The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission and Customary International Humanitarian Law

in Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The aim of the article is to highlight several issues concerning the customary international law status of a number of international humanitarian law (IHL) treaty provisions that arose during the proceedings of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission. Specifically, two key issues will be analyzed, namely the Commission's findings that the Geneva Conventions and some provisions of Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law and that international landmine conventions create only treaty obligations and do not yet reflect customary international law. Also, some more detailed conclusions relating to particular problems, such as the issue of the customary nature of the ICRC’s right to visit prisoners of war and its binding character for non-parties to the Geneva Conventions, will be discussed. The 2005 ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s jurisprudence will also be included as a point of reference to identify the customary character of certain provisions. The main conclusion is that the Commission has significantly contributed to the emerging consensus regarding the status of certain norms of international humanitarian law as customary norms. Furthermore, it has identified lacunae in the existing standards of humanitarian law and suggested the development of new norms to fill those gaps.

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission and Customary International Humanitarian Law

in Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies

Sections

References

8

Claim 4supra note 6 para. 23; Claim 17 supra note 7 para. 32.

9

Claim 4supra note 6 at paras. 24–25.

11

Claim 4supra note 6 para. 29.

12

Claim 17supra note 7 para. 39 (emphasis added).

15

Claim 4supra note 6 paras. 147–148.

16

Claim 4supra note 6 para. 55.

20

Claim 4supra note 6 para. 61 (emphasis added).

28

Partial Award on Western Frontsupra note 26 at para. 104.

38

Henckaerts and Doswald-Becksupra note 22 at 127.

39

Partial Award on Western Frontsupra note 26 paras. 14–15. For more details on EECC and Customary international law see also W. Kidane ‘Civil Liability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law: The Jurisprudence of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission in the Hague’ 25 Wis. Int’l L.J. 23 (2007–2008) at 59–66.

40

Henckaerts and Doswald-Becksupra note 22 at 280.

44

 In this way see Tesfaysupra note 1 at 188.

46

 In this way see also Kidanesupra note 39 at 86.

54

Quote from Lincolnsupra note 5 at 410.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 15 15 7
Full Text Views 5 5 5
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0