Even wars have rules

How can human rights be safeguarded in the midst of war? Dr Photini Pazartzis, the Constantine G. Karamanlis Chair in Hellenic and European Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and former vice chair of the UN Human Rights Committee ICCPR, emphasizes that international law establishes clear rules in cases of armed conflicts.

Speaking to Kathimerini on the sidelines of the ACS Athens 2023 Gala and Alumni Achievement Awards, the associate professor of international law at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens’ Faculty of Law points out that the UN-mandated independent commission of inquiry is already collecting evidence of potential war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by all sides in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. She also mentions arrest warrants for Russia’s political and military leadership for their actions in Ukraine.

Discussing rights, the legal expert underscores the need for a common asylum policy in the European Union, recognizing the complexity of the migration crisis as refugees and migrants share the same routes to enter Europe.

Israel is facing criticism for the scope and intensity of its military operations in Gaza following the terrorist attacks on October 7. The question arises: How can human rights be safeguarded in the midst of war, especially when Hamas is accused of using Gaza residents as human shields?

International humanitarian law provides clear rules for armed conflicts that all parties must adhere to. Central to these rules is the principle of protecting civilians. The Geneva Conventions of 1977 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977 establish a framework aimed at safeguarding civilian populations. They prohibit the targeting of civilians and infrastructure, ensuring compliance with the principles of proportionality and necessity in military operations.

Violations, such as the deaths of civilians, use of civilians as shields, taking hostages, attacks on social infrastructure like hospitals and schools, or imposing blockades, constitute breaches of international humanitarian law.

Initially, there were atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians. Tel Aviv responded to a statement by the UN secretary-general, who, on one hand, condemned the terrorist attack against Israel, but on the other hand, added that Hamas’ attacks “did not happen in a vacuum.” What are your thoughts?

Certainly, the actions of Hamas against Israeli civilians are condemnable. However, from the very first day of the conflict between Hamas and Israelis, calls were made to all parties to respect international law, and charges of serious violations of international law were leveled against both sides. The Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory is already gathering evidence of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by all parties in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continues. To what extent are there indications of war crimes in the region? Is there a legal basis for referring the Russian leadership to an international court?

Former International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda initiated an investigation into possible crimes committed in the territory of Ukraine as of March 2022. This investigation follows referrals from 41 states parties to the court’s statute, as well as from Ukraine, which has accepted the jurisdiction. However, Russia is not a party to the statute that governs the ICC. Even though arrest warrants have been issued against the political and military leadership of Russia, starting with President Putin, these warrants will remain unenforced unless the responsible individuals are brought before the court.

Another critical issue pertains to migration, placing social cohesion in Europe under pressure due to systemic waves of refugees and economic migrants. Where does the delicate line lie between the rights of refugees and the otherwise legitimate desire of economic migrants for a better standard of living? In other words, in which cases are states obligated to offer asylum, and in which cases are they not?

Asylum is granted to individuals who meet the criteria of the 1951 Geneva Convention regarding the status of refugees.

The 1951 Convention defines who qualifies as a refugee and outlines the basic rights that states must guarantee for refugees. One of the fundamental principles in international law is that refugees should not be returned, or refouled, to situations where their life or freedom is at risk. However, the 1951 Convention was not designed to address massive refugee and migration flows such as those witnessed in Europe today, rendering it ineffective in the face of modern developments. The mixed nature of these flows presents additional challenges, as refugees and migrants use the same routes to enter Europe.

While the EU has incorporated conditions for granting international protection to asylum seekers, member-states have yet to establish a common asylum policy based on solidarity and burden-sharing, especially among Northern and Southern states.