COMPENSATION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR AND INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS

in The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online
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

References

I See D'ARGErrr, Les reparations de guerre en droit international public. La responsabilitg des etats a 1 'epreuve de la guerre, Bruxelles/Paris, 2002, pp. 784 ff. 2 KALSHOVEN, "State Responsibility for Warlike Acts of the Armed Forces", ICLQ, 1991, p. 827 ff., pp. 835-836. Kalshoven's thesis has been repeated in his opinion before the Tokyo District Court in support of claims brought by ex-allied POWs and civilian detainees and by Philippine "comfort women": see FUJITA, SUZUKI and NAGANO, War and the Rights of Individuals, Renaissance of Individual Compensation, Tokyo, 1999, p. 31 ff. Kalshoven's view is shared by the opinions delivered by DAVID and GttEEt.rwooU, ibid., respectively, p. 49 ff. and p. 59 ff. Sec also Suzum, "Overview: The Testimony by Professor Kalshoven and Ex-POWs and Civilian Detainees Cases", ibid., p. 21 ff. 3 See YIHL, 1999, pp. 390 and 428; ibid., 2000, pp. 543-544 (for Tokyo District Court and the Yowa Tribunal). See also the US judgements quoted by D'ARGENT, cit. supra note 1, pp. 785- 786. The Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 16 June 1992, in the case Goldstar (Panama) SA v. United States affirmed that "the Hague Convention is not self-executing and, therefore, does not, by itself, create a private right of action for its breach". This principle was restated by the Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, 1 July 1994 in the case Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, which stated that "nothing in the Hague Convention even impliedly grants individuals the right to seek damages for violation of [its] provisions", ibid., p. 786. An extensive review of the Japanese cases can be found in the book by Funrn, Suzma and NAGANO, cit. supra note 2 and in the introduction by Funrn, "Post-War Compensation Litigation from the Viewpoint of International Law, ibid., p. 9 ff. 4 See Corte di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite), 5 June 2002, No. 8517, Presidenza Consiglio ministri c. Markovic e altri, cf. infra in this Yearbook, Judicial Decisions XX, with a note by BRtnao; see also the comment by RONZITTI, "Azioni belliche e risarcimento del danno", RDI, p. 682 ff.

5 See Pertici and ROMBOLI, "Art. 13", in BARTOLE, CONFORTI and PAIMONDI (eds.), Commentario alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo, Padova, 2001, p. 377 ff., p. 406. 6 Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, 4 May 2000, AJIL, 2001, p. 198 ff. See DE VITTOR, "Immunita degli Stati dalla giurisdizione e tutela dei diritti umani fondamentali", RDI, 2002, p. 573 ff., p. 588.

8 See GATr[Nl, Le riparazioni di guerra nel diritto internazionale, Padova, 2003, pp. 657-658. 9 See IGARASM, "Post-War Compensation Cases, Japanese Courts and International Law", Japanese Annual of International Law, 2000, p. 45 ff., pp. 54-55. 10 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 1996, p. 226 ff.

u Ibid., p. 239, para. 24.

�2 Bankovic, Stojanovic, Stoimenovski, Joksimovic and Sukovic v. Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom (Grand Chamber, 12 December 2001 ).

13 Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits), Judgment of 18 December 1996. 14 Soering v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989. 15 It is to be noted that the Loizidou case involved the occupation of a territory belonging to a State Party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Ch. GREENWOOD observes that in Bankovic the Court "left open the question whether the Convention applies to the occupation by a Convention country of territory of a non-Convention country": cf. "Bombing for Peace: Collateral Damage and Human Rights", ASIL, 2002, p. 95 ff., p. 107.

