Volume 71
Number 1
Spring 2014
The International Criminal |
24 |
Court and Lubanga: The |
|
Feminist Critique and |
|
Jus Cogens |
|
Eric Allen Engle |
|
Volume 71
Number 1
Spring 2014
The International Criminal |
24 |
Court and Lubanga: The |
|
Feminist Critique and |
|
Jus Cogens |
|
Eric Allen Engle |
|
Eric Allen Engle
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND LUBANGA: THE FEMINIST CRITIQUE AND JUS COGENS
The Lubanga decision,
despite procedural missteps, further anchors the prohibition
of child soldiers and child auxiliaries under international
law. Feminist criticisms of Lubanga misapprehend
the potential of Lubanga to attain the types of legal victories
feminists strive for. While one can criticize Lubanga as a matter of procedure,Lubanga methodically strengthens the pro- hibitionofchildsoldiery.Theprohibitionofchildsoldiers,liketheprohibition
of wartime rape, forced prostitution, and child
Introduction
Charles Lubanga was tried before the International Criminal Court (ICC) and found guilty of the war crime of recruiting and using child soldiers. De- spite arguments made by representatives of victims, the ICC pretermitted a decision as to whether subjecting young females to rape or forced marriage (essentially rape) constituted a violation of the statute prohibiting enlistment and recruitment of children into armed conflicts because the prosecution did not adduce evidence of sexual violence and did not rely on proof of such in making its case, while arguing that such crimes are prosecutable under the statute. The court held:
Regardlessofwhethersexualviolencemayproperlybeincludedwithinthescope of ‘using [children under the age of 15] to participate actively in hostilities’as a matter of law, because facts relating to sexual violence were not included in the Decision on the confirmation of Charges, it would be impermissible for the ChambertobaseitsDecisionpursuanttoArticle74(2)ontheevidenceintroduced during the trial that is relevant to this issue.”1
The decision did not, however, limit possible prosecution to direct par- ticipation in combat activities, saying “the decisive factor . . . is whether the support provided by the child to the combatants exposed him or her to real danger as a potential target.”2
The decision of the (ICC), though marked and possibly marred by proce- duralproblems,strengthenstheglobalnormagainstchildsoldiersandextends the prohibition of child soldiery to cover child auxiliaries. Thus, despite pro- cedural missteps, the Lubanga decision is a step in the right direction. Well-
_________________________
the international criminal court and lubanga |
25 |
intended feminist criticisms of Lubanga as ignoring sex and gender
aspects of the case do not recognize thatLubanga
expands the norm prohibiting child soldiers to cover
child auxiliaries, whether in national or international armed
conflicts. Because of this “build out” Lubanga
can serve as a stepping stone toward prohibition of war
time rape and forced prostitution, whether such
crimesareameansofgenocideoramotivationtosoldiery.TheLubanga deci- sion
implies that girl soldiers, child prostitutes and compelled
“child brides” are, like human shields and “entertainers,”
prohibited under international law as military auxiliaries
because they are subject to being targeted during
nationalandinternationalarmedconflicts.
Lubanga is, moreover, anotherstep toward
a jus cogens prohibition
of child soldiers, child auxiliaries, and child sex workers.3 The emerging global norm prohibits
the use of child soldiers because children cannot give fully
informed consent due to their lack of ex- perience
and maturity. So, despite well intended feminist and
Although the rule of international law
prohibiting child soldiery is cogent, it is relatively recent
and still emerging. The prohibition of child soldiery, like
most norms involving children under international law, is not
yet part of jus cogens,
i.e., a
This article first examines the procedural problems in Lubanga (I). Then it exposes and contextualizes the feminist critique of the Lubanga decision (II). It then examines the substantive law of child soldiers under international law (III). It concludes with an argument that prohibitions on child soldiery, like the crime of systematic rape in war, are becoming jus cogens rules of international law (IV).
I. Procedural Problems in Lubanga
TheICCseekstoendimpunityforgravebreachesofthemostseriousrules of international criminal law.12 The ICC is a hybrid of common law and civil law.13 This hybridization and the novel nature of the court explain why the first trial14 concluded at the ICC was characterized by procedural problems.15 Despite the obstacles, the Lubanga decision demonstrates the capacity of the ICCtoadjudicateinternationalcrimes.16 TheproceduralproblemsatLubanga
26 |
national lawyers guild review |
can be organized legally around the idea of the rights of the accused and practically in terms of the order in which they arose. The various procedural problems are all interrelated. They are discussed here in order of appearance.
