CUPRINS :

1. International Committee Of The Red Cross ( ICRC )

2. International Humanitarian Law ( IHL )
3. International Criminal Court ( ICC )
International Committee of the Red Cross

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a private humanitarian

institution based in Geneva, Switzerland. States parties (signatories) to the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005, have given the ICRC a
mandate to protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. Such victims
include war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants.

The ICRC is part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement along
with the International Federation and 186 National Societies.It is the oldest and most
honoured organization within the Movement and one of the most widely recognized
organizations in the world, having won three Nobel Peace Prizes in 1917, 1944, and 1963.

Up until the middle of the 19th century, there were no organized and well-established
army nursing systems for casualties and no safe and protected institutions to accommodate
and treat those who were wounded on the battlefield. In June 1859, the Swiss businessman
Henry Dunant travelled to Italy to meet French emperor Napoléon III with the intention of
discussing difficulties in conducting business in Algeria, at that time occupied by France.
When he arrived in the small town of Solferino on the evening of June 24, he witnessed the
Battle of Solferino, an engagement in the Austro-Sardinian War. In a single day, about 40,000
soldiers on both sides died or were left wounded on the field. Henry Dunant was shocked by
the terrible aftermath of the battle, the suffering of the wounded soldiers, and the near-total
lack of medical attendance and basic care. He completely abandoned the original intent of his
trip and for several days he devoted himself to helping with the treatment and care for the
wounded. He succeeded in organizing an overwhelming level of relief assistance by
motivating the local population to aid without discrimination. Back in his home in Geneva, he
decided to write a book entitled A Memory of Solferino which he published with his own
money in 1862. He sent copies of the book to leading political and military figures throughout
Europe. In addition to penning a vivid description of his experiences in Solferino in 1859, he
explicitly advocated the formation of national voluntary relief organizations to help nurse
wounded soldiers in the case of war. In addition, he called for the development of
international treaties to guarantee the neutrality and protection of those wounded on the
battlefield as well as medics and field hospitals.

On February 9, 1863 in Geneva, Henry Dunant founded the "Committee of the Five"
(together with four other leading figures from well-known Geneva families) as an
investigatory commission of the Geneva Society for Public Welfare. Their aim was to
examine the feasibility of Dunant's ideas and to organize an international conference about
their possible implementation. The members of this committee, aside from Dunant himself,
were Gustave Moynier, lawyer and chairman of the Geneva Society for Public Welfare;
physician Louis Appia, who had significant experience working as a field surgeon; Appia's
friend and colleague Théodore Maunoir, from the Geneva Hygiene and Health Commission;
and Guillaume-Henri Dufour, a Swiss Army general of great renown. Eight days later, the
five men decided to rename the committee to the "International Committee for Relief to the
Wounded". In October (26-29) 1863, the international conference organized by the committee
was held in Geneva to develop possible measures to improve medical services on the battle
field. The conference was attended by 36 individuals: eighteen official delegates from
national governments, six delegates from other non-governmental organizations, seven non-
official foreign delegates, and the five members of the International Committee. The states
and kingdoms represented by official delegates were Baden, Bavaria, France, Britain,
Hanover, Hesse, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Saxony, Sweden, and Spain.
Among the proposals written in the final resolutions of the conference, adopted on October
29, 1863, were:

• The foundation of national relief societies for wounded soldiers;

• Neutrality and protection for wounded soldiers;
• The utilization of volunteer forces for relief assistance on the battlefield;
• The organization of additional conferences to enact these concepts in legally binding
international treaties; and
• The introduction of a common distinctive protection symbol for medical personnel in
the field, namely a white armlet bearing a red cross.

Only one year later, the Swiss government invited the governments of all European
countries, as well as the United States, Brazil, and Mexico, to attend an official diplomatic
conference. Sixteen countries sent a total of twenty-six delegates to Geneva. On August 22,
1864, the conference adopted the first Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field". Representatives of 12 states and kingdoms
signed the convention: Baden, Belgium, Denmark, France, Hesse, Italy, the Netherlands,
Portugal, Prussia, Switzerland, Spain, and Württemberg. The convention contained ten
articles, establishing for the first time legally binding rules guaranteeing neutrality and
protection for wounded soldiers, field medical personnel, and specific humanitarian
institutions in an armed conflict. Furthermore, the convention defined two specific
requirements for recognition of a national relief society by the International Committee:

• The national society must be recognized by its own national government as a relief
society according to the convention, and
• The national government of the respective country must be a state party to the Geneva
Convention.

Directly following the establishment of the Geneva Convention, the first national societies
were founded in Belgium, Denmark, France, Oldenburg, Prussia, Spain, and Württemberg.
Also in 1864, Louis Appia and Charles van de Velde, a captain of the Dutch Army, became
the first independent and neutral delegates to work under the symbol of the Red Cross in an
armed conflict. Three years later in 1867, the first International Conference of National Aid
Societies for the Nursing of the War Wounded was convened.
 Also in 1867, Henry Dunant was forced to declare bankruptcy due to business failures in
Algeria, partly because he had neglected his business interests during his tireless activities for
the International Committee. Controversy surrounding Dunant's business dealings and the
resulting negative public opinion, combined with an ongoing conflict with Gustave Moynier,
led to Dunant's expulsion from his position as a member and secretary. He was charged with
fraudulent bankruptcy and a warrant for his arrest was issued. Thus, he was forced to leave
Geneva and never returned to his home city. In the following years, national societies were
founded in nearly every country in Europe. In 1876, the committee adopted the name
"International Committee of the Red Cross" (ICRC), which is still its official designation
today. Five years later, the American Red Cross was founded through the efforts of Clara
Barton. More and more countries signed the Geneva Convention and began to respect it in
practice during armed conflicts. In a rather short period of time, the Red Cross gained huge
momentum as an internationally respected movement, and the national societies became
increasingly popular as a venue for volunteer work.

In 1906, the 1864 Geneva Convention was revised for the first time. One year later, the
Hague Convention X, adopted at the Second International Peace Conference in The Hague,
extended the scope of the Geneva Convention to naval warfare. Shortly before the beginning
of the First World War in 1914, 50 years after the foundation of the ICRC and the adoption of
the first Geneva Convention, there were already 45 national relief societies throughout the
world. The movement had extended itself beyond Europe and North America to Central and
South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Mexico, Peru, El Salvador, Uruguay,
Venezuela), Asia (the Republic of China, Japan, Korea, Siam), and Africa (Republic of South
Africa).

With the outbreak of World War I, the ICRC found itself confronted with enormous
challenges which it could only handle by working closely with the national Red Cross
societies. Red Cross nurses from around the world, including the United States and Japan,
came to support the medical services of the armed forces of the European countries involved
in the war. On October 15, 1914, immediately after the start of the war, the ICRC set up its
International Prisoners-of-War (POW) Agency, which had about 1,200 mostly volunteer staff
members by the end of 1914. By the end of the war, the Agency had transferred about 20
million letters and messages, 1.9 million parcels, and about 18 million Swiss francs in
monetary donations to POWs of all affected countries. Furthermore, due to the intervention of
the Agency, about 200,000 prisoners were exchanged between the warring parties, released
from captivity and returned to their home country. The organizational card index of the
Agency accumulated about 7 million records from 1914 to 1923, each card representing an
individual prisoner or missing person. The card index led to the identification of about 2
million POWs and the ability to contact their families. The complete index is on loan today
from the ICRC to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum in Geneva. The
right to access the index is still strictly restricted to the ICRC.

During the entire war, the ICRC monitored warring parties’ compliance with the Geneva
Conventions of the 1907 revision and forwarded complaints about violations to the respective
country. When chemical weapons were used in this war for the first time in history, the ICRC
vigorously protested against this new type of warfare. Even without having a mandate from
the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC tried to ameliorate the suffering of civil populations. In
territories that were officially designated as "occupied territories," the ICRC could assist the
civilian population on the basis of the Hague Convention's "Laws and Customs of War on
Land" of 1907. This convention was also the legal basis for the ICRC's work for prisoners of
war. In addition to the work of the International Prisoner-of-War Agency as described above
this included inspection visits to POW camps. A total of 524 camps throughout Europe were
visited by 41 delegates from the ICRC until the end of the war.

Between 1916 and 1918, the ICRC published a number of postcards with scenes from the
POW camps. The pictures showed the prisoners in day-to-day activities such as the
distribution of letters from home. The intention of the ICRC was to provide the families of the
prisoners with some hope and solace and to alleviate their uncertainties about the fate of their
loved ones. After the end of the war, the ICRC organized the return of about 420,000
prisoners to their home countries. In 1920, the task of repatriation was handed over to the
newly founded League of Nations, which appointed the Norwegian diplomat and scientist
Fridtjof Nansen as its "High Commissioner for Repatriation of the War Prisoners." His legal
mandate was later extended to support and care for war refugees and displaced persons when
his office became that of the League of Nations "High Commissioner for Refugees." Nansen,
who invented the Nansen passport for stateless refugees and was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in 1922, appointed two delegates from the ICRC as his deputies.

