Tom Dannenbaum

Last updated

Tom Dannenbaum is an American associate professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy in Medford, Massachusetts, US. [1]

Contents

Works

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuremberg trials</span> Series of military trials at the end of World War II

The Nuremberg trials were held by the Allies against representatives of the defeated Nazi Germany for plotting and carrying out invasions of other countries and atrocities against their citizens in World War II.

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes against humanity</span> Authoritative and systemic acts that severely violate human rights

Crimes against humanity are widespread or systemic criminal acts which are committed by or on behalf of a de facto authority, usually by or on behalf of a state, that grossly violate human rights. Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity can be committed during both peace and war. They are not isolated or sporadic events because they are part of a government policy or they are part of a widespread practice of atrocities which is tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. They do not need to be part of an official policy, but they only need to be tolerated by authorities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rome Statute</span> 1998 international treaty establishing the International Criminal Court

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome, Italy on 17 July 1998 and it entered into force on 1 July 2002. As of November 2023, 124 states are party to the statute. Among other things, it establishes court function, jurisdiction and structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blockade</span> Prevention of trade or movement by force

A blockade is the act of actively preventing a country or region from receiving or sending out food, supplies, weapons, or communications, and sometimes people, by military force. A blockade differs from an embargo or sanction, which are legal barriers to trade rather than physical barriers. It is also distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city and the objective may not always be to conquer the area.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hersch Lauterpacht</span> Polish-British judge (1897–1960)

Sir Hersch Lauterpacht was a British international lawyer, human rights activist, and judge at the International Court of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International criminal law</span> Public international law

International criminal law (ICL) is a body of public international law designed to prohibit certain categories of conduct commonly viewed as serious atrocities and to make perpetrators of such conduct criminally accountable for their perpetration. The core crimes under international law are genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

Child protection refers to the safeguarding of children from violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect. It involves identifying signs of potential harm. This includes responding to allegations or suspicions of abuse, providing support and services to protect children, and holding those who have harmed them accountable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Command responsibility</span> Doctrine of hierarchical accountability

In the practice of international law, command responsibility is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes, whereby a commanding officer (military) and a superior officer (civil) is legally responsible for the war crimes and the crimes against humanity committed by his subordinates; thus, a commanding officer always is accountable for the acts of commission and the acts of omission of his soldiers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crime of aggression</span> Aggressive use of state military force that violates the Charter of the United Nations

A crime of aggression or crime against peace is the planning, initiation, or execution of a large-scale and serious act of aggression using state military force. The definition and scope of the crime is controversial. The Rome Statute contains an exhaustive list of acts of aggression that can give rise to individual criminal responsibility, which include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports. Aggression is generally a leadership crime that can be committed only by those with the power to shape a state's policy of aggression, rather than those who carry it out.

A war crimes trial is the trial of persons charged with criminal violation of the laws and customs of war and related principles of international law committed during armed conflict.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 1315</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 2000

United Nations Security Council resolution 1315, adopted unanimously on 14 August 2000, after expressing concern at serious crimes committed in Sierra Leone, the Council expressed its intention to establish the Special Court for Sierra Leone to deal with violations of human rights, international law and war crimes in the country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo</span>

During the first and second civil conflicts which took place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), all sides involved in the war actively recruited or conscripted child soldiers, known locally as Kadogos which is a Swahili term meaning "little ones". In 2011 it was estimated that 30,000 children were still operating with armed groups. The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO), released a report in 2013 which stated that between 1 January 2012 and August 2013 up to 1,000 children had been recruited by armed groups, and described the recruitment of child soldiers as "endemic".

Complicity in genocide is illegal under international law both for individuals, as part of international criminal law, and state parties to the Genocide Convention. The latter was first held in the Bosnian genocide case (2007) in which the International Court of Justice held Serbia responsible for failure to prevent the Bosnian genocide.

Jennifer Trahan is an American legal scholar and academic. She is a Clinical Professor at New York University's Center for Global Affairs and directs their Concentration in International Law and Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moral equality of combatants</span> Principle in military ethics and international humanitarian law

The moral equality of combatants (MEC) or moral equality of soldiers is the principle that soldiers fighting on both sides of a war are equally honorable, unless they commit war crimes, regardless of whether they fight for a just cause. MEC is a key element underpinning international humanitarian law (IHL)—which applies the rules of war equally to both sides—and traditional just war theory. According to philosopher Henrik Syse, MEC presents a serious quandary because "it makes as little practical sense to ascribe blame to individual soldiers for the cause of the war in which they fight as it makes theoretical sense to hold the fighters on the two sides to be fully morally equal". The moral equality of combatants has been cited in relation to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict or the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Selective conscientious objection</span> Practice of refusing some, but not all, military service

Selective conscientious objection is the practice of refusing some, but not all, military service. It is much more controversial than blanket conscientious objection based on consistent pacifism. Views on selective conscientious objection range from being morally impermissible, morally permissible, a right that may be exercised, or morally obligatory in the case of military personnel asked to fight an illegal war of aggression.

Universal jurisdiction investigations of war crimes in Ukraine are investigations of war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine carried out under the legal systems of individual states under the universal jurisdiction principle of international humanitarian law. States that started investigations included Germany, Lithuania, Spain and Sweden.

This is a select annotated bibliography of scholarly English language books and journal articles about the subject of genocide studies; for bibliographies of genocidal acts or events, please see the See also section for individual articles. A brief selection of English translations of primary sources is included for items related to the development of genocide studies. Book entries may have references to journal articles and reviews as annotations. Additional bibliographies can be found in many of the book-length works listed below; see Further Reading for several book and chapter-length bibliographies. The External links section contains entries for publicly available materials on the development of genocide studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Starvation (crime)</span> Treatment of starvation as a crime under international law

Starvation may qualify as a war crime, a crime against humanity, or an act of genocide depending on the circumstances. Starvation has not always been illegal according to international law; the starvation of civilians during the siege of Leningrad was ruled to be not criminal by a United States military court, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, though imposing limits, "accepted the legality of starvation as a weapon of war in principle". Historically, the development of laws against starvation has been hampered by the Western powers who wish to use blockades against their enemies; however, it was banned in the 1977 by Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions and criminalized by the Rome Statute. Prosecutions for starvation have been rare.

References

  1. "Tom Dannenbaum". fletcher.tufts.edu. Retrieved 16 June 2023.
  2. Svoboda, Emma (2023). "Empty Promises: Peacekeeper Babies and Discretionary Impunity within the United Nations". Harvard International Law Journal. 64: 1.
  3. Kersten, Mark (2023). "'Global South' Voices Are Muted in Debates over the Crime of Aggression: What Three Books on Illegal War Tell Us About Why". International Journal of Transitional Justice. 17 (1): 173–182. doi:10.1093/ijtj/ijac028.
  4. Lieblich, Eliav (2019). "The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier. By Tom Dannenbaum. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp. xxvii, 352. Index". American Journal of International Law. 113 (3): 664–669. doi: 10.1017/ajil.2019.21 .
  5. Gravel, Amélie (2020). "Tom Dannenbaum, The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018". Revue québécoise de droit international / Quebec Journal of International Law / Revista quebequense de derecho internacional (in French). 33 (1): 155–158. doi: 10.7202/1079910ar . ISSN   0828-9999.
  6. Sayapin, Sergey (2022). "The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 19 (4): 1031–1034. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqab057.