敌对行为、攻击效果和刑事责任

IF 0.7 Q2 Social Sciences ISRAEL LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1017/s0021223724000050
Geoffrey Corn
{"title":"敌对行为、攻击效果和刑事责任","authors":"Geoffrey Corn","doi":"10.1017/s0021223724000050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>War crimes related to the decision to carry out attacks during the conduct of hostilities are almost always defined in terms of conduct and not result (Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). Yet it is common for critiques of such decisions to focus on attack results as proof of their alleged illegality. While such results are probative of compliance or non-compliance with international humanitarian law rules regulating the conduct of hostilities, they should rarely be indisputable. This article addresses the challenge of attaching probative value to attack results when assessing responsibility for alleged war crimes based on allegedly illicit attack decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":44911,"journal":{"name":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Conduct of Hostilities, Attack Effects, and Criminal Accountability\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey Corn\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0021223724000050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>War crimes related to the decision to carry out attacks during the conduct of hostilities are almost always defined in terms of conduct and not result (Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). Yet it is common for critiques of such decisions to focus on attack results as proof of their alleged illegality. While such results are probative of compliance or non-compliance with international humanitarian law rules regulating the conduct of hostilities, they should rarely be indisputable. This article addresses the challenge of attaching probative value to attack results when assessing responsibility for alleged war crimes based on allegedly illicit attack decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223724000050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223724000050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与敌对行动期间实施攻击的决定有关的战争罪几乎总是从行为而非结果的角度来定义的(《国际刑事法院罗马规约》第 8(2)(b)条)。然而,对此类决定的批评通常都把重点放在攻击结果上,以此证明其所谓的非法性。虽然这些结果可以证明是否遵守了规范敌对行为的国际人道法规则,但它们很少是无可争议的。本文论述了在根据被指控的非法攻击决定评估被控战争罪的责任时,赋予攻击结果以证明价值所面临的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Conduct of Hostilities, Attack Effects, and Criminal Accountability

War crimes related to the decision to carry out attacks during the conduct of hostilities are almost always defined in terms of conduct and not result (Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). Yet it is common for critiques of such decisions to focus on attack results as proof of their alleged illegality. While such results are probative of compliance or non-compliance with international humanitarian law rules regulating the conduct of hostilities, they should rarely be indisputable. This article addresses the challenge of attaching probative value to attack results when assessing responsibility for alleged war crimes based on allegedly illicit attack decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Politics and Justice at the International Criminal Court The Effect of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine on Non-Human Animals: International Humanitarian Law Perspectives The Conduct of Hostilities, Attack Effects, and Criminal Accountability Charging Aggression as a Crime against Humanity? Revisiting the Proposal after Russia's Invasion of Ukraine How Misuse of Emergency Powers Dismantled the Rule of Law in Hungary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1