mini-Convention within the Conventions, as it contains the essential rules of the Geneva Conventions in a condensed format and makes them applicable to conflicts not of an international character. The addition of Common Article 3 represents the formal establishment of what is known in human rights law as jus cogens norms. means law” in Latin, and the name Jus cogens “compelling is apt—the principles that comprise are preemptory and jus cogens non-derogable. States are compelled to adhere to these norms under any and all circumstances. In addition to the war crimes delineated in Common Article 3, prohibitions on genocide, torture, and slavery have all come to be considered as well. jus cogens There is a body of substantive law to support the idea that these acts are all including the aforementioned Genocide jus cogens, Convention, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment (“CAT”). CAT, passed in 1984, specifies that, exceptional “[n]o circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” This language implies a preemptory nature, and there is similar language in the international agreements pertaining to the other acts that are considered jus cogens. Each of the three atrocity crimes discussed in this war crimes, and crimes against humanity—are considered norms. This means that the commission of jus cogens the crime need not be connected to a state party—the grounds for criminal jurisdiction are different for crimes than for jus cogens other crimes. All states are not only to prosecute alleged permitted perpetrators of crimes, they are to do so. jus cogens obligated However, there are those who believe that prosecution may not be the most effective response to atrocities. B. Atrocity Prevention in the Modern Era: Mechanisms for Enforcement and Intervention The late 1990s and early 2000s represented a shift in the atrocity prevention paradigm—the international community began to push for the development of new enforcement mechanisms for the existing atrocity prevention schema. In 1998, a group of states
mini-Convention within the Conventions, as it contains the essential rules of the Geneva Conventions in a condensed format and makes them applicable to conflicts not of an international character. The addition of Common Article 3 represents the formal establishment of what is known in human rights law as jus cogens norms. Jus cogens means “compelling law” in Latin, and the name is apt—the principles that comprise jus cogens are preemptory and non-derogable. States are compelled to adhere to these norms under any and all circumstances. In addition to the war crimes delineated in Common Article 3, prohibitions on genocide, torture, and slavery have all come to be considered jus cogens as well. There is a body of substantive law to support the idea that these acts are all jus cogens, including the aforementioned Genocide Convention, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment (“CAT”). CAT, passed in 1984, specifies that, “[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” This language implies a preemptory nature, and there is similar language in the international agreements pertaining to the other acts that are considered jus cogens. Each of the three atrocity crimes discussed in this war crimes, and crimes against humanity—are considered jus cogens norms. This means that the commission of the crime need not be connected to a state party—the grounds for criminal jurisdiction are different for jus cogens crimes than for other crimes. All states are not only permitted to prosecute alleged perpetrators of jus cogens crimes, they are obligated to do so. However, there are those who believe that prosecution may not be the most effective response to atrocities. B. Atrocity Prevention in the Modern Era: Mechanisms for Enforcement and Intervention The late 1990s and early 2000s represented a shift in the atrocity prevention paradigm—the international community began to push for the development of new enforcement mechanisms for the existing atrocity prevention schema. In 1998, a group of states
SARAH%20LESSER%20-%20NY%2045%20-%20Final%20Paper%20Submitted%2009-20-2017.docx