ImportingCoreInternationalCrimes intonationallaw

Transcription

1 ImportngCorIntrnatonalCrms ntonatonallaw MortnBrgsmo,MadsHarlm andnobuohayash(dtors)

2

3 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law Mortn Brgsmo, Mads Harlm and Nobuo Hayash (dtors) 2010 Scond Edton Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Oslo

4 Ths and othr books n th FICHL Publcaton Srs may b opnly accssd and downloadd through th Forum wbst ( Prntd cops may b ordrd at Ths book was frst publshd 12 July Th Scond Edton was publshd 19 Aprl Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr and th Pac Rsarch Insttut Oslo (PRIO), 2010 All rghts ar rsrvd. You may rad, prnt or download ths book or any part of t from for prsonal us, but you may not n any way charg for ts us by othrs, drctly or by rproducng t, storng t n a rtrval systm, transmttng t, or utlzng t n any form or by any mans, lctronc, mchancal, photocopyng, rcordng, or othrws, n whol or n part, wthout th pror prmsson n wrtng of th copyrght holdr. Enqurs concrnng rproducton outsd th scop of th abov should b snt to th copyrght holdr. You must not crculat ths book n any othr covr and you must mpos th sam condton on any acqurr. ISBN

5 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION Th txt of ths scond dton of Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law has undrgon only mnor dtoral changs. It s publshd as on of th frst volums rlasd by th Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr as part of th broadnng opn accss platform of th Forum for Intrnatonal Crmnal and Humantaran Law. It can b frly rad, prntd and downloadd from th Forum Intrnt st ( But t can also b purchasd through Amazon as a rgular book. Frmly commttd to opn accss, th Forum and EPublshr do not charg for ths authorzd prntd vrsons of thr books. Th prntr and Amazon do howvr charg for thr producton and dstrbuton costs. Mortn Brgsmo Srs Co-Edtor Alf Butnschøn Skr Snor Edtoral Assstant

6

7 PREFACE BY THE SERIES EDITOR W startd th Forum for Intrnatonal Crmnal Justc and Conflct 1 as a dbat forum opn to ndvduals ntrstd n ssus concrnng ntrnatonal crmnal justc and conflct, wth th man am to dntfy, and facltat dbat on, ky ssus n ntrnatonal crmnal justc and conflct, ncludng accountablty-rlatd masurs othr than crmnal justc. Th procss to mport th cor ntrnatonal crms of gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms nto natonal crmnal law s an ssu of crtcal mportanc to th mrgng systm of ntrnatonal crmnal justc. Th archtctur of ths systm rsts on th prncpl of complmntarty, whch provds that th Intrnatonal Crmnal Court may hav to nvstgat and proscut cass that ar not dalt wth gnunly by natonal crmnal justc systms. Ths ntals a two-fold rqurmnt of natonal prpardnss to dal wth cor ntrnatonal crms. Frst, stats should hav som nsttutonal capacty to nvstgat and proscut gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms cass wthn th natonal jursdcton. If thr ar nsuffcnt rsourcs to hav a sparat unt for such crms, thn th stat should facltat that som mmbrs of th crmnal justc systm dvlop xprts n ths ara through sutabl comptnc buldng masurs, ncludng tranng and accss to spcalzd lctronc rsourcs. Scondly, stats should dvlop lgslatv capacty to proscut and adjudcat cor ntrnatonal crms cass bfor natonal courts. Ths ncluds provsons n natonal crmnal law xplctly crmnalsng gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms. Wthout such offncs n natonal crmnal law t may not b possbl to brng cass wth th propr ntrnatonal lgal classfcaton, forcng proscutors and judgs to fall back on ordnary natonal crms whch may not 1 Th Forum was latr rnamd to Forum for Intrnatonal Crmnal and Humantaran Law.

8 adquatly captur th ntrsts that ar protctd by th cor ntrnatonal crms. Th Forum hld an ntrnatonal smnar n Oslo on 27 Octobr 2006 at th ntatv of th Norwgan Rd Cross and PRIO to dscuss dffrnt aspcts of th mport of cor ntrnatonal crms nto natonal crmnal law. Th prsnt publcaton gvs a broadr audnc accss to th dlbratons at th smnar, n th form of th frst ssu n th FICJC Publcatons srs. Mortn Brgsmo Srs Edtor v

9 PREFACE BY THE EDITORS Th 27 Octobr 2006 smnar on mportng cor ntrnatonal crms nto natonal crmnal law was hld, ntr ala, wth a vw to rasng awarnss and momntum n Norway as t prpard to adopt a nw pnal cod. Ths publcaton rcords th procdngs of th vnt. Th half-day smnar opnd wth a rvw of th varous approachs and tchnqus avalabl to natonal lgslators. It thn xamnd th xprnc of Canada and Grmany n ncorporatng war crms, crms aganst humanty and gnocd, ncludng thos found n th Rom Statut of th Intrnatonal Crmnal Court (ICC), nto thr pnal law. At th plnary, th rlvanc of th ICC Elmnts of Crms documnt and th tratmnt of crms xcludd from th ICC Statut bcam th subjct of n-dpth dscusson. Th smnar attractd numrous partcpants from Norway and byond. Thr dvrs backgrounds for xampl, studnts, scholars, proscutors, prvat practtonrs, mmbrs of th judcary and mnstral staffrs contrbutd to th lvly and constructv xchang of das. Abov all, thos prsnt bnftd from th xprt spakrs and panllsts wth backgrounds n Canada, Grmany, Norway and Swdn as wll as n th ntrnatonal arna. Ths publcaton contans (a) th fnal programm, (b) th mnuts of th procdngs, (c) a supplmntary artcl by on of th panllsts at th plnary, and (d) th Englsh txt of th mplmntng lgslatons adoptd n Canada and Grmany. Nobuo Hayash has dtd th mnuts of th procdngs n co-opraton wth th spakrs. Dspt th prmarly Norwgan contxt n whch th smnar took plac, ts contnt, as summarsd n th followng pags, would b of ntrst to Stats concrnd wth ICC natonal mplmntaton and to thos actv n th admnstraton of ntrnatonal crmnal justc gnrally. Spcal acknowldgmnt s du to th rapporturs for thr dlgnt not-takng and for prparng th mnuts; th Norwgan Rd Cross for provdng th rapporturs wth audo-rcordng assstanc; v

10 th spakrs and panllsts for thr fdback on arlr drafts of th mnuts; and PRIO Informaton Drctor Agnt Schjønsby for dsgnng, formattng and prntng of th Frst Edton of ths publcaton. Mortn Brgsmo Nobuo Hayash Mads Harlm Edtors v

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Prfac to th Scond Edton... Prfac by th Srs Edtor... Prfac by th Edtors... v Fnal Smnar Programm... x MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS I. Introducton... 3 II. Ovrvw of Ways to Import Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Crmnal Law... 5 A. Introducton... 5 B. Mthods of rflctng cor ntrnatonal crms n domstc law... 7 C. Jursdctonal bass for th xrcs of natonal jursdcton D. Gnral prncpls of crmnal law E. Concluson III. Th Canadan Modl A. Introducton B. Hstory C. Th Crms Aganst Humanty and War Crms Act D. Currnt cass E. Challngs F. Concluson IV. Th Grman Modl A. Introducton B. Cod of Crms Aganst Intrnatonal Law C. Crms undr th CCUIL and th Rom Statut D. Concludng rmarks v

12 V. Dscusson on Partcular Problms n Conncton wth th Import of Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Crmnal Law v A. Th rol of th ICC Elmnts of Crms documnt B. Modfyng lmnts of crms whn mportng cor ntrnatonal crms C. War crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut D. Concluson VI. Mads Harlm: Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton Introducton War crms as a noton War crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut Prlmnary rmarks Lst of war crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut Thrshold for th applcaton of war crms numratd n Artcl 8(1) Th trm non-ntrnatonal armd conflct n th ICC Statut Protctd prsons and Proprty undr Artcl 8(2)(a) of th ICC Statut Volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law not ncludd n th lst of war crms undr Artcl 8(2)(b) and () of th ICC Statut Intntonally launchng an attack n th knowldg that such attack wll caus ncdntal loss of lf or njury to cvlans or damag to cvlan objcts or wdsprad, long-trm and svr to th natural nvronmnt whch would b clarly xcssv n rlaton to th concrt and drct ovrall mltary advantag antcpatd Makng a prson th objct of attack n th knowldg that h s hors d combat Makng mdcal or rlgous prsonnl, mdcal unts or mdcal transports th objct of attack Pllag or othr takng of proprty contrary to ntrnatonal humantaran law Unjustfabl dlay n th rpatraton of POWs or cvlans... 44

13 Makng mpropr us of a flag of truc, of th flag or th mltary nsgna and unform of th nmy or of th Untd Natons, as wll as of th dstnctv mblms of th Gnva Convntons, rsultng n dath or srous prsonal njury Usng starvatons of cvlans as a mthod of warfar by dprvng thm of objcts ndspnsabl to thr survval, ncludng wlfully mpdng rlf suppls Makng non-dfndd localts and dmltarsd zons th objct of attack Slavry and dportaton to slav labour Collctv punshmnt Dspolaton of th woundd, sck, shpwrckd or dad Attackng or ll-tratng a parlmntar or barr of th flag of truc Launchng an attack aganst works or nstallatons contanng dangrous forcs n th knowldg that such attack wll caus xcssv loss of lf, njury to cvlans or damag to cvlan objcts Usng human shlds Makng cvlan objcts th objct of attack Us of prohbtd wapons Srous volatons of Protocol II to th 1954 Hagu Cultural Proprty Convnton Chld soldrs Mthods of ncorporatng war crms nto Norwgan lgslaton Concluson FICHL Publcaton Srs Othr Volums n th FICHL Publcaton Srs x

14

15 FINAL SEMINAR PROGRAMME 12:00 Introducton, by Trygv Nordby (Scrtary-Gnral, Norwgan Rd Cross). 12:10 Ovrvw of ways to mport cor ntrnatonal crms nto natonal crmnal law, by Stéphan J. Hankns 1 (Lgal Advsr, Intrnatonal Commtt of th Rd Cross). 12:40 Th Canadan modl, by Josph Rkhof 2 (Snor Counsl, Crms aganst Humanty and War Crms Scton, Canadan Dpartmnt of Justc). 13:10 Th Grman modl, by Profssor Claus Krß 3 (Profssor, Unvrsty of Cologn). 1 2 Stéphan J. Hankns s a graduat from th Law Faculty of th Unvrsty of Pars I (Panthéon Sorbonn) and from th Cntral Europan Unvrsty n Pragu. H has bn workng for th Intrnatonal Commtt of th Rd Cross snc 1994 as rgonal lgal advsr basd succssvly n Moscow, Budapst, Bangkok and Kuala-Lumpur. H s currntly workng wth th ICRC Advsory Srvc on ntrnatonal humantaran law at ICRC Hadquartrs n Gnva. Josph Rkhof (BCL, Unvrsty of Njmgn, Th Nthrlands; LL.B, McGll Unvrsty; Dploma n Ar and Spac Law, McGll Unvrsty) tachs th cours Intrnatonal Crmnal Law at th Unvrsty of Ottawa. H s Snor Counsl, Managr of th Law wth th Crms aganst Humanty and War Crms Scton of th Dpartmnt of Justc, Canada. H has also srvd as Spcal Counsl and Polcy Advsor to th Modrn War Crms Scton of th Dpartmnt of Ctznshp & Immgraton btwn 1998 and Hs ara of xprts ls n th ara of th law rlatd to organzd crm, trrorsm, gnocd, war crms and crms aganst humanty, spcally n th contxt of mmgraton and rfug law. H has wrttn a numbr of artcls xplorng ths aras of ntrnatonal crmnal law and mmgraton/rfug law and has lcturd on th sam topcs n Canada, th Untd Stats, Europ and th Mddl East. 3 Claus Krß (Dr. jur. Cologn; LL.M. Cantab.) s Profssor for Crmnal Law, Crmnal Procdur, Intrnatonal Crmnal Law and Publc Intrnatonal Law. H s Drctor of th Insttut for Crmnal Law and Crmnal Procdur at Cologn x

16 13:40 Brak. 14:00 Dscusson on partcular problms n conncton wth th mport of cor ntrnatonal crms nto natonal crmnal law, ncludng (but not ncssarly lmtd to): (a) (b) (c) Rol of th ICC Elmnts of Crm documnt (wth a short ntroducton by Josph Rkhof); Modfyng lmnts of crms whn mportng cor ntrnatonal crms (Håkan Frman, Dputy Had of Dvson, Swdsh Mnstry of Justc); and War crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut (Mads Harlm, Lgal Advsr, Norwgan Rd Cross). 15:45 Concluson, by Tørrs Jægr (Had, Intrnatonal Humantaran Law Unt, Norwgan Rd Cross). x Unvrsty whr h holds th Char for Crmnal Law, Crmnal Procdur, Europan Crmnal Law and Intrnatonal Crmnal Law. Hs wrtngs covr most aras of ntrnatonal crmnal law and procdur. Hs pror practc was n th Grman Fdral Mnstry of Justc on mattrs of crmnal law and ntrnatonal law. Snc 1998 h rprsnts Grmany n th ngotatons rgardng th Intrnatonal Crmnal Court. H was mmbr of th Exprt Group on th Grman Cod of Crms undr Intrnatonal Law (2000/2001). H actd as War Crms Exprt for th Proscutor Gnral for East Tmor (2001) and as Had of th ICC's Draftng Commtt for th Rgulatons of th Court (2004).

