THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ AND THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW doc

It addresses, in an accessible manner, the relevant law in relation to: ‘terrorism’, questions as to ‘responsibility’ for it, the criminal law work, lawful constraints on the use of forc

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The acts of lawlessness committed on September 11, 2001 were swiftly followed by a ‘war on terror’ This book sets out the essential features

of the international legal framework against which the 9/11 attacks and the lawfulness of measures taken in response thereto fall to be assessed.

It addresses, in an accessible manner, the relevant law in relation to:

‘terrorism’, questions as to ‘responsibility’ for it, the criminal law work, lawful constraints on the use of force, the humanitarian law that governs in armed conflict, and international human rights law It indicates the existence of a legal framework capable of addressing events such as 9/11 and governing responses thereto It raises questions as to the com- patibility of the ‘war on terror’ with this legal framework, and questions the implications for states responsible for violations, for third states and for the international rule of law.

frame-helen duffy is the Legal Director of INTERIGHTS, an international human rights law centre She previously worked as Legal Officer in the Pros- ecutor’s Office, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, as Counsel to Human Rights Watch, New York, and as Legal Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Action, Guatemala She specialises in human rights and international criminal law She currently lives in The Hague.

THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ AND THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

HELEN DUFFY

cambridge university press

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK

First published in print format

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521838504

This publication is in copyright Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org

hardback paperback paperback

eBook (EBL) eBook (EBL) hardback

son Luca

Preface and acknowledgements page xiii

1.2 Some legal basics 4

1.2.1 Sources of international law 4

1.2.2 How international law changes 7

1.2.3 The legal framework as an interconnected whole 9

1.3 Structure of the book 10

1.4 Overview of chapters 10

part one

2 ‘Terrorism’ in international law 17

2.1 Developments towards a comprehensive definition of

international terrorism 18

2.1.1 Pre-September 11: historical developments 18

2.1.2 Post September 11: a global convention? 20

2.1.3 Specific international conventions 23

2.1.4 Terrorism in armed conflict 25

3 International responsibility and terrorism 47

3.1 State responsibility in international law 48

3.1.1 Responsibility of a state for acts of terrorism 48

3.1.2 Responsibility for breach of obligations in the fight

against terrorism 55

3.1.3 Consequences of international responsibility for acts of terrorism or for breach of obligations relating to the fight against terrorism 58

