Sources of the law of armed conflict - Historique des versions

Arthur le 25 décembre 2021 à 19:23

2021-12-25T19:23:35Z

← Version précédente		Version du 25 décembre 2021 à 21:23
Ligne 64 :		Ligne 64 :
	The first deals with military personnel, i.e. soldiers wounded or sick in the war on land. The Second Geneva Convention deals with wounded, sick or shipwrecked soldiers in the theatre of maritime warfare. The difference between the first and second conventions is therefore one of theatre of war and not of assigned personnel. The personnel are the same, they are military personnel, the situation that gives rise to protection is the same, injury, illness and shipwreck status as far as maritime theatre is concerned. What differentiates the two is therefore the theatre, once on land and once on sea. The reason for separating the two conventions is that the organization of care for the wounded and sick is relatively different on land and at sea for reasons that can be understood relatively quickly. At sea, the protection of the wounded and sick is done in hospital ships, and this protection cannot be decentralized much since there is no firm land.		The first deals with military personnel, i.e. soldiers wounded or sick in the war on land. The Second Geneva Convention deals with wounded, sick or shipwrecked soldiers in the theatre of maritime warfare. The difference between the first and second conventions is therefore one of theatre of war and not of assigned personnel. The personnel are the same, they are military personnel, the situation that gives rise to protection is the same, injury, illness and shipwreck status as far as maritime theatre is concerned. What differentiates the two is therefore the theatre, once on land and once on sea. The reason for separating the two conventions is that the organization of care for the wounded and sick is relatively different on land and at sea for reasons that can be understood relatively quickly. At sea, the protection of the wounded and sick is done in hospital ships, and this protection cannot be decentralized much since there is no firm land.

	The Third Geneva Convention deals with the protection of prisoners of war. It is already significantly longer and more extensive than the first two. It should be noted that there is an overlap in application between Conventions I, II and III; this means that if an opposing soldier has been captured without injury or illness, Convention III applies, whereas if the same soldier has been captured or ~~surrenders~~ with injuries or illness, Convention I and Convention III apply at the same time, or, as the case may be, Convention II is Convention III. Convention IV deals with the protection of civilians.		The Third Geneva Convention deals with the protection of prisoners of war. It is already significantly longer and more extensive than the first two. It should be noted that there is an overlap in application between Conventions I, II and III; this means that if an opposing soldier has been captured without injury or illness, Convention III applies, whereas if the same soldier has been captured or surrendered with injuries or illness, Convention I and Convention III apply at the same time, or, as the case may be, Convention II is Convention III. Convention IV deals with the protection of civilians.

	The first three are not new in the sense that there are older Geneva Conventions than the 1949 Geneva Convention simply needs to be revised. Convention IV, on the other hand, is entirely new, as civilians were not protected by IHL until 1949 with the exception of a few scattered provisions, particularly in the law of war occupation of the 1907 Hague Regulations.		The first three are not new in the sense that there are older Geneva Conventions than the 1949 Geneva Convention simply needs to be revised. Convention IV, on the other hand, is entirely new, as civilians were not protected by IHL until 1949 with the exception of a few scattered provisions, particularly in the law of war occupation of the 1907 Hague Regulations.

Arthur : /* The Conferences */

2019-06-02T23:05:08Z

The Conferences

← Version précédente		Version du 3 juin 2019 à 01:05
Ligne 33 :		Ligne 33 :
	For small states, it was still fundamental to have civilians to defend them, because if a state does not even have a regular army or if it is very small, there is no choice. For large states, it was convenient to say that only the regular army because it benefited them.		For small states, it was still fundamental to have civilians to defend them, because if a state does not even have a regular army or if it is very small, there is no choice. For large states, it was convenient to say that only the regular army because it benefited them.

	So, important preparatory work existed, but there was no law of war at the international level, there was a codification at the internal level, as, for example, the United States with the Lieber code had a very good codification already applied in its civil war, namely the Civil War.[[File:The First International Peace Conference, the Hague, May - June 1899 HU67224.jpg\|thumb\|250px\|The First Hague Conference in 1899.]]This was achieved in 1899 with the Hague Conference, whose main purpose was not to codify the law of war. The main purpose of this conference was twofold: disarmament on the one hand and the peaceful settlement of disputes on the other. In any case, it was therefore a question of preventing war, not so much of organizing it, of laying down rules for doing so, but of preventing it by arbitration, if possible compulsory, first because a settled dispute is a dispute that will not lead to war, and then disarmament, because the link between the means of waging war and peace is quite obvious, in any case, this is one of the great theses of the nineteenth century, which is that it is overarmament that also leads to armed conflicts.		So, important preparatory work existed, but there was no law of war at the international level, there was a codification at the internal level, as, for example, the United States with the Lieber code had a very good codification already applied in its civil war, namely the Civil War.

			[[File:The First International Peace Conference, the Hague, May - June 1899 HU67224.jpg\|thumb\|250px\|The First Hague Conference in 1899.]]

