The Study On Typology Of Armed Conflicts In War Crimes

With the development of the theory of war crimes, war crimes could only be applied to international armed conflict before and now it can be applied to both international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts. Despite its tough development, it has been broadly accepted that war crimes exist in non-international armed conflicts. ICTY and ICTR who put actions that materially violate war rules into justice have sentenced people who have committed war crimes in non-international armed conflicts. ICC expressly regulates war crimes that apply to international armed conflict or non-international armed conflict in Roman Statute and has practiced ever since.There have been lots of difficulties during the development of war crimes. For instance, some Great Powers and countries that were inflicted with wars were not willing to become parties of the Roman Statute; lack of authoritative explanation to some rules leads to conviction difficulties. This article shall address only one difficulty, i.e.. As the authority of war crimes, in different treaties and cases the definition of the two words are different. This article analyses this problem and gives some suggestions as follows:The first part gives definitions on war crimes and specifically emphasizes on the history of the development of war crimes. In this part, the author points out that the difference of armed conflicts is the basis of charging war crimes and the author also introduces the legal source of war crimes.The second part addresses the main issue of this article, i.e. treaties that are the basis for trial define international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts differently from precedent cases.The third part explains that this issue has put impact on war crimes in two ways: one is that it results in the undistributed definition; the other one is that different authorities have different opinions on international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts when putting war crimes into trial.In the fourth part, the author tries to give some suggestions to those problems: ICRC should be responsible for a unified explanation on Geneva systems; ICRC and ICC should together popularize international humanitarian customary law and put special armed conflicts into the jurisdiction of war crimes.