Suchergebnisse

Conventional accounts of international society's expansion have traditionally emphasized the role played by 'civilizing missions' in facilitating and legitimating European aggression and imperial expansion. Conversely, in this article, I demonstrate that the relationship between imperial violence and the rhetoric of 'civilizing missions' was far more contested and contingent than International Relations scholars have generally assumed. Using the parliamentary debate surrounding Britain's involvement in the Second Opium War as a case study, I reveal that civilizational rhetoric in the 1857 'China debate' was equally implicated in both anti-imperialist and imperialist agendas. Richard Cobden's victory in the debate over Palmerston's pro-war ministry further illustrates the political potency of appeals to civilization as a brake — however temporary — on Britain's imperial expansion. An appreciation of civilization's janus-faced character — as a rhetorical commonplace that at different times abetted and inhibited imperial aggression — is therefore critical if we are to comprehend the halting and arrhythmic pattern of international society's progressive expansion under British leadership in the mid-Victorian period.

TheDebatesection of theReviewaims to contribute to reflection on contemporary questions of humanitarian law, policy or action. In this issue of theReview, we invited two experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) –Claus KreβandFrédéric Mégret– to debate on how IHL applicable in non-international armed conflict (NIAC) should develop. In the two pieces that follow, Professor Kreβ submits for debate a new norm of international law outlawing NIACs – ajus contra bellum internum– with a corresponding set of rules applicable in NIACs – ajus in bello interno. Thejus in bello internowould give the "privilege of belligerency" – akin to combatants' privilege in international armed conflicts – to non-State actors in NIACs, providing an incentive for them to comply with these new rules of civil war. Frédéric Mégret critically examines the proposed privilege of belligerency, pointing out its problematic aspects and positing that the creation of such a privilege is, in fact, not desirable.

The Debate section of the Review aims to contribute to reflection on contemporary questions of humanitarian law, policy or action. In this issue of the Review, we invited two experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) - Claus KreBeta and Frederic Megret - to debate on how IHL applicable in non-international armed conflict (NIAC) should develop. In the two pieces that follow, Professor KreBeta submits for debate a new norm of international law outlawing NIACs - a jus contra bellum internum - with a corresponding set of rules applicable in NIACs - a jus in bello interno. The jus in bello interno would give the 'privilege of belligerency' - akin to combatants' privilege in international armed conflicts - to non-State actors in NIACs, providing an incentive for them to comply with these new rules of civil war. Frederic Megret critically examines the proposed privilege of belligerency, pointing out its problematic aspects and positing that the creation of such a privilege is, in fact, not desirable. Adapted from the source document.

The goal of this article is to study one of the lesser known questions of the Spanish approach to the Axis during the Second World War: German assistance in the defence of the Canary Islands against an Allied attack. To accomplish this objective, a German officer's visit to these islands to improve their defence after the Anglo-Canadian landing at Dieppe is analysed. The visit proves the maintenance of Spanish-German collaboration at the end of 1942. The report submitted by the officer influenced the reorganization of the defence of the islands in 1943.

The present writing is product of an investigation advanced in center of investigations of the School of Law of the Military University New Granada, group of public law, recognized by Colciencias in category A, line of human rights andhumanitarian international law, project: "International Responsibility of Colombia Because of Violations to the Humanitarian International Law".The objective of the present document consists of trying to offer clarity on some concepts that have come handling from indistinct way, which has brought consequently confusion as far as its meaning, and mainly, with respect to the consequences that of both figure follow. They are the terms of belligerence, terrorism and armed conflict.The followed method was the analytical one, trying to disarticulate the legal figures, soon to try to understand its meaning, similarities, differences, and of course, consequences of each of them. We go to secondary sources, in its immense majority, of the doctrine of public the international law and theinternational humanitarian law.The conclusion at which it is arrived is the existence in Colombia of a situation of conflict armed internal, not of recognition of belligerence for the illegal armed groups, that does not exclude the acts from terrorism in the middle of the conflict. ; El presente escrito es producto de una investigación adelantada en el centro de investigaciones de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, grupo de derecho público, reconocido por Colciencias en categoría A, línea de derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario, proyecto: "Responsabilidad Internacional del Estado Colombiano por Violaciones al Derecho Internacional Humanitario".El objetivo del presente documento consiste en procurar brindar claridad sobre algunos conceptos que se han venido manejando de manera indistinta, lo cual ha traído como consecuencia confusión en cuanto a su significado, y sobre todo, respecto a las consecuencias que de una y otra figura se desprenden. Son los términos de beligerancia, terrorismo y conflicto armado.El método seguido fue el analítico, procurando desarticular las figuras jurídicas, luego intentar comprender su significado, semejanzas, diferencias, y desde luego, consecuencias de cada una de ellas. Acudimos a fuentes secundarias provenientes, en su inmensa mayoría, de la doctrina del derecho internacionalpúblico y del internacional humanitario. La conclusión a la que se arriba es la existencia en Colombia de una situación de conflicto armado interno, no de reconocimiento de beligerancia para los grupos armados ilegales, que no excluye los actos de terrorismo en medio del conflicto.

