Suchergebnisse

In the Bangladesh crisis, two important objectives of international law appeared to be in conflict: that of peace and that of justice. The former objective is set out in the rules of the U.N. Charter against the use of force by states except in self-defense against an armed attack. The second is found in the provisions of the Charter and in various resolutions, declarations, and covenants pertaining to fundamental human rights and self determination.

Government-sanctioned mass killings in Kampuchea and Uganda in recent years argue forcefully for military intervention on humanitarian grounds. While international law does permit such intervention in special circumstances, there remains the need to devise satisfactory procedures for carrying out this intervention as well as effective international mechanisms to ensure that it is not used to promote a nation's own self-interest.

Internationalized internal armed conflicts have become a common feature of the past decades. In numerous civil wars foreign armed forces have intervened in favour of one or the other party and thereby attempted to influence the outcome of the conflict. Various causes have led to this development. One of them is the increased interdependence of States, as a consequence of which every civil war will affect other States and, conversely, the attitudes of other States may have an impact on the outcome of the civil war, even without any intervention. Another cause can be found in the world's ideological cleavage which divides nations and results in the overlapping of internal and international conflicts. Among further causes we can mention the existence of military blocs and of regional groupings which have an interest in preventing the overthrow of régimes within the bloc and tend to encourage alterations in other blocs. Another factor to be taken into consideration is the prohibition of the use of force in international relations. Whereas in earlier times States waged open wars in order to increase their power, today, due to the prohibition of the use of force, they rather endeavour to achieve the same result by interfering in the internal affairs of other States. Interference in internal conflicts is often a substitute for an international war. The instability of many contemporary régimes, mainly of the Third World, further favours the internationalization of internal conflicts.

The U.S. policy of trying to destabilize the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua violates accepted principles of international law. Based on the long‐standing principles of "humanitarian intervention" of the Nuremberg Judgment and Article 7 o f the U.N. General Assembly's 1974 Definition of Aggression and American traditional acceptance of the principles of natural law, the Nicaraguan intervention in El Salvador may be interpreted as law enforcement. The United States, on the other hand, is not acting on behalf of the international law of human rights in its llcovertll counter‐revolutionary operation in Nicaragua but i s acting to restore repression in Nicaragua. The trouble with U.S. policy in Central America is the Reagan administrationls simplified reliance on the East/West, "free versus nonfree" nations as the only meaningful axis of its foreign policy. This leads to acceptance of the might makes right doctrine and U.S. support for repressive regimes in such places as Guatemala and Haiti. These policies not only are unlawful and contrary toour best political traditions, but are verylikely to fail.

A casualty, sorely if not fatally wounded, of the Soviet armed intervention in Afghanistan is the once widely-touted Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe concluded in Helsinki on August 1, 1975. The Conference was originally proposed by the Soviet Union in the 1950's in order to promote its perceived security interest in Europe and to legitimize its territorial boundaries in Eastern Europe. Though initially opposed to the idea, the United States finally supported it in 1972 as a means of promoting the "security that would come from an expansion of cooperation between East and West in a wide range of areas including economic, humanitarian, educational and cultural.' Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger described the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference as "providing the indispensable, political and legal basis for pursuing the issue of human rights in East-West relations." The Helsinki achievement, claimed the Department of State Counselor in 1978, "was to fold human rights concerns into the developing fabric of East-West detente." The Final Act is comprised by three areas of agreement, commonly referred to as "Baskets," dealing with questions relating to security in Europe, cooperation in the fields of economics, science and technology, and the environment, and cooperation in humanitarian and other fields. It is the third area which is the subject of this article with specific emphasis on United States compliance with the Act prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The ICRC has just published four new colour posters illustrating the application of the Geneva Conventions. The first shows the Red Crescent delivering relief supplies in the desert; the second shows a tracing service office in a country at war; the third shows people alighting from an ICRC aircraft to join their families, thanks to Red Cross intervention; the fourth illustrates ICRC assistance to prisoners. The captions are: To act throughout the world; To search for the missing; To reunite families; To protect prisoners.