fundamental differences between international and domestic
Overview of International Law
International law is the term given to the rules which
govern relations between states.
Despite the absence of any superior authority to enforce such
rules, international law is considered by states as binding upon
them, and it is this fact that gives these rules the status of law.
So, for example, where a state wishes to avoid a particular
rule, it will not argue that international law does not exist but
merely that states have not agreed that such a rule is to be
binding upon them or that the rule does not apply to the
particular circumstances.
Unlike national or domestic law, international law is not set
down in any legislation approved by a parliament. Even
multilateral treaties do not apply to all states, but only to those
who have consented to be so bound by signing, ratifying, or
acceding to them. As a result, the precise rules of international
law are often more difficult to identify than national laws and
may be found in various sources.
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
directs the Court to apply the following sources of law in
deciding disputes:
"(a) international conventions, whether general or particular,
establishing rules expressly recognized by contesting states;
(b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice
accepted as law;
(c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized
nations;
(d) … judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly
qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means
for the determination of rules of law.”
“Sources of International Law:
An Introduction" by Professor
Christopher Greenwood
Challenging Notions
Greenwood immediately dispels the notion that international
law can be understood merely by extrapolating principles from
national legal systems. Unlike domestic laws, there is no
equivalent to a "Code of International Law," no international
parliament, and no direct legislation that resembles what we
find within nation-states. This challenges to confront the
legal systems and the implications of these distinctions.
Unlike domestic law, international law only applies to nations
that agree to be bound by the law, while domestic law applies
to all
Decentralized Nature- International law is decentralized
(requiring no central authority to be effective). The author
underscores that international law is primarily established
through the actions of the 192/(3) sovereign states
constituting the international community. This
decentralization differentiates it from national legal structures'
centralized, statutory systems.
Five Key Sources
Greenwood aptly describes the five key sources of
international law as outlined in the Statute of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), Article 38:
1. Treaties between States: These are formal agreements
and conventions between states, setting out their rights and
obligations.
2. Customary International Law: This source arises from the
consistent practice of states, accepted as legally binding even
without written agreements.
3. General Principles of Law: These are overarching legal
principles recognized by civilized nations, serving as universal
guides for international law.
4. Judicial Decisions: Decisions from international courts,
particularly the ICJ, play a role in shaping international law.
5. Writings of Publicists: These include the contributions of
eminent legal scholars and experts whose works help to clarify
and interpret international law.
International Court of Justice (Chapter II. Competence of
the Court, Article 38)
The Court, whose function is to decide by international
law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or
particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by
the contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general
practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized
nations;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial
decisions, and the teachings of the most highly
qualified publicists of the various nations as
subsidiary means for determining rules of law.
2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the
Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono if the parties
agree to it.
Customary International Law
It is the fundamental source of international law that has a rich
history and universal applicability. This review will delve into
the key elements of customary law and its significance in the
international legal landscape. This source is unique because it
evolves from state practice and the belief in legal obligation,
creating rules that bind all states. Let's explore the essential
components of customary international law and its limitations.
The Nature of Customary Law:
Customary international law is distinguished by its absence of
written texts. Instead, it relies on state practice and opinio
juris, or the belief in legal obligation.
In international law, opinio juris is the subjective element used
to judge whether the practice of a state is due to a belief that it
is legally obliged to do a particular act. When opinio juris exists
and is consistent with nearly all state practice, customary
international law emerges.
Opinio Juris essentially means that states must comply with
the norm not merely out of convenience, habit, coincidence, or
political expediency but rather out of a sense of legal
obligation.
An example of opinio juris could be a country signing and
following a treaty because it believes that doing so is a legal
obligation rather than just a matter of preference. This
demonstrates their belief in the legal requirement, the opinio
juris.
State Practice: Customary law emerges when there is
widespread and consistent state practice, wherein states
generally adhere to a particular behavior or rule. For example,
the practice of granting immunity to visiting Heads of State.
Opinio Juris is the belief by states that they have a legal duty
to follow a particular practice. Without this belief, a rule of
customary law cannot be established.
Customary international law is formed through the consistent
practice of states (State practice) and their belief that this
practice is legally required (opinio juris). In the context of the
West Philippine Sea, if multiple states consistently conduct
activities in a certain manner in that area (such as navigation
or resource exploitation) and believe they are legally obliged to
do so under international law, it can contribute to the formation
of customary law regarding that specific situation in the West
Philippine Sea. This could establish legal norms for how states
should behave in that region.
ICJ Guidance emphasizes that not only must the acts be a
settled practice, but they must also reflect a belief in a legal
obligation. States should feel that they are conforming to a
legal duty.
Creation of Customary Rules:
Developing a new rule of customary international law requires
both state practice and opinio juris. These two elements must
be present simultaneously.
Practice Alone is Insufficient: Merely demonstrating state
practice without the accompanying belief in legal obligation is
inadequate to establish a new customary rule, as exemplified
by the Case of the SS Lotus (1927).
Opinio Juris and Practice Go Hand-in-Hand. Similarly, a rule
cannot be created solely based on opinio juris without actual
state practice, as seen in the Advisory Opinion on Nuclear
Weapons (1996).
Comprehensive Examination:
The assessment of state practice entails more than just the
actions of a government. It encompasses the actions of the
state's courts and parliament, and it also considers what states
say. Practice must be analyzed in-depth to determine its legal
significance.
ICJ's Guidance: The International Court of Justice
underscores that customary rules can be inferred if state
conduct generally aligns with the rule and instances of conduct
inconsistent with that rule are treated as breaches, not as
recognition of a new rule.
Opinio Juris:
The traditional definition of opinio juris, a belief in obligation,
doesn't account for permissive rules, where states believe in
rights rather than obligations. It may be more appropriate to
consider opinio juris as asserting a legal right or
acknowledging a legal obligation.
Emergence of New Rules:
Once sufficient practice and opinio juris coexist, a new rule of
customary international law emerges. This rule is binding on all
states, subject only to the "persistent objector" principle.
Persistent Objector Principle: This principle allows a state
that has persistently rejected a new rule, even before it
became a customary norm, to be exempt from its application.
In conclusion, customary international law is a vital source of
international law based on state practice and opinio juris.
Treaties
1. Definition and Types
● Treaties, also known as agreements, conventions,
exchanges of notes, or protocols, are fundamental
sources of international law.
● They can involve States or international
organizations.
2. Source of Obligation
● Treaties primarily create legal obligations for States
that become parties to them.
● States can choose whether to sign and adhere to a
treaty; there is no compulsion.
3. Pacta Sunt Servanda
● Treaties derive their binding force from the customary
international law principle of "pacta sunt servanda,"
which obliges States to honor their treaties.
4. Customary Law
● Many treaties serve as authoritative expressions of
customary international law, particularly when
negotiated by numerous States.
● Treaty provisions may codify customary law, such as
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.
5. Changing Customary Law
● When a treaty codifies a customary rule, the written
provision becomes the primary reference point.
● Innovations in treaty provisions can also become part
of customary law through practice.
6. State Practice
● The widespread adoption and application of treaty
provisions, even by non-parties, can rapidly elevate
them to customary international law.
7. "Traités Contrats" and "Traités Lois"
● The distinction between "contractual treaties" and
"law-making treaties" can be confusing; all treaties are
contractual but may also influence general
international law.
8. Influence on International Law
● Since 1945, numerous treaties have shaped
international law in various areas, such as war,
terrorism, diplomacy, and treaty-making.
General Principles
1. The Third Source
● While treaties and customs dominate international
law, the third source mentioned in Article 38 of the ICJ
Statute is general principles of law recognized by
civilized nations.
● These principles should be more frequently cited in
judgments.
2. Use in International Tribunals
● General principles are typically employed by
international tribunals, like the ICJ, when adopting
widely accepted legal concepts from national legal
systems.
● International law seeks principles recognized in a
range of national legal systems rather than importing
concepts in their entirety.
Judicial Decisions (Article 38(1)(d)):
● Article 38(1)(d) considers judicial decisions as a
subsidiary means to determine rules of law.
● In international law, there is no binding precedent
doctrine, unlike common law countries.
● The ICJ's decisions are not binding on anyone except
the parties involved (Article 59).
● However, the ICJ often references its past decisions,
and other international tribunals use past cases to
guide international law.
● Both international and national court decisions are
relevant sources. International court decisions carry
more weight on most topics, while national court
decisions contribute to customary international law.
Writings:
● Writings of international lawyers can serve as a
persuasive guide to international law.
