No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
The defining moments of 2001, the terrorist attacks of September 11 against the United States of America, marked a turning point in international law and relations. By their scale and audaciousness, overnight they helped to propel the issue of international terrorism to the top of the international security agenda and particularly that of the USA, with consequences for many branches of international law, including the jus ad bellum, the jus in bello, international law relating to terrorism, international human rights law and international criminal law, that were just beginning to be felt as the year closed.
- Type
- Current Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 2001
References
3. Addressing Congress on 20 September 2001, President Bush said: ‘On September 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.’ Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the United States Response to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 37 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1347, 1347 (20 September 2001). Section 1 of the US Military Order of November 13, 2001, establishing military commissions to try persons detained on the battlefield in Afghanistan as well as elsewhere, stated that the attacks by Al Qaeda and other international terrorists are on ‘a scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of United States Armed Forces’.
4. See Hersh, S.M., ‘Manhunt: The Bush administration's new strategy in the war against terrorism’, The New Yorker, 23 and 30 12 2002Google Scholar.
5. For a discussion of some of the legal issues raised by the Al Qaeda attacks and the resultant war on terror, see McDonald, A., ‘Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and the Jus in Bello’, in Schmitt, M.N. and Beruto, G.L., eds., Terrorism and International Law: Challenges and Responses (San Remo, International Institute of Humanitarian Law 2003) pp. 57 et seqGoogle Scholar.
6. SIPRI Yearbook 2002: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2002) Chapter 1Google Scholar.
7. The first 22 States Parties to the Convention were Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Cameroon, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Italy, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Suriname, Togo, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay and Uzbekistan. Nine other states had signed the Convention, but had not yet ratified it: Angola, Congo, DR Congo, Germany, Morocco, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia and Costa Rica.
8. E/CN.4/2001/19, 11 January 2001, submitted pursuant to ECOSOC resolution 2000/3. This followed the submission of his previous report E/CN.4/2000/14 and Corr. 1 to the Commission on Human Rights on 22 March 2000. The Special Rapporteur submitted his report (A/55/334) to the General Assembly on 18 October 2000.
9. Ibid., para. 50.
10. See paras. 31, 44, 34, 39, 42, 45, 49, and 60: ‘Mercenaries are hired as pilots, co-pilots or flight engineers for the transport of weapons, as arms salesmen in the field or as instructors in the use of the weapons and military material that have been sold, and to train troops or paramilitary groups, which in many cases comprise raw recruits, persons with little training or knowledge or ad hoc combatants.’ (para. 60).
11. Ibid., para. 52.
12. Ibid., paras. 53 and 54, 57.
13. Ibid., para. 49. See also para. 74.
14. See ibid., paras. 62–64.
15. Ibid., para. 65.
16. Ibid., para. 67.
17. Ibid., para. 76.
18. Ibid., para. 91.
19. Ibid., para. 93.
20. 'Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination’, A/56/224, 27 July 2001.
21. The meeting's report, E/CN.4/2001/18, was issued on 14 February 2001.
22. Entitled, ‘Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination’. This followed its adoption on 26 October 2000 of resolution 55/86 entitled ‘Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination’.
23. See ‘Right of people to self-determination’, Report of the Third Committee, A/56/582, 7 December 2001. For an overview of the work of the UN Special Rapporteur, see ‘The mercenary issue at the UN Commission on Human Rights: the need for a new approach’, International Alert, http://www.international-alert.org/pdf/pubsec/unhr.pdf.
24. S/2001/331, 30 March 2001. The first report, S/1999/957, was submitted to the Security Council on 8 September 1999. See 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 214–215Google Scholar.
25. Ibid., para. 2.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., para. 4.
28. See ibid., paras. 6–8.
29. Ibid., paras. 9–10.
30. Recommendation 1.
31. Recommendation 2.
32. A/56/342-S/200/852, 7 September 2001. For a discussion of his first report, see 3 YIHL (2000) p. 174Google Scholar.
33. In particular, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol, the 1989 Child's Convention and its Additional Protocol of 2000, Amended Protocol II to the Certain Convention Weapons Convention, ILO Convention No. 182 on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, the 1997 Landmine Convention. The SG also noted the inclusion as a war crime in the ICC Statute of the conscription or enlistment of children under the age of 15 years into the Armed Forces or using them to actively participate in hostilities.
