The Martens clause in International Criminal Law; the Nature and Interpretive Functions

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D Student in Public International Law, Public and International Law Department, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, International Law Department, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author).

3 Assistant Professor, Public and International Law Department, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Friedrich Van Marts, the representative of the Russian government, in the first Hague Peace Conference of 1899, stated that until a regular rule of war is compiled, the Contracting States would agree that in cases not included by the ratified provisions, civilian and hostile populations will continue to be protected by the principles of the rights of nations derived from established customs among civilized nations are considered as the principles of humanity and the call of public conscience. This statement, which became famous in the literature of international law as the Martens clause, has had objective effects in international criminal law. International criminal courts have resorted to the Martens Clause on various occasions. It can be stated by analyzing the verdicts and opinions of international criminal courts that the Martens Clause, generally in international law and international criminal law in particular has different capacities and functions. It is not easy to distinguish between these roles. Whether citing the Martens Clause is in line with the role of fixing problems or interpreting an ambiguous rule, or merely strengthening the court’s legal arguments is not very convincing and without controversy; since, the type of attitude towards the Martens Clause determines the identification of its effect in international criminal law. The present article by searching in the international judicial procedure, concludes that the role of interpretation and clearing (elimination) the ambiguity and obscurity of legal have had a special effect on the citation of international criminal courts on the Martens Clause. These various capabilities and capacities of the Martens Clause cause human society to use it constantly and as needed to achieve the desired situation and transition from the existing situation. Based on this, we have observed various objective functions of the Martens clause in international criminal law, and this process will continue in the future.

Keywords

References

  1. پیری، حیدر، سیدمحمد قاری سیدفاطمی، و سیدهادی محمودی، «کاربست استدلال قیاسی در نظام حقوق کیفری بین‌المللی؛ نبایدها، بایدها و شایدها»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری، سال نهم، شماره 35، تابستان 1400 ش.
  2. پیری، حیدر، و پریسا دهقانی، «نقش شرط مارتنس در تدوین و جرم‌انگاری جرایم بین‌المللی»، مجله مطالعات حقوقی، در دست چاپ.
  3. دهقانی، پریسا، محمدحسین رمضانی قوام‌آبادی، و محمدرضا علی‌پور، «مدخل‌های ورود و کارکردهای شرط مارتنس در حقوق کیفری بین‌المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری، سال نهم، شماره 35، تابستان 1400 ش.

