CONTEMPORARY DOCTRINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM «WAR CRIMES»

The author underlines that the formation of the legal concept of «war crimes» is connected with the formation of international humanitarian law from the middle of the 19th century. It is now generally recognized that the fundamental international documents defining the formal legal nature of war crimes are: the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of the War (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977); a number of conventions banning the use of certain methods and means of warfare; «establishing» documents of modern bodies of international criminal justice. Decisions of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, as well as international tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, are also of particular importance for understanding war crimes. According to the author, in modern Russian doctrine, despite the terminological difference, there is a certain semantic unity in the understanding of the term «war crimes». At the same time, the principles of international humanitarian law are proposed as the basis for the definition of this term (humanity, limiting the warring parties in choosing means and methods of conducting military operations, protecting civilians and civil objects during armed conflicts of an international and non-international nature). However, as most Russian authors emphasize, a war crime, which was initially a violation of international humanitarian law, implies the individual criminal responsibility of the person who committed it. The modern foreign doctrine also states that the term «war crimes» is often used in different and conflicting meanings. However, foreign authors are increasingly using a «narrow» definition: a war crime is a violation of international humanitarian law, entailing criminal liability. The author notes that the question of the applicability of the international legal definition of «war crimes» in the national criminal law system is debated in Russian and foreign doctrine. This thesis is especially important for states not participating in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but for which the rules of customary international law are binding. As a result, the author concludes that the modern Russian and foreign doctrine is characterized by a fundamentally similar understanding of the term «war crime» in international criminal law.