Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

Addressing Non-International Armed Conflicts Vis-À-Vis International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Regime Fahim, Md. Hasnath Kabir; Chowdhury, Mohammad Aktarul Alam
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 12, No 2 (2023)
Publisher : Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.12.2.2023.347-370

Abstract

In contrast to traditional wars fought between States, most armed conflicts under international law have been fought within the boundary of States. Non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) are those internal wars or armed conflicts that occur inside the border of a State and include conflict between the government of a State and armed groups or only between armed organizations. Since these internal armed conflicts mirrored war between States in nearly every way, a need arose for a set of laws that might put efforts to 'humanize' their conduct at the same level as the laws regulating international armed conflict (IAC). This article highlights the significant debate between international and non-international armed conflicts and whether the difference has been virtually removed. This paper then discusses how NIAC is governed by the body of laws known as international humanitarian law (IHL). Lastly, this research looks at the debate on the difference between international and non-international armed conflicts from the standpoint of international human rights law (IHRL) to understand the characterization of armed conflicts under IHL. Indeed, there is a great deal of ambiguity in borderline circumstances due to the sliding scale for applying IHL and IHRL in NIAC, which also imposes differing obligations on the government and armed groups. Adopting a harmonious and cooperative approach may prevent any detrimental effects on the development of IHL and IHRL.
Addressing Non-International Armed Conflicts Vis-À-Vis International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Regime Fahim, Md. Hasnath Kabir; Chowdhury, Mohammad Aktarul Alam
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 12 No 2 (2023)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.12.2.2023.347-370

Abstract

In contrast to traditional wars fought between States, most armed conflicts under international law have been fought within the boundary of States. Non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) are those internal wars or armed conflicts that occur inside the border of a State and include conflict between the government of a State and armed groups or only between armed organizations. Since these internal armed conflicts mirrored war between States in nearly every way, a need arose for a set of laws that might put efforts to 'humanize' their conduct at the same level as the laws regulating international armed conflict (IAC). This article highlights the significant debate between international and non-international armed conflicts and whether the difference has been virtually removed. This paper then discusses how NIAC is governed by the body of laws known as international humanitarian law (IHL). Lastly, this research looks at the debate on the difference between international and non-international armed conflicts from the standpoint of international human rights law (IHRL) to understand the characterization of armed conflicts under IHL. Indeed, there is a great deal of ambiguity in borderline circumstances due to the sliding scale for applying IHL and IHRL in NIAC, which also imposes differing obligations on the government and armed groups. Adopting a harmonious and cooperative approach may prevent any detrimental effects on the development of IHL and IHRL.
Rethinking Genocidal Intent: An Interpretation under the International Law and the Jurisprudence of International Criminal Tribunals Fahim, Md. Hasnath Kabir
Lex Publica Vol. 9 No. 1 (2022)
Publisher : APPTHI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (252.382 KB) | DOI: 10.58829/lp.9.1.2022.58-78

Abstract

Many criminal lawyers and scholars of criminal law have applied an analytical method to examine the elements of crime, and such elements are comprised of subjective elements (mens rea) and objective elements (actus reus). According to this, a crime is either an act or omission with a psychological bond relating to the physical act of the criminal. Regarding the crime of genocide, its elements are derived from the definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute. The Genocide Convention defines genocide as the commission of an act with the intent to destroy, either wholly or partly, a national, racial, ethnical, or religious group. However, the ‘genocidal intent’ or mental element to commit the crime of genocide was not considered in the military trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo. This ‘genocidal intent’ received its very first attention during the trials of two ad hoc international tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. This paper attempts to discuss the definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute. This paper, then, focuses on the mental element of genocide and the approach of the international criminal courts during the trial of genocide. Abstrak Banyak ahli hukum pidana dan sarjana hukum pidana telah menerapkan metode analisis untuk mengkaji unsur-unsur kejahatan dan unsur-unsur tersebut terdiri dari unsur subyektif (mens rea) dan unsur obyektif (actus reus). Menurut ini, kejahatan adalah perbuatan atau kelalaian dengan ikatan psikologis yang berkaitan dengan perbuatan fisik pelaku kejahatan. Mengenai kejahatan genosida, unsur-unsurnya diturunkan dari pengertian genosida di bawah Konvensi Genosida dan Statuta Roma. Konvensi Genosida mendefinisikan genosida sebagai tindakan yang bertujuan untuk menghancurkan baik seluruhnya atau sebagian, kelompok bangsa, ras, etnis atau agama. Namun, ‘niat genosida’ atau unsur mental untuk melakukan kejahatan genosida tidak dipertimbangkan dalam pengadilan militer di Nuremberg dan Tokyo. ‘Niat genosida’ ini mendapat perhatian pertama selama persidangan dua pengadilan internasional ad hoc untuk Bekas Yugoslavia dan Rwanda. Tulisan ini mencoba untuk membahas definisi genosida di bawah Konvensi Genosida dan Statuta Roma. Artikel tersebut kemudian berfokus pada unsur mental genosida dan pendekatan pengadilan pidana internasional selama persidangan genosida. Kata kunci: niat genosida, konvensi genosida, kelompok tertentu, hukum pidana internasional, penghancuran