IMPORTANT CASE LAWS- IHL

1. Hassan v UK
British forces arrested Tarek Hassan, an Iraqi national, who was found on the roof of the
home of his brother (an Al-Quds General), armed with an AK-47 machine gun. Hassan was
arrested and detained in a British-controlled section of the U.S. operated Camp Bucca in Iraq,
on the grounds that he was a suspected combatant or a civilian posing a threat to security.
Hassan was interrogated by both U.K. and U.S. authorities. Following a swift determination
by both authorities that he was a non-combatant who did not pose a threat to security, he was
released from Camp Bucca. His body, which displayed marks of torture and execution, was
found months later many miles away from Camp Bucca, in an area not controlled by British
forces. The complaint under consideration by the ECHR was whether British authorities had
failed to carry out an investigation into the circumstances of Hassan’s detention, ill-treatment,
and death, and whether Hassan’s arrest and detention were arbitrary and unlawful, and
lacking in procedural safeguards. The ECHR did not find any evidence to suggest either that
Hassan had been ill-treated during his detention or that the British authorities were in any
way responsible for his death. Accordingly, the United Kingdom had not been obliged to
investigate the alleged ill-treatment (protected under Article 3 of the European Convention)
nor had they failed to protect Hassan’s Article 2 right to life The majority of the Court ruled
that even in situations of international armed conflict, the safeguards under the ECHR
continue to apply, albeit interpreted against the background of the provisions of IHL: Because
of the co-existence of the safeguards provided by IHL and by the ECHR in time of armed
conflict, “the grounds of permitted deprivation of liberty set out in Article 5(1) should be
accommodated, as far as possible, with the taking of prisoners of war and the detention of
civilians who pose a risk to security under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.
2. Prosecutor v Tidac
Duško Tadić, the president of the local board of the SDS in Kozarac, stood trial for allegedly
having participated with Serb forces in the attack and destruction of Bosnian Muslims and
Bosnian Croat residential areas in the Kozarac area; the imprisonment of Muslims and Croats
in the Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje camps; the deportation of Muslims and Croats from
Prijedor municipality; and the participation in killings, torture, sexual assault, and physical
and psychological abuse of Muslims and Croats in and outside the camps marking this case
as the first prosecution for sexual violence and rape as a crime against humanity in an
international tribunal, as well as the first case to go to trial at the ICTY, and on appeal
determined that the conflict in Bosnia was an international armed conflict and established the
overall control test for determining if an individual’s actions were part of the war when they
were performed by a paramilitary or non–State group. The prosecution accused him on the
basis of individual criminal responsibility of crimes against humanity of acts of persecution,
deportation, confinement, rape, murder, and inhumane acts; grave breaches for torture or
inhuman treatment, willful killing, and willful causing of serious injury to body or health; and
violation of the laws or customs of war for cruel treatment and murder. In 1997, the Trial
Chamber convicted Tadić of crimes against humanity for persecution and inhumane acts and
violations on the laws or customs of war. In 1999, the Appeals Chamber denied Tadić’s
appeal on all grounds, but allowed the prosecution’s cross-appeal and found that the Trial
Chamber erred when it determined that the certain victims were not protected persons under
the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, that it
could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence before it that Tadić had any
part in the killing of five men, on the doctrine of common purpose, and in finding that
discriminatory intent is required for all crimes against humanity; the Appeals Chamber
convicted Tadić of an additional nine counts for which he had been acquitted, consisting of
grave breaches for inhuman treatment, willful causing of serious injury, willful killing;
violation of the laws or customs of war for murder; and crimes against humanity for murder.
The Trial Chamber sentenced Tadić to 20 years’ imprisonment, which was amended by the
Appeals Chamber which sentenced Tadić to 25 years’ imprisonment.