3.2 Responsibility of non-state actors in international law 61

3.2.1 Criminal law 62

3.2.2 International humanitarian law 63

3.2.3 Human rights law? 64

3.3 Conclusion 69

part two

4 Criminal justice 73

4A THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 73

4A.1 Crimes, principles of criminal law and jurisdiction 76

4A.1.1 Crimes under international and national law 76

4A.1.2 Relevant principles of criminal law 93

4A.1.3 Jurisdiction to prosecute 99

4A.2 Implementing justice: international cooperation

and enforcement 106

4A.2.1 Extradition 107

4A.2.2 Mutual assistance 114

4A.2.3 Cooperation and the Security Council 116

4B CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN PRACTICE

POST SEPTEMBER 11 117

4B.1 Prosecutions in practice post 9/11 119

4B.1.1 Paucity of prosecutions 119

4B.1.2 International v national models of justice post 9/11 124

4B.2 Developments in law and practice on cooperation 131

4B.2.1 International standards and procedures 131

4B.2.2 Streamlining the extradition process? Developments

in extradition procedure 134

4B.2.3 Inter-state cooperation in practice post 9/11 138 4B.3 Conclusion 142

5 Peaceful resolution of disputes and use of force 144

5A THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 144

5A.1 The obligation to resolve international disputes by

peaceful means 144

5A.2 The use of force in international law: general rule and

exceptions 146

5A.2.1 Self defence 149

5A.2.2 Security Council: maintenance of international

peace and security 168

5A.3 Other justifications for the use of force? 178

5A.3.1 Humanitarian intervention 179

5A.3.2 Pro-democratic intervention 183

5A.3.3 Self help: breakdown in international

5B.2.1 Key questions arising 199

5B.3 United States National Security Strategy 209

5B.3.1 Expanding self defence? 209

5B.3.2 Internationalism, unilateralism

or exceptionalism? 211

5B.4 Conclusion 212

part three

6 International humanitarian law 217

6A THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 217

6A.1 When and where IHL applies 218

6A.1.1 Armed conflict: international

or non-international 218

6A.1.2 Temporal scope of IHL 222

6A.1.3 Territorial scope of IHL 223

6A.2 Applicable law 223

6A.3 Specific aspects of IHL 228

6A.3.1 Targeting: the principle of distinction

and proportionality 228

6A.3.2 Methods and means of warfare: unnecessary

suffering 236

6A.3.3 Humanitarian protections 239

6A.3.4 Occupiers’ obligations 244

6B.1 Armed conflicts since 9/11 250

6B.1.1 Armed conflict and ‘terrorist groups of global

6B.2.3 Humanitarian protection of prisoners: executions,

torture and inhumane treatment 266

6B.2.4 Transparency, inquiry and onus of proof ? 270

6B.3 Conclusion 271

7 International human rights law 274

7A THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 274

7A.1 Sources and mechanisms of international human rights law 275

7A.2 Scope of application of human rights obligations 282

7A.2.1 Territorial scope of human rights obligations – ‘the jurisdiction question’ 282

7A.2.2 Personal scope of human rights obligations: irrelevance

of nationality 289

7A.3 Human rights in crisis or emergency: accommodating security imperatives 290

7A.3.1 Lawful limitations: treaty ‘claw back’ clauses 291

7A.3.2 Temporary suspension: derogation clauses 292

7A.3.3 Customary law and emergency 297

7A.3.4 Harmony in conflict? The relationship between IHL and human rights law 298