"6 COHEN-JONATHAN and FLAUSS, "Cour europeenne des droits de I'homme et droit international general", AFDI, 2001, p. 423 ff., pp. 434-442; PusTORrtvo, "ResponsabiIità degli Stati parti della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo per il bombardamento NATO alia Radio-Televisione serba: il caso Bankovic", CI, 2002, p. 695 ff.; GREENWOOD, "Bombing for Peace: Collateral Damage and Human Rights", cit. supra note 15; DE SENA, La nozione di giurisdizione statale nei trattati sui diritti dell'uomo, Torino, 2002, p. 135 ff.; REss, "Problems of Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations - The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights: The Bankovic Case", infra in this Yearbook. 17 PUSTORINO, cit. supra note 16, p. 70I. 18 DE SENA, cit. supra note 16, p. 98, note 168. 19 KLEFFNER, "Improving Compliance with International Humanitarian Law through the Establishment of an Individual Complaints Procedure", Leiden JIL, 2002, p. 237 ff., p. 240. For a more optimistic view, see GREENWOOD, "International Humanitarian Law (Law of War)", in KALSHOVEN (ed.), The Centennial of the First Peace Conference. Reports & Conclusions, The Hague/LondonBoston, 2000, p. 161 ff., p. 252. 20 UN Doc. ST/SBG/I999/13.

21 See, for instance, Exchange of Letters Constituting an Agreement between the United Nations and Italy Relating to the Settlement of Claims Filed against the United Nations in the Congo by Italian Nationals, New York, 18 January 1967, UNTS, Vol. 588, p. 197. For a more recent affirmation of UN responsibility for damages resulting from a violation of humanitarian law see UN Doc. A/51/389 (20 September 1996) concerning the financing of peacekeeping operations. 2 UN Doc. A/45/594 (9 October 1990). 23 See the documentation (unpublished) cited by COTRONEO, La responsabilita delle organizzazioni internazionali nel diritto internazionale generale, doctoral dissertation, Roma, 2000, pp. 83-84. 24 GUILLAUtvtE, "La reparation des dommages causes par les contingents francais en ex- Yougoslavie et en Albanie", AFDI, 1997, p. 151 ff., p. 163.

25 Cassazione penale, 1998, p. 668 ff. zb AJIL, 2001, pp. 143-144. 27 See MUTTUtcun�tnRU, "Reparation to Victims", in LEE (ed.), The International Criminal Court The Making of the Rome Statute. Issues, Negotiations, Results, The Hague/London/Boston, 1999, p. 262 ff.; V.4ta BOVEN, "The Position of the Victim in the Statute of the International Criminal Court", in Reflections on the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Adriaan Bos, 1999, p. 77 ff.; DONAT-CATTIN, "Article 75", in Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Observers' Notes, Article 6y Article, Baden-Baden, p. 965 ff.; JORDA and DE Hemptinne, "The Status and the Role of the Victim", in CASSESE, GAETA and JONES (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. II, Oxford, 2002, p. 1387 ff.; Zappala, Human Rights in International Criminal Proceedings, Oxford, 2003, pp. 227-23I.

28 See also Articles 94 (procedure upon request) and 95 (procedure on the motion of the Court) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence. 29 The ius cogens exception to the rule of State's sovereign immunity has been upheld in a few decisions of low courts and subsequently redressed in appeal: for the US and British case-law

see D'ARGENT, "Des reglements collectives aux r6glements individuels (collectivis6s)? La question des reparations en cas de violation massive des droits de 1'homme", International Law FORUM du droit international, 2003, p. 10 ff., pp. 21-23. Even the European Court of Human Rights did not follow the doctrine of release of sovereign immunity in case of violation of a norm of peremptory international law: see A!-Adsani v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 November 2001. 30 Theo vnrr BOVEN has appended an Annex on "Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law" to his report on "The Administration of Justice and the Human Rights of Detainees". A "right to a remedy against violations of human rights and humanitarian norms" is provided for, including a right of access to national and international procedures for their protection: UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 1996/ 17. 31 See Draft Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions Establishing an Individual Complaints Procedure for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, prepared by the Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 2lst Century: http//:www.haguepeace.org. For a comment see the article by KLEFFNER, cit. supra note 19, one of the authors of the proposal. 3z On this subject, see infra in this Yearbook, MOKHrAR, "To Be ot not to Be: The International Humanitarian Fact-finding Commission".

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 16 16 6
Full Text Views 1 1 1
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0