A. Prosecutorial discretion
In any criminal justice system, the
prosecutor is vested with at least some degree of discretion
as to which crimes s/he wishes to prosecute. At the ICC the
“prosecutor … has the ability to determine which charges s/he
wishes to
B. Discovery and disclosure
The most evident procedural problem in Lubanga involved the right to discovery of confidential “lead” evidence18 and the prosecution’s duty to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence.19 That is, a conflict between pros- ecutorial power and the rights of the accused. “None of the statutes or rules of ICC tribunals provide clear guidance on how this conflict is to be resolved or articulate remedies when it cannot be.”20
Arelatedproblemisthequestionwhetherandtowhatextenttheprosecution
before the ICC may “outsource” evidence gathering to
C. Witness participation
Another problematic point in Lubanga was the participation of victims, whetheraswitnessesorobservers.23 Essentially,themultiplicityofparticipants resulted in a “layered judiciary” which complicated the proceedings.24 The problem was not merely due to the failings of the prosecutor. It was also due to the participation of so many persons whether as witnesses, observers, or active participants in the prosecution:25 “too many cooks spoil the broth,” so to speak. The trial became encumbered by too many participants with little relevance to the actual charged crime.
Victimparticipationisseenasapartoftherapeuticjurisprudence.Therapeutic jurisprudence is the idea that the victim has a legitimate interest in a court pro-
the international criminal court and lubanga |
27 |
ceeding which allows them to process their pain and move on from it, and that courtsshouldtakethisfactintoaccountalongsidepreventionandpunishmentas legitimate concerns of criminal law.Although the great number of participants bogged the trial down, some feminists criticized what they perceived as a lack of adequate witness participation26 to serve the therapeutic function.
D. Witness protection
Witness participation also raised the problem
of witness protection, which was related to the problems of
confidentiality (of witnesses) and disclosure of
exculpatoryevidencebytheprosecution.27 Therighttoconfrontone’saccusers
is recognized in common law under the rubric of “the right to
confrontation” of one’s accuser and in French law as one of
the “droits de la défense.” The right
to confrontation is a basic criminal procedural right of self
defense— how, after all, can one defend him or herself
properly without knowing the
accuser?Yethowareaccusersandwitnessestobeprotectedagainstreprisals?
This of course requires a “balancing” i.e., a comparison, of
the right of the accused to know his or her accuser and the
rights of accusers and witnesses not to face (illegal, out of
court)
E. Prosecutorial abuse:
Theexistenceofprosecutorialdiscretioncreatesthepossibilityoftheabuse
ofthatdiscretion.IntheLubanga trialthekeyproceduralproblemwasanabuse
of prosecutorial power: namely, the
II. The feminist critique of the Lubanga decision
Given the procedural missteps, criticism of
Lubanga is
understandable, although in my opinion misplaced.
The most strident criticism of Lubanga comes
from feminist quarters. That criticism is understandable,
because the prosecutor in Lubanga did
not charge gender or
28 |
national lawyers guild review |
cautious, perhaps overly cautious, in that regard.33 Thus, the Lubanga court tended to gloss over the sex and gender aspects of the systematic abuse of children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Here is a fairly typical example of the feminist critique::
Unfortunately,intheLubanga
A. Therapeutic jurisprudence
Part of the logic of hearing claims about
wartime rape and sex slavery is therapeutic. “By bringing
about appropriate charges, the victims are more apt to deal
with the physical violation.”35 Thus,
“legal representatives of female child soldiers spoke at
length during their opening statements not only about the fact
that girl soldiers had been subjected to various forms of
sexual and
B. Correct legal method
Given the activist criticisms of Lubanga, before addressing the substan- tive lex lata and lex ferenda in the field of child soldiers I wish to suggest the correct legal method so that future activism will be effective at attaining concrete results.
Internationallawisoftenrightlycriticizedforbeingambiguous(contradic- tory general principles)37 and uncertain (customs rise and
fall) and for lacking a central enforcement mechanism.38 Domestically, the state may seem
all- powerful, but internationally it is otherwise. States in
the international system are like fragile lifeboats, to which
we take refuge, in hopes of surviving the maelstrom, the winds
of war, disaster, and disease.39 We
cling to life like we cling to justice, and we have no choice
but to repair to the state for refuge. The state offers us not
only the means of our survival but also the means to the end
of the good life in society40 But
international society is anarchical41 and
prone to crises. Given the shaky state of international law,
ever changing and uncertain, I argue that the best activist
strategy is to work within existing recognized international
legal categories, to narrow, broaden, or extend them as
the international criminal court and lubanga |
29 |
the rule of law and substantive justice rather than to try to generate exotic novel claims on the basis of wild theories, which are likely to fail. There are pragmatic reasons I recommend an incremental approach such as we see in Lubanga. First, whyreinventthewheel?Progressinscienceoccursbytestingandrefininghypoth- eses, not by throwing them out at any time to generate new (untested) hypotheses. Second,courtsareskeptical.Third,doubtfulclaimsfailinthefaceoftheburdenof proof. A novel theory might seem exciting but will it lead anywhere? In contrast, building out from irrefutable rules to better and more refined rules, as theLubanga decision does, seems to be a more certain way to achieve justice and the rule of law than by gambling on radical grand theories which generally fail to be taken up in practice, despite (or because) of their novelty.Attractive norms persuade more oftenthantheycompel,andpeoplearemoreeasilypersuadedtoadapttowhatthey know rather than adopt what they do not know. It’s a question of effective advo- cacy, of what actually works in the real world, not the ivory tower or the barracks.
