Is it ever legal to kidnap your enemies?

Palestinian engineer Dirar Abu Sisi was indicted in Israel last week on nine terrorism-related charges, after over a month in prison. Because of the gag order that has been imposed on his case, many of the details remain unknown, but speculation abounds. Did Abu Sisi develop advanced weapons for Hamas to use against Israel? Is he even a member of Hamas? Does he know the whereabouts of abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?

The controversy surrounding the case stems largely from the circumstances leading to Abu Sisi’s detention: according to credible reports, he was abducted by Israeli agents from a train while visiting his wife in Ukraine. The similarity in the fates of their loved ones, both abducted and detained (or, in the words of some, kidnapped) by enemy forces in the course of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities was surely not lost on Shalit’s father or Abu Sisi’s wife, who spoke by phone earlier this week.

Disregarding for the moment the apparent Israeli violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and the corresponding breach of art. 2 of the United Nations Charter, which will surely have diplomatic repercussions for Israel if the reports are shown to be true (Ukrainian Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov said on a recent visit to Israel that he “doesn’t want to imagine” that possibility), I wish to consider here the legality of abduction missions within the framework…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Les assassinats ciblés au regard du droit international: légaux ou pas?

Depuis que les États-Unis ont déclaré leur « guerre contre la terreur » suite aux événements du 11 septembre 2001, de multiples attaques ciblant spécifiquement une personne ou un groupe ont été exécutées sur le territoire d’un État étranger. Notamment en ce qui concerne le conflit israélo-palestinien, au cours duquel la Force israélienne de défense a rendu publics ses agissements, n’hésitant pas à organiser l’assassinat de dirigeants de groupes de l’opposition palestinienne présumés avoir commis des actes terroristes. Les assassinats ciblés forment donc un problème préoccupant sur le plan juridique à une époque où les techniques et stratégies de guerre ne cessent d’évoluer.

Nils Melzer, conseiller juridique au Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et auteur du livre Targeted Killing in International Law, définit un assassinat ciblé comme l’utilisation d’une force létale par un sujet de droit international et dirigée à l’encontre d’une personne individuellement sélectionnée n’étant pas détenue.  Cette force doit être intentionnelle (plutôt que négligente ou insouciante), préméditée (plutôt que simplement volontaire) et délibérée (dans le sens que la mort de la personne ciblée est le but ultime de l’opération, à l’opposé du cas où la mort bien qu’intentionnelle et préméditée demeure le résultat accidentel d’une opération poursuivant un tout autre but)[1]. Ces attaques posent d’épineux problèmes lorsque considérées en vertu du droit humanitaire international et du droit international des droits humains. La communauté juridique internationale est d’ailleurs divisée…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Last Week in International Law

1. Prosecutor v. Karadzic

Proceedings against Radovan Karadzic began on October 28, 2009, despite the accused’s refusal to attend court. The case was supposed to start on October 26 but Karadzic, who is representing himself, asked for at least eight more months to prepare his case. The court gave him 24 hours to change his mind. After he failed to appear on Tuesday, judges ordered the Prosecution to open its case and warned Karadzic to appear in court or risk having counsel assigned to him and being tried in absentia.

For more information, see the Reuters article or our own Lee Rovinescu’s analysis of the situation.

2. R. v. Munyaneza

On October 29, 2009, Justice André Denis of the Quebec Superior Court handed down a life sentence to Désiré Munyaneza, the Rwandan genocidaire who helped organize and perpetrate the mass-murder of Tutsis in the Butare area. On May 22, 2009, Justice Denis found Munyaneza guilty of two counts of genocide, two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes. Having concluded that the killings were premeditated, Justice Denis held that Munyaneza would not be eligible for parole for 25 years.

Munyaneza was the first person to be charged under Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The Act incorporates universal jurisdiction, allowing Canada to prosecute any individual present…

Continue reading this entry ➔