This dissertation brings together the history of law in postcolonial Nigeria with the history of the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970), analyzing how wartime violence shaped crime and the ethics surrounding it. Using legal records from the Republic of Biafra’s courts, I examine how the secessionist state was governed, and how armed robbery and other criminal activities became means of survival there in the context of the fighting. These cases reveal how Biafrans and their government negotiated what kinds of survival tactics, many of them “criminal,” were permissible or ethical in the context of the war and the humanitarian crisis attending it. Biafra’s courts also became a space where individuals could assert themselves as moral actors in the face of political ataxia and enormous humanitarian strain. The war shaped Nigeria’s postcolonial experience profoundly. As in many conflicts, acts of violence and deception became ordinary – in some cases honorable – when surviving and winning the war trumped all other considerations. When the fighting ended in January 1970, the practices that Biafrans had used to endure the war did not end with it. In the years that followed, fraud and armed violence would become major features of life in reunified Nigeria. Biafra had declared independence in the name of preserving law and order, but the result of the war was to create conditions in which forms of illegality that would later become endemic – forgery, armed robbery, and the body of fraudulent activities known as “419” – could take root. For this reason, the Biafra War is an important episode in both the history of Nigeria after independence, and for the larger study of the dialectics of law and disorder in contemporary Africa.

This thesis examines how Chang-rae Lee's A Gesture Life (1999) represents the issues of war crimes. Writing the comfort women issue, Lee handles the bitter history of the Second World War in a postmodernist way. Against the modernist perspective on war history that draws on a simple and moral conclusion, Lee's writing underscores the function of narrative and the influence of trauma in the representation of the war crime. It offers a literary approach to the issue that complicates the role of the perpetrator and the victim, thus distances itself from the common understanding of war crimes. I argue this literary representation of the history of war crimes could be more powerful than historical writings, because it will ultimately challenge the concept of war itself.

No description available.

<p>The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (Commission) began its work in October 2004 and provided its final report only three months later on 25 January 2005.2 There, it concluded, inter alia, &ldquo / that the Government of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide&rdquo / and that at least the central Government authorities did not act with genocidal intent.3 However, these findings would not exclude the possibility that the atrocities committed by individuals against victims were carried out with the specific intent to destroy and therefore could possibly fulfil all necessary requirements of the crime of genocide.</p>

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2003. / Thesis advisor(s): Daniel Moran, James Armstead. Includes bibliographical references (p. 59-62). Also available online.

This dissertation explores the relationship between violence and betrayal in retribution against military and police collaborators who helped maintain Japan’s wartime occupations up until its defeat in 1945. Looking at the approaches taken in the colonies of British Asia, postwar treason trials in the Philippines, and Chinese Communist approaches in wartime and postwar Shandong province, this study argues that the laws and rhetoric of treason were deeply flawed tools for confronting the atrocities of war. At the very moment that war crimes trials were defining a set of acts that constituted crimes against all humanity, around the world thousands of individuals who helped perpetrate them were treated as primarily guilty of crimes against the nation. Each of the chapters in this work examines the costs and consequences of this for postwar societies on the eve of decolonization and civil war. Throughout the territories under Japanese occupation, locally recruited military and police forces comprised the largest category of individuals to face accusations of treason in the aftermath of war, but were also those most likely to be complicit in atrocities. Among the ranks of the disloyal, they were both the most useful as well as the most dangerous to postwar regimes and almost always separated out from other accused collaborators. Their treason was often treated as a disease of the heart which, once cured, allowed them to be deployed once more. Attempts to try them for their betrayal often faced destabilizing political opposition, especially in cases where their wartime actions were carried out in the name of independence from colonial rule, and were almost always reduced in scale to focus on those accused both of treason and atrocities. Marred by the politics of betrayal, the resulting hybrid proceedings failed to achieve a reckoning with wartime massacres and torture. / History

