International Humanitarian Law and Criminal Court: Their Role in Peacebuilding

This entry focuses on international humanitarian law and international criminal court and their role in building peace.

International humanitarian law is defined as “set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflicts.” The Geneva Conventions have formed the significant part of international humanitarian law. It applies only to armed conflicts, regardless whether the conflict is international or within a state. It prohibits the use of weapons that indiscriminately fire to anyone, cause unnecessary suffering, and damage the environment severely.

It is part of international law in the form of treaties and conventions that govern the relationships among states. International law is made by states, for states and enforced by states. In relation to conflict, it is outlawed to use force in times of conflict. States have to settle conflicts peacefully and amicably. However, states may use force in two situations; if it is acting in self-defense and if the use of force is authorized by Security Council. There is a blurred and gray area whether use of force is justified when the situation calls for humanitarian intervention. State’s sovereignty gets in the way whenever intervention is being contemplated.

The international criminal court has been instituted twice already to try the cases in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Bringing to justice those who committed atrocities and large-scale human rights violations like genocide is a critical part to restore and bring peace in conflict areas. However, there is the question of recognition and power of this international court to try cases when there is a domestic court that should try these cases.

Human rights law, unlike humanitarian law, is applicable at all times and in all occasions. These human rights law has been stipulated in various treaties and conventions. Major of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It sets the universality of this declaration to those states that signed the declaration. It is legally binding for those states. However, there are instances where a state legislates something that runs counter to the universally-recognized human rights. So, are human rights subject to legislation? They say that because of cultural relativity, the discourse on human rights becomes contentious although we cannot discount its universality aspect.