Books & Articles

  1. Abi-Saab, Georges, “The Specificities of Humanitarian Law”, in: Christophe Swinarski (Ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet, Martinus Nijhoff, ICRC 1984.
  2. Arajärvi, Noora, The Changing Nature of Customary International Law: Methods of Interpreting the Concept of Custom in International Criminal Tribunals, London, Routledge, 2014.
  3. Bourbonnière, Michel, “Law of armed conflict (LOAC) and the neutralisation of satellites or ius in bello satellites”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 9(1), 2004.
  4. Cassese, Antonio, The Human Dimension of International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.
  5. , “The Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky?”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 11(1), 2000.
  6. Cerone, John, “The Jurisprudential Contributions of the ICTR to the Legal Definition of Crimes against Humanity—the Evolution of the Nexus Requirement”, New England Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 14(2), 2008.
  7. Evans, Tyler D., “At War with the Robots: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Martens Clause”, Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 41(3), 2013.
  8. Greenwood, Christopher J., “Belligerent Reprisals in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia”, in: Horst Fischer & Claus Kreß & Sascha Rolf Lüder (Eds.), International and National Prosecution of Crimes under International Law: Current Developments, Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz, Springer 2001.
  9. , “Historical Development and Legal Basis”, in: Dieter Fleck (Ed.), The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, OUP, 1995.
  10. Hansen, Michelle A., “Preventing the Emasculation of Warfare: Halting the Expansion of Human Rights Law into Armed Conflict”, Military Law Review, Vol. 194(1), Winter 2007.
  11. Hart, Herbert Lionel Adolphus, The Concept of Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 1994.
  12. Henderson, Ian, The Contemporary Law of Targeting: Military Objectives, Proportionality and Precautions in Attack under Additional Protocol I (International Humanitarian Law Series), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
  13. Howard, Michael & George J. Andreopoulos & Mark R. Shulman, The Laws of War, Constraints on Warfare in the Western World, Yale University Press, 1994.
  14. Klabbers, Jan, “The EJIL Foreword: The Transformation of International Organizations Law”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 26(1), 2015.
  15. Meron, Theodor, The Humanization of International Law, The Hague Academy of International Law, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.
  16. Orakhelashvili, Alexander, “Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 14(3), 2003.
  17. Pustogarov, Vladimir Vasilievich, “The Martens Clause in International Law”, Journal of the History of International Law, Vol. 1, 1999.
  18. Quéguiner, Jean-François, “Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88(864), December 2006.
  19. Salter, Michael, “Reinterpreting Competing Interpretations of the Scope and Potential of the Martens Clause”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 17(3), 2012.
  20. Salter, Michael & Maggi Eastwood, “Post-war Developments of the Martens Clause: The Codification of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ Applicable to Acts of Genocide”, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Vol. 2, 2011.
  21. Sarkin, Jeremy, “The Historical Origins, Convergence and Interrelationship of International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and Public International Law and Their Application Since the Nineteenth Century”, Human Rights & International Legal Discourse, Vol. 1, 2008.
  22. Schmitt, Michael N., “Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 50(4), 2010.
  23. Strebel, Helmut, “Martens Clause”, in: Rudolf Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 3, New York, Elsevier, 1982.
  24. Ticehurst, Rupert, “The Martens Clause and the Laws of Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 317, 1997.
  25. Trindade, Antônio Augusto Cançado, Co-Existence and Co-Ordination of Mechanisms of International Protection of Human Rights, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1987.
  26. von Bogdandy, Armin & Markus Rau, “The Lotus”, in: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2006.
  27. Wexler, Lesley M., “Limiting the Precautionary Principle: Weapons Regulation in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty”, UC (University of California) Davis Law Review, Vol. 39(2), 2006.

Documents & Cases

  1. Australian Statement – ICJ – Requests for Advisory Opinions on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, reprinted in Aust YB Int’l L 685, 1996.
  2. Control Council No.10 Trials, 954, 979 (US v. Altstoetter), 1951.
  3. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), ICJ Reports, 1949.
  4. ICJ Reports, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996.
  5. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Commentary of 1987, General principles and scope of application.
  6. International Law Commission (ILC), Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International law, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, 2006.
  7. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare: Measures to Implement Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88, 2006.
  8. Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV), 1899, 1907.
  9. Martic Case (Rule 61 of the ICTY’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence) ICTY-95-11-PT.
  10. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), ICJ Reports, 1986.
  11. Prosecutor v. Delalic at all (“Čelebići Case”), Appeals Chamber, Case No. IT-96-21-A, 20 February 2001.
  12. Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al. (Judgment) ICTY 95-16-T, 14 January 2000.
  13. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) ICTY-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995.
  14. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 10 August 1995 & IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999.
  15. Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilović, Trial Chamber I, Section A, Case No. IT-01-48-T, 16 November 2005.
  16. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998.
  17. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 9, Part II, 1338.
  18. United States v. Alfred Krupp et al., 15 Ann. Dig. 620, 622 (U.S. Mil. Trib. 1948).
  19. USA v. Altstoetter et al. (Justice case) 6 Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals (UN War Crimes Commission, 1948) (U.S. Mil. Trib. 1947).
  20. Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, Judgment, No. IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000.
  21. Conseil de Guerre de Bruxelles, KW (Judgement of 8 February 1950) 30 Revue de droit penal et de criminology, 1949-1950.
  22. ICJ, Verbatim Records, CR/95/22, 30 October 1995.
  23. ICJ, Verbatim Records, 15 November 1995, CR/95/34.
  24. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, IT-95-14, 30.5.2001.
  25. Kononov v. Latvia App no. 36376/04, ECtHR, 17 May 2010.
  26. First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977

 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics