Belligerent Reprisals in the Law of Armed Conflict
In: Stanford journal of international law, Band 27, Heft 1, S. 49
ISSN: 0731-5082
1941323 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Stanford journal of international law, Band 27, Heft 1, S. 49
ISSN: 0731-5082
In: Revista internacional de la Cruz Roja, Band 12, Heft 82, S. 465-466
In: International relations: the journal of the David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies, Band 8, Heft 4, S. 380-396
ISSN: 1741-2862
In: International affairs, Band 56, Heft 4, S. 709-710
ISSN: 1468-2346
In: The Military Law and the Law of War Review, Band 18, Heft 4, S. 425
ISSN: 2732-5520
In: Environmental policy and law: the journal for decision-makers, Band 45, Heft 6, S. 285
ISSN: 0378-777X
In: Marine corps gazette: the Marine Corps Association newsletter, Band 96, Heft 2
ISSN: 0025-3170
In: International relations: the journal of the David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies, Band 11, Heft 3, S. 239
ISSN: 0047-1178
In: International relations: the journal of the David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies, Band 8, Heft 4, S. 380
ISSN: 0047-1178
In: International review of the Red Cross: humanitarian debate, law, policy, action, Band 93, Heft 883, S. 649-672
ISSN: 1607-5889
AbstractThe topic of participation of armed groups in the development of legal instruments binding them is particularly important and needs to be addressed urgently. Many scholars and organizations have advocated recently for the participation of armed groups in the development of legal instruments binding them, with a view to ensuring their adhesion to the law. However, practical and legal considerations seem to make this participation extremely difficult in practice. Creative solutions have to be found. After reviewing five main reasons why armed groups should be involved in the advancement of the law governing armed conflicts, this article offers a brief overview of selected means by which armed groups should be engaged in the creation of future norms, as well as in the interpretation and contextualization of existing norms.
In: Yearbook of international humanitarian law, Band 12, S. 157-192
ISSN: 1574-096X
AbstractIsrael's military operation in the Gaza Strip from 27 December 2008 until 18 January 2009 raised a host of legal questions on status and the conduct of hostilities, many of which have been subjected to intense scrutiny. But perhaps the two most troubling questions that remain unresolved concern the appropriate legal regime that governed the conflict and the geographical reach of the law. Was this an international armed conflict? If so, who were the 'contracting parties' and what was the territorial scope of the conflict? Alternatively, was the armed conflict one between a state, Israel, and a non-state actor, Hamas, and thus subject to the rules that apply in non-international armed conflict? This latter position jars with our intuition not least because the codified law assumes non-international armed conflict takes placewithinthe territory of a contracting state. The disquiet is apparent in the Israeli Supreme Court judgment of 2009,Physicians for Human Rights v. Prime Minister, in which the Court had to determine the legal regime governing the armed conflict between Israel and 'the Hamas organization'. Describing the normative 'arrangements' as 'complex', it noted that 'the classification of the armed conflict between the state of Israel and the Hamas organization as an international conflict raises several difficulties'.