● They do not create laws but can be informative.
● Isolated passages from writings should be cautiously
interpreted, as they may not accurately reflect
international law.
Other Sources:
● Article 38's list of sources is criticized for being
incomplete.
● Acts of UN organs are increasingly important in
shaping international law.
● UN General Assembly resolutions are not legally
binding, but they influence the law-making process.
● Some resolutions are part of treaty-making
processes, even though the treaty creates legal
obligations.
● State positions in the UN contribute to customary
international law, provided they align with actual state
practices.
● International Law Commission's studies, especially if
adopted by the UN General Assembly, influence
customary international law.
● The UN Security Council's Chapter VII decisions are
legally binding on all states. Article 103 of the UN
Charter prioritizes Council decisions over other
international agreements.
● The Security Council doesn't create new laws but
imposes specific obligations related to certain issues.
Hierarchy of Norms:
● Article 38 doesn't mention a hierarchy of norms, but
some elements suggest its existence.
● Jus cogens norms are of fundamental importance,
and no derogation is permitted.
 ● States can't depart from or vary a rule of jus cogens.
● Conflicts between treaty and customary law are rare
and should be scrutinized.
● Very few rules possess jus cogens status, and the
criteria for achieving such status are strict.
● A treaty prevails over customary law between treaty
parties but doesn't affect non-party states.
● There's no strict hierarchy between treaty and
customary law, contrary to common misconceptions.
Climate Change and Human
Rights: Executive Summary by
United Nations Environment
Programme
It has long been recognized that a clean, healthy, and
functional environment is integral to enjoying human rights,
such as the rights to life, health, food, and an adequate
standard of living. Anthropogenic climate change is the largest,
most pervasive threat to the natural environment and human
societies the world has ever experienced.
The latest assessment report from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes how observed and
predicted changes in climate will adversely affect billions of
people and the ecosystems, natural resources, and physical
infrastructure upon which they depend. These harmful impacts
include sudden-onset events that pose a direct threat to human
lives and safety, as well as more gradual forms of
environmental degradation that will undermine access to clean
water, food, and other key resources that support human life.
Consequently, climate change will profoundly affect the
enjoyment of human rights for individuals and communities
across the planet. This is not merely an abstract future
possibility. Climate change affects many regions' temperatures,
hydrologic conditions, ecosystem functioning, and agricultural
productivity. Displacement is also imminent for some
communities, such as those in the rapidly melting Arctic and
low-lying coastal areas.
Further complicating the picture, measures undertaken to
mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to
climate change can adversely affect the enjoyment of human
rights. The international community has pledged to allocate or
direct $100 billion (US) annually to funding mitigation and
adaptation projects in developing nations. It is critical that as
the world endeavors to address climate change, it do so with
full respect for human rights.
This report describes how governments and other actors may
address climate change in a manner consistent with their
obligations to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill human
rights. One key goal is to inform the decisions undertaken by
the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
However, the analysis and recommendations outlined in this
report are not limited to the current round of international
climate negotiations. Another key goal is to inform decisions
and actions undertaken by nations, sub-national governments,
international organizations, and private actors pursuing climate
action both within and beyond the context of the UNFCCC in
the coming years.
Part I describes the latest projections and observations of
how climate change impacts and responses can affect the
environment, individuals and communities. Some key
findings include
The impacts of climate change on freshwater resources,
ecosystems, and human settlements are already undermining
access to clean water, food, shelter, and other basic human
needs, interfering with livelihoods, and displacing people from
their homes. Even if we remain within the international
goal of 2° C of global warming, these impacts will expand
dramatically in the coming decades.
These impacts constitute a serious interference with exercising
fundamental human rights, such as the rights to life, health,
water, food, housing, and an adequate standard of living.
Mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering measures can also
adversely affect exercising human rights. For example,
documented instances of hydroelectric and biofuel projects
have resulted in human rights violations. There is also a high
risk of human rights violations resulting from the
implementation of resettlement programs for displaced or at
risk of displacement due to climate change, and a
corresponding need to ensure that such programs are
undertaken with adequate input and consent from those
relocated.
Part II summarizes the obligations of governments and
private actors to respond to these impacts. This section
begins by reviewing how UN agencies and national
governments have come to understand the relationship
between climate change and human rights. It then
provides a more detailed discussion of specific
obligations in this context. These include
Procedural obligations for all governments to ensure that
the affected public is:
 1. adequately informed about the impacts of climate
change and the measures undertaken to both mitigate
and adapt to climate change;
2. adequately involved in public decisions about climate
change; and
3. given access to administrative, judicial, and other
remedies when rights are violated as a result of
climate change and responses to it.
Substantive obligations for all governments to:
1. protect human rights from climate-related harms;
2. respond to the core drivers of climate change by
regulating GHG emissions within their jurisdiction;
3. cooperate internationally to protect human rights
against climate-related harms;
4. address
5. the transboundary impacts of climate change; and
6. safeguard human rights in all mitigation and
7. adaptation activities.
States also have unique obligations concerning certain groups,
including women, children, and indigenous peoples. Notably,
states must obtain free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC)
before undertaking any measures that would adversely affect
indigenous peoples' traditional lands and resources.
Private actors also have obligations to address the human
rights implications of climate change and should refer to the
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to
ensure that they fully respect human rights in all activities.
Part III discusses the implementation of these obligations,
focusing primarily on activities undertaken by national
governments either within or outside of the UNFCCC
context. It documents several recent developments in this
area:
Some states are beginning to recognize the linkages between
human rights and climate change in reports submitted to the
UNFCCC secretariat, but this is not true for most developed
nations.
There is a significant “emissions gap” between the mitigation
commitments outlined in the Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions (INDCs) and the emission reductions required to
keep warming at or below 2°C.
There is also a significant “adaptation finance gap” regarding
what will be needed to adapt to climate change and the
available finance, technology, and capacity.
Finally, there is a significant “finance gap” between the financial
and technical assistance that has been given or pledged to
developing countries and the resources that will be required to
ensure that climate change does not interfere with exercising
human rights in those countries. This is true even if we do
meet the two °C target.
Most international climate finance mechanisms are
accompanied by safeguards to protect human rights. Still,
there is room for improvement, especially concerning the
monitoring and assessing these programs and any human
rights violations.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Part IV recommends how national governments and other
actors can better integrate human rights considerations
into their mitigation and adaptation activities. Our key
recommendations for the parties to the UNFCCC include:
National parties should commit to more ambitious mitigation
targets to ensure that the global average temperature increase
remains at or below 2°C. The COP should recognize the link
between climate change and human rights in the Paris
Agreement.
The various climate finance mechanisms' safeguards should
be uniform and revised to ensure full respect for human rights.
National parties should increase financial and technical
assistance to developing countries that are most vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change to protect human rights in those
areas.
National parties should continue to discuss the issue of loss
and damage transparently to address the concerns of all
affected countries. The report also contains other
recommendations to national governments on measures they
can adopt unilaterally to protect human rights in the context of
climate change, as well as recommendations to local
governments and private actors.
The International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Radislav Krstić's Case:
Case of Radislav Krstić, a significant figure in the Bosnian War
and a senior officer in the Bosnian Serb Army. This case
provides valuable insights into the conflict, war crimes, and the
legal process undertaken by the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
1. Case Information:
● Name: Radislav Krstić
 ● Position: Chief of Staff/Deputy Commander of the
Drina Corps of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS);
appointed Commander of the Drina Corps on 13 July
1995
● Indictment Initial: 2 November 1998
● Arrested: 2 December 1998
● Transferred to ICTY: 3 December 1998
● Plea: 25 November 1999 (pleaded not guilty)
● Commencement of Trial: 13 March 2000
● Closing arguments: 26-29 June 2001
Trial Chamber Judgement: 2 August 2001 (convicted of
genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws
or customs of war)
Appeals Chamber Judgement: 19 April 2004 (convicted of
aiding and abetting genocide, crimes against humanity, and
violations of the laws or customs of war)
Sentence: 35 years imprisonment
Currently serving sentence in Poland (transferred in 2014)
2. Indictment:
Charges:
● One count of genocide (Count 1)
● One count of conspiracy to commit genocide (Count
2)
● Five counts of crimes against humanity
● Extermination (Count 3)
● Murder (Count 4)
● Persecutions (Count 6)
● Deportation (Count 7)
● Inhumane acts (forcible transfer) (Count 8)
● Four counts of violations of the laws or customs of
war
● Murder (Count 5)
3. Alleged Responsibility:
The indictment alleged that Krstić played a leading role in an
operation code-named "Krivaja 95," including the shelling of
Srebrenica. The operation aimed to terrify the Bosnian Muslim
population and drive them to Potočari, creating fear and panic
to force them to leave the territory.
Between 13 and 19 July 1995, 7,000 to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim
men were systematically murdered, and the remaining
population, comprising approximately 25,000 women, children,
and elderly, were forcibly transferred.
4. The Trial:
● The trial began on 13 March 2000.
● Closing Arguments were presented from 26 to 29
June 2001.
● The Trial Chamber's Judgement was delivered on 2
August 2001, where genocide was confirmed, and
Krstić was found guilty.
5. Trial Chamber Judgement:
● Krstić was found to have participated in a joint
criminal enterprise to kill Bosnian Muslim men.
● He was convicted of genocide, crimes against
humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of
war.
● He was sentenced to 46 years' imprisonment.
6. Appeals Proceedings:
● Both parties appealed the Judgement.
● The Appeals Chamber Judgement was pronounced
on 19 April 2004.
● Krstić was found guilty as an aider and abettor of
genocide, murder, extermination, and persecution.
7. Final Convictions:
● Radislav Krstić was found guilty of aiding and abetting
genocide, murder, extermination, and persecution.
● Sentence: 35 years’ imprisonment.
8. Statistics:
● Trial days: 98
● Prosecution witnesses: 103
● Prosecution exhibits: 910
● Defence witnesses: 13
● Defence exhibits: 183
● Chamber exhibits: 5
Radislav Krstić's case serves as a testament to the
international community's commitment to holding individuals
accountable for grave crimes committed during conflicts and
underscores the significance of international tribunals in
addressing war crimes.
The Nuremberg Trials
The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals held
to prosecute prominent leaders of Nazi Germany for their
involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
other atrocities committed during World War II. The trials took
place from November 20, 1945, to October 1, 1946, and were
held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany. Here's a possible
question and answer portion about the Nuremberg Trials:
Q: What were the Nuremberg Trials, and why were they
significant?
A: The Nuremberg Trials were a series of international military
tribunals held after World War II to prosecute major Nazi
leaders for their roles in war crimes, crimes against humanity,
and the Holocaust. They were significant because they marked
the first time in history that individuals were held accountable
for international crimes, established principles of international
law, and set a precedent for subsequent war crime trials.
Q: Who were some of the key defendants in the
Nuremberg Trials?
A: Some of the key defendants included high-ranking Nazi
officials like Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von
Ribbentrop, and Wilhelm Keitel. There were a total of 24 major
war criminals indicted at the trials.
Q: What were the charges brought against the defendants
in the Nuremberg Trials?
A: The main charges included crimes against peace (planning,
initiating, and waging wars of aggression), war crimes
(violations of the laws and customs of war), and crimes against
humanity (atrocities committed against civilians on a
widespread and systematic basis). These charges covered a
range of offenses, including genocide, extermination, and
enslavement.
Q: Who were the judges at the Nuremberg Trials, and how
were they selected?
A: The judges were representatives from the Allied powers
(United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and
France). There were four main judges, one from each Allied
country, and each tribunal had an alternate judge. Their
respective governments selected them.
Q: What were some of the outcomes of the Nuremberg
Trials?
A: Several defendants were sentenced to death by hanging,
including Hermann Göring and other top Nazi leaders. Others
received lengthy prison sentences. The trials established the
principles of individual accountability for war crimes and crimes
against humanity and laid the foundation for subsequent
international criminal justice mechanisms, including the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
Q: How did the Nuremberg Trials contribute to the
development of international law?
A: The Nuremberg Trials contributed significantly to the
development of international law by establishing the principle
that individuals could be held accountable for international
crimes, even if they were acting on behalf of a government.
They also set the precedent for subsequent international trials
and the creation of international criminal tribunals.
These trials were significant in the development of
international human rights law and established several
important principles:
1. Individual Accountability: The trials established the
principle that individuals, including political and
military leaders, could be held criminally responsible
for their actions during wartime, even if they were
acting under orders.
2. Crimes Against Humanity: The Nuremberg Trials
introduced the concept of "crimes against humanity,"
which includes acts such as genocide, enslavement,
and inhumane treatment. These crimes were
considered universal jurisdiction, meaning that they
could be prosecuted regardless of where they were
committed.
3. Fair Trial Rights: The accused were given the right
to a fair trial, including legal representation, the
opportunity to present evidence, and the right to
appeal.
4. Precedent for Future Tribunals: The Nuremberg
Trials served as a precedent for subsequent
international criminal tribunals, including the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal
Court (ICC).
1. What were the Nuremberg Trials, and when did they
occur?
The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals held
from November 20, 1945, to October 1, 1946, to prosecute
major war criminals from Nazi Germany.
2. What important legal principles emerged from the
Nuremberg Trials?
The trials established the principles of individual accountability,
the concept of crimes against humanity, and the right to a fair
trial.
3. Why was the concept of "crimes against humanity"
significant in the Nuremberg Trials?
The concept of "crimes against humanity" was significant
because it recognized that certain acts, such as genocide and
enslavement, were crimes of universal jurisdiction and could
be prosecuted regardless of where they were committed.
4. How did the Nuremberg Trials influence the
development of international human rights law?
The trials served as a precedent for future international
criminal tribunals and contributed to developing principles
related to individual accountability and the prosecution of
heinous crimes.
5. Can you explain the significance of giving the accused
the right to a fair trial during the Nuremberg Trials?
Providing the accused with the right to a fair trial ensured that
they were allowed to defend themselves, present evidence,
and have legal representation, which emphasized the
importance of due process even in cases of grave international
crimes.
These questions and answers provide a foundational
understanding of the Nuremberg Trials in the context of
international human rights law.
The Geneva Conventions of 1949
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 are a set of four
international treaties that established humanitarian rules
and protections for individuals who are not taking part in
hostilities during armed conflicts. These conventions were
developed in response to the experiences of World War II and
are designed to ensure the humane treatment of civilians,
wounded and sick military personnel, and prisoners of war
during times of armed conflict. Here's an overview of the four
Geneva Conventions:
1. First Geneva Convention (1864, revised in 1949): This
convention protects wounded and sick military personnel on
land during armed conflicts. It established the Red Cross as a
universal symbol for medical personnel and facilities.
2. Second Geneva Convention (1906, revised in 1949): This
convention extends protections to wounded, sick, and
shipwrecked military personnel at sea during armed conflicts.
3. Third Geneva Convention (1929, revised in 1949): This
convention addresses the treatment of prisoners of war
(POWs). It outlines the rights and protections that must be
afforded to captured military personnel.
4. Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): This convention deals
with protecting civilians during armed conflicts. It prohibits acts
such as violence, intimidation, and deportation directed against
civilians. It also outlines the responsibilities of occupying
powers in areas they control.
Possible Questions and Answers:
Q1: What are the Geneva Conventions 1949?
A1: The Geneva Conventions of 1949 are a set of four
international treaties that establish humanitarian rules and
protections for individuals who are not taking part in hostilities
during armed conflicts.
Q2: What is the purpose of the First Geneva Convention?
A2: The First Geneva Convention focuses on protecting
wounded and sick military personnel on land during armed
conflicts. It also established the Red Cross as a symbol of
universal medical personnel and facilities.
Q3: Who is covered by the Third Geneva Convention?
A3: The Third Geneva Convention addresses the treatment of
prisoners of war (POWs). It outlines the rights and protections
that must be afforded to captured military personnel.
Q4: What does the Fourth Geneva Convention deal with?
A4: The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians during
armed conflicts. It prohibits acts such as violence, intimidation,
and deportation directed against civilians and outlines the
responsibilities of occupying powers.
Q5: Why are the Geneva Conventions important?
A5: The Geneva Conventions are crucial because they provide
a framework for the humane treatment of individuals during
armed conflicts, including wounded military personnel,
prisoners of war, and civilians. They aim to reduce suffering
and protect the rights and dignity of those not actively involved
in fighting.
The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10,
1948, is a landmark document in the field of human rights. It
was drafted in response to the atrocities of World War II and
aimed to set a common standard for the rights and freedoms to
which all people are entitled, regardless of their nationality,
race, religion, or any other status. Here's a thorough
explanation of the UDHR and some possible questions for
discussion or recitation:
The UDHR consists of 30 articles that outline fundamental
human rights and freedoms. These Rights can be broadly
categorized into the following themes:
1. Dignity and Equality: The UDHR emphasizes all
individuals' inherent dignity and equal rights. It prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or social
origin.
2. Civil and Political Rights: These include rights like the
right to life, liberty, and security of person; freedom from
torture, slavery, and arbitrary arrest; and the right to a fair trial
and freedom of expression.
3. Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: The UDHR
recognizes the right to work, education, and a standard of
living adequate for health and well-being, including food,
clothing, housing, and medical care.
4. Freedom from Fear and Want: It addresses both civil and
economic rights, aiming to ensure that individuals are free from
both political oppression and extreme poverty.
5. Right to Self-Determination: It affirms the right of people to
determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social, and cultural development.
1. What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
why was it adopted in 1948?**
Answer: The UDHR is a document adopted by the United
Nations to set a common standard for human rights worldwide
after the horrors of World War II to prevent such atrocities in
the future.
2. Can you name some of the fundamental rights and
