to the International Criminal Court Statute, it is stated that "every State has a duty to
exercise criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes." The rule that states
must investigate and prosecute suspects for war crimes is stated in numerous military manuals,
not only for grave violations, but also for war crimes in general. Most states fulfil their
obligation to investigate and prosecute suspected war criminals by incorporating such crimes into
national legislation, and there have been numerous national investigations and prosecutions of
suspected war criminals. However, it is impossible to say whether this practise was based on
obligation or simply a right. An obligation to investigate and prosecute, on the other hand, is
explicitly stated in a variety of other State practises, such as agreements and official statements.
5

Furthermore, the UN Security Council has repeatedly reaffirmed the obligation to investigate
war crimes and prosecute suspects in non-international armed conflicts in Afghanistan, Burundi,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kosovo, and Rwanda. The UN General Assembly, in its
first session in 1946, recommended that all states, including those that were not UN members,
arrest people accused of war crimes during WWII and return them to the state where the crimes
were committed for prosecution. Since then, the UN General Assembly has repeatedly
emphasized states' obligation to take steps to ensure the investigation and punishment of
perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Concerning sexual violence in armed
conflict, the United Nations General Assembly has passed several resolutions without a vote,
urging states to strengthen mechanisms for investigating and punishing all perpetrators of sexual
violence, as well as bringing perpetrators to justice. The United Nations Commission on Human
Rights has passed a number of resolutions, the majority of which were passed without a vote,
requiring the investigation and prosecution of individuals suspected of violating international
humanitarian law in the context of conflicts in Burundi, Chechnya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone,
Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia. The Commission recognised that perpetrators of war crimes
should be prosecuted or extradited in a resolution on impunity adopted without a vote in 2002. A
number of States have issued amnesties for war crimes committed in non-international armed
conflicts, but these have frequently been found to be illegal by their own courts or by regional
courts, and have been criticised by the international community. There is, however, sufficient
practice, as outlined above, to establish the obligation under customary international law to
investigate war crimes allegedly committed in non-international armed conflicts and to prosecute
the suspects if appropriate (Turgumbayev and et. al., 2021). Trial by international or mixed
tribunals: As stated in military manuals, national case law, and official statements, states can
fulfil their obligation to investigate war crimes and prosecute suspects by establishing
international or mixed tribunals. This is demonstrated, in particular, by the establishment of the
International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo after WWII, and, more recently, by the
UN Security Council's establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary Chambers in
Cambodian Courts for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic
Kampuchea were established as a result of agreements reached between the United Nations and
Sierra Leone and Cambodia, respectively. The International Criminal Court is the first
6

international tribunal created by an international treaty that is not concerned with war crimes
committed during a specific armed conflict. War crimes committed during non-international
armed conflicts are expressly included within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the
Extraordinary Chambers for Cambodia. Refugee status: It is widely accepted that people
suspected of committing war crimes do not qualify for refugee status. This is specifically
provided for in the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and there is State practise to that
effect. Concerning Rwanda, the UN Security Council stated in 1994 that "persons involved in
cannot obtain immunity from prosecution by fleeing the country" and that "the provisions of the
Convention relating to the status of refugees do not apply to such persons." The UN General
Assembly has also supported the exclusion of suspected war criminals from asylum in the
Declaration on Territorial Asylum and in Resolution 3074 (XXVIII) on the principles of
international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition, and punishment of war criminals.
War crimes are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and other serious
violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts. The Geneva Conventions are
international agreements defining the rules of war. They set international standards for the
protection of the civilian population and the treatment of combatants in international and internal
armed conflicts. War crimes are committed in the context of an armed conflict. Some war crimes
are directly linked to internal armed conflict, such as civil war, while others are linked to
international armed conflict(Schindler, 2019). International laws are those perspectives which
has helped in dealing with prosecutions of war crime by forming various principles with the help
of UN general assembly and Geneva convention over war crimes prosecution which made
different changes bough within wars crime prosecution it helped in forming International Court
of Justice which deals over various factors related to international conflicts taking place between
countries which made lead over causing war. UN declaration brought revolution in terms of
forming international legislation which included punishment in relation over violating principles
in more effective way. The UN declaration made various changes within war related issues
solved in more effective way which has helped in controlling war like situations in better and
effective manner. International law has justified various kinds of important principles of UN
which made peace and order maintained in more effective way. International law has justified
War crimes as those crimes making violation of international Humanitarian law. According to
7

this law, in conduct of hostilities the opposing forces are to be governed by three principles:
necessity, humanity and chivalry. Through international law perspectives like humanity, peace
and stability of international relationship has been developed with positive approach. Through
international laws various kinds of war crime prosecution were banned which were in human in
nature. War crime prosecutions were removed and replace by Geneva convention that was
released by UN for creating peace all over the world
CONCLUSION
The preceding essay is about the effects of globalisation and privatisation on Australia.
There has also been discussion about anti-globalization movements. The movement's history was
then discussed. Then, various reasons for the increase in movement were explained. Then there
was a general discussion about the movement. Various elements have also been discussed in this
file in terms of their impact on globalisation. International law has helped in making war crime
prosecution to be bounded by various convictions and gave power to an authority over seeking
that war dose not take place under any circumstances.
8

REFRENCES
Books and journals
Bell, A., Hodgson, M. and Pragnell, S., 2019. Diverting children and young people from crime
and the criminal justice system. In Youth Justice: Contemporary policy and practice (pp.
91-109). Routledge.
Carroll, C.P., 2021. Accessing rights and mitigating revictimization: The role of the victim’s
legal counsel in the Swedish criminal justice system. Violence against women,
p.1077801220988341.
Dancig-Rosenberg, H. and Gal, T., 2019. Multi-Door Criminal Justice. New Crim. L. Rev., 22,
p.347.
Forrester, A. and Hopkin, G., 2019. Mental health in the criminal justice system: a pathways
approach to service and research design. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 29(4),
pp.207-217.
Rava, J., Shattuck, P., Rast, J. and Roux, A., 2017. The prevalence and correlates of involvement
in the criminal justice system among youth on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 47(2), pp.340-346.
Schindler, V.P., 2019. Introduction to the Issue on OT and the Criminal Justice System.
Turgumbayev, Y and et. al., 2021. Examining the nexus between involvement in crime and
delinquency and being processed through the criminal justice system. Journal of Crime
and Justice, pp.1-14.
Rava, J., Shattuck, P., Rast, J. and Roux, A., 2017. The prevalence and correlates of involvement
in the criminal justice system among youth on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 47(2), pp.340-346.
Schindler, V.P., 2019. Introduction to the Issue on OT and the Criminal Justice System.
Turgumbayev, Y and et. al., 2021. Examining the nexus between involvement in crime and
delinquency and being processed through the criminal justice system. Journal of Crime
and Justice, pp.1-14.
9

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docindex/v1_rul_rule158, Rule 158. Prosecution
of War Crimes
10