3. Nicaragua v USA
Background: In the 1980s, the United States supported an armed rebellion against the
Nicaraguan government, known as the Contras, who were seeking to overthrow the ruling
Sandinista government. The Nicaraguan government filed a lawsuit against the United States
in 1984, alleging that the U.S. had violated international law by using military force and
economic measures against Nicaragua.
Legal Proceedings and Findings: The case went before the ICJ, the principal judicial organ
of the United Nations, which has the authority to settle legal disputes between states. The
court's judgment, issued on June 27, 1986, consisted of two main components:
Jurisdiction: The United States disputed the ICJ's jurisdiction in the case, arguing that it
lacked consent to hear the dispute. However, the ICJ held that it did have jurisdiction based
on the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the two countries.
Merits: The ICJ found the United States guilty of multiple violations of international law.
The court ruled that the U.S. had violated Nicaragua's sovereignty by arming and training the
Contras, mining Nicaragua's harbors, and supporting military operations against the
Nicaraguan government. Additionally, the court determined that the U.S. had also violated its
obligation to refrain from using force against another state.
Reparations: The ICJ ordered the United States to cease its unlawful actions and to pay
reparations to Nicaragua. However, the United States rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction and
refused to comply with the judgment. The U.S. subsequently withdrew from the optional
clause of the ICJ's statute, which allowed states to accept the court's compulsory jurisdiction
in certain cases.
Impact and Significance: The Nicaragua v. United States case is significant as it marked
one of the few instances where a state successfully sued another state for violations of
international law before the ICJ. The judgment highlighted the principles of non-intervention,
respect for sovereignty, and the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.
However, the case also revealed the challenges of enforcing international legal decisions
when powerful states are involved.
4. Prosecutor v. Kunarac
Dragoljub Kunarac, the leader of a reconnaissance unit of the VRS, and Radomir Kovač and
Zoran Vuković, sub-commanders of the military police of the VRS and members of the
paramilitary in the town of Foča, stood trial for allegedly having participated in a campaign
of ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Foča and the mistreatment of Bosnian Muslims,
including having repeatedly stolen from, enslaved, raped, and tortured Muslim women and
girls who were held in various detention centers and soldiers’ apartments; this case marks the
first time the ICTY issued sentences for rape and enslavement as crimes against humanity.
The prosecution accused Kovač, on the basis of individual criminal responsibility, of
violations of the laws or customs of war for rape and outrages upon personal dignity and
crimes against humanity for enslavement and rape; Vuković, on the basis of individual
criminal responsibility, with violations of the laws or customs of war for torture and rape and
crimes against humanity for torture and rape; and Kunarac, on the basis of individual and
superior criminal responsibility, for all these crimes. In 2001, the Trial Chamber convicted:
Kunarac for enslavement and rape as crimes against humanity and rape as a violation of the
laws or customs of war; Kovač for enslavement and rape as crimes against humanity, and
rape and outrages upon personal dignity as a violation of the laws or customs of war; and
Vuković of torture and rape as both crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or
customs of war. In 2002, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the defendants’ appeals and upheld
the Trial Chambers convictions and sentences. The Trial Chamber sentenced Kunarac to 28
years’ imprisonment, Kovač to 20 years’ imprisonment, and Vuković to 12 years’
imprisonment.

5. Israel Target Killing Case

Under the ‘policy of targeted frustration of terrorism’, Israeli security forces act in order to
kill those considered members of terrorist organisations. During the second intifada, which
started in February 2000, targeted killings have been performed across the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip. The policy of targeted killing was the focus of a petition filed by the Public
Committee Against Torture in Israel and the Palestinian Society of Human Rights and the
Environment. In 2002, two human rights organisations filed a petition against Israel’s policy
to eliminate alleged terrorists by targeted killings. Four years later, the Supreme Court
provided a judgment. It acknowledged that Israel is engaged in an armed conflict with
terrorist organisations and that therefore, the laws of war should apply. Terrorists, the Court
reasoned, are neither combatants nor civilians in the legal sense. The Supreme Court
therefore qualified the alleged terrorists as ‘non-legal combatants’. This does not mean,
however, that killing these non-legal combatants is always legal. Nor is this always illegal.
The Court establishes a framework with four conditions which have to be applied on a case-
to-case basis to determine the (il)legality of a targeted killing. The Court reasoned that a
targeted killing is only legal if the decision to kill is 1) based on reliable evidence, 2) if there
are no other choices to alleviate the danger to Israel’s national security, 3) if the attack is
followed by a thorough investigation and 4) if harm to innocent bystanders is limited to the
absolute minimum.
6. Celebici case
It alleges that in 1992 forces consisting of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats took control
of those villages containing predominantly Bosnian Serbs within and around the Konjic
municipality in central Bosnia. Those persons detained during these operations were held in a
former JNA facility in the village of Celebici, the Celebici prison-camp, where detainees
were killed, tortured, sexually assaulted, beaten and otherwise subjected to cruel and inhuman
treatment by the four accused. The trial of the four accused commenced on 10 March 1997
and covered a period of some nineteen months during which the Trial Chamber heard the
testimony of 122 witnesses, received 691 exhibits and carefully considered the arguments of
the Parties. Many procedural and evidentiary matters were also raised to which the Judges
gave full attention, always bearing in mind the rights of the accused and the need for a fair
and expeditious trial.
7. Teitiota v New Zealand : The curious case of climate refugees