34. See ‘The ICTY and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Press Release of the President, JL/P.I.S./591-e/The Hague, 17 May 2001.
35. Ibid.
36. For details see ‘Address by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, to the UN Security Council’, Press Release of the Office of the Prosecutor, GR/P.I.S./642-e, The Hague, 27 November 2001.
37. Ibid.
38. ‘Registrars of ICTY and ICTR sign statement on co-operation’, Press Release of the Registry, TK/ICTR/621-e, The Hague, 21 September 2001.
39. For details see ‘Address by His Excellency, Judge Claude Jorda, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to the UN General Assembly’, Press Release of the President, JD/P.I.S./640-e, The Hague, 27 November 2001.
40. See to 3 YIHL (2000) p. 180Google Scholar.
41. ‘The first six ad-litem judges appointed by United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, Press Release of the President, SB/P.I.S./607-e, The Hague, 31 July 2001.
42. ‘The first six ad litem judges to make their solemn declarations at the ICTY on Thursday 6 September 2001’, Press Release of the President, JL/P.I.S./614-e, The Hague, 4 September 2001.
43. ‘Events to mark the beginning of ICTY Judges' third term of office’, Press Release of the Chambers, JL/P.I.S./636-e, The Hague, 21 November 2001.
44. ‘Address by His Excellency, Judge Claude Jorda, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to the UN General Assembly’, Press Release of the President, JD/ P.I.S./640-e, The Hague, 27 November 2001.
45. See ‘Results of Extraordinary Plenary held on 12 April, 2001’, Press Release of the Plenary, SB/P.I.S./587e, The Hague, 17 April 2001.
46. See Press Release of the Office of the Prosecutor, FH/P.I.S./574e, The Hague, 12 March 2001.
47. See ‘Milomir Stakić transferred to the ICTY’, Press Release of the Tribunal, JL/FH/P.I.S./581e, The Hague, 23 March 2001.
48. ‘Slobodan Milošević transferred into the custody of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Press Release of the Registry, CC/P.I.S./597e, The Hague, 29 June 2001.
49. Ibid. See also ‘Statement of the Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte’, Press Release of the Office of the Prosecutor, F.H./P.I.S./598e, The Hague, 29 June 2001.
50. ‘Milošević case: The Registrar appoints a team of experienced international lawyers as amicus curiae to assist the Trial Chamber’, Press Release of the Registry, CC/P.I.S./617e, The Hague, 6 September 2001.
51. Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević et al, Case No. IT-99–37-PT. Originally confirmed on 24 May 1999 and subsequently confirmed in an amended form on 29 June 2001.
52. Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević et al, Case No. IT-01–50-PT. 8 October 2001. ‘Judge Rodrigues confirms indictment charging Slobodan Milošević with crimes committed in Croatia’, Press Release of the Chambers, JL/P.I.S./627e, The Hague, 9 October 2001.
53. Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević et al, Case No. IT-01–51-PT, 22 November 2001.
54. Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević et al, Prosecutor's Motion for Joinder, filed 27 November 2001, and Prosecutor's Corrigendum to Motion for Joinder filed 27 November 2001, filed 10 December 2001.
55. Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Case No. IT-99–37-PT; IT-01–50-PT; IT-01–51-PT. Decision on Prosecution's Motion for Joinder, 13 December 2001.
56. Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević et al, Decision on Preliminary Motions, 8 November 2001.
57. ‘Arrest of General Enver Hadzihasanovic, General Mehmed Alagic and Colonel Amir Kubura’, Press Release of the Office of the Prosecutor, GB/P.I.S./610e, The Hague, 3 August 2001.
58. ‘Surrender of Dragan Jokić to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Press Release of the Registry, JL/P.I.S./612e, The Hague, 15 August 2001.
59. ‘Voluntary surrender of Sefer Halilović to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Press Release of the Registry, JL/P.I.S./622e, The Hague, 25 September 2001.