A year before the end of the war, the ICRC received the 1917 Nobel Peace Prize for its
outstanding wartime work. It was the only Nobel Peace Prize awarded in the period from
1914 to 1918. In 1923, the Committee adopted a change in its policy regarding the selection
of new members. Until then, only citizens from the city of Geneva could serve in the
Committee. This limitation was expanded to include Swiss citizens. As a direct consequence
of World War I, an additional protocol to the Geneva Convention was adopted in 1925 which
outlawed the use of suffocating or poisonous gases and biological agents as weapons. Four
years later, the original Convention was revised and the second Geneva Convention "relative
to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" was established. The events of World War I and the
respective activities of the ICRC significantly increased the reputation and authority of the
Committee among the international community and led to an extension of its competencies.

As early as in 1934, a draft proposal for an additional convention for the protection of the
civil population during an armed conflict was adopted by the International Red Cross
Conference. Unfortunately, most governments had little interest in implementing this
convention, and it was thus prevented from entering into force before the beginning of World
War II.

The legal basis of the work of the ICRC during World War II were the Geneva
Conventions in their 1929 revision. The activities of the Committee were similar to those
during World War I: visiting and monitoring POW camps, organizing relief assistance for
civilian populations, and administering the exchange of messages regarding prisoners and
missing persons. By the end of the war, 179 delegates had conducted 12,750 visits to POW
camps in 41 countries. The Central Information Agency on Prisoners-of-War
(Zentralauskunftsstelle für Kriegsgefangene) had a staff of 3,000, the card index tracking
prisoners contained 45 million cards, and 120 million messages were exchanged by the
Agency. One major obstacle was that the Nazi-controlled German Red Cross refused to
cooperate with the Geneva statutes including blatant violations such as the deportation of
Jews from Germany and the mass murders conducted in the concentration camps run by the
German government. Moreover, two other main parties to the conflict, the Soviet Union and
Japan, were not party to the 1929 Geneva Conventions and were not legally required to follow
the rules of the conventions. Thus, other countries were not bound to follow the Conventions
regarding their prisoners in return.
 During the war, the ICRC failed to obtain an agreement with Nazi Germany about the
treatment of detainees in concentration camps, and it eventually abandoned applying pressure
in order to avoid disrupting its work with POWs. The ICRC also failed to develop a response
to reliable information about the extermination camps and the mass killing of European Jews.
This is still considered the greatest failure of the ICRC in its history. After November 1943,
the ICRC achieved permission to send parcels to concentration camp detainees with known
names and locations. Because the notices of receipt for these parcels were often signed by
other inmates, the ICRC managed to register the identities of about 105,000 detainees in the
concentration camps and delivered about 1.1 million parcels, primarily to the camps Dachau,
Buchenwald, Ravensbrück, and Sachsenhausen.

On March 12, 1945, ICRC president Jacob Burckhardt received a message from SS
General Ernst Kaltenbrunner accepting the ICRC's demand to allow delegates to visit the
concentration camps. This agreement was bound by the condition that these delegates would
have to stay in the camps until the end of the war. Ten delegates, among them Louis Haefliger
(Mauthausen Camp), Paul Dunant (Theresienstadt Camp) and Victor Maurer (Dachau Camp),
accepted the assignment and visited the camps. Louis Haefliger prevented the forceful
eviction or blasting of Mauthausen-Gusen by alerting American troops, thereby saving the
lives of about 60,000 inmates. His actions were condemned by the ICRC because they were
deemed as acting unduly on his own authority and risking the ICRC's neutrality. Only in
1990, his reputation was finally rehabilitated by ICRC president Cornelio Sommaruga.

Another example of great humanitarian spirit was Friedrich Born (1903-1963), an ICRC
delegate in Budapest who saved the lives of about 11,000 to 15,000 Jews in Hungary. Marcel
Junod (1904-1961), a physician from Geneva, was another famous delegate during the Second
World War. An account of his experiences, which included being one of the first foreigners to
visit Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped, can be found in the book Warrior
without Weapons.

In 1944, the ICRC received its second Nobel Peace Prize. As in World War I, it received
the only Peace Prize awarded during the main period of war, 1939 to 1945. At the end of the
war, the ICRC worked with national Red Cross societies to organize relief assistance to those
countries most severely affected. In 1948, the Committee published a report reviewing its
war-era activities from September 1, 1939 to June 30, 1947. Since January 1996, the ICRC
archive for this period has been open to academic and public research.

On August 12, 1949, further revisions to the existing two Geneva Conventions were
adopted. An additional convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick
and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea", now called the second Geneva
Convention, was brought under the Geneva Convention umbrella as a successor to the 1907
Hague Convention X. The 1929 Geneva convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of
War" may have been the second Geneva Convention from a historical point of view (because
it was actually formulated in Geneva), but after 1949 it came to be called the third Convention
because it came later chronologically than the Hague Convention. Reacting to the experience
of World War II, the Fourth Geneva Convention, a new Convention "relative to the Protection
of Civilian Persons in Time of War," was established. Also, the additional protocols of June 8,
1977 were intended to make the conventions apply to internal conflicts such as civil wars.
Today, the four conventions and their added protocols contain more than 600 articles, a
remarkable expansion when compared to the mere 10 articles in the first 1864 convention.
 In celebration of its centennial in 1963, the ICRC, together with the League of Red Cross
Societies, received its third Nobel Peace Prize. Since 1993, non-Swiss individuals have been
allowed to serve as Committee delegates abroad, a task which was previously restricted to
Swiss citizens. Indeed, since then, the share of staff without Swiss citizenship has increased to
about 35%.

On October 16, 1990, the UN General Assembly decided to grant the ICRC observer
status for its assembly sessions and sub-committee meetings, the first observer status given to
a private organization. The resolution was jointly proposed by 138 member states and
introduced by the Italian ambassador, Vieri Traxler, in memory of the organization's origins
in the Battle of Solferino. An agreement with the Swiss government signed on March 19,
1993, affirmed the already long-standing policy of full independence of the Committee from
any possible interference by Switzerland. The agreement protects the full sanctity of all ICRC
property in Switzerland including its headquarters and archive, grants members and staff legal
immunity, exempts the ICRC from all taxes and fees, guarantees the protected and duty-free
transfer of goods, services, and money, provides the ICRC with secure communication
privileges at the same level as foreign embassies, and simplifies Committee travel in and out
of Switzerland.

The ICRC continued its activities throughout the 1990s. It broke its customary media
silence when it denounced the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. It struggled to prevent the crimes
that happened in and around Srebrenica in 1995 but admitted, "We must acknowledge that
despite our efforts to help thousands of civilians forcibly expelled from the town and despite
the dedication of our colleagues on the spot, the ICRC's impact on the unfolding of the
tragedy was extremely limited." It went public once again in 2007 to decry "major human
rights abuses" by Burma's military government including forced labor, starvation, and murder
of men, women, and children.

At the end of the Cold War, the ICRC's work actually became more dangerous. In the
1990s, more delegates lost their lives than at any point in its history, especially when working
in local and internal armed conflicts. These incidents often demonstrated a lack of respect for
the rules of the Geneva Conventions and their protection symbols.

The original motto of the International Committee of the Red Cross was Inter Arma
Caritas ("Amidst War, Charity"). It has preserved this motto while other Red Cross
organizations have adopted others. Due to Geneva's location in the French-speaking part of
Switzerland, the ICRC is also known under its initial French name Comité international de la
Croix-Rouge (CICR). However, the ICRC has four official languages (Arabic, English,
French and Spanish). The official symbol of the ICRC is the Red Cross on white background
(the inverse of the Swiss flag) with the words "COMITE INTERNATIONAL GENEVE"
circling the cross.

The official mission statement says that: "The International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) is an impartial, neutral, and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian
mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to
provide them with assistance." It also directs and coordinates international relief and works to
promote and strengthen humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.[12] The core
tasks of the Committee, which are derived from the Geneva Conventions and its own statutes
are the following:
 • to monitor compliance of warring parties with the Geneva Conventions
• to organize nursing and care for those who are wounded on the battlefield
• to supervise the treatment of prisoners of war and make confidential interventions with
detaining authorities
• to help with the search for missing persons in an armed conflict (tracing service)
• to organize protection and care for civil populations
• to act as a neutral intermediary between warring parties

The ICRC drew up seven fundamental principles in 1965 that were adopted by the entire
Red Cross Movement. They are humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence,
volunteerism, unity, and universality.

Like the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the ICRC is a rare example
of a non-governmental sovereign entity. It is the only institution explicitly named under
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a controlling authority. The legal mandate of the
ICRC stems from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as its own Statutes. The
ICRC has expanded from its grounding in international law to undertake tasks that are not
specifically mandated by law, such as visiting political prisoners outside of conflict and
providing relief in natural disasters.

Contrary to popular belief, the ICRC is not a non-governmental organization in the most
common sense of the term, nor is it an inter-state organization, such as the United Nations.
Because it limits its membership to Swiss nationals only, and because new members are
selected by the Committee itself (a process called cooptation), it does not have a policy of
open and unrestricted membership for individuals like other legally defined NGOs. However,
since the early 1990s, the ICRC employs persons from all over the world to serve in its field
mission and at Headquarters. In 2007, almost half of ICRC staff was non-Swiss. The ICRC
has special privileges and legal immunities in many countries, based on national law in these
countries, based on agreements between the ICRC and the respective governments, or, in
some cases, based on international jurisprudence (such as the right of ICRC delegates not to
bear witness in front of international tribunals).

