Search results

Providing a black letter text of international humanitarian law, along with case analysis and commentary by a team of internationally renowned experts, this resource also highlights the interplay of international humanitarian law with human rights law, and other branches of international law

The legal position of visiting forces transcends domestic and international law and is of growing importance in our increasingly globalized and insecure world. 'In area' and 'out of area' operations, both for the purpose of establishing and maintaining peace and in connection with the conduct of other military operations and training, are likely to become more frequent for a variety of reasons. Finding where the applicable law places the balance between the interests, sensitivities and needs of the host state and the requirements, often practical in nature, of the visiting force is a key objective in ensuring that the relationship between hosts and 'guests' is and remains harmonious. All of this must be achieved in an increasingly complex legal environment. This work addresses the issues surrounding visiting forces and provides a full overview of the legal framework in which they operate

Abstract
While irreversibility of nuclear arms control and disarmament measures can be supported by compliance with applicable legal norms, the existing treaty regulation has serious gaps: pertinent treaties are not universally applicable; limitations on missiles as important carriers of nuclear warheads have been abrogated; the strategic doctrines of nuclear weapons powers are not fully transparent, and while the latter may strengthen the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence, it also raises questions as to compliance with fundamental obligations to refrain from a threat or use of force and to settle international disputes by peaceful means. There are certain principles of general international law that can and should be used in international cooperation to overcome nuclear crisis situations and strengthen international security: fundamental norms regarding the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control have an erga omnes character and are accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole. Furthermore, general rules of international responsibility are fully applicable in the law of nuclear arms control and disarmament. It is in this sense that irreversibility in nuclear arms control and disarmament is served by legal principles and rules, which require States to comply with existing obligations and to cooperate for the maintenance of peace and security.

Focussing on the interplay between rules of international law applicable in peacetime and rules applicable during armed conflicts, this contribution examines the impact on the jus post bellum. In this context certain specific legal obligations are discussed to answer the question whether and if so, how their application post-conflict may be affected by the peacebuilding process after the (former) armed conflict. Essential norms of the protection of victims during armed conflicts continue to be relevant for peace operations and post-conflict peacebuilding. This includes guiding principles and effective measures of control for operational detentions; law enforcement operations to secure the security and safety of peacekeepers; the protection of the environment and efforts to strengthen the role of States and international organizations as well as their accountability in post-conflict reconstruction. The author demonstrates that jus post bellum requires due diligence during military operations, responsible planning and precautions. He submits that post-conflict peacebuilding should be characterized by pragmatic limitation, conciliation and participation of the parties. This suggests certain deviations from peacetime principles and rules, deviations that may include certain limits of protection which will, however, be balanced out by the temporary nature of peacebuilding measures. While such interplay between the different branches of international law remains subject to changing situations, a few general principles are considered to be relevant for the jus post bellum. Even if codification remains difficult, further case-oriented research is encouraged to confirm general principles and rules of this important branch of international law.

AbstractThis article examines the status of military and civilian personnel of sending states and international organisations involved in UN peace operations. It undertakes an assessment of relevant customary law, examines various forms of treaty regulation and considers topics and procedures for effective settlement of open issues prior to the mission. The author stresses the need for cooperation between the host state, the sending states and the international organisation in this context. He draws some conclusions with a view to enhancing the legal protection of personnel involved in current and future UN peace operations.

While a general rule of 'eco-protection' in armed conflict may be derived from the basic principles of distinction, proportionality, avoidance of unnecessary suffering and humanity, international humanitarian law provides little by way of more specific rules for the protection of the natural environment except for in extreme situations that can rarely be expected to occur. Nevertheless, opinio juris has changed since the adoption of pertinent instruments in 1977. This development needs to be balanced against a still prevailing general reluctance to accept specific ecological obligations and procedures in military operations. Thus a detailed evaluation of planning and decision-making processes appears necessary. Revisiting the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea and the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, this article argues that certain qualifications made in these documents relating to requirements of 'imperative military necessity' are to be assessed in the light of their specific implications and should be used with caution. Furthermore, it is suggested that pertinent consequences of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties deserve further study. To this end, interdisciplinary case studies should be conducted to support fact-oriented evaluations of military requirements, ecological assessments and political effects post-conflict, rather than insisting on thresholds for legal regulation that already appeared to be escapist decades ago and which may prove counter-productive in the years to come. New activities aimed at protecting the natural environment in armed conflict should focus on a reaffirmation of existing rules and their effective implementation.