Distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello » ICTR/ICTY/IRMCT Case Law Database

United Nations | International Residual Mechanism for Criminal TribunalsUN IRMCT

Introduction

The Case Law Database (“CLD”) is a gateway to the jurisprudence of the ICTR, ICTY, and IRMCT Appeals Chambers.

It provides direct access to extracts of key judgements and decisions rendered by the ICTR, ICTY, and IRMCT Appeals Chambers since their inception, as well as to full-text versions of the corresponding appeal judgements and decisions.

Users can conduct quick searches by notions, cases names, titles of filings, date (in year-month-day format), statutes, rules, and other instruments through the “Basic Search” page. In addition, refined searches in all fields of the database can be conducted through the “Advanced Search” feature.

Please note that the CLD does not include confidential decisions and restatements of established case law and does not necessarily contain all notable rulings by the Appeals Chambers of the ICTR, the ICTY, and the IRMCT. For exact numbering of footnotes, refer to full documents.

The CLD is a living tool and its content is being regularly updated. Please help us improve the service by using our feedback form.

Help

Browse the list of legal notion titles using the A-Z index. Click on the notion to show the page containing relevant case law extracts.

Submit Feedback

Please help us improve the service.

You can send ideas to
marshague at un dot org

Thank you very much for your help.

Distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello

Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello	Appeal Judgement - 23.01.2014	ŠAINOVIĆ et al. (IT-05-87-A)
1662. […] Whether the resort to the use of force is legitimate under international law is a question of jus ad bellum, which is distinct from whether the way in which that force was used was legal under international humanitarian law,[1] i.e. jus in bello. The rules of international humanitarian law do not require a military commander to refrain from defending his country but demand that he ensure that his conduct and that of his subordinates comply with established humanitarian principles. […] show footnotes [1] Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 31. See also Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 812. Download full document