III. Substance: Child soldiers in international law
Lubanga is procedurally anegativeexample:ad astra per aspera. Asuccess despiteitself.However,substantively, Lubanga isapositiveexample.Thedeci- sion did not appear togoasfarassomefeministswouldhaveliked.However, in fact, Lubanga represents a strengthening of the norm against child soldiers and sets the stage for the types of legal victories feminists rightly strive for.
The international norm prohibiting child
soldiers may seem a
30 |
national lawyers guild review |
A.Structuring public international law: The law of war, international human rights law, and international criminal law
We can divide public international law into at least these branches: the law ofwar(alsoknownasinternationalhumanitarianlaw,consistingofjus ad bello and jus in bello),internationalhumanrightslaw,andinternationalcriminallaw.
Childsoldieryisanexampleofanareawherethelawsofwar(international
humanitarian
There is a gap between the international humanitarian law of Geneva and the international criminal law of Rome, a gap between the law we have and the law we need if we are to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian popula- tion caught in the midst of armed conflict. The Rome Statute of the ICC fails to fully enforce four core principles of humanitarian law designed to protect civilians:distinction,discrimination,necessity,andproportionality.Asaresult,it is possible for a combatant with a culpable mental state, without justification or excuse,andinviolationofhumanitarianlaw,tokillciviliansyetescapecriminal liability under the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute also ignores or misapplies threefundamentalcriminallawdistinctions:betweenconductoffensesandresult offenses, between material elements and mental elements, as well as between offenses and defenses.52
I don’t regard Haque’s claim as entirely well
founded, because ICL is intended only to inculpate the gravest
and most serious offenses: systematic intentional crimes
committed by “leaders” (demagogues,
the international criminal court and lubanga |
31 |
state actors, with relativized rights.” If there were a “gap” here, IHRL would be the bridge between duties of individuals and rights of states.
With this teleological understanding of the norm and an understanding of thestructureofinternationallaw(IHL,IHRL,ICL)wecannowtry toaddress the four refinements of the norm against child soldiers.
B. Structuring international humanitarian law:
The domestic/international and public/private splits
Just as we structure public international law into at least the three branches of IHL, IHRL, and ICL, we also structure international law generally using the domestic/international and public/private splits.
As can be seen from the treaties cited, the
prohibition of child soldiery is a “bifurcated” norm. Child
soldiery is prohibited in all four quadrants, (public/
private;
The “public/private” and
“national/international” splits structure law and hopefully
enable legal certainty and enable justice to be attained.
However,
theyalsocreateariskoffragmentation.Thenorm,whichseemssostraightfor- ward and
To understand the contours of the norm
against child soldiers we must understand these splits.
Historically, jus in belloand jus ad bellowere
largely if not exclusively coordinating
rules directed to state actors and
their agents. The main conflicts of the 19th Century and even
most conflicts of the 20th Century were international armed
conflicts between States. That is no longer the case. In
recent decades conflicts increasingly involve
32 |
national lawyers guild review |
1. Armed conflicts: National, international, or mixed
We just saw that we can divide public international law into at least IHL, IHRL, and ICL. We now examine the division within IHL between domestic armed conflict (internal armed conflicts) and conflicts between States (in- ternational armed conflicts). This structural split between two branches of IHL is reflected in both the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, which distinguish international from national armed conflicts,prohibitingtherecruitment(i.e.conscriptingorenlisting)54 oractive use of child soldiers in armed conflicts, at least by state parties.55 How did this bifurcation play out in Lubanga?
In the Lubanga trial
the prosecution only charged a violation of the law of
The Trial Chamber in contrast “relied on a relational concept of armed conflictbyfocusingonthestatusofthetwopartiestotheconflict”60 and started from the assumption, “that parallel conflicts of a different (legal) nature may
the international criminal court and lubanga |
33 |
take place at the same time in a single
territory.”61 The Trial Chamber
then characterized the armed conflict as
2.The public (state actor) and private
The problem of
C. Child auxiliaries in Lubanga
The international rule prohibiting child
soldiers specifically prohibits the “active participation” of
children. This raises the question of what is “ac- tive” or “direct” participation. “The
plausible interpretations of the ‘active participation’
requirement range from a very restrictive reading limiting the
participation to exclusively
Auxiliaries are not combatants. They are
combat support personnel. The
ghastlyexamplesarehumanshieldsandhumanlandmineremovers.Theseem- ingly benign versions are camp cooks,
transport drivers, and “entertainers”
34 |
national lawyers guild review |
war bride.” According to Lubanga,
and I think rightly, the prohibition of the use of child
soldiers also applies to child auxiliaries where the child
auxiliary
islikelytobetargetedbyenemycombatants.Theprohibitionofchildauxilia- ries is logical because auxiliaries
are often targeted and may be forced by the circumstances of
war to take up arms in
IV. The prohibition of child soldiery as jus cogens
The prohibition of child soldiery, like the
prohibition of wartime rape and
The theoretical basis of jus cogens is a late modern recurrence of natural law.78 Jus cogens literally means compelling right, i.e., the right of good con- science (cogens is etymologically related to cogent, for the cogent thought is compelled to coherence). Certain legal rules are inevitable because they are in themselves good and fair and thus attract adhesion and replication and tend to become universal in space and time.
