Suchergebnisse

Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law. ; Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.

This book explores the issue of environmentally-induced migrations from the point of view of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international refugee law and international law of statelessness. Last few years have become a period of unprecedented growth in the number of studies devoted to the forced migration caused by climate change. The book by professor Jane McAdam, published by Oxford University Press, differs significantly from previous studies in this area. The focus of the author became a state responsibility for the situation of climate-change induced displaced people with a particular focus on legal aspects of this problem. The basis of the author`s considerations are four particular areas of public international law: international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international refugee law and international law of statelessness. The issue of climate change-induced displacement is now becoming a growing challenge for public international law. The growing number of climate change migrants becomes a challenge for the international istitutions dealing with humanitarian assistance. Sea level rise become a factor of specific legal problems, such as climatic deterritorialization of the state, state succession on the new territory, the status of people forced to leave their country submerged under the waters of ocean (forced migrants?, refugees?, stateless people?, citizens of the former country continuing its status within a new territory?).

Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.

There are about 2.2 million prisoners in the USA. It is generally viewed that this number is a result of a too severe penal system connected with the introduction of the absolute intolerance for drug crimes policy. But not only gang members and drug dealers are doing time in prison, this system also applies to war veterans. In 2012, there were 181,500 veterans behind bars, especially participants of the recent wars. Most of them face problems with addiction or struggle with permanent unemployment, homelessness or psychological disorders. This phenomenon is alarming because veterans as a privileged group have a social, medical, education cover and all capabilities not to break the law. Veterans as former soldiers, disciplined and well familiar with criminal law, who received ethics and international humanitarian law training courses, from practical point of view should not break the rules stated by the legal system. The image of former veterans who served their country, totally disagree with penitentiary statistics. Recent years have shown that military service, especially in the area of conflict, may become a double-edged sword, and in fact veterans may pose a threat to society.

In the article authors draws our attention to the gaps in understanding the complexities of modern warfare and extensive use of irregular forces. Russia is using new forms of war and resistance: open and secret terror, diversions and operations of underground groups, which include citizens from this region, soldiers and mercenaries from different countries. The main problem in the regulation of any hybrid warfare by international humanitarian law is that it focuses solely on the physical dimension of the conflict and its role is getting smaller – replaced by economic and informational war successfully used by Russia. Non-military activities used within the framework of hybrid conflicts are mainly aimed at the impact on the civilian population and the international community. Their task is to weaken the will of resistance, increase the level of discouragement and social discontent, which in turn will lead to the end of the conflict in accordance with the interests of the aggressor. We are witnessing such methods are being used against Ukraine as attrition warfare as well as the destruction of the psychological balance of the whole society. Not military methods, which are used by Russia against Ukraine are: political, social, humanitarian, economic and energy instruments; high activity of special services; new information technologies, including information attacks, offensive actions in cyberspace; multidirectional diplomacy.Key words: hybrid warfare; military actions; non-military methods of warfare; asymmetric threats. ; W artykule autorzy zwracają uwagę na braki w zrozumieniu złożoności współczesnej wojny oraz szerokie wykorzystanie nieregularnych sił zbrojnych. Rosja wykorzystuje nowe formy przeprowadzenia wojny i oporu: otwarty i tajny terror, dywersje i działania grup konspiracyjnych, do których wchodzą obywatele regionu, żołnierze i najemnicy z różnych państw. Głównym problemem w regulacji wojen hybrydowych międzynarodowym prawem humanitarnym jest to, że koncentruje się ono wyłącznie na fizycznym wymiarze konfliktu a jego rola jest coraz mniejsza – zastępują ją wojna gospodarcza i informacyjna, które Rosja z powodzeniem wykorzystuje. Działania niemilitarne wykorzystywane w ramach konfliktów hybrydowych mają na celu głównie oddziaływanie na ludność cywilną oraz społeczność międzynarodową. Ich zadaniem jest osłabianie woli oporu, zwiększanie poziomu zniechęcenia oraz niezadowolenia społecznego, co w rezultacie ma doprowadzić do zakończenia konfliktu zgodnie z interesem agresora. Jesteśmy świadkami tego, że w stosunku do Ukrainy stosuje się metody wojny na wyczerpanie, zniszczenie równowagi psychologicznej całego społeczeństwa. Metodami niemilitarnymi, które wykorzystuje Rosja w stosunku do Ukrainy są: szerokie zastosowanie politycznych, społecznych, humanitarnych, ekonomicznych, energetycznych instrumentów; duża aktywność służb specjalnych; nowe informacyjne technologie, w tym ataki informacyjne, działania ofensywne w cyberprzestrzeni; wielokierunkowe działania dyplomatyczne.Słowa kluczowe: wojna hybrydowa; działania militarne; pozamilitarnych metody prowadzenia wojny; zagrożenia asymetryczne. ; Автори звертають увагу на прогалини в розумінні складнощів сучасної війни із широким використанням нерегулярних сил. Росія використовує нові форми війни і опору: відкритий і секретний терор, диверсії та операції підпільних груп, сформованих з громадян цього регіону та солдатів і найманців з різних країн. Основною проблемою в регулюванні гібридної війни міжнародним гуманітарним правом є те, що ця війна зосереджена виключно на фізичному вимірі конфлікту, отож його роль стає все меншою. Натомість її замінено економічною та інформаційною війнами, що успішно використовує Росія. Використання невійськових методів у рамках гібридних конфліктів здебільшого спрямоване на цивільне населення і міжнародне співтовариство. Їхнє завдання полягає в тому, щоб послабити волю опору, підвищити рівень розчарування та соціального невдоволення, яке, своєю чергою, спровокує завершення конфлікту відповідно до інтересів агресора. Ми бачимо, що проти України використовують методи війни на виснаження, руйнування психологічної рівноваги всього суспільства. Hевійськові методи, які використовує Росія проти України, – це політичні, соціальні, гуманітарні, економічні та енергетичні інструменти; висока активність спецслужб; нові інформаційні технології, в тому числі інформаційні атаки, наступальні дії в кіберпросторі; різностороння дипломатія.Ключові слова: гібридна війна; військові дії; невійськові методи ведення війни; асиметричні загрози.

