Talk:Crime against humanity

Rome Statute and Israel

Supporters of Israel should carefully read the Rome Statute defining "war crimes". Several of the clauses SEEM to apply to the Israeli army (IDF) and the actions it has taken to suppress anti-Israel terrorism in Gaza and the West Bank. It makes me wonder if the Rome Statute was created specifically to target Israel.

Is the ICC anti-semitic?

Please read the external link, and comment here. --Ed Poor 07:37 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)

Seems a little off-topic? In any case, I can't see anything in Article 8 which particularly egregiously suggests Israeli actions... the ones about targetting civilian areas or destroying property have an "unless really necessary" rider. Anything in particular in mind? Please comment on the Talk:Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court page. Ben@liddicott.com 14:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Hague (IV) 1907 Convention

The term was first used in the preamble of the Hague Convention of 1907, and subsequently used...

I looked through the Hague Conference of 1907 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm) and could not find the phrase "Crime against humanity" please could someone point out in which of the 13 conventions of that year I-XIII the phrase occures and where? Philip Baird Shearer 03:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A week gone by and no answer so here are some more details:

• http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm Hague IV has this paragraph

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

it goes on to say in the next paragraph:

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood. Article (1) says "Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention." (2) apply "only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention"

I found this site http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html which says

The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the "laws of humanity," as reflected throughout history in different cultures.

The phrase seems to be "laws of humanity" and civilized peoples ... what are civilized peoples?

Also very importantly is the phrase "belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations" So it would seem that the treatment of a power's own na tionals are not covered by this treaty. So if a Nation were to kill a sub-ethnic or economic group within its own nation then Hague IV has nothing to say about this. Philip Baird Shearer 12:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List headings are contentious, could do with more distinctions.

The list headings are inconsistent and contentious. Grouping the Allied and Axis powers seems to hold US and UK responsible for things the USSR did which were outside the scope of the alliance. Other actions, (Dresden, Hiroshima) on the other hand are within the scope of the alliance.

While the actions of the Germans and Japanese in WWII are more comparable, they weren't planned jointly and grouping them together seems to serve no purpose.

Attributing actions to "The US and it's client states" seems like an excuse to attribute Pinochet's actions to the US. Not sure this grouping serves any NPOV purpose.

There could also usefully be made some more distinctions, based on scale, actors, and intent.

• Scale: Pinochet's actions are certainly great crimes against the victims, but in terms of scale they are not comparable with most of the items in the list.
• Actors: It should be made clear whether the actor is a state or a rogue element thereof, for example Mai Lai was covered up by the state, but it seems pretty clear that rogues were to blame. Likewise war crimes in Iraq from 2000 on, unless the war itself is considered a crime against humanity.
• Intent: For example Germany made war in order to commit some their alleged crimes, i.e. specifically in order to exterminate and enslave the slavic peoples and occupy slavic lands. Similar observations apply to Japan. However most of the the allies' alleged crimes (Dresden, Hiroshima) were done with the purpose of better prosecuting the war (whether justified or not).

There is a lot of use made of the word "alleged". Mostly any controversy is around whether it is a crime (context, intent, think Hiroshima), or whether it amounts to a crime against humanity (scale).

If nobody objects or has a better idea, I am going to replace the existing categories with a straight chronological order.

Ben@liddicott.com 10:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Allegations" are not particularly encyclopaedic. Would it be better to restrict the article to discussing what constitutes a crime against humanity, and move the list to List of events that have been described as crimes against humanity? That way we avoid the highly POV issue of determining what is and is not a crime against humanity. Anilocra - {hi!) 15:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)