Les soins de santé, victimes de 6 ans de guerre en Syrie

Le conflit en Syrie entre cette semaine dans sa septième année. Au cours des six ans écoulés, l’accès de la population civile aux soins de santé s’est sérieusement dégradé. Plus de la moitié des hôpitaux publics et des centres de soins primaires du pays soit ont fermé, soit fonctionnent partiellement. Près des deux tiers des personnels de santé ont fui. De nombreux établissements encore ouverts n’ont pas d’eau potable, d’électricité ou de médicaments et matériels chirurgicaux en quantité suffisante.
L’accès à des établissements de santé opérationnels est devenu un défi pour la plupart des gens en Syrie, quel que soit l’endroit où ils vivent. Malgré le cessez-le-feu actuel, l’Organisation mondiale de la Santé et ses partenaires n’ont pas encore pu avoir régulièrement accès aux communautés dans les zones difficiles à atteindre. De plus, les données les plus récentes indiquent qu’en 2016, plus de deux tiers des attaques contre les établissements de santé ont eu lieu en Syrie.
Selon le Dr Peter Salama, Directeur exécutif du Programme OMS de gestion des situations d’urgence sanitaire, « d’énormes besoins de santé continuent de ne pas être satisfaits en Syrie et les ressources pour aider le personnel et le système de santé sont sollicitées jusqu’à leurs limites».
De nombreux obstacles à l’accès demeurent, notamment les menaces sur la sécurité des personnels de santé et la disponibilité des médicaments, des fournitures et des équipements. «En ce triste anniversaire rappelant le début de la guerre en Syrie et avant que de nouvelles vies soient perdues, l’OMS demande un accès systématique et sans obstacles à toutes les zones pour y apporter les médicaments, les vaccins et les fournitures médicales indispensables».
Malgré les obstacles, l’OMS a continué d’apporter son aide aux services de santé sous la forme de médicaments et de fournitures, de formations destinées aux personnels de santé qui restent, d’équipes médicales et de dispensaires mobiles par le biais de programmes traversant les lignes et les frontières.
Source : OMS
Publié dans Protection de la mission médicale | Tagué , , | Laisser un commentaire