According to Swiss law, the ICRC is defined as a private association. However, the ICRC
has enjoyed de facto sovereignty and immunity within the territory of Switzerland for many
years. On March 19, 1993, a legal foundation for this status was created by a formal
agreement between the Swiss government and the ICRC. This agreement protects the full
sanctity of all ICRC property in Switzerland including its headquarters and archive, grants
members and staff legal immunity, exempts the ICRC from all taxes and fees, guarantees the
protected and duty-free transfer of goods, services, and money, provides the ICRC with
secure communication privileges at the same level as foreign embassies, and simplifies
Committee travel in and out of Switzerland.

The ICRC is responsible for legally recognizing a relief society as an official national Red
Cross or Red Crescent society and thus accepting it into the Movement. The exact rules for
recognition are defined in the statutes of the Movement. After recognition by the ICRC, a
national society is admitted as a member to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent societies. The ICRC and the Federation cooperate with the individual national
societies in their international missions, especially with human, material, and financial
resources and organizing on-site logistics. According to the 1997 Seville Agreement, the
ICRC is the lead Red Cross agency in conflicts while other organizations within the
Movement take the lead in non-war situations. National societies will be given the lead
especially when a conflict is happening within their own country.

The ICRC is headquartered in the Swiss city of Geneva and has external offices called
Delegations in about 80 countries. Each delegation is under the responsibility of a Head of
delegation who is the official representative of the ICRC in the country. Of its 2,000
professional employees, roughly 800 work in its Geneva headquarters and 1,200 expatriates
work in the field. About half of the field workers serve as delegates managing ICRC
operations in the different countries while the other half are specialists like doctors,
agronomists, engineers or interpreters. In the delegations, the international staff are assisted
by some 13,000 national employees, bringing the total staff under the authority of the ICRC
to roughly 15,000. Delegations also often work closely with the National Red Cross Societies
of the countries where they are based and thus can call on the volunteers of the National Red
Cross to assist in some of the ICRC operations.

The organizational structure of the ICRC is not well understood by outsiders. This is
partly because of organizational secrecy, but also because the structure itself is highly mutable
and has been prone to change. The Assembly and Presidency are two long-standing
institutions, but the Assembly Council and Directorate were created only in the latter part of
the twentieth century. Decisions are often made in a collective way, so authority and power
relationships are not set in stone. Today, the leading organs are the Directorate and the
Assembly.

The Directorate is the executive body of the Committee. It attends to the daily
management of the ICRC, whereas the Assembly sets policy. The Directorate consists of a
Director-General and five directors in the areas of "Operations", "Human Resources",
"Resources and Operational Support", "Communication", and "International Law and
Cooperation within the Movement". The members of the Directorate are appointed by the
Assembly to serve for four years. The Director-General has assumed more personal
responsibility in recent years, much like a CEO, where he was formerly more of a first among
equals at the Directorate.

The Assembly (also called the Committee) convenes on a regular basis and is responsible
for defining aims, guidelines, and strategies and for supervising the financial matters of the
Committee. The Assembly has a membership of a maximum of 25 Swiss citizens. Members
must speak the house language of French, but many also speak English and German as well.
These Assembly members are co-opted for a period of four years, and there is no limit to the
number of terms an individual member can serve. A three-quarters majority vote from all
members is required for re-election after the third term, which acts as a motivation for
members to remain active and productive.

In the early years, every Committee member was Genevan, Protestant, white, and male.
The first woman, Renée-Marguerite Cramer, was co-opted in 1918. Since then, several
women have attained the Vice Presidency, and the female proportion after the Cold War has
been about 15%. The first non-Genevans were admitted in 1923, and one Jew has served in
the Assembly.

While the rest of the Red Cross Movement many be multi-national, the Committee
believes that its mono-national nature is an asset because the nationality in question is Swiss.
Thanks to permanent Swiss neutrality, conflicting parties can be sure that no one from "the
enemy" will be setting policy in Geneva. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 showed that
even Red Cross actors (in this case National Societies) can be so bound by nationalism that
they are unable to sustain neutral humanitarianism.

Furthermore, the Assembly elects a five-member Assembly Council that constitutes an

especially active core of the Assembly. The Council meets at least ten times per year and has
the authority to decide on behalf of the full Assembly in some matters. The Council is also
responsible for organizing the Assembly meetings and for facilitating communication
between the Assembly and the Directorate. The Assembly Council normally includes the
president, two vice presidents and two elected members. While one of the vice presidents is
elected for a four-year term, the other is appointed permanently with his tenure ending by
retirement from the vice presidency or from the Committee. Currently Jacques Forster and
Olivier Vodoz are vice presidents. In April 2007, Christine Beerli was appointed to succeed
Jacques Forster from the beginning of 2008.

The Assembly also selects, for a term of four years, one individual to act as President of
the ICRC. The president is both a member of the Assembly and leader of the ICRC, and he
has always been included on the Council since its formation. The President automatically
becomes a member of the aforementioned groups once he is appointed, but he does not
necessarily come from within the ICRC organization. There is a strong faction within the
Assembly that wants to reach outside the organization to select a president from the Swiss
government or professional circles like the banking or medical fields. In fact, the last three
presidents were previously officials in the Swiss government. The president's influence and
role is not well-defined, and changes depending upon the times and each president's personal
style. Since 2000, the president of the ICRC has been Jakob Kellenberger, a reclusive man
who rarely makes diplomatic appearances but who is skilled in personal negotiation and
comfortable with the dynamics of the Assembly. In February 2007, he was appointed by the
Assembly to another four-year term which, will run until the end of 2011 .

The presidents of the ICRC have been:

• 1863 - 1864: Henri Dufour • 1955 - 1964: Leopold Boissier

• 1864 - 1910: Gustave Moynier
• 1910 - 1928: Gustave Ador
• 1928 - 1944: Max Huber
• 1944 - 1948: Carl Jacob Burckhardt
• 1948 - 1955: Paul Ruegger
• 1964 - 1969: Samuel Gonard
• 1969 - 1973: Marcel Naville
• 1973 - 1976: Eric Martin
• 1976 - 1987: Alexandre Hay
• 1987 - 1999: Cornelio Sommaruga
• 2000 - present: Jakob Kellenberger

As the ICRC has grown and become more directly involved in conflicts, it has seen an
increase in professional staff rather than volunteers over the years. The ICRC had only twelve
employees in 1914 and 1,900 in the Second World War complemented its 1,800 volunteers.
The number of paid staff dropped off after both wars, but has increased once again in the last
few decades, averaging 500 field staff in the 1980s and over a thousand in the 1990s.
Beginning in the 1970s, the ICRC became more systematic in training in order to develop a
more professional staff. The ICRC is an attractive career for university graduates especially in
Switzerland, but the workload as an ICRC employee is demanding. 15% of the staff leaves
each year and 75% of employees stay less than three years. The ICRC staff is multi-national
and averaged about 50% non-Swiss citizens in 2004. The ICRC's international staff are
assisted in their work by some 13,000 national employees hired in the countries where the
delegations are based.

By virtue of its age and place in international humanitarian law, the ICRC is the lead
agency in the Red Cross Movement, but it has weathered some power struggles within the
Movement. The ICRC has come into conflict with the Federation and certain national
societies at various times. The American Red Cross threatened to supplant the ICRC with its
creation of the Federation as "a real international Red Cross" after the First World War.
Elements of the Swedish Red Cross desired to supplant the Swiss authority of the ICRC after
WWII. Over time the Swedish sentiments subsided, and the Federation grew to work more
harmoniously with the ICRC after years of organizational discord. Currently, the Federation's
Movement Cooperation division organizes interaction and cooperation with the ICRC.

In 1997, the ICRC and the Federation signed the Seville Agreement which further
defined the responsibilities of both organizations within the movement. According to the
Agreement, the Federation is the Lead Agency of the Movement in any emergency situation
which does not take place as part of an armed conflict.

From its inception until 2006, the Magen David Adom organization, the Israeli
equivalent to the Red Cross, was not accepted as part of the Federation as they used the Star
of David, which the ICRC refused to recognize as an acceptable symbol. In May 2000
Bernadine Healy, the president of the American Red Cross wrote to the ICRC explaining that
the ARC found it anti-Semitic that the ICRC refused to accept the Magen David Adom and
found the excuse that it was based on the proliferation of symbols a fig-leaf excuse. The ARC
then withheld funding from ICRC in protest. In 2005, at a meeting of nations party to the
Geneva convention, the ICRC adopted the new Red Crystal. Magen David Adom then
centered the Star of David sign inside the newly accepted signage, and in 2006 was accepted
as a full member.

The ICRC is one of the largest and most respected humanitarian and non-state actors
in the international system. Its efforts have provided aid and protection to victims of armed
struggle in numerous conflicts for over a century.

The ICRC prefers to engage states directly and relies on low-key and confidential
negotiations to lobby for access to prisoners of war and improvement in their treatment. Its
findings are not available to the general public but are shared only with the relevant
government. This is in contrast to related organizations like Doctors Without Borders and
Amnesty International who are more willing to expose abuses and apply public pressure to
governments. The ICRC reasons that this approach allows it greater access and cooperation
from governments in the long run.