El presente escrito es producto de una investigación adelantada en el centro de investigaciones de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, grupo de derecho público, reconocido por Colciencias en categoría A, línea de derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario, proyecto: "Responsabilidad Internacional del Estado Colombiano por Violaciones al Derecho Internacional Humanitario".El objetivo del presente documento consiste en procurar brindar claridad sobre algunos conceptos que se han venido manejando de manera indistinta, lo cual ha traído como consecuencia confusión en cuanto a su significado, y sobre todo, respecto a las consecuencias que de una y otra figura se desprenden. Son los términos de beligerancia, terrorismo y conflicto armado.El método seguido fue el analítico, procurando desarticular las figuras jurídicas, luego intentar comprender su significado, semejanzas, diferencias, y desde luego, consecuencias de cada una de ellas. Acudimos a fuentes secundarias provenientes, en su inmensa mayoría, de la doctrina del derecho internacionalpúblico y del internacional humanitario. La conclusión a la que se arriba es la existencia en Colombia de una situación de conflicto armado interno, no de reconocimiento de beligerancia para los grupos armados ilegales, que no excluye los actos de terrorismo en medio del conflicto. ; The present writing is product of an investigation advanced in center of investigations of the School of Law of the Military University New Granada, group of public law, recognized by Colciencias in category A, line of human rights andhumanitarian international law, project: "International Responsibility of Colombia Because of Violations to the Humanitarian International Law".The objective of the present document consists of trying to offer clarity on some concepts that have come handling from indistinct way, which has brought consequently confusion as far as its meaning, and mainly, with respect to the consequences that of both figure follow. They are the terms of belligerence, terrorism and armed conflict.The followed method was the analytical one, trying to disarticulate the legal figures, soon to try to understand its meaning, similarities, differences, and of course, consequences of each of them. We go to secondary sources, in its immense majority, of the doctrine of public the international law and theinternational humanitarian law.The conclusion at which it is arrived is the existence in Colombia of a situation of conflict armed internal, not of recognition of belligerence for the illegal armed groups, that does not exclude the acts from terrorism in the middle of the conflict.

For about 50 years there has been an armed conflict in Colombia, but recently acknowledged by the government, leaving as a result huge social gaps, economic and devastating consequences and noticeable cultural changes in the national imaginaries of life and development. Terms as belligerency, terrorism, and armed conflict are now part of our lexicon. The pretension for this research is to address the issue of the regulatory treatment given by Colombian legislation to the status of belligerence, terrorism and armed conflict without neglecting of course that in this regard, our regulations have adopted those from the International Law through the Constitutionality cluster. ; En Colombia desde hace aproximadamente cincuenta años ha tenido lugar un conflicto armado, recientemente reconocido por el gobierno, que ha dejado como resultado grandes brechas sociales, consecuencias económicas devastadoras y cambios culturales notables en los imaginarios nacionales de vida y desarrollo. Términos como beligerancia, terrorismo y conflicto armado, hacen parte ahora de nuestro léxico. Es entonces como desde esta investigación se pretende abordar el tratamiento que desde la normativa se le ha dado al status de beligerancia, terrorismo y conflicto armado en la legislación colombiana, sin dejar de lado, por supuesto, que nuestra reglamentación ha adoptado normativas al respecto desde el Derecho Internacional mediante el bloque de constitucionalidad.

Belligerent Reprisals examines the historical developments in the law and practice relating to recourse to belligerent reprisals, as a (primitive) means of law enforcement in the hands of a party to an armed conflict, victim of a violation of the law of war at the hands of its enemy. As a legal concept, the notion means that the victim in turn violates a rule of the same body of the law of war, with the purpose of thus inducing the enemy to terminate its unlawful conduct. However, the enemy may in its turn denounce the so-called reprisal as an unlawful act of war and retaliate against it, thus setting in motion the ill-famed spiral of negative reciprocity. While early lawmakers refrained from taking up the issue, prohibitions of reprisals could be achieved in conventions adopted in 1929 and 1949 on the protection of the power of the enemy. In contrast, reprisals (or retaliatory conduct announced under that title without meeting the requisite conditions) were common practice in the conduct of hostilities, with civilians in non-occupied territory as the main victims. With major governments disinclined to give up this tool, the ban on reprisals against civilian populations ultimately accepted in the Protocols of 1977 Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 could only be hard-fought, and it remains contested to this day. First published in 1971, Belligerent Reprisals has become a classic work on this complex topic. The analysis of lawmaking and state practice it contains is as valid today as it was in the late 1970's, and elucidates the dilemmas inherent in the notion of belligerent reprisal, as a means of law enforcement that can go terribly wrong