7A.4 Human rights obligations and terrorism 301

7A.4.1 Protecting human security: positive human rights

obligations 301

7A.4.2 State responsibility and human rights violations 305

7A.4.3 Specific rights protected and counter-terrorism 307

7A.5 Conclusion 331

7B HUMAN RIGHTS AND SECURITY

POST SEPTEMBER 11 332

7B.1 Executing the ‘war on terror’ extra-territorially 332

7B.1.1 Arrest and detention of prisoners abroad? 333

7B.1.2 Aerial bombardment in Afghanistan or Iraq? 334

7B.1.3 Targeted killings? 336

7B.1.4 Clarifying and enforcing extra-territorial human

rights law? 337

7B.2 The ‘war’ and human rights 339

7B.2.1 The Yemen attack: armed conflict

or assassination? 340

7B.3 Derogation and emergency post 9/11 344

7B.3.1 An emergency threatening the life of the nation? 345

7B.3.2 A valid process of derogation? 346

7B.3.3 Linkage between measures taken and

the emergency? 347

7B.4 ‘Terrorism’ and the legality principle 348

7B.4.1 Terrorism, criminal responsibility and nullum

crimen sine lege 350

7B.4.2 Terrorism, penalties and nulla poena sine lege 352

7B.5 Torture and inhuman treatment: Abu Ghraib and beyond 353

7B.6 Indefinite detention 355

7B.7 Asylum and refugee exclusion 357

7B.8 Cooperation in criminal matters and human rights

post 9/11 358

7B.9 ‘Proscribing dissent’ – expression, association, assembly 364

7B.10 Profiling, protecting and anti-discrimination 366

7B.11 The role of the judiciary as guardian of human rights

post 9/11? 3 68

7B.11.1 ‘Listing’ proscribed organisations 368

7B.11.2 International ‘cooperation’: undermining the

8 Case study – Guantanamo Bay detentions under international

human rights and humanitarian law 379

8A GUANTANAMO BAY AND ITS DETAINEES: THE BASIC

8A.1.1 Treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay 382

8A.1.2 Seeking justice in US and other courts 385

xii contents

8A.1.3 Overview of military procedures governing

detention 387

8A.1.4 Trial by military commission 388

8B APPLICATION OF HUMANITARIAN AND HUMAN

RIGHTS LAW TO DETAINEES IN GUANTANAMO

8B.2.1 The framework: international humanitarian law 391

8B.2.2 The framework: international human rights law 392

8B.3 Categories of detainees 396

8B.3.1 Entitlement to POW status 398

8B.3.2 ‘Civilian’ detainees 401

8B.3.3 Persons not covered by GC III or GC IV? 403

8B.4 Specific rights of detainees under IHL and IHRL 404

8B.4.1 Existence of a lawful basis for detention 404

8B.4.2 Status determinations 407

8B.4.3 Information on reasons for arrest and

detention 4 11

8B.4.4 Judicial oversight of detention 413

8B.4.5 Prosecution – fair trial rights 417

8B.5 Standards of protection compared: implications

of POW status? 428

8B.5.1 Rights regarding interrogation 428

8B.5.2 Indefinite detention – repatriation 429

8C RESPONDING TO GUANTANAMO 430

8C.6 The obligations of third states 430

8C.7 The international response to the Guantanamo

9.2 The legal framework 445

9.3 The ‘war on terror’ and international legality: some essential characteristics 447

9.4 Early reactions and key challenges: is the pendulum swinging and where might it stop? 449

Bibliography 453

This book grew from a paper I wrote for INTERIGHTS shortly after theSeptember 11 attacks The paper was motivated by the apparent marginal-isation of the issue of legality in public discourse on responses to thoseattacks, and the surprising dearth of legal material published in theirimmediate aftermath In the void where there should have been debate

on which responses would serve the interests of international justice,peace, security and the rule of law, the confusion and need for clarifica-tion of legal issues grew I was encouraged by those who used that paper

in their work, including partner organisations in the many countries inwhich INTERIGHTS works, to publish an expanded piece that addressesadditional aspects of the legal framework and considers it alongside thepractice of the ‘war on terror’ since 11 September 2001

Since then, international lawyers have become more vocal and there iscertainly more published material International law is no longer absentfrom political discourse on the ‘war on terror’, and indeed there may be

a newfound alertness to issues of international legality in public debatethat is in many respects promising However at times it seems that there

is greater confusion than ever, and with it an increased vulnerability inthe international legal order This book hopes to contribute to addressingthe confusion, and the perception of legal vacuum It is written from theperspective of a practitioner in the field of human rights and internationalcriminal law, where international law, its legitimacy and standing, areessential tools not only to combat terrorism but to guard against futurehuman rights abuse in other contexts

Many people have contributed to this book, by providing ideas, researchand editing assistance and experience of the ‘war on terror’ as a lived reality

I am grateful to all INTERIGHTS staff, past and present and to its board.Among the volunteers and associates who provided helpful researchand assistance along the way are Sanchita Hosali, Debbie Sayers, MarkPallis, Benedetta Lacey and Larissa Leiser Particular thanks are due

to Silvia Borelli for excellent research assistance in the critical months

xiii

xiv preface and acknowledgements

leading up to publication, and to Moni Shrestha for her spirit and her ing and production assistance Emma Playfair lent her careful editor’s eye

edit-at various stages I would like to thank Finola O’Sullivan, Jane O’Regan,Sue Dickinson and Mary Leighton of Cambridge University Press forthe diligent work on the book, and especially Finola for her supportfrom the outset Numerous friends and colleagues gave their time gen-erously to reviewing, encouraging, cautioning and/or correcting, includ-ing Jeremy McBride, Federico Andreu, Jelena Pejic, Kim Prost, ElizabethWilmshurst, Gerry Simpson, Christine Chinkin, Claire Harris, AmeliaNice, Xavier Aguirre, Hakan Friman, Osvaldo Guariglia and FabricioGuariglia Immeasurable gratitude is due to Fabricio for his generousapproach to partnership and unwavering belief in the project, and toLuca for giving so easily of the maternity leave that was by rights his, andfor inspiring hope

ACHR/American Convention on American Convention on Human

1969, OAS Treaty Series, No 36,entered into force 18 July 1978

relating to the Protection of Victims

of International Armed Conflicts,

8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, enteredinto force 7 December 1978

AP II/Second Additional Protocol Protocol Additional to the Geneva

to the Geneva Conventions Conventions of 12 August 1949, and

Relating to the Protection ofVictims of Non-InternationalArmed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125UNTS 609, entered into force 7December 1978

Law

CCPR Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights

reports of the European Commission

on Human Rights

ECHR/European Convention on European Convention for the

Fundamental Freedoms, Rome,

xv

xvi table of abbreviations

4 November 1950, ETS No 5,entered into force 3 September 1953

Law

GC I/First Geneva Convention Geneva Convention for the

Amelioration of the Condition ofthe Wounded and Sick in ArmedForces in the Field, 12 August 1949,