freedoms outlined in the UDHR?
Answer: Some key rights include the right to life, liberty, and
security; freedom from discrimination; freedom of expression;
the right to education; and the right to work and a decent
standard of living.
3. Why is the principle of non-discrimination important in
the UDHR?
Answer: Non-discrimination is crucial because it ensures that
all individuals are treated equally and without prejudice,
regardless of their background. It also upholds the idea that
every person has inherent dignity.
4. How does the UDHR address both civil and economic
rights?
Answer: The UDHR recognizes that both civil and economic
rights are essential for human dignity. It includes rights like the
right to work, education, and a standard of living adequate for
health and well-being.
5. What is the significance of the UDHR's call for peoples'
right to self-determination?
Answer: The right to self-determination acknowledges the
importance of allowing communities to choose their political
and social future, promoting peace and stability.
The Eichmann Trial 1961
The Eichmann Trial, which took place in 1961 in Jerusalem,
was a pivotal event in the aftermath of World War II and the
Holocaust. Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi official, was
captured by Israeli agents in Argentina in 1960 and brought to
Israel to stand trial for his role in implementing the Holocaust.
1. Background Information:
Who was Adolf Eichmann?
Adolf Eichmann was a German SS officer and one of the key
figures responsible for organizing and coordinating the logistics
of the Holocaust, including the mass deportation of Jews to
concentration and extermination camps.
Why was he captured and brought to trial?
Eichmann escaped capture after World War II and lived under
an assumed identity in Argentina. He was arrested by Israeli
agents in 1960 to face justice for his crimes against humanity.
2. The Trial Process:
Where did the trial take place?
The trial was held in Jerusalem, Israel.
Who were the key figures in the trial?
Gideon Hausner was the chief prosecutor, and Robert
Servatius represented Eichmann.
What were the charges against Eichmann?
Eichmann was charged with crimes against humanity, war
crimes, and other offenses related to his role in the Holocaust.
How was Eichmann's defense argued?
Eichmann's defense primarily revolved around the claim that
he was just following orders and had no choice but to obey his
superiors in carrying out the atrocities.
3. The Outcome:
What was the verdict?
Adolf Eichmann was found guilty on most counts and
sentenced to death by hanging.
How did the world react to the verdict?
The verdict was widely regarded as a landmark moment in the
history of international justice. It sent a powerful message that
individuals could be held accountable for crimes against
humanity, even if they claimed to be "just following orders."
Why was the Eichmann Trial significant?
The Eichmann Trial was significant because it marked one of
the first instances in which a high-ranking Nazi official was held
accountable for the Holocaust. It set a precedent for pursuing
justice against individuals responsible for mass atrocities.
What were the key arguments made by the prosecution
during the trial?
The prosecution argued that Eichmann played a central role in
the systematic extermination of millions of Jews and other
victims and that he should be held responsible for his actions.
How did Eichmann's defense attempt to justify his
actions?
Eichmann's defense claimed that he was merely following
orders and he did not have the authority to question or refuse
those orders.
What impact did the Eichmann Trial have on the concept
of "just following orders" as a defense in cases of war
crimes and crimes against humanity?
The trial had a profound impact on this concept. It
demonstrated that individuals could be held responsible for
their actions, even if they argued that they acted under orders.
It emphasized the importance of personal responsibility and
moral choice in such situations.
My Lai Massacre in Vietnam
(1968)
My Lai Massacre in Vietnam (1968) which was a significant
and tragic event during the Vietnam War. The operation
associated with this event was known as "Operation Pinkville."
Please note that the My Lai Massacre is a deeply distressing
and controversial topic because it involves killing unarmed
civilians, including women, children, and the elderly.
Introduction to the My Lai Massacre:
The My Lai Massacre, which occurred on March 16, 1968,
during the Vietnam War, involved the killing of hundreds of
unarmed South Vietnamese civilians, including women,
children, and the elderly, by American troops. The operation
was initially codenamed "Pinkville."
Q1: What was the purpose of Operation Pinkville?
Operation Pinkville was intended to search for and eliminate
members of the Viet Cong (a communist organization) believed
to be in the hamlets of My Lai and My Khe in Quang Ngai
Province, South Vietnam.
Q2: Who was the commanding officer in charge of
Operation Pinkville?
A2: The commanding officer was Lieutenant William Calley,
who led the men of Charlie Company, a unit of the Americal
Division.
Q3: What happened during the My Lai Massacre?
On March 16, 1968, Charlie Company entered the hamlets of
My Lai and My Khe. They rounded up villagers, separated
them into groups, and systematically killed them. The troops
also committed sexual assault and other atrocities, resulting in
the deaths of approximately 500 unarmed civilians.
Q4: Who were some of the key figures considered heroes
in the My Lai Massacre?**
A4:Hugh Thompson, Lawrence Colburn, and Glenn Andreotta
are often considered heroes of the My Lai Massacre. They
were crew members of a helicopter that intervened during the
massacre. Thompson landed his helicopter between the
American soldiers and the fleeing Vietnamese civilians,
ordering his gunner, Lawrence Colburn, to fire on American
troops if they continued the killing. These actions saved
numerous lives.
Q5: How did the My Lai Massacre come to public
attention?
A5: The My Lai Massacre came to public attention through
investigative journalism. In November 1969, investigative
reporter Seymour Hersh published a story in the "St. Louis
Post-Dispatch" and later in the "New York Times" that exposed
the massacre and its details.
Q6: What were the legal consequences of the My Lai
Massacre?
A6: In a court-martial, Lieutenant William Calley was the only
individual found guilty of murder for his role in the massacre.
He was sentenced to life in prison but served only three and a
half years under house arrest. Several other soldiers were
charged but acquitted or had their charges dropped.
Q7: What was the public and international reaction to the
My Lai Massacre?
A7: The My Lai Massacre profoundly impacted public opinion
in the United States and internationally. It contributed to
growing opposition to the Vietnam War and increased scrutiny
of the U.S. military's conduct.
Q8: What lessons can be drawn from the My Lai
Massacre?
A8: The My Lai Massacre is a stark reminder of the horrors of
war and the importance of upholding moral and ethical
standards in military operations. It highlights the need for
accountability and transparency in the face of wartime
atrocities.
Q9: Did the My Lai Massacre lead to changes in military
policies or rules of engagement?
A9: Yes, the My Lai Massacre led to a reevaluation of military
training and rules of engagement. The military emphasized
ethics, the protection of civilians, and soldiers' responsibility to
refuse unlawful orders.
Q10: How is the My Lai Massacre remembered today?
A10: The My Lai Massacre is remembered as one of the
darkest chapters in the history of the Vietnam War. It is
commemorated as a reminder of the importance of
accountability, ethical conduct, and the tragic human cost of
war.
Srebrenica Massacre
The Srebrenica Massacre occurred in July 1995 during the
Bosnian War and was one of the most horrific and
well-documented atrocities in history. It involved the killing of
thousands of Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) men and boys by
Bosnian Serb forces. Here's a review of the background,
context, trial facts, and verdict related to the Srebrenica
Massacre:
Background:
The Bosnian War (1992-1995) was a brutal and complex
conflict that took place in the former Yugoslavia. It arose after
the breakup of Yugoslavia and was characterized by ethnic
and religious tensions among Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims),
Croats, and Serbs. Srebrenica, a town in eastern Bosnia and
Herzegovina, was designated a UN Safe Area in 1993.
However, it was far from safe, as it remained vulnerable to
attacks and sieges.
Context:
In July 1995, the Bosnian Serb army, under the command of
General Ratko Mladić and with the approval of political leaders,
initiated an operation to capture Srebrenica. Despite being a
UN Safe Area, Srebrenica was poorly defended, and Dutch UN
peacekeepers could not prevent the town's capture. The
Bosnian Serb forces entered Srebrenica, leading to a mass
evacuation of the civilian population. In the following days, they
separated Bosniak men and boys from women and children.
The men were systematically executed in mass killings.
Trial Facts:
1. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
(ICTY): The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia was established by the United Nations to prosecute
those responsible for war crimes during the Balkans conflict.
Many individuals were indicted and tried for their roles in the
Srebrenica Massacre.
2. Ratko Mladić:General Ratko Mladić, the Bosnian Serb
military leader, was one of the most prominent figures to stand
trial for the Srebrenica Massacre. He faced charges of
genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Mladić
was arrested in 2011 and brought before the ICTY for trial.
3. Verdicts: In November 2017, Ratko Mladić was found guilty
on multiple charges, including genocide, for his role in the
Srebrenica Massacre. He was sentenced to life in prison.
Other individuals, including political leaders and military
officers, were also tried and convicted for their roles in the
massacre.
Verdict:
The verdicts handed down by the ICTY represented a
significant moment in pursuing justice for the Srebrenica
Massacre. Mladić's conviction for genocide was a crucial
acknowledgment of the scale and gravity of the atrocity. It
affirmed the principle that those who commit war crimes and
crimes against humanity would be held accountable.
The Srebrenica Massacre is a painful reminder of the horrors
of war and the importance of international justice. The pursuit
of justice, in this case, serves as a precedent for holding
individuals accountable for their actions in times of conflict and
stands as a testament to the international community's
commitment to preventing such atrocities in the future.
The Srebrenica Massacre, which occurred in July 1995 during
the Bosnian War, was a horrific event that resulted in the mass
murder of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys by Bosnian
Serb forces. Here is a possible Q&A recitation about the
Srebrenica Massacre:
Q1: What was the Srebrenica Massacre?
A1: The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica
Genocide, was a horrific event that took place in July 1995
during the Bosnian War. It involved the mass murder of
Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys by Bosnian Serb
forces led by General Ratko Mladić.
Q2: Why did the Srebrenica Massacre happen?
The massacre occurred in the context of the Bosnian War,
which was a complex and brutal conflict resulting from the
breakup of Yugoslavia. The town of Srebrenica, located in
eastern Bosnia, had been declared a "safe area" by the United
Nations and was under Dutch peacekeepers' protection.