17 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS Prpard by (shown n alphabtcal ordr) * : Crstn M. Dlany, Mastrs studnt, Norwgan Cntr for Human Rghts Yassn Kaarsh, Faculty of Law, Unvrsty of Oslo Andras Kaby, Mastrs studnt, Norwgan Cntr for Human Rghts Andras M. Kravk, Rsarch Assstant, Norwgan Cntr for Human Rghts Vbk Musæus, Studnt, Faculty of Law, Unvrsty of Oslo Ingvld Dønnm Søysth, Rsarch Assstant, Norwgan Cntr for Human Rghts Elln Stnsrud, Rsarch Fllow, Faculty of Socal Scncs, Unvrsty of Oslo Compld and dtd by: Nobuo Hayash, Lgal Advsor, Norwgan Cntr for Human Rghts * Profssonal ttls as pr Octobr 2006.

18

19 I Introducton Th smnar opnd wth rmarks by Trygv Nordby, Scrtary Gnral of th Norwgan Rd Cross. H notd that, for th frst tm n human hstory, a unvrsal ntrnatonal crmnal court was stablshd n Th Rom Statut confrs upon th ICC jursdcton ovr th gravst crms affctng th ntr human knd, namly gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms. In Kof Annan's words, thr can b no halng wthout pac, thr can b no pac wthout justc, and thr can b no justc wthout rspct for human rghts and th rul of law. Justc s an mportant tool to a lastng pac, and th ICC s an mportant tool n fghtng mpunty for th most srous crms of concrn to th ntrnatonal communty. Th ICC cannot and should not, howvr, play ths rol alon. Ensurng justc s, frst and formost, th rsponsblty of natonal courts. For th purposs of a lastng pac, t s crucal that justc tak plac as clos as possbl to th plac whr th crm was commttd. Stats ar thrfor oblgatd to xrcs thr crmnal jursdcton ovr thos rsponsbl for ntrnatonal crms. Th purpos of ths smnar s to dscuss partcular challngs confrontng Stats n thr fforts to mport cor ntrnatonal crms nto thr natonal crmnal law. Nordby hghlghtd two ssus n ths rgard. Frst, should natonal crmnal law adopt sparat pnal provsons for war crms, crms aganst humanty and gnocd? It would not b suffcnt to crmnals ths offncs n accordanc wth th provsons contand n th pnal cod rlatng to homcd. As statd by th Appals Chambr of th Intrnatonal Crmnal Trbunal for Rwanda (ICTR), th crmnalsaton of gnocd, unlk that of homcd, s dsgnd to protct a natonal, thncal, racal or rlgous group as such, rathr than ndvduals. Thr should thrfor b spcfc provsons rlatng FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 3

20 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law to gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms n natonal lgslaton. Scond, what should consttut war crms, crms aganst humanty or gnocd n natonal lgslaton? Norway s n th procss of draftng a nw pnal cod. Encouragngly, ts pnal cod commsson has consdrd how th pnal provsons of th Rom Statut can b ncorporatd nto Norwgan law. Nonthlss, Norway's oblgatons go byond th Rom Statut. Natonal pnal provsons rlatng to gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms should comply not only wth th Rom Statut but also wth othr parts of ntrnatonal law, such as convntons prohbtng th us of crtan wapons n armd conflct. Th Norwgan govrnmnt s currntly takng an ntrnatonal ntatv to rgulat th us and ban crtan typs of clustr bombs, as t dd togthr wth non-govrnmntal and othr govrnmntal actors som tn to fftn yars ago to ban ant-prsonnl mns. Th smnar was chard by Arn Wlly Dahl, Judg Advocat Gnral of Norway. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 4

21 II Ovrvw of Ways to Import Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Crmnal Law 1 A. Introducton Stéphan J. Hankns, Lgal Advsor for th Intrnatonal Commtt of th Rd Cross, bgan hs prsntaton by mphassng ts focus on th subjct-mattr jursdcton of th ICC and ts mplcatons n th natonal lgslaton of Stats Parts. Hankns rcalld that th Rom Statut dos not drctly oblgat ts Stats Parts to ncorporat cor ntrnatonal crms nto thr domstc lgal ordr. Ths rmans th cas vn though th sam Stats may b bound to do so undr othr oblgatons rsultng from othr ntrnatonal trats to whch thy ar parts and/or customary ntrnatonal law. It was suggstd howvr that th Rom Statut dos st forth an ndrct oblgaton flowng from th prncpl of complmntarty of jursdcton btwn th ICC and domstc courts. Accordng to ths prncpl, th ICC s only a court of last rsort. If a natonal court s abl and wllng to proscut a cas, that court shall tak prorty ovr th ICC. Ths prsupposs that natonal courts hav th ncssary lgslaton n plac. Stats Parts should thrfor rvw thr domstc law n ordr to nsur that t rflcts as closly as possbl th trms of th Rom Statut, such as th dfnton of substantv crms, th gravty of crms n th dfnton of applcabl pnalts and dfncs aganst crmnal rsponsblty whch should not b broadr than thos prmttd undr th Statut. Hankns rfrrd n ths contxt to th Bagaragaza cas n whch th Appals Chambr of th ICTR dnd a moton by th Proscuton to transfr a cas for tral to Norway. It dd so on th grounds that Norway lackd th ncssary lgslaton and jursdcton to try th ac- 1 Ths part of th mnuts was prpard by Vbk Musæus. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 5

22 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law cusd on chargs of grav volatons of ntrnatonal law ncludng gnocd and that n th absnc of domstc lgslaton, th accusd could only b chargd for ordnary crms. Ths, th Chambr dcdd, rskd trvalsng th natur and gravty of th crms n quston. Ths dcson, Hankns concludd, whl not ntrly rlvant to th dscusson at hand snc th ICC s wdly xpctd to show du dfrnc to th jursdcton of domstc courts unlss thr s a clar sgnal that natonal procdngs ar ntndd to shld an ndvdual from crmnal rsponsblty, was nvrthlss vry stmulatng. It stood as a strong rmndr of th gravty of th crms concrnd and of th rsponsblty for Stats undr ntrnatonal law to crat th condtons wthn thr domstc law to nvstgat and proscut th gravst ntrnatonal crms. Many of th Stats Parts to th Rom Statut (102 by th nd of Octobr 2006) hav adoptd, or ar ntndng to adopt, lgslaton ntroducng th cor crms nto thr domstc law. Among th wd rang of ssus th lgslator nds to tak nto consdraton ar th followng: Whch dfntons of th crms should b adoptd (.g. by rfrnc to th dfntons and catgorsatons of th Rom Statut or by draftng spcfc dfntons; by lmtng thr consdraton to th strct mplmntaton of th Rom Statut crms; or by lookng byond that to othr oblgatons of th Stat flowng from othr rlvant ntrnatonal nstrumnts or customary ntrnatonal law)? How, and whr n domstc law, should th crms b stpulatd (.g., wthn a stand-alon lgslaton or through amndmnts to xstng domstc pnal cods)? What pnalts should b ascrbd? On what bass should th Stat assrt jursdcton (for xampl, jursdcton on th bass of trrtoralty and/or natonalty, or unvrsal jursdcton; whthr to rqur th prsnc of th allgd prptrator on th natonal trrtory; and whthr jursdcton should b assrtd rtrospctvly or only prospctvly)? FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 6

23 Ovrvw of Ways to Import Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Crmnal Law Should th xstng ruls on crmnal rsponsblty b amndd n lght of th provsons of th Rom Statut? How, f at all, should th Elmnts of Crms documnt b usd? B. Mthods of rflctng cor ntrnatonal crms n domstc law Hankns consdrd a numbr of ways n whch Stats mght dfn cor ntrnatonal crms wthn thr jursdctons. Stats may frst tak th tradtonal and mnmalst approach of applyng xstng mltary or ordnary crmnal law (a mthod stll favourd n svral countrs, such as Grmany pror to th adopton of ts Cod of Crms Undr Intrnatonal Law of 2002). Th dsadvantags of ths approach ar wll known. Ths nclud th fact that, frquntly, th offncs concrnd corrspond only vry roughly to th dfntons and rqurmnts forsn undr ntrnatonal law and that th pnalts provdd for n ordnary crmnal law may prov napproprat to th srousnss of ntrnatonal crms Altrnatvly and Stats ar ncrasngly consdrng to do so n th procss of mplmntng th Rom Statut cor ntrnatonal crms may b th subjct of xprss and spcfc ncrmnaton n domstc law. Wthn ths approach, onc agan, Hankns dntfd dffrnt optons opn to th lgslator: Th frst mthod of spcfc ncorporaton s that of crmnalsaton through a gnral and opn-ndd rfrnc to ntrnatonal trats to whch th Stat s a Party, to ntrnatonal law n gnral or to th laws and customs of war, whl spcfyng a rang of pnalts for th crms n quston. It was suggstd, howvr, that ths may prov nsuffcnt wth rgard to th prncpl of lgalty. Th scond mthod s to xprssly crmnals ach and vry crm outlnd n rlvant ntrnatonal trats and/or rcognsd undr customary ntrnatonal law: FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 7

24 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law - Explct crmnalsaton may frstly tak th form of a statc or ltral transcrpton, nvolvng a transcrpton of th offncs nto domstc law usng an dntcal wordng to that of th ntrnatonal traty, whl sttng out th pnalts applcabl to th crms n quston. Statc transcrpton accords wth th prncpl of lgalty bcaus t sts forth clarly and prdctably whch conduct s consdrd crmnal and what punshmnt s nvsagd thrfor. It also facltats th task of thos rsponsbl for applyng th law and rlvs thm of th burdn of rsarchng and ntrprtng ntrnatonal law. It was notd howvr that such an approach, f th crmnalsaton s too dtald and spcfc, may nhbt th ablty of domstc courts to proscut crms n consdraton of nw dvlopmnts n ntrnatonal law. Ths statc transcrpton mthod s nhrnt n th approach of common-law Stats n mplmntng ntrnatonal trats, such as England and Wals. Svral Stats of th cvl law tradton hav also optd for ths approach (such as, for xampl, th rcnt Frnch draft law to ntroduc amndmnts to th Crmnal Cod and othr rlvant lgslaton). - A scond opton of xplct crmnalsaton s what may b dscrbd as dynamc transcrpton, whrby th typs of conduct consttutng offncs undr th Rom Statut ar rdfnd, rformulatd and rdraftd n domstc law. Ths approach assums that th Statut dfntons and catgorsatons ar not fully consstnt wth convntonal or customary ntrnatonal law. On th on hand, dynamc transcrpton nabls th lgslator to complmnt th dfntons undr th ICC Statut n consdraton of th lst and wordng of crms n rlatd ntrnatonal nstrumnts, such as Addtonal Protocol I to th Gnva Convntons of On th othr hand, t may prov a major task for th lgslator and ntal an xtnsv rvw of domstc crmnal law. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 8

25 Ovrvw of Ways to Import Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Crmnal Law Grmany and th Nthrlands, among othrs, hav adoptd such an approach albt to varyng dgrs. - A thrd and last opton of xplct crmnalsaton s to combn mthods. On mxd approach may combn xplct and spcfc crmnalsaton of crtan ntrnatonal offncs wth a gnrc and rsdual claus covrng, for xampl, othr grav or srous volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law undr trats to whch th Stat s a party. Fnnsh crmnal law (prsntly undrgong a rform procss) may b consdrd to typfy a mxd approach, n whch som cor ntrnatonal crms ar xprssly dfnd (th Fnnsh Crmnal Cod contans a Chaptr 13 on War Crms and Crms aganst Humanty ), whras othrs ar ncorporatd through an opn-ndd rfrnc to Fnland's ntrnatonal oblgatons (through an xprss prohbton of any acts whch othrws volat th provsons of an ntrnatonal agrmnt on warfar bndng upon Fnland or th gnrally acknowldgd and stablshd ruls and customs of war undr publc ntrnatonal law ). Ths mxd approach combns statc transcrpton wth dynamc transcrpton. To put t dffrntly, t combns spcfc crmnalsaton wth gnral rcours to rlvant ntrnatonal law. Hankns thn xamnd th form and plac of crmnalsaton. Should th lgslator adopt sparat nactmnts covrng substantv ssus on th on hand and ssus rlatd to co-opraton wth th ICC on th othr? Or should on addrss ths mattrs n a sngl lgslaton? Should th crms b smply nsrtd nto xstng pnal cods or stpulatd sparatly n a spcal statut? Adoptng a spcal, stand-alon nactmnt may notably nabl all domstc ruls on th mplmntaton of ntrnatonal trats covrng ntrnatonal crms to b contand n on pc of lgslaton. Ths approach also affords an opportunty to brng togthr undr on act both th dfnton of th crms and th varous gnral prncpls of crmnal law applcabl thrto. In contrast, ncorporatng ntrna- FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 9