			This was achieved in 1899 with the Hague Conference, whose main purpose was not to codify the law of war. The main purpose of this conference was twofold: disarmament on the one hand and the peaceful settlement of disputes on the other. In any case, it was therefore a question of preventing war, not so much of organizing it, of laying down rules for doing so, but of preventing it by arbitration, if possible compulsory, first because a settled dispute is a dispute that will not lead to war, and then disarmament, because the link between the means of waging war and peace is quite obvious, in any case, this is one of the great theses of the nineteenth century, which is that it is overarmament that also leads to armed conflicts.

	It quickly became clear at the Hague Conference that progress could not be made on these two issues, at least not decisive progress; on disarmament, in any case, no real progress could be achieved even if only because at the time States had very different growth rates in the military field. There were States making considerable efforts to modernize the army, it was a time of motorization of the army, and therefore of great expansion in the development of the army, while other States were stagnating, such as Russia for example, there were many internal problems. Because of these very strong differences, it is impossible to reach an agreement on disarmament. If we are a state that is developing very rapidly, while another state is losing momentum, the one that is developing rapidly will obviously never agree to disarm because it is losing its relative advantage; it is digging at that time; to have disarmament situations, we need situations of much greater stability between states, almost a situation of balance. One solution is to reduce proportionally on both sides, but not in moments of growth when some grow stronger and others fall into hell.		It quickly became clear at the Hague Conference that progress could not be made on these two issues, at least not decisive progress; on disarmament, in any case, no real progress could be achieved even if only because at the time States had very different growth rates in the military field. There were States making considerable efforts to modernize the army, it was a time of motorization of the army, and therefore of great expansion in the development of the army, while other States were stagnating, such as Russia for example, there were many internal problems. Because of these very strong differences, it is impossible to reach an agreement on disarmament. If we are a state that is developing very rapidly, while another state is losing momentum, the one that is developing rapidly will obviously never agree to disarm because it is losing its relative advantage; it is digging at that time; to have disarmament situations, we need situations of much greater stability between states, almost a situation of balance. One solution is to reduce proportionally on both sides, but not in moments of growth when some grow stronger and others fall into hell.

Arthur : /* The Treaties */

2019-06-02T23:04:40Z

The Treaties

← Version précédente		Version du 3 juin 2019 à 01:04
Ligne 41 :		Ligne 41 :
	C’est donc un échec sur les deux plans. À ce moment-là, la conférence s’est tout simplement dit qu’on ne peut pas aboutir alors que les attentes étaient énormes, c’était une conférence de paix, la première grande conférence. Et donc, on a repris la seule chose sur laquelle on pensait pouvoir aboutir, c’est-à-dire, le droit des conflits armés. Pourquoi pensait-on pouvoir aboutir ? Pour la simple raison que des travaux avaient déjà été faits. Il y avait quelques points d’achoppement, mais le gros du travail déjà était fait à Bruxelles en 1874. C’est donc à ce titre qu’on a adopté les conventions de La Haye. Elles étaient quatre en 1899, on aboutit à quatorze si on compte aussi la déclaration qui est un texte, qui est un traité, en 1907. Donc, petit départ en 1899, puis grand essor en 1907.		C’est donc un échec sur les deux plans. À ce moment-là, la conférence s’est tout simplement dit qu’on ne peut pas aboutir alors que les attentes étaient énormes, c’était une conférence de paix, la première grande conférence. Et donc, on a repris la seule chose sur laquelle on pensait pouvoir aboutir, c’est-à-dire, le droit des conflits armés. Pourquoi pensait-on pouvoir aboutir ? Pour la simple raison que des travaux avaient déjà été faits. Il y avait quelques points d’achoppement, mais le gros du travail déjà était fait à Bruxelles en 1874. C’est donc à ce titre qu’on a adopté les conventions de La Haye. Elles étaient quatre en 1899, on aboutit à quatorze si on compte aussi la déclaration qui est un texte, qui est un traité, en 1907. Donc, petit départ en 1899, puis grand essor en 1907.

	== The ~~conventions~~ ==		== The Conventions ==
	The first convention is not the law of armed conflict, it is arbitration. Not all conventions deal with the law of armed conflict, but the vast majority of Hague conventions are the law of war or the law of armed conflict, the law of war as it was called at the time.		The first convention is not the law of armed conflict, it is arbitration. Not all conventions deal with the law of armed conflict, but the vast majority of Hague conventions are the law of war or the law of armed conflict, the law of war as it was called at the time.

Arthur le 2 juin 2019 à 23:02

2019-06-02T23:02:54Z

← Version précédente		Version du 3 juin 2019 à 01:02
Ligne 7 :		Ligne 7 :
	\| assistants =		\| assistants =
	\| enregistrement =		\| enregistrement =
	\| cours = [[~~Droit international humanitaire~~]]		\| cours = [[International humanitarian law]]
	\| lectures =		\| lectures =
	*[[Introduction ~~au cours de droit~~ international ~~humanitaire~~]]		*[[Introduction to the course on international humanitarian law]]
	*[[~~Les sources du droit des conflits armés~~]]		*[[Sources of the law of armed conflict]]
	*[[~~L’applicabilité du droit des conflits armés~~]]		*[[The applicability of the law of armed conflict]]
	*[[~~Les règles matérielles du droit des conflits armés~~]]		*[[The substantive rules of the law of armed conflict]]
	*[[~~Les règles du droit des conflits armés~~ non-~~internationaux~~]]		*[[The rules of the law of non-international armed conflicts]]
	}}		}}