Background: Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati, a small island nation in the Pacific Ocean,
claimed that he and his family were facing imminent harm and displacement due to the
impacts of climate change. He argued that the rising sea levels and other environmental
changes in Kiribati made it uninhabitable, and he sought refugee status in New Zealand,
arguing that he would face life-threatening conditions if forced to return to Kiribati.
Legal Proceedings and Findings: Teitiota's case was first heard in the New Zealand courts,
where his claim for refugee status was ultimately rejected. The courts held that the impacts of
climate change, although significant, did not meet the legal criteria for refugee status under
New Zealand law. The courts found that Teitiota did not face persecution or a well-founded
fear of being persecuted if he were to return to Kiribati.
Teitiota's legal team then appealed the decision to the United Nations Human Rights
Committee (UNHRC), arguing that the New Zealand courts had failed to consider the unique
circumstances of climate change and its impact on human rights. However, in 2015, the
UNHRC ruled that Teitiota's case did not meet the criteria for protection under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The committee concluded that
while climate change poses significant challenges for small island nations like Kiribati, it
does not automatically give rise to an individual's right to refugee status.
Impact and Significance: The Teitiota v. New Zealand case brought attention to the issue of
climate change displacement and raised questions about the legal frameworks and protections
available for individuals who are forced to migrate due to environmental factors. The case
highlighted the complexities surrounding climate change and refugee law, as well as the
challenges in defining the legal criteria for granting refugee status in such cases.
8. P. Nedumaran vs. Union Of India
In the case of P. Nedumaran vs. Union Of India before the Madras High Court, Sri Lankan
refugees had prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and the State of
Tamil Nadu to permit UNHCR officials to check the voluntariness of the refugees in going
back to Sri Lanka, and to permit those refugees who did not want to return to continue to stay
in the camps in India. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to hold that “since the UNHCR was
involved in ascertaining the voluntariness of the refugees’ return to Sri Lanka, hence being a
World Agency, it is not for the Court to consider whether the consent is voluntary or not.”
Further, the Court acknowledged the competence and impartiality of the representatives of
UNHCR.

9. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian

Territory Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004. 
The advisory opinion was requested by the United Nations General Assembly to provide
legal clarification on the construction of a barrier/wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including the West Bank. The barrier was being built with the stated purpose of
enhancing security against terrorist attacks.

Findings of the ICJ:

 Illegality of the Wall: The ICJ concluded that the construction of the wall by Israel
violated international law. It stated that the wall's route, which extended into the
occupied territory, severely infringed upon the rights of Palestinians and caused
significant humanitarian and legal consequences.
 Violation of International Humanitarian Law: The ICJ found that the construction of
the wall violated various provisions of international humanitarian law, particularly the
Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the protection of civilians in times of
armed conflict. It noted that the wall's route, including its associated regime, impeded
the Palestinian population's freedom of movement and access to essential services.
 Breach of International Human Rights Law: The ICJ determined that the wall's
construction also breached several provisions of international human rights law. It
highlighted the violation of the rights to freedom of movement, work, education,
health, and an adequate standard of living for the Palestinian population living in the
affected areas.
 Obligation to Dismantle the Wall and Provide Reparations: The ICJ declared that
Israel had an obligation to cease the construction of the wall, dismantle the portions
already constructed within the occupied territory, and provide reparations for any
damages caused.

10. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996]

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international
law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while
the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international
humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear
weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would
be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly
authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in
conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court
also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament. On 8 July
1996, the ICJ issued its advisory opinion, The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons. This opinion ruled that nuclear weapons are generally illegal, and all states that
possess them are obligated to bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in
all its aspects.

The ICJ found that:

1) the threat or use of nuclear weapons "would generally be contrary" to humanitarian and
other international law regulating the conduct of warfare; and 2) under Article VI of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other international law, states are obligated to "pursue
in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its
aspects under strict and effective international control