75 UNTS 31, entered into force 21October 1950

GC II /Second Geneva Geneva Convention for the

Wounded, Sick and ShipwreckedMembers of Armed Forces at Sea,

12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85,entered into force 21 October1950

GC III/Third Geneva Geneva Convention Relative to the

August 1949, 75 UNTS 135, enteredinto force 21 October 1950

GC IV/Fourth Geneva Geneva Convention Relative to the

Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75UNTS 287, entered into force 21October 1950

Rights

Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July

1998, UN Doc A/CONF.183/9,entered into force 1 July 2002

ICCPR/International Covenant International Covenant on Civil and

on Civil and Political Rights Political Rights, New York, 16

December 1966, 999 UNTS 171,entered into force 23 March 1976ICESCR/International Covenant International Covenant on

on Economic, Social and Economic, Social and Cultural

1966, 993 UNTS 3, entered intoforce 3 January 1976

ICJ Reports Reports of the International Court of

the Additional Protocols of 8 June

1977 to the Geneva Conventions of

12 August 1949, Section I: Protocol Additional to the Geneva

Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims

of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (ICRC, Geneva, 1987)

ICRC Commentary to AP II J Pictet et al (eds.), Commentary on

the Additional Protocols of 8 June

1977 to the Geneva Conventions of

12 August 1949, Section II: Protocol Additional to the Geneva

Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) (ICRC, Geneva, 1987)

ICRC Commentary to GC I J Pictet (ed.), Geneva Convention

for the Amelioration of the Condition

of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field: Commentary

(ICRC, Geneva, 1952)

xviii table of abbreviations

ICRC Commentary to GC II J Pictet (ed.), Geneva Convention

for the Amelioration of the Condition

of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea: Commentary (ICRC, Geneva, 1960)

ICRC Commentary to GC III J de Preux (ed.), Geneva

Convention relative to the Treatment

of Prisoners of War: Commentary

(ICRC, Geneva, 1960)ICRC Commentary to GC IV O Uhler and H Coursier (eds.),

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: Commentary (ICRC,

Geneva, 1950)ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for

Rwanda

Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,annexed to SC Res 955 (1994),

8 November 1994ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for

the Former Yugoslavia

Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia, annexed to SC Res 827(1993), 23 May 1993

ILC Commentaries on Articles International Law Commission,

on State Responsibility Commentaries on Articles on

Responsibility of States forInternationally Wrongful Acts,

Report of the ILC on the work of its 53rd session, UN Doc A/56/10

(2001), Chapter IV, pp 59–365

Commission

ILC’s Articles on State International Law Commission,Responsibility Articles on Responsibility of States

for Internationally Wrongful Acts,

Report of the ILC on the work of its 53rd session, UN Doc A/56/10

(2001), Chapter IV, pp 43–59

International Law

Communities

Oppenheim’s International Law R.Y Jennings and A Watts (eds.),

Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th

ed (London, 1992), vol IPCIJ Permanent Court of International

Justice

droit international de L’Haye

Reports of judgments and decisions

Regional Cooperation

UDHR/Universal Declaration Universal Declaration on Human

10 December 1948

San Francisco, 26 June 1945,entered into force 24 October 1945

Treaties between States andInternational Organizations orbetween International

Organizations

Aduayom et al v Togo, Comm 422–24/1990 323

Agga v Greece (No.2), Appl 50776/99; 52912/99, ECtHR, 17 October

Al Odah v United States, No 02-5251 2002 12,385

Alegria (Neira) et al v Peru (Merits), IACtHR, 19 January 1995, Series C,

21 261

Alejandre Jr (Armando) et al., Case 11.589, Inter-American Commission

on Human Rights, Report 86/99, 29 September 1999, Annual Report

Human and People’s Rights, 13th Annual Activity Report 1999–2000323

xx

Asencios Lindo et al., Case 11.182, Report 49/00, Annual Report of the

Austria v Italy, Appl 788/604, 11 January 1961, 4 Yearbook of European

Convention of Human Rights, 116 320

Ayas v Sweden, Comm 97/1997, CAT, Views of 12 November 1998, UN

Doc CAT/C/21/D/97/1997 328

Aydin v Turkey, Appl 23178/94, ECtHR, 25 September 1997, 25 (1998)