60. See ‘Voluntary surrender of Miodrag Jokić to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Press Release of the Registry, JL/P.I.S./634e, The Hague, 12 November 2001. See also ‘Full contents of the Dubrovnik indictment made public’, Press Release of the Registry, JL/ P.I.S./625e, The Hague, 2 October 2001.
61. See ‘Voluntary surrender of Pasko Ljubicić to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Press Release of the Registry, JL/P.I.S./637e, The Hague, 21 November 2001.
62. See ‘Address by His Excellency, Judge Claude Jorda, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to the UN General Assembly’, Press Release of the Presidency, JD/P.I.S./640-e, The Hague, 27 November 2001.
63. ‘Three trials to begin on Monday 10 September before newly composed Trial Chambers’, Press Release of the Presidency, CC/P.I.S./618-e, The Hague, 7 September 2001.
64. ‘The trial of Stanislav Galić will begin on Monday 3 December 2001’, JL/P.I.S./643-e, The Hague, 30 November 2001.
65. The following case summaries are not intended to be comprehensive. The aim is to give a broad overview of the legal and factual findings, and to highlight any original jurisprudence and significant divergences from earlier cases.
66. Whether the evidence was (9) legally and (10) factually sufficient to sustain a conviction on counts one and two of the indictment.
67. Charging him with the murder of Šcepo Gotovac. See para. 460.
68. Whether the Trial Chamber erred in entering a guilty verdict for grave breaches and for violations of the laws or customs of war based on the same acts.
69. Ibid.
70. I.e., Counts 4, 12, 19, 22, 43 and 47 against Delić and Counts 14, 34, 39, 45 and 47 against Mucić. See para. para. 431.
71. See Tadić Appeals Judgement. Here, however, the problem of multiple convictions was not as such addressed by the Chamber. Multiple convictions were also allowed in Akayesu. Under the Tadić/Akayesu test, the accused can be charged with and convicted of as many crimes as the facts of the case disclose if there is ideal concurrence. Ideal concurrence describes the situation where a single act of an accused contravenes more than one provision of the criminal law. In Kupreškić, conversely, the Trial Chamber held that the primary applicable test is whether each offence contains an element not required by the other. An additional test, which ascertains whether the various provisions at issue protect different values, can be used in conjunction with and in support of the primary test. At para. 682 of the Kupreškić Judgement, 14 January 2000. See 3 YIHL (2000) pp. 186 at 190–192Google Scholar.
72. Ibid., para. 412.
73. Ibid., para. 413.
74. Ibid., para. 431.
75. Ibid., para. 193.
76. Ibid., para. 196.
77. Ibid., paras. 197, 198.
78. Ibid., para. 226.
79. Ibid., para. 239.
80. Ibid., para. 241.
81. Čelebίćί Judgement, 20 February 2000, para. 420.
82. Kunarac, para. 407. For the subsequent response to this finding by the Appeals Chamber in the Akayesu case, see infra, p. 297.
83. See 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 224 at 225Google Scholar.
84. See 1 YIHL (1998) pp. 126–127Google Scholar.
85. Kunarac, para. 438.
86. Ibid., para. 459.
87. Ibid., para. 460.
88. Ibid., para. 471.
89. Ibid., para. 482.
90. Ibid., para. 485.
91. Ibid., para. 468.
92. Ibid., para. 487.
93. Ibid., para. 488.
94. Ibid., para. 496.
95. Ibid., para. 496.
96. See Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Judgement, case No. 95–14/1-T, 28 June 1999, paras. 51, 54, 56.
97. Ibid., para. 54, and the decision of the Appeals Chamber, 24 March 2000, para. 26
98. Aleksovski, Trial Chamber, para. 54; Appeals Chamber, para. 37.
99. Kunarac, para. 509.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid., para. 510.
102. Ibid., para. 512.
103. Ibid., para. 513.
104. Ibid., para. 516.
105. Ibid., para. 539.
106. Ibid., para. 540.
107. Ibid., para. 541.
108. Ibid., para. 543.
109. Ibid., paras. 840–841.
110. Ibid., paras. 842–843.
111. See in particular paras. 109 and 145.
112. Para. 194.
113. Para. 195.
114. Para. 199.
115. Para. 209.
116. Para. 210.
117. Para. 520.
118. Ibid., para. 829.
119. The Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, Case No. IT-95–10-A, 5 July 2001.
120. The Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, Case No. IT-95–10–1, Judgement, 19 October 1999. See 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 229–230Google Scholar.