When granted only partial access, the ICRC takes what it can get and keeps discreetly
lobbying for greater access. In the era of apartheid South Africa, it was granted access to
prisoners like Nelson Mandela serving sentences, but not to those under interrogation and
awaiting trial. After his release, Mandela publicly praised the Red Cross.

Some governments use the ICRC as a tool to promote their own ends. The presence of
respectable aid organizations can make weak regimes appear more legitimate. Fiona Terry
contends that "this is particularly true of ICRC, whose mandate, reputation, and discretion
imbue its presence with a particularly affirming quality." Recognizing this power, the ICRC
can pressure weak governments to change their behavior by threatening to withdraw. As
mentioned above, Nelson Mandela acknowledged that the ICRC compelled better treatment
of prisoners and had leverage over his South African captors because "avoiding international
condemnation was the authorities' main goal."

Modern laws of war, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, also include prohibitions
on attacking doctors, ambulances or hospital ships displaying a Red Cross, a Red Crescent or
other emblem related to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It is also
prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle bearing a white flag, since that indicates an intent to
surrender or a desire to communicate.

In either case, persons protected by the Red Cross/Crescent or white flag are expected
to maintain neutrality, and may not engage in warlike acts; in fact, engaging in war activities
under a protected symbol is itself a violation of the laws of war known as perfidy. Failure to
follow these requirements can result in the loss of protected status and make the individual
violating the requirements a lawful military target.

The law of war is binding not only upon States as such but also upon individuals and,
in particular, the members of their armed forces. Parties are bound by the laws of war to the
extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For
example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not
involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a
residential area.

By the same token, combatants that intentionally use protected people or property as
shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage
to those that should be protected.

The ICRC is the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian
law (IHL) as a controlling authority. The legal mandate of the ICRC stems from the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as its own Statutes.

„The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral, and
independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and
dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.”

Mission of ICRC

The modern law of war is derived from two principal sources:

• Lawmaking treaties (or conventions)

• Custom. Not all the law of war derives from or has been incorporated in such treaties,
which can refer to the continuing importance of customary law. (Martens Clause).
Such customary international law is established by the general practice of nations
together with their acceptance that such practice is required by law.
 International humanitarian law (IHL), often referred to as the laws of war, the laws
and customs of war or the law of armed conflict, is the legal corpus "comprised of the
Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, as well as subsequent treaties, case law, and
customary international law." It defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations,
neutral nations and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other and to protected
persons, usually meaning civilians.

The law is mandatory for nations bound by the appropriate treaties. There are also other
customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials.
By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as
prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.

Modern International Humanitarian Law is made up of two historical streams: the law of
The Hague referred to in the past as the law of war proper and the law of Geneva or
humanitarian law. The two streams take their names from a number of international
conferences which drew up treaties relating to war and conflict, in particular the Hague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Conventions, the first which was drawn up in
1863. Both are branches of jus in bello, international law regarding acceptable practices while
engaged in war and armed conflict.

The Law of The Hague, or the Laws of War proper,"determines the rights and duties of
belligerents in the conduct of operations and limits the choice of means in doing harm."In
particular, it concerns itself with the definition of combatants, establishes rules relating to the
means and methods of warfare, and examines the issue of military objectives.

Systematic attempts to limit the savagery of warfare only began to develop in the 19th
century. Such concerns were able to build on the changing view of warfare by states
influenced by the Age of Enlightenment. The purpose of warfare was to overcome the enemy
state and this was obtainable by disabling the enemy combatants. Thus, "(t)he distinction
between combatants and civilians, the requirement that wounded and captured enemy
combatants must be treated humanely, and that quarter must be given, some of the pillars of
modern humanitarian law, all follow from this principle."

The massacre of civilians in the midst of armed conflict has a long and dark history.
Selected examples include: Moses, speaking for the god of the Israelites, ordering the killing
of all the Midianite women and male children; the massacres of the Kalingas by Ashokain
India, the massacre of some 100,000 Hindus by the Muslim troops of Timur (Tamerlane) or
the Crusader massacres of Jews and Muslims in the Siege of Jerusalem (1099), to name a few
examples drawn from a long list in history. Fritz Munch sums up historical military practice
before 1800: "The essential points seem to be these: In battle and in towns taken by force,
combatants and non-combatants were killed and property was destroyed or looted. In the 17th
century, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius wrote "Wars, for the attainment of their objects, it
cannot be denied, must employ force and terror as their most proper agents."

However, even in the midst of the carnage of history, there were expressions of
humanitarian norms to protect the victims of armed conflicts, i.e. the wounded, the sick and
the shipwrecked which date back to ancient times.

In the Old Testament, the King of Israel prevents the slaying of the captured following the
prophet, Elisha's admonition, to spare enemy prisoners: In answer to a question from the
King, he said, "You shall not slay them. Would you slay those whom you have taken captive
with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and
drink and go to their master.”

In ancient India there are records, for example the Laws of Manu, describing the types of
weapons that should not be used. "When he fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike
with weapons concealed (in wood), nor with (such as are) barbed, poisoned, or the points of
which are blazing with fire. There is also the command not to strike a eunuch nor the enemy
"who folds his hands in supplication....Nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of
mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking
part in the fight...".

Islamic law indicates that "noncombatants who did not take part in fighting such as
women, children, monks and hermits, the aged, blind, and insane" were not to be molested.
The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, proclaimed "Do not mutilate. Do not kill little children or old men
or women. Do not cut off the heads of palm trees or burn them. Do not cut down fruit trees.
Do not slaughter livestock except for food." Islamic jurists have held that a prisoner should
not be killed as he "cannot be held responsible for mere acts of belligerency." Islamic law did
not spare all non-combatants. In the case of those who refused to convert to Islam or pay an
alternative tax, "were allowed in principle to kill any one of them, combatants or
noncombatants, provided they were not killed treacherously and with mutilation."

However, it wasn't until second half of the 18th century that more systematic approach
was initiated. In the United States, a German immigrant, Francis Lieber, drew up a code of
conduct in 1863, the Lieber Code, for the Northern army which included the humane
treatment of civilian populations in the areas of conflict. It also forbade the execution of
POWs. At the same time, the involvement of a number of individuals such as Florence
Nightingale during the Crimean War and Henry Dunant, a Genevese businessman who had
worked with wounded soldiers at the Battle of Solferino, led to more systematic efforts to try
and prevent the suffering of war victims. Dunant wrote a book, A Memory of Solferino,
which described the horrors he had witnessed. His reports led to the founding of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 and the convening of a conference
in Geneva in 1864 which drew up the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field.

The Law of Geneva, is directly inspired by the principle of humanity. It relates to those
who are not participating in the conflict as well as military personnel hors de combat. It
provides the legal basis for protection and humanitarian assistance carried out by impartial
humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC. This focus can be found in the Geneva
Conventions.

The conventions and their agreements

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to
protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:

• wounded or sick fighters

• prisoners of war
• civilians
• medical and religious personnel
Conventions

In diplomacy, the term convention does not have its common meaning as an assembly of
people. Rather, it is used in diplomacy to mean an international agreement, or treaty. The
first three Geneva Conventions were revised and expanded in 1949, and the fourth was added
at that time.

• First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1864
• Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick
and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1906
• Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929
• Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War, 1949

The whole set is referred to as the "Geneva Conventions of 1949" or simply the "Geneva
Convention".

Protocols

The 1949 conventions have been modified with three amendment protocols:

• Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed

Conflicts
• Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed
Conflicts
• Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (for
medical services)

Application

The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments
who have ratified its terms. The details of applicability are spelled out in Common Articles 2
and 3. The reader should recognize the controversial nature of the topic of applicability. When
the Geneva Conventions apply, governments must surrender a certain degree of their national
sovereignty to comply with international law. These laws may not be entirely harmonious
with their national constitution or their cultural values. Despite the advantages offered by the
Conventions to individuals, political pressures may cause the governments to be reluctant in
accepting its responsibilities.

Common Article 2

This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict,
where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:

• The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is
the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
• The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory
nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949
 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the
existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.
• The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound
by it. By 1949, the treaty was becoming viewed less as a reciprocal contract and more
as an agreement on fundamental human rights. Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to
uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation.

Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and
foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.

When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the
Conventions are considered to apply.

Common Article 3

This article states that the certain minimum rules of war also apply to armed conflicts
that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a
single country. The applicability of this article rests on the interpretation of the term armed
conflict. For example it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or
between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war but that
are carried out within the confines of a single country. A handful of individuals attacking a
police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only
subject to the laws of the country in question.

The provisions of the entire Geneva Convention are not applicable in this situation, but
only a limited list of provisions contained within the language of Article 3, and additionally
within the language of Protocol II. The rationale for the limitation is that many articles would
otherwise conflict with the rights of a Sovereign State. In summary:

• Persons taking no active part in hostilities should be treated humanely (including

military persons who have ceased to be active as a result of sickness, injury, or
detention).
• The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for and treated with respect

Protecting powers

The term protecting power has a specific meaning under these Conventions. A
protecting power is a state that is not taking part in the armed conflict, but that has agreed to
look after the interests of a state that is a party to the conflict. The protecting power is a
mediator enabling the flow of communication between the parties to the conflict. The
protecting power also monitors implementation of these Conventions, such as by visiting the
zone of conflict and prisoners of war. The protecting power must act as an advocate for
prisoners, the wounded, and civilians.