Arthur le 2 juin 2019 à 23:01

2019-06-02T23:01:49Z

Voir les modifications

Arthur : /* The Martens clause */

2019-06-02T22:59:47Z

The Martens clause

← Version précédente		Version du 3 juin 2019 à 00:59
Ligne 188 :		Ligne 188 :
	The Martens clause is a concrete expression of this principle of humanity. It is separated because of its particularity. This is a clause that was inserted in the Hague Convention II of 1899 and IV of 1907. In the meantime, the Martens clause has been included in the texts, in the Geneva Conventions, in the provisions dealing with the denunciation of these conventions, it is also found in the 1980 Arms Convention in the preamble, but it is also found in particular in Article 1 § 2 of Additional Protocol I.		The Martens clause is a concrete expression of this principle of humanity. It is separated because of its particularity. This is a clause that was inserted in the Hague Convention II of 1899 and IV of 1907. In the meantime, the Martens clause has been included in the texts, in the Geneva Conventions, in the provisions dealing with the denunciation of these conventions, it is also found in the 1980 Arms Convention in the preamble, but it is also found in particular in Article 1 § 2 of Additional Protocol I.

	[[Fichier:Friedrich Fromhold Martens 1878.jpg\|vignette\|200px\|Frédéric Fromhold de Martens en 1878.]]Frederic de Martens was a professor of international law in St. Petersburg, having written an important period textbook on DIP. Martens was a delegate of the Russian tsarist government to the Hague Conference, and he proposed this clause with the aim of filling the gaps, the gaps in the law of war occupation.		[[Fichier:Friedrich Fromhold Martens 1878.jpg\|vignette\|200px\|Frédéric Fromhold de Martens in 1878.]]

			Frederic de Martens was a professor of international law in St. Petersburg, having written an important period textbook on DIP. Martens was a delegate of the Russian tsarist government to the Hague Conference, and he proposed this clause with the aim of filling the gaps, the gaps in the law of war occupation.

	This clause reads as follows: "Until such time as a more complete code of the laws of war can be enacted, the High Contracting Parties consider it appropriate to note that, in cases not included in the regulatory provisions adopted by them, the populations and belligerents remain under the protection and control of the principles of international law, as they result from established practices between civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience". It is a very old formulation; it smells and oozes from all the ports in the 19th century.		This clause reads as follows: "Until such time as a more complete code of the laws of war can be enacted, the High Contracting Parties consider it appropriate to note that, in cases not included in the regulatory provisions adopted by them, the populations and belligerents remain under the protection and control of the principles of international law, as they result from established practices between civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience". It is a very old formulation; it smells and oozes from all the ports in the 19th century.

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

2019-06-02T22:59:17Z

The law of human rights

← Version précédente		Version du 3 juin 2019 à 00:59
Ligne 279 :		Ligne 279 :
	Can it be applied, yes or no? These are bombings, that's exactly what we're talking about. The deeper question of whether human rights law can be applied because the State in question, the United Kingdom or other, would have jurisdiction there, not territorial jurisdiction of course, the United Kingdom is not sovereign in the territory of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, but jurisdiction by virtue of effective control, Is that enough when you have only air traffic control and not ground control, when you are not present on the territory, but you are simply in the air, the European Court of Human Rights has denied that there is sufficient control here and has therefore considered that the Convention does not apply.		Can it be applied, yes or no? These are bombings, that's exactly what we're talking about. The deeper question of whether human rights law can be applied because the State in question, the United Kingdom or other, would have jurisdiction there, not territorial jurisdiction of course, the United Kingdom is not sovereign in the territory of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, but jurisdiction by virtue of effective control, Is that enough when you have only air traffic control and not ground control, when you are not present on the territory, but you are simply in the air, the European Court of Human Rights has denied that there is sufficient control here and has therefore considered that the Convention does not apply.

	~~Il y~~ a ~~toute une série de~~ situations ~~intermédiaires que nous connaissons dans la pratique en matière de droit de l’homme comme pour le cas où~~ on ~~envoie des commandos pour enlever des personnes sur un territoire étranger~~, ~~le Comité des~~ Nations ~~Unies des droits de l’homme~~, ~~pacte civil et politique~~, ~~a estimé que dans ce cas~~, ~~le pacte s’appliquait~~ ; ~~donc~~ application ~~extraterritoriale~~, ~~droit de l’homme~~, ~~sur un territoire étranger pour l’opération d’enlèvement~~. ~~Est-ce qu’une opération belligérante unique sur le territoire étranger~~, ~~comme du~~ sabotage ~~par exemple~~, ~~pourrait suffire~~, ~~selon certains organes~~, ~~probablement oui~~, ~~mais pas tous les États le voient de la même manière~~ ?		There is a whole series of intermediate situations that we are familiar with in human rights practice, such as the case where commandos are sent to abduct persons on foreign territory, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Civil and Political Covenant, has considered that in this case, the Covenant applies; therefore, extraterritorial application, human rights, on foreign territory for the abduction operation. Could a single belligerent operation on foreign territory, such as sabotage for example, be sufficient, according to some bodies, probably yes, but not all States see it in the same way?

	~~Il faut simplement percevoir qu’il y~~ a ~~là toute une série de dégradé de situation de contrôle et les réponses sont loin d’être claires sauf dans les deux cas qui sont quant à eux clairs~~, ~~à savoir l’occupation et la détention~~.		It is simply necessary to perceive that there is a whole series of degraded control situations and the answers are far from clear except in the two cases, which are clear, namely occupation and detention.

	~~Dans quel domaine le DIH peut-il faire flores en matière de DIH~~ ? ~~Quels apports sont particulièrement utiles en la matière~~ ?		In what area can IHL be successful in IHL? What contributions are particularly useful in this regard?

	~~En matière de DIH~~, ~~nous avons peu de dispositions~~, ~~en tout cas jusqu’au protocole de~~ 1977~~, sur le procès équitable~~. ~~Il est prévu dans les conventions de Genève que les personnes protégées telles que les prisonniers de guerre peuvent subir un procès pénal généralement~~, ~~mais~~ civil ~~également~~. ~~Ce que cela implique comme~~ obligation ~~de procès équitable~~, ~~à savoir « fair trial »~~, ~~garantie de défense par exemple~~, ~~n’est pas précisé~~. ~~Les protocoles de~~ 1977 ~~contiennent déjà beaucoup plus à cet égard il est vrai~~, ~~mais ils ne sont pas ratifiés par tous les États~~.		In the field of IHL, we have few provisions, at least until the 1977 protocol on fair trial. The Geneva Conventions provide that protected persons such as prisoners of war may be tried in criminal proceedings generally, but also in civil proceedings. What this implies as an obligation of a fair trial, i.e. "fair trial", a guarantee of defence for example, is not specified. The 1977 protocols already contain much more in this respect, but they are not ratified by all States.

	~~En cette matière~~, ~~le droit des droits de l’homme est particulièrement riche~~. ~~Il n’y a pas que les dispositions contenues dans les différents traités~~, ~~il y a également la pratique des différents organes comme la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme~~, ~~il y~~ a ~~une pratique extrêmement riche qui permet de préciser ce qui est dû en matière de procès équitable~~. ~~L’apport des droits de l’homme au DIH est ici significatif~~.		In this area, human rights law is particularly rich. There are not only the provisions contained in the various treaties, there is also the practice of the various bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights, there is an extremely rich practice that makes it possible to specify what is due in terms of a fair trial. The contribution of human rights to IHL is significant here.

	~~Il en va de même pour la détention~~. ~~Il y a des dispositions détaillées dans le DIH même très détaillées pour la détention de personnes dans les~~ camps ~~de prisonnier de guerre ou encore les~~ camps ~~de détention de civil~~. ~~Toute la convention~~ III ~~de Genève de 1949 concerne cela et une bonne partie des dispositions de la~~ IV ~~convention concernant les civils à l’article~~ 79 et ~~suivant de la quatrième concerne également cela~~.		The same applies to detention. There are detailed provisions in IHL, even very detailed provisions for the detention of persons in prisoner of war camps or civilian detention camps. The whole 1949 Geneva Convention III concerns this and much of the provisions of the IV Convention concerning civilians in Article 79 et seq. of the Fourth Convention also concerns this.

	~~En dehors de ces~~ camps ~~de prisonniers de guerre et de ces~~ camps ~~de prisonniers civils~~, ~~la détention n’est pas réglée dans les conventions de Genève et cette lacune est très opportunément remplie et comblée par certaines dispositions du protocole additionnel~~ I et II, ~~article~~ 75, ~~article~~ 5 et 6 ~~du protocole additionnel~~ II, ~~ainsi que par le droit des droits de l’homme~~.		Apart from these prisoner of war camps and civilian prisoner of war camps, detention is not regulated in the Geneva Conventions and this gap is very appropriately filled and filled by certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and II, Article 75, Article 5 and 6 of Additional Protocol II, as well as by human rights law.

	~~Il y a également dans les territoires occupés des apports utiles du droit des droits de l’homme~~. ~~On le sait d’ailleurs parce qu’on a sans doute déjà constaté que les~~ Nations ~~Unies~~, ~~à travers tous leurs organes appliquent au territoire palestinien occupé~~, ~~à la fois le DIH~~, ~~c’est-à-dire le droit de l’occupation de guerre et aussi les pactes internationaux sur les droits civils et politiques ainsi que celui sur les droits sociaux économiques et culturels~~, ~~à savoir les deux pactes de~~ 1966. ~~C’est une pratique constante de l’organisation et de ses organes comme par exemple du conseil de droits de l’homme, du comité des droits de l’homme~~. ~~Donc~~, ~~utilité aussi à cet égard dans les territoires occupés~~.		There are also useful contributions from human rights law in the occupied territories. We know this because we have probably already seen that the United Nations, through all its bodies, applies both IHL, i.e. the right of war occupation, and the international covenants on civil and political rights and on social, economic and cultural rights, i.e. the two 1966 covenants, to the occupied Palestinian territory. This is a constant practice of the organization and its bodies such as the Human Rights Council and the Human Rights Committee. Therefore, useful also in this respect in the occupied territories.