The naturalistic fallacy is to confuse that which occurs in nature for that which ought to occur in nature. People who criticize all natural law reason- ing as flawed by this fallacy generally have a simplistic view of natural law,
the international criminal court and lubanga |
35 |
one that regards natural law as an
emanation of religious law.Amore refined critique invoking the
fallacy would attack natural law as
Aristotelian teleology regards nature not as
a static unchanging incompre- hensible
force.ToAristotle, nature is a dynamic process of
The prohibition of war crimes such as the use of child soldiers or of rape andprostitutionasameanstowagegenocideandwarissofundamentaltothe internationalsystemthatitshouldbeseenbyallstatesasaprohibitedpractice to any state. These war crimes are in fact dangerous to the international sys- tem as a system and so are of mutual and not merely several concern. Such a violation anywhere is in fact an injury to every state because the conduct cre- ates unpredictable instability (private and/or terrorist violence). The conduct moreoverisutterlyreprehensibleanduniversallycondemnedbothinnational and international law and is already subject to extraterritorial enforcement under national law. To put it starkly: child soldiers may grow up to become international terrorists. Thus, they are of global concern.
A. Child soldiers as slaves
Others have also argued that child prostitutes80 (“prostitots”) and child sol- diers are forms of slave labor and therefore prohibited by international law as jus cogens.81 The argument seems somewhat forced yet also has some merit. The essence of slavery is a complete lack of autonomy. Forced prostitution is fairly obviously a form of slavery. However, not all child soldiers are in fact conscripts, some are volunteers. Yet, children have limited capacity for autonomy and thus even the “voluntary” child soldier can be seen like the slaveashavingnorealautonomyandisavictimoflaborextraction.Although an interesting theory, the argument that child soldiery is a form of slave labor
36 |
national lawyers guild review |
and thus a jus cogens violation does not appear to have been pursued in the Lubanga decision. It is however a possible path to the determination that recruiting, enlistment or use of child soldiers is a violation of jus cogens.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Lubanga only appears to ignore gender. In fact, by build- ing a more solid and broader foundation for the prohibition of child soldiers to include auxiliaries, Lubanga sets the stage for an extension of jus cogens to prohibit child soldiery, forced prostitution, and wartime rape. Feminist critiques of Lubanga, while understandable, well intended, and directed to desirable goals are somewhat misplaced for failing to see Lubanga as a systematic construction and strengthening of the international rule of law. Rather than a denial of justice for women, Lubanga sets the stage for future
feminist legal victories.
__________________________
NOTES
1.Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case. No.
2.Id. at 286.
3.The jus cogens norm, like the norm erga omnes, concerns interests of the international legal systemquasystem.BarcelonaTraction,LightandPowerCompany,Limited(Belg.v.Spain), Judgment,1964I.C.J.Rep.1964(July24), available at http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/ decisions/1964.07.24_barcelona_traction.htm.All states severally share not only an interest in enforcement, but are moreover mutually injured in case of any violation of thejus cogens norm. The prohibition of child prostitution and sex tourism are not yet jus cogens norms, although universally condemned and sanctioned by national and international law, because the injury is still (wrongly) seen as to the individual, not to the international system as a whole. See, e.g., Eric Thomas Berkman, Responses To The International Child Sex Tourism
Trade, 19 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 397, 421 (1996).
4.
5.“In its 2010 Report to the United Nations
General Assembly, the ICC stated that there has been a
noticeable decrease in the use of child soldiers since the
ICC brought charges against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo in 2006.”
Robert Zuber & Saul Mendlovitz, The Prospects Of Abolishing War: A Proposal For
The 21st Century, 21 Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs.
6.“Moreover, the case has had a positive impact on the prevention of the use of child soldiers, andhasraisedawarenessoftheimpactofsuchcrimesonchildren.Forexample,itcontributedtothedemobilizationofthousandsofchildsoldiersinNepal.”KarenL.Corrie,International Criminal Law, 46 Int’l Law. 145, 148 (2012).
7.Practitioners and advocates of international criminal law frequently justify this body of law and its institutions on the basis of the deterrent effect that it has on those who might commit mass atrocities. Nevertheless, detailed studies by external critics in the past 20 years of globalised justice have strongly called into question this deterrence rationale as it lacks support in the historical record. Padraig McAuliffe, Suspended Disbelief? The Curious Endurance of the Deterrence Rationale in International Criminal Law, 10 N.Z.
J. Pub. & Int’l L. 227 (2012).
the international criminal court and lubanga |
37 |
8.Id. at 258:
At the Lubanga trial in 2010, the United Nations Special Envoy on Child Soldiers Radhika Coomaraswamy testified as an amicus curiae that the willingness of the ICC to prosecute cases of child soldier recruitment led armed groups to negotiate 14 action plans for the release of children who might otherwise have been pressed into military action, including 3000 in Nepal. Perhaps more tenuously, it has been suggested that the indictment of members of the Lord’s ResistanceArmy ‘cannot be discounted as one of the possible factors’ motivating its willingness to negotiate with the Ugandan govern- ment from July 2006.
9.Karen L. Corrie, International Criminal Law, 46 Int’l Law. 145, 148 (2012).
10.Jus cogens is “[a] mandatory norm of general international law from which no two or more nations may exempt themselves or release one another.”Black’s Law Dictionary 864 (7th ed. 1999). See also, Melina Milazzo, Military Commissions Act of 2006: A Regressive Step Back from the International Legal Standards of Rape and Sexual Violence, 35Fla. St. U. L.
Rev. 527, 536
11.Benjamin Pomerance, Not Just Child’s Play: Why Recognizing Fundamental Principles of
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as Jus Cogens Would Give Needed Power to an Important International Document, 16 Gonz. J. Int’l L. 1 (2013).
12.K’Shaani O. Smith, Prosecutor v. Lubanga: How the International Criminal Court Failed the Women and Girls of the Congo, 54 How. L.J. 467, 476 (2011).
13.“[C]ivil and common law judicial traditions merge in the ICC’s hybrid system of criminal procedure.” Corrie, supra note 9, at 147 (2012).
14.Alicia Mazurek, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo: The International Criminal Court as it Brings its First Case to Trial, 86 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 535 (2009).
15.Thecasewasnotwithoutdifficulties.Forexample,TrialChamberIstayedtheproceedings for approximately five months after it concluded in June 2008 that the Prosecution had notdisclosedtotheDefenseover200documentswhichcontainedpotentiallyexculpatory information or which were material to the Defense’s preparation, based on an incorrect use of article 54(3)(e) of the Rome Statute. In another example, the Prosecution’s first trial witness initially retracted his claim that he had served as a child soldier in the FPLC and said that an unnamed NGO told him what to say.”
Corrie, supra note
9, at
16.Id. at 148.
17.Smith, supra note 12, at 475.
18.Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 54(3)(e).
19.Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 67(2).
20.Alex Whiting, Lead Evidence and Discovery Before the International Criminal Court: The
Lubanga Case, 14 UCLA J. Int’l L. & Foreign Aff. 207 (2009).
21.Dr.CarolineBuisman,DelegatingInvestigations:LessonsToBeLearnedFromTheLubanga Judgment, 11 Nw. U. J. Int’l Hum. Rts. 30 (2013).
22.The security concerns outlined above [regarding investigation and intimidation] are not new to the ICC. Investigators from other international criminal tribunals have had to carry out investigations in difficult and volatile circumstances. This particularly holds true for the ICTY investigators, who had to operate while the war was still ongoing in parts of the former Yugoslavia. The ICTY was also successful in that all its suspects from all warring parties have eventually been surrendered to it. The ICTR was similarly successful in managing to try most indictees (although on many other fronts, the ICTR is not exemplary).
Id. at 147.
23.Id.
24.“The tendency of this layered judiciary to
complicate proceedings.” Diane Marie Amann, Prosecutor v.
Lubanga. Case No.
38 |
national lawyers guild review |
25.The trial chamber laid the blame for the
shortcomings ofLubanga at
the foot of the man to whom it pointedly referred as ‘the
former Prosecutor.’That is too easy an evaluation, for the
case revealed other sources of strain, among them the ICC’s
novel,
Id.
26.SusanaSáCouto,VictimParticipationAtTheInternationalCriminalCourtAndTheExtraor- dinary Chambers In The Courts Of Cambodia: A Feminist Project?, 18 Mich. J. Gender & L. 297 (2012).
27.KaiAmbos,ConfidentialInvestigations(Article54(3)(E)ICCStatute)vs.DisclosureObliga-
28.KaiAmbos, The First Judgment of the International Criminal Court (Prosecutor v. Luban- ga): A Comprehensive Analysis of the Legal Issues (2012), 12 Int’l. Crim. L. Rev. 115 (2012), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2030751 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2030751.
29.A recurring question in international criminal procedure is how to ensure that prosecu- tors are held accountable for their errors and misconduct. When International Criminal
Court (ICC) judges encountered the first serious error by the prosecution in Prosecutor v. Lubanga, they opted for an absolutist approach to remedies: the judges stayed the proceedings and ordered the release of the defendant. Although termination of the case was avoided through the intervention of the Appeals Chamber.
Jenia Iontcheva Turner, Policing International Prosecutors, 45 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol.
175, 175 (2012).
30.Victor Tsilonis, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo: The Chronicle of a Trial Foretold? 5Intellectum
31.Bruce Zagaris, Tribunal Orders Release Of Lubanga After Suspending Trial For Prosecuto- rial Misconduct, 24 No. 9 Int’l Enforcement L. Rep. 372 (2008).
32.[A]lthough Lubanga was not charged with sexual
or
SáCouto, supra note
26, at
33.“[T]hese crimes are seen as a ‘detour, a deviation, or the acts of renegade soldiers . . .
peggedtoprivatewrongsand...[thus]notreallythesubjectofinternationalhumanitarian
law.’Therefore, despite the enumerated list of
34.Solange Mouthaan, Victim Participation
at the ICC for Victims of
35.Smith, supra note 12, at 486.
36.SáCouto, supra note
26 at
37.Eric Allen Engle, Humanitarian
Intervention and Syria, 18 Barry L. Rev. 1 (2012), avail- able at
the international criminal court and lubanga |
39 |
38.Eric Engle, U.N. Packing the State’s Reputation? A Response to Professor Brewster’s ‘Un- packingtheState’sReputation’,114Penn Statim 34(2010),available at http://lexnet.co.cc/ international/114 PennStatim34.htm.
39.“ACOMMONWEALTH, or STATE which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended.” Thomas
Hobbes, Leviathan, “Introduction,”
1 (1651). “[T]hat mortal god to which we owe, under the
immortal God, our peace and defence.”
Id. at ch. XVII. “A state should be
so consti- tuted as to live for
ever. For a commonwealth, there is no natural dissolution, as
there is for a man, to whom death not only becomes necessary,
but often desirable. And when a state once decays and falls,
it is so utterly revolutionized, that if we may compare great
things with small, it resembles the final wreck of the
universe.” Marcus
Tullius Cicero, Treatise on the Commonwealth,
(54 B.C.) (trans. Frances Barham, Esq.,
40.“Whenseveralvillagesareunitedinasinglecompletecommunity,largeenoughtobenearly
or quite
41.Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, A Study of Order in World Politics, (3d ed.
2002).
42.While the use of children in armed conflict is not necessarily a new concept, it is only relativelyrecentlythatinternationallawhasbeenspecificallydirectedtowardsaddressing it.Since1977,anumberofinternationallegalinstrumentshaveattemptedtosetstandards to prevent the recruitment and use of children in this way.
Steven Freeland, Mere Children or Weapons of War - Child Soldiers and International Law,
LaVerne L. Rev. 19, 29 (2008), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1306169 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1306169.
43.“Parties to the conflict shall take all
feasible measures in order that children who have not
attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part
in hostilities and, in particular, they
shallrefrainfromrecruitingthemintotheirarmedforces.”ProtocolAdditionaltotheGeneva
44.“State Parties to the present Charter shall take all necessary measures to ensure that no child shall take a direct part in hostilities and refrain in particular, from recruiting any child.” African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child art. 22 (1990), available at http:// www.achpr.org/instruments/child/#a22.
45.RomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.183/9*,2187U.N.T.S. 90 (1998).
46.“[S]hall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities” and “shall refrain from recruiting any personwhoasnotattainedtheageoffifteenyearsintotheirarmedforces.” OptionalProtocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 38, May 25, 2000 (on the involvement of children in armed conflict), available at http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?d ocumentId=24CAD49E85523D5941256937002F7220&action=openDocument.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly
(without reference to a Main Committee (A/54/L.84)) 54/263;
Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, G.A. Res. 24 54/263, May 25, 2000 (on the involvement
of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography), available
at http://www.
47.
48.Tracey B. C. Begley, The Extraterritorial Obligation to Prevent the Use of Child Soldiers,
27 Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 613 (2012).
40 |
national lawyers guild review |
49.ChristopherGreenwood,CustomaryStatusofthe1977GenevaProtocols, in Humanitarian
Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead:
50.Others also argue that the rights of children should be seen as jus cogens. See, e.g., Ladan
Askari,Girls’RightsUnderInternationalLaw:AnArgumentforEstablishingGenderEqual- ity as a Jus Cogens, 8 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 3 (1998).
51.“Child sex tourism is widely recognized as a universal crime.” Joanna Doerfel, Regulating
Unsettled Issues In Latin America Under The Treaty Powers And The Foreign Commerce
Clause, 39 U. Miami
92 Mich. B.J. 44 (Nov. 2013).
52.Adil Ahmad Haque, Protecting And Respecting Civilians: Correcting The Substantive And
Structural Defects Of The Rome Statute, 14 New Crim. L. Rev. 519 (2011).