IMPORTANT EXAMPLES

1. Russia Wagner Mercinaries

Wagner Group Background: Wagner Group is a private military company (PMC) that
emerged in the early 2010s. The group has been linked to Russian businessman Yevgeny
Prigozhin, who is reported to have close ties to the Russian government. Wagner Group has
been involved in conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War, the Ukrainian conflict, and others.
Involvement in Conflicts:
Syria: Wagner Group's involvement in Syria became widely known in 2015 when reports
emerged of their participation in the Syrian Civil War. Wagner Group fighters were reportedly
engaged in combat alongside Syrian government forces, supporting President Bashar al-
Assad's regime.
Ukraine: There have been allegations of Wagner Group's involvement in the Ukrainian
conflict, particularly in the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The group has been
accused of providing military support to the separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, leading to
increased tensions between Russia and Ukraine.
Africa and elsewhere: Reports have also indicated the presence of Wagner Group mercenaries
in countries like Libya, Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Mozambique, where they
have been allegedly involved in military operations, providing security services, and
supporting various factions.
Legal and Political Implications: The activities of Wagner Group raise legal and political
concerns. Private military companies operate in a legal gray area, and their involvement in
conflicts may violate international law or national sovereignty. The use of mercenaries is
generally prohibited under international law, and their actions can complicate efforts for
peaceful resolution and stability in conflict-affected regions.
Attribution and Deniability: One notable aspect of the Wagner Group case is the alleged
deniability by the Russian government regarding its ties to the group. Despite numerous
reports and evidence pointing to connections between Wagner Group and the Russian state,
the Russian government has denied direct involvement and maintained that the group
operates as a private entity.
International Response: Various countries and international organizations have expressed
concerns about the activities of Wagner Group and the use of mercenaries in conflicts. Calls
for increased regulation and accountability of private military companies have been made to
prevent their destabilizing impact and potential human rights abuses
2: Nuremberg Trial
Background: Following the end of World War II, the victorious Allied powers, including the
United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union, sought to hold accountable those
responsible for the unprecedented atrocities committed by the Nazi regime. The trials were
named after the city of Nuremberg in Germany, where the International Military Tribunal
(IMT) was established to conduct the first and most significant trial.
The Trials: The IMT, consisting of judges from the four Allied powers, was convened in
November 1945. Twenty-four high-ranking Nazi officials, including Hermann Göring, Rudolf
Hess, Albert Speer, and Joachim von Ribbentrop, were indicted and charged with crimes
against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The trial proceeded over several
months, during which evidence was presented by the prosecution, including documents,
testimonies, and film footage that documented the Nazi regime's crimes. The defendants were
provided legal representation, and they had the opportunity to present their defense.
The Charges: The main charges against the defendants included the planning, initiation, and
waging of aggressive war, war crimes committed during the war, and crimes against
humanity, such as genocide, extermination, and persecution based on race, religion, and
political beliefs.
3. Tokyo Trials
The Tokyo Trials, also known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East
(IMTFE), were a series of military tribunals held between 1946 and 1948 to prosecute
individuals responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during World
War II in the Asia-Pacific region. Here's a summary of the Tokyo Trials. Following the end of
World War II, the victorious Allied powers, led by the United States, initiated the Tokyo
Trials to hold accountable Japanese military and political leaders for their roles in planning,
initiating, and conducting war crimes and atrocities.
The IMTFE was convened in Tokyo in May 1946. Twenty-eight high-ranking Japanese
military officials and government ministers, including Hideki Tojo, were indicted and
charged with crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Similar to the
Nuremberg Trials, the IMTFE involved presenting evidence, testimonies, and documents to
establish the culpability of the defendants. The prosecution accused the defendants of
engaging in aggressive war, conducting inhumane acts, and overseeing crimes such as the
infamous "Rape of Nanking" and mistreatment of prisoners of war.
The Tokyo Trials significantly influenced the development of international criminal law and
established principles of individual criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against
humanity. Some key contributions and outcomes include:
Definition of Aggressive War: The trials helped define the concept of aggressive war and
clarified the legal boundaries for the use of military force, emphasizing the importance of
respect for national sovereignty and the prohibition of unprovoked acts of aggression.
Accountability for War Crimes: The Tokyo Trials served as an important milestone in holding
individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during armed
conflicts. The proceedings established that individuals could be held personally responsible
for their actions, even if they were acting under orders or in an official capacity.
Pursuit of Justice: The trials aimed to bring justice and closure to the victims of Japanese
aggression and wartime atrocities in the Asia-Pacific region. They provided an opportunity
for survivors to testify, share their experiences, and seek recognition for the suffering endured
during the war.
Legal Precedent: The Tokyo Trials contributed to the development of international criminal
law and the establishment of subsequent international tribunals, including the International
Criminal Court (ICC). The principles and legal concepts established in these trials have had
an enduring impact on the pursuit of justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity
worldwide.
4. Chakma Refugee- Notes
5. Dalai Lama Case - Notes
6. CAA – Notes