However, Bosnian Serb forces, motivated by ethnic and
political factors, overran the enclave, leading to the massacre.
Q3: How many people were killed in the Srebrenica
Massacre?
A3: The exact number of victims is debated and investigated. It
is widely believed that more than 7,000 Bosniak men and boys
were killed in the massacre, making it one of the worst
atrocities in Europe since World War II.
Were there any survivors from the Srebrenica Massacre?
Some Bosniak men and boys managed to escape the
massacre by fleeing into the surrounding forests, but many
were captured and killed. There were survivors, but most of the
men and boys who were in Srebrenica at the time lost their
lives.
Q5: What actions did the international community take in
response to the Srebrenica Massacre?
A5: The international community condemned the massacre,
and it played a significant role in bringing war criminals to
justice. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established to prosecute those
responsible for war crimes, including the Srebrenica Massacre.
Many individuals, including General Ratko Mladić, were later
arrested, tried, and convicted for their roles in the atrocity.
Q6: How has the Srebrenica Massacre impacted the region
and the world?
A6: The Srebrenica Massacre has had a profound and lasting
impact on the region and the world. It serves as a stark
reminder of the consequences of ethnic and religious hatred
and the failure of the international community to prevent such
atrocities. The massacre has influenced international
humanitarian and legal norms and catalyzed Balkan
reconciliation efforts.
Q7: Is there ongoing work to remember and commemorate
the victims of the Srebrenica Massacre?
A7: There are ongoing efforts to remember and commemorate
the victims of the Srebrenica Massacre. Every year, on July
11th, the anniversary of the massacre, memorial events, and
ceremonies are held in Srebrenica and worldwide to honor the
victims and promote reconciliation. The International
Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) continues to work on
identifying the remains of those killed in the massacre,
providing some closure to the victims' families.
Q8: What can we learn from the Srebrenica Massacre?
A8: The Srebrenica Massacre serves as a stark reminder of
the consequences of intolerance, hatred, and the failure of the
international community to prevent genocide. It underscores
the importance of promoting peace, tolerance, and the
protection of human rights. Learning from the Srebrenica
Massacre is crucial to preventing such atrocities from
happening in the future.
The Rwandan Genocide
The Rwandan Genocide took place in 1994, but its roots can
be traced back to colonial times when Rwanda was a Belgian
colony. The Belgians exacerbated ethnic tensions by favoring
the Tutsi minority over the Hutu majority, contributing to
long-standing ethnic divides.
II. Causes
1. Ethnic Tensions: The primary cause of the genocide was
long-standing ethnic tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi
communities. Political leaders exploited these tensions.
2. Political Instability: Rwanda faced political instability in the manipulation, and international indifference. It underscores the
years leading up to the genocide. A civil war broke out, and the importance of early prevention and intervention in conflict
Arusha Accords, which aimed to establish a power-sharing zones.
government, were not fully implemented.
3. Propaganda: Hutu extremist media outlets, particularly In conclusion, the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 is a harrowing
Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), propagated example of man's inhumanity to man. The world must
anti-Tutsi hate speech, dehumanizing the Tutsi population and remember this dark chapter in history, learn from it, and work to
inciting violence. ensure that such atrocities are never repeated.
4. International Indifference: The international community
largely failed to intervene or prevent the genocide despite
having information about the impending violence. Guantanamo Bay Detention
III. Events Camp
1. The assassination of President Habyarimana: On April 6,
1. What is the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, and
1994, the plane carrying Rwandan President Juvénal
where is it located?
Habyarimana was shot down, sparking the genocide.
The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, also known as Gitmo,
2. Systematic Massacres: Over approximately 100 days,
is a U.S. military prison on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in
extremist Hutu militias, notably the Interahamwe,
Cuba. It has been used to detain individuals associated with
systematically carried out massacres of Tutsis and moderate
terrorism since 2002.
Hutus. Rape, torture, and other forms of violence were
2. Why was the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp
widespread.
established?
3. Humanitarian Crisis: The genocide resulted in an immense
The U.S. government established the detention camp in
humanitarian crisis, with millions displaced and countless
response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was
refugees fleeing to neighboring countries.
created to detain and interrogate individuals suspected of
having ties to terrorism and to extract information related to
IV. Consequences:
national security.
1. Death Toll: Estimates of the death toll vary, but it is widely
acknowledged that hundreds of thousands of people, primarily
3. How many detainees have been held at Guantanamo
Tutsis, were killed.
Bay since it opened in 2002?
2. Psychological Trauma: Survivors and witnesses of the
Over the years, hundreds of detainees have been held at
genocide continue to grapple with psychological trauma and
Guantanamo Bay. The number fluctuated, but it held several
the legacy of the violence.
hundred detainees at its peak.
3. Destruction of Social Fabric: The genocide shattered the
social fabric of Rwandan society, with families torn apart and
4. What legal issues and controversies surround
communities deeply scarred.
Guantanamo Bay?
4. International Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal
Guantanamo Bay has faced numerous legal and human rights
for Rwanda (ICTR) was established to bring perpetrators of the
controversies. One major issue is the detention of individuals
genocide to justice.
without trial or charges, which some argue violates
international law. Enhanced interrogation techniques like
V. International Response:
waterboarding have also been criticized as torture.
1. Failure to Prevent: The international community,
particularly the United Nations, failed to prevent or effectively
5. Have there been efforts to close Guantanamo Bay
intervene in the genocide.
Detention Camp?
2. Late Intervention: A French-led intervention, Operation
Yes, there have been ongoing efforts to close the detention
Turquoise, arrived in Rwanda in June 1994, and the Rwandan
camp. Multiple U.S. administrations, including President
Patriotic Front (RPF) ultimately ended the genocide by
Barack Obama, pledged to close it but faced significant
defeating the Hutu extremists.
political and logistical challenges. As of my last update in
3. Justice and Reconciliation: The ICTR and
September 2021, it remained open.
community-based Gacaca courts played important roles in
delivering justice and promoting reconciliation in Rwanda.
6. What is the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo
Bay today?
Climate Change and Human Rights
Some detainees have been released or transferred to other
The Rwandan Genocide is a tragic reminder of the
countries, while others remain in detention. Some detainees
devastating consequences of ethnic hatred, political
have faced military tribunals, but many have not been formally
charged or tried.
7. What role does the international community play in the
Guantanamo Bay issue?
The international community, including human rights
organizations and the United Nations, has repeatedly called for
the closure of Guantanamo Bay and raised concerns about the
treatment of detainees. There have been diplomatic efforts to
resettle detainees in third countries.
8. How has the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp
impacted U.S. foreign relations?
The existence of Guantanamo Bay has generated criticism
from various countries and strained U.S. foreign relations,
particularly about human rights issues. Some nations have
expressed concerns about U.S. detention policies and
practices.
9. Have there been cases of detainee releases from
Guantanamo Bay who later engaged in terrorist activities?
Yes, there have been instances where former Guantanamo
detainees were subsequently implicated in terrorism. This has
led to debates over the risk and necessity of detaining
individuals at the facility.
10. What is Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp's current
status and future outlook?
Answer: The future of Guantanamo Bay remains uncertain,
with ongoing debates over its closure, detainee treatment, and
the legal status of those held there. Changes influence the
resolution of these issues in U.S. policy and politics.
1. Detainee Treatment: One of the primary controversies
surrounding Guantanamo Bay has been the treatment of
detainees. Reports of torture, abuse, and inhumane conditions
have emerged. These reports have been a source of
international condemnation and have raised concerns about
human rights violations.
2. Legal and Moral Issues: The U.S. government has faced
legal challenges over the detention of individuals at
Guantanamo, with questions regarding the length of detention
without trial, the denial of legal representation, and allegations
of due process violations. Critics argue that these issues have
undermined the principles of justice and the rule of law.
3. International Criticism: the international community and
human rights organizations have widely criticized Guantanamo
Bay. The United Nations and numerous countries have called
for its closure, citing concerns about human rights abuses.
4. Role in Counterterrorism: Proponents of Guantanamo
argue that the facility has been essential in the fight against
terrorism. They claim that it has been a valuable tool for
interrogating and detaining individuals suspected of terrorist
activities.
5. Attempts to Close the Facility: There have been several
attempts by U.S. administrations to close Guantanamo Bay,
with President Barack Obama pledging to do so but facing
significant political and logistical challenges. As of my last
knowledge update in September 2021, the facility remained
open.
Rohingya Crisis (2017-Present)
Rakhine State in Western Myanmar is historically home to a
Muslim population, most of whom self-identify as Rohingya.
For decades, this ethnic minority has suffered legal and social
discrimination. While historical economic relations exist with
the Buddhist Rakhine community, there are also long-standing
tensions between the two groups.
The 1982 Citizenship Law stripped the Rohingya of citizenship
and even the right to self-identify. The Rohingya are also
subject to many restrictions in day-to-day life: banned from
traveling without authorization and prohibited from working
outside their villages; they cannot marry without permission;
and, due to movement restrictions, they lack sufficient access
to livelihood opportunities, medical care, and education.
In 2012, widespread violence in Central Rakhine displaced
140,000 people, mostly Rohingya. While the authorities have
initiated a limited return process, over 120,000 people remain
internally displaced more than six years after the events, living
in squalid, overcrowded camps with only limited access to
health care, education, and livelihood opportunities.