26 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law tonal crms nto xstng lgslaton oblgats th law-makr to dtrmn th plac (for xampl n ordnary crmnal cods, mltary crmnal cods, or both) and th form (for xampl as a spcal scton or chaptr) of thr ncorporaton. Grmany, th Nthrlands and Canada ar among thos Stats whch hav adoptd th spcal, standalon approach n mplmntaton of th Rom Statut crms, whras Franc s currntly rformng ts domstc crmnal law (wth amndmnts forsn to th Crmnal Cod, th Cod of Mltary Justc and th Frnch Law on th Frdom of th Prss, rspctvly). Hankns hmslf dd not xprss any prfrnc for on approach ovr th othr. H dd stat howvr that, at any rat, th lgslaton n plac should allow th Stat to bnft from th complmntarty prncpl and nabl domstc courts to assrt jursdcton accordngly. Stats may also b ncouragd to adopt a dynamc approach by xtndng th jursdcton of domstc courts n ordr to both account for othr rlatd ntrnatonal oblgatons and rmdy som of th omssons or waknsss n th Rom Statut. C. Jursdctonal bass for th xrcs of natonal jursdcton Hankns procdd wth th dscusson of whthr Stats should assrt jursdcton on th bass of unvrsalty or on a mor lmtd bass such as trrtoralty and natonalty. It was rcalld that th mattr rmans th subjct of much dbat and was n rcnt yars brought to rnwd attnton n th contxt of hgh profl cass n th domstc courts of svral Stats (for xampl Blgum). Undr customary ntrnatonal law, som offncs ar consdrd subjct to unvrsal jursdcton. Traty provsons xprssly provd for unvrsal jursdcton n rspct of crtan othr offncs. It was xpland that dffrnt Stats hav approachd th mattr n dffrnt ways. In Hankns' vw, thy should tak ntr ala th followng factors nto consdraton: Thr oblgaton to assrt unvrsal jursdcton ovr crtan ntrnatonal crms; FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 10

27 Ovrvw of Ways to Import Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Crmnal Law Th prncpl of complmntarty govrnng th rlatonshp btwn th ICC Statut and Stats Parts thrto, as wll as th ntrsts of forgn courts n a gvn cas (whch may hav a gratr ntrst and faclty to adjudcat ntrnatonal crms); and Th ntrsts of domstc courts n xrcsng or dclnng jursdcton n a gvn cas. Stats such as Grmany and th Nthrlands hav hnc sought to combn broad xtratrrtoral jursdcton ovr cor crms wth a numbr of procdural safguards srvng to prsrv a dgr of dscrton for domstc proscutoral and judcal authorts to procd wth n a gvn cas. Ths arrangmnts am to balanc rspct for th ntrnatonal oblgatons of th Stat, for th jursdcton of othr Stats and for th jursdcton of ntrnatonal courts. D. Gnral prncpls of crmnal law Hankns consdrd whthr th gnral prncpls of crmnal law n Part 3 of th Rom Statut should b duplcatd or othrws ncorporatd nto domstc law. Th Rom Statut dos not drctly rqur th Stats Parts to adopt th gnral prncpls dfnd thrn. Nor dos th prncpl of complmntarty dctat that natonal courts try cass n xactly th sam mannr or accordng to xactly th sam crtra as th ICC would. Most of th systms consdrd hr, ncludng n partcular thos of Canada, Grmany, th Nthrlands and th Untd Kngdom, ndcat that, whrvr possbl, th gnral prncpls of ordnary crmnal law should apply to ntrnatonal crms. It would appar that only crtan spcfc aspcts of th gnral prncpls nd transcrpton n domstc law. Exampls of such aspcts nclud: Th quston of statuts of lmtaton whch may xst n domstc law; Th quston of crmnal lablty of suprors; and Th quston of mmunts of forgn offcals. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 11

28 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law E. Concluson Hankns obsrvd that thr s a dvrsty of approachs to th mplmntaton of cor ntrnatonal crms n th ICC Statut. A ky quston confrontng th lgslator s whthr to adopt a mnmalst approach strctly n kpng wth th rqurmnts of th complmntarty prncpl, or a dynamc approach movng byond th Rom Statut. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 12

29 A. Introducton III Th Canadan Modl 1 Accordng to Josph Rkhof, Snor Counsl and Managr of th Law n th Crms aganst Humanty and War Crms Scton of th Dpartmnt of Justc, Canada, th Canadan modl s basd on th mplmntaton of ntrnatonal law rathr than th amndmnt of natonal law by dfnng crms n an ntrnatonal contxt. Hstorcally, Canadan courts hav had dffcults n dalng wth cor crms. Exprncs bfor ths courts n th 1980s and arly 1990s hav bn unsatsfactory. Each crmnal cas that was takn to court was lost. Ths problms wr partally du to th fact that Canadan judgs dd not hav a grat dal of ntrnatonal law xprnc, combnd wth vdntary fralts nhrnt n cass prtanng to stuatons ffty yars arlr. Canada has snc approachd ntrnatonal crmnal law wth a vw to gvng som clarr ndcators n th lgslaton whch could b usful for both proscutors and natonal courts. B. Hstory Rkhof rcalld that, by 1987, Canada had ncorporatd war crms and crms aganst humanty nto ts lgslaton. Thr hav bn four World War II-rlatd cass n whch an ffort was mad to lnk natonal lgslaton to ntrnatonal law. Ths ffort was not succssful; th Suprm Court of Canada n th Fnta cas n 1994 st th bar for provng ntrnatonal offncs so hgh that t bcam vry dffcult to attmpt furthr proscutons for such crms. Th outcom of th Fnta cas and th dms of th othr thr cass du to th lack of vdnc promptd th Canadan govrnmnt to amnd ts Crmnal Cod n th md-1990s. Whn th prospct of an ntrnatonal crmnal court bcam a ralty n th lat 1990s, th govrnmnt dcdd to ncorporat 1 Ths part of th mnuts was prpard by Crstn M. Dlany. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 13

30 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law ths latst dvlopmnt n ntrnatonal law nto ts lgslaton by passng a sparat nactmnt, th Crms Aganst Humanty and War Crms Act of 2000, two yars aftr th adopton of th Rom Statut n Th Act draws havly on th Rom Statut, whl nsurng that som of th mor undsrabl aspcts of th Fnta cas wr also addrssd. C. Th Crms Aganst Humanty and War Crms Act 2000 Th Act marks Canada's frst acknowldgmnt of th crm of gnocd. Prvously, Canada had ncorporatd th Gnocd Convnton only to th xtnt that nctmnt of gnocd was ncludd n th Canadan Crmnal Cod. Th Act also rcognsd, for th frst tm, that war crms can b commttd n both ntrnatonal and nonntrnatonal armd conflcts, whl t mad supror/command rsponsblty a spcfc offns rathr than a mod of lablty. Canada's arlr rcognton of supror/command rsponsblty was lmtd to usng th concpt of adng and abttng n th commsson of war crms or crms aganst humanty. Pror to 2000, Canadan law dstngushd btwn crms commttd n Canada and thos commttd outsd of Canada. Th 1987 lgslaton only allowd proscuton of th lattr. Th Act provds for both stuatons but lmts Canada's ablty to proscut cor crms commttd wthn Canada only to acts commttd aftr 2000; t dos not, howvr, mpos any such tmporal lmtatons rgardng crms commttd n othr countrs. Any offnc commttd outsd Canada bfor 2000 can b proscutd, as long as t consttutd an offnc undr Canadan or ntrnatonal law or was crmnal accordng to th gnral prncpls of law rcognsd by th communty of natons at th tm of ts commsson. Ths xcpton to th lgalty/nonrtroactvty prncpl and to th lgal rghts of accusd prsons s spcfcally statd n th Canadan Chartr of Rghts and Frdoms and rflcts th sam approach st out n Artcl 15 of th Intrnatonal Covnant on Cvl and Poltcal Rghts. Th Act combns two complmntary approachs to ncorporatng ntrnatonal crms nto Canadan law. It rfrs to ntrnatonal FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 14

31 Th Canadan Modl law but also dfns spcfc crms at tms. Th thr cor crms ar dfnd by mmdat rfrnc to customary ntrnatonal law, convntonal ntrnatonal law and gnral prncpls of law. Canada's dfnton of gnocd provds th spcfc mns ra st out n both th Gnocd Convnton and th Rom Statut, but dos not dscrb any actus rus. Nor dos t nclud th four typs of group assocatons to whch th Gnocd Convnton rfrs and, as a rsult, broadns th crm's scop to nclud an dntfabl group. For th actus rus aspct, a rfrnc s mad to ntrnatonal crmnal law. As rgards crms aganst humanty, th Act follows th Rom Statut for th most part n dscrbng th undrlyng crms, whl rfrrng agan to ntrnatonal law for th ntrnatonal or chapaux lmnts. On notabl xcpton s that th Act dos not mnton nforcd dsapparancs and aparthd. Ths was don bcaus th lgal status of ths two crms aganst humanty was consdrd uncrtan undr th Rom Statut and has not yt bn tstd for lgalty and, n partcular, vs-à-vs th prncpl of non-rtroactvty. Th Act also xpands th catgory of vctms by not only usng th noton of cvlan populaton as n ntrnatonal crmnal law but also by addng th concpt of any dntfabl group. Whl th Act rls partally on th Rom Statut and ntrnatonal law to dfn gnocd and crms aganst humanty, t dos not dfn war crms at all. Rathr, t rfrs to war crms as a concpt; t assums that ntrnatonal law and practc wll srv as th paramount sourc of judcal gudanc rgardng ths crms. Th Act has two ntrprtatv provsons to clarfy crtan aspcts of customary ntrnatonal law n rlaton to Canadan law. Frst, t xplctly ndcats that th Rom Statut s ts prmary tool for all dfntons n th Act by statng that, for gratr crtanty, crms dscrbd n artcls 6 and 7 and paragraph 2 of artcl 8 of th Rom Statut ar, as of July 17, 1998, crms accordng to customary ntrnatonal law, and may b crms accordng to customary ntrnatonal law bfor that dat. Ths dos not lmt or prju- FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 15

32 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law dc n any way th applcaton of xstng or dvlopng ruls of ntrnatonal law. Ths nabls th futur jursprudnc to us th Rom Statut as a startng pont for what consttuts customary ntrnatonal law, whl at th sam tm allowng nw dvlopmnts n ths ara of ntrnatonal law to b takn nto account. Scondly, t addrssd an ssu rgardng customary ntrnatonal law rasd by th Suprm Court of Canada n th Fnta cas. That court consdrd whthr crms aganst humanty xstd durng World War II and ruld that t was not convncd of thr xstnc at th tm. It dd hold howvr that th trrbl natur of th acts justfd punshmnt n any vnt. In ordr to sttl ths ssu, th Act stats that crms aganst humanty ar wr part of customary ntrnatonal law as of August 8, 1945, th dat on whch th Intrnatonal Mltary Trbunal was stablshd n Nurmbrg. Th Act s tghtly and fundamntally connctd to th Rom Statut. For that rason, th Act contans as appndcs th txt of th Statut's Artcls 6, 7 and 8(2), to b usd for drct rfrnc. D. Currnt cass Rkhof rfrrd to on on-gong cas n Canada n whch th suspct was arrstd n Octobr Th judg ruld that th suspct must rman n custody untl th bgnnng of hs tral n March Ths unusually lngthy pr-tral dtnton was ordrd not on th bass of th dangr that th suspct would pos to th communty or bcaus h would b a flght rsk, but solly on th vry srous natur of th war crms for whch h had bn ndctd, namly gnocd, war crms and crms aganst humanty. Ths rulng xmplfs th Act's arly mpact. E. Challngs Rkhof notd that ntrnatonal crmnal law has bn and wll contnu to b n a stat of flux. For nstanc, th lmnts of th crm aganst humanty of tortur hav changd ovr tm. Ths would man that, undr th prsnt Act n Canada, a proscuton aganst prsons who FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 16

