The independence and impartiality of military investigations into serious violations of international humanitarian law

Accounting for the lawfulness of actions during military operations can be a challenge in situations of armed conflict. Investigations have long been carried out by military bodies into alleged wrongdoings, especially regarding violations of international humanitarian law, but in recent decades they have taken on a new importance in the drive for accountability. As the law and practice of investigations in armed conflict begin to gain clarity, there are certain key areas which are emerging as particularly contentious. One of these areas is the alleged inability of military justice systems to effectively carry out investigations and trials into serious violations of international law, a perspective which is becoming well established within certain regions and human rights institutions. This thesis aims to deconstruct and address some of the complexities behind this issue, by focusing on the independence and impartiality of military institutions investigating alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by their own members. It establishes the precise standards of independence and impartiality as applicable to investigations into serious violations of international humanitarian law and assesses how the context of armed conflict and military institutions impact these standards. By demonstrating the precise ways in which military investigations can contribute to, or hinder, the effectiveness of investigations, it clarifies States’ responsibilities with regards to their accountability efforts for serious violations of international humanitarian law.