Lithuania officially declared their support for international mission in Iraq 21st March 2003. Four days later, 25th March, Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the resolution, in which resolved "to dispatch for a six-month period to the international operation led by United States of America in the Persian Gulf Region, a humanitarian type mission of Lithuanian soldiers." Assignment of that mission was a support of international operation and assistance to victims of the conflict. In the beginning of the mission Lithuanian soldiers served in two areas of responsibility: Polish and British. This country delegated officers to the headquaters of the divisions in Basra and Babylon, and to the NATO Training Mission. In each unit, a total of 100 Lithuanian military personnel served in the UK- and Polishcontrolled sectors in Iraq. Lithuania took part in the European Union's training program called EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq. On this initiative, the Iraqi officers familiarized themselves with the implementation of Lithuanian penitentiary system reform and the respect for human rights in the area of criminal justice. 25th January 2006 was the last day of Lithuanian military contingent duty within Multinational Division Central South. ; Lithuania officially declared their support for international mission in Iraq 21st March 2003. Four days later, 25th March, Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the resolution, in which resolved "to dispatch for a six-month period to the international operation led by United States of America in the Persian Gulf Region, a humanitarian type mission of Lithuanian soldiers." Assignment of that mission was a support of international operation and assistance to victims of the conflict. In the beginning of the mission Lithuanian soldiers served in two areas of responsibility: Polish and British. This country delegated officers to the headquaters of the divisions in Basra and Babylon, and to the NATO Training Mission. In each unit, a total of 100 Lithuanian military personnel served in the UK- and Polishcontrolled sectors in Iraq. Lithuania took part in the European Union's training program called EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq. On this initiative, the Iraqi officers familiarized themselves with the implementation of Lithuanian penitentiary system reform and the respect for human rights in the area of criminal justice. 25th January 2006 was the last day of Lithuanian military contingent duty within Multinational Division Central South.