33 Th Canadan Modl mght b chargd for ths crm commttd n th 1970s wll nd to prov mor lmnts than for th sam crm commttd mor rcntly. Concptually, ths mght not b asly accptabl to Canadan judgs although a smlar dvlopmnt wth natonal crms s not unusual. As wll, judgs may b rluctant to xamn and us dfntons dvlopd for crms n ntrnatonal crmnal law whch hav thr quvalnt n Canadan law, such as murdr or rap. Thy wll b mor naturally nclnd to tak domstc law as a pont of dpartur and us th domstc dfnton of a crm rathr than ts ntrnatonal countrpart. For ths lattr aspct, anothr Suprm Court of Canada dcson mght provd som gudanc n that t appars to favour an ntrnatonal approach ovr a natonal on. In th cas of Mugsra, th court xamnd an mmgraton cas, namly th dportaton ordr aganst a prmannt rsdnt for th crm of hat spch commttd n Th spch was drctd aganst Rwandan Tutss and amountd to an nctmnt to commt gnocd and murdr, as wll as th commsson of th crm aganst humanty of murdr and prscuton. Th court dfnd murdr n a mannr vry smlar to that found n th jursprudnc of th Intrnatonal Crmnal Trbunal for th Formr Yugoslava (ICTY). Rulngs such as ths wll gv som confdnc that courts may apply ntrnatonal dfntons. F. Concluson Th Canadan approach has both advantags and dsadvantags. Its advantag s that, by tyng th rgulaton of cor crms vry closly to ntrnatonal crmnal law, t wll b assurd that Canada wll nvr b out of stp wth nw dvlopmnts n th ntrnatonal sphr. By vrtu of ths lnk, ths nw dvlopmnts automatcally bcom part of Canadan law wthout th nd of lgslatv amndmnts. Th dsadvantag s that ths lnkag rqurs all actors n crmnal proscutons to b contnually up to dat wth changs n th ntrnatonal jursprudnc. As wll, th xact rlatonshp btwn domstc and ntrnatonal law s not crtan at ths pont, ncludng th status of domstc law whr t has alrady gon byond th rqurmnts of ntrnatonal crmnal law such as was don n dfnng th vctms of gnocd and FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 17

34 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law crms aganst humanty. Th Act has not bn tstd n th courts yt, and ths qustons wll no doubt b answrd n th nar futur. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 18

35 IV Th Grman Modl 1 A. Introducton Claus Krß, Profssor, Unvrsty of Cologn, notd that Grmany ratfd th Rom Statut on 11 Dcmbr 2000 and ts Bundstag and Bundsrat passd th Cod of Crms Undr Intrnatonal Law (CCUIL) (Völkrstrafgstzbuch) on 21 Jun Th CCUIL, whch ntrd nto forc on 26 Jun 2002, provds for unvrsal jursdcton ovr gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms. 2 B. Cod of Crms Aganst Intrnatonal Law Krß dscrbd th CCUIL as comprhnsv, laborat and maxmalst. It contans thr ky lmnts. Frst, th CCUIL adopts a standalon approach n rlaton to Grmany's xstng crmnal cod. Scond, t ncorporats crms undr ntrnatonal law through autonomous translaton. Thrd, t dos not rstrct ts scop to th Rom Statut. Grmany dcdd aganst ncorporatng crms undr ntrnatonal law nto ts ordnary pnal cod. Ths dcson was basd on th dffcults n fttng spcal prncpls, such as thos on supror ordrs and command rsponsblty, nto on chaptr of th gnral cod. Thr was also a poltcal ratonal. By assmblng cor ntrnatonal crms n a sparat lgal corpus, Grmany would nhanc thr vsblty and transmt an mportant and rassurng sgnal to th ntrnatonal communty as rgards th srousnss of ths crms. 1 2 Ths part of th mnuts was prpard by Andras M. Kravk. Act Introducng th Cod of Crms Undr Intrnatonal Law (Gstz zur Enführung ds Völkrstrafgstzbuchs), BGBl.2002 I, P 2254 (Fdral Law Gaztt of th Fdral Rpublc of Grmany), 26 Jun FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 19

36 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law Whl basd on th Rom Statut, th CCUIL dfns crms undr ntrnatonal law va ndpndnt translaton. It uss trmnology famlar n Grman law, thrby mprovng accssblty to Grman jursts not usd to dalng wth ntrnatonal crmnal standards. Autonomous translaton nabls Grman lgslators to b mor prcs than th Rom Statut as rgards th dfntons of crms. Ths approach would also allow for a mor convncng structur than that contand n th Rom Statut's substantv law (cf., n partcular, th dffrnt lsts n Artcl 8). Th CCUIL ncorporats not only offncs numratd n th Rom Statut but also thos crms as thy ar frmly groundd n gnral customary law. For xampl, for poltcal rasons, th Rom Statut dos not lst th us of bologcal or chmcal wapons as on of th cor crms. Yt, ths crm undr gnral customary ntrnatonal law s a war crm undr Scton 12 of th CCUIL. C. Crms undr th CCUIL and th Rom Statut Krß wnt on to dscuss th spcfc crms.., gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms as thy appar n th CCUIL and n th Rom Statut. Gnocd (CCUIL, Scton 6). As rgards gnocd, Grmany's ntnton has bn to rman fathful to th txt of th Rom Statut. Ths s manly du to th txt's long tradton. Th Rom Statut rproducs word for word Artcl II of th Gnocd Convnton, a provson wdly consdrd to rflct custom. Thr s on mnor dffrnc, howvr. Th wordng of th CCUIL allows for gnocd to hav occurrd vn f th conduct n quston affcts only on prson (.g. th kllng of a mmbr of a group; s CCUIL, Scton 6(1)(1)). In contrast, th Rom Statut, on th fac of t, nvsags svral prsons bng affctd (.g. th kllng of mmbrs of th group; s Rom Statut, Artcl (6)(a)). 3 3 How th ICC wll ntrprt ths provson rmans to b sn. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 20

37 Th Grman Modl Crms aganst humanty (CCUIL, Scton 7). In th vw of Krß, ths scton of th CCUIL s lss than prfct. Its mprfctons, howvr, only mrror thos of Artcl 7 of th Rom Statut. To bgn wth, som spcs of crms aganst humanty ar dfnd by rfrnc to othr ruls of ntrnatonal law. For xampl, undr Scton 7(1)(4) of th CCUIL, t s a crm aganst humanty to dport or forcbly transfr a prson lawfully prsnt n an ara to anothr Stat or anothr ara, n contravnton of a gnral rul of ntrnatonal law. Ths formulaton s problmatc; th prncpl of spcfcty rqurs that crmnal provsons b as dtald as possbl and clarly ndcat th conduct thy prohbt. Nvrthlss, Grman lgslators found t mpossbl to attan gratr prcson than that found n Artcl 7 of th Rom Statut tslf. Anothr dffculty rlats to th wordng of Scton 7(1)(7) of th CCUIL. Ths provson crmnalss th causng of a prson's nforcd dsapparanc. Its problms manat from th Elmnts of Crms documnt adoptd by th Assmbly of Stats Parts. Ths offnc stablshs crmnal lablty as a rsult not only of a postv act (ltra a) but also of an omsson (ltra b). Crmnalsng an omsson mpls th xstnc of an affrmatv duty to act. And yt th prcs sourc of law from whch ths affrmatv duty stms rmans unclar. Krß suggstd that th crm of nforcd dsapparanc consttuts on nstanc n th procss of ncorporatng crms undr ntrnatonal law nto domstc crmnal law whr t would sm prfctly accptabl for natonal lgslators frst to wat for ntrnatonal cas law to dvlop. Artcl 7(1)(k) of th Rom Statut crmnalss othr nhuman acts of a smlar charactr ntntonally causng grat suffrng, or srous njury to body or to mntal or physcal halth. Accordng to Krß, Grmany vwd ths provson as an nvtaton to apply crmnal prohbtons by analogy. Consquntly, Scton 8(1)(9) of th CCUIL lmts th corrspondng offnc to thrats aganst a prson's physcal ntgrty. Krß consdrd ths as a succssful opraton of nhancng lgal crtanty. Anothr succss, n hs opnon, s th CCUIL's tratmnt of th crm of aparthd as a spcal and aggravatng nstanc of at last on othr spcs of crms aganst humanty. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 21

38 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law War Crms (CCUIL, Sctons 8-12). War crms can b commttd n an ntrnatonal or ntrnal armd conflct. Unlk th Rom Statut, th CCUIL lmnats ths dstncton as far as possbl undr customary ntrnatonal law and, to that xtnt, stablshs on comprhnsv lst of crms. Ths approach to th concpt of war crms has nabld Grmany to mantan trmnologcal consstncy, a qualty wantng n th Rom Statut. For xampl, Artcls 8(2)(a)() and 8(2)(c)() of th Rom Statut us th xprssons wlful kllng and murdr, rspctvly, to rfr to xactly th sam act. Morovr, by abolshng th dstncton btwn two sparat lsts of crms accordng to th natur of th armd conflct, Grman judgs nd dtrmn only whthr on of th two crtra has bn fulflld. Ths s mportant, as n many cass th dstncton btwn th two catgors of armd conflct can b tnuous. D. Concludng rmarks By way of conclusons, Krß rflctd on hs xprnc n th draftng of th CCUIL. Th draftng commtt consstd of both crmnal and publc ntrnatonal lawyrs. Th two groups oftn prsntd dffrnt prspctvs on th rlatonshp btwn ntrnatonal and domstc law. Ths ld to frutful dscussons and dbats, a hghly rcommndabl nvronmnt for ndavours of ths natur. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 22

39 V Dscusson on Partcular Problms n Conncton wth th Import of Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Crmnal Law 1 A. Th rol of th ICC Elmnts of Crms documnt Th dscusson opnd wth a short prsntaton by Josph Rkhof on th ICC Elmnts of Crms documnt. Th documnt was dvlopd by th Prparatory Commtt followng th adopton of th Rom Statut n Whl th ICC tslf s not duty-bound to apply th lmnts of crms as thy ar formulatd n th documnt, t would b a usful mans of ntrprtaton. It would b spcally rlvant for thos Stats whch hav provsons of ntrnatonal crmnal law n thr natonal lgal systms. On partcpant n th audnc rfrrd to hr xprnc as a proscutor n Dnmark. Dnmark has not ngagd n any partcular dscusson on th mport of cor ntrnatonal crmnal crms nto ts domstc crmnal law. Intrnatonal crmnal law has smply not bn mportd nto Dansh law. Nor, as a proscutor, had th partcpant mssd t n hr natonal lgal systm. Sh notd that thos workng drctly wth ntrnatonal crms wr not as wll nformd about th Elmnts of Crms documnt as on would wsh. As a rsult, th documnt was not much usd. In rply, Claus Krß strssd that on would b ll-advsd not to us th Elmnts of Crms documnt whn applyng ntrnatonal crmnal law. Th documnt plays an mportant rol n th codfcaton of ntrnatonal crms. On must b carful, howvr. A cas n pont s th formulaton of th mntal lmnt n som crms. For xampl, proscutng war crms aganst chldrn nvolvs provng ntnt con- 1 Ths part of th mnuts was prpard by Ingvld Dønnm Søysth, Yassn Kaarsh and Andras Kaby. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 23

40 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law crnng th vctm's ag. Intrnatonal crmnal law dfns th chld as a prson lss than ghtn yars of ag. Dfndants would oftn clam that thy wr unawar of th vctm's ag and thrfor hs or hr status as a chld. Should th proscuton fal to prov th dfndants' knowldg n ths rgard, thr would b no convcton. In ordr to ovrcom ths hurdl, a should hav known standard has bn dvlopd. Ths standard s dffrnt from th ICC Statut whch rqurs ntnt. Accordng to anothr partcpant n th audnc, th spcfc wordng of th Rom Statut would not crat srous problms as th crms contand n th Statut ar oftn vry smlar to thos contand n natonal law. Murdr, for nstanc, wll man th sam n natonal law as n ntrnatonal crmnal law. Problms ars whn much s lft to a judg's dscrton. Håkan Frman, Dputy Had of Dvson n th Mnstry of Justc, Swdn, statd that Swdn plans to ntroduc a sparat act on ntrnatonal crms nto ts natonal law. Th Elmnts of Crm documnt would b hlpful whn ntrprtng th Rom Statut. H was of th vw that th us of th documnt n Nordc countrs would provd nspratons for thos skng to clarfy th contnt of ntrnatonal crmnal law whch has bn mportd nto natonal law. Stéphan J. Hankns argud that judgs should tak th Elmnts of th Crm documnt nto account bcaus t can srv as a gudln. Th documnt should also b of sgnfcanc to natonal lgslators. B. Modfyng lmnts of crms whn mportng cor ntrnatonal crms Frman concdd that th lmnts of cor ntrnatonal crms hav not yt bn fully dvlopd. Consquntly, ach Stat must assss th nd of modfyng ths lmnts whn mportng thm nto ts own lgal systm. Thr ar consdratons both n favour of and aganst modfyng th lmnts of cor ntrnatonal crms. On th on hand, ntrnatonal crmnal law bcoms mor prcs through modfcaton and ths mght prov ncssary n ordr to satsfy th prncpl of lgal- FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 24