Relevant and practical: The Additional Protocols at 40

34th Annual Seminar for Diplomats Accredited to the UN, New York, Statement by Philip Spoerri, Permanent observer of the ICRC to the United Nations.
It is my pleasure to be here today to mark the anniversary of the 1977 Additional Protocols (APs) and the impact they have had on how armed conflicts are fought. Forty years ago, the Protocols codified basic principles and rules of international humanitarian law (IHL). They also developed new rules to reflect the changing face of modern conflicts. Today, these contributions still stand at the front line of contemporary conflicts, protecting civilians from the worst excesses of war and guiding parties to armed conflicts as they navigate new realities.
To set the scene for the 40th Anniversary of the APs, my remarks will cover four topics. I will first take you back to the geopolitical context leading to the adoption of the Protocols to reflect on the nature of the « new wars » and the gaps that the Protocols sought to regulate. With this in mind, I will then address the main features of the Protocols – in particular in light of the objectives they set out to achieve. Third, I will highlight some of the Protocols’ key achievements since 1977 – many of which have daily significance in the lives of victims of armed conflict – and finally, I will set out the vital – and continued – relevance of the Protocols today.
1. Historical context
Turning to the historical context defining the Protocols, we will look at the following aspects: the decolonization conflicts, the proliferation of new States and non-international armed conflicts, and rapid advances in means and methods of warfare.
In the decades following the Second World War, wars of national liberation erupted throughout Africa and Asia. These conflicts were characterized by asymmetric warfare, where guerrilla fighters faced organized, well-equipped armies with superior weapons and so turned to leaders such as Mao Tse-Tung, who (symptomatically) advised that « a freedom fighter must be in the civilian population as a fish in water. » Furthermore, the spike in the number of non-international conflicts (NIACs), which quickly overtook inter-State conflicts, left civilians as the main victims, largely beyond the protective scope of IHL with the exception of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
The context was also marked by new realities on the battlefield. The development of new weapons technologies, for instance aerial weapons and rockets allowing strikes virtually anywhere and subject to few concrete regulations, as well as the Cold War arms race, threatened to extend the battlefield ad infinitum. In the face of this, clarification and consensus was needed regarding the authorized methods and means of warfare. Beyond this, the rules regulating the conduct of hostilities more generally cried out for codification. This conviction of the ICRC was shared by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, which in 1968 emphasized the need for additional humanitarian conventions, or for revising existing law to better protect victims and to limit or prohibit the use of certain means and methods of warfare.
It was in this context and faced with these challenges that the development of IHL was seen as critical and that States adopted the APs in 1977. Indeed, as concluded by the ICRC’s Presidency Council in 1968 when surveying the horrors of the Vietnam War « The Geneva Conventions, in the present circumstances, are like an island in the middle of a swamp and will continue to sink slowly but surely if the Committee does not react. »
2. Objective of the Additional Protocols
I will now move to the second part of my presentation on the objectives and content of the Additional Protocols.This section will focus on four key aspects: the universal reaffirmation of IHL, the regulation of the conduct of hostilities and of non-international armed conflicts, and the new realities of warfare.
During the 1974-1977 Diplomatic Conference, one of the ICRC’s main aims – yet one all too often overlooked – was to reaffirm existing principles of IHL which were already part of conventional and customary international law but which had been negotiated before the era of decolonization and the resultant tripling in the number of States.
With this objective in mind, the universality of participation in the negotiation of the Protocols was unprecedented. While the 1949 Conventions were largely negotiated by European States, all States Parties to the Geneva Conventions or Members of the UN were invited to attend the Diplomatic Conference at which the Protocols were negotiated. Ultimately, 124 States participated, representing more than double the States that took part in the Diplomatic Conference to draft the 1949 Geneva Conventions (59). The concerns and priorities of newly independent States – including the classification of wars of independence, the treatment of guerrilla fighters, the illegality of apartheid, and the status of mercenaries – drove the negotiation agenda. These found expression in the Protocols while remaining true to a universally accepted humanitarian goal. Tellingly, although the authentic texts of the 1949 Geneva Conventions were English and French, the Protocols are authentic in English, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, French, and Russian. Thus, new States gained a greater sense of ownership of IHL, and the reaffirmation of basic IHL principles by the wider international community of the 1970s was an important goal in itself.
As a second objective of the ICRC, the APs aimed to codify and progressively develop essential rules on the conduct of hostilities. In 1949, States were not able to agree on these rules, in particular due to the irreconcilable differences on nuclear weapons. In addition, Hague Law dealing with hostilities and the use of weapons had not undergone any significant revision since 1907. Thus, the rules on the conduct of hostilities were due a healthy dose of universal scrutiny, codification and development.
Among the most important rules contained in the Protocols are those on the protection of the civilian population and objects against the effects of hostilities. For instance, Additional Protocol I (API) includes definitions of the key notions of « combatant », « armed forces », « military objectives » as well as of « civilians » and « civilian objects. » It articulates key principles to guide military targeting, including the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions – all of which save lives on battlefields around the world every day. It also prohibits attacks on the civilian population and on civilian objects.
Thirdly, recognizing the increase in NIACs, another important contribution of the Protocols was to secure greater protection for civilians affected by these situations. As the first-ever treaty devoted exclusively to the protection of people affected by NIACs, APII elaborated upon Common Article 3 and expressly extended essential rules of IHL to these conflicts. For example, APII strengthens the fundamental guarantees enjoyed by all persons not, or no longer, taking part in the hostilities; prohibits attacks on civilians; regulates the forced movement of civilians; and protects all medical personnel, units and means of transport, whether civilian or military. While less developed than the law applicable to IACs, and despite its circumscribed field of application, APII was adopted by consensus and represents a paradigmatic step forward towards ensuring that civilians affected by NIACs benefit from the fundamental protections in place in IACs.
Finally, the Additional Protocols sought to take account of new realities of warfare in an era marked by wars of liberation, guerrilla tactics and acts of terror. At the 1974-1977 Diplomatic Conference, newly independent States argued for greater protections for guerrilla fighters who, in opposition to better-equipped State armies, would be handicapped if they were to employ traditional methods of set-piece battle and uniform. A compromise solution was found: guerrilla warfare was accommodated in the formulation of Article 44 of API, which contains the exigency that those fighters must carry arms openly when attacking their opposition.
The Protocols also strengthen the rules addressing terrorism in armed conflicts. In addition to an express prohibition of all acts aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population, the Protocols proscribe a number of acts that could be considered terrorist attacks. These include attacks on civilians and civilian objects; indiscriminate attacks; attacks on places of worship; attacks on works and installations containing dangerous forces; and the taking of hostages.
3. The success and achievements of the Additional Protocols
After addressing some of the Protocol’s main features, I want to highlight some of their concrete successes over the last decades. Specifically, I will focus on the APs ratification record, their contribution to customary international law formation, and their catalytic impact on the development of international law and on the fight against impunity. Finally, I will provide some tangible examples of how we at the ICRC see the Protocols in action, saving lives on the ground, day in and day out.
Regarding ratifications – the Protocols are amongst the most widely ratified or acceded to international instruments, with 174 States Parties to API and 168 to APII. As such – together with the Geneva Conventions – they form IHL’s foundations and are cornerstones for the protection and respect of human dignity in armed conflict. Unlike the 1949 Geneva Conventions however, the Protocols are not universally ratified. On this 40th anniversary, we would thus like to take the opportunity to invite States not yet Party to accede to Protocols I and II. The universal ratification of these instruments is an important step to improve the protection of persons affected by armed conflicts worldwide.
The Protocols also contributed to the formation of customary law. Although these elements alone are not sufficient for a customary rule to come into effect, the broad participation in the negotiation of the APs and the fact that the majority of its provisions were adopted by consensus were crucial factors. In fact, of the 150 articles in the Protocols on substantive matters, only 14 required a formal vote. Many of the rules adopted by consensus contributed to the formation of customary IHL rules which bind all States – including those not party to the treaties. Significantly, the crystallization of customary law has particularly impacted the law applicable to NIACs. For example, the ICRC’s Study on Customary IHL identifies 161 rules – 149 of which also apply in NIACs.
Furthermore, the Protocols established the groundwork for, and inspired the development of, multiple weapons treaties. During discussions at the 1974-77 Diplomatic Conference on Article 35 of API, which establishes that the right to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimited, delegates decided to convene a special conference under the UN framework. Its aim would be to elaborate what ultimately became the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits several particularly cruel weapons or restricts their use. A range of other treaties have since been concluded to prescribe certain weapons, including the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines (1997). There is no doubt that the adoption of the Additional Protocols contributed to these processes, and that the weapons treaties that have proliferated since 1977 reduce the pain and suffering of victims of war every year.
On a related note, the Protocols also made milestone contributions to international criminal law and the fight against impunity. API expanded the list of grave breaches of IHL incurring individual criminal liability in IACs. APII blazed a trail for international law in the realm of NIACs, clearing a path for the fight against impunity that is of particular relevance given the prevalence of NIACs today. Although APII does not contain a provision stipulating individual criminal liability for war crimes, in 1994 the Security Council considered that criminal responsibility for violations of this Protocol was implicit in the obligations it established, and gave the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda jurisdiction over such violations. One year later, the ICTY in its momentous Tadic decision held that individual criminal responsibility existed in respect of violations of the customary law of NIACs. Today, the statute of the International Criminal Court details a list of serious violations of the laws and customs of NIACs. Finally, many States have adopted normative frameworks (over 50 States criminalize violations of API) and created strong juridical mechanisms and effective measures to prevent serious violations of IHL committed in both types of conflicts and to prosecute those responsible for committing them. Some States have also harmonized legal obligations relating to repression, regardless of whether serious violations of IHL are committed in IACs or NIACs.
Finally, and perhaps most concretely, the real triumph of the APs has been their ability to translate in practice: the last forty years have proven that – far from ivory tower idealism – they are battle-worn tools that make a tangible difference on the ground. I would like to share just a few examples of this.
As peace was negotiated in Colombia at the close of last year, the Final Agreement between the State and the FARC, and the subsequent Amnesty Law, largely drew from Article 6(5) of Additional Protocol II (APII). This is a striking example of national integration of the « widest possible amnesty » recommended by APII for persons who participated in the conflict (but in doing so incurred no liability for international crimes). This experience may serve to inform other peace processes when assessing how transitional justice can facilitate the road to peace. The prospect of using amnesties in the future is also a strong – and perhaps the most persuasive – incentive for combatants in other conflicts in Colombia (and beyond) to comply with IHL.
In addition, in conflicts today, the conduct of hostilities is frequently improved as armed forces work to apply IHL in their targeting. For example, many military manuals, including those of States not, or not at the time, party to API, lay down the principle of proportionality – including those of Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The rules in the APs related to relief actions and civilian medical personnel, facilities and transports have contributed to the provisions of vital assistance to victims of armed conflicts. Today, the ICRC is present in more than 80 countries worldwide. Over the course of a year the ICRC can support upwards of 50,000 weapon-wounded patients, as well as 148 emergency first-aid posts located near combat zones. These are all examples of the Protocols in action.
4. The continued relevance of the Additional Protocols
In my final point today, as we mark the 40th anniversary of the Protocols, I want to discuss their continued relevance to modern armed conflicts (as they say – life begins at 40!).
Today, we often hear three main concerns about IHL:
  • « The law is not adequate to the nature of armed conflict today. »
  • « The law is not applicable in the context of fighting terrorism. »
  • « The law imposes unfair symmetric obligations on parties in asymmetric conflicts with proliferating armed non-state actors. »
These should not be mistaken as new. In fact, the existing challenges to IHL, including the increase in NIACs and rapid advances of modern technology, are precisely issues that the Protocols sought to address. Similarly, the challenges posed by asymmetric conflicts and the fight against terror, which we regularly hear invoked today, also drove the negotiations of the Protocols. With this in mind, efforts to dismiss the APs as a touchstone in armed conflicts today – including in certain counter-terrorism operations – is often a tactic to move the goalposts and masks an unwillingness to apply time-tested rules and principles to contemporary armed challenges. Our experience shows that the failure to impose limits on means and methods of warfare may prompt excesses in return, and in this way contribute to continuing cycles of armed conflict that will spiral through generations.
As a result, the ICRC remains convinced that the fundamental challenge facing us today is not the relevance of the existing rules of IHL, but rather improving the implementation of these. We therefore call on States to ensure that the laws of war, as they are found on paper, are systematically translated into improved behaviour on the ground by parties to armed conflicts.
In this spirit, I would like to recall that the ICRC and Switzerland have been facilitating a process with States aimed at strengthening IHL implementation mechanisms. In the first, consultative phase, which took place from 2011-2015, it became clear that IHL is a very rare body of law that does not provide a forum in which States could meet regularly to discuss IHL application and that this gap persists. In the current, inter-governmental phase, which started last year, States are revisiting the idea of a potential forum of States and will also examine how the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and regional forums could also be better utilized to improve respect for IHL. These avenues should be considered as complementary. We invite States to take an active part in the inter-governmental process that is being co-facilitated by the ICRC and Switzerland, to share their views, and to invest the necessary political will to achieve a common understanding on what would be an effective way forward.
Finally, although achieving greater respect for the APs is crucial, this does not mean that there is no scope for further clarification or development. For instance, despite the existence of rules pertaining to NIACs in Common Article 3 and APII, there is still a disparity between IHL governing these situations as compared to IACs, for instance with regard to the deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, difficulties remain in the application and interpretation of the law, in particular in response to new threats, new actors and new means and methods of warfare. Notably, debates continue on the interpretation of certain key legal concepts crucial for the protection of civilians and civilian objects, such as the principle of proportionality. Differing interpretations ultimately result in decreased protection. As a result, it is necessary to continue reflecting on these, and other, issues, in order to reaffirm, clarify or develop IHL, where needed.
5. Conclusion
In closing, I wish to leave you with a final observation. The Additional Protocols were negotiated and agreed in the thick of Cold War polarization, amid nuclear-level anxiety, and at a table where newly independent States sat facing their recent colonial powers. The atmosphere, ladies and gentlemen, was not an easy one, and remembering this is crucial as we discuss the relevance of the Protocols to contemporary conflicts. Despite the geopolitical landscape, States in the 1970s worked hard to clarify the principles of IHL in practice. The Protocols, and the body of law they have contributed to, are thus not the product of humanitarian idealism – they strike a balance between military necessity and humanity. Furthermore, the Protocols are not relics of a bygone, simpler time in history – rather, they are carefully-negotiated products of experience and hard-won compromise, based on the complexities of combat, and they remain very much relevant today. So I ask you and your governments three things: First, please accede to the Protocols if you have not done so already, or encourage other States to do so. Second, please work to implement, apply and enforce the APs in today’s armed conflicts because they help combatants and civilians alike. Please respect and ensure respect for these important laws. And, third, please speak up for the Additional Protocols and their rules – for their very practical relevance to today’s conflicts and for the humanitarian impact they have on people affected by armed conflict every single day.
Source : ICRC
Publié dans DIH | Tagué , | Laisser un commentaire

La Haute Cour de Pretoria déclare inconstitutionnel le retrait de l’Afrique du Sud de la CPI

La Haute Cour de Pretoria a conclu, dans son jugement n°83145/2016, que la décision du gouvernement de quitter la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), sans l’aval préalable du Parlement, est inconstitutionnelle et irrationnelle.
Ce jugement a renforcé le principe de séparation des pouvoirs décrit par l’article 231 de la Constitution de 1996.
En effet, les autorités sud-africaines avaient refusé d’arrêter et de livrer à la CPI le Président du Soudan Omar Hassan Ahmad al – Bashir qui était invité à participer au  sommet de l’Union africaine (UA) du 7 au 15 juin 2015. Deux mandats d’arrêts internationaux étaient décrétés par les chambres préliminaires de la CPI, pour crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité et génocide qu’il aurait commis dans la région de Darfur, au Soudan.
Le requérant, l’Alliance Démocratique, assistée par quatre organisations des droits de l’homme, avait trouvé que le refus du gouvernement de rendre al – Bashir à la CPI était une violation de la constitution. Les autorités sud–africaines avaient soutenu, pour leur part, que le Président al – Bashir bénéficiait des immunités conformément aux coutumes internationales.
Le 15 juin 2015, la Haute Cour de Pretoria avait rendu le jugement n°27740/2015,  considérant que le refus du gouvernement d’arrêter et de livrer  le Président al – Bashir était une violation de la constitution.  Le gouvernement avait fait appel contre cette décision auprès de la Cour suprême, appel qui n’avait pas abouti. Par la suite, le gouvernement a saisi la Cour constitutionnelle et avant même que celle-ci ne statue, la requête a été retirée.
Après cette bataille judiciaire, le ministre des Relations Internationales et de la Coopération avait pris un décret le 19 octobre 2016 sur le retrait de l’Etat à la CPI.
Se conformant à l’article 231 de la constitution, la Haute Cour de Pretoria a jugé que ce décret ministériel de retrait sans l’aval parlementaire était inconstitutionnel et que la procédure de délivrance de la décision de retrait était invalide.
Source : Juriafrique
Publié dans Définitions | Laisser un commentaire

 La primauté du droit international sur le droit interne

Pour le Droit International comme pour le droit de l’Union Européenne, ces deux droits priment sur le droit interne (on considère que le droit interne est du fait).
Pourtant, ces règles internationales ne sont ni des dispositions constitutionnelles, au sommet de l’ordre juridique interne, ni des dispositions législatives, ou même réglementaires. Elles ne sont, en fait, définies dans aucune théorie de la pyramide des normes, et alors qu’elles sont applicables en droit interne, quelle serait l’issue d’un conflit entre une telle norme, et une disposition interne à l’Etat ? Le droit international prime-t-il sur le droit interne ?
En droit de l’Union Européenne, depuis l’arrêt Costa de 1964, un juge avait dit qu’il s’agissait d’un principe existentiel. Etait en cause une loi italienne, postérieur au traité de Rome et incompatible avec celui-ci. Dans l’arrêt Costa, la Cour de Justice a affirmé que le droit communautaire l’emportait sur le droit interne. Si on ne fait pas respecter cette condition, le droit de l’Union Européenne n’existe plus.
 Un arrêt du 11 janvier 2000, Tanja Kreil : était en cause une directive, une règle des moins contraignantes de l’Union Européenne face à une règle constitutionnelle. La requérante voulait absolument entrer dans l’armée allemande, supposant le maniement d’armes ; or, une disposition considérée par l’Allemagne comme ayant rang constitutionnel interdit aux femmes de manier les armes lorsqu’elles sont dans l’armée allemande. La CJ va confronter la norme ayant rang constitutionnel à la directive européenne sur l’égalité des sexes, en particulier dans l’accès la fonction publique, et vont considérer que la norme constitutionnelle est contraire à la directive communautaire.
 Dans un système international qui se judiciarise de plus en plus, il y a de plus en plus de possibilités pour qu’un Etat puisse être amené devant les tribunaux internationaux. Les risques d’engagement de la responsabilité de l’Etat sont plus nombreux.
Droit international et constitution
Aucune constitution ne contient de dispositions relatives à la place réciproque du Droit International et de la Constitution. C‘est au juge d’apprécier : en France, la question s’est posée devant lui en raison de l’article 55 de la Constitution qui parle d’« autorité supérieure à celle des lois » –> Qu’entendre par le terme de loi ?
 La question s’est posée dans les deux juridictions : dans l’arrêt du CE,Sarran et Levacher du 30 octobre 1998 du CE, et l’arrêt Fraisse du 2 juin 2000 pour la Cour de cassation. Concernaient l’inscription sur les listes électorales pour le référendum en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Plusieurs contentieux ont eu lieu à propos de la révision constitutionnelle pour le processus d’indépendance. Devant le CE, Sarran et Levacher ne vont pas attaquer la norme constitutionnelle mais le décret d’application (idem dans l’arrêt Fraisse) –> Contentieux traditionnel. La Cour de cassation et le Conseil d’Etat constatent que la disposition règlementaire reprend la norme constitutionnelle : dans ces conditions, contrôler l’énoncé du règlement par rapport à une convention revient indirectement à contrôler un énoncé constitutionnel par rapport à un acte international. Le Conseil d’Etat énonce que « la suprématie ainsi conférée aux engagements internationaux ne s’applique pas, dans l’ordre interne, aux dispositions constitutionnelles ».
 Au moment où la question s’est posée, la cour de cassation et le Conseil d’Etat ont vu la difficulté : ont pris en considération le fait que de ne pas appliquer un traité incompatible avec la constitution peut engager la responsabilité internationale de la France. Ils disent que leur solution ne vaut que dans l’ordre interne. Dans leur perspective, la norme constitutionnelle ne peut être supplantée par un engagement international. L’enjeu est plus théorique que pratique, quasiment nul à l’heure actuelle, quasiment toutes les conventions internationales qui seraient susceptibles d’être incompatibles avec la Constitution sont systématiquement envoyées au Conseil Constitutionnel avant le processus de ratification. Ce sont les traités conclus avant 1958 et surtout le droit dérivé de l’Union Européenne qui peuvent poser problème, n’étant pas soumis au contrôle.
 Le considérant de ces arrêts s’applique-t-il à tout le Droit International y compris au droit de l’Union Européenne ? Les requérants invoquaient des dispositions du droit communautaire, et des dispositions internationales de manière générale, qui étaient en contrariété avec les normes internes.
Le CE traite les moyens ensemble, sans distinction. La Cour de cassation fait une distinction : elle dit dans un premier temps que le grief (non inscription sur les listes électorales) n’entre pas dans le champ d’application du droit communautaire. Elle écarte l’argument du traité de Rome, et limite son attendu au Droit International. Certains y ont vu une brèche, sous-entendu qu’elle réservait sa position et finira par admettre la suprématie du droit communautaire.
 –> A priori, dans tous les Etats, la Constitution l’emporte.
 Droit international et lois
Un conflit de normes se résout en priorité par l’application de la hiérarchie des normes. Lorsque l’application du principe hiérarchique ne résout pas le conflit (les deux normes étant au même rang hiérarchique), alors on invoque des principes de résolution subsidiaires (conflit de normes dans le temps, règle spéciale > générale).
Les constitutions peuvent avoir plusieurs positions :
  • Certaines placent les normes internationales au même rang que la loi (principe des Etats-Unis) : une loi postérieure à un traité l’emporte, étant hissés au même rang. Les EU pratiquent la doctrine qui était pratiquée sous la IIIe République en France, la doctrine Matter : la Constitution de la IIIe République plaçait les conventions au même rang que la loi, les conventions internationales étaient autorisées par le Parlement. Face à des normes incompatibles, on va quand même tenter des les interpréter de manière à les rendre compatibles. Si cela est véritablement impossible, alors on fait application du principe subsidiaire de résolution des conflits de norme, et on applique la plus récente comme dernière expression de la volonté du Parlement. Malgré les dispositions relativement clauses de la Constitution de 1946, on a continué à utiliser cette pratique sous la IVe République.
  • Certaines placent expressément les traités au dessus des lois. C’est le cas de la France. Même là, le Conseil d’Etat et la Cour de Cassation ont continué avec leur doctrine de Matter. En cas de conflit traité vs loi –> On applique la plus récente. Ils savaient que l’article  55 existait mais ils disaient qu’ils n’étaient pas compétents pour appliquer la Constitution, c’est au Conseil Constitutionnel de faire respecter la primauté des traités sur la constitution.
Toute la jurisprudence de 1958 à 1975 pour la Cour de Cassatuib et 1989 pour le Conseil d’Etat affirmaient que l’article 55 ne pouvait être interprété que par le Conseil Constitutionnel. La décision Conseil Constitutionnel, IVG de 1975 a dit qu’il appartenait à toutes les autorités publiques d’assurer l’application de l’article 55. Il vise principalement le juge. Le Conseil Constitutionnel peut intervenir en tant que juge, notamment en tant que juge des élections.
 La Cour de Cassation a réagi par son arrêt de 1975, Jacques Vabre : elle assure l’article 55 et assure ainsi la primauté de la règle internationale sur la loi interne, sans annuler la loi évidemment.
Pour le CE, arrêt Nicolo de 1989 : il y a eu un développement du droit communautaire avec la CJCE dont la saisine est obligatoire. Depuis 1981, la France a accepté la saisine unilatérale de la CEDH. A partir du milieu des années 1980, la France se fait condamnée à plusieurs reprises, car le CE persiste à faire prévaloir la loi postérieure à la Convention EDH.
 L’arrêt Nicolo est souvent présenté comme « le traité l’emporte sur une loi, même postérieure ». En fait, comme dans la hiérarchie des normes, le traité est supérieur à la loi, tout traité est donc supérieur à toute loi. L’article 55 dispose une hiérarchie claire.
 –> Premier principe : hiérarchique, et c’est seulement si ce principe ne peut s’appliquer (même rang), que l’on applique la résolution subsidiaire.
La coutume internationale
Dans l’arrêt Aquarone du CE, il estime que l’alinéa 14 du préambule ne lui permet pas d’assurer une éventuelle supériorité de la coutume sur la loi. Cela peut choquer, car en Droit International, traités et coutumes ont le même rang. Le CE affirme seulement qu’il n’est pas compétent pour écarter une loi en contradiction avec une coutume. Si la France adopte une loi contraire à une coutume, c’est qu’elle considère qu’elle n’est pas liée par la coutume et donc qu’elle ne s’applique pas en France.
Source: Cours de droit.net

 

Publié dans Définitions | Tagué , , | Laisser un commentaire

Bombardements d’hôpitaux : construire la preuve par l’image

Depuis 2015, près de cent structures médicales MSF ou soutenues par MSF ont été bombardées, l’extrême majorité d’entre elles en Syrie, mais aussi au Yémen, en Afghanistan, en Ukraine et au Soudan. Pour MSF, établir les faits et les responsabilités derrière chacun de ces bombardements est vital, afin de continuer à apporter des secours avec l’assurance minimale que les structures civiles seront protégées, et pour réclamer justice et réparation.Mais comment prendre à partie les perpétrateurs quand ceux-ci nient, contestent ou minimisent leur responsabilité, qualifiant leurs attaques de simple erreur ?
La dénonciation des perpétrateurs, un recours contre l’impunité
Face à ceux qui bombardent ses structures, son personnel médical et ses patients, MSF a peu d’options. Au-delà du dépôt de plainte devant les tribunaux des pays impliqués, elle peut demander l’ouverture d’une enquête indépendante et impartiale, via la Commission internationale humanitaire d’établissement des faits (IHFFC). Seul organe permanent mis en place pour enquêter spécifiquement sur les violations du droit international humanitaire, l’IHFFC ne peut agir qu’avec l’accord des Parties au conflit.
Dénoncer publiquement les auteurs du bombardement en espérant que le coup ainsi porté à leur image les incite à changer leurs pratiques reste souvent l’unique recours concret à la portée de MSF. A l’appui de ces dénonciations, les enquêtes basées sur des photographies et des vidéos amateurs, permettant de reconstituer les « scènes de crime », peuvent s’avérer très utiles. Ainsi, l’agence de recherche Forensic Architecture collecte et analyse les images prises lors d’un acte criminel commis par un Etat pour contribuer à établir faits et responsabilités, en s’appuyant sur la cartographie et l’analyse d’images, l’expertise judiciaire et l’architecture.
Source : MSF
Publié dans Protection de la mission médicale | Tagué , | Laisser un commentaire

How does law protect in war? Online has an improved look and new case studies

The ICRC has overhauled and improved the website of How Does Law Protect In War? Online. The new website has a more user-friendly design and structure and is now accessible on mobile and tablet. Besides, new side navigation menus make browsing through more than 300 real life case studies easier than ever.

How does law protect in war? is the ICRC’s core publication on teaching international humanitarian law (IHL). It provides academics, researchers and students with a wealth of resources, cases and references. New case studies are being updated on a regular basis.

The website is updated with recent case studies, which provides a better insight to how international humanitarian law is implemented in contemporary conflicts. The new case studies include the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, sexual violence by peacekeeping forces in the Central African Republic and the attack on Kunduz Trauma Centre in Afghanistan among others.

Source : ICRC
Publié dans Définitions | Laisser un commentaire

H.E.L.P. – A training course for managing relief operations in humanitarian crises

