Conference paper Open Access

The International Criminal Court: The Failure of Justice

Marsili, Marco

Dublin Core Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="" xmlns:oai_dc="" xmlns:xsi="" xsi:schemaLocation="">
  <dc:contributor>Burcea, Nelu</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Simion, Marian Gh.</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Burrill, Denise E.</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Marsili, Marco</dc:creator>
  <dc:description>The lines between conventional and unconventional conflicts become blurred. Alongside non-international and international conflicts, a third category of armed conflict is emerging: hybrid, asymmetric, and transnational conflicts which involve state and non-state actors whose legal status and classification is disputed.[1] While it’s a blend of traditional and irregular tactics, hybrid warfare makes use of a wide range of tools: military and civilian; conventional and unconventional. Hybrid warfare was linked almost exclusively with non-state actors. Afterwards the concept of hybrid warfare developed in a way that is now commonly accepted to describe the interplay between conventional and unconventional means used also by governments and regular armies. 

For such emerging conflicts/warfare there is no legal definition, therefore leaving room for interpretation and applicable law. International law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) – in particular the law of war (Geneva and Hague law) – apply in case of armed conflict. The law of war, a branch of public international law, sets the acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello). The law of war regulates inter alia: declaration of war; acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality; and the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering.


[1] For a definition of the term hybrid conflict, see: Gray, C.S. (2005). Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare, London: Weidenfeld &amp; Nicolson.</dc:description>
  <dc:description>This study was supported by the European Social Fund (FSE) and by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, under research grant No. SFRH/BD/136170/2018. Abstract presented at the Unequal World Conference on Human Development in the context of Current Global Challenges, held virtually in New York on 28-29 September 2020, organized by the Unequal World Research Center in partnership with the Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies (RAIS), ConScienS, IRLA and IPSEC</dc:description>
  <dc:publisher>Unequal World Research Center, IPSEC, and UN Liaison Office for IRLA and SDA</dc:publisher>
  <dc:subject>International law (IL)</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>international humanitarian law (IHL)</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Geneva Conventions</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>War crimes</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>human rights</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>international court of justice (ICJ)</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>international criminal court (ICC)</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>United Nations (UN)</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Law of war</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>international justice</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>crimes against humanity</dc:subject>
  <dc:title>The International Criminal Court: The Failure of Justice</dc:title>
All versions This version
Views 4646
Downloads 3333
Data volume 115.2 MB115.2 MB
Unique views 3535
Unique downloads 2323


Cite as