EHRR 251 314

Aylor-Davis v France, Appl 22742/93, European Commission of Human

Rights, Admissibility Decision, 20 January 1994, DR 76-B, 164

329

B and P v United Kingdom, Appl 36337/97; 35974/97, ECtHR, 24 April

2001, Reports 2001-III 318

Bankovic v Belgium and 16 other contracting states, Appl 52207/99,

ECtHR, Admissibility Decision, 12 December 2001, Reports

Brannigan and McBride v United Kingdom, Appl 1453/89; 1454/89,

26 May 1993, ECtHR, Series A, 258-B 297,414,424

Brogan v United Kingdom, Appl 11209/84, 29 November 1998, ECtHR,

Series A, 145 414

C.R v United Kingdom, Appl 20190/92, 22 November 1995, ECtHR,

Series A, 335-C

Caroline case, 41 (1947) AJIL, 205 156,157– ,159,162,206,209

Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic

of Congo v Belgium), Judgment, 14 February 2002, ICJ Reports 2003,

xxii table of cases

Castillo Petruzzi and Others v Peru (Merits), 30 May 1999, IACtHR,

Series C, 52 314,315,350,422

Celiberti de Casariego v Uruguay, Comm 56/1979, Human Rights

Committee, Views of 29 July 1981, UN Doc

CCPR/C/13/D/56/1979 314

Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, 16 July 1993, IACtHR,

Chumbipuma Aguirre See Barrios Altos case

Cisse v France, Appl 51346/99, 9 April 2002, ECtHR, Reports

2002-III 324

Coard et al v The United States, Case 10.951, Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights, Report 109/99, 29 September 1999,Annual Report (1999) 284,285,339

Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania), Merits, ICJ Reports 1949,

Domukovsky, Tsiklauri, Gelbekniani and Dokvadze v Georgia, Comm 623,

624, 626 and 627/1995, Human Rights Committee, Views of 29 May

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom, Appl 12244/86; 12245/86;

12383/86, 30 August 1990, ECtHR, Series A, 182

Gherebi v Bush, No 03-55785, 2003 WL 22971053 386

G´omez Casafranca v Peru, Comm 981/2001, Human Rights Committee,

Views of 19 September 2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/981/2001 321

G´omez V´asquez v Spain, Comm 701/1996, Human Rights Committee,

Views of 11 August 2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/69/D/1996 426

Gonz´alez del Rio (Miguel) v Peru, Comm 263/1987, Human Rights

Committee, 28 October 1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/46/263/1987

Greek case (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Netherlands v Greece), Appl.

Nos 3321/67; 3322/67; 3323/67; 3344/67; European Commission ofHuman Rights, Report, 18 November 1969, 12 (1969) Yearbook ofEuropean Convention on Human Rights 1 293

Gundem (Ozgur) v Turkey, Appl 23144/93, 16 March 2000, ECtHR,

Reports 2000-III 323

Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts 27(2) and 7(6) of the

American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87,

30 January 1987, IACtHR, Series A, 8 151,316

Haitian Centers Council, Inc v McNary, 969 F 2d 1326 (2nd Circuit 1992),

1342 381

xxiv table of cases

Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Case 03-6696, Supreme Court Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 28 June

2004 409,415,442

Hamdi v Rumsfeld, US Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit,

8 January 2003, 316 F 3d 450 355,394

Hess v United Kingdom, Appl 6231/73, European Commission of Human

Rights, Decision on admissibility, 28 May 1975, 2 DR 72 285

Ilascu and Others v Moldova and the Russian Federation, Appl 48797/99,

ECtHR, Judgement [Grand Chamber] 8 July 2004 286,334

Incal v Turkey, Appl 22678/93, 9 June 1998, ECtHR, 29 (2000) EHRR

449 316,323

Ireland v United Kingdom, Appl 5310/71, 18 January 1978, ECtHR,

Series A, 25 292

Issa and Others v Turkey, Appl 31821/96, ECtHR, Decision on

admissibility, 20 May 2000, unreported 285

Jocabilis v Ohio US 378: 184 17

Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion, OC-9/87,

6 October 1987, IACtHR, Series A, 9 316,419

Kandu-Bo (Gilbert Samuth), Khemalai Idrissa, Tamba Gborie, Alfred Abu Sankoh, Hassan Karim Conteh, Daniel Kobina Anderson, John Amadu Sonica Conteh, Abu Bakarr Kamara, Abdul Karim Sesay, Kula Samba, Victor L King and Jim Kelly Jalloh v Sierra Leone, Comm 839; 840 and

