Human Rights in Armed Conflicts: The Role of International Criminal Courts

Abstract 

Some of the most serious risks to human rights are seen in armed conflicts, such as the  deployment of child soldiers, enforced disappearances, sexual violence, torture, and attacks on  civilians. Despite the protections offered by international humanitarian law (IHL) and  international human rights law (IHRL), widespread impunity results from a lack of national  enforcement. By bringing charges against those guilty of crimes against humanity, war crimes,  and genocide, international criminal courts (ICCs and ad hoc tribunals) are essential in filling  these gaps. Their case law explains how IHL and IHRL are applied, discourages future  transgressions, and gives victims acknowledgement and compensation. Accountability is still  improved by reforms, hybrid tribunals, and universal jurisdiction procedures, despite obstacles  including political meddling, narrow jurisdiction, resource shortages, and bias perceptions. A  robust worldwide commitment to eradicating impunity and defending fundamental human rights  even in the face of armed conflict is reflected in the developing network of international and  hybrid tribunals. In order to translate international legal norms into legally binding accountability  and strengthen the defense of human rights in the most dire situations of war, this essay  emphasizes the critical role that international criminal courts play.i

Introduction 

First of all, according to international law, an armed conflict occurs when organized armed  groups commit prolonged acts of violence against one another or against a state, intensifying to a  degree that surpasses simple internal unrest or isolated violent incidents.  

Any declared war or armed confrontation between governments, even if one does not  acknowledge a state of war, is covered under Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva  Conventions.ii 

In times of armed conflict, international criminal courts are now essential for upholding human  rights norms. These tribunals fill the gaps created by national jurisdictions and uphold  international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law (IHRL) by prosecuting individuals  for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Their jurisprudence advances  responsibility and deterrence in war zones by not only punishing offenders but also elucidating  the rights due to both soldiers and civilians.iii 

Human Rights violations in Armed conflicts 

Numerous and serious human rights breaches are frequently the result of armed conflicts,  impacting not just fighters but also civilians and aid workers. Indiscriminate attacks and the  willful targeting of civilians are frequent infractions that violate Additional Protocol I, Article  51, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. There are also many cases of torture,  harsh or humiliating treatment, and arbitrary imprisonment, which violate the Geneva  Conventions III and IV, Article 7 of the ICCPR, and Article 2 of the Convention against  Torture.iv 

Rape and sexual enslavement are examples of sexual violence that is commonly used as a  weapon of war; in Prosecutor v Akayesu (1998), the ICTR acknowledged that these acts  constituted crimes against humanity and genocide. Article 38 of the CRC and Article 8 of the  Rome Statute are violated by the recruitment and use of child soldiers, and the suffering of impacted populations is further increased by enforced disappearances, ethnic cleansing, and  attacks on vital services. In addition to undermining the fundamental rights to life, dignity, and  security, these abuses also show how important it is for international legal systems and tribunals  to hold offenders accountable and safeguard vulnerable groups during times of conflict.v 

Legal framework protecting Human Rights in Armed  Conflicts  

International humanitarian law (IHL), international human rights law (IHRL), and international  criminal law are used in tandem to protect human rights during armed conflicts. IHL is still  based on the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Murder, torture, brutal treatment, hostage-taking, and  unfair trials are all forbidden by Common Article 3, which applies to non-international armed  conflicts. Specific conventions provide additional protections: Geneva Convention I (Articles 12  and 15) protects the sick and injured; Convention II (Articles 12 and 18) provides shipwrecked  combatants with similar protections; Convention III (Articles 13–16) ensures that prisoners of  war are treated humanely; and Convention IV (Articles 27–34 and 47–78) protects civilians’  safety and dignity by outlawing torture, collective punishment, and deportation. These safeguards are extended by the Additional Protocols of 1977: Targeting civilians is  forbidden by Protocol I, Article 51, while Article 75 establishes essential rights, such as the  prohibition of torture and humiliating treatment. Similar prohibitions on murder, slavery, sexual  violence, and collective punishments in non-international armed conflicts are found in Protocol  II, Articles 4–6, which also protect the right to a fair trial.vi 

International criminal law, especially the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court  (1998), offers accountability procedures that supplement IHL. Genocide is made illegal by  Article 6, crimes against humanity including torture, rape, and enforced disappearance are  defined by Article 7, and war crimes like attacking civilians and using child soldiers are covered by Article 8. Crucially, Articles 25 and 27 uphold accountability even for leaders of state by  guaranteeing individual criminal culpability and rejecting immunity based on official capacity.

In the meantime, armed conflict is nonetheless subject to international human rights accords.  Non-derogable rights including the right to life (Article 6) and the prohibition of torture (Article  7) are upheld by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), which  also safeguards liberty (Article 9) and the right to a fair trial (Article 14). The fundamental rights  to life, dignity, and legal recognition cannot be compromised, even though Article 4 permits  exceptions in emergency situations. Under Article 2 of the Convention against Torture (CAT,  1984), torture is categorically forbidden in all situations, including times of war. Article 4  requires nations to make such acts illegal. 

Similarly, while the Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict (2000, Art. 1) raises the  limit to 18, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989), particularly Article 38,  forbids the recruitment and involvement of children under 15 in hostilities.  Additional support is given by regional human rights instruments. Articles 2 and 3 of the  European Convention on Human Rights, which are unalienable even during times of war,  guarantee the right to life and forbid torture. 

In a similar vein, the American Convention on Human Rights (Articles 4 and 5) affirms life and  humane treatment, while the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Articles 4 and 5)  protects life, dignity, and freedom from slavery and torture. When taken as a whole, these  clauses establish a thorough framework that upholds the durability of human rights in armed  situations and offers channels for responsibility through both international criminal prosecutions  and state commitments.vii 

The role of International Criminal Courts in Armed  conflicts 

In armed conflicts, the main function of international criminal tribunals is to safeguard the  protections provided by international humanitarian and human rights law by enforcing  accountability in cases where national jurisdictions are unable to do so. These tribunals tackle the  culture of impunity that frequently envelops armed conflicts by bringing charges against individuals for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Serious crimes of  international law can occur even in non-international conflicts, as demonstrated by the  International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) reasoning in Prosecutor v Tadić (1997)viii. Similarly, in Prosecutor v Akayesu (1998), the International Criminal Tribunal  for Rwanda (ICTR) expanded the recognition of human rights safeguards during times of war by  establishing that sexual violence and rape can be considered acts of genocide.ix Articles 25 and 27 of the Rome Statute guarantee that people, including heads of state, can be  held personally accountable, whereas Articles 6–8 of the ICC criminalize genocide, crimes  against humanity, and war crimes. Beyond punishing offenders, these tribunals also help to  clarify and advance international law, deter future violations, and give victims recognition and,  in certain situations, compensation (Rome Statute, Art. 75). International criminal courts serve as  crucial tools in this regard, bridging the gap between the rules as written and their actual  application.x 

ICTY and ICTR: Bridging Gaps 

The ICTY’s landmark Tadić Appeals Judgment upheld the validity of human rights standards,  including the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocent, in international military  tribunals and established what constitutes armed conflict under IHL.xi Sexual violence was  elevated to a fundamental international crime when the ICTY ruled in Prosecutor v Furundžija that rape during a conflict is a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions and a crime against  humanity. The Akayesu Trial Judgment of the ICTR found that sexual assault against civilians  constituted crimes against humanity and genocide when it was carried out with the intention of  eradicating a protected group, and thus expanded the definition of genocide to include acts of  sexual violence.xii

The International Criminal Court: A Permanent Mechanism 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created in 1998 by the Rome Statute, which  established a permanent court with global jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes,  and genocide. In situations ranging from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Darfur, the  ICC has issued arrest warrants and held trials since coming into operation in 2002. This has  advanced jurisprudence on child soldier recruitment (Lubanga), sexual slavery (Katanga), and  child soldier conscription (Ntaganda). The ICC only steps in when national systems are unable  or unwilling to investigate and prosecute fundamental international crimes domestically, in  accordance with the Rome Statute’s complementarity principlexiii.xiv 

Challenges facing International Criminal Courts 

Notwithstanding their successes, international criminal courts still have a lot of obstacles to  overcome, such as getting arrests, overseeing drawn-out hearings, and guaranteeing victim  involvement and compensation. The Rome Statute’s complementarity principle (Article 17)  restricts jurisdiction to situations in which national courts are incapable or unwilling to take  action, hence diminishing the court’s reach in non-cooperative governments. Perceptions of prejudice, including allegations that the ICC unfairly singles out African nations, political  meddling, and a lack of state participation all threaten credibility and make enforcement more  difficult. Further delaying justice include a lack of resources, intricate legal problems such  establishing intent or command responsibility, and security threats to victims, witnesses, and  judges. 

However, continuous reforms, such as improved outreach and simplified processes, as well as  the creation of hybrid tribunals and universal jurisdiction in national courts, are meant to  improve efficiency and local ownership, which will strengthen accountability and the defense of  human rights in armed conflicts.xv

Conclusion 

In summary, armed conflicts present serious risks to human rights, such as assaults on civilians,  sexual assault, torture, enlistment of child soldiers, enforced disappearances, and the devastation  of vital services. Human rights treaties and international humanitarian law offer strong  protections, but national enforcement is frequently lax, leaving gaps that allow impunity. By  criminalizing the most serious infractions and creating authoritative jurisprudence on the  junction of IHL and IHRL, international criminal courts have revolutionized the protection of  human rights in armed conflicts. They give justice and acknowledgment for victims, define legal  standards, prosecute those for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and  discourage similar acts in the future. 

Despite obstacles like perceived prejudice, limited jurisdiction, political meddling, and resource  shortages, accountability mechanisms are being strengthened by continuous reforms, hybrid  tribunals, and the universal jurisdiction principle. Even in the face of war’s devastation, the  growing network of ad hoc, hybrid, and permanent tribunals shows a strong commitment to  eradicating impunity and defending civil rights. In the end, the creation and functioning of  international criminal courts show how committed the world community is to making sure that  abuses committed during armed conflict are neither legal nor unpunished.xvi

References 

i Gary D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflicts: International Humanitarian Law in War (2010). Christine Gray, International Law and the use of force, 3rd ed. (2008) 

ii Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions 

iii Rebecca M.M. Wallace & Kenneth Dale-Risk, International Human Rights, 2nd Ed. (2001)

iv Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed  Forces in the Field (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31

v Prosecutor v Akayesu (1998) 

vi Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed  Forces in the Field (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31 

vii Rona, G. (2005). Interesting Times for International Humanitarian Law: Challenges from the  ‘War on Terror’*. Terrorism and Political Violence, 17(1–2), 157–173.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550590520645 

viii Prosecutor v Tadić (1997) 

ix Prosecutor v Akayesu (1998) 

x Francisco Forrest Martin, et. al, International Human Rights & Humanitarian Law (2008)

xi Prosecutor v Tadic 

xii Prosecutor v Furundzija 

xiii Anne Orford, International Authority and the Responsibility to protect (2011)

xiv Prosecutor v Lubanga, Katanga & Ntaganda 

xv Sluiter, G., Friman, H., Linton, S., Zappalà, S., & Vasiliev, S. (2013). International Criminal  Procedure: principles and rules. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB12226191 

xvi James A. Green, The International Court of Justice and self-defence in International Law  (2009)