Suchergebnisse

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states conducted a bombing campaign, referred to as Operation Allied Force, against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) from 24 March to 9 June 1999. The conduct of the bombing campaign has been subjected to a degree of outside scrutiny, particular by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Office of the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (OTP ICTY). This outside scrutiny process is not unprecedented. In particular, following the Gulf Conflict of 1990–91, Human Rights Watch produced a study entitled 'Needless Deaths in the Gulf War' and Greenpeace produced 'On Impact: Modern Warfare and the Environment, A Case Study of the Gulf War.' In addition, the United States Department of Defence (USDOD), which was not an outside scrutineer, produced a Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War which included an Appendix O on 'The Role of the Law of War.'

The place of necessity and proportionality in restraints on the forceful actions of States --Necessity --Proportionality --The practical significance of necessity and proportionality in modern times --Necessity, proportionality and the forceful actions of States prior to the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945 --The origins of necessity and proportionality in hostile actions between States --War as a sovereign right of States: the demise of ius ad bellum --The revival of ius ad bellum in the twentieth century --Measures short of war --Proportionality and the emerging independent ius in bello --Proportionality and IHL between the two World Wars --Proportionality and combatants in modern international humanitarian law --Developments in weapons control --The ambit of the prohibition on superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering --The suppression of breaches of the requirements of proportionality with respect to combatants --Proportionality and civilians in modern international humanitarian law --Proportionality in the United Nations era --Proportionality and non-international armed conflicts --Protocol II to the Conventional Weapons Convention --The suppression of breaches of the requirements of proportionality in IHL --Necessity, proportionality and the unilateral use of force in the era of the United Nations Charter --The resort to unilateral force under the United Nations Charter --The content of necessity in self-defence under the United Nations Charter.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LAW -- Francis G. Jacobs -- PROPORTIONALITY AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS -- Jeremy McBride -- THE EFFECT OF PROPORTIONALITY ON THE ACTIONS OF MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY:NATIONAL VIEWPOINTS FROM CONTINENTAL EUROPE -- Walter van Gerven -- PROPORTIONALITY IN EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LAW: SEARCHING FOR THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF SCRUTINY -- Takis Tridimas -- UNREASONABLENESS AND PROPORTIONALITY IN UK LAW -- Paul Craig -- THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY UPON UK LAW -- The Rt. Hon. Lord Hoffmann -- PROPORTIONALITY AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 -- David Feldman -- PROPORTIONALITY AND THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT IN THE UK -- Nicholas Green -- THE CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY IN EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SEX DISCRIMINATION LAW -- Evelyn Ellis

This Article addresses the report by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) concerning war crimes allegedly committed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the conduct of its war with Yugoslavia. International law regarding the conduct of war, or jus in bello, governs what are popularly thought of as "war crimes." This body of law is currently in flux; while the OTP is not in any sense a rule-making body, its actions may give some guidance as to the direction that the development of this body of law will follow.The OTP considered NATO attacks on twenty-one targets in Yugoslavia as possible violations of existing jus in bello norms. The OTP categorized the issues raised by the accusations under the headings of environmental damage, use of depleted uranium projectiles, use of cluster bombs, and improper target selection. The first and last categories have the potential for the greatest impact on the formation of normative expectations regarding the conduct of war. The fourth problem can also be divided into two major subcategories: problems of discrimination and problems of proportionality. In each instance, the OTP found that NATO's actions did not violate existing norms, although in one instance the panel found itself divided. These outcomes were correct. The reasoning underlying the outcomes, though, is troubling. The rules of law it states and applies would exonerate not only NATO, but also the perpetrators of far more deliberate and destructive acts. The OTP seems to ignore the development of the jus in bello during the past decade, and perhaps during the past three decades. While the OTP is to be applauded for its decisions, its report nonetheless contains troubling assumptions about current normative expectations relating to the conduct of war.¶