121. The Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, Case No. IT-95–10-A, 5 July 2001, para. 25.
122. Ibid., para. 26.
123. Ibid., para. 27.
124. Ibid., para. 35.
125. Ibid., para. 36.
126. Ibid., para. 37.
127. Ibid., para. 39.
128. Ibid., para. 52.
129. Ibid., para. 45.
130. Ibid., para. 47.
131. Ibid., para. 48.
132. Ibid., para. 51.
133. Ibid., para. 72.
134. Ibid., para. 77.
135. Ibid., paras. 78–80.
136. Ibid., para. 82.
137. Ibid., paras. 82, 83.
138. Ibid., para. 87.
139. Ibid., para. 91.
140. Ibid., paras. 91, 95.
141. Ibid., para. 94.
142. Ibid., para. 96.
143. Ibid., paras. 114, 116.
144. Ibid., paras. 112, 113, 119.
145. Ibid., paras. 124–127.
146. Ibid., paras. 131 and 132.
147. See ‘Radislav Krštić becomes the first person to be convicted of genocide at the ICTY and is sentenced to 46 years imprisonment’, Press Release of the Trial Chamber, OF/P.I.S./609e, The Hague, 2 August 2001.
148. Prosecutor v. Radislav Krštić, Case No. IT-98–33-T, 2 August 2001, para. 652.
149. Ibid., paras. 84, 426, 427.
150. Ibid., para. 85.
151. Ibid., paras. 294–295.
152. Ibid., para. 378.
153. Ibid., paras. 379, 423, 472,
154. Ibid., para. 521.
155. Ibid., para. 510.
156. Ibid., para. 513.
157. Ibid.
158. Ibid., para. 571.
159. Ibid., para. 572.
160. Ibid., para. 576.
161. Ibid., para. 580.
162. Ibid., para. 583.
163. Ibid., para. 590.
164. Although the elements of the crime of extermination had been defined by the ICTR. See The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96–4-T, Judgement, 2 September 1998, paras. 591–592; The Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Case No. ICTR-97–23, Judgement, 4 September 1998; The Prosecutor v. Kayishema/Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95–1-T, Judgement, 21 May 1999, paras. 141–147; The Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96–3-T, Judgement, 6 December 1999, paras. 82–84; The Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96–13-T, Judgement, 27 January 2000.
165. Krštić, para. 495.
166. Ibid., para. 500.
167. Ibid., para. 501.
168. Ibid., para. 503
169. Ibid., para. 505.
170. 3 YIHL (2000) p. 185Google Scholar.
171. Ibid., para. 5.
172. Ibid., para. 59.
173. Ibid., paras. 63 and 65.
174. Ibid., para. 66.
175. Ibid., para. 82.
176. Ibid., para. 86.
177. Ibid., para. 88.
178. Ibid., paras. 91 and 92.
179. Ibid., para. 95.
180. Ibid., para. 42.
181. Ibid., para. 245.
182. Ibid., paras. 303–304.
183. Ibid., para. 361.
184. Ibid., para. 378.
185. Ibid., para. 396.
186. Prosecutor v. Dusko Sikirica, Damir Dosen and Dragan Kolundžija, case No. IT-95–8-T, Judgement on Defence Motions to Acquit, 3 September 2001.
187. ‘Dusko Sikirica and Damir Dosen enter guilty pleas’, Press Release of the Trial Chamber, SP/P.I.S./620-e, The Hague, 19 September 2001.
189. ‘Statement by the Registar, Mr. Adama Dieng, on the Report of the International Crisis Group’, ICTR/INFO-9–3-01.EN, Arusha, 11 June 2001.
190. ‘Statement by the Registrar, Mr. Adama Dieng, on some issues relating to the defence of accused persons’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-02.EN, Arusha, 13 June 2001. The GA's Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the investigation into possible fee-splitting arrangements between defence counsel and indigent detainees at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, A/RES/55/250, was issued on 12 April 2001.
