Suchergebnisse

Examines links between the conflict in Chechnya & the Additional Protocol II of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions to illustrate the limits of international humanitarian law. Legal issues addressed at the 1974-1977 diplomatic conference are discussed & the confusing vocabulary of Protocol II is pointed out. It is maintained that international bodies have avoided stating that the Chechen conflict meets the criteria of Additional Protocol II in favor of stressing obligations under humanitarian law. Russian descriptions of the conflict emphasize the need to fight terrorism & reestablish legal order in Chechnya, as well as the high quantity/quality of Chechen fighters & armaments. Protocol II distinctions between internal armed conflict & simple riots are examined to show how governments can arbitrarily decide whether the criteria have been fulfilled. Complications arising from noncompliance with humanitarian legal obligations by the nongovernmental side in a conflict are discussed, along with government repression or amnesty when humanitarian legal conduct is violated by governmental forces; & the ease with which states/organizations spin official comments to confuse Protocol rules. J. Lindroth

The field of humanitarian assistance is undergoing a computational revolution, but international lawyers are slow to realize it. Thanks to the deployment of data analytics, humanitarian agencies are increasingly able to forecast where and when a crisis will strike, whom it will affect, and what needs it will create. These developments enable new and promising models of anticipatory response, but also raise concerns in terms of risk management and irresponsible experimentation. Yet, so far, international lawyers have been strikingly silent about the normative implications of digital humanitarianism. Seeking to fill the gap, this article assesses the impact of data- driven humanitarian response on the practice of international law, and sets out some broad parameters for dialogue and mutual engagement between the two fields of expertise. That engagement requires, first, an understanding of the normative character of humanitarian data practices. Based on that understanding, international lawyers can contribute to the regulation of digital humanitarian networks and help steer the system towards greater accountability.

AbstractThis article reconsiders the status and legality of both autonomous and remote weapons systems under international humanitarian law. Technologically advanced unmanned military systems are being introduced into the modern battlespace with insufficient recognition of their potential challenge to international humanitarian law. The article questions the understanding of both autonomous and remote weapons systems as 'weapons' and seeks to consider how their use may impact existing legal categories. Their use is then specifically situated to consider the legality of their deployment in certain contexts. Finally, the article raises the question of impunity for the use of both autonomous and remote weapons systems that arise from the inability to attribute responsibility for the harm they cause. It is imperative that law and policy are developed to govern the development and deployment of these advanced weapons systems to forestall these likely situations of impunity.

Coping with refugees arriving by sea is a problem that has existed for a number of years.1Throughout this period the crux of the matter has remained the same, reconciling the humanitarian plight of refugees and asylum-seekers with the destination States' concerns about illegal immigration, mass migrations of people, and the costs of asylum. The boarding of the Tampa by Australian SAS troops in August 2001, in order to prevent the disembarkation of 433 asylum-seekers on Christmas Island, has once again brought into sharp focus the acute tension created between competing legal norms, and between moral and legal considerations. What are the rights of vessels and people in distress under the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and other maritime agreements? How do commercial considerations affect the obligation to assist those in distress at sea? What are the rights of refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention and other human rights instruments? What are the powers of a coastal State to protect itself from threats to national security in its coastal waters? This article examines the legal obligations incumbent upon coastal States and flag States in respect of asylum-seekers rescued at sea and seeks to answer these questions. It goes on to suggest that the law in respect of search, rescue, and refuge is highly unsatisfactory because a number of key obligations are poorly defined and inadequately implemented. It alsoseems clear that insufficient weight is given to humanitarian considerations. Finally, consideration is given to possible solutions to the problem.

AbstractThe challenge faced by Somalia's newly established National Disability Agency (NDA), along with other emerging actors in the disability arena, is how to address the perception that disability is primarily a humanitarian issue in a country that not only is in conflict but also faces cyclical humanitarian crises. A further challenge for the NDA is how to ensure that the humanitarian architecture put in place facilitates non-discrimination, as well as the inclusion of and participation by persons with disabilities. While a typical humanitarian architecture can inadvertently reinforce an already stigmatizing charity or welfare approach towards persons with disabilities, Somalia's experience demonstrates that humanitarian actors can do a lot with leadership, a willingness to leave agency branding behind, and an active committed partner such as the NDA. Nevertheless, genuine inclusion in Somalia's overall State-building project needs also to be the remit of development, reconciliation and similar actors, with access to and participation of persons with disabilities guaranteed in their range of processes and frameworks.

AbstractThis article looks at the tension between principles and politics in the response to the Afghan crisis, and more specifically at the extent to which humanitarian agencies have been able to protect themselves and their activities from overt instrumentalization by those pursuing partisan political agendas. After a short historical introduction, it focuses on the tensions around the issue of 'coherence' – the code word for the integration of humanitarian action into the wider political designs of the United Nations itself and of the UN-mandated military coalition that has been operating in Afghanistan since late 2001. The article ends with some more general conclusions on the humanitarian–political relationship and what Afghanistan 'means' for the future of humanitarian action.

Since their publication in the 1950s and 1980s respectively, the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 have become a major reference for the application and interpretation of those treaties. The International Committee of the Red Cross, together with a team of renowned experts, is currently updating these Commentaries in order to document developments and provide up-to-date interpretations of the treaty texts. Following a brief overview of the methodology and process of the update as well as a historical background to the Second Geneva Convention, this article addresses the scope of applicability of the Convention, the type of vessels it protects (in particular hospital ships and coastal rescue craft), and its relationship with other sources of international humanitarian law and international law conferring protection to persons in distress at sea. It also outlines differences and commonalities between the First and the Second Conventions, including how these have been reflected in the updated Commentary on the Second Convention. Finally, the article highlights certain substantive obligations under the Convention and how the updated Commentary addresses some of the interpretive questions they raise.

Scholarly work on atrocity-speech law has focused almost exclusively on incitement to genocide. But case law has established liability for a different speech offense: persecution as a crime against humanity (CAH). The lack of scholarship regarding this crime is puzzling given a split between the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the issue of whether hate speech alone can serve as an actus reus for CAH-persecution. This Article fills the gap in the literature by analyzing the split between the two tribunals and concluding that hate speech alone may be the basis for CAH-persecution charges. First, this is consistent with precedent going as far back as the Nuremberg trials. Second, it takes into account the CAH requirement that the speech be uttered as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. Third, the defendant must be aware that his speech is uttered as part of that attack. As a result, it is problematic to consider "hate speech" in a vacuum. Unlike incitement to genocide, an inchoate crime not necessarily involving speech and simultaneous mass violence, hate speech as persecution must be legally linked to contemporaneous violence in a context in which the marketplace of ideas is shut down and speech thus loses its democracy and self-actualization benefits. Thus, it should ordinarily satisfy the CAH-persecution actus reus requirement. Nevertheless, given the strictly verbal conduct, and possible impingements on quasi-legitimate freedom of expression, isolated or sporadic hate speech, as well as hate speech uttered as part of incipient, low-level, or geographically removed chapeau violence, may not qualify as the actus reus of CAH-persecution. The Article ultimately makes the point that context is crucial and case-by-case analysis should always be required.

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) present significant risks to mine action (MA) operators and the programmes within which they work. Such risks can be managed through well-informed risk identification and assessment, the avoidance of some activities, and the procurement/development of the necessary skills, equipment and procedures to address others. This study focuses primarily on improvised devices of the types that are currently encountered by MA organisations during humanitarian operations. The use of IEDs for terrorist purposes or as part of active conflict is not addressed in this study. While it is recognised that MA organisations may be present in places where there is a risk of terrorist attack, such events generally fall under the heading of security/law and order and are dealt with by military, security or police forces. The study draws especially on information relating to humanitarian IED disposal (IEDD) operations in northern Iraq, but it considers issues of importance to MA operators encountering improvised devices anywhere in the world.

Extending this analysis of their acclaimed 1975 work, Weston and Lillich (with the addition of David Bederman) bring the log of international claims up to 1995. This volume provides authoritative translations and annotations of lump sum agreements concluded between 1975 and 1995 (and hitherto unavailable agreements concluded before 1975). Detailed commentary includes analysis of such issues as eligible claimants, substantive bases of claims, and standards of compensation under the agreements. The authors leave no doubt of the continued importance of lump sum agreements to international claims practice and the dynamic law of State responsibility. Published under the auspices of the Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute (PAIL).For more information about PAIL please go to pail-institute.org. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint

The two Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions are a cornerstone of the current law regulating armed conflict. The authors, who took part in their negotiation, explain the origin and the meaning of the text and provide, thus, and important help for their understanding and application. The current volume is a revised reprint, with new introductory materials, of the original text published in 1982.