The Law of Nations
  • Home
  • About
  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Arbitration
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
Business and Human Rights, Criminal Law, Human Rights 0

Dutch businessman sentenced to 19 years for arms trafficking and war crimes

Katherine Tyler examines a recent case which highlights the dangers for companies in doing business with regimes involved in the commission of international crimes

By Katherine Tyler · On May 3, 2017


On 21 April 2017, the Dutch Appeal Court found Guus Kouwenhoven, 74, guilty of war crimes for selling weapons to Liberia’s then President Charles Taylor between 2000 and 2003. In supplying and transporting the weapons, Mr Kouwenhoven was found not only to have breached international sanctions but also to have acted as an accessory to the commission of war crimes.

At that time, Liberia was in the midst of a civil war between Charles Taylor’s government forces and rebel groups, involving mass atrocities, the use of child soldiers and sexual slavery. Charles Taylor (convicted in 2012 by the Special Court for Sierra Leone) was also involved in the planning and aiding and abetting of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone.

In a written summary of their ruling, the Dutch Court concluded that the weapons smuggled in by Kouwenhoven “were used by Taylor in an armed conflict with rebels, in which over a period of many years countless civilians were victimized.”

it is one of an increasing number of cases being brought under the principle of universal jurisdiction

It is reported that in exchange for the arms Kouwenhoven, who was the Director of Operations of both the Oriental Timber Corporation and the Royal Timber Company, gained trading concessions from Taylor for these companies, and in continuing to trade in the Liberian timber continued to fund Taylor’s regime. In highlighting the danger for companies doing business with unstable regimes, the Court stated that they hoped that this case would serve as an example to others that in doing business with governments like Taylor’s “they can thereby become involved in serious war crimes.”

This case is noteworthy for a number of legal reasons. Firstly, it is one of an increasing number of cases being brought under the principle of universal jurisdiction, where, as here, crimes that attract universal jurisdiction have been incorporated into domestic legislation. As we have seen previously in universal jurisdiction cases, these cases can present a number of logistical issues. The Court had to take into consideration: the cultural differences between those hearing the case and the country where the conflict happened; the time delay (of over 10 years) since the events occurred; the trauma the witnesses had experienced; the fact that evidence was gathered from a country at war; and the language difficulties which arose from hearing a case with evidence in a number of different languages and dialects.

complaints are being made against companies for their complicity in war crimes committed abroad

Secondly, the case relates to the actions of a business, albeit an individual within that business, for its role as an accessory to war crimes. These two issues – war crimes and the actions of companies or individuals within those companies – are arising in the news with increasing regularity (see our recent post), and complaints are being made against companies for their complicity in war crimes committed abroad. In this case, the Court considered the Defendant’s role within the companies, concluding that he had played a significant role in each of them and that the interests of Charles Taylor were strongly intertwined with the interests of the two companies. This judgment is particularly important for all those companies trading with countries that are in a state of armed conflict, or where there is reason to suspect that the government with which they are trading might be involved in the commission of war crimes.

Thirdly, the Court had to consider whether Liberia and/or Guinea were in a non-international armed conflict at the time that the crimes were committed. This issue had not previously been decided by either an ad hoc UN tribunal or a Dutch judge. With an increasing number of universal jurisdiction cases worldwide, this case highlights the need for domestic judges to be familiar with international law and to able to apply statutory and case law precedent when assessing international law issues domestically for the first time.

For additional information on the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, please see here and here. The recent Trial International report on the increase of universal jurisdiction cases is also relevant reading, and appears here. As yet, the Dutch Appeal Court has not released an English version of the decision; this post is based on analysis of the Dutch judgment. Once an English version has been published we will provide a link to the decision.

This post originally appeared on the Kingsley Napley blog, and is reproduced with permission and thanks. It was co-authored by Emily Elliott, trainee solicitor at Kingsley Napley. 

Katherine Tyler

Katherine is an Associate at Kingsley Napley. She joined Kingsley Napley in 2013 from 9–12 Bell Yard Chambers, where she specialised in extradition and crime. As well as specialising in extradition, Katherine has developed a reputation in the field of business and human rights and has worked with and lectured NGOs and law firms on issues of corporate responsibility and liability for human rights abuses and environmental harm.




You Might Also Like

  • Human Rights

    The Matrix Law Pod Episode 12: The Magnitsky Method – Hitting Human Rights Abusers Where it Hurts

  • Human Rights

    The Matrix Law Pod Episode 11: Building Back Better

  • Human Rights

    The Matrix Law Pod Episode 10: Past, Present, Future – Transitional Justice for Turbulent Times

No Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mailing List

Sign up to our Mailing List

Categories

  • Arbitration
  • Book Review
  • Brexit
  • Business and Human Rights
  • Comparative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Environmental Law
  • From the editors
  • Human Rights
  • International Trade
  • News Round-up
  • Podcasts
  • Private International Law
  • Public International Law
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • November 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016

From Twitter

  • New post: why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship violates international law. https://t.co/I51X5qT8um… https://t.co/FF0p3hqE8Q

© Matrix Chambers. All rights reserved. | Accessibility | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy