Search results

Drei Beiträge befassen sich (samt Dokumentensammlung) mit der innenpolitischen Krise in Côte d'Ivoire seit 1999, die in einen offenen Bürgerkrieg umzuschlagen droht. Der frühere Premier Ngoupandé der Zentralafrikanischen Republik plädiert für ein größeres Engagement der früheren Kolonialmacht, Zorgbibe analysiert die französische Rolle und die der internationalen Gemeinschaft. Im Interview mit Najman (Botschafter von Serbien-Montenegro bei der UNESCO und Mitglied des African Leadership Forum) geht es um die Aussichten eines Friedens nach dem Abkommen von Linas-Marcoussis. Dieses am 24.01.2003 in der Nähe von Paris geschlossene Abkommen ist ebenso wie die Resolution des UN-Sicherheitsrats 1464 vom 04.02.2003 zu Côte d'Ivoire dokumentiert (DÜI-Sbd)

After conflict, states occasionally succeed in reconciling with former adversaries. When they do, they do so in different ways. Some grudgingly sign a treaty to signal the end of a conflict. Others provide for not only reparations and compensations but also economic assistance as material evidence of reconciliation. Yet others offer apologies, official and unofficial, and engage their former adversaries in reflective dialog that transforms their relationship from enmity to amity. Is there a way to systemically organize different ways in which states reconcile? Can different types of reconciliation be identified? If so, what explains the types? We address these questions in this article. Based on our survey of war terminations in the post-World War II period, we identify four different types of reconciliation that former injurious states have made with their victim states – procedural, material, ideational, and substantial. We hypothesize that their choice of a reconciliation type can be explained in terms of a configuration of national interest and national reflection. In this article, we engage in a structured comparative analysis of the cases of reconciliation between France-Algeria, Japan-Korea, Germany-Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic, and Germany-Poland – that we argue closely resemble the four ideal types – and demonstrate that our hypotheses are confirmed. We conclude with a consideration of how likely it is for ideational and material reconciliation to develop into substantial reconciliation

This article analyzes the perceptions of armed groups regarding the concept of civilians in non-international armed conflicts, through their codes of conduct and other commitments. It intends to shed light on the implementation by these non-state actors of the very critical principle of distinction, the exact articulation of is hotly debated in non-international armed conflict. It thus presents the different approaches to the principle of distinction in non-international armed conflict: the specific-act approach, the membership approach, the functional non-privileged combatancy approach, and the direct participation in hostilities with extended temporal scope in light of the commitments and undertakings of various armed groups. It concludes with the findings made on the basis of the study of the commitments made by armed groups, underlying in particular the issues that remain problematic regarding the principle of distinction in non-international armed conflict, as well as the issues on which a consensus in conceivable.