LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for ARLIS-L Archives


ARLIS-L Archives

ARLIS-L Archives


ARLIS-L@LSV.ARLISNA.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARLIS-L Home

ARLIS-L Home

ARLIS-L  April 2003

ARLIS-L April 2003

Subject:

Responsibilities under the laws of war

From:

Andras Riedlmayer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Andras Riedlmayer <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:44:25 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (372 lines)

The American Society of International Law (ASIL) has posted on its
website the following useful summary by Prof. Jordan Paust, who explains
the legal responsibilities of the U.S. as occupying power in parts of Iraq
under the laws of war.  Among the legal questions he considers:

Would the looting of artifacts from the National Museum in Baghdad
involve violations of the law concerning occupied territory?

I found this a helpful resource and am passing it on to this list.
(ASIL permits educational copying, with due acknowledgement.)

Andras Riedlmayer
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh102.htm

ASIL Insights

The U.S. as Occupying Power Over Portions of Iraq and Relevant
Responsibilities Under the Laws of War

By Jordan J. Paust
April 2003

I.  The Fact of Occupation

Is the United States an Occupying Power in Iraq?  Some have argued that
the United States is not an occupying power with respect to any portion of
Iraq because the U.S. is on a "liberation" mission. [1] Others might argue
that the U.S. is not an occupying power of any portion of Iraqi territory
because the U.S. has not formally proclaimed that it is an occupying power
and/or that some fighting is still taking place in certain portions of
Iraq.  However, Article 42 of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention IV
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land [2] affirms:  "Territory
is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of
the hostile army.  The occupation extends ... where such authority has
been established and can be exercised."  As recognized in a U.S. Army
text addressing this provision, "Article 42 ... emphasizes the primacy
of FACT as the test of whether or not occupation exists." [3] The Army
text adds: "Article 43 of the Hague Regulations continues the theme of
the traditional law with its provision for a clear transfer of authority:
The authority of the legitimate power having _in fact_ passed into the
hands of the occupant. ... '" [4]

Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War [5] reads:  "The Convention
shall...apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory
High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed
resistance."  Additionally, the International Committee of the Red Cross'
(ICRC) Commentary on the Geneva Civilian Convention recognizes that
occupation under Geneva law "has a wider meaning than it has in" the
Hague Convention IV and applies to "troops advancing into" foreign
territory, "whether fighting or not," adding: "There is no intermediate
period between what might be termed the invasion phase and the
inauguration of a stable regime of occupation.  Even a patrol which
penetrates into enemy territory without any intention of staying there
must respect the Conventions." [6] Thus, the duties of an occupying power
are coextensive with its de facto control of territory.

II.  Command or Leader Responsibility

Do U.S. military commanders and U.S. political leaders have legal
responsibilities under the laws of war concerning occupied territory?
If so, are there limitations on the extent of such responsibilities
with respect to Iraqi territory?  Are area commanders responsible for
certain acts of looting?

In United States v. List [7] a military tribunal operating after
World War II during the so-called subsequent Nuremberg proceedings
affirmed:

"A commanding general of occupied territory is charged with the duty
of maintaining peace and order, punishing crime, and protecting lives
and property within the area of his command.  His responsibility is
coextensive with his area of command.  He is charged with notice of
occurrences taking place within that territory...dereliction of duty
rests upon him...." [8]

Under this standard, those high in the chain of command, who see the
large picture and who can assign various missions to soldiers, have
a responsibility to deploy troops to engage in law and order roles
in sectors that come under effective U.S. control. [9]

Would the looting of artifacts from the National Museum in Baghdad involve
violations of the law concerning occupied territory?  Important questions
would include: When exactly did main looting take place?  Was the museum
within an area of Baghdad under effective control of U.S. military forces
at that time?  When a tank stopped near the museum and apparently fired
into the air causing some looters to temporarily flee could those in
the tank or their unit have stopped large numbers of looters, and were
they still on a combat mission?  Was the local commander in the area
still engaged in combat actions?  Were other commanders able to send in
other U.S. personnel for public order and protection of property in
that particular sector at that time? [10]

Generally, the responsibility of the United States to restore law and
order and public life in areas under effective control of its military
is reflected in Article 43 of the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907,
which requires that the occupying power "shall take all the measures in
his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and
safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force
in the country." [11]

III.  What Are Some of the Applicable Laws of War?

Applicable portions of the laws of war include Hague Convention IV,
portions of the Geneva Civilian Convention, and other customary
international law concerning occupied territory.  Thus, Articles 42-56 of
the Annex to 1907 Hague Convention IV are applicable. Moreover, common
Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions is customary international law
providing a minimum set of rights not only during internal conflict, but
also during an international armed conflict. [12]  The ICRC Commentary
to the Geneva Civilian Convention points out that the minimum rights in
common Article 3 reflect other, more detailed Articles in the Convention
that expressly apply to occupation during an international conflict. [13]
Consequently, common Article 3 appears to provide minimum standards for
an occupation during an armed conflict.  For purposes of brevity, the
discussion below refers to the minimum standards of Article 3 rather than
to the detailed provisions of all the other relevant Articles.

Article 6 of the Geneva Civilian Convention also states:

   The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict
   or occupation mentioned in Article 2.  In the case of occupied
   territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease
   one year after the general close of military operations; however,
   the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation,
   to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government
   in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of
   the present Convention:  1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53,
   61 to 77, 143. [14]

   Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment
   may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit
   by the present Convention.

However, the 1907 Hague Convention and other customary international
legal norms apply in full during continued occupation. [15]

IV.  What Are Some of the Types of Duties, Rights, and Protections?

1.  General Protections

The types of rights and related prohibitions under humanitarian law that
apply in occupied territory are too numerous to list, so the following
discussion relies primarily on common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
as the source of a minimum set of guarantees.  Article 3 expressly
recognizes the fundamental right, in all circumstances, to be treated
humanely as well as specific prohibitions of: "(a) violence to life and
person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment
and torture; (b) taking of hostages, (c) outrages upon personal dignity,
in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; [and] (d) the passing
of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
Articles 27-34 of the Geneva Civilian Convention also contain several
related rights and prohibitions, including the prohibition of collective
penalties and reprisals addressed in the next subsection.  Section III
of Part III of the Convention adds several other specific rights and
prohibitions concerning occupied territories as such.  Specific rights
and prohibitions concerning occupied territory can also be found in
Articles 43-56 of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention IV.

2.  Special Concerns

a.  Transfer of Persons From Occupied Territory

Can persons in Iraq who are not prisoners of war be transferred
to Guantanamo Bay for detention, to the U.S. for trial, or to other
countries?  Can Mr. Abbas, accused mastermind of the Achille Lauro
boatjacking, be extradited from Iraq to Italy to stand trial?
Article 49 of the Geneva Civilian Convention prohibits "[i]ndividual
or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected
persons from occupied territory ... regardless of their motive." [16]
Article 147 also lists "unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful
confinement of a protected person" as a grave breach of the Convention.

b.  Collective Penalties

Can members of al Qaeda or other "terrorists" found in Iraq be punished
for the September 11 attacks on the United States?  Can Iraqi soldiers be
punished for the crimes of Saddam's regime?  Customary international law,
reflected in Article 50 of the Annex to 1907 Hague Convention IV, affirms
that "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
upon the population on account of acts of individuals for which they
cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible."  Additionally,
the 1919 List of War Crimes prepared by the Responsibilities Commission
of the Paris Peace Conference expressly affirms the customary prohibition
of "[i]mposition of collective penalties." [17]  Article 33 of the
Geneva Civilian Convention also affirms these customary prohibitions
when recognizing: "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of
intimidation ... are prohibited."