Grave Breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed
grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third
and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person
protected by the convention:
 • willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
• compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
• willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

• taking of hostages
• extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity
and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
• unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.

Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any
of these crimes. Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these
crimes, or ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their
nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place.

The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches.
Toward this end, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were established by the United Nations to
prosecute alleged violations.

The Geneva Conventions Today

Although warfare has changed dramatically since the Geneva Conventions of 1949,
they are still considered the cornerstone of contemporary International Humanitarian Law.
They protect combatants who find themselves hors de combat, and they protect civilians
caught up in the zone of war. These treaties came into play for all recent international armed
conflicts, including the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the
2008 War in Georgia.

Modern warfare continues to evolve, and a growing proportion of recent armed

conflicts are of a non-international character (for instance, the Sri Lankan Civil War, the
Sudanese Civil War, and the Colombian Armed Conflict). Common Article 3 deals with these
situations, supplemented by Protocol II (1977). These set out minimum legal standards that
must be followed for internal conflicts. International tribunals, particularly the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, have helped to clarify international law in this
area. In the 1999 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic judgement, the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia ruled that grave breaches apply not only to international conflicts,
but also to internal armed conflict. Further, those provisions are considered customary
international law, allowing war crimes prosecution even over groups that have not formally
accepted the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

With the adoption of the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the two strains of
law began to converge. Already before, articles focusing on humanity could be found in the
Law of The Hague (i.e. the protection of certain prisoners of war and civilians in occupied
territories) articles which were later incorporated into the Law of Geneva in 1929 and 1949.
However the Protocols of 1977 relating to the protection of victims in both international and
internal conflict not only incorporated aspects of both the Law of The Hague and the Law of
Geneva, but also important human rights aspects.
Basic rules of IHL
1. Persons hors de combat and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and
treated humanely.
2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
3. The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict
which has them in its power. The emblem of the red cross or the red crescent must be
respected as the sign of protection.
4. Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and
reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive
relief.
5. No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading
treatment.
6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited
choice of methods and means of warfare.
7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and
combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.

Well-known examples of such rules include the prohibition on attacking doctors or

ambulances displaying a Red Cross. It is also prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle bearing
a white flag, since that indicates an intent to surrender or a desire to communicate. In either
case, the persons protected by the Red Cross or white flag are expected to maintain neutrality,
and may not engage in warlike acts; in fact, engaging in war activities under a white flag or
red cross is itself a violation of the laws of war.

These examples of the laws of war address declaration of war, (the UN charter (1945) Art
2, and some other Arts in the charter, curtails the right of member states to declare war; as
does the older and toothless Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 for those nations who ratified it but
used against Germany in the Nuremberg War Trials), acceptance of surrender and the
treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately
attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the
laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the
wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of
weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and
fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If
a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and
upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).
An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the
hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.

The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict

2. Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following
traits:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
o that of carrying arms openly;
 o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an
authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy
spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to
form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect
the laws and customs of war.

For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts"
(Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of
war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy
when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:

• Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or
customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
• spies, mercenaries, child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and
do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example
"inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy
spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged
combatants).

If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must
be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the
issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva
Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), which concerns civilians,
until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be
punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and
British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda
Trial in Angola in June 1976.

Non-combatant is a military and legal term describing civilians not engaged in combat. It
also includes (Geneva Conventions Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) persons, such as
medical personnel and military chaplains (who are regular soldiers but are protected because
of their function) and soldiers who are hors de combat.

Article 50 in Chapter II: "Civilians and Civilian Population" of Protocol I Additional to

the Geneva Conventions defines that a civilian is not a privileged combatant. Article 51
describes the protection that must be given to civilians (unless they are unprivileged
combatants) and civilian populations. Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of
civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also
prohibits attacks directed against civilians. Not all states have ratified Protocol I or the Rome
Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct
targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all
belligerents.
 Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic,
racial, religious, or national group.

While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in
the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm
to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group."

The preamble to the CPPCG states that instances of genocide have taken place throughout
history, but it was not until Raphael Lemkin coined the term and the prosecution of
perpetrators of the Holocaust at the Nuremberg trials that the United Nations agreed to the
CPPCG which defined the crime of genocide under international law.

There was a gap of more than forty years between the CPPCG coming into force and the
first prosecution under the provisions of the treaty. To date all international prosecutions of
genocide, for the Rwandan Genocide, the Srebrenica Genocide, have been by ad hoc
international tribunals. The International Criminal Court came into existence in 2002 and it
has the authority to try people from the states that have signed the treaty, but to date it has not
tried anyone.

Since the CPPCG came into effect in January 1951 about 80 member states of the United
Nations have passed legislation that incorporates the provisions of the CPPCG into their
municipal law, and some perpetrators of genocide have been found guilty under such
municipal laws, such as Nikola Jorgic ,who was found guilty of genocide in Bosnia by a
German court (Jorgic v. Germany).

Critics of the CPPCG point to the narrow definition of the groups that are protected under
the treaty, particularly the lack of protection for political groups for what has been termed
politicide (politicide is included as genocide under some municipal jurisdictions). One of the
problems was that until there was a body of case law from prosecutions, the precise definition
of what the treaty meant had not been tested in court, for example, what precisely does the
term "in part" mean? As more perpetrators are tried under international tribunals and
municipal court cases, a body of legal arguments and legal interpretations are helping to
address these issues.

Another criticism of the CPPCG is that when its provisions have been invoked by the
United Nations Security Council, they have only been invoked to punish those who have
already committed genocide and been foolish enough to leave a paper trail. It was this
criticism that led to the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1674 by the United
Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006 commits the Council to action to protect civilians
in armed conflict and to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity.

Genocide scholars such as Gregory Stanton have postulated that conditions and acts that
often occur before, during, and after genocide— such as dehumanization of victim groups,
strong organization of genocidal groups, and denial of genocide by its perpetrators— can be
identified and actions taken to stop genocides before they happen. Critics of this approach
such as Dirk Moses assert that this is unrealistic and that, for example, "Darfur will end when
it suits the great powers that have a stake in the region".

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a
nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended
rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential
foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.
The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social
institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of
national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even
the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Genocide as a crime.Under international law

In the wake of the Holocaust, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal
acceptance of international laws defining and forbidding genocide. In 1946, the first session
of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that "affirmed" that genocide
was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In
1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide which legally defined the crime of genocide for the first time.

The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and
came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally-
recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal
legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The
Convention (in article 2) defines genocide:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

The first draft of the Convention included political killings, but the USSR along with
some other nations would not accept that actions against groups identified as holding similar
political opinions or social status would constitute genocide, so these stipulations were
subsequently removed in a political and diplomatic compromise.

The Convention was manifestly adopted for humanitarian and civilizing purposes. Its
objectives are to safeguard the very existence of certain human groups and to affirm and
emphasize the most elementary principles of humanity and morality. In view of the rights
involved, the legal obligations to refrain from genocide are recognized as erga omnes.
When the Convention was drafted, it was already envisaged that it would apply not only to
then existing forms of genocide, but also "to any method that might be evolved in the future
with a view to destroying the physical existence of a group". As emphasized in the preamble
to the Convention, genocide has marred all periods of history, and it is this very tragic
recognition that gives the concept its historical evolutionary nature.The Convention must be
interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms, in their
context, and in the light of its object and purpose. Moreover, the text of the Convention
should be interpreted in such a way that a reason and a meaning can be attributed to every
word. No word or provision may be disregarded or treated as superfluous, unless this is
absolutely necessary to give effect to the terms read as a whole. Genocide is a crime under
international law regardless of "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war" (art. I).
Thus, irrespective of the context in which it occurs (for example, peace time, internal strife,
international armed conflict or whatever the general overall situation) genocide is a
punishable international crime.

– UN Commission of Experts that examined violations of international humanitarian law

committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

Since the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(CPPCG) came into effect in January 1951 about 80 member states of the United Nations
have passed legislation that incorporates the provisions of the CPPCG into their municipal
law.

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-
treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps",
"the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton
destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or
civilian necessity".

Similar concepts, such as perfidy, have existed for many centuries as customary law
between civilized countries. Many of these customary laws were clarified in the Hague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The modern concept of a war crime was further developed
under the auspices of the Nuremberg Trials based on the definition in the London Charter that
was published on August 8, 1945. (Also see Nuremberg Principles.) Along with war crimes
the charter also defined crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, which are often
committed during wars and in concert with war crimes.

Article 22 of the Hague IV ("Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land
(Hague IV); October 18, 1907") states that "The right of belligerents to adopt means of
injuring the enemy is not unlimited" and over the last century many other treaties have
introduced positive laws that place constraints on belligerents (see International treaties on the
laws of war). Some of the provisions, such as those in the Hague conventions, are considered
to be part of customary international law, and are binding on all. Others are only binding on
individuals if the belligerent power to which they belong is a party to the treaty which
introduced the constraint.

