Reprisal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the novel by F. Paul Wilson, see Reprisal (novel).
Not to be confused with a reprise, or with a reappraisal.

A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that has already broken them.[1] Reprisals in the laws of war are extremely limited, as they commonly breached the rights of non-combatants, an action outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. It is not to be confused with retorsions, as these constitute unfriendly acts generally permitted by international law.

Etymology[edit]

The word came from French, where it originally meant "act of taking back", for example, raiding back the equivalent of cattle lost to an enemy raid.[citation needed]

International law[edit]

Reprisals refer to acts which are illegal if taken alone, but become legal when adopted by one state in retaliation for the commission of an earlier illegal act by another state.[citation needed] Counter-reprisals are generally not allowed.

An example of reprisal is the Naulila dispute between Portugal and Germany in October 1914. After three Germans were mistakenly killed in Naulila on the border of the then-Portuguese colony of Angola (in a manner that did not violate international law),[2] Germany carried out a military raid on Naulila, destroying property in retaliation. A claim for compensation was brought by Portugal. The tribunal emphasized that before reprisals could be legally undertaken, a number of conditions had to be satisfied:

  • There had to be a previous act by the other party that violated international law.
  • Reprisals had to be preceded by an unsatisfied demand for reparation or compliance with the violated international law.
  • There must be proportionality between the offence and reprisal.

The German claim that it had acted lawfully was rejected on all three grounds.[3]

After 1945, as a result of the general prohibition on use of force imposed by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, armed reprisals in time of peace are no longer legal, but the possibility remains of non-armed reprisals (also known as countermeasures)[4] as well as belligerent reprisals during hostilities when the law of international armed conflict (LOIAC) is violated.[5]

In the case of belligerent reprisals, apart from the three factors in the Naulilaa case, a warning must also be issued beforehand; once the other party has stopped violation of LOIAC, belligerent reprisals must also be terminated; and the decision to engage in belligerent reprisals must be taken by a competent authority.[5] In the United States military, the lowest ranked commander who may authorize a reprisal is a general in command of a theater.[citation needed]

All four Geneva Conventions prohibit reprisals against, respectively, battlefield casualties, shipwreck survivors, prisoners of war, and civilians, as well as certain buildings and property. An additional 1977 protocol extends this to cover historic monuments, works of art, and places of worship.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Karl Josef Partsch: Self-Preservation. EPIL IV (2000), pages 380-383
  2. ^ http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2003/scene_giry_janfeb2003.msp
  3. ^ Shaw, Malcolm (2008). International Law (6th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 1129. ISBN 978-0-521-72814-0. 
  4. ^ Brownlie, Ian (2008). Principles of Public International Law (7th edn). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 466. ISBN 978-0-19-921770-0. 
  5. ^ a b Dinstein, Yôrām (2004). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 220. ISBN 0-521-54227-8. Retrieved 21 October 2010. 

External links[edit]