Suchergebnisse

Occupying the heartland of international law are rules which profess to regulate, and thereby restrain, violence between states. The normative regime governing violence between states consists of three categories of law: first, laws outlawing the use of force by states unilaterally, except in narrow circumstances like self defence; second, laws which establish the acceptable methods of combat; and third, the body of humanitarian law designed to protect certain categories of war victims. These laws have sanctioned the use of increasingly destructive means of war and have failed to provide significant protection to civilians. In fact the percentage of civilian, as opposed to military, casualties of war has progressively increased since the first World War reaching the alarming current level of 90 per cent. Such an extraordinary outcome results from legally authorised acceptance that military goals have priority over humanitarian considerations. In this note I will first outline the shortcomings of the international legal approach to violence and its repercussions for women; and second, discuss some implications this has for the teaching of international law.

Human rights discourse can contribute to articulation & advancement of global health objectives beyond the current application to medical experimentation & treatment of psychiatric patients. The recent increase in the application of this discourse to health is argued to be due to the end of the Cold War & its polarization into the civil/political & social/economic challenges to human rights orthodoxy, increased use of economic rationalism in health policy, & the global human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome strategy. It is assumed that human rights principles applicable to health practices & universal health standards can be identified. Inequalities associated with generic, universalizing approaches to health can be countered, & health can be obtained in conjunction with other human rights. The limitations of this approach are in the disconnect between (1) public legal recourse & private provision of health services, & (2) the lack of egalitarian social change overall. M. Pflum