Rosebud Salve Tattoos

"Get out! "... Yes, but ... or "limits the use of force by the national authorities"

events taking place at the beginning of 2011, mainly in North Africa, invited to ask a number of questions about the international rules applicable to the use of force by the authorities of a State vis-à-vis its own population.

Certainly, no one would deny the possibility for a State to resort to some form of legal and legitimate violence against ordinary crime (robbery, hostage taking, etc..). The other question is obviously when we consider the use of force in politics, especially against a popular movement that develops against the exercise of a power held autocratic.

Governments tend to use an intense crackdown argue that it is within their internal affairs and that Article 2.7 of the UN Charter precludes other states - even the community International structured within the UN - has any jurisdiction to interfere in that framework.

Too simple, the argument is also too low. Indeed, there is first of all be remembered with a founding principle acquired customary force and to which states can not derogate. It is contained in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person".

The definition of the legal framework

Faced with a situation of intense violence, such as that observed in Libya appears in this month of February 2011, will land all of First the question of whether the law of armed conflict is likely to find here a case of application. A priori, Protocol II of 8 June 1977 Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, " does not apply to situations internal tensions, internal strife, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other similar acts, which are not considered armed conflicts " [1] . However, the extent of popular révollte far as the intensity of repression leads to stress that the commentary suggests that the ICRC is doing to this provision can be identified "situations where, without there is strictly speaking non-international armed conflict, there is however, internally, a clash that has a certain character severity or duration and includes acts of violence. These can take various forms, ranging from spontaneous generation of acts of revolt to the struggle between more or less organized and the authorities in power. In these situations, which do not necessarily degenerate into open struggle, the authorities in power call upon extensive police or armed forces, to restore internal order. The high number of victims has made necessary the application of minimum humanitarian standards. "

In this context, it appears to least reasonable to refer to the rules contained in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and avoided damage to life and bodily integrity (murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, hostage-taking , outrages upon personal dignity such as humiliating and degrading treatment, sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous trial record after a fair trial).

In recent years, the evolution of designs has also identified a number of rules to apprehend crisis situations without the absolute requirement to enter the debate of the threshold below which one can speak of Armed Conflict. Responsibility of States and their leaders will find a central place.

the responsibility of States and their leaders face their populations

About the specific responsibilities of States towards their citizens, how can we forget the paragraph 138 of the resolution 60 / 1 of the UN General Assembly on 24 October 2005 which states that "Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including incitement to know [2] , by means necessary and appropriate " [3] .

In view of these texts, we will highlight the scope of Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court which includes among the acts that may constitute a crime against humanity, the attack against a particular population and conduct involving the multiple commission of acts such as murder, imprisonment or severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law and all other forms of inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. (Article 7 of the ICC Statute).

What reaction be?

response unit situation, the question of the possible reaction.
Even before considering the legal understanding of the matter is before the International Criminal Court (provided that the State concerned is party to the Statute) or under the universal jurisdiction of states to prosecute crimes the most serious international law, it should highlight a number of opportunities policy responses, even operational.

Indeed, if the resolution 60 / 1 of the General Assembly of 24 October 2005, already quoted, imposes clear obligations on States to respect their population, it also gives responsibilities to the international community. In particular, paragraph 139 provides that "it is also incumbent upon the international community, through the United Nations, to implement appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means in accordance with Chapters VI and VII Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. "

• Intervention unconstrained army

As such, we know many ways not involving the use of coercion: the embargo on arms and ammunition, sea and air embargo, sanctions on financial assets belonging to the leaders, the embargo on certain exports or imports with the exception of goods necessary for survival of the population.

• Intervention applicant armed coercion

However, we can imagine that "should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations "(Resolution 60 / 1, paragraph 139). In this case, a UN intervention involving the use of coercion is theoretically possible on the basis of Chapter VII. Although the situations are quite different, we find a form of example through resolutions 1674 and 1769 (2007) Security Council about the Darfur crisis.

The question of intervention imposed on the territory of a State asks a series of sensitive issues in which we will not come under this short note. However, it is interesting to recall that a reflection of this kind was conducted in 2008 in the lap of the UN and particularly through a document published by the Global Center for the responsability to protect ". This document established a framework for intervention of this kind, highlighting five points:

• A present or imminent threat of genocide or mass atrocities is it proven?
• The goal of intervention is it good to prevent or stop this process?
• Non-binding measures would it be inappropriate?
• action is proportionate to the aim?
• intervention will result she by more good than harm?

Beyond that, obviously facing issues such as the success of such a draft decision submitted to the Security Council, that the desirability of such intervention against the regional context , or that of the origin of the troops who should be charged, if any.

As for the European Union , an absence of protest or reaction muted - except to protect its citizens (however that is very legitimate) or its immediate interests - would be incomprehensible.

Or the challenge of moving the unanimous indignation at the concerted action needed ...

---

[1] . Article 1 st , 2.

[2] . In the case of the Libyan crisis, some remarks standup by leaders in place can polemic in this regard.

[3] . Moreover, we find the same logic, for example, in resolution 1674 (2006) Security Council of 28 April 2006, paragraph 17 or in the "European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid" (Joint Statement of the Board and representatives Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and European Commission (2008 / C 25/01), 4).