	~~Utilité également dans les conflits armés~~ non ~~internationaux~~, ~~appelés vulgairement parfois de la « guerre civile »~~. ~~Cela n’est pas un terme d’art juridique est que le terme n’est pas précis juridiquement~~. ~~Le professeur~~ Kolb ~~l’utilise ici simplement parce qu’il évoque plus que le conflit juridique~~, ~~mais peu~~ transparent ~~de conflit armé~~ non international.		Useful also in non-international armed conflicts, sometimes referred to vulgarly as "civil war". This is not a legal art term and the term is not legally precise. Professor Kolb uses it here simply because it refers more than to the legal conflict, but not very transparent to non-international armed conflict. In such conflicts, there are few IHL rules applicable by treaty. There are few rules because states do not want to accept more than a minimum. There are many gaps and many uncertainties. Human rights law can be a useful complement to a certain extent. In situations in Syria, it is difficult to have many positive effects. If we take Anatolia, Turkey, in the 1990s, with the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, it was already slightly different. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between situations. For Syria, there is no regional court. In the Arab countries and Asia, there is no human rights tribunal as there are in Europe, the Americas and Africa now too.
	~~Dans de tels conflits~~, ~~il y a peu de règles de DIH~~ applicable ~~à titre conventionnel~~. ~~Il y~~ a ~~peu de règles parce que les États ne veulent pas accepter davantage qu’un~~ minimum. ~~Il y~~ a ~~beaucoup de lacunes et beaucoup de flottements. Le droit des droits de l’homme peut faire un complément utile jusqu’à un~~ certain ~~point~~. ~~Dans des~~ situations ~~en Syrie~~, ~~il est difficile d’avoir beaucoup d’effets positifs~~. ~~Si on prend l’Anatolie~~, ~~la Turquie~~, ~~dans les années 1990~~, ~~avec la juridiction de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme~~, ~~cela était déjà légèrement différent~~. ~~Il faut donc distinguer les~~ situations. ~~Pour la Syrie~~, ~~il n’y a pas de tribunal régional~~. ~~Dans les pays arabes et en Asie~~, ~~il n’y a pas de~~ tribunal ~~sur les droits de l’homme comme il y en a en~~ Europe, ~~dans les Amériques et en Afrique désormais aussi~~.

	~~En tout dernier lieu~~, ~~même en matière de conduite des hostilités~~, ~~ou en principe~~, ~~le droit des droits de l’homme touche à son~~ nadir, ~~c’est-à-dire à son~~ point ~~le plus bas, même dans ce domaine~~, ~~il y a certains apports ponctuels~~, ~~mais néanmoins utiles du droit des droits de l’homme~~. ~~Par exemple~~, ~~avec le droit à la vie~~, ~~c’est ce qui est en cause pendant la conduite des hostilités~~, ~~en tout cas très largement~~. ~~Le DIH est assez permissif~~, ~~on peut tuer lors d’un conflit armé~~, ~~on peut viser à tuer~~ ; ~~dans le droit des droits de l’homme~~, ~~il peut y avoir un~~ certain ~~tempérament~~. ~~Nous pouvons songer au cas~~ Isaeva ~~où il s’agissait de préparer convenablement un bombardement afin de limiter les dommages collatéraux civils~~, ~~ce qui n’avait pas été fait et ce que la Cour européenne~~ a ~~considéré comme une~~ violation ~~du droit à la vie~~. Là, ~~il y~~ a ~~un apport exceptionnel du droit des droits de l’homme à la conduite des hostilités et non pas à la protection des personnes où il~~ a ~~un droit de citer un tout petit peu plus facile et reposant~~.		Finally, even in the conduct of hostilities, or in principle, human rights law touches its nadir, that is, its lowest point, even in this area, there are some ad hoc but nevertheless useful contributions of human rights law. For example, with the right to life, this is what is at stake during the conduct of hostilities, at least very broadly. IHL is quite permissive, one can kill in armed conflict, one can aim to kill; in human rights law, there can be a certain temperament. We can think of the Isaeva case where the aim was to properly prepare a bombardment in order to limit civil collateral damage, which had not been done and what the European Court considered to be a violation of the right to life. There, there is an exceptional contribution of human rights law to the conduct of hostilities and not to the protection of persons, where it has a right to quote a little bit easier and more relaxing.

	= Annexes =		= Annexes =

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

2019-06-02T22:58:34Z

The law of human rights

Voir les modifications

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

2019-06-02T22:57:33Z

The law of human rights

Voir les modifications

Arthur : /* La clause de Martens */

2019-06-02T22:56:28Z

La clause de Martens

← Version précédente		Version du 3 juin 2019 à 00:56
Ligne 184 :		Ligne 184 :
	What is common to these general principles is that they form the basis of the IHL legal system and explain its main aspects. The rest are rules of detail. If we take the principle of humanity, it informs all the Geneva Conventions. Each provision in the Geneva Conventions is a provision whose purpose is to serve in one way or another the requirement of humane treatment of protected persons.		What is common to these general principles is that they form the basis of the IHL legal system and explain its main aspects. The rest are rules of detail. If we take the principle of humanity, it informs all the Geneva Conventions. Each provision in the Geneva Conventions is a provision whose purpose is to serve in one way or another the requirement of humane treatment of protected persons.

	= La clause ~~de Martens~~ =		= The Martens clause =

	La clause ~~de Martens est une concrétisation de ce principe d’humanité~~. ~~Elle est séparée à cause de sa particularité~~. ~~C’est une~~ clause ~~qui a été insérée dans la convention de La Haye~~ II de 1899 et IV de 1907. ~~Entre temps~~, la clause ~~de Martens a été reprise dans les textes~~, ~~dans les conventions de Genève~~, ~~dans les dispositions qui traient de la dénonciation de ces~~ conventions, ~~on la trouve aussi dans la convention de~~ 1980 ~~sur les armes dans le préambule~~, ~~mais on la trouve aussi notamment dans l’article~~ 1 § 2 ~~du protocole additionnel~~ I.		The Martens clause is a concrete expression of this principle of humanity. It is separated because of its particularity. This is a clause that was inserted in the Hague Convention II of 1899 and IV of 1907. In the meantime, the Martens clause has been included in the texts, in the Geneva Conventions, in the provisions dealing with the denunciation of these conventions, it is also found in the 1980 Arms Convention in the preamble, but it is also found in particular in Article 1 § 2 of Additional Protocol I.

	[[Fichier:Friedrich Fromhold Martens 1878.jpg\|vignette\|200px\|Frédéric Fromhold de Martens en 1878.]]		[[Fichier:Friedrich Fromhold Martens 1878.jpg\|vignette\|200px\|Frédéric Fromhold de Martens en 1878.]]Frederic de Martens was a professor of international law in St. Petersburg, having written an important period textbook on DIP. Martens was a delegate of the Russian tsarist government to the Hague Conference, and he proposed this clause with the aim of filling the gaps, the gaps in the law of war occupation.

	~~Frédéric de Martens était professeur de droit~~ international ~~à Saint-Pétersbourg ayant écrit un manuel important d’époque sur le DIP~~. ~~Martens était délégué du gouvernement tsariste russe à la conférence de La Haye, et il~~ a ~~proposé cette clause avec le but de pallier les insuffisances, les lacunes dans le droit de l’occupation de guerre~~.		This clause reads as follows: "Until such time as a more complete code of the laws of war can be enacted, the High Contracting Parties consider it appropriate to note that, in cases not included in the regulatory provisions adopted by them, the populations and belligerents remain under the protection and control of the principles of international law, as they result from established practices between civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience". It is a very old formulation; it smells and oozes from all the ports in the 19th century.

	~~Cette clause se lit comme suit : « En attendant qu’un code plus complet des lois de la guerre puisse être édicté~~, ~~les Hautes Parties contractantes jugent opportun de constater que~~, dans les cas non compris dans les dispositions réglementaires adoptées par elles, les populations et les belligérants restent sous la sauvegarde et sous l’empire des principes du droit des gens, tel qu’ils résultent des usages établis entre nations civilisées, des lois de l’humanité et des exigences de la conscience publique ». C’est une formulation bien ancienne ; cela sent et suinte de tous les ports au XIXème siècle.		A slightly modernized version by still different, the honor is continued to be given to the creator, a slightly modernized version is found in Article 1 § 2.

	~~Une version légèrement modernisée par encore différente~~, ~~l’honneur est continué à être fait au créateur~~, ~~une version un peu modernisée se trouve dans l’article 1 § 2~~.		This clause had no positive legal value before the Second World War and before the Geneva Conventions. It was a preamble clause, beautiful, generous, kind, honoured in words and little known in practice. It was therefore in a revisionist, courageous, no doubt, but revisionist way that the United States Military Tribunal in Nuremberg in the Krupp case, in this 1948 case, was able to consider that the Martens clause was more than a wishful thinking and that it was part of positive law. In 1948, this was frankly not true, since then, it is certainly true, if only because this clause was included in the operational provisions of the Geneva Conventions, but also in the Protocol and elsewhere.

	~~Cette~~ clause n’avait pas de valeur de droit positif avant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale et avant les conventions de Genève. C’était une clause d’un préambule, belle, généreuse, gentille, honorée dans les mots et méconnue dans les faits. C’est donc de manière révisionniste, courageuse sans doute, mais révisionniste que le tribunal militaire des États-Unis à Nuremberg dans l’affaire Krupp, dans cette affaire de 1948, ce tribunal américain a pu estimer que la clause de Martens était plus qu’un vœu pieu et qu’elle faisait partie du droit positif. En 1948, cela n’était franchement pas vrai, depuis lors, cela est certainement vrai, ne fût-ce que part le fait que cette clause a été insérée dans des dispositions opérationnelles des conventions de Genève, mais aussi du protocole et autre.		What does this clause mean legally today? It has an original meaning that Martens was already aiming for at the time in 1899 and it has additional meanings that can be given to it today although Martens certainly could not have even dreamed of them at the time he lived.

	~~Quel sens a cette~~ clause ~~juridiquement aujourd’hui ? Elle~~ a ~~un sens originaire que visait Martens déjà à l’époque en 1899 et elle~~ a ~~des sens supplémentaires qu’on peut lui donner aujourd’hui bien que Martens n’eut certainement pu même les rêver à l’époque où il~~ a ~~vécu~~.		The original meaning of the Martens clause is still valid, and that of ensuring that when a matter is not settled, when there is a gap in other words in the law of armed conflict, a matter not settled when there should be rules, the rule of residual freedom that would otherwise normally apply cannot be applied. The term "residual freedom rule" means "what is not prohibited is permitted".

	~~Le sens originaire de la clause de Martens est toujours valable~~, ~~et celui de faire en sorte que lorsqu’une matière n’est pas réglée~~, ~~lorsqu’il y~~ a ~~une lacune en d’autres termes dans le droit des conflits armés~~, ~~matière non réglée alors qu’il devrait y avoir des règles~~, ~~ne puisse pas s’appliquer la règle de liberté résiduelle qui autrement s’appliquerait normalement~~. ~~Le terme « règle de liberté résiduelle » veut dire « ce qui n’est pas interdit est permis »~~.		When there is an IHL that is not very well codified, as was the case in 1899 and 1907, there were more loopholes than regulations, it may be a little unfortunate to suggest to States that for everything that is not expressly regulated in the convention, they remain free to do what they want because it is not prohibited and therefore permitted. With the Martens clause, we tried to limit this principle and say that if it is not expressly prohibited, it does not yet mean that it is allowed; we must still consider whether the attitude or conduct in question is compatible with the laws of humanity and public conscience, with the moral rule at its heart. It's quite specific really.

	~~Lorsqu’il y~~ a ~~un DIH qui est assez peu codifié comme c’était le cas en 1899 et 1907~~, ~~il y avait plus de lacunes que de réglementations~~, ~~cela peut être un tout petit peu fâcheux de suggérer aux États que pour tout ce qui n’est pas réglé expressément dans la convention~~, ~~ils restent libres de faire ce qu’ils veulent parce que ce n’est pas interdit donc permis~~. ~~Avec la clause de Martens~~, ~~on a essayé de limiter ce principe et de dire que si ce n’est pas expressément interdit~~, ~~cela ne veut pas encore dire que ce soit permis ; il faut encore considérer si l’attitude ou la conduite en cause est compatible avec les lois de l’humanité et de la conscience publique~~, ~~avec la règle morale au fond. C’est assez spécifique véritablement~~.		Above all, in Hague law, we proceed with a principle of limitation, we limit certain activities, we prohibit certain activities, we are not there to allow States to do what they want during the war. States already have the general authorization that comes from their sovereignty. We do not need to tell them that they can do this or that, they are sovereign, so they can do it automatically, they have a general competence.

	~~Nous procédons surtout~~, ~~dans le droit de La Haye~~, ~~avec un principe de limitation~~, ~~nous limitons certaines activités, nous interdisons certaines activités, nous ne sommes pas là pour autoriser les États à faire ce qu’ils veulent pendant la guerre~~. ~~Les États ont déjà l’autorisation générale qui est issue de leur souveraineté. On n’a pas besoin de leur dire qu’ils peuvent faire ceci ou cela, ils sont souverains~~, ~~donc ils peuvent le faire automatiquement~~, ~~ils ont une compétence générale~~.		Rather, IHL is intended to limit certain actions. We manage to reach agreement in the Hague Regulation, in the Geneva Conventions, we extract certain questions of the freedom of States. This generally restrictive approach is in turn being tempered with the Martens clause, by telling States that if something has not yet been prohibited in this approach, States cannot think that automatically it should be considered permissible.

	Le DIH poursuit plutôt le but de limiter certaines actions. On arrive à se mettre d’accord dans le règlement de La Haye, dans les conventions de Genève, on extrait certaines questions de la liberté des États. Cette approche généralement limitative, ~~on essaie, à son tour de la tempérer avec la~~ clause ~~de Martens~~, en faisant en sorte de dire aux États que si quelque chose n’a pas encore été interdit dans cette approche, les États ne peuvent pas penser qu’automatiquement, cela doit être considéré comme étant permis.		After the war, this clause was taken a little more seriously, but it is far from playing the role it could still play today.