53.Civilians are protected during armed conflict by two bodies of law that differ from one another both in their institutional function and in their conceptual structure. International humanitarian law, particularly as embodied inAdditional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, is designed to guide the prospective conduct of military commanders and soldiers on the battlefield. Armed forces are first to distinguish between civilians and enemy combatants; then to direct attacks only at enemy combatants and not at civilians; then to plan and carry out attacks in a manner that avoids or at least minimizes harm to civilians; and finally to refrain from attacks that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians in relation to the military advantage the attacks would achieve. By contrast, in- ternationalcriminallaw,particularlyasembodiedintheRomeStatuteoftheInternational CriminalCourt,isdesignedtoguidetheretrospectiveevaluationofpastoffensesbycourts. Courts are first to establish the commission of a criminal offense by the defendant; then to consider any justifications, excuses, or other defenses the defendant may assert with respect to that offense; then to acquit or convict the defendant; and finally to impose an appropriate punishment.
Haque, supra note 52 at 520.
54. For example, in the Lubanga decision,
Although it ruled that conscription typically carries an element of compulsion while enlistment is voluntary, it reasoned that children under fifteen were not entitled to choose to fight, so that enrollment of a child under fifteen in an armed force was illegal ‘with or without compulsion,’ (id., para. 618). As for use, a majority of the chamber construed the phrase ‘to participate actively in hostilities’ to include a child’s support to combatants, if it ‘exposed him or her to real danger as a potential target,’ (id., para. 628). The construction expanded the proscription to use beyond ‘the immediate scene of the hostilities’, (id.), yet appeared to exclude children victimized not by the enemy but, rather, by the militia that had recruited them.
Amann, supra note
24 at
55.Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 8(2)(b) (“Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:”), available at http:// untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm.
the international criminal court and lubanga |
41 |
56.Thomas Liefländer, The Lubanga Judgment of the ICC: More than Just the First Step?,
1 Cambridge J. Int’l & Comp. L. 191, 193 (2012), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2183881.
57.ICC Statute of Rome, Article 8(2)(b) provides:
Otherseriousviolationsofthelawsandcustomsapplicableininternationalarmedconflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 8(2)(b) (emphasis added).
58.Ambos, The First Judgment of the International Criminal Court, supra note 28 at 129.
59.Liefländer, supra note 56 at 199.
60.Id.
61.Ambos, The First Judgment of the International Criminal Court, supra note 28 at 129.
62.ICC, Regulations of
the Court, adopted 26 May 2004, as amended 14
June and 14 No- vember 2007,
(amendments entering into force 18 December 2007) (“the
Chamber may change the legal characterisation of facts to
accord with the crimes under articles 6, 7 or 8, or to accord
with the form of participation of the accused under articles
25 and 28, without exceeding the facts and circumstances
described in the charges and any amendments to the charges.”),available at
63.Ambos,TheFirstJudgmentoftheInternationalCriminalCourt,supranote28.TheLubanga decisionappliesthemorerelaxed“overallcontroltest”firstenunciatedinProsecutor v. Tadic,
ICTY,
64.Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides:
(e)Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of aninternationalcharacter,withintheestablishedframeworkofinternationallaw,namely, any of the following acts:
(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 8(2)(e)(vii).
65.[A]s a consequence of the Chamber’s move to a
Ambos, The First
Judgment of the International Criminal Court, supra note 28 at
66.MatthewHappold,ChildRecruitmentasaCrimeundertheRomeStatuteoftheInternational
CriminalCourt(February5,2010),in The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court: Essays In Memory Of Igor Blischenko 2 (José Doria, et al, eds., 2010),available
at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=979916.
67.WhileLubanga,followingtheTadic decisionoutoftheICTYappliedtheoverallcontroltest
fordeterminingliabilityforhumanrightsviolationsperpetratedbyproxies,see note61supra, there remains a doctrinal question on
this point.The International Court of Justice following its
earlier decision in The United States v.
Nicaragua, ruled in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and
Montenegro, 46, no 2 I.L.M. 185 (Feb. 26, 2007) that
the proper test was the “effective control” test not the more
malleable “overall control” test of Prosecutor
v. Tadic,
42 |
national lawyers guild review |
direct and continuous control over the
otherwise separate, or perhaps
ICTY Case No.
In any event the ICJ reverted to the Nicaragua test and applying that test found that it had not been proved that the authorities of the FRY had issued instructions to the army of the Republicka Srpska to commit the massacres and that it was not an organ of the FRY. The FRYdid not exercise the required effective control and this case ends the doctrinal debate on the test of attribution under Article 8 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility. Nonethe- less, Lubanga provides strong support for application of the overall control test outside of the state responsibility area and this writer argues that at least in the Tadic war crimes area the ICC was correct to adopt the overall control test. This more relaxed test will encourage adherence to IHL and ICL and will make proxy war violations of IHRL more difficult.
68.Liefländer, supra note 56 at 194.
69.Ambos, The First Judgment of the International Criminal Court, supra note 28 at 137.
70.[T]he Chamber distinguished the notion of
active participation in hostilities from the more common
international humanitarian law notion of direct
participation, a move that has already given rise to
criticism. The Chamber stated that: Those who participate
actively in hostilities include a wide range of individuals,
from those on the front line (who participate directly)
through to the boys or girls who are involved in a myriad of
roles that support the combatants. All of these activities,
which cover either direct or indirect
participation,haveanunderlyingcommonfeature:thechildconcernedis,atthe
very least, a potential target. The decisive factor,
therefore, in deciding if an ’indirect’ role is to be
treated as active participation in hostilities is whether
the support provided by the child to the combatants exposed
him or her to real danger as a potential target. In the
judgment of the Chamber these combined
Liefländer, supra note 56 at 201.
71.“[T]here exist in the general positive international law of today certain fundamental rules of international public order contrary to which States may not validly contract.” Rep. of the Int’l Comm’n, ¶ 18, U.N. Doc. A/5601, 15th Sess. (Nov. 6, 1963); UN GAOR, 18th Sess. (1963).
72.Megan Nobert, Children At War: The Criminal Responsibility of Child Soldiers, 3 No. 1
Pace Int’l L. Rev. Online Companion 1 (2011).
73.See, e.g., Kane v. Winn, 319 F. Supp. 2d 162, 202 n.62 (D.Mass. 2004) (citing Ted L. Stein,
The Approach of a Different Drummer: The Principle of the Persistent Objector in Interna- tional Law, 26 Harv. Int’l L.J. 457 (1985)). Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Nor.), 1951 I.C.J. 116, 131 (Dec. 18).
74.On persistent objectors generally, see, e.g., Lynn Loschin, The Persistent Objector and Customary Human Rights Law:AProposedAnalytical Framework 2 U.C. Davis J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 148 (1996).
75.Louis Henkin, 216 Recueil Des Cours,
76.Criminal violations of jus cogens principles (genocide, grave violations of the Geneva Conventions,andCrimesagainstHumanity)aresubjecttopermissiveuniversaljurisdiction.
the international criminal court and lubanga |
43 |
Under one construal of this principle a willing nation may not onlyprosecute such violations of international criminal it can expect that a second nation, holding an alleged violator, must either prosecute or extradite to the nation willing to undertake such prosecution. See, e.g.,
Ronald C. Slye & Beth Van Schaack, Essentials of International Criminal Law
Lords, id. Stipendiary Mag., ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [1999] 1 A.C. 147, refused to accept the prior holding by the earlier panel and ruled that the jus cogens norm against torture could only be enforced for extradition purposes not from the undoubted emergence of the norm but only from the date of ratification by the UK. Specifically that court held:
Since torture outside the United Kingdom was not a crime under UK law until [the date of ratification of CAT] the principle of double criminality which requires an Act to be a crime under both the law of Spain and of the United Kingdom cannot be satisfied in relation to conduct before date[because] the principle of double criminality requires the conduct to be criminal under United Kingdom law at the date it was committed.
Id. Thus, the House of Lords rejected extradition under the principal of universal jurisdic- tion based solely upon the principle of jus cogens. The UK required rather that extradition could occur only after both the UK and Chile had ratified CAT thus satisfying the principle of double criminality by making torture a crime under UK law wherever in the world that it occurred. This narrow interpretation of universal jurisdiction notwithstanding, it appears that permissive universal jurisdiction for violation of just cogens principles is increasingly comingtorequirethatanationprosecutesuchcriminalsorextraditethemtoawillingnation.
77.On the definition of jus cogens and its relation to erga omnes norms see, e.g., M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Crimes: “Jus Cogens” and “Obligatio Erga Omnes,” 59 Law & Contemporary Problems 63 (1996), available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1192190.
78.MaryEllenO’Connell,JusCogens:InternationalLaw’sHigherEthicalNorms,in The Role of Ethics in International Law,(DonaldEarlChildress,III,ed.,2012);NotreDameLegal
Studies Paper No.
79.OnAristotle’stheoryoflawandjusticesee, e.g.,EricAllenEngle,Aristotle,Law,andJustice: The Tragic Hero, 35 N. Ky. L. Rev. 1 (2008).
80.Eric Thomas Berkman, Responses To The International Child Sex Tourism Trade, 19 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 397, 421 (1996) (“Sexual exploitation of children is not classified among these crimes of a ‘universal concern,’ but perhaps it might be considered a form of slave trade, which is covered by the universality principle.”)
81.SusanTiefenbrun,ChildSoldiers,SlaveryandtheTraffickingofChildren,31Fordham Int’l
L. J. 415,