Agora 11 : les conflits armés et le droit international humanitaire

Présidée par Professor Christine Gray

La Guerre froide à peine terminée, de nouvelles guerres ont éclaté presque immédiatement. Les jus ad bellum et in bello existants peuvent-ils régler les problèmes qui en sont issus ? Les ‘nouvelles guerres’ étaient-elles qualitativement différentes au point de requérir du droit un processus d’ajustement substantiel ? Le droit s’est-il transformé en conséquence ? 2001 a-t-il constitué un moment-clé dans le développement du droit relatif à l'emploi de la force et à la réglementation des conflits armés ? Ces domaines du droit, sont-ils prêts à répondre à ces prétendues ‘nouvelles menaces’ ou en sont-ils les premières victimes ?

Problèmes de symétrie: des brèches du mur de Berlin aux brèches à l’égalité des belligérants?

MR VAIOS KOUTROULIS, Doctorate Student - Researcher, Université Libre de Bruxelles

Abstract: Dans le monde bipolaire et « symétrique » de la Guerre froide, où les avis sur la légalité/légitimité d’un conflit étaient aussi divisés et inconciliables que les idéologies les sous-tendant, le principe de l’« égalité des belligérants », qui prône l’application du droit international humanitaire (DIH) de manière égale à toutes les parties au conflit, a permis au DIH de rester neutre, garantissant une application « symétrique » des règles humanitaires dans l’intérêt des deux camps. Cette bipolarité a disparu en 1989, permettant la formation de larges majorités concernant la légitimité tant de certains conflits que de certains acteurs. L’égalité des belligérants n’est-elle pas en discordance avec le nouvel équilibre formé après la chute du mur ?

Les thèses relatives aux « combattants illégaux » sont l’exemple classique de la tentative de traduire l’absence de légitimité des terroristes en une limitation de la protection accordée par le DIH. L’intervention prendra la voie inverse, moins explorée mais tout aussi intéressante, de la tentative d’augmenter la protection en DIH d’un acteur bénéficiant d’une légitimité accrue, à travers l’étude du cas des forces de paix des Nations Unies. Ce n’est pas la portée –toujours débattue– de l’application du DIH à ces forces qui sera au centre de notre analyse, mais les arguments invoqués pour influencer cette portée. Le débat sur l’application du DIH aux forces des Nations Unies est-il conditionné par des arguments de légalité/légitimité ? Se trouve-t-on face à une brèche dans le principe de l’égalité des belligérants, ouverte à l’aide des outils forgés en 1989 ?

Biography: Born in Larisa, Greece, on 1978, Vaios Koutroulis graduated from the Faculty of Law of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens on 2002 and is member of the Athens Bar Association. Holder of a Diplôme d’études spécialisées (DES) in public international law, a Diplôme d’études approfondies (DEA) and a mini-ARC scholarship from the Free University of Brussels (ULB), he is currently a researcher at the ULB International Law Center and is working on a thesis concerning the relations between the jus contra bellum and the jus in bello.

top »

Post Cold War conflicts in Africa: attuning jus in bello and jus ad bellum to new realities

MR ELIJAH OKEBUKOLA, Doctoral Research Student, University of Buckingham

Abstract: Particularly with regard to life, limb and property, there is no essential distinction between the war crimes that are being committed in post cold war third world countries and those that have been committed since the beginning of armed conflict in human societies. They all involve the violent subjugation of rights by prima facie unlawful means. The new wars in the third world (with emphasis on Africa) are however distinguished by two elements: First, the combatants in these conflicts include very young children some of whom are as young as seven years old. Second, increasingly, these conflicts rely on the economic support of non-governmental third parties for sustenance. This paper seeks to demonstrate that the pre 1989 provisions of jus in bello including Article 77 of the Additional Protocol I to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (1977) and Article 4(c) of the Additional Protocol II to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (1977) concerning the use of child soldiers are insufficient and the new adjustments in law including those made by Article 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court are equally insufficient. The paper will highlight the increase in both the use of children as combatants and the extent of the influence of non-governmental business enterprises on the capabilities of belligerents. Afterwards, the paper analyses specific provisions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, identifies the lacunae in the law and suggests new remedial provisions to attune substantive and procedural law to the new realities.

Biography: Elijah Oluwatoyin Okebukola is a dual qualified legal practitioner- a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales as well as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. He is also a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. At present, he is conducting doctoral research at the University of Buckingham in the area of war crimes substantive laws and trial procedures. Prior to commencing his doctoral research programme, he taught law at the Lead City University, Ibadan. He speaks basic French and Spanish.

top »

Military commisions 3.0: examining the relationship between the US Military Commissions Act of 2009 and international law of armed conflict

MS DOMINIKA ŠVARC, PhD Student, University of Ljubljana

Abstract: This paper will examine the post-9/11 US policies and practices regarding the detention and prosecution of terrorist suspects from the perspective of the international law of armed conflict (ILOAC). To set the background for analysis, the paper will first track the evolution of the US ‘war on terror’ detention and prosecution models, from the Bush administration’s model established in 2001, through to Obama administration’s current position. The second part will evaluate the compatibility with ILOAC of the key aspects of the US detention framework: the permissible legal grounds for detention, duration of detention, and the rights to challenge lawfulness of detention. The third part will consider the US position on the proper venue for prosecution of terrorist suspects. In this context, the analysis will focus on the US military commissions system as refurbished through the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009). The main argument is that despite plausible attempts to bring the MCA 2009 more in line with the ILOAC vocabulary, the new legislation still contains elements clearly incompatible with the established framework of ILOAC and stipulates certain peculiar interpretations of ILOAC within the US legal system. Building upon this argument, the paper will finally offer some reflections on the broader normative implications of the US ‘war on terror’ detention and prosecution models on interpretation, application, and normative evolution of the ILOAC in this context.

Biography: Dominika Švarc is a PhD Candidate at the University of Ljubljana, and a Guest Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for International Law in Heidelberg. Previously, she worked as a Research Assistant to Professor Christopher Greenwood (LSE) and as a Research Assistant at the University of Leeds. She received her LLB (cum laude) from the University of Ljubljana in 2003, and her LLM in Public International Law (distinction) from the LSE in 2005. Her research interests are in the area of international peace and security and she currently serves as a Member of the ILA – Committee on Non-State Actors in International Law.

top »