International humanitarian law, international criminal law and international human rights law all share the common goal of seeking to regulate the behavior of international actors in relation to the three most serious offences under international law - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. International legal rules, processes and institutions within these three areas of law represent the international community's ongoing quest to address and prevent the commission of these crimes - to create "a more humane world under law." International law has therefore been relied upon as the primary - arguably exclusive - mechanism for prescribing rules of conduct and for enforcing prescribed rules. It is clear, however, that the legal framework alone has not been able to bridge the gap between internationally agreed standards and substantive practice on the part of international actors. That international law comprises only a partial solution to the problem of human rights atrocities is well recognized. It is argued here that the international community's preoccupation with international law as the means for regulating State and individual behavior in this area has in fact contributed to continuing problems of non-compliance as much as it has assisted in engendering compliance with the law. In other words, law is as much a part of the problem as it is a part of the solution. It is argued that the international community must look beyond the law, to non-traditional, informal influences operating alongside the law, in order to move towards the goal of effective enforcement of the law prohibiting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Based on Constructivist thinking, four key strategies - departures from traditional Positivist-Realist conceptions of the international legal system - are suggested as focal points for enhancing compliance with the laws in this area, these being: active differentiation between the target subjects of the law; utilization of the dual power of international humanitarian law; employing social norms and ethical values as motivations for compliance with the law; and embracing the informal compliance-inducing activities and powers of non-state actors. Applying these strategies to the humanitarian law enforcement project, a reversal of traditional perceptions of the influence of ethics and law in relation to individual and State target subjects respectively, is proposed as a future direction for enhancing compliance and furthering the prevention project in relation to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

<p>The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (Commission) began its work in October 2004 and provided its final report only three months later on 25 January 2005.2 There, it concluded, inter alia, &ldquo / that the Government of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide&rdquo / and that at least the central Government authorities did not act with genocidal intent.3 However, these findings would not exclude the possibility that the atrocities committed by individuals against victims were carried out with the specific intent to destroy and therefore could possibly fulfil all necessary requirements of the crime of genocide.</p>

This project seeks to address the recurring theme of revenge within war as exhibited in the recent upsurge of war crimes within the past ten years. To begin, I present an overview of Emile Durkheim’s perspective on punishment from The Division of Labor in Society. I argue that contemporary punishment is still primitive in nature and maintains a retributive form. This synopsis opens the discussion of two key factors within punishment: revenge and responsibility. To analyze these key elements, I conduct a content analysis utilizing courts-martial transcripts not readily available to the public for the recent cases of Operation Iron Triangle, the Baghdad Canal Killings and the Afghan Kill Team murders. As a historical comparative to the latest war crimes, I also analyze the My Lai case from Vietnam, using documentary transcripts with veterans involved in that operation. Throughout the analyses of all four cases, I employ the work of Paul Fauconnet’s Responsibility which further develops Durkheim’s ideology of revenge and augments our own understanding of collective and individual responsibility in society. I close this project with a discussion on Fauconnet’s “law of war” and its implications for soldiers enlisted in war time.

Diplomatic stalemate at the seat of the UN Security Council is by no means a recent problem. Nevertheless, it may be argued that 'American unilateralism' reached its apex in July 2002, when the United States stood its ground and demanded immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court ("ICC") for US peacekeepers. This request was accompanied by the heavy-handed and deadly serious threat to veto the renewal of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, a threat which was realised over the course of the debates. This political brinkmanship, which pitted the United States against friends and foes alike, finally ceased when the US agreed to accept a Security Council Resolution offering a twelve-month deferral of prosecution for peacekeepers before the ICC. It is the legality of this Resolution which is the focus of this thesis. This thesis will expose the Resolution to the limits of international law and question the legitimacy of the tactics employed by the US. It will argue that in order to appease the recalcitrant superpower, the Security Council passed a Resolution contrary to both the Rome Statute of the ICC and the UN Charter. With the ICC still in its embryonic stage, this thesis will suggest the responses available to the Court when faced with a Resolution of such dubious legality which affects its jurisdiction to try the most heinous crimes known to humanity.