Tensions and mistrust between the Rohingya and Rakhine
communities continue. Some Rakhine groups erroneously
perceive that humanitarian aid, which is allocated strictly
according to needs, is distributed unevenly and benefits only
the Rohingya. In March 2014, this triggered organized attacks
against international community offices, residences, and
warehouses, resulting in millions of euros of losses. In 2015,
the flood and cyclone relief interventions, supporting affected
people from both communities, managed to mitigate this
perception to some extent; it however remains active, partly
due to limited development opportunities in Rakhine State.
Access to the camps around Sittwe is highly regulated,
preventing timely and adequate assistance delivery, and
access has been drastically reduced after the August 2017
crisis.
On 25 August 2017, a deadly assault by Rohingya insurgents
on multiple police posts in Northern Rakhine triggered a brutal
crackdown on the Rohingya population. Since then, over
700,000 civilians have fled across the border into Bangladesh.
The renewed fighting has resulted in humanitarian operations
across Rakhine ending abruptly.
Only the Red Cross Movement (consisting of the International
Committee of the Red Cross, Myanmar Red Cross and
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies), the World Food Programme, and, to some extent,
Action Contre la Faim are currently providing food assistance.
Other life-saving services remain largely suspended, including
nutrition, health, protection, and psychosocial activities. The
latest clashes come less than one year after a previous assault
by insurgents on three border guard posts on 9 October 2016,
which triggered a series of violent incidents and military
operations that saw more than 87,000 Rohingya fleeing to
Bangladesh in search of refuge.
The August 2017 violence in Myanmar's Rakhine State
triggered a new massive influx of Rohingya refugees crossing
the Bangladesh border, stretching the capacities of
humanitarian agencies operating there, which had already
been strained since the previous influx in October 2016. The
massive number of new arrivals has increased the Rohingya
population living in the camps in Cox's Bazar to close to
900,000. The initial influx of Rohingya to Bangladesh dates
back to 1978, with a large arrival from 1991 to 1992.
While a little more than 33,600 people living in the two official
camps of Kutupalong and Nayapara have obtained refugee
status in the past, the rest of them are not recognized as such
by the Government of Bangladesh. Labeled as "undocumented
Myanmar nationals", they have no legal status in Bangladesh.
The refusal of the authorities to register Rohingya at birth or
provide marriage certificates and other civil documentation
makes it difficult to fully assess the scale of the humanitarian
needs of these people, many of whom live in difficult conditions
with inadequate food intake and diet diversification or access
to health care. Without legal status, they can also not pursue
education and formal employment opportunities and remain
vulnerable to exploitation and serious protection risks.
The European Union's humanitarian response The European
Commission's Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid
Operations has funded relief programs in the Rakhine State of
Myanmar and in Cox's Bazar District of Bangladesh since
1994. The EU established an office in Dhaka (Bangladesh) in
2002 and another in Yangon (Myanmar) in 2005 to facilitate the
delivery of EU humanitarian assistance.
In 2018, the EU has funded projects throughout Myanmar's
Rakhine State to address some of the most urgent needs
(such as protection, shelter, health, water, sanitation, food, and
psychosocial support) for affected communities displaced by
outbreaks of violence and host communities.
The EU continues to provide basic services to its humanitarian
partner organizations. To deliver this vital assistance, the
security of aid workers must be ensured, together with
unimpeded access to affected communities. The EU has also
provided funding for life-saving assistance to the unregistered
Rohingya refugees in Cox's Bazar district, Bangladesh,
through international NGOs and the UN.
In 2018, the EU has thus far provided €36 million in assistance
in the form of basic health care, water, sanitation, shelter,
nutrition, protection, psychological support, and disaster risk
reduction assistance for the monsoon season. The latest
allocation has brought the total funding for Rohingya refugees
in Bangladesh to more than €86 million since 2007.
Besides this life-saving assistance, EU humanitarian aid
advocates for better communication with the displaced
populations and a more protection-oriented support system. In
response to the large influx of Rohingya following the latest
outbreaks of violence, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism was
also activated in October 2017 to contribute to a coordination
hub introduced to enable a greater humanitarian presence and
support humanitarian activities provided to Rohingya refugees.
ICC Prosecution of Thomas
Lubanga and Jean-Pierre Bemba
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent
international court established to prosecute individuals for
the most serious crimes of international concern,
including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide. Two prominent cases that garnered significant
attention in recent years involved the prosecution of Thomas
Lubanga and Jean-Pierre Bemba. Let's delve into these cases
in more detail.
Thomas Lubanga Case
Background: Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese warlord, was
prosecuted by the ICC for enlisting and conscripting child
soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Charges: Lubanga faced charges of conscripting and enlisting
children under the age of 15 into an armed group and using
them to participate in hostilities.
Verdict: In March 2012, Lubanga became the first person to
be convicted by the ICC. He was sentenced to 14 years in
prison, later reduced to 8 years on appeal.
Significance: The Lubanga case marked a milestone for the
ICC, as it was the first conviction in the court's history. It sent a
strong message that the use of child soldiers would not be
tolerated under international law.
Jean-Pierre Bemba Case
Background: Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former vice president of
the Democratic Republic of Congo, was prosecuted for war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his militia in
the Central African Republic.
Charges: Bemba faced charges related to the crimes
committed by his militia, including murder, rape, and pillaging.
Verdict: In 2016, Bemba was convicted of war crimes and
crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to 18 years in
prison.
Significance: The Bemba case was significant because it held
a high-ranking political figure accountable for crimes committed
by his subordinates. It demonstrated that military and political
leaders could be prosecuted for their troops' actions.
Question and Answer Portion
1. What is the International Criminal Court (ICC), and what
is its primary mandate?
The ICC is a permanent international court established to
prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes of
international concern, including war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and genocide. Its primary mandate is to hold
individuals accountable for these crimes when national courts
are unwilling or unable to do so.
2. What were the charges against Thomas Lubanga, and
what was the outcome of his case?
Thomas Lubanga was charged with conscripting and enlisting
children under the age of 15 into an armed group and using
them to participate in hostilities. He was convicted in 2012 and
sentenced to 14 years in prison, which was later reduced to 8
years on appeal.
3. Who is Jean-Pierre Bemba, and what were the charges
against him?
Jean-Pierre Bemba is a former vice president of the
Democratic Republic of Congo. He was charged with war
crimes and crimes against humanity for crimes committed by
his militia in the Central African Republic, including murder,
rape, and pillaging.
4. What was the outcome of the Jean-Pierre Bemba case,
and why is it significant?
Bemba was convicted in 2016 and sentenced to 18 years in
prison. This case is significant because it held a high-ranking
political figure accountable for crimes committed by his militia,
setting a precedent for the responsibility of military and political
leaders for their troops' actions.
5. How do the Lubanga and Bemba cases illustrate the
ICC's role in addressing international crimes?
The Lubanga and Bemba cases illustrate the ICC's role in
prosecuting individuals responsible for serious international
crimes. Lubanga's conviction highlighted the court's
commitment to combating the use of child soldiers, while
Bemba's case demonstrated that even influential political
figures could face justice for crimes committed under their
command.
These cases underscore the ICC's importance in ensuring
accountability for grave international crimes and promoting
justice on a global scale.
The Syrian War/ Conflict
A peaceful uprising against the president of Syria 12 years
ago turned into a full-scale civil war. The conflict has left
half a million people dead, devastated cities and drawn in
other countries.
How did the Syrian war start?
Even before the conflict began, many Syrians were
complaining about high unemployment, corruption and a lack
of political freedom under President Bashar al-Assad, who
succeeded his father, Hafez, after he died in 2000.
In March 2011, pro-democracy demonstrations erupted in the
southern city of Deraa, inspired by uprisings in neighbouring
countries against repressive rulers.
When the Syrian government used deadly force to crush the
dissent, protests demanding the president's resignation
erupted nationwide.
The unrest spread and the crackdown intensified. Opposition
supporters took up arms, first to defend themselves and later
to rid their areas of security forces. Mr Assad vowed to crush
what he called "foreign-backed terrorism".
The violence rapidly escalated and the country descended into
civil war. Hundreds of rebel groups sprung up and it did not
take long for the conflict to become more than a battle between
Syrians for or against Mr Assad. Foreign powers began to take
sides, sending money, weaponry and fighters, and as the
chaos worsened extremist jihadist organisations with their own
aims, such as the Islamic State (IS) group and al-Qaeda,
became involved. That deepened concern among the
international community who saw them as a major threat.
Syria's Kurds, who want the right of self-government but have
not fought Mr Assad's forces, have added another dimension
to the conflict.
How many people have died?
The United Nations Human Rights Office estimated last
year that 306,887 civilians - 1.5% of the total pre-war
population - were killed between March 2011 and March 2021
due to the conflict.
It said 143,350 civilian deaths were individually documented by
various sources with detailed information, and that a further
163,537 deaths were estimated to have occurred using
statistical techniques. At least 27,126 of those estimated to
have been killed were children.
The then-UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle
Bachelet, stressed that the fatalities were the "direct result of
war operations", adding: "This does not include the many,
many more civilians who died due to the loss of access to
healthcare, to food, to clean water and other essential human
rights."
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a
UK-based monitoring group with a network of sources on the
ground, had documented the deaths of 503,064 people by