What are the most effective means to protect the lives and dignity, and promote the health, of people affected by major disasters or armed conflicts? What must be done to analyse a complex crisis, evaluate needs, assess the resources available and set priorities? What goes into planning and managing a response and, later, evaluating its effectiveness?
How should threats to public health be prevented or responded to, mental and social well-being promoted, and care provided in a way that is effective, sustainable, respectful and ethically sound?
These are some of the complex issues that humanitarian personnel have to tackle, often during emergencies.
HELP – Health Emergencies in Large Populations – is a two-week course on the provision of humanitarian relief during disasters, armed conflicts and other complex crises. It was created in 1986 by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the University of Geneva, to professionalize the delivery of humanitarian assistance during emergencies, and to promote professional ethics and humanitarian principles.
These courses have been held in various parts of Europe, Latin America, North America, Africa and Asia. Since 1986, approximately 4,000 health professionals and humanitarian aid workers from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, United Nations agencies, non-governmental organizations, ministries of health, military medical services and academic institutions have attended the course.
A joint effort
The course is organized by the ICRC in partnership with academic institutions, the WHO and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Our current partners are:
In Nairobi, Kenya: The Kenya Red Cross Society and the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
In Ouidah, Benin: Institut régional de Santé Publique
In Doha, Qatar:
Qatar University and the Qatar Red Crescent Society
In Baltimore, Maryland, USA:
The Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University
In Honolulu, Hawaii, USA:
The Center for Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance and the University of Hawaii
In Geneva, Switzerland:
The Geneva Centre for Education and Research in Humanitarian Action (CERAH, University of Geneva), and the WHO
In Cuernavaca, Mexico:
Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica
In Fukuoka, Japan:
The Japanese Red Cross Kyushu International College of Nursing
In Havana, Cuba:
Escuela Nacional de Salud Publica and the Cuban Red Cross
In Tehran, Iran
: The School of Public Health at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences and the Iranian Red Crescent
In New Delhi, India: The Public Health Foundation of India, the WHO’s Office for India, the Indian Red Cross Society and the National Disaster Management Authority
Content
The course explores the principles underlying the provision of humanitarian assistance in health emergencies and major health crises, and the methods of providing such assistance. It begins with a consideration of certain key concepts: public health tools, humanitarian principles, professional ethics, and effective decision-making in crises. After that, various aspects of health emergencies are examined: health care, nutrition, economic security, water and habitat, environmental health, prevention and control of communicable diseases, epidemiology in the field, mental health, sexual violence, the safety of humanitarian workers and the stresses to which they are subject, and the imperatives of international humanitarian law. Every section – nutrition, for instance – begins with an overview of the various stages of the planning process: assessing needs, analysing the context, selecting priorities, setting objectives, mobilizing resources, drafting plans, and implementing and evaluating activities.
Depending on the local context and current events, other topics may also be addressed: first aid in the field, war surgery, management of dead bodies, responses to nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical threats, pandemics, protection of medical personnel and facilities during crises, health needs of women, children and other vulnerable groups, and so on.
Participants are encouraged to share their field experiences. The course essentially sets out various approaches to public health that can be adopted by all humanitarian organizations; by doing so, it contributes indirectly to more effective coordination in emergency operations.
Teaching concepts and methods
The course emphasizes problem solving and participatory teaching and learning: analysis of situations and group discussions are key elements. Various teaching methods are used: lectures by experts, selected readings, group work in problem solving, simulations of disasters, field visits, and presentations by the participants themselves. In some places, distance-learning modules allow participants to prepare for or supplement the residential course.
Course dates, registration, fees and credits
For course dates, registration fees and credits, please contact the course coordinator, as indicated in the calendar of courses.
Working languages
The languages in which the course will be taught are listed below, by place.
In Geneva, Fukuoka, Baltimore, Nairobi, Honolulu, New Delhi and Tehran: English
In Cuernavaca and Havana: Spanish
In Doha: Arabic and English
In Ouidah: French
Participants
The course is intended for professionals involved in humanitarian action, who have field experience and hold positions of responsibility in humanitarian operations, particularly the following: health professionals, such as doctors, nurses or nutritionists; public health officers and epidemiologists; water and environmental engineers; legal or policy advisers; and people with strategic and managerial duties.
Candidates working in countries affected by humanitarian crises are given special consideration.
A certificate of attendance is issued to every participant at the end of the course.
The average number of participants per course is 25-30.
Contacts
ICRC, Assistance Division, HELP courses
Email: help@icrc.org
Source : ICRC
Publié dans Définitions | Tagué , | Laisser un commentaire

University professors discuss IHL, Islam, and the protection of people affected by conflict

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) together with Islamic Research Institute, a think tank of International Islamic University Islamabad organized a regional course on Islam and international humanitarian law (IHL) from 29 November to 02 December 2016.
Twenty six university professors of Islamic studies participated from all over Pakistan and Afghanistan. Participation of Islamic scholars from Afghanistan not only provided an insight to the ongoing dialogue on Islam and IHL from across the border but also an opportunity to develop trans-border academic linkages. The four-day training course was opened by the federal minister of state for religious affairs, Pir Aminul Hasnat Shah who categorically stressed the compatibility of humanitarian law with Islamic legal system. In his address, he lamented the dwindling respect of humanitarian rules in modern day conflicts. He reminded the participants of their ethical obligations to encourage respect and compliance to humanitarian rules in their academic and literati capacities.
Reto Stocker, head of ICRC delegation in Pakistan, mentioned that majority of ICRC’s humanitarian operations are carried out in Muslim countries due to the ongoing conflicts and accompanying humanitarian toll. The only way we can minimize the people’s suffering is by strengthening the adherence to humanitarian principles, derived from Islamic sources, IHL and customary rules. He stressed on the significant role the Islamic scholars can play in their respective societies in influencing the policy makers and weapon bearers in ensuring the respect and dignity of human lives even during difficult times of conflict and violence.
During four days, the participants had detailed discussions and debates on the topics varying from principles of IHL, development of Islamic law of Siyar to significance of Islamic Ethics of War in modern world. Topics like protection of healthcare under Islamic law and IHL, and development of model curriculum on Islam and IHL also received significant attention. Muhammad Saleem, an educationist from Swat, particularly appreciated the informed exchanges which took place among the participants on IHL application. « The role of university teachers in IHL promotion and application through integration in curriculum was the crux of this course in my opinion. »
Whereas, Dr Umair Mehmood Siddiqui from University of Karachi termed his experience as an eye opener towards the significance of this important field of Islamic law. « Since many Muslim countries are trapped in a bitter conflict, promoting Islamic law of war and its parallels in contemporary IHL provides us an opportunity to introduce true Islamic code of conduct during wars. This way we can claim back the space ceded to non-representative forces. »
At the end of the course, three participants volunteered to write an academic report on various topics discussed during the course to be published in ‘Fikr-o-Nazar, an Urdu language research journal published by Islamic Research Institute. The lessons learned from years of cooperation in academic circles – including Islamic scholars – in the Muslim world confirm that knowledge of IHL and of Islamic law is crucial for respect of humanitarian principles. While highlighting similarities between the relevant provisions of Islam and IHL, the ICRC provide documentation and generally encourage Islamic researchers and teachers to study and teach IHL, and publish articles on it.
Source : ICRC
Publié dans DIH | Tagué | Laisser un commentaire

Management of limb injuries during disasters and conflicts

For the millions of people who are trapped within the clutches of conflicts and natural disasters around the world today, the physical and psychological pain can be devastating.
Not only do many people suffer horrendously from direct physical shocks, they are often at risk of compounded injury, because of inadequate or inexistent medical treatment. Currently, a baseline standard of care for the victims of many crises is far from guaranteed.
In fact, poorly prepared and ill-equipped medical teams can actually heighten risks for the most vulnerable, even if such teams have the best of intentions. The medical response of the international community in Haiti in 2010 was a bleak reminder of how inadequate medical care can be a burden for the local population rather than a relief.
I have seen the horrors of conflict reflected in the eyes of people who have lost their limbs in conflict.
If we do not improve our capacity to provide quality medical assistance, the costs will be human lives and long-term disability. And these costs will be immense.
This is why, in 2014, the ICRC launched a new health strategy, which charts a promising path for improving healthcare for the most vulnerable. Not only are we working hard to improve the quality of our medical services, but we are also chartering new ways to scale up and broaden our impact. For example, the ICRC has launched the world’s first humanitarian impact bond: an innovative funding mechanism that draws in new capital to support physical rehabilitation. Many of the people who will benefit from this initiative are those who have lost limbs in conflict. By helping to bridge the substantial gap between needs and resources for physical rehabilitation, we will help more people overcome the destructive impact of losing limbs, and to re-establish productive, dignified lives. It is not only individuals who will benefit, but also societies as a whole, through long-term improvements in social cohesion and economic growth.
The aggressive and brutal impacts of conflict and disaster demand a treatment that is different from common trauma management. Conflict and disaster-specific training of medical staff is therefore crucial to effective relief. The majority of patients suffering during war and disaster – that is, those who reach hospitals alive – have limb injuries, mostly with open and infected fractures. They also frequently suffer from ballistic injury. As the technologies of modern warfare change, it will be imperative that we advance our treatments.
Inadequate treatment will result in unnecessary, preventable complications that threaten life and limb. Not only will poor surgical treatment fail to reduce suffering, it may actually increase harm.
Recognising the potential for crisis to be compounded by poor medical care, in 2015 the ICRC and the WHO undertook to establish a global consensus on treatment standards for the most frequent injuries caused by disaster and conflict: limb injuries. As is the case with so many of our activities, we cannot and should not act alone. We gathered a group of academic, military, and humanitarian specialists, and used the power of collaboration to establish solid standards of treatment.
Funding from the AO Foundation has made this significant endeavor possible, and we are now able to see the fruits of this collaboration. It is my pleasure to be able to launch, today, the field guide on management of limb injuries during disasters and conflicts. This marks an important step in our mission to improve care and mitigate long-term impairment and loss of life. I congratulate the team that worked hard to make this achievement possible.
The launch of this guidebook is not an endpoint, but rather the start of a continuous process. As the world encounters new disasters and conflicts, we will need to ensure that the guidance is up-to-speed and responds to needs as they develop.
The international community has learnt its lessons from Haiti. Looking forward, emergency medical teams will be better prepared to improve the health of people who are suffering from the debilitating impacts of disaster, violence and conflict.
By combining our collective expertise and ingenuity, we have a clear opportunity to deliver the best possible assistance. It is my hope that the international community will continue to share knowledge and build upon these strong foundations, in an effort to provide more effective relief, and to facilitate productive, dignified futures.
The lives of the most vulnerable hang in the balance.
Source : ICRC – Speech given by Mr. Peter Maurer, President of the ICRC. Launch of the Handbook ‘Management of limb injuries during disasters and conflicts’
Publié dans Chirurgie de guerre | Tagué , | Laisser un commentaire

Publication du 3° protocole additionnel au JORF

Le protocole additionnel aux conventions de Genève du 12 août 1949 relatif à l’adoption d’un signe distinctif additionnel (protocole III) (ensemble une annexe), adopté à Genève le 8 décembre 2005, a été publié au Journal officiel de la République française le 19 décembre 2016 : 
Décret no 2016-1773 du 19 décembre 2016 portant publication du protocole additionnel aux conventions de Genève du 12 août 1949 relatif à l’adoption d’un signe distinctif additionnel (protocole III) (ensemble une annexe), adopté à Genève le 8 décembre 2005.

Publié dans DIH | Tagué | Laisser un commentaire