Lithuania officially declared their support for international mission in Iraq 21st March 2003. Four days later, 25th March, Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the resolution, in which resolved "to dispatch for a six-month period to the international operation led by United States of America in the Persian Gulf Region, a humanitarian type mission of Lithuanian soldiers." Assignment of that mission was a support of international operation and assistance to victims of the conflict. In the beginning of the mission Lithuanian soldiers served in two areas of responsibility: Polish and British. This country delegated officers to the headquaters of the divisions in Basra and Babylon, and to the NATO Training Mission. In each unit, a total of 100 Lithuanian military personnel served in the UK- and Polishcontrolled sectors in Iraq. Lithuania took part in the European Union's training program called EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq. On this initiative, the Iraqi officers familiarized themselves with the implementation of Lithuanian penitentiary system reform and the respect for human rights in the area of criminal justice. 25th January 2006 was the last day of Lithuanian military contingent duty within Multinational Division Central South. ; Lithuania officially declared their support for international mission in Iraq 21st March 2003. Four days later, 25th March, Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the resolution, in which resolved "to dispatch for a six-month period to the international operation led by United States of America in the Persian Gulf Region, a humanitarian type mission of Lithuanian soldiers." Assignment of that mission was a support of international operation and assistance to victims of the conflict. In the beginning of the mission Lithuanian soldiers served in two areas of responsibility: Polish and British. This country delegated officers to the headquaters of the divisions in Basra and Babylon, and to the NATO Training Mission. In each unit, a total of 100 Lithuanian military personnel served in the UK- and Polishcontrolled sectors in Iraq. Lithuania took part in the European Union's training program called EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq. On this initiative, the Iraqi officers familiarized themselves with the implementation of Lithuanian penitentiary system reform and the respect for human rights in the area of criminal justice. 25th January 2006 was the last day of Lithuanian military contingent duty within Multinational Division Central South.

Lithuania officially declared their support for international mission in Iraq 21st March 2003. Four days later, 25th March, Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the resolution, in which resolved "to dispatch for a six-month period to the international operation led by United States of America in the Persian Gulf Region, a humanitarian type mission of Lithuanian soldiers." Assignment of that mission was a support of international operation and assistance to victims of the conflict. In the beginning of the mission Lithuanian soldiers served in two areas of responsibility: Polish and British. This country delegated officers to the headquaters of the divisions in Basra and Babylon, and to the NATO Training Mission. In each unit, a total of 100 Lithuanian military personnel served in the UK- and Polishcontrolled sectors in Iraq. Lithuania took part in the European Union's training program called EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq. On this initiative, the Iraqi officers familiarized themselves with the implementation of Lithuanian penitentiary system reform and the respect for human rights in the area of criminal justice. 25th January 2006 was the last day of Lithuanian military contingent duty within Multinational Division Central South. ; Lithuania officially declared their support for international mission in Iraq 21st March 2003. Four days later, 25th March, Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the resolution, in which resolved "to dispatch for a six-month period to the international operation led by United States of America in the Persian Gulf Region, a humanitarian type mission of Lithuanian soldiers." Assignment of that mission was a support of international operation and assistance to victims of the conflict. In the beginning of the mission Lithuanian soldiers served in two areas of responsibility: Polish and British. This country delegated officers to the headquaters of the divisions in Basra and Babylon, and to the NATO Training Mission. In each unit, a total of 100 Lithuanian military personnel served in the UK- and Polishcontrolled sectors in Iraq. Lithuania took part in the European Union's training program called EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq. On this initiative, the Iraqi officers familiarized themselves with the implementation of Lithuanian penitentiary system reform and the respect for human rights in the area of criminal justice. 25th January 2006 was the last day of Lithuanian military contingent duty within Multinational Division Central South.

Nowadays, the more is being said about democracy and human rights, the more refugees there are. There are many reasons for such a situation but one of the most important ones is the fact that global powers consider their own interests inspired by geopolitics to be more important than international law, unambiguously proved by the casus of Western Sahara, whose citizens have been waiting for the referendum promised by the U.N. for 40 years now. Some of them are waiting for the settlement of the dispute under Moroccan occupation, and some in refugee camps in Algerian Sahara. The latter even organized a state in exile, Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, whose structures were able to provide for survival – with the assistance of Algeria, the U.N. and many nother humanitarian organizations – for over 150 000 Sahara people, at the standard much higher than of other refugees living in over 100 camps globally. They are waiting patiently, they do not use terror, although Islamic fundamentalism is getting closer and closer to the centre of the Sahara and may present an alternative to the desperate ones. It is insignificant in terms of thinking about peace in that region, whether the result of the referendum will be favourable for Morocco or the independence of Western Sahara. The referendum simply should be held. It would be important not only for the entire region, mainly Morocco and Algeria, but also for France, which intervening elsewhere – very close recently – has mouth full of platitudes on democracy and human rights.3,99zł