191. ‘Statement of the Registar concerning the Contract of Employment of a defence investigator’, ICTR/INFO-3–04.EN, Arusha, 17 August 2001.
192. Decision on Nzirorera's Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel, Prosecutor v. Joseph Nzirorera, 3 October 2001. ‘Statement by the Registrar, Mr. Adama Dieng, on Allegations of Fee Splitting between a Detainee of the ICTR and his Defence Counsel.’ ICTR/INFO-9–3-06.EN, Arusha, 29 October 2001.
193. ‘ICTR President addresses General Assembly’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-295.EN, Arusha, 26 November 2001.
194. ‘Mr. Adama Dieng sworn in as new Tribunal Registrar’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-258.EN, Arusha, 1 March 2001.
195. ICTR/INFO-9–2-268.EN, Arusha, 1 June 2001.
196. ICTR/INFO-9–2-263.EN, Arusha, 27 April 2001; ICTR/INFO-9–2-264.EN, Arusha, 2 May 2001.
197. ‘Nshamihigo pleads not guilty to three counts’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-275.EN, Arusha, 29 June 2001.
198. ‘Former Bourgmestre of Rusumo pleads not guilty to five counts’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-274.EN, Arusha, 26 June 2001.
199. ‘Former Bourgmestre of Rukara pleads not-guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-270.EN, Arusha, 27 July 2001.
200. ‘Minister transferred, Chaplain pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-285, Arusha, 26 September 2001.
201. ‘Emmanuel Ndindabahizi pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-290.EN, Arusha, 19 October 2001.
202. ‘Former Military Chaplain transferred to Arusha’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-282.EN, Arusha, 21 September 2001.
203. ‘Akazu member transferred, Deputy Registrar Sworn In’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-287.EN, Arusha, 4 October 2001.
204. ‘Zigiranyirazo pleads not guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-289.EN, Arusha, 10 October 2001.
205. ‘Prefect arrested for genocide’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-291.EN, Arusha, 22 October 2001.
206. ‘Former Prefect pleads not-guilty’, ICTR/INFO-9–293.EN, Arusha, 26 October 2001.
207. ICTR/INFO-9–2-297.EN, Arusha, 21 December 2001.
208. ‘Kajelijeli trial begins’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-259.EN, Arusha, 13 March 2001.
209. ICTR/INFO-9–2-261.EN, Arusha, 17 April 2001.
210. ‘Trial of the ‘Butare Group’ begins’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-273.EN, Arusha, 12 June 2001.
211. ‘Genocide trial of Pastor and Doctor opens’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-281.EN, Arusha, 18 September 2001.
212. ‘Former Prime Minister and five other convicts sent to prison in Mali’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-296.EN, Arusha, 11 December 2001.
213. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgement, 1 June 2001. http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/cases/judgement/Arret/index.htm.
214. Ibid., para. 423.
215. Ibid., para. 61.
216. Ibid., paras. 65 and 66.
217. Ibid., para. 80
218. Ibid., para. 84.
219. Ibid., paras. 91 and 92.
220. Ibid., paras. 95–96.
221. Ibid., para. 100.
222. Ibid., para. 146.
223. Ibid., para. 169.
224. Ibid., paras. 266, 267 and 268.
225. Ibid., para. 289.
226. Ibid., para. 290.
227. Ibid., paras. 326, 325.
228. Ibid., para. 344.
229. Ibid., paras. 370 and 375.
230. Ibid., para. 391.
231. Ibid., paras. 400,401.
232. Ibid., para. 409.
233. Ibid., para. 417.
234. Ibid., para. 419.
235. Ibid., para. 436.
236. Ibid., para. 437.
237. Kunarac Judgement, para. 407.
238. Akayesu, para. 444.
239. Ibid., para. 445.
240. Ibid., para. 468
241. Ibid., para. 469.
242. Ibid., para. 478.
243. ‘Tribunal acquits Bagilishema’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-271.EN, Arusha, 7 June 2001.
244. ‘Tribunal releases Bagilishema on conditions’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-272.EN, Arusha, 8 June 2001.