March 2023. It said at least 162,390 civilians had been killed,
with the Syrian government and its allies responsible for
139,609 of those deaths.
The group estimated that the actual toll from the war was more
than 613,400, with an additional 55,000 civilians believed to
have died of torture in government-run prisons.
Another monitoring group, the Violations Documentation
Center, which relies on information from activists across the
country, had documented 240,215 battle-related deaths,
including 145,765 civilians, as of March 2023.
Who's involved?
The government's key supporters have been Russia and Iran,
while Turkey, Western powers and several Gulf Arab states
have backed the opposition to varying degrees during the
conflict.
Russia - which had military bases in Syria before the war -
launched an air campaign in support of Mr Assad in 2015 that
has been crucial in turning the tide of the war in the
government's favour.
The Russian military says its strikes only target "terrorists" but
activists say they regularly kill mainstream rebels and civilians.
Iran is believed to have deployed hundreds of troops and
spent billions of dollars to help Mr Assad.
Thousands of Shia Muslim militiamen armed, trained and
financed by Iran - mostly from Lebanon's Hezbollah
movement, but also Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen - have also
fought alongside the Syrian army.
The US, UK and France initially armed what they considered
"moderate" rebel groups. But they have prioritised non-lethal
assistance since jihadists became the dominant force in the
armed opposition.
A US-led global coalition has also carried out air strikes and
deployed special forces in Syria since 2014 to help an alliance
of Kurdish and Arab militias called the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) capture territory once held by IS militants in the
north-east and stop the jihadist group rebuilding.
Turkey is a major supporter of the opposition, but its focus has
been on using rebel factions to contain the Kurdish YPG militia
that dominates the SDF, accusing it of being an extension of a
banned Kurdish rebel group in Turkey.
Turkish troops and allied rebels have seized stretches of
territory along Syria's northern border and intervened to stop
an all-out assault by government forces on the last opposition
stronghold of Idlib.
Saudi Arabia, which is keen to counter Iranian influence,
armed and financed the rebels at the start of the war. Having
refused to engage with President Assad for more than a
decade, it is now discussing how to facilitate Syria's "return to
the Arab fold".
Israel, meanwhile, has been so concerned by what it calls
Iran's "military entrenchment" in Syria and shipments of Iranian
weapons to Hezbollah and other Shia militias that it has
conducted air strikes with increasing frequency in an attempt to
thwart them.
How has the country been affected?
Twelve years of war have inflicted immense suffering on the
Syrian people.
In addition to the bloodshed, more than half of Syria's pre-war
population of 22 million have had to flee their homes. Some 6.8
million are internally displaced, with more than two million living
in tented camps with limited access to basic services.
Another 6 million are refugees or asylum-seekers abroad.
Neighbouring Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, which are hosting
5.3 million of them, have struggled to cope with one of the
largest refugee exoduses in recent history.
At the start of 2023, the UN said 15.3 million people inside
Syria were in need of some form of humanitarian assistance -
an all-time high since the war began - and 12 million did not
know where their next meal was coming from.
The already dire humanitarian situation in north-western Syria -
the location of the last opposition stronghold - was made
significantly worse by the huge earthquake that struck near the
Turkish city of Gaziantep, about 80km (50 miles) from the
Syrian border, on 6 February 2023.
More than 5,900 people were killed across Syria and another
8.8 million were affected, according to the UN. Thousands of
homes and critical infrastructure were destroyed, leaving many
families without food, water and shelter. Deliveries of
life-saving aid to opposition-held areas were also delayed for
days because of what a UN panel described as "shocking"
failures by the warring parties as well as the international
community.
The disaster happened at a time when the prices of food and
fuel in Syria were already skyrocketing because of runaway
inflation and the collapse of its currency, as well as the global
crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.
Syria has also been one of the countries in the Middle East
worst affected by the Covid-19 pandemic - although the true
extent is not known because of limited testing - and is now also
having to deal with a deadly cholera outbreak that was made
worse by the earthquake.
Access to medical care is severely restricted for the sick and
injured because only half of the country's hospitals are fully
functional.
Despite their protected status, 601 attacks on at least 400
separate medical facilities had been documented by
Physicians for Human Rights as of February 2022, resulting
in the deaths of 942 medical personnel. The vast majority of
the attacks were blamed on government and Russian forces.
Entire neighbourhoods and vital infrastructure across the
country also remain in ruins. UN satellite analysis suggested
that more than 35,000 structures were damaged or destroyed
in Aleppo city alone before it was recaptured by the
government in late 2016.
Much of Syria's rich cultural heritage has likewise been
destroyed. All six of the country's Unesco World Heritage sites
have been damaged significantly, with IS militants deliberately
blowing up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra.
A UN commission of inquiry has concluded that the warring
parties "have cumulatively committed almost every crime
against humanity... and nearly every war crime applicable in a
non-international armed conflict".
"Syrians," a February 2021 report says, "have suffered vast
aerial bombardments of densely populated areas; they have
endured chemical weapons attacks and modern day sieges in
which perpetrators deliberately starved the population along
medieval scripts and indefensible and shameful restrictions on
humanitarian aid".
Who is in control of the country now?
The government has regained control of Syria's biggest cities,
but large parts of the country are still held by rebels, jihadists
and the Kurdish-led SDF. There have been no shifts in the front
lines for three years.
The last remaining opposition stronghold is in the
north-western province of Idlib and adjoining parts of northern
Hama and western Aleppo provinces.
The region is dominated by a jihadist alliance called Hayat
Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), but is also home to mainstream rebel
factions backed by Turkey. An estimated 2.9 million displaced
people, including a million children, are living there, many of
them in dire conditions in camps
In March 2020, Russia and Turkey brokered a ceasefire to halt
a push by the government to retake Idlib. That led to an
extended lull in violence, but there continues to be sporadic
clashes, air strikes and shelling.
In the country's north-east, Turkish forces and allied Syrian
rebels launched an offensive against the SDF in October 2019
to create a "safe zone" clear of Kurdish YPG militia along the
Syrian side of the border, and have occupied a 120km (75
miles) long stretch since.
To halt the assault the SDF struck a deal with the Syrian
government that saw the Syrian army return to the
Kurdish-administered region for the first time in seven years.
Despite the presence of Syrian troops, there are still regular
clashes between the SDF and Turkish-led forces along the
front line. IS sleeper cells also continue to carry out frequent
and deadly attacks.
Will the war ever end?
It does not look like it will anytime soon, but everyone agrees a
political solution is required.
The UN Security Council has called for implementing the
2012 Geneva Communiqué, which envisages a transitional
governing body "formed based on mutual consent".
Nine rounds of UN-mediated peace talks - known as the
Geneva II process - failed to make progress, with President
Assad apparently unwilling to negotiate with political opposition
groups that insist he must step down as part of any settlement.
Russia, Iran and Turkey set up parallel political talks known as
the Astana process in 2017.
An agreement was reached the following year to form a
150-member committee to write a new constitution, leading to
free and fair elections supervised by the UN. But little progress
has been achieved after eight rounds of talks.
As the conflict entered its 13th year, UN special envoy Geir
Pedersen said the situation in Syria was "untenable" and
that "to carry on in the same manner defies humanity and
logic".
But he also expressed hope that the devastating earthquake
could be a "turning point", noting the "humanitarian steps from
all sides that have moved beyond previous positions, even if
temporarily"
Israel-Gaza violence:
The Palestinian militant group Hamas
launched an unprecedented assault on
Israel on Saturday, with hundreds of
gunmen infiltrating communities near the
Gaza Strip.
At least 900 Israelis are reported to have been
killed, while dozens of soldiers and civilians,
including women and children, are being held
in Gaza as hostages.
More than 700 Palestinians have also been
killed in the hundreds of air strikes on Gaza
that Israel's military is carrying out in response.
It is also massing its forces along the Gaza
border and Palestinians are bracing
themselves for a ground operation.
A 100-year-old issue
Britain took control of the area known as
Palestine after the ruler of that part of the
Middle East, the Ottoman Empire, was
defeated in World War One.
The land was inhabited by a Jewish minority
and Arab majority.
Tensions between the two peoples grew when
the international community gave Britain the
task of establishing a "national home" in
Palestine for Jewish people.
For Jews it was their ancestral home, but
Palestinian Arabs also claimed the land and
opposed the move.
Between the 1920s and 1940s, the number of
Jews arriving there grew, with many fleeing
from persecution in Europe and seeking a
homeland after the Holocaust of World War
Two.
Violence between Jews and Arabs, and against
British rule, also grew.
In 1947, the UN voted for Palestine to be split
into separate Jewish and Arab states, with
Jerusalem becoming an international city.
That plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but
rejected by the Arab side and never
implemented.
The creation of Israel and the 'Catastrophe'
In 1948, unable to solve the problem, British
rulers left and Jewish leaders declared the
creation of the State of Israel.
Many Palestinians objected and a war
followed. Troops from neighbouring Arab
countries invaded.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or
were forced out of their homes in what they call
Al Nakba, or the "Catastrophe"
By the time the fighting ended in a ceasefire
the following year, Israel controlled most of the
territory.
Jordan occupied land which became known as
the West Bank, and Egypt occupied Gaza.
Jerusalem was divided between Israeli forces
in the West, and Jordanian forces in the East.
countries to recognise the city as Israel's
capital.
In the past 50 years Israel has built settlements
in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where
more than 600,000 Jews now live.
Settlements are held to be illegal under
international law - that is the position of the UN
Security Council and the UK government,
among others - although Israel rejects this.
What's happening now?