841/1998, Human Rights Committee, Decision of 4 November 1998,

UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/839, 840 & 841/1998 281

Kavanagh v Ireland, Comm 819/98, Human Rights Committee, Views of

4 April 2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/71/D/819/1998 318

Keun-Tae Kim v Korea, Comm 574/1994, Human Rights Committee,

Views of 4 January 1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/574/1994 323,365

Yassin Abdullah Khadi v Council and Commission, Case T-315/01,

5656/02, 21 February 2002; Abdirisak Aden and Others v Council and Commission, Case T-306/01, 16 February 2002, OJ C 44, 27–8; Omar Mohammed Othman v Council and Commission, Case T-318/01,

Kokkikanis v Greece, Appl 14307/88, 25 May 1993, ECtHR, Series A,

Landinelli Silva et al v Uruguay, Comm 34/1978, Human Rights

Committee, Views of 8 April 1981, UN Doc

CCPR/C/12/D/34/1978 293,365

Lawless v Ireland, Appl 332/57, 1 July 1961, ECtHR, Series A, 3 292

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July

1996, ICJ Reports 1996, 226 161,206,218,236,237,239,300,309

Linguens v Austria, Appl 9815/82, 8 July 1986, ECtHR, Series A, 103 323

Loizidou v Turkey (Merits), Appl No 15318/89, 18 December 1996, 23

(1996) EHRR 513 284,286,288,306

Lopez Burgos v Uruguay, Comm No 52/1979, Human Rights Committee,

Views of 29 July 1981, UN Doc CCPR/C/13/D/1979 283,284,287,336

Mansaraj et al., Gborie et al and Sesay et al v Sierra Leone, Comm 839,

840 and 841/1998, Human Rights Committee, Views of 4 November

1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/839, 840 and 841/1998 426

McCallum v United Kingdom, Appl 9511/81, 30 August 1990, ECtHR,

Series A, 183 315,319

McCann, Farrell and Savage v United Kingdom, Appl 18984/91,

27 September 1995, ECtHR, Series A, 324 305,310

McKerr v United Kingdom (Merits), Appl 28883/95, 4 May 2001, ECtHR,

Reports 2001-III 305

McVeigh, O’Neill and Evans v United Kingdom, Appl 8022/77; 8025/77;

8027/77, European Commission of Human Rights, Report, 18 March

1981, 25 DR 15 315

Media Rights Agenda et al v Nigeria, Comm.105/93; 128/94; 130/94;

152/94, African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Decision,

31 October 1998, Twelfth Annual Activity Report of the African

Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998–1999), Annex V,

53 323

Melin v France, Appl 12914/87, 22 June 1993, ECtHR, Series A, 261 426

Mendoza et al v Uruguay, Cases 10.029, 10.036, 10.145, 10.305, 10.373,

10.374 and 10.375, Inter American Commission on Human Rights,Report 19/92, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.83 Doc 14 (1993) 302

xxvi table of cases

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States), Merits, ICJ Reports 1986, 14 8,38,49–50,52,56,84,

147,150,151,152,153,157,160,161,162,164,166,183,185,227,246,

247,391,408,431

Montero v Uruguay, Comm No 106/1981, Human Rights Committee,

Views of 31 March 1983, UN Doc CCPR/C/18/D/1981 283

Murray v United Kingdom, Appl 14310/88, 28 October 1994, ECtHR,

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v.

Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands), ICJ Reports

Oviedo (Lino C´esar) v Paraguay, Case 12.013, Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights, Report 88/99, 27 September 1999317

P.G and J.H v United Kingdom, Appl 4487/98, 25 September 2001,

ECtHR, Reports 2001-IX 318

Peck v United Kingdom, Appl 44647/98, 28 January 2003, ECtHR,

Reports 2003-I 331

Phillips v United Kingdom, Appl 41087/98, 5 July 2001, ECtHR, Reports

2001-VII 325

Piandong, Morallos and Bulan v Philippines, Comm 869/1999, Human

Rights Committee, Decision, 19 October 2000, UN Doc

CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999 281

Pinochet See R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate

Polay Campos v Peru, Comm 577/1994, Human Rights Committee,

Views of 9 January 1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/61/D/577/1994 316

Precautionary Measures in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights, 13 March 2002 285,288,289,300,

Prosecutor v Galic, Case IT-98-29-T, ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecution

Pre-Trial Brief, 3 December 2002 25

Prosecutor v Jelisic, Case IT-95-10-T, ICTY, Trial Chamber, Judgment,

14 December 1999 81

Prosecutor v Kambanda, Case ICTR-97-23-S, ICTR, Trial Chamber,

Judgment and Sentence, 4 September 1998 75

Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case ICTR-95-1-T, ICTR, Trial

Chamber, Judgment, 21 May 1999 78,79

Prosecutor v Kordic and Cerkez, Case IT-95-14/2-PT, ICTY, Trial Chamber,

Decision on the Joint Defence Motion to Dismiss the Amended

Prosecutor v Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, Cases IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1,

ICTY, Trial Chamber, Judgment, 22 February 2001 78,231,314

Prosecutor v Kupreskic et al., Case IT-95-16-T, ICTY, Trial Chamber,

Judgment, 14 January 2000 79,80,226

Prosecutor v Martic, Case IT-95-11-R61, ICTY, Trial Chamber, Review

of the Indictment pursuant to Rule 61, 6 March 1996 226,237,238

Prosecutor v Milosevic, Case IT-02-54 75

xxviii table of cases

Prosecutor v Mrskic, Radic and Sljivancanin, Case IT-95-13-R61, ICTY,

Trial Chamber, Review of the Indictment pursuant to Rule 61, 3 April

1996 80

Prosecutor v Musema, Case ICTR 96-13-T, ICTR, Trial Chamber,

Judgment, 27 January 2000 78,80,94

Prosecutor v Plavsic, Case IT-00-39 & 40/1, ICTY, Trial Chamber,

Sentencing Judgment, 27 February 2003 75

Prosecutor v Serushago, Case ICTR 98-29-S, ICTR, Trial Chamber,

Judgment and Sentence, 5 February 1999 95

Prosecutor v Stakic, Case IT-97-24-T, ICTY, Trial Chamber, Judgment,

31 July 2003 78

Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Judgment,

15 July 1999 241 51,54,403

Prosecutor v Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Decision

on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction,

1992, 3 115

R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3), [2000] AC 147; [1999] 2 WLR 827; [1999] 2 All ER 97

(HL) reprinted in 38 (1999) ILM 430 101,313

Rasul et al v George Walker Bush et al No 02-5288 2002 385,406

Rasul v Bush, 215 F Supp 2d 55 (DC Dist 2002) 386

Rasul v Bush, Al Odah v United States, Cases 03-334 and 03-343, 10

November 2003, 72 USLW 3327 386,442

Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey, Appl 41340/98,

41342/98, 41343/98, 41344/98, 13 February 2003, ECtHR, Reports2003-II 324

Reinette v France, Appl No 14009/88, European Commission of Human

Rights, Decision on admissibility, 2 October 1989, 63 DR 189 285,395

Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations,

Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1949, 174 148

Roach (James Terry) and Jay Pinkerton v United States, Case 9647, Res.

3/87, 22 September 1987, Inter-American Commission on HumanRights, Annual Report 1986–87, 165 276

Roberts v Barbados, Comm No 504/992, Human Rights Committee,

Decision, 19 July 1994, UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/504/1992 281

S.W v United Kingdom, Appl 20166/92, 22 November 1995, ECtHR,

Series A, 335-B 320,321

Sadiq Shek Elmi v Australia, Comm 120/98, CAT, Views of 25 May 1999,

UN Doc CAT/C/22/D/120/1998 66

Sakik and Others v Turkey, Appl 23878/94-23883/94, 26 November 1997,

ECtHR, Reports 1997-VIII 414

Salgar de Montejo v Colombia, Comm 64/1979, Human Rights

Committee, Views of 24 March 198, UN Doc CCPR/C/15/D/64/1979

Selmouni v France, Appl 25803/94, 28 July 1999, ECtHR, Reports

1999-V 314

Semsi Onen v Turkey, Appl 22876/93, ECtHR, 15 May 2002,

unreported 310

Sener v Turkey, Appl 26680/95, ECtHR, 18 July 2000, unreported 323

Soering v United Kingdom, Appl No 10438/88, 7 July 1989, ECtHR,

Series A, 161 115,139,287,289,327,328,330,362

Singharasa v Sri Lanka, Communication No 1033/2001, Human Rights

Commmittee, Views of 23/08/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1033/2001