	~~Après la guerre~~, ~~cette~~ clause a ~~été prise un tout petit peu plus au sérieux~~, ~~mais elle est loin de jouer le rôle qu’elle pourrait jouer encore jusqu’à aujourd’hui~~.		Of course, it is possible to use the Martens clause for purposes other than those stated, being the original purpose. It is possible to use the Martens clause on the interpretation of IHL to ensure that humanitarian aspirations have a greater impact on a particular interpretation by linking these humanitarian aspirations to the Martens clause, invoking the Martens clause in the argument to be presented. That is quite possible. We simply have to be subtle about the subject because IHL is always a balance between humanitarian and military. If you pull the cover too much on one side, it becomes unworkable. Humanitarian aid must be weighed against the military. War is an abomination, but that is how it is and therefore things must be weighed up and that is why, moreover, in humanitarian codifications, there are always soldiers present and it is very important because it must be an equation that goes on both sides. If we interpret by giving a little more force to the humanitarian side by invoking the Martens clause, that is fine, but it must be done with restraint.

	~~Bien entendu~~, ~~il est possible d’utiliser la clause de Martens à d’autres fins qu’à celles énoncées~~, ~~étant la finalité originaire. Il est~~ possible d’utiliser la clause de Martens en matière d’interprétation du DIH pour faire en sorte que des aspirations humanitaires influent davantage sur telle ou telle interprétation en rattachant ces aspirations humanitaires à la clause de Martens, en invoquant la clause de Martens dans l’argumentation qui sera présentée. C’est tout à fait possible. Il faut simplement être subtile sur la matière parce que le DIH est toujours un équilibre entre l’humanitaire et le militaire. Si on tire trop la couverture d’un côté, cela devient mal applicable. Il faut bien pondérer l’humanitaire contre le militaire. La guerre est une abomination, mais c’est ainsi et par conséquent il faut mettre en balance les choses et c’est la raison pour laquelle d’ailleurs, dans des codifications humanitaires, il y a toujours des militaires présents et c’est très important parce que cela doit être une équation qui va des deux côtés. Si on interprète en donnant un tout petit peu plus de force au côté humanitaire en invoquant la clause ~~de Martens, cela est bien, mais il faut le faire avec pondération~~.		The same can be done in the legislative function, if we are in an international conference where the aim is to codify the new law of armed conflict, it is possible as a delegate to go to the gallery and say that this provision should be reviewed in a slightly more humanitarian sense and invoke the Martens clause in the legislative process with the same limit for interpretation.

	~~La même chose peut être faite dans la fonction législative~~, si on ~~est dans une conférence internationale où il s’agit de codifier du nouveau droit des conflits armés~~, ~~il est possible en tant que délégué de passer à la tribune et de dire que cette disposition devrait être revue dans un sens un tout petit peu plus humanitaire et invoquer la~~ clause ~~de Martens dans le processus législatif avec la même limite pour l’interprétation~~.		Another function that can be granted to the Martens clause is to say that the Martens clause is a legal reference to human rights law and that, therefore, belligerents are asked to take into account not only IHL but also human rights law before deciding on the lawfulness of a certain conduct because the formula itself remains under the protection and control of the principles of international law. Of course, this was not what Martens had in mind in 1899, but we can interpret this clause in this way today, nothing prevents a clause in a multilateral codification treaty from being given a contemporary meaning, one is not bound to give it a historical meaning only.

	Une autre fonction qu’il est possible d’octroyer à la clause de Martens est de dire que la clause de Martens est un renvoi juridique vers le droit des droits de l’homme et que donc, on demande aux belligérants de tenir compte, non seulement du DIH, mais aussi du droit des droits de l’homme avant de décider de la licéité d’une certaine conduite parce que la formule même reste sous la sauvegarde et l’empire des principes du droit des gens. Bien entendu, cela n’était pas ce que Martens avait en tête en 1899, mais nous pouvons interpréter cette clause ainsi aujourd’hui, rien n’empêche de donner à une clause dans un traité multilatéral de codification un sens contemporain, on n’est pas lié à lui donner un sens historique uniquement.		= The law of human rights =

	= ~~Le droit des droits de l’homme~~ =

	C’est une matière forte complexe que la relation du DIH avec le droit des droits de l’homme. C’est une matière tellement compliquée d’ailleurs, qu’après une vingtaine d’années d’occupation avec elle, le professeur Kolb n’a toujours pas de lumières très puissantes sur la matière. C’est très fuyant et c’est très articulé. La matière est chatoyante et incertaine encore aujourd’hui parce que tout est en mouvement ces dernières années en la matière.		C’est une matière forte complexe que la relation du DIH avec le droit des droits de l’homme. C’est une matière tellement compliquée d’ailleurs, qu’après une vingtaine d’années d’occupation avec elle, le professeur Kolb n’a toujours pas de lumières très puissantes sur la matière. C’est très fuyant et c’est très articulé. La matière est chatoyante et incertaine encore aujourd’hui parce que tout est en mouvement ces dernières années en la matière.

Sources of the law of armed conflict - Historique des versions

Arthur le 25 décembre 2021 à 19:23

Arthur : /* The Conferences */

Arthur : /* The Treaties */

Arthur le 2 juin 2019 à 23:02

Arthur le 2 juin 2019 à 23:01

Arthur : /* The Martens clause */

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

Arthur : /* La clause de Martens */

Arthur : /* The Conferences */

Arthur : /* The Treaties */

Arthur : /* The Martens clause */

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

Arthur : /* The law of human rights */

Arthur : /* La clause de Martens */