41 Dscusson on Partcular Problms ty n natonal systms. On th othr hand, thr wll always b a rsk of modfd provsons dpartng from th ntrnatonal dfntons and of waknng ntrnatonal law as a rsult. On commnt from th audnc rasd th prospcts of all Stats modfyng th lmnts of ntrnatonal crms and, n so dong, adoptng dffrnt approachs n thr domstc law. Krß rpld that changs mght b tchncal only and nsung problms mght b solvd through ntrprtaton. Essntally, thr ar two approachs to mportng ntrnatonal crmnal law: on can thr accpt that thr ar dffrncs or go back to th lgslaton and chang th law. Frman agrd that thr ar dffcults n brngng ntrnatonal and natonal law togthr. Ths dffcults bcom ncrasngly acut as ntrnatonal law, ncludng th jursprudnc of ntrnatonal courts, contnus to dvlop. On mmbr of th audnc askd: What knd of ntrnatonal crmnal law wll on hav f vry Stat modfs t? Krß was of th opnon that ntrnatonal law mght b modfd n dffrnt ways. Rgardlss of th approach takn, howvr, on would always rsk adoptng provsons that dffr from thr orgnal. How ntrnatonal crmnal law wll volv n th futur s a quston of grat mportanc, but unfortunatly thr ar no asy answrs to t. Frman statd that ntroducng modfd lmnts of crms nto domstc law s a poltcal quston that vry Stat must consdr. H proposd a lst of pros and cons of lmnts modfcaton. Thr ar two tms on th pro lst: Modfd crms ft bttr wthn th gnral pnal law and lgal tradton of th Stat n quston. Ths wll mak thm mor accssbl to domstc courts and practtonrs; and Modfcaton may provd gratr prcson to th dfnton and hnc gratr complanc wth th prncpl of lgalty as t s undrstood n th Stat concrnd (thr ar dffrncs among FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 25

42 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law dffrnt lgal tradtons as to what th prncpl of lgalty rqurs). On Frman's contra lst wr: Th rsk that modfd dfntons would dpart from th dfntons n th Rom Statut; Th rsk that varous modfcatons and thr ntrprtatons by th Stats concrnd mght contrbut to th fragmntaton of substantv law and th waknng of ntrnatonal law; and Th rsk that modfyng dfntons mght man falng th complmntarty tst (whl th Rom Statut dos not drctly oblgat Stats Parts to brng thr substantv provsons n ln wth ts own, such an oblgaton may wll stm from othr sourcs of ntrnatonal law). Frman found t dffcult to plac som factors n th pro or con lst. For xampl, thr s a dsparty among th ICTY jursprudnc, th ICTR jursprudnc and th Rom Statut n th dfnton of lmnts. In som rspcts, th Elmnts of Crms documnt appars to dpart from th xplct provsons of th Rom Statut; n othr rspcts, th formr dos not rad vry wll wth th lattr or, at last, lavs room for ntrprtaton. Ovrcomng ths uncrtants may promot and nhanc th prncpl of lgalty. Rdraftng problmatc provsons may not always gnrat th dsrd outcom, howvr. It may vry wll rsult n rfrncs to dffrnt, but qually flud, concpts. Frman wnt on to stat that t s n th ntrst of Stats to nsur that thy ar abl to proscut crms to th sam xtnt as th ICC would. It s so bcaus thy mght consdr crtan cass vry snstv and, rathr than to s th ICC ntrvn, wsh to dal wth ths cass thmslvs undr thr own domstc law. Howvr, th complmntarty tst gvs Stats som lway whn dcdng how to mplmnt th crms nto domstc law: Th Rom Statut contans provsons on admssblty and non bs n dm that ar arguably mor lnnt for Stats than thos n th ICTY and ICTR Statuts. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 26

43 Dscusson on Partcular Problms On attnd obsrvd that, onc th ICC bgan rlyng on th Elmnts of Crms documnt and cratng judcal practc, what had orgnally bn consdrd optonal mght turn nto somthng mor bndng. What would b th consquncs of such a chang for thos Stats whch had alrady modfd th lmnts? In th vw of Krß, th knd of changs Grmany has mad to th wordng s mor tchncal than substantal n natur. Grmany's lgslaton oblgats judgs to ntrprt ts provsons n conformty not only wth ntrnatonal law but also wth volvng ntrnatonal cas law. Th rsult would b that thr rulngs fully rflct ntrnatonal cas law and comport wth th prncpl of lgalty,.., to th xtnt allowd by th spcfc wordng adoptd n Grman law. Nvrthlss, Krß agrd that thr ar dscrpancs whch cannot b rsolvd through ntrprtaton alon. It may wll b that ntrnatonal cas law dvlops n such a way that t can no longr b capturd wthn th spcfc manng that th law of a Stat ascrbs to a gvn dfnton. Natonal lgslaturs whch do not adopt a global approach to ths mattr hav two poltcal optons. On opton would b that thy accpt th dscrpancs and dcln to convct a prson who would othrws b convctd undr th mor lnnt ntrnatonal standards. Th othr would b that thy turn to thr lgslaturs and nform thm that ntrnatonal cas law has volvd and that thr natonal txt nds to b rvsd accordngly. C. War crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut Mads Harlm, Lgal Advsr for th Norwgan Rd Cross, prsntd what n hs vw consttutd an ovrvw, rathr than a complt catalogu, of crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut. It was not hs ntnton to offr any concluson as to whthr ths crms should or should not b adoptd nto natonal lgslaton. 2 2 Harlm has prpard a supplmntary artcl nttld Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton n whch h dscusss th stuaton n Norway. Th artcl s ncludd n ths publcaton; s blow. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 27

44 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law Harlm lstd th followng as xampls of crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut: Launchng an attack aganst works or nstallatons contanng dangrous forcs n th knowldg that such an attack wll caus xcssv loss of cvlan lf, njury to cvlans, damag to cvlan objcts, or a combnaton throf, as dfnd n Artcl 57(2)(a)(), Addtonal Protocol I (whn commttd wlfully, n volaton of th rlvant provsons of th Protocol, and causng dath or srous njury to body or halth); Unjustfabl dlay n th rpatraton of prsonrs of war; Acts lstd undr Artcl 8(2)(a) of th ICC Statut whn commttd aganst prsons protctd by Addtonal Protocol I but not th Gnva Convntons; Srous volatons of Addtonal Protocol II to th 1954 Hagu Convnton for th Protcton of Cultural Proprty (thy only partally ovrlap Artcl 8 of th ICC Statut); Grav brachs of Addtonal Protocol I whn commttd aganst: (a) prsons n th powr of an advrs party who ar protctd by Artcls 44, 45 and 73 of th Protocol; (b) th woundd, sck and shpwrckd of th advrs party who ar protctd by th Protocol; and (c) thos mdcal or rlgous prsonnl, mdcal unts or mdcal transports whch ar undr th control of th advrs party and ar protctd by th Protocol; Us of crtan wapons, ncludng: (a) bndng lasrs, prohbtd by Protocol IV to th Crtan Convntonal Wapons Convnton; (b) ant-prsonnl landmns, prohbtd by th Convnton on th Prohbton of th Us, Stockplng, Producton and Transfr of Ant-Prsonnl Mns and on thr Dstructon; and (c) othrs,.g., clustr muntons, as may b prohbtd n som Stats (f thy ar prohbtd n som Stats, should thy also b prohbtd undr th ICC Statut?); Compulsory rcrutmnt of prsons btwn fftn and ghtn yars of ag (Stats Parts to th Convnton on th Rghts of th Chld ar duty-bound to nsur that prsons who hav not at- FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 28

45 Dscusson on Partcular Problms tand th ag of fftn yars ar not compulsorly rcrutd nto thr armd forcs; th ICC Statut dsgnats brachs of ths oblgaton as a war crm; th Optonal Protocol to th Convnton rass th rlvant ag to ghtn yars; should thos Stats whch ar party both to th Optonal Protocol and to th ICC Statut ras th ag to ghtn yars?); War crms commttd n a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct fallng blow th thrshold of Artcls 1 and 2 of Addtonal Protocol II yt to whch common Artcl 3 appls (Artcl 8(2)(d) and (f) of th ICC Statut rfrs to th mor rstrctv crtra applcabl to Addtonal Protocol II; should th Statut b amndd to rfr to th broadr crtra applcabl to common Artcl 3?); and Msus of th nw mblm protctd by Addtonal Protocol III. On partcpant n th audnc obsrvd that a basc lmnt had bn mssng n th dscusson so far. An mprsson has bn cratd that on may dcd for onslf, as f from an a la cart mnu, whch crms should b adoptd n th natonal lgslaton. Yt thr s a bg dffrnc btwn th Grman modl of laboratng on gnocd as a crm, on th on hand, and th Canadan modl of takng out nforcd dsapparancs, on th othr hand. Addtons and laboratons ar to b wlcom, but Stats ought to b loyal to thr commtmnts. On should procd wth grat cauton whn mplmntng th ICC oblgatons and b vry carful whn takng lmnts out of th lgal catalogu. Rkhof agrd that takng thngs out of th lgal catalogu could b problmatc. Howvr, whn, as n th Canadan modl, th spcfc offncs n th lst of crms n th Rom Statut ar not compltly mplmntd whl at th sam tm thr s a gnral rfrnc to customary ntrnatonal law, t s lkly that th ntr body of cor offncs of that Statut s prsumd to b part of th domstc lgslaton. Rfrrng to customary law n ffct crats mor flxblty n th sns that th crms n natonal lgslaton dvlop n paralll wth customary ntrnatonal law. Wth rspct to th spcfc crms aganst humanty of nforcd dsapparanc and aparthd, thr s FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 29

46 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law crtanly a strong argumnt that ths crms ar not nw. Th crm of nforcd dsapparanc was mntond n th Nurmbrg judgmnt undr th dscusson rgardng th Nacht und Nbl ordr ; th crm of aparthd can b found n th 1973 Intrnatonal Convnton on th Supprsson and Punshmnt of th Crm of Aparthd. Rkhof rcommndd th Tadć-approach to dalng wth customary law and natonal lgslaton. Th four Tadć crtra for dfnng customary law mak t possbl to dscrn nw crms whch ar not statd n th Rom Statut. It s not a bad thng to add or clarfy nw crms. If svral Stats laborat and furthr dfn cor crms, such laboratons and dfntons may gv rs to mrgng customary law. D. Concluson 3 Tørrs Jægr, Had of th Intrnatonal Humantaran Law Unt of th Norwgan Rd Cross, rtratd th purpos of th smnar. Th purpos was not only to dscuss how to mport cor ntrnatonal crms nto natonal crmnal law, but also to put th mattr on Norway's poltcal agnda. Jægr rcalld that Hankns' prsntaton outlnd th varous mans of mportaton and consdrd dffrnt optons. Th Canadan modl, as dscrbd by Rkhof, rvald th dffcults and mportanc of fndng solutons and approprat ways to draft lgslaton so that t bcoms applcabl, undrstood and rlvant wthn th natonal contxt. Krß's xplanaton of th maxmalst approach n Grmany hghlghtd ts stand-alon soluton and autonomous translaton, as wll as ts scop gong byond traty ruls to ncompass customary ntrnatonal law. Th plnary dscusson whch followd ths prsntatons xplord th dffrnt possblts, challngs and opportunts that lay ahad. Partcular attnton was gvn to th possblty of dvrgncs btwn th way n whch natonal and ntrnatonal law may dvlop. Jægr notd that Canada s currntly dalng wth cass gong back to th 1940's up to th 1990's. It s ncumbnt upon th Norw- 3 Ths part of th mnuts was prpard by Elln Stnsrud. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 30

47 Dscusson on Partcular Problms gan govrnmnt to accpt th ntllctual challng to whch Krß rfrrd. Jægr xprssd hs hop that Norway would adopt as maxmalst and dynamc as possbl an approach whn mportng cor ntrnatonal crms. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 31

48

49 1. Introducton 6 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton Mads Harlm * Importng gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms nto natonal crmnal law s sgnfcant for svral rasons, ncludng thos found n traty law as wll as n th law and practc of ntrnatonal crmnal jursdctons. Th Rom Statut of th Intrnatonal Crmnal Court (ICC) provds n ts prambl that t s th duty of vry Stat to xrcs ts crmnal jursdcton ovr thos rsponsbl for ntrnatonal crms. Stats ar also oblgatd undr trats such as th Gnocd Convnton, th Gnva Convntons and th Tortur Convnton to nact lgslaton whch gvs ffct to thr prohbtons wthn natonal crmnal law. Th Appals Chambr of th Intrnatonal Crmnal Trbunal for Rwanda (ICTR) dcdd n Bagaragaza that t cannot sancton th rfrral of a cas to a jursdcton for tral whr th conduct cannot b chargd as a srous volaton of ntrnatonal humantaran law. 1 Ths shows th mportanc th ICTR attachs to th noton that natonal jursdcton charactrs th conduct n quston as gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms rathr than as ordnary crms. Many Stats hav alrady mportd cor ntrnatonal crms nto natonal crmnal law. 2 Ths s n accordanc wth th sprt of th * 1 2 Lgal Advsr, Norwgan Rd Cross. Th artcl rflcts th vws of th author alon and not ncssarly thos of th Norwgan Rd Cross. Proscutor v. Mchl Bagaragaza, Cas No. ICTR AR11bs, Dcson on Rul 11bs Appal, 30 August 2006, para. 18. S,.g., Canada's Crms Aganst Humanty and War Crms Act of 2000, c. 24, and Grmany's Act to Introduc th Cod of Crms Undr Intrnatonal Law (Völkrstrafgstzbuch) of 26 Jun FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 33

50 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law ICC's complmntarty prncpl accordng to whch th Court should b szd of a cas only n th vnt that natonal crmnal justc systms ar unabl or unwllng to gnunly nvstgat and proscut t. 3 Convrsly, f a natonal court s abl and wllng to proscut a cas, that court shall tak prorty ovr th ICC. In 2004, Norway's Pnal Cod Commsson proposd that sparat provsons on gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms b nsrtd nto Norwgan crmnal law. At a publc consultaton hld n Aprl 2007, th Mnstry of Justc mad a proposal on such provsons. 4 Th proposal s xpctd to b prsntd to Parlamnt n th autumn of That th procss of ncorporaton has fnally bgun n Norway s ncouragng. It s mportant to kp n mnd, howvr, that Norway's ntrnatonal law commtmnts go byond th crms covrd n th Rom Statut. Ths papr dntfs war crms whch hav not bn ncludd n th ICC Statut, but stll should bcom part of Norwgan crmnal law. It wll also b argud that Norway should not lmt ts dfnton of war crms to thos dfnd as such undr ntrnatonal law; rathr, t should nclud acts commttd n an armd conflct whch volat valus of warfar that ar mportant to Norway. 2. War crms as a noton Th dstncton btwn lawful and unlawful acts of war s cntral whn dfnng war crms. Combatants ar mmun from proscuton n rspct of lawful acts of war,.g., kllng an abl-bodd, nonsurrndrng nmy combatant wthout rsourc to unlawful mans and mthods of warfar. Thy rman so vn whr th sam acts 3 4 S Artcl 17, ICC Statut. As notd arlr, th ICTR dnd a moton to rfr th Bagaragaza cas to Norway for tral. It dd so on th ground that Norway would trat th crms chargd as ordnary crms rathr than srous volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law. Th ICC mght on day tak a smlar vw and hold that ordnary crms do not satsfy th ablty rqurmnt undr Artcl 17 of th ICC Statut. Ths artcl dos not dal wth th contnt of ths proposal. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 34

51 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton othrws consttut ordnary crms,.g., murdr. 5 Thy ar not mmun from proscuton, howvr, n rspct of acts n brach of th laws and customs of war. In gnral, f such acts ar rgardd as srous, thy ar dfnd as war crms n ntrnatonal crmnal law. Howvr, thr s no gnrally accptd dfnton of war crms n ntrnatonal law. Rul 156 of th customary ntrnatonal humantaran law study prpard by th Intrnatonal Commtt of th Rd Cross (hrnaftr, Customary Law Study ) 6 dfns war crms as srous volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law. 7 Th four Gnva Convntons of 1949 and thr Addtonal Protocol I of 1977 spcfy volatons of crtan provsons as thr grav brachs ; Addtonal Protocol I, n turn, dsgnats such grav brachs as war crms. In Tadć, th Intrnatonal Crmnal Trbunal for th Formr Yugoslava (ICTY) rndrd an ntrlocutory appal dcson (hrnaftr, Tadć Jursdcton Dcson ) 8 n whch t statd that:. A war crm must consttut an nfrngmnt of a rul of ntrnatonal humantaran law;. Th rul must b customary n natur, or covrd by traty law whch s unqustonably bndng on th parts at th tm of th allgd offnc and not n conflct wth or drogatng from pr Othr prsons who partcpat drctly n hostlts do not njoy mmunty from proscuton n rspct of thos acts arsng from thr partcpaton whch consttut ordnary crms. Jan-Mar Hnckarts and Lous Doswald-Bck, Customary Intrnatonal Humantaran Law (Cambrdg Unvrsty Prss, 2005). Ths publcaton s th rsult of a major ntrnatonal study of currnt Stat practc wth a vw to dntfyng th contnt of customary ntrnatonal humantaran law. Prsntd n two volums, t analyss th customary ruls of ntrnatonal humantaran law and contans a dtald summary of th rlvant traty law and Stat practc throughout th world. Rul 156, Customary Law Study. S Proscutor v. Duško Tadć a/k/a Dul, Cas No. IT-94-1-AR72, Dcson on th Dfnc Moton for Intrlocutory Appal on Jursdcton, 2 Octobr 1995 ( Tadć Jursdcton Dcson ). FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 35

52 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law mptory norms of ntrnatonal law ncludng most customary ruls of ntrnatonal humantaran law;. Th volaton must b srous, that s to say, t must consttut a brach of a rul protctng mportant valus, and th brach must nvolv grav consquncs for th vctm; and v. Th volaton of th rul must ntal, undr customary or convntonal law, th ndvdual crmnal rsponsblty of th prson brachng th rul. 9 In th sam dcson, th ICTY gav th followng as an xampl of non-srous volatons: [T]h fact of a combatant smply appropratng a loaf of brad n an occupd vllag would not amount to a srous volaton of ntrnatonal humantaran law although t may b rgardd as fallng foul of th basc prncpl lad down n Artcl 46, paragraph 1, of th Hagu Rgulatons (and th corrspondng rul of customary ntrnatonal law) whrby prvat proprty must b rspctd by any army occupyng an nmy trrtory. 10 Th Stat practc as lad down n th Tadć Jursdcton Dcson and n th Customary Law Study ndcats that th xprsson war crms mans srous volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law. It dos not xclud th possblty howvr that a Stat may dfn othr volatons of th laws or customs of war as war crms as wll. Cauton s n ordr whn ncludng crms whch ar not lnkd to an armd conflct, lst thr ncluson crat dscrpancs btwn pnal provsons n natonal and ntrnatonal law. Nvrthlss, Stats should not hstat to crmnals acts that ar lnkd to an armd conflct and brach mportant valus n warfar. Th lst of war crms numratd n Artcl 8 of th ICC Statut s th rsult of complcatd ntrnatonal ngotatons. Many acts othrws rgardd as war crms undr traty law and/or customary law wr lft out n ordr to rach th broadst consnsus possbl. Ac S Tadć Jursdcton Dcson, paras. 94 and 143. Tadć Jursdcton Dcson, para. 94. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 36

53 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton cordngly, Artcl 8 dos not nclud all srous volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law. Ths should not kp Norway from crmnalsng ths and othr volatons of ntrnatonal law. On th contrary, n accordanc wth th Tadć Jursdcton Dcson and customary law, Norway's war crms provsons should nclud:. Srous volatons of traty provsons bndng upon Norway n armd conflct;. Srous volatons of customary law applcabl n armd conflct; and. Volatons of law whch ar not rgardd as srous but stll lnkd to an armd conflct and n brach of mportant valus of warfar. 3. War crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut 3.1. Prlmnary rmarks Th war crms lstd blow ar to a larg xtnt basd on th four Gnva Convntons of 1949, thr Addtonal Protocols I and II of 1977 and Rul 156 of th Customary Law Study. 11 In ordr for gvn conduct to amount to a war crm, t must hav a lnk to an armd conflct. Intrnatonal humantaran law has tradtonally dstngushd btwn ntrnatonal armd conflcts ncludng stuatons of mltary occupaton, on th on hand, and nonntrnatonal armd conflcts, on th othr hand. An ntrnatonal armd conflct s dfnd as fghtng btwn th armd forcs of at last two Stats. Th Gnva Convntons, Addtonal Protocol I and customary ntrnatonal humantaran law apply to such a conflct. A non-ntrnatonal armd conflct s dfnd as fghtng on th trrtory 11 Rul 156 of th Customary Law Study stats: Srous volatons of ntrnatonal law consttut war crms. For crms not mntond n Rul 156 but rgardd as srous volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law and laboratd n th summary of that rul, s Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp Rfrnc wll also b mad blow to svral othr ntrnatonal humantaran law trats, ncludng Protocol II of 1999 to th 1954 Hagu Cultural Proprty Convnton and varous wapons convntons. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 37

54 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law of a Stat btwn th rgular armd forcs and dntfabl armd groups, or btwn such groups. Ruls applcabl to non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts nclud Artcl 3 common to th four Gnva Convntons, Addtonal Protocol II and a growng body of customary ntrnatonal humantaran law. 12 Th Gnva Convntons and Addtonal Protocol I dsgnat spcfc acts as thr grav brachs and xplctly oblgat th Hgh Contractng Parts to rprss thm crmnally. 13 Ths brachs wll b laboratd blow. Unlk th Gnva Convntons and Addtonal Protocol I, nthr common Artcl 3 nor Addtonal Protocol II contans any xprss oblgaton to rprss thr brachs. In rcnt yars, howvr, t has bcom ncrasngly common for a gvn traty both to apply th sam body of ruls to ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts and to provd for sanctons n th vnt of thr srous volatons. 14 Also, customary law has clarly affrmd an oblgaton for Stats to rprss srous volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law commttd n nonntrnatonal armd conflcts. Evn though ths customary oblgaton may not xtnd to all volatons, Norway should stll dfn as war crms srous volatons commttd n both ntrnatonal and nonntrnatonal armd conflcts alk. As wll b argud n Scton 4, Norway should as far as possbl lmnat th dstncton btwn ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts n ts war crms provsons. Intrnatonal cas-law ndcats that th mntal stat gnrally rqurd for war crms s wlfulnss,.., thr ntnton or rcklss Addtonal Protocol II of 1977 has a mor rstrctv scop of applcaton than that of Artcl 3 common to th four Gnva Convntons. S blow, undr Scton S Artcl 49, Gnva Convnton I; Artcl 50, Gnva Convnton II; Artcl 129, Gnva Convnton III; Artcl 146, Gnva Convnton IV; and Artcl 85, Addtonal Protocol I. S,.g., Protocol II on Prohbtons or Rstrctons on th Us of Mns, Booby- Traps and Othr Dvcs as amndd on 3 May 1996 annxd to th Crtan Convntonal Wapons Convnton of FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 38

55 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton nss. Th prcs mntal lmnt vars from war crm to war crm, howvr. Ths artcl dos not consdr th mattr furthr Lst of war crms not ncludd n th ICC Statut Thrshold for th applcaton of war crms numratd n Artcl 8(1) Artcl 8(1) provds that th ICC shall hav jursdcton n rspct of war crms n partcular whn commttd as part of plan or polcy or as part of a larg-scal commsson of such crms. Ths s a thrshold for th Court's jursdcton rathr than an addtonal lmnt of th crms lstd n Artcl 8. Ths thrshold s ntndd to prvnt th ICC from bng ovrburdnd wth mnor or solatd cass. Th xprsson n partcular ndcats that th ICC dos rtan jursdcton ovr war crms not commttd as part of a plan or polcy or as part of a largscal commsson of such crms. Hnc, thr s no rason for ths thrshold to b ncludd n th Norwgan provsons on war crms Th trm non-ntrnatonal armd conflct n th ICC Statut Artcl 8(2)(c) of th ICC Statut s basd on common Artcl 3. Common Artcl 3 rgulats non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts and s consdrd customary. Th thrshold for th applcaton of common Artcl 3 s vry low. On would xpct that Artcl 8(2)(c) has a smlarly low thrshold of applcaton. Accordng to Artcl 8(2)(d) of th ICC Statut, howvr, Artcl 8(2)(c) dos not apply to stuatons of ntrnal dsturbancs and tnsons, such as rots, solatd and sporadc acts of volnc or othr acts of a smlar natur. Ths languag s takn from Artcl 1(2) of Addtonal Protocol II, an nstrumnt whch othrws dvlops and supplmnts [common Artcl 3] wthout modfyng ts xstng condtons of applcaton. 15 In othr words, Artcl 8(2)(d) of th ICC Statut ffctvly rass th applcaton thrshold of Artcl 8(2)(c), whch 15 Artcl 1(1), Addtonal Protocol II. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 39

56 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law crmnalss volatons of th ruls contand n common Artcl 3, to that of Addtonal Protocol II. Ths hghr thrshold should b rmovd n Norwgan lgslaton. Nor should Artcl 8(3) of th ICC Statut b ncorporatd nto Norwgan law. Ths provson was nsrtd as a rsult of th prssur from a numbr of Stats opposd to th ncluson of war crms commttd durng ntrnal armd conflcts Protctd prsons and Proprty undr Artcl 8(2)(a) of th ICC Statut Artcl 8(2)(a) covrs crtan offncs commttd aganst prsons or proprty protctd undr th rlvant Gnva Convntons. Wthn th manng of Gnva Convntons I and II, protctd prsons and objcts ar th sck, woundd and shpwrckd, as wll as mdcal prsonnl and qupmnt. Gnva Convntons III and IV protct prsonrs of war (POWs) and crtan catgors of cvlan prsons, 16 rspctvly. Addtonal Protocol I nlargs th groups of prsons and proprty protctd n ntrnatonal armd conflct to nclud:. Prsons who hav takn part n hostlts and hav falln nto th powr of an advrs Party wthn th manng of Artcls 44 (combatants and POWs) and 45 (protcton of prsons who hav takn part n hostlts) of Addtonal Protocol I. Ths dfnton s broadr than that of POWs n Gnva Convnton III.. Rfugs and statlss prsons wthn th manng of Artcl 73 of Addtonal Protocol I. Artcl 75 nttls thm to protcton undr Gnva Convnton IV.. Th woundd, sck and shpwrckd of th advrs Party. Artcl 8(a) and (b) of Addtonal Protocol I nlargs th corrspondng catgors as dfnd n Gnva Convntons I and II. 16 Gnva Convnton IV protcts cvlans who ar not nttld to POW status and, at any gvn momnt and n any mannr whatsovr, fnd thmslvs, n th cas of a conflct or occupaton, n th hands of a Party to th conflct or Occupyng Powr of whch thy ar not natonals. S Artcl 4, Gnva Convnton IV. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 40

