https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cape-town/oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/12610
type: CreativeWork
name: The scope of war crimes against peace-keeping personnel : Do Articles 8 (2) (b) (iii) and (e) (iiD ICC- Statute and 4 (b) SCSL- Statute fulfil the requirements of the principle of specificify in international law?
description: The United Nations was established to promote international peace and security and has become the world's most important peacekeeper and safeguard of human rights.1 Due to the increasing number of attacks against those who keep the peace in practice, the international community felt the urgent need for a better protection for its peacekeeping personnel.2 Therefore, attacks against peacekeepers have been incorporated in Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC-Statute) as well as later in Article 4(b) of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL-Statute). The incorporation of attacks against peacekeepers in the ICC-Statute was not the only novelty. It is the first international criminal code that provides a general part which explicitly includes the principle of legality (Articles 22- 24 ICC-Statute) and its component of specificity (nullum crime sine lege scripta) (Article 22(2) ICC-Statute). It is the aim of this paper to examine whether the war crimes of intentionally directed attacks against peacekeepers, in its current version, meets the requirement of specificity. This paper will argue that the notion of the principle of legality (nullum crime sine lege) in the ICC-Statute witnesses a development from a loose to a strict application of this principle, and its components. Due to the limitation of this paper, the discussion will focus on the most controversial elements of crime, namely "attack", "peacekeeping mission in accordance with the U.N. Charter" and "as long as they are entitled to the protection afforded to civilians under IHL." I will argue that the elements "attack" and "as long as they are entitled to the protection afforded to civilians under IHL" cannot be clearly defined and that their scope is controversy, which makes it impossible for the subject of law to determine whether certain behaviour has a criminal conduct. This paper will conclude that the current versions of Article 8(2)(b)(…
abstract: The United Nations was established to promote international peace and security and has become the world's most important peacekeeper and safeguard of human rights.1 Due to the increasing number of attacks against those who keep the peace in practice, the international community felt the urgent need for a better protection for its peacekeeping personnel.2 Therefore, attacks against peacekeepers have been incorporated in Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC-Statute) as well as later in Article 4(b) of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL-Statute). The incorporation of attacks against peacekeepers in the ICC-Statute was not the only novelty. It is the first international criminal code that provides a general part which explicitly includes the principle of legality (Articles 22- 24 ICC-Statute) and its component of specificity (nullum crime sine lege scripta) (Article 22(2) ICC-Statute). It is the aim of this paper to examine whether the war crimes of intentionally directed attacks against peacekeepers, in its current version, meets the requirement of specificity. This paper will argue that the notion of the principle of legality (nullum crime sine lege) in the ICC-Statute witnesses a development from a loose to a strict application of this principle, and its components. Due to the limitation of this paper, the discussion will focus on the most controversial elements of crime, namely "attack", "peacekeeping mission in accordance with the U.N. Charter" and "as long as they are entitled to the protection afforded to civilians under IHL." I will argue that the elements "attack" and "as long as they are entitled to the protection afforded to civilians under IHL" cannot be clearly defined and that their scope is controversy, which makes it impossible for the subject of law to determine whether certain behaviour has a criminal conduct. This paper will conclude that the current versions of Article 8(2)(b)(…
author: Seifert, Katharina Elena
language: eng
date published: 2011
date modified: 2026-07-22T22:23:44Z
provider: University of Cape Town
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: Department of Public Law

PropertyValue
property ID: Handle
value: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/12610