Stock´e v Federal Republic of Germany, Appl 11755/85, 19 March 1991,

ECtHR, Series A, 199 285

Stran Greek Refineries and Statis Andreadis v Greece, Appl 1342/87, 9

December 1994, ECtHR, Series A, 301-B

Streletz, Kessler and Krent v Germany, Appl Nos 34044/96, 35532/97 and

44801/98, 22 March 2001, ECtHR, Reports 2001-II 101,321

Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No 1), Appl 6538/74, 29 March 1979,

Tae Hoon Park v Republic of Korea, Comm 628/1995, Human Rights

Committee, Views of 3 November 1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/

D/628/1995 365

Tamayo (Loayza) v Peru (Merits), IACtHR, 17 September 1997, Series C,

33 281,314

United Communist Party and Others v Turkey, Appl 19392/92, 30 January

1998, ECtHR, Reports 1998-I 324

United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Teheran (United States v Iran), ICJ Reports 1980, 3 51–

United States v Al-Moayad, District Court of the Eastern District of

New York 121

United States v Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 (1992) 172

United States v Battle, Ford, Ahmed Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, Al Saoub and Lewis, District Court of the District of Oregon, Case CR 02-399

HA 121

United States v Fawaz Yunis, 924 F 2d 1086 (DC Cir 1991) 92

United States v Goba, Alwan, Mosed, Taher and Galab, District Court of

the Western District of New York 121

United States v Iyman Faris, District Court for the Eastern District of

Virginia 121

United States v Mukhtar al-Bakri, District Court of the Western District of

New York, Case 02-M-108 121

United States v Otto, Case 000-Mauthausen-5 (DJAWC, 10 January

Van Mechelen and Others v Netherlands, Appl 21363/93;

21364/93; 21427/93; 22056/93, 23 April 1997, ECtHR, Reports

X and Y v Netherlands, Appl 8978/80, 26 March 1985, ECtHR, Series A,

91 302

X v Bundesamt f¨ur Polizeiwesen, (1991) ATF 117 1b 210 329

Xhavara and Others v Italy and Albania, Appl 39473/98, ECtHR,

Decision on admissibility, 11 January 2001, unreported 285

26 January 1910 228

Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,Annex to the Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs ofWar on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907; 3 Martens NouveauRecueil (Series 3), 461; 187 Consolidated Treaty Series 227, enteredinto force 26 January 1910 225,245

Hague Rules on Aerial Warfare (Draft), The Hague, December

1922–February 1923, never adopted

Art 22 25

xxxii

Treaty Providing for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of

National Policy, Paris, 27 August 1928, 94 LNTS 57, entered intoforce 24 July 1929 146

Art 2 701

1930

ILO Convention (No 29) Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour,

28 June 1930, 39 UNTS 55, entered into force 1 May 1932 79,303

1936

Proc`es-verbal relating to the Rules of Submarine Warfare set forth in Part

IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930, London, 6 November

1936, 173 LNTS 353, entered into force 6 November 1936 225

Art 2(7) 192,306

Art 3 148

xxxiv table of conventions

279, reprinted in 39 (1945) AJIL Supplement, 256 77,82

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Geneva, 30 October

1947, 55 UNTS 194, entered into force 1 January 1948

Art XII(1) 59

Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, Rio de Janeiro, 2

September 1947, 21 UNTS 324, entered into force 3 December 1948Art 3(1) 167

Art 10 418

Art 11(2) 320,352

Art 40 331

1949

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the

Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (I Geneva

Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31, entered into force

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the

Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea(II Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85, entered intoforce 21 October 1950

xxxvi table of conventions

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time

of War, 12 August 1949 (IV Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 287,entered into force 21 October 1950 241,401–

xxxviii table of conventions

1950

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4 November 1950, ETS No 5,entered into force 3 September 1953 96,276

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, 28 July 1951,

189 UNTS 150, entered into force 22 April 1954 331

Art 1F 357,361

Art 33 112