Colloquial definitions of war crime include violations of established protections of the

laws of war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules of battle, such
as attacking those displaying a peaceful flag of truce, or using that same flag as a ruse of war
to mount an attack. Attacking enemy troops while they are being deployed by way of a
parachute is not a war crime. However, Protocol I, Article 42 of the Geneva Conventions
explicitly forbids attacking parachutists who eject from damaged airplanes, and surrendering
parachutists once landed. War crimes include such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or
civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and genocide though
these crimes are more broadly covered under international humanitarian law described as
crimes against humanity.

War crimes are significant in international humanitarian law because it is an area

where international tribunals such as the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo trials have been
convened. Recent examples are the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which were established by
the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

Under the Nuremberg Principles, war crimes are different from crimes against peace
which is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements, or assurances.

The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in
1474, was the first “international” war crimes trial, and also of command responsibility. He
was convicted and beheaded for crimes that "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to
prevent", although he had argued that he was only "following orders".

The Hague Conventions were international treaties negotiated at the First and Second
Peace Conferences at The Hague, Netherlands in 1899 and 1907, respectively, and were,
along with the First and Second Geneva Conventions (1864 and 1909), among the first formal
statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law.

The punishment for committing war crimes was capital punishment, but in many
cases, war criminals were sent to national prisons to live out the rest of their lives. At the
modern international tribunals, capital punishment is banned, and conviction results in a
sentence for a term of years. The convicted person serves his or her sentence in a national
prison system, whose country has agreed with the tribunal to effect execution of sentence.

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International

Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they
constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or
more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a
government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or
of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.
Murder; extermination; torture; rape and political, racial, or religious persecution and other
inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a
widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave
infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall
short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal was the decree that set
down the laws and procedures by which the post-World War II Nuremberg trials were to be
conducted. The charter defined that only crimes of the European Axis Powers could be tried.
Article 6 stated that the Tribunal was established for the trial and punishment of the major war
criminals of the European Axis countries; paragraph 6.a defined crimes against peace, 6.b war
crimes and paragraph 6.c, Crimes Against Humanity defined as:

"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed

against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or
religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where
perpetrated".

In the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major
War Criminals it was also stated:

The Tribunal therefore cannot make a general declaration that the acts before 1939
were crimes against humanity within the meaning of the Charter, but from the beginning of
the war in 1939 war crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against
humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, and committed after
the beginning of the war, did not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution
of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against
humanity.

In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in The Hague
(Netherlands) and the Rome Statute provides for the ICC to have jurisdiction over genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes. The definition of what is a "crime against humanity"
for ICC proceedings has significantly broadened from its original legal definition or that used
by the UN, and Article 7 of the treaty stated that:

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following
acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian
population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political,
racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or
other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under
international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or
any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
 The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity are
particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave
humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic
events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify
themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a
government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political,
racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against
humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts
of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the
circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category
of crimes under discussion. On the other hand, an individual may be guilty of crimes against
humanity even if he perpetrates one or two of the offences mentioned above, or engages in
one such offense against only a few civilians, provided those offenses are part of a consistent
pattern of misbehavior by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because
they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or
for any similar reason.) Consequently when one or more individuals are not accused of
planning or carrying out a policy of inhumanity, but simply of perpetrating specific atrocities
or vicious acts, in order to determine whether the necessary threshold is met one should use
the following test: one ought to look at these atrocities or acts in their context and verify
whether they may be regarded as part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an
inhumanity, or whether they instead constitute isolated or sporadic acts of cruelty and
wickedness.

Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of
civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may
also refer to the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the
civilians to march in front of the soldiers.

This is done in the hope that the other party will be reluctant to attack them.
Furthermore, if the other party attacks these targets anyway, the resulting civilian casualties
have propaganda value.Using this technique increases the civilian casualty rate and is illegal
by any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Some lesser used instances of human shields include literally using a human as a
physical barrier against bullets, i.e. physically restraining a person such that they are in front
of the person using them as a shield. If the shooter values the person used as a human shield,
then this also makes the shooter less likely to fire, or it makes the shooter fire later and less
often.

As of 4 October 2007, the Office of the Prosecutor had received 2889

communicationsabout alleged crimes in at least 139 countries. After initial review, however,
the vast majority of these communications were dismissed as “manifestly outside the
jurisdiction of the Court”.

As of March 2009, the International Criminal Court has launched investigations into
four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African
Republic and Darfur (Sudan).[1] The Court has issued public arrest warrants for thirteen
people; seven of them remain free, two have died, and four are in custody, awaiting trial.
 In addition to the four situations where the Prosecutor has opened investigations,
several other situations have been subjected to "intensive analysis", including Côte d'Ivoire,
Kenya, Afghanistan, Colombia the Gaza Strip and Georgia. In September 2009, the
prosecutor said he planned to open four new investigations in the next three years.

The Prosecutor may open an investigation under three circumstances:

• when a situation is referred to him by a state party;

• when a situation is referred to him by the United Nations Security Council, acting to
address a threat to international peace and security; or
• when the Pre-Trial Chamber authorises him to open an investigation on the basis of
information received from other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental
organisations.

Of the four situations the Prosecutor has investigated to date, three were referred by states
parties and one by the Security Council.

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

„...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information
or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of
having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based
on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to,
lawful sanctions.”

In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to

inflict torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive for torture
can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors murders.

Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries.
Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture,
some openly.

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-
education and coercion. In the 21st century, torture is considered to be a violation of human
rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention
officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the
United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 145 states.

National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that
torture and ill-treatment are immoral, as well as being impractical. Despite these international
conventions, however, many organizations (e.g. Amnesty International) that monitor abuses
of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the
world.
 One well documented effect of torture is that, with rare exceptions, its victims will say
or do anything to escape the situation, including untrue "confessions" and implication of
others without genuine knowledge, who may well then be tortured in turn. That information
may have been extracted from the Birmingham Six through the use of police beatings was
counterproductive because it made the convictions unsound as the confessions were
worthless. There are rare exceptions, such as Admiral James Stockdale, Medal of Honor
recipient, who refused to provide information under torture.

Before the emergence of modern policing, torture was an important aspect of policing
and the use of it was openly sanctioned and acknowledged by the authority. The Economist
magazine proposed that one of the reasons torture endures is that torture does indeed work in
some instances to extract information/confession, if those who are being tortured are indeed
guilty. Depending on the culture, torture has at times been carried on in silence (official
denial), semi-silence (known but not spoken about), or openly acknowledged in public (in
order to instill fear and obedience).

In the 21st century, even when states sanction their interrogation methods, torturers
often work outside the law. For this reason, some prefer methods that, while unpleasant, leave
victims alive and unmarked. A victim with no visible damage may lack credibility when
telling tales of torture, whereas a person missing fingernails or eyes can easily prove claims of
torture. Mental torture, however can leave scars just as deep and long-lasting as physical
torture. Professional torturers in some countries have used techniques such as electrical shock,
asphyxiation, heat, cold, noise, and sleep deprivation which leave little evidence, although in
other contexts torture frequently results in horrific mutilation or death. However the most
common and prevalent form of torture worldwide in both developed and under-developed
countries is beating.

Physical torture methods have been used throughout recorded history and can range
from a beating with nothing more than fist and boot, through to the use of sophisticated
custom designed devices such as the rack. Other types of torture can include sensory or sleep
deprivation, restraint or being held in awkward or damaging positions, uncomfortable
extremes of heat and cold, loud noises or any other means that inflicts severe physical or
mental pain.

Psychological torture uses non-physical methods which are used to cause

psychological suffering. Its effects are not immediately apparent unless they alter the behavior
of the tortured person. Since there is no international political consensus on what constitutes
psychological torture, it is often overlooked, denied, and referred to in different names.

Psychological torture also includes deliberate use of extreme stressors and situations
such as mock execution, shunning, violation of deep-seated social or sexual norms and
taboos, or extended solitary confinement. Because psychological torture needs no physical
violence to be effective, it is possible to induce severe psychological pain, suffering, and
trauma with no externally visible effects.

Rape and other forms of sexual abuse are often used as methods of torture for
interrogative or punitive purposes.

Medical torture is a practice in which medical practitioners use torture to judge what
victims can endure, to apply treatments which will enhance torture, or as torturers in their own
right. Josef Mengele and Shirō Ishii were infamous during and after World War II for their
involvement in medical torture and murder.

Torture murder involves torture to the point of murder as for punishment in law
enforcement agencies of countries that allow torture. Murderers might also torture their
victims to death for sadistic reasons.

International prosecution of genocide. By ad hoc tribunals

All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both
in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular,
some of the signatories — namely, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia — signed with the proviso
that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice
without their consent. Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and
Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from
prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused
to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo
War.

It is commonly accepted that, at least since World War II, genocide has been illegal
under customary international law as a peremptory norm, as well as under conventional
international law. Acts of genocide are generally difficult to establish for prosecution, because
a chain of accountability must be established. International criminal courts and tribunals
function primarily because the states involved are incapable or unwilling to prosecute crimes
of this magnitude themselves.

