1

Many EU nations have a war crimes act in their countries to prosecute e g. Germany and the UK.

war crime act 1991 war crime act in india

Section 120A and 120B of IPC,1860 says that when two or more people commit a conspiracy to do an illegal act. Section 300 of IPC, 1860 defines murder and section-302 have the provision of imprisonment for life or death sentence. Section 436 IPC, 1860 states that any person who tries to destroy or destroys the property such as house or religious place shall be punished with imprisonment for life. Section 153A IPC, 1860 penalises any person who promotes enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. It can be done by writing, oral words, gestures or any visual representation. Section 295 IPC, 1860 penalises any person who destroys, damages or difiles any religious place with the intention of insulting the religion. In 2005, the government introduced “The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005. Unfortunately it is still a bill and the government is not willing to make it an act. The major problem in this bill is that according to this bill only the majority can be punished for war crimes and it assumes that only the religion which is in majority can cause riots. According to the riots explained above proves that any religion or any section of the society can cause riots. This bill must be amended and made religion neutral.

Suffering of Indians was ignored by the world for a couple of centuries but what is not acceptable is Indian government is doing the same. India ratified the Genocide Convention on 27 August, 1959 but still there is no concrete law on genocide in India. Indian legislators say that the current laws have all the necessary laws required to deal with the genocide but history proves otherwise.

The Bill “The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation ofVictims) Bill, 2005, which was introduced in 2005 is still pending in the parliament. The bill has all what is required to deal with the problem of genocide and communal violence. Only change required is to make it religion neutral.

mostly these are focused on genocides committed based on religions but not war crime committed on the cross border conflicts

is there any war crimes act that India also implements apart from the mentioned one? Or is it just necessary only for NATO or western countries only?

Improve this question
2
  • I don't know enough to offer an answer, but Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court seems relevant. Also, the cited UK War Crimes Act 1991 only relates to offences committed in WW2
    – user35069
    Apr 19, 2022 at 8:56
  • @Rick ICC can only declare a state or nations or an individual as a war criminal but prosecuting them requires the same nations' laws. possibly for the same reason Germany and the UK hold their own laws to deal with genocides committed during war etc.
    – CADENTIC
    Apr 19, 2022 at 9:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

One approach taken by many countries to address the moral hazards that such a law will be abused for political purposes is to become a party to a multi-national treaty that administers the war crimes system for its member countries, such as the International Criminal Court, and to adopt domestic legislation implementing the treaty.

But, this is by no means the only possible way to deal with this issue.

Improve this answer
2
  • mostly, Germany and the UK hold war crime act, the reason is pretty simple you need an act to prosecute a war criminal. apart from this: cross-border genocide is always not India's consideration as per the constitution; it is rather neglected. so it would be necessary for IN to have a war crime act on their own. ICC doesn't have much concern about cross boder terrorism or genocides too.
    – CADENTIC
    Apr 21, 2022 at 4:21
  • 1
    @CADENTIC The ICC is offered as the most famous example, but the approach of using a treaty with independent implementation, as opposed to simply a domestic law, could still be a good solution even if the ICC itself isn't the best solution. In Europe, unlike the U.S. where individual rights are protected mostly by the U.S. Constitution, treaties are the basis for most strong human rights protections that exist and are secure against all but the most concerted political efforts to circumvent them.
    – ohwilleke
    Apr 21, 2022 at 19:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .