Call for Papers: Securing Compliance with IHL: The Promise and Limits of Contemporary Enforcement Mechanisms

The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied and Autonomous Territories have issued a call for papers for their fourth annual international conference, to take place November 22-24, 2009, in Jerusalem. The conference topic is "Securing Compliance with IHL: The Promise and Limits of Contemporary Enforcement Mechanisms." Here's the call:

Introduction

The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied and Autonomous Territories are organizing an international conference on the enforcement of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This event, the fourth annual international conference to be co-organized by the Minerva Center and the ICRC, will examine recent developments relating to the various mechanisms designed to ensure and improve compliance with IHL norms, and will evaluate the actual and potential effectiveness of these mechanisms. The conference will take place in Jerusalem on November 22-24, 2009.

Recipients of this call for papers are invited to submit proposals to present a paper at the conference. Authors of the selected proposals will be offered flight expenses to Israel and accommodations for the duration of the conference.

Background

The proposition that what IHL needs is not new norms, but rather better enforcement of existing norms, enjoys considerable support. While the substantive norms of IHL in treaties are generally quite detailed, the mechanisms to enforce these norms are far less developed. The accelerated expansion in the 1990s of the application of IHL norms to non-international armed conflict and non-state groups has accentuated the gap between norms and enforcement.

While States themselves bear the primary responsibility to enforce the IHL norms to which they are bound, domestic enforcement has often proven inadequate. Hence, since it was reinvigorated in the 1990s, international criminal law has been widely viewed as the legal institution best capable of reducing IHL's compliance-gap. By focusing on individual responsibility and providing strong adjudicatory mechanisms that can operate on a universal basis, international criminal law was perceived as capable of generating incentives for compliance by all individuals involved in armed conflicts. However, more than 15 years after the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and a decade after the conclusion of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, it appears that these expectations may well have been exaggerated. Although international criminal law has undoubtedly played a useful role in the aftermath of certain armed conflicts, it is doubtful whether international and universal jurisdiction have had much effect on the willingness of parties to armed conflicts to comply with the norms of IHL. International tribunals can only deal with a small number of cases, and it is questionable whether the hope that the existence of such tribunals would provide incentive for enhanced domestic enforcement of IHL norms has materialized.

Doubts as to the effectiveness of international criminal law have encouraged the exploration of other prevention and enforcement mechanisms - old and new - such as improved training designed to inculcate IHL norms, establishment of reparation committees, sanctions, reprisals, and lodging tort and administrative law claims in domestic courts. In the absence of mechanisms for enforcing state compliance with IHL, international human rights proceedings appear to be increasingly utilized in order to deal with armed conflict situations. All these mechanisms may be useful in some cases, in the sense that they may prevent some violations and cater to the needs of some victims. However, they do not provide, or even raise general expectations of systematic enforcement and redress.

Purpose of the Conference

The conference aims to critically examine the various enforcement mechanisms, both domestic and international, that have been designed or harnessed to induce compliance with IHL norms. It seeks to identify areas of future development within existing mechanisms and to suggest the creation of new mechanisms. It also aims to explore, where possible, the parallel or consecutive application of various mechanisms.

By studying existing and potential tools for better enforcement of IHL, the conference hopes to contribute to the development of law and scholarship in this crucial field of international law.

Researchers interested in addressing these questions, or other questions related to the topic of the conference, are invited to respond to this call for papers with a one-page proposal for an article and presentation, along with a brief CV. Proposals should be submitted no later than 16 April 2009, by email, to the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (mchr@savion.huji.ac.il).

All applicants should receive notification of the academic committee's decision by 15 May 2009. Short written contributions (of approx. 8-10 pages) based on the selected proposals will be expected by 1 November 2009. The organizers intend to publish full-length papers based on presentations made at the conference in a special edition of the Israel Law Review.

Conference Academic Committee

Prof. David Kretzmer, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Transitional Justice Institute, University of Ulster; Academic Center of Law and Business, Ramat Gan

Prof. Yuval Shany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Dr. Yaël Ronen, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Mr. Charles Shamas, Mattin Group, Ramallah

Adv. Larry Maybee, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied and Autonomous Territories

Adv. Eitan Diamond, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied and Autonomous Territories