Offences against Internationally Protected Persons: Problems of International Legal Qualification

INTRODUCTION. The article examines various aspects of the international legal qualification of offences committed against internationally protected persons. The analysis of different elements of corpus delicti was laid at the heart of the study: namely, those of actus reus (whether the offence was perpetrate in the situation of an armed conflict), mens rea (whether the perpetrator was moved by a special intent, particularly the terrorist dolus specialis), and the legal status of a perpetrator (whether he or she was a state agent).

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials of the study encompass international conventions, rules and principles of customary international law, case law of international courts and tribunals and international legal doctrine. The paper uses the comparative method and those of analysis and synthesis.  

RESEARCH RESULTS. The key result of the study consists in the assumption that offences against internationally protected persons can be considered as either a conventional crime within the meaning of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (including, if a terrorist dolus specialis is established, as a crime of terrorism), or (in case of armed conflict) a violation of laws and customs of war, for this category of persons falls within the definition of protected persons by implication of Article 4 of the 1949 IV Geneva Convention, which gives grounds for the application of Article 146 of the 1949 IV Geneva Convention for purposes of the their criminal prosecution.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Given the result of the study, it is states that the following test can be applied for purposes of international legal qualification of offences against internationally protected persons: first, it is necessary to establish whether the offence of committed in a situation of armed conflict; second, it is highly important to enquire about the intent of the delinquent. If there is a terrorist dolus specialis, the offence can be qualified as terrorism-related. Moreover, it is necessary to establish the status of the delinquent and whether the one is a state agent or a private person, or, even if the person is a state agent, whether the one is a person acting sua sponte; additionally, the status of a delinquent and its relation with the belligerent state in regard to the situation of armed conflict is also significant for the qualification of respective offences in light of international law

1. Badar M.E. The Convept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law: The Case for a Unified Approach. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 2013. 540 p.

2. Bassiouni Ch. M. Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice. – Virginia Journal of International Law. 2001. Vol. 42. Issue 1. P. 81–162.

3. Cassese A. The Multifaceted Criminal Notion of Terrorism in International Law. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. 2006. Vol. 4. Issue 5. P. 933–958. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1093/jicj/mql074

4. Chernichenko S.V. Vzaimosvyaz' imperativnykh norm mezhdunarodnogo prava (jus cogens) i obyazatel'stv erga omnes [Interconnection of Peremptory Norms of International Law (Jus Cogens) and Erga Omnes Obligations]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2012. No. 3. P. 3–16. (In Russ.)

5. Di Filippo M. Terrorist Crimes and International Co-operation: Critical Remarks on the Problem of Definition and Inclusion of Terrorism into the Category of International Crimes. – European Journal of International Law. 2008. Vol. 19. Issue. 3. P. 533–570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ ejil/chn027

6. Duffy H. The “War on Terror” and the Framework of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2015. 1070 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028585

7. Epikhin A.Yu. Obespechenie bezopasnosti lichnosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Ensuring Personal Security in Criminal Proceedings]. Saint Petersburg: Yuridicheskii tsentr Press Publ. 2004. 352 p. (In Russ.)

8. Guan Sue S. Jus Cogens: To Revise a Narrative. – Minnesota Journal of International Law. 2017. Vol. 26. Issue 2. P. 461–499.

9. Guilfoyle D. International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2016. 472 p.

10. Henckaerts J-M., Doswald-Beck L. Customary International Humanitarian Law. Vol. I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009. 690 p.

11. International Law. Collected Papers of H. Lauterpacht. Vol. 3. The Law of Peace. Parts II-VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1977. 644 p,

12. Kalugin V.Yu. Prestupleniya protiv mira, bezopasnosti chelovechestva i voennye prestupleniya [Crimes against Peace, Human Security and War Crimes]. Minsk: Tesei Publ. 2002. 144 p. (In Russ.)

13. Kantur R.A. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye problemy protivodeistviya fenomenu terroristov-smertnikov [Countering Suicide Bombers: international legal issues]. – Zakonodatel'stvo. 2019. No. 2. P. 71–77. (In Russ.)

14. Kleinlein Th. Jus Cogens Re-examined: Value Formalism in International Law. – European Journal of International Law. 2017. Vol. 28. Issue. 1. P. 295–315. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1093/ejil/chx015

15. Kogan V.M. Sotsial'nyi mekhanizm ugolovno-pravovogo vozdeistviya [The Social Mechanism of Criminal Law Influence.]. Moscow: Nauka Publ. 1983. 182 p. (In Russ.)

16. Martsev A.I. Obshchie voprosy ucheniya o prestuplenii [General Aspects of the Doctrine of Crime]. Omsk: Omskii yuridicheskii institut MVD Rossii Publ. 2000. 136 p. (In Russ.)

17. Naqvi Y. Amnesty for War Crimes: Defining the Limits of International Recognition. – International Review of the Red Cross. 2003. Vol. 85. No. 851. P. 582–626.

18. O’Keefe R. International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2015. 678 p.

19. Ogdon M. Juridical Bases of Diplomatic Immunity: A Study in the Origin, Growth and Purpose of the Law. Washington, D.C.: John Byrne & Co. 1936. 254 p.

20. Proulx V.-J. Rethinking the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in the Post-September 11th Era: Should Acts of Terrorism Qualify As Crimes Against Humanity. – American University International Law Review. 2003. Vol. 19. No. 5. P. 1009–1089.

21. Wagner N.D. [et al]. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961: Commentaries on Practical Application. Berlin: BWV Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. 2018. 408 p.