57 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton v. Mdcal or rlgous prsonnl, mdcal unts and transports undr th control of th advrs Party. Artcl 8(c), (d), () and (g) of Addtonal Protocol I broadns th protcton of ths groups of prsons and proprty compard to th Gnva Convntons. Th xprsson undr th control of th advrs Party s justfd by th fact that such prsons and objcts may com from a non-bllgrnt Stat, an ad socty rcognsd and authorsd by such a Stat or vn an mpartal ntrnatonal humantaran organsaton. Artcl 8(2)(a) of th ICC Statut contans grav brachs of th Gnva Convntons but not grav brachs of Addtonal Protocol I. Ths s so bcaus Addtonal Protocol I has not as a whol njoyd th sam unvrsal accptanc as th Gnva Convntons. Howvr, Norway s a party to th Protocol. Thus, thr s no rason why Norway should not crmnals conduct mntond n Artcl 8(2)(a) of th ICC Statut whn t s commttd aganst prsons or objcts protctd undr Addtonal Protocol I Volatons of ntrnatonal humantaran law not ncludd n th lst of war crms undr Artcl 8(2)(b) and () of th ICC Statut Intntonally launchng an attack n th knowldg that such attack wll caus ncdntal loss of lf or njury to cvlans or damag to cvlan objcts or wdsprad, long-trm and svr to th natural nvronmnt whch would b clarly xcssv n rlaton to th concrt and drct ovrall mltary advantag antcpatd Whn such an attack s launchd durng an ntrnatonal armd conflct, t consttuts a war crm undr Artcl 8(2)(b)(v) of th ICC Statut. Th word ovrall s nthr contand n Artcls 51 and 85 of Addtonal Protocol I, nor found n th corrspondng ruls of customary ntrnatonal law as thy hav bn dntfd n Rul 14 of th Customary Law Study. Accordng to th sam study, th word ovr- FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 41

58 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law all dos not add an xtra lmnt 17 ; t could thrfor b kpt n Norway's war crms provsons. Addtonal Protocol II dos not xplctly rfr to th prncpl of proportonalty. Rul 14 of th Customary Law Study stats howvr that t s a customary rul applcabl n non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts. Th ICC Statut dos not lst an ntntonal volaton of ths prncpl commttd n non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts as a war crm. Nor s t, as such, dfnd as a grav brach n any traty provsons or consdrd a srous volaton of customary law. Howvr, Artcl 14(2) of Amndd Protocol II to th 1980 Convnton on Crtan Convntonal Wapons oblgats ts Stats parts, ncludng Norway, to punsh prsons who wlfully kll cvlans or caus srous njury to thm. Artcl 3(8)(c) of th sam Protocol spouss th prncpl of proportonalty n attacks. Launchng attacks n brach of th prncpl n a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct appars as a war crm n Scton 11(1)(3) of Grmany's Act to Introduc th Cod of Crms Undr Intrnatonal Law. Snc th sad conduct n a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct s nconsstnt wth mportant valus of warfar, Norway should also trat t as a war crm Makng a prson th objct of attack n th knowldg that h s hors d combat Artcl 8(2)(b)(v) of th ICC Statut crmnalss only th kllng or woundng of combatants who hav surrndrd at dscrton. By vrtu of Artcl 85(3)() of Addtonal Protocol I, howvr, makng a prson th objct of attack n th knowldg that h s hors d combat consttuts a grav brach of that Protocol. Th Customary Law Study also dntfs t as a war crm. 18 Norway should follow th approach takn n ths study. Th sam conduct commttd n a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct s covrd n Artcl 8(2)(c) of th ICC Statut S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, p S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 42

59 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton Makng mdcal or rlgous prsonnl, mdcal unts or mdcal transports th objct of attack Undr th ICC Statut, ths act consttuts a war crm only f th prsonnl, unts or objcts concrnd us th dstnctv mblms of th Gnva Convntons. 19 Addtonal Protocol I trats such conduct as ts grav brach, howvr, rgardlss of th us of th sad mblms. Mdcal or rlgous prsonnl ar also protctd undr Artcls 9 and 11 of Addtonal Protocol II. Th Customary Law Study dntfs makng mdcal or rlgous prsonnl, mdcal unts or mdcal transports th objct of attack as a war crm n both ntrnatonal and nonntrnatonal armd conflct. 20 Othr than th ICC Statut, no rlvant traty provson bndng on Norway rfrs to th us of th dstnctv mblms of th Gnva Convntons as an lmnt of ths offnc. It should thrfor not b kpt n Norway's war crms provsons Pllag or othr takng of proprty contrary to ntrnatonal humantaran law Undr Artcl 8(2)(b)(xv) and ()(v) of th ICC Statut, only pllagng a town or plac, vn whn takn by assault, s rgardd as a war crm. In contrast, Artcl 33, scond paragraph, of Gnva Convnton IV prohbts pllag as such n ntrnatonal armd conflct; so dos Artcl 4(2) of Addtonal Protocol II n non-ntrnatonal armd conflct. Evn though pllag or othr takng of proprty contrary to ntrnatonal humantaran law dos not consttut a grav brach of any traty, t dos, accordng to th Customary Law Study, consttut a war crm n both ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflct. 21 Norway should mport ths war crm nto ts lgslaton S Artcl 8(2)(b)(xxv) and ()(), ICC Statut. S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp and S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp and FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 43

60 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law Unjustfabl dlay n th rpatraton of POWs or cvlans Ths war crm s not mntond n th ICC Statut but should nvrthlss b mportd nto Norwgan lgslaton. Artcl 85(4)(b) of Addtonal Protocol I dscrbs unjustfabl dlay n th rpatraton of POWs or cvlans as a grav brach of th Protocol; th Customary Law Study dntfs t as a war crm f commttd n an ntrnatonal armd conflct. 22 Undr both customary law and traty law, ths war crm only appls to ntrnatonal armd conflcts. Ths s so bcaus th POW status only xsts n ntrnatonal armd conflcts. Accordng to Rul 128(c) of th Customary Law Study, howvr, prsons dprvd of thr lbrty n rlaton to a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct must b rlasd as soon as th rasons for th dprvaton of thr lbrty cas to xst. Evn though customary law dos not rgard volatons of ths rul as a war crm, Norway should stll do so n ts natonal lgslaton snc thy volat valus of warfar that ar mportant to Norway Makng mpropr us of a flag of truc, of th flag or th mltary nsgna and unform of th nmy or of th Untd Natons, as wll as of th dstnctv mblms of th Gnva Convntons, rsultng n dath or srous prsonal njury Ths s rgardd as a war crm n Artcl 8(2)(b)(v) of th ICC Statut. Accordng to Artcl 85(3)(f) of Addtonal Protocol I, th prfdous us of th dstnctv mblm of th Rd Cross, Rd Crscnt or Rd Lon and Sun or othr protctv sgns rcognsd by th Gnva Convntons or th Protocol, consttuts a grav brach of that Protocol. Th ICC Statut dos not crmnals ths conduct n nonntrnatonal armd conflcts; nor dos th Customary Law Study dntfy t as a war crm n such conflcts. Insofar as th undrlyng prohbton protcts mportant valus of warfar, howvr, Norway should 22 S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 44

61 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton stll trat volatons of ths prohbton as a war crm f commttd n a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct. In th ICC Statut, only th mpropr us of th Gnva Convnton mblms s rgardd as a war crm. Ths mans that makng mpropr us of th nw mblm adoptd n Addtonal Protocol III of 2005 falls outsd th scop of th ICC Statut. Accordng to th Protocol's Artcl 6(1), howvr, thos provsons of th Gnva Convntons and, whr applcabl, Addtonal Protocols I and II, whch govrn th prvnton and rprsson of msus of th dstnctv mblms, shall apply qually to th Addtonal Protocol III mblm. Evn though ths rul s not customary, Norway s stll a party to Addtonal Protocol III. Th war crms provsons n Norway should thrfor also covr both th nw and xstng mblms or sgns dsgnd to protct popl or objcts n armd conflct Usng starvatons of cvlans as a mthod of warfar by dprvng thm of objcts ndspnsabl to thr survval, ncludng wlfully mpdng rlf suppls Undr Artcl 8(2)(b)(xxv) of th ICC Statut, ths s rgardd as a war crm only n an ntrnatonal armd conflct. Evn n non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts, howvr, usng starvaton of cvlans as a mthod of warfar by dprvng thm of objcts ndspnsabl to thr survval, ncludng wlfully mpdng rlf suppls, s n brach of Artcls 14 and 18 of Addtonal Protocol II and dntfd as a war crm n th Customary Law Study. 23 Thus, t should b mportd nto Norway's war crms provsons for both ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts Makng non-dfndd localts and dmltarsd zons th objct of attack Attackng such localts and zons s not mntond as a war crm n th ICC Statut but appars n Artcl 85(3)(d) of Addtonal Protocol I as ts grav brach. Accordng to th Customary Law Study, th act 23 S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 45

62 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law consttuts a war crm n both ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflct. 24 Ths should b ncludd n th Norwgan war crms lgslaton Slavry and dportaton to slav labour Nthr slavry nor dportaton to slav labour s mntond n Artcl 8 of th ICC Statut. Th Customary Law Study, howvr, dntfs such practc as a war crm n both ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflct. 25 Th crm should thrfor b mportd nto Norwgan lgslaton Collctv punshmnt Th ICC Statut dos not mnton ths crm. Collctv punshmnt s prohbtd, howvr, undr Gnva Convntons III and IV as wll as Artcl 4(2)(b) of Addtonal Protocol II. It s also dntfd as a war crm n th Customary Law Study. 26 Norway should thrfor ncorporat ths crm for both ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts Dspolaton of th woundd, sck, shpwrckd or dad Dspolaton of th woundd, sck, shpwrckd or dad s not mntond n th ICC Statut but should b part of Norway's war crms provsons. Whthr n an ntrnatonal or non-ntrnatonal armd conflct, Stats ar oblgatd to tak all possbl masurs to protct th woundd, sck and shpwrckd from pllag and ll-tratmnt. 27 Whras non of th Gnva Convntons, nor Addtonal Protocol I, dscrbs dspolaton of th woundd, sck, shpwrckd or dad as a grav brach, t s rgardd as a war crm undr customary law n an S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp and S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp. 586 and S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp and S Artcl 15, frst paragraph, Gnva Convnton I; Artcl 8, Addtonal Protocol II. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 46

63 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton ntrnatonal armd conflct. 28 Th Customary Law Study dos not dntfy ths as a war crm n a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct. Norway should stll trat t as such n both ntrnatonal and nonntrnatonal armd conflcts bcaus t s contrary to mportant valus of warfar Attackng or ll-tratng a parlmntar or barr of th flag of truc Ths conduct s not crmnalsd undr th ICC Statut. Nvrthlss, t s a volaton of th Hagu Rgulatons and of customary ntrnatonal law. 29 Norway should trat t as a war crm n both ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflcts Launchng an attack aganst works or nstallatons contanng dangrous forcs n th knowldg that such attack wll caus xcssv loss of lf, njury to cvlans or damag to cvlan objcts Th ICC Statut dos not numrat ths crm. It dos appar, howvr, as a grav brach n Artcl 85(3)(c) of Addtonal Protocol I and as a customary war crm n th Customary Law Study. 30 Artcl 15 of Addtonal Protocol II prohbts attacks aganst works or nstallatons contanng dangrous forcs. Norwgan lgslaton should dsgnat ths conduct as a war crm n both ntrnatonal and non-ntrnatonal armd conflct snc t brachs mportant valus of warfar Usng human shlds Artcl 8(2)(b)(xx) of th ICC Statut crmnalss th us of human shlds n an ntrnatonal armd conflct. Th Statuts contans no comparabl provsons for non-ntrnatonal armd conflct, howvr. Norway's war crms provsons should stll corporat t for non S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, p S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 47

64 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law ntrnatonal armd conflct, n accordanc wth th fndngs of th Customary Law Study Makng cvlan objcts th objct of attack Ths consttuts a war crm undr th ICC Statut only f commttd durng an ntrnatonal armd conflct. Th Customary Law Study, howvr, dntfs t as a war crm also n a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct. 32 Norway should follow th approach takn by th Customary Law Study on ths offnc Us of prohbtd wapons Th ICC Statut crmnalss th us of wapons only f thy ar prohbtd undr customary law. Th Statut dos not crmnals th us of any spcfc wapons durng a non-ntrnatonal armd conflct. Norway should trat as a war crm not only th us of wapons bannd undr customary ntrnatonal law but also th us of wapons bannd by convntons to whch t has accdd. Scton 107 of Norway's Mltary Pnal Cod appls to th lattr but not th formr. A provson should b ncludd n Norwgan lgslaton on war crms so that th ban has a gnral applcaton. Th followng wordng could rctfy th stuaton: Us of wapons, projctls and qupmnt and mthods of warfar whch hav bn bannd n accordanc wth Norway's ntrnatonal lgal oblgatons Srous volatons of Protocol II to th 1954 Hagu Cultural Proprty Convnton Th ICC Statut dos not covr all of th acts punshabl undr Protocol II to th 1954 Hagu Convnton. Exampls nclud thft, pllag or msappropraton of, or acts of vandalsm drctd aganst, cultural proprty protctd undr th Protocol n both ntrnatonal and non S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp S Customary Law Study, Volum I: Ruls, pp FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 48

65 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton ntrnatonal armd conflct. Such acts should b ncludd n th Norwgan provson on war crms Chld soldrs Conscrptng or nlstng chldrn undr fftn nto natonal armd forcs, or usng thm to partcpat actvly n hostlts, consttuts a war crm undr Artcl 8(2)(b)(xxv) of th ICC Statut. Ths was an xtrmly controvrsal topc durng th ngotatons, and th ag adoptd was basd on th mnmum standards contand n Artcl 77(2) and (3) of Addtonal Protocol I. 33 Norway s party to Addtonal Protocol II to th Convnton on th Rghts of th Chld whch dfns chld soldrs as thos undr ghtn. Norway's war crms provsons should follow ths dfnton. 4. Mthods of ncorporatng war crms nto Norwgan lgslaton War crms can b commttd n both ntrnatonal and nonntrnatonal armd conflcts. Th substantv dfntons of ths crms ar mor or lss th sam. Unlk th ICC Statut, Norwgan lgslaton should lmnat th dstncton btwn war crms commttd n ntrnatonal armd conflct and thos commttd n nonntrnatonal armd conflct. Thr ar varous ways n whch war crms mght b ncorporatd nto Norwgan pnal lgslaton. Ths could b don through th adopton of gnrc provsons or spcfc provsons numratng all conduct mntond n Scton 3 abov and n th ICC Statut. Adoptng gnrc provsons s smpl. No nw natonal lgslaton wll b ndd whn xstng trats ar amndd, whn Norway bcoms a party to a nw traty or whn nw customary law has bn dntfd. Gnrc provsons would absorb nw trats to whch Norway could bcom a party and nw customary law whch could 33 S th bll bfor th Norwgan Parlamnt (St. prp. no. 24 ( )), p. 86. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 49

66 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law bcom bndng on t n th futur. For th rasons dscussd arlr, ths approach s partcularly sutabl for crmnalsng th us of prohbtd wapons. It could also b usd for svral of th othr crms lstd abov. At th sam tm, howvr, gnrc provsons may prov problmatc vs-à-vs th prncpl of lgalty. Norway would nsur gratr rspct for ths prncpl by spcfyng th ntr lst of offncs n ts war crms provsons. On major stback of spcfc crmnalsaton s that t rqurs consdrabl rsarch and draftng; ths would b a major task for th lgslator. Furthrmor, xcssv dtal and spcfcty mght dprv Norway of th flxblty ndd to ncorporat rlvant dvlopmnts n ntrnatonal law at a latr stag. A mxd approach would probably b mor ffctv whn mportng war crms nto Norwgan lgslaton. Such an approach nvolvs crmnalsaton through gnrc provsons combnd wth th xplct and spcfc crmnalsaton of crtan srous offncs. Ths combnaton prmts Norway to carry out all ts traty oblgatons concrnng th rprsson of brachs of ntrnatonal humantaran law wthout undrmnng ts rspct for th prncpl of lgalty. 5. Concluson Norway ratfd th ICC Statut on 16 Fbruary Th Statut stablshs a prmannt Intrnatonal Crmnal Court vstd wth th authorty to nsttut crmnal procdngs aganst and judg ndvduals for gnocd, crms aganst humanty and war crms. As argud n ths artcl, Stats should nact sparat pnal provsons for ths crms n thr natonal lgslaton. It s not suffcnt to pnals such offncs n accordanc wth ordnary crmnal provsons rlatng to rap, corcon, thrats, th dprvaton of lbrty, murdr, and th lk. Th ICC was stablshd as a rsult of complcatd ntrnatonal ngotatons. Stats should not hstat to nclud offncs othr than thos mntond n th rlvant crm catgors of th ICC Status. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 50

67 Importng War Crms nto Norwgan Lgslaton It appars that th war crms provsons proposd by th Norwgan Mnstry of Justc corrspond to th ICC Statut n thr dfnton of war crms. Morovr, thy crmnals othr srous volatons of th laws and customs of war as wll. It s hopd that Norway wll soon fully comply wth all ts ntrnatonal oblgatons laboratd n ths artcl. FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 51

68

69 Publcaton Srs Co-Edtors Mr. Mortn Brgsmo Mr. Nobuo Hayash Edtor Ms. Wu Lng Chah FICHL PUBLICATION SERIES Edtoral Assstants Mr. Alf Butnschøn Skr, Snor Edtoral Assstant Mr. Mats Bnstad Ms. Annka Jons Ms. Audry Wong Prncpal Scntfc Advsrs of th Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Profssor Andras Zmmrmann, Prncpal Scntfc Advsr for Publc Intrnatonal Law Profssor Ka Ambos, Prncpal Scntfc Advsr for Intrnatonal Crmnal Law Dr.h.c. Asbjørn Ed, Prncpal Scntfc Advsr for Intrnatonal Human Rghts Law Edtoral Board Dr. Xabr Agrr, Intrnatonal Crmnal Court Dr. Clauda Angrmar, Austran judcary Dr. Markus Bnzng, Frshflds Bruckhaus Drngr, Frankfurt Ms. Margart dguzman, Tmpl Unvrsty Ms. Ccl Hllstvt, Norwgan Cntr for Human Rghts Dr. Pablo Kalmanovtz, Columba Unvrsty Mr. Sangkul Km, Kora Unvrsty Dr. Jann K. Klffnr, Swdsh Natonal Dfnc Collg Mr. Kjtl Mujznovc Larsn, Norwgan Cntr for Human Rghts Mr. Salím A. Nakhjavání, Unvrsty of Cap Town Dr. Hctor Olasolo, Unvrsty of Utrcht Ms. Mara Paula Saffon, Columba Unvrsty Ms. Torunn Salomonsn, Norwgan Mnstry of Justc Dr. Carstn Stahn, Ldn Unvrsty Dr. Jo Stgn, Unvrsty of Oslo Ms. Phlppa Wbb, Lgal Consultant Advsory Board Mr. Hrad Abtah, Lgal Advsr of th Prsdncy of th Intrnatonal Crmnal Court Profssor Ka Ambos, Gorg-August-Unvrstät Göttngn and Stat Court Göttngn Profssor Emrtus M. Chrf Bassoun, DPaul Unvrsty Profssor Jon Bng, Unvrsty of Oslo Mr. Glbrt Btt, Intrnatonal Crmnal Court FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 53

70 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law Rsarch Profssor J. Ptr Burgss, PRIO Judg Advocat Gnral Arn Wlly Dahl, Norway Profssor Emrtus Yoram Dnstn, Tl Avv Unvrsty Profssor Jon Elstr, Columba Unvrsty and Collèg d Franc Mr. Jams A. Goldston, Opn Socty Insttut Justc Intatv Mr. Rchard Goldston, formr Chf Proscutor, Intrnatonal Crmnal Trbunal for th formr Yugoslava Judg Hann Soph Grv, Gulatng Court of Appal, formrly Europan Court of Human Rghts Dr. Fabrco Guargla, Snor Appals Counsl, Offc of th Proscutor, Intrnatonal Crmnal Court Dr. Franz Gunthnr, Ludwg-Maxmlans-Unvrstät Mr. Chrstophr Kth Hall, Amnsty Intrnatonal Judg Hans-Ptr Kaul, Intrnatonal Crmnal Court Profssor Emrtus Frts Kalshovn, Ldn Unvrsty Judg Hans-Ptr Kaul, Intrnatonal Crmnal Court Judg Erkk Kourula, Intrnatonal Crmnal Court Dr. Claus Krss, Drctor of th Insttut for Crmnal Law and Crmnal Procdur, Cologn Unvrsty Profssor Davd Luban, Gorgtown Unvrsty Mr. Juan E. Méndz, Spcal Advsr to th ICC Proscutor on Crm Prvnton, formr Prsdnt, ICTJ Dr. Alxandr Mullr, Drctor, Th Hagu Insttut for th Intrnatonalsaton of Law Judg Erk Møs, Norwgan Suprm Court, formr Prsdnt, Intrnatonal Crmnal Trbunal for Rwanda Dr. Gro Nystun, Unvrsty of Oslo and Norwgan Dfnc Command and Staff Collg Mr. Wllam Pac, Convnr, Coalton for th Intrnatonal Crmnal Court Ms. Jlna Pjć, Intrnatonal Commtt of th Rd Cross Mr. Robrt Ptt, formr Intrnatonal Co-Proscutor, Extraordnary Chambrs n th Courts of Camboda Maj-Gn (rt d) Anthony P.V. Rogrs, Cambrdg Unvrsty Profssor Wllam A. Schabas, Natonal Unvrsty of Irland, Galway Profssor Jams Slk, Yal Law School Profssor Emrtus Otto Trfftrr, Salzburg Unvrsty Profssor Marcos Zll, Unvrsty of Sao Paulo FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 54

71 OTHER VOLUMES IN THE FICHL PUBLICATION SERIES Nobuo Hayash (dtor): Natonal Mltary Manuals on th Law of Armd Conflct Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Oslo, 2010 FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 2 (Scond Edton, 2010) ISBN Th Scond Edton was publshd 23 July 2010 Th Frst Edton was publshd 19 Dcmbr Mortn Brgsmo, Kjtl Hlvg, Ila Utmldz and Gorana Žagovc: Th Backlog of Cor Intrnatonal Crms Cas Fls n Bosna and Hrzgovna Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Oslo, 2010 FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 3 (Scond Edton, 2010) ISBN Th Scond Edton was publshd 23 July Th Frst Edton publshd 17 Sptmbr Mortn Brgsmo (dtor): Crtra for Prortzng and Slctng Cor Intrnatonal Crms Cass Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Oslo, 2010 FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 4 (Scond Edton, 2010) ISBN Th Scond Edton was publshd 23 July 2010 Th Frst Edton was publshd 26 March Mortn Brgsmo and Pablo Kalmanovtz (dtors): Law n Pac Ngotatons Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Oslo, 2010 FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 5 (Scond Edton, 2010) ISBN Th Scond Edton was publshd 23 July Th Frst Edton was publshd 26 March FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 55

72 Importng Cor Intrnatonal Crms nto Natonal Law Mortn Brgsmo, César Rodríguz Garavto, Pablo Kalmanovtz and Mara Paula Saffon (dtors): Dstrbutv Justc n Transtons Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Oslo, 2010 FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 6 (2010) ISBN Frst publshd 23 July Mortn Brgsmo (dtor): Complmntarty and th Exrcs of Unvrsal Jursdcton for Cor Intrnatonal Crms Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Oslo, 2010 FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 7 (2010) ISBN Frst publshd 23 July 2010 Mortn Brgsmo (dtor): Abbrvatd Crmnal Procdurs for Cor Intrnatonal Crms Torkl Opsahl Acadmc EPublshr Oslo, 2010 FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 9 (2010) ISBN Frst publshd 23 July 2010 All volums ar frly avalabl as -books on th FICHL hompag Papr cops may b ordrd onln at FICHL Publcaton Srs No. 1 (2010, Scond Edton) pag 56

73 NOTES:

74

75

76 F I CHLPubl c a t ons r sno. 1( 2010, S c onded t on) I mpor t ngcor I nt r nat onalcr ms nt onat onalla w Mor t nb r g s mo, Ma dsha r l ma ndnobuoha y a s h ( d t or s ) S t a t sa r obl g dund rt r a t ss uc ha st hg noc dcon v nt on, t hg n v acon v nt onsa ndt h T or t ur Con v nt ont o na c tl g s l a t ont ha tg v s f f c t nna t ona lc r m na ll a wt opr oh b t ons nt h t r a t s. Thl a wa ndpr a c t c of nt r na t ona l c r m na l j ur s d c t onspr ov dt ha t t ss g n f c a ntwh t h r na t ona l pr os c ut onsf orc onduc ta mount ngt og noc d, c r m sa g a ns thuma n t ya ndwa rc r m sc a n us t hc ha r a c t r z a t onof nt r na t ona l c r m sa ndnotj us tor d na r yc r m s( s uc ha smur d r ). S v r a l s t a t sha v a l r a dy mpor t dt h s nt r na t ona lc r m s nt ona t ona lc r m na ll a w -f or xa mpl, Ca na daa ndg r ma n y. Th spubl c a t on sba s donpr s nt a t onsma da tas m na ror g a n z db yt h F or umf ori nt r na t ona l Cr m na l a ndhuma n t a r a nl a w( F I CHL )on27oc t ob r2006f oc us donpa r t c ul a rc ha l l ng s nt hpr oc s st o mpor ts uc hc r m s nt ona t ona l l a w. I S BN