Having invaded Iraq without UN Security Council authorization, the United States was unable to convince many countries to take a meaningful role in helping Iraq deal with its violent past. Always insisting that it would “go it alone”, the United States implemented accountability measures without properly consulting the Iraqi people. Nor did the United States access assistance from the United Nations and international human rights organizations, all of which possess considerable knowledge and experience of a wide range of transitional justice mechanisms. In the end, the accountability measures introduced by the Americans either backfired or were hopelessly flawed. What are needed in Iraq are a secure environment and a legitimate authority to implement a comprehensive transitional justice strategy that reflects the needs and priorities of a wide range of Iraqis. Such a strategy should contain several measures, including prosecutions, reparations, a balanced approach to vetting, truth-seeking mechanisms and institutional reform.

General Jean-René Bachelet (2nd Son) was General Inspector of the Armed Forces of the French Republic. In 1995 he commanded the Sarajevo sector in the former Yugoslavia for UNPROFOR, during the paroxysm of the siege until its lifting. Between 1999 and 2004 he led a study to draw up an ethical and behaviour framework for the army and initiated an ambitious reform of the initial training of officers at Saint Cyr, the foremost French military academy. He gave the following opening address at the Interregional Meeting on the Role of Sanctions in Ensuring Greater Respect for International Humanitarian Law, held in Geneva on 15–17 November 2007.

This article provides a summary analysis of the topical question of how far the Security Council may derogate from occupation law. The answer is that the Council may not derogate from those provisions of IHL that are of a specifically humanitarian nature (humanitarian ordre public), that derogations from international law or IHL are in any case not to be presumed and that the Council has not derogated in any way from occupation law in the case of the occupation of Iraq since 2003.

Ambassador Luis Alfonso De Alba was the first president of the United Nations Human Rights Council and held this mandate from 19 June 2006 to 18 June 2007. During that period the Council was entrusted by the General Assembly with the task of designing the new institutions of the international human rights system, while at the same time fulfilling its mandate to protect and promote human rights. Ambassador De Alba joined the Mexican foreign service in 1981 and since 2004 has been the permanent representative of Mexico at the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva. Throughout his career he has participated in numerous multilateral meetings, both at global and regional levels. Among other posts, he was chairman of the Council of the International Organization for Migrations (IOM) at its 88th and 89th sessions (November 2004 to November 2005) and presided over the Disarmament and International Security Committee (First Committee) of the General Assembly during its 59th Session (2004).

: : : : : : :

The Honourable Sergio Jaramillo Caro is the Colombian Vice-Minister of Defence. Mr Jaramillo Caro studied philosophy and philology at Trinity College, University of Toronto, and Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford. He has an M. Phil. in philosophy from Cambridge University and was a doctoral candidate in Greek at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He has been an adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was in charge of diplomacy for peace (2000–1), and was political counsellor at the Colombian embassy in Paris (2001–2). He was also adviser for political and strategic affairs at the Ministry of Defence (2002–3) and drafted the policy of Democratic Security. From 2004 to 2006 he served as director of the Ideas for Peace Foundation in Bogotá.

Despite the fact that four years have elapsed since the end of the major combat operations on 9 April 2003 and that the occupation formally ended on 30 June 2004, completion of the requirements for national sovereignty in accordance with the various resolutions of the UN Security Council has not been achieved. The author explains the different rules which were and are applicable to the situation in Iraq and presents the current humanitarian problems from the perspective of international humanitarian law.

Complementarity and mutual influence inform the interaction between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in most cases. In some cases when there is contradiction between the two bodies of law, the more specific norm takes precedence (lex specialis). The author analyses the question of in which situations either body of law is more specific. She also considers the procedural dimension of this interplay, in particular concerning the rules governing investigations into alleged violations, court access for alleged victims and reparations for wrongdoing.

There are several aspects to reviewing the role of punishment in ensuring greater respect for international humanitarian law. First, there is the question of improving compliance with the law, second, the focus on the punishment itself and, third, the characteristics of the perpetrators. The situation of armed groups is dealt with separately. The article also examines transitional justice as an accompanying measure and the problem of how to take care of the victims. Finally, suggestions are presented which could help the parties concerned in the establishment of a system of sanctions capable of having a lasting influence on the conduct of weapon bearers so as to obtain greater respect for international humanitarian law.

The debate about the simultaneous applicability of international humanitarian law and human rights law also affects human rights treaty bodies. The article first considers the difficulty for a human rights body in determining whether international humanitarian law is applicable; second, it examines the problems in practice in applying the lex specialis doctrine and the question of derogation in this particular context. The author finally outlines the impact of the debate as to the extent of extraterritorial applicability of human rights law.

: : : : : : :

Civilians play an increasingly important and complex role in armed conflicts, both as victims and as perpetrators. While this overall trend towards ‘civilianization’ encompasses all types of present-day conflicts, it is twofold: it takes on a very different nature in high-technology warfare than in the context of low-technology combats that are typical of many civil wars. This article explores these two trends, shows how they merge in asymmetric warfare and outlines key implications for international stabilization and state-building efforts. The present-day conflict landscape is presented from a security policy point of view, placing the ongoing debates on the civilian participation in hostilities in a broader strategic context.

For more than 30 years the codification of state responsibility has been the main task of the International Law Commission, which has placed greater emphasis on financial reparations than on criminal sanctions. Since the 1990s, however, the responsibility of individuals for gross violations of humanitarian law has been one of the main topics in international law. This new approach implies discrepancies between domestic practice and international case law in terms of the nature and scale of sanctions, the role of victims and also the accountability of non-state entities, including private companies and international organizations.

Suicide attacks are a recurrent feature of many conflicts. Whereas warfare heroism and martyrdom are allowed in certain circumstances in times of war, a suicide bomber might be committing at least five crimes according to Islamic law, namely killing civilians, mutilating their bodies, violating the trust of enemy soldiers and civilians, committing suicide and destroying civilian objects or properties. The author examines such attacks from an Islamic jus in bello perspective.

The ‘war on terror’ has led to grave human rights violations and, in response, to a growing volume of human rights litigation. This article provides an overview of litigation that has unfolded in recent years in relation to issues such as arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, extraordinary rendition, extraterritorial application of human rights norms and the creeping reach of the ‘terrorism’ label. These cases provide a prism through which are displayed key characteristics of the war on terror as it affects human rights, and enables us to begin to ask questions regarding the role of the courts and the impact of human rights litigation in this area.

The aftermath of the invasion of Iraq set unprecedented challenges to the United Nations in the political and in the human rights spheres. Since the first involvement of the United Nations under Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), the United Nations, through its assistance mission (UNAMI), has provided support to the process of transition from a military occupation resulting from an unlawful invasion to a fully sovereign and independent state, an objective yet to be fully achieved. The article looks at this trajectory from the angle of the involvement of the Security Council, the legal context, the protection of human rights and the striving for reconciliation, sovereignty and inclusiveness.

In this contribution, respect for international humanitarian law among combatants is considered from a social psychological perspective. According to this perspective, the social identities derived by individuals from their membership of social groups provide norms and values used by the individual to interpret events, form opinions and decide upon a course of action. We argue that group identities are particularly salient in combat situations, and that they have a profound influence on combatants' decisions to respect or violate international humanitarian law.

The ‘direct participation’ exception to the principle of distinction, found in Article 51(3) of Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Protocol II, embodies a long-recognized concept in the laws governing armed conflict. For centuries the broad notion that humanity demands the protection only of those citizens who are harmless has found expression in the rules and norms relating to war. This article traces the historical factors and trends which influenced the development of the ‘direct participation’ exception in its current form, revealing a tendency towards ‘humanizing’ the law in favour of civilians, notwithstanding their increased military value.