Nuremberg Trials

Because the universal acceptance of international laws, defining and forbidding

genocide was achieved in 1948, with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), those criminals who were prosecuted
after the war in international courts, for taking part in the Holocaust were found guilty of
crimes against humanity and other more specific crimes like murder. Nevertheless the
Holocaust is universally recognized to have been a genocide and the term, that had been
coined the year before by Raphael Lemkin, appeared in the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders,
Count 3, stated that all the defendants had "conducted deliberate and systematic genocide –
namely, the extermination of racial and national groups..."

Rwanda

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices
of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the
genocide which occurred there during April, 1994, commencing on 6 April. The ICTR was
created on 8 November 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to judge
those people responsible for the acts of genocide and other serious violations of the
international law performed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby
states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994.
 So far, the ICTR has finished nineteen trials and convicted twenty seven accused
persons. On December 14, 2009 two more men were accused and convicted for their crimes.
Another twenty five persons are still on trial. Twenty-one are awaiting trial in detention, two
more added on December 14, 2009. Ten are still at large. The first trial, of Jean-Paul
Akayesu, began in 1997. He was executed the same day that Jean Kambanda, the interim
Prime Minister, pled guilty, March 21, 2003.

Former Yugoslavia

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb
forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995
Bosnian War (an interpretation rejected by a majority of scholars).

In 2001 the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judged
that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide.

On 26 February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Bosnian Genocide
Case upheld the ICTY's earlier finding that the Srebrenica massacre constituted genocide, but
found that the Serbian government had not participated in a wider genocide on the territory of
Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, as the Bosnian government had claimed.

On 12 July 2007, European Court of Human Rights when dismissing the appeal by
Nikola Jorgic against his conviction for genocide by a German court (Jorgic v. Germany)
noted that the German courts wider interpretation of genocide has since been rejected by
international courts considering similar cases. The ECHR also noted that in the 21 century
"Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in
which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel
Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide. However, there are also a
considerable number of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide"

About 30 people have been indicted for participating in genocide or complicity in

genocide during the early 1990s in Bosnia. To date after several plea bargains and some
convictions that were successfully challenged on appeal only Radislav Krstic had been found
guilty of complicity in genocide in an international court. Three others have been found guilty
of participating in genocides in Bosnia by German courts, one of whom Nikola Jorgic lost an
appeal against his conviction in the European Court of Human Rights. Several former
members of the Bosnian Serb security forces are currently on trial in Bosnia and Herzegovina
indicted on several charges including genocide.

Slobodan Milosevic, as the former President of Serbia and of Yugoslavia was the most
senior political figure to stand trial at the ICTY. He died on 11 March 2006 during his trial
where he was accused of genocide or complicity in genocide in territories within Bosnia and
Herzegovina, so no verdict was returned. In 1995 the ICTY issued a warrant for the arrest of
Bosnian Serbs Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic on several charges including genocide.
On 21 July 2008 Karadzic was arrested in Belgrade, and he is currently in The Hague prison
awaiting trial. Ratko Mladic is still at large.

To date all international prosecutions for genocide have been brought in specially
convened international tribunals. Since 2002, the International Criminal Court can exercise its
jurisdiction if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute genocide,
thus being a "court of last resort," leaving the primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction
over alleged criminals to individual states. Due to the United States concerns over the ICC,
the United States prefers to continue to use specially convened international tribunals for such
investigations and potential prosecutions.

The International Criminal Court (commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt) is a

permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the
crime of aggression).

The court came into being on 1 July 2002 — the date its founding treaty, the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force — and it can only prosecute
crimes committed on or after that date. The official seat of the court is in The Hague,
Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.

As of October 2009, 110 states are members of the Court, and a further 38 countries
have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. However, a number of states, including China,
India, Russia and the United States, are critical of the court and have not joined.

The ICC can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a
national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a
situation is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council. The court is designed
to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when
national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. Primary
responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.

To date, the court has opened investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur. The court has
indicted fourteen people; seven of whom remain fugitives, two have died (or are believed to
have died), four are in custody, and one is appearing voluntarily before the court.

The ICC's first trial, of Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga, began on 26
January 2009. On 24 November 2009 the second trial started, against Congolese militia
leaders Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui.

The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of war

crimes was first made during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 by the Commission of
Responsibilities. The issue was addressed again at conference held in Geneva under the
auspices of the League of Nations on November 1-16, 1937, but no practical results followed.
In 1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the United Nations General
Assembly recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities of
the kind committed during World War II. At the request of the General Assembly, the
International Law Commission drafted two statutes by the early 1950s but these were shelved
as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically
unrealistic.

Benjamin B. Ferencz, an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II and the
Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, one of the twelve
military trials held by the U.S. authorities at Nuremberg, later became a vocal advocate of the
establishment of an international rule of law and of an International Criminal Court. In his
first book published in 1975, entitled Defining International Aggression-The Search for
World Peace, he argued for the establishment of such an international court.

The idea was revived in 1989 when A. N. R. Robinson, then Prime Minister of
Trinidad and Tobago, proposed the creation of a permanent international court to deal with
the illegal drug trade. While work began on a draft statute, the international community
established ad hoc tribunals to try war crimes in the former Yugoslaviaand Rwanda, further
highlighting the need for a permanent international criminal court.

Following years of negotiations, the General Assembly convened a conference in

Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalising a treaty. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries
abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya,
Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.

The Rome Statute became a binding treaty on 11 April 2002, when the number of
countries that had ratified it reached 60. The Statute legally came into force on 1 July 2002,
and the ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after that date. The first bench of 18 judges
was elected by an Assembly of States Parties in February 2003. They were sworn in at the
inaugural session of the court on 1 March 2003. The court issued its first arrest warrants on 8
July 2005, and the first pre-trial hearings were held in 2006.

As of October 2009, 110 countries have joined the court, including nearly all of
Europe and South America, and roughly half the countries in Africa. However, these
countries only account for a minority of the world's population.

A further 38 states have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute; the law of treaties
obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the
treaty. Three of these states — Israel, Sudan and the United States — have "unsigned" the
Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they
have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.

Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the court jurisdiction over four groups of crimes,
which it refers to as the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a
whole”: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of
aggression. The statute defines each of these crimes except for aggression: it provides that the
court will not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states
parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be
prosecuted.

Many states wanted to add terrorism and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered
by the Rome Statute; however, the states were unable to agree on a definition for terrorism
and it was decided not to include drug trafficking as this might overwhelm the court's limited
resources. India lobbied to have the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction included as war crimes but this move was also defeated. India has expressed
concern that “the Statute of the ICC lays down, by clear implication, that the use of weapons
of mass destruction is not a war crime. This is an extraordinary message to send to the
international community.”
 Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or
too vaguely. For example, China has argued that the definition of ‘war crimes’ goes beyond
that accepted under customary international law.

A Review Conference is due to take place in the first half of 2010. Among other
things, the conference will review the list of crimes contained in Article 5. The final
resolution on adoption of the Rome Statute specifically recommended that terrorism and drug
trafficking be reconsidered at this conference.

During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that
the court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was
defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States. A compromise was reached,
allowing the court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:

• where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where
the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the court);
• where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the
state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the
court); or
• where a situation is referred to the court by the UN Security Council.

The court's jurisdiction does not apply retroactively: it can only prosecute crimes
committed on or after 1 July 2002 (the date on which the Rome Statute entered into force).
Where a state becomes party to the Rome Statute after that date, the court can exercise
jurisdiction automatically with respect to crimes committed after the statute enters into force
for that state.

The ICC is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where
national courts have failed. Article 17 of the Statute provides that a case is inadmissible if:

"(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it,
unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has
decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the
unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the
complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court."

Article 20, paragraph 3, specifies that, if a person has already been tried by another
court, the ICC cannot try them again for the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other
court:

"(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for
crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms
of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the
circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice."

Structure

The ICC is governed by an Assembly of States Parties. The court consists of four
organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry.

Assembly of States Parties

The court's management oversight and legislative body, the Assembly of States
Parties, consists of one representative from each state party. Each state party has one vote and
"every effort" has to be made to reach decisions by consensus. If consensus cannot be
reached, decisions are made by vote. The Assembly is presided over by a president and two
vice-presidents, who are elected by the members to three-year terms.

The Assembly meets in full session once a year in New York or The Hague, and may
also hold special sessions where circumstances require. Sessions are open to observer states
and non-governmental organisations.

The Assembly elects the judges and prosecutors, decides the court's budget, adopts
important texts (such as the Rules of Procedure and Evidence), and provides management
oversight to the other organs of the court. Article 46 of the Rome Statute allows the Assembly
to remove from office a judge or prosecutor who "is found to have committed serious
misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties" or "is unable to exercise the functions
required by this Statute".

The states parties cannot interfere with the judicial functions of the court. Disputes
concerning individual cases are settled by the Judicial Divisions.

At the seventh session of the Assembly of States Parties in November 2008, the
Assembly decided that the Review Conference of the Rome Statute shall be held in Kampala,
Uganda, during the first semester of 2010.

The Presidency is responsible for the proper administration of the court (apart from the
Office of the Prosecutor). It comprises the President and the First and Second Vice-
Presidents — three judges of the court who are elected to the Presidency by their fellow
judges for a maximum of two three-year terms. The current President is Sang-Hyun Song,
who was elected on 11 March 2009.

The Judicial Divisions consist of the 18 judges of the court, organized into three
divisions — the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division and Appeals Division — which carry out
the judicial functions of the court. Judges are elected to the court by the Assembly of States
Parties. They serve nine-year terms and are not generally eligible for re-election. All judges
must be nationals of states parties to the Rome Statute, and no two judges may be nationals of
the same state. They must be “persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who
possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest
judicial offices”.
 The Prosecutor or any person being investigated or prosecuted may request the
disqualification of a judge from "any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be
doubted on any ground". Any request for the disqualification of a judge from a particular case
is decided by an absolute majority of the other judges. A judge may be removed from office if
he or she "is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her
duties" or is unable to exercise his or her functions. The removal of a judge requires both a
two-thirds majority of the other judges and a two-thirds majority of the states parties.

The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for conducting investigations and

prosecutions. It is headed by the Prosecutor, who is assisted by two Deputy Prosecutors. The
Rome Statute provides that the Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently; as such, no
member of the Office may seek or act on instructions from any external source, such as states,
international organisations, non-governmental organisations or individuals.

The Prosecutor may open an investigation under three circumstances:

• when a situation is referred to him by a state party;

• when a situation is referred to him by the United Nations Security Council, acting to
address a threat to international peace and security; or
• when the Pre-Trial Chamber authorises him to open an investigation on the basis of
information received from other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental
organisations.

Any person being investigated or prosecuted may request the disqualification of a

prosecutor from any case "in which their impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any
ground". Requests for the disqualification of prosecutors are decided by the Appeals Division.
A prosecutor may be removed from office by an absolute majority of the states parties if he or
she "is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties"
or is unable to exercise his or her functions. However, critics of the court argue that there are
“insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and
“insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”. Henry Kissinger
says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited
discretion in practice”.

As of October 2009, the Prosecutor is Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, who was

elected by the Assembly of States Parties on 21 April 2003 for a term of nine years.

The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing
of the court. This includes, among other things, “the administration of legal aid matters, court
management, victims and witnesses matters, defence counsel, detention unit, and the
traditional services provided by administrations in international organisations, such as
finance, translation, building management, procurement and personnel”. The Registry is
headed by the Registrar, who is elected by the judges to a five-year term. The current
Registrar is Silvana Arbia, who was elected on 28 February 2009.

The official seat of the court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take
place anywhere. The court is currently housed in interim premises on the eastern edge of The
Hague. The court intends to construct permanent premises in Alexanderkazerne, to the north
of The Hague.
 The ICC also maintains a liaison office in New York and field offices in places where it
conducts its activities. As of 18 October 2007, the court had field offices in Kampala,
Kinshasa, Bunia, Abéché and Bangui.

The ICC's detention centre comprises twelve cells on the premises of the Scheveningen
branch of the Haaglanden Penal Institution, The Hague. Suspects held by the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are held in the same prison and share some
facilities, like the fitness room, but have no contact with suspects held by the ICC. The
detention unit is close to the ICC's future headquarters in Alexanderkazerne.

As of October 2009, the detention centre houses five suspects: Thomas Lubanga, Germain
Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Jean-Pierre Bemba and former Liberian President Charles
Taylor. Taylor is being tried under the mandate and auspices of the Special Court for Sierra
Leone, but his trial is being held at the ICC's facilities in The Hague because of political and
security concerns about holding the trial in Freetown.

The Rome Statute provides that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, and establishes certain rights of the accused and persons during
investigations. These include the right to be fully informed of the charges against him or her;
the right to have a lawyer appointed, free of charge; the right to a speedy trial; and the right to
examine the witnesses against him or her and to obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his or her behalf.

Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient. According to one
conservative think-tank, the Heritage Foundation, “Americans who appear before the court
would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection
from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.” The Human Rights Watch
argues that the ICC standards are sufficient, saying, “the ICC has one of the most extensive
lists of due process guarantees ever written”, including “presumption of innocence; right to
counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be
present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection
against double jeopardy”. According to David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the
Rome Conference (and who voted against adoption of the treaty), “when we were negotiating
the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, ‘Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests,
the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?’ And we
were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected,
and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test.”

To ensure “equality of arms” between defence and prosecution teams, the ICC has
established an independent Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD) to provide
logistical support, advice and information to defendants and their counsel. The OPCD also
helps to safeguard the rights of the accused during the initial stages of an investigation.
However, Thomas Lubanga's defence team say they have been given a smaller budget than
the Prosecutor and that evidence and witness statements have been slow to arrive.

One of the principles of international law is that a treaty does not create either obligations
or rights for third states (pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt) without their consent, and this
is also enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The co-operation of
the non-party states with the ICC is envisioned by the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court to be of voluntary nature. However, even states that have not acceded to the
Rome Statute might still be subjects to an obligation to co-operate with ICC in certain cases.
When a case is referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council all UN member states are
obliged to co-operate, since its decisions are binding for all of them. Also, there is an
obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, which stems from
the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, which reflects the absolute nature of IHL.
Although the wording of the Conventions might not be precise as to what steps have to be
taken, it has been argued that it at least requires non-party states to make an effort not to block
actions of ICC in response to serious violations of those Conventions. In relation to co-
operation in investigation and evidence gathering, it is implied from the Rome Statute that the
consent of a non-party state is a prerequisite for ICC Prosecutor to conduct an investigation
within its territory, and it seems that it is even more necessary for him to observe any
reasonable conditions raised by that state, since such restrictions exist for states party to the
Statute. Taking into account the experience of the ICTY (which worked with the principle of
the primacy, instead of complementarity) in relation to co-operation, some scholars have
expressed their pessimism as to the possibility of ICC to obtain co-operation of non-party
states. As for the actions that ICC can take towards non-party states that do not co-operate, the
Rome Statute stipulates that the court may inform the Assembly of States Parties or Security
Council, when the matter was referred by it, when non-party state refuses to co-operate after it
has entered into an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with the court.
Bibliography:

1. International Criminal Court A New Stage; Dr. Ion Diaconu; Editor:Regia

Autonomă „Monitorul Oficial”; Bucharest, 2002
2. Jurisdicţia Internaţională Penală, Beatrice Onica-Jarka; Ediţia a 2-a, Revizuită;
Bucureşti, Editura C.H.Beck, 2008
3. www.icc-cpi.int
4. www.icrc.org
5. Alte Surse
Documente de baza:

 International Committee of the Red Cross: http://www.cicr.org and

 United Nations: http://www.un.org
 United National High Commission for Human Rights: http://www.ohchr.org
 United Nations High Commission for Refugees: http://www.unhcr.ch
 International Court of Justice: http://www.icj-cij.org/
 International Criminal Court: http://www.icc-cpi.int
 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: http://www.un.org/icty
 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: http://www.ictr.org
 Web Genocide Documentation Center: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide.htm
 Human Rights Network International: http://www.hrni.org
 The American Society of International Law Guide to Electronic Resources for
International Law: http://www.asil.org/resource/home.htm
 The Avalon Project at Yale Law School:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
 The Fletcher School / Tufts University: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multilaterals.html

Analize si articole de DIU:

 Current events and humanitarian law: http://www.ridi.org/adi/home.html

 International Committee of the Red Cross: http://www.cicr.org
 Crimes of War Project: http://www.crimesofwar.org/
 Humanitarian Policy Group: http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/
 Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict (Bochum):
http://www.ifhv.rub.de
 International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative: http://www.ihlresearch.org
 Journal of Humanitarian Assistance: http://www.jha.ac

Alte organizatii care actioneaza in domeniul DIU:

 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: http://www.ifrc.org

 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs:
http://ochaonline.un.org/
 Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/
 Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/
 Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue: http://www.hdcentre.org/
 Coalition for the International Criminal Court: http://www.iccnow.org
 International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission: http://www.ihffc.org/
 Geneva Call: http://www.genevacall.org/
 International Journal of Refugee Law: http://ijrl.oupjournals.org/
 Doctors Without Borders: http://www.msf.org/
 No Peace without Justice: http://www.npwj.org
 Oxfam International: http://www.oxfam.org
 UNESCO: http://www.unesco.org
 UNICEF: http://www.unicef.org
Evenimente curente:

 Current events and international law: http://www.ridi.org/adi/home.html

 Crimes of War Project: http://www.crimesofwar.org/
 United Nations High Commission for Refugees: http://www.unhcr.ch
 International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative: http://www.ihlresearch.org
 UN System of Organizations: http://www.unsystem.org
 Paix et Sécurité Internationales: http://www.toile.org/psi/
 Reliefweb, a project of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf
 Reuters Alertnet: http://www.alertnet.org/
 The Frederick K. Cox International Law Center: http://www.law.case.edu/war-crimes-
research-portal/
 Track Impunity Always (Association suisse contre l’impunité): http://www.trial-ch.org/

Filme :
“Bood Diamond”
“The Road to Guantamo”
“Hotel Rwanda”
“Panorama 08”
“IHL – a universal code”

Trailer film Henri Dunant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3sU15nxpVA
Film ce descrie activitatea CICR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2zLOi8egz8
Film ce prezinta activitatea FISCR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hImspNKmTxY
Film ce prezinta DIU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwqRo4Xkix8