Gaza is ruled by Hamas, an Islamist militant

Because there was never a peace agreement -
group that is committed to the destruction of
with each side blaming the other - there were
Israel and is designated as a terrorist group by
more wars and fighting in the following
the UK and many other powers.
decades.
Hamas won the Palestinians' last elections in
In another war in 1967, Israel occupied East
2006, and seized control of Gaza the following
Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as most
year by ousting the rival Fatah movement of
of the Syrian Golan Heights, Gaza and the
West Bank-based President Mahmoud Abbas.
Egyptian Sinai peninsula.
Since then, militants in Gaza have fought
Most Palestinian refugees and their
several wars with Israel, which along with
descendants live in Gaza and the West Bank,
Egypt has maintained a blockade on the strip
as well as in neighbouring Jordan, Syria and
to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop
Lebanon.
attacks, particularly the indiscriminate firing of
Neither they nor their descendants have been rockets towards Israeli cities.
allowed by Israel to return to their homes -
Palestinians in Gaza say Israel's restrictions
Israel says this would overwhelm the country
and its air strikes on heavily populated areas
and threaten its existence as a Jewish state.
amount to collective punishment.
Israel still occupies the West Bank, and
This year has been the deadliest year on
although it pulled out of Gaza in 2005 the UN
record for Palestinians in the West Bank and
still regards that piece of land as occupied
East Jerusalem. They also complain of the
territory.
restrictions and military actions being carried
Israel claims the whole of Jerusalem as its out there in response to deadly attacks on
capital, while the Palestinians claim East Israelis.
Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian
What are the main problems?
state. The US is one of only a handful of
There are a number of issues which Israel and .
the Palestinians cannot agree on.

These include:

What should happen to Palestinian refugees

Whether Jewish settlements in the occupied

West Bank should stay or be removed

Whether the two sides should share Jerusalem

And - perhaps most tricky of all - whether a

Palestinian state should be created alongside
Israel

Israel-Palestinian peace talks were held on and

off since the 1990s, but broke down in 2014.

What does the future hold?

In short, the situation isn't going to be sorted

out any time soon.

Experts have warned something like this could

happen unless a resolution was reached but
attempts to resolve the conflict have so far
been unsuccessful.

The most recent peace plan, prepared by the

United States when Donald Trump was
president, was called "the deal of the century"
by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But it was been dismissed by the Palestinians

as one-sided and never got off the ground.

Correction 21st June 2021: An earlier version

of this article incorrectly described the US as
recognising Israel's claim to the whole of
Jerusalem and this has been amended to
instead explain that the US recognises the city
as Israel's capital.