245. ‘Bagilishema to reside in France pending appeal’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-284, 21 September 2001; ‘Bagilishema leaves for France’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-288.EN, Arusha, 9 October 2001.
246. Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema, Judgement, 7 June 2001, para. 399.
247. Ibid., paras. 362, 365.
248. Ibid., para. 367.
249. Ibid., para. 373. See also ‘Musema's genocide conviction upheld’, ICTR/INFO-9–2-294.EN, Arusha, 16 November 2001.
250. For a complete list of members of the Fact-Finding Committee see http://www.ihffc.org/en/members.html.
252. The intention is not to allude to all SC resolutions and Presidential Statements of 2000, but only those concerned with armed conflicts and/or violations of international humanitarian law. Even then, the aim is not to comprehensively summarise and to analyse all relevant resolutions, but merely to draw attention to their key, and especially humanitarian, aspects, and particularly to specific references to international humanitarian law or breaches of the law, even where the resolution does not itself use the language of the law.
253. See ‘Year in Review’, 3 YIHL (2000) pp. 169 at 204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
254. S/PRST/2001/6, 2 March 2001.
255. See 3 YIHL (2000) p. 209Google Scholar.
256. S/PRST/2001/4, 9 February 2001.
257. Report of the Panel of Experts Established pursuant to Resolution 1306 (2000), S/2000/1195, 19 December 2000.
258. S/PRST/2001/1, 11 January 2001.
259. Made in a letter dated 15 January 2001.
260. The full text of Yugoslavia's Application for revision is available on the Court's website at the following address: http://www.icj-cij.org.
261. S/PRST/2001/3 of 31 January 2001.
262. S/2001/394, 20 April 2001.
263. Ibid., para. 21.
264. A/RES/56/24, 24 December 2001.
265. S/2001/574, 7 June 2001.
266. Ryniker, A., ‘The ICRC's position on “humanitarian intervention”’, 83 IRRC (2001) p. 527Google Scholar.
267. Ibid.
268. Ibid.
269. Ibid., p. 530.
270. Ibid., p. 531.
271. Report, p. 81.
272. Report, p. XI.
273. Including resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996; the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism contained in the annex to resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994; and resolution 54/110 of 9 December 1999.
274. Regarding resolution 1269, see Year in Review in 2 YIHL (1999) pp. 248–249Google Scholar.
275. Application No. 52207/99. The decision is reprinted in this volume of the yearbook at p. 748. For commentary on the decision, see Happold, M., ‘Bankovic v Belgium and The Territorial Scope of the European Convention’, 3 Human Rights Law Review (2003) p. 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
276. See para. 54.
277. See paras. 59–61.
278. See paras. 62–63.
279. Para. 62.
280. See paras. 67, 71, 73.
281. Para. 70.
282. Ibid., para. 75.
283. Ibid., para. 80.
285. AG/RES. 1770(XXXl-O/01).
286. AG/RES. 1619 (XXIX-O/99), AG/RES. 1706 (XXX-O/00), and AG/RES. 1709 (XXX-O/ 00); the recommendation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 6 rev., April 16, 1999, Chap. VII, 21.3.B); and the document ‘Framework for OAS Action on the International Criminal Court’ (AG/INF.248/00).
287. OEA/Ser.P, AG/RES. 1771 (XXXI-O/01).
288. AG/RES. 1270 (XXIV-O/94), AG/RES. 1335 (XXV-O/95), AG/RES. 1408 (XXVI-O/96), AG/RES. 1503 (XXVII-O/97), AG/RES. 1565 (XXVIII-O/98), AG/RES. 1619 (XXIX-O/99), and AG/RES. 1706 (XXX-O/00).
289. See also at p. 325 of this review.
290. AG/RES. 1794 (XXXI-O/01).
291. ‘The Western Hemisphere as an Antipersonnel-Land-Mine-Free Zone’ [AG/RES. 1644 (XXIX-O/99), AG/RES. 1569 (XXVIII-O/98), AG/RES. 1496 (XXVII-O/97), and AG/RES. 1411 (XXVI-O/96)] and ‘Cooperation for Security in the Hemisphere’ [AG/RES. 1744 (XXX-O/00)], which reaffirmed the goals of the global elimination of antipersonnel landmines and the conversion of the Western Hemisphere into an antipersonnel landmine-free zone.
292. See Council of Ministers, Seventy-fourth Ordinary Session/Ninth Ordinary Session of the AEC, 5–6 July 2001, Lusaka, Zambia, CM/Dec. 1–46) LXXIX). http://www.au2002.gov.za/docs/summit_council/cm.pdf.
293. The amendment is reproduced at p. 766 of this volume.
294. Maresca, L., ‘Second Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 845 (2002) pp. 255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
295. Ibid.
296. Ibid.
297. Ibid.
298. The subject of small arms and light weapons has been on the General Assembly's agenda since the mid-1990s. By resolution 54/54 of 15 December 1999, it resolved to convene the Conference, and established a preparatory committee for this purpose, which was also charged with recommending a draft final document for the conference. See further ‘Conference on small arms set to convene at headquarters, 9–20 July’, UN Press Release DC/2782, 05/07/2001.
299. ‘Small Arms Conference Urged to Forge Comprehensive Action Plan: Fifteen speakers address opening session’, United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms, 1st Meeting, Press Release DC/2783, 09/07/2001.
300. Submitted by the Secretary-General, A/CONF/192.2, 11 May 2001.
301. Report of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, New York, 9–20 July 2001, A/CONF. 192/15; ‘Small Arms Conference Concludes with Consensus Adoption of Action Programme’, United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms, 10th Meeting and Round-up, Press Release DC/2795, 21/07/2001.
302. ‘Small Arms Conference Concludes with Consensus Adoption of Action Programme’, United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms, 10th Meeting and Round-up, Press Release DC/2795, 21/07/2001.
303. Ibid.
304. ‘Conference on small arms set to convene at headquarters, 9–20 July’, UN Press Release DC/2782, 05/07/2001.
305. ‘In Wake of Assembly Conference on Small Arms, Security Council Examines its Role in Implementation of Action Programme’, Security Council, 4355th Meeting, Press Release SC/7114, 02/08/01.
306. Ibid.
308. To the end of 2001, only one state, the USA, had admitted to using DU weapons in combat.
309. The Royal Society, The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions, Part I (London, 2001)Google Scholar.
310. World Health Organization, Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects, (WHO/SDE/PHE/01.1) (Geneva, 2001). The complete report can be found and downloaded in parts at http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/ir_pub/en/.
311. Ibid., p. iv.
312. Ibid., p. vi.
313. Ibid., p. vii.
317. Supran. 309.
320. President Clinton was the first world leader to sign the CTBT on 24 September 1996. http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/CTBT.html.
321. R. Johnson, ‘High Level CTBT Meeting “Successful” despite US Boycott’, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, Disarmament Diplomacy, http://www.acronym.org.uk/ctbt72001xiv.htm.
322. Hebert, H. Josef, ‘Low-Yield Nuclear Device Considered’, AP, 19 12 2001Google Scholar.
323. Nelson, R.W., ‘Low-Yield Earth Penetrating Nuclear Weapons’, FAS Public Interest Report, Vol. 1, 2001Google Scholar.
324. Ibid.
325. Its report was issued on 27 October. BWC/CONF.V/PC/1.
327. See BWC Rev.Con. Bulletin, 19 November, 2001.
328. The US policy review on the Compliance Protocol had recommended that the US government reject the current draft compromise proposal. See Brugger, S., ‘U.S. BWC Protocol Policy Still Unclear With Talks Short on Time’, Arms Control Today, 07/08 2001Google Scholar. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_07-08/bwcjul_aug01.asp.
329. See Rissanen, J., ‘Anger after the ambush: Review Conference suspended after US asks for AHG's termination’, BWC Review Conference Bulletin, 9 12 2001Google Scholar. http://www.acronym.org.uk/bwc/revcon8.htm.
330. BWC/CONF.V/12, 7 December 2001.
331. See further the article by B. Matthews in this volume at p. 406. To read a full analysis of the Fifth Review Conference, please see Disarmament Diplomacy No. 62, January 2002. http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd62/index.htm