Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

History demands that General Wiranto be tried for war crimes

By Gwynn MacCarrick - posted Monday, 1 March 2004


It is indisputable that as Commander of the armed forces there is an ample case for Wiranto to answer. At the very least, a public hearing would have facilitated a means around the current impasse that exists. East Timor’s Tribunal holds the indictment but not the extra territorial power to require extradition, whilst the Jakarta Court has the means to arrest but not the political will to execute. The concessions made by Indonesia’s prime military suspect, to agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Special Panel, was a great opportunity lost.

Historical Precedent

Calling military Generals to account for their actions is an age old practice and the requirement in international law for responsible military command is a fundamental duty for which Wiranto can not now plead ignorance.

Sun Tzu, wrote in 500 BC, in what is considered to be the oldest military treaties in the world that:

Advertisement

When troops flee, are insubordinate, distressed, collapse in disorder, or are rerouted, it is the fault of the general. None of these disorders can be attributed to natural causes. (S Griffith transl. 1963)

In his early writings, Grotius theorised that: “. . .a community or its rulers, may be held responsible for the crime of a subject if they knew it and do not prevent it when they could and should prevent it.” (Kelsy transl. 1925)

A preliminary review of the material suggests that perhaps early recognition of the doctrine of command responsibility dates back to 1439 when Charles VII of France issued an ordinance detailing the responsibility of military hierarchy for their junior officers. (Mitchell, 2000)

In 1474 the trial of Peter Von Hagenbach brought international recognition to the concept of military responsibility. Upon the order of the Archduke of Austria, Hegenbach was charged and brought to trial before an international panel of 28 judges from allied states of the Holy Roman Empire. He stood trial for the alleged crimes of murder, rape, perjury and other crimes against the laws of God and man. Since no state of war existed at the time, this was technically not a War Crimes trial as such, however it was a constituted international tribunal which judged Hagenbach to have been derelict in his duty to prevent, and ordered that he be deprived of his knighthood and duly executed. (Paust, 1972)

In 1621 King Gustavus Adulpfus of Sweden issued Articles of War which regulated the responsible command of his army.(Mitchell, 2000) The King promulgated his “Articles of Military Lawwes To Be Observed In Warres”, Article 46 stipulating in part that:

No Colonel or Capitane shall command his soldiers to do any unlawful thing, which who so does shall be punished according to the discretion of the judges ...

Advertisement

In 1689, it is recorded that Count Rosen was recalled by James II and relieved of military duties for his “outrageous siege methods, which included the murder of innocent non-combatants” during an unsuccessful attack upon Calvinist Londonderry. (Hargreaves, 1970)

From its very inception, American nationhood imposed a duty upon military commanders. Article IX of the American Articles of War re-enacted in 1776 mirrored the wording of an earlier provision enacted by the provisional Congress of Massachusetts. It read:

Every Officer commanding, in quarters, or on march, shall keep good order, and to the utmost of his power, redress all such abuses or disorders, which may be committed by any Officer or Soldier under his command; if upon complaint made to him of Officers or Soldiers beating or otherwise ill treating any persons, or committing an kind of riots, to the disquieting of the inhabitants of this continent, he, the said commander, who shall refuse or omit to see justice done to this offender or offenders, and reparations made to the party or parties injured, as soon as the offender’s wages shall enable him or them, upon due proof thereof, be punished, as ordered by General Court-Marshall, in such manner as if he himself had committed the crimes or disorders complained of.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Gwynn MacCarrick is an international criminal law and environmental law expert. She is a Research Fellow with the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith University and adjunct researcher with James Cook University. She has a BA (Hons) LLB Grad Cert Leg Prac. IDHA., Grad Cert Higher Ed., PhD.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Gwynn MacCarrick
Related Links
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Photo of Gwynn MacCarrick
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy