Legal Standards For Prosecuting Improvised Explosive Device (Ied) Attacks
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are among the most widely used methods of attack in conflict zones around the world, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and parts of Africa. They are favored by insurgent groups and non-state actors because they are relatively cheap to produce, difficult to detect, and can inflict significant damage on both military personnel and civilians. The use of IEDs in modern conflicts, especially in asymmetric warfare, raises complex legal questions regarding accountability and prosecution. The legal standards for prosecuting such attacks are grounded in international humanitarian law (IHL), domestic criminal law, and counterterrorism frameworks.
Key Legal Frameworks
International Humanitarian Law (IHL): IHL, primarily the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977), provides the legal basis for prosecuting those who use IEDs in armed conflicts. The use of IEDs that target civilians or are indiscriminate in nature is prohibited. IHL also covers the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity in warfare.
International Criminal Law (ICL): Under International Criminal Court (ICC) statutes, individuals who use IEDs to target civilians or commit war crimes may be prosecuted for war crimes, terrorism, or crimes against humanity.
Domestic Criminal Law: Many countries have developed specific counterterrorism laws or anti-explosives laws that allow for the prosecution of individuals involved in IED attacks. These laws often include severe penalties for the manufacture, possession, or deployment of IEDs.
Counterterrorism Legislation: Many countries, especially those involved in counterinsurgency or counterterrorism operations, have enacted laws specifically criminalizing the use of IEDs in attacks targeting civilians or government infrastructure.
The following cases illustrate the legal complexities surrounding the prosecution of IED attacks and the application of the relevant legal frameworks.
Case 1: The Use of IEDs by the Taliban in Afghanistan (2010–2021)
Background: The Taliban has used IEDs extensively throughout the conflict in Afghanistan, particularly targeting Afghan and NATO forces. However, their indiscriminate use has also led to civilian casualties, with bombings targeting public spaces, markets, and government infrastructure.
Legal Framework: Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the Taliban’s use of IEDs against civilian targets violates the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols. Such actions could constitute war crimes, specifically under Article 8 of the Rome Statute (1998) of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which criminalizes intentionally targeting civilians.
Case Law: While there has not been a specific, high-profile case solely focused on IED attacks in Afghanistan, the Afghan Transitional Justice Process has attempted to address war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by various parties, including the Taliban. The ICC, which has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, could prosecute individuals responsible for the indiscriminate use of IEDs if those attacks are part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians.
Outcome: The Taliban's leadership and commanders have not been held accountable for many of these attacks, largely due to the lack of a functional legal system in Afghanistan under Taliban rule and the limited reach of international courts.
Case 2: The 2016 Brussels Airport IED Attack (Terrorist Attack)
Background: On March 22, 2016, suicide bombers detonated IEDs in Brussels Airport and a metro station, killing 32 civilians and injuring hundreds more. This attack was claimed by the Islamic State (ISIS).
Legal Framework: The prosecution of the Brussels attacks involved both Belgian national law and international counterterrorism law. The attackers could be prosecuted under Belgium’s Anti-Terrorism Act, which criminalizes the use of IEDs in terrorist attacks. The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999) also provided the framework for prosecuting individuals involved in the financing and planning of the attack.
Case Law: Several suspects linked to the Brussels attacks were arrested and charged under Belgian counterterrorism law. In 2018, Salah Abdeslam, the key suspect in the 2015 Paris attacks, faced additional charges in connection with the Brussels bombings. His prosecution involved extensive use of forensic evidence, intelligence data, and international cooperation.
Outcome: Belgian courts convicted several individuals involved in the attack. The case demonstrated the role of counterterrorism law in prosecuting IED attacks by non-state actors, including how international law and cooperation with entities like Interpol can aid in bringing perpetrators to justice.
Case 3: The 2005 London Underground Bombings (7/7 Bombings)
Background: On July 7, 2005, four terrorists detonated IEDs on London’s public transportation system, killing 52 civilians and injuring over 700 people. The bombers, linked to Islamic extremism, used relatively simple IEDs made from commercial explosives.
Legal Framework: The use of IEDs in this context was a clear violation of UK anti-terrorism law, particularly the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalizes the use of explosives for terrorism purposes. Additionally, International Human Rights Law prohibits attacks on civilians, as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Case Law: The perpetrators of the bombings were killed in the attacks themselves, but several individuals who assisted with planning or logistical support were arrested. The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) pursued prosecutions for terrorist-related offenses and conspiracy to commit murder. In R v. Rauf and Others (2008), individuals accused of providing assistance to the bombers faced charges for terrorism and related offenses.
Outcome: The prosecution focused on conspiracy, intent, and assistance to the perpetrators, reflecting the legal standards applied in cases of terrorism using IEDs. The convictions underscored the need for both domestic counterterrorism legislation and international cooperation to address the growing threat of IEDs.
Case 4: The 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing
Background: On April 15, 2013, two homemade IEDs were detonated near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 people and injuring over 260 others. The attackers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, used pressure cooker devices packed with shrapnel.
Legal Framework: The Tsarnaev brothers were prosecuted under U.S. federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2332a, which makes it a federal crime to use a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) to commit terrorism. The bombing also violated International Humanitarian Law as it targeted civilians and could be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Case Law: The United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (2015) was the high-profile case that followed the attack. Tsarnaev was convicted of multiple counts of murder, terrorism, and using a weapon of mass destruction. His legal team appealed the death sentence, but the conviction was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020.
Outcome: Tsarnaev was sentenced to death (though later commuted to life imprisonment). The case demonstrated the application of U.S. counterterrorism laws and federal jurisdiction over terrorist acts using IEDs, emphasizing the importance of prosecuting terrorism under specific legal frameworks like the Patriot Act and Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
Case 5: The Use of IEDs by Al-Shabaab in Somalia
Background: Al-Shabaab, the terrorist group active in Somalia, has used IEDs extensively in its attacks against both military and civilian targets. One such attack occurred in Mogadishu in 2011, where an IED targeting a government convoy killed dozens of civilians and soldiers.
Legal Framework: The African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) have both expressed strong condemnation of such attacks. Al-Shabaab’s actions violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Conventions, as the group frequently targets civilians. Somali national law also criminalizes the use of IEDs for terrorist purposes, in line with global anti-terrorism standards.
Case Law: Prosecutions related to IED attacks by Al-Shabaab have been difficult due to the instability in Somalia. However, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Somali Transitional Federal Government have pursued cases involving war crimes, including attacks on civilians and the use of IEDs as a form of terror.
Outcome: The lack of a robust judicial infrastructure in Somalia has hampered prosecutions, but international bodies like the ICC could, in theory, prosecute individuals under the Rome Statute for crimes involving IEDs that target civilians or are part of a systematic campaign of violence.
Conclusion
Prosecuting IED attacks involves complex legal considerations, especially when the attackers are non-state actors or insurgent groups. The use of IEDs in terrorism, war crimes, or criminal acts is addressed under various legal frameworks,
RELATED Blog
0 comments