c.  Cruel, Inhumane Treatment, Injury and Suffering

Can Iraqis detained for questioning or other purposes be subjected
to coercive interrogation techniques or treatment?  As noted, common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits, among other conduct,
"violence to life and person, in particular ... mutilation, cruel
treatment and torture ... " and requires that all persons taking
no active part in hostilities "shall in all circumstances be treated
humanely... ."  The ICRC Commentary notes that Articles 27-34 of the
Geneva Civilian Convention "apply equally" in occupied territories. [18]
Article 27 expressly affirms:  "Protected persons are entitled,
in all circumstances, to respect ... .  They shall at all times be
humanely treated, and shall be protected ... ."  Article 31 commands:
"No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from
third parties."  Wilful "torture or inhuman treatment" is also
listed in Article 147 among grave breaches of the Convention.
Further, according to the ICRC, any claim of "necessity" for
violating Geneva prohibitions is legally unacceptable.

d.  Care for Wounded and Sick and Provision of Food and Medicine

Does the United States have a duty to provide needed food and medicine
to Iraqi persons within sectors effectively controlled by U.S. forces?
Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, in addition to its
general duty of humane treatment and prohibition of "cruel treatment"
noted above, contains the specific requirement that "[t]he wounded and
sick shall be collected and cared for."  Clearly, a refusal of medical
treatment of wounded persons in one's control would be a violation of
common Article 3. Article 38 of 1949 Geneva Civilian Convention IV
recognizes the right of protected persons "if their state of health so
requires, [to] receive medical attention and hospital treatment to the
same extent as the nationals of the State concerned."  Article 23 adds the
general duty to "allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and
hospital stores ... ."  As recognized in Article 55, the occupying power,
"[t]o the fullest extent of the means available to it ... , has the
duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population" and,
"in particular, [to] bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores
and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are
inadequate."  Article 56 adds: "[t]o the fullest extent of the means
available to it ... [there is a] duty of ensuring and maintaining ...
the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health
and hygiene in the occupied territory.

e.  Prosecution of War Crimes and Other International Crimes

Can the United States prosecute persons who are reasonably accused of
war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity in Iraq?  As an
occupying power, the United States could set up a military commission for
prosecution of war crimes and other crimes under international law. [19]
However, the military commission would have to follow rules of procedure
and provide other due process rights guaranteed under human rights law
and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. [20] The U.S. could also agree with
other occupying forces and/or a new regime in Iraq to set up an
international military commission or tribunal with proper procedures
and rights to due process.  Additionally, the U.S. could seek the
creation by the United Nations Security Council of a new International
Criminal Tribunal for Iraq (ICTI), much like the International Criminal
Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda (ICTR), with jurisdiction over such international crimes.

Under Article 49 of the Geneva Civilian Convention, persons who are not
prisoners of war cannot be transferred from occupied territory in Iraq
for trial in the U.S. or elsewhere, although prisoners of war could be
transferred for trial.  At least one federal statute in the United States
permits prosecution in U.S. courts for certain violations of the laws
of war committed basically by or against U.S. nationals. [21] The U.S. has
no legislation for prosecution of crimes against humanity as such, but
international law permits universal jurisdiction over such crimes. [22]
The United States arguably could enact new legislation to operate
retrospectively without violating the constitutional prohibition of
ex post facto laws, since the crimes are already crimes under customary
international law. [23] New legislation could also be enacted to assure
prosecution of genocide. [24]

About the Author:
/Jordan J. Paust is Law Foundation Professor, University of Houston,
and is the author of books and articles on the law of war, human rights,
and the foreign relations law of the United States./
_______________________________
[1] See, e.g., Katherine Butler & Donald Macintyre, The Iraqi Conflict:
General Franks Strides into His Baghdad Palace, THE INDEPENDENT (LONDON),
Apr. 17, 2003, at 6 (quoting General Tommy Franks: "this has been about
liberation, not about occupation.").

[2] 18 Oct. 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, T.S. No. 539.

[3] U.S. Dep't of Army Pam. 27-161-2, 2 INTERNATIONAL LAW 159 (1962).

[4] Id. at 160 (emphasis added in the Army text).

[5] 12 Aug. 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, 6 U.S.T. 3516 [hereinafter Geneva
Civilian Convention].

[6] 4 COMMENTARY, GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF CIVILIANS
IN TIME OF WAR 60 (ICRC 1958).

[7] United States v. List, et al., 11 TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS 757 (1948).

[8]   Id. at 1270-71.

[9] See, e.g., United States v. List, supra note 7; JORDAN J. PAUST, M.
CHERIF BASSIOUNI, MICHAEL SCHARF, et al., INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
51-52, passim (2d ed.  2000) [hereinafter ICL].

[10] See, e.g., Douglas Jehl & Elisabeth Becker, Despite Promises, Marines
Failed to Stop Museum's Plunder, INT'L HERALD TRIBUNE Apr. 16, 2003, at 3
(also quoting General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, "It's, as much as anything else, a matter of priorities.");
Douglas Jehl & Elisabeth Becker, Pentagon War Told About Museum Risk,
INT'L HERALD TRIBUNE Apr. 17, 2003, at 2.

[11] The French text is authoritative and uses the relevant phrase
"l'ordre et la vie publics".

[12] See, e.g., ICL, supra note 9, at 689, 692-93, 695 (ICTY, The
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Trial Chamber (10 Aug. 1995), noting especially the
same recognition by the ICJ in Nicaragua v. United States, 1986 I.C.J. 4,
at paras. 218, 255), 814, 823, 829-31 (ICTY, The Prosecutor v.  Tadic,
Appeals Chamber (2 Oct. 1995), recognizing that common Article 3
violations, if serious, are war crimes).

[13] 4 Commentary, supra note 6, at 40 (referring to Articles 27, 31
to 34, and 64 to 77).

[14] The ICRC Commentary adds: "It must be remembered...that Articles
27-34...apply equally to this Section [Section III of Part III on
"Occupied Territories"] and to the Section dealing with aliens in the
territory of a belligerent."  4 COMMENTARY, supra note 6, at 272.

[15] See, e.g., ICL, supra note 9, at 808-09; U.S. Dep't of Army,
FIELD MANUAL 27-10, THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE 8-9, para. 10(d) (1956).

[16] See also 4 COMMENTARY, supra note 6, at 278-80.

[17] Crime number 17, reprinted in ICL, supra note 9, at 32-33.
On collective penalties, see also id. at 33, 45-46.

[18]   See 4 COMMENTARY, supra note 6, at 272.

[19] See, e.g., Richard Willing, Prosecution of War Crimes Could
Get Complicated, USA Today, Apr. 16, 2003, at 4A; ICL, supra note 9,
at 261-67, 288-93, 625-37.

[20] See, e.g., Paust, Antiterrorism Military Commissions:  The Ad Hoc
DOD Rules of Procedure, 23 Mich. J. Int'l L. 677 (2002); Antiterrorism
Military Commissions:  Courting Illegality, id. 1 (2001).

[21] 18 U.S.C.  2441.

[22] See generally ICL, supra note 9, at 157-69, 658-60, 856-65, 868-73,
875.

[23] See, e.g., id. at 244-48, 867-68, 872-73.

[24] See, e.g., id. at 945-50.


The purpose of ASIL Insights is to provide concise and informed background
for developments of interest to the international community. The American
Society of International Law does not take positions on substantive
issues, including the ones discussed in this Insight.  ASIL Insights
may be found on the ASIL Web Site.

Educational copying is permitted with due acknowledgement.

(c) 2003 American Society of International Law Copyright Statement
2223 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20008
Tel.: 202-939-6000, Fax: 202-797-7133

__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
        http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
        to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
       http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LSV.ARLISNA.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager