Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Foreword -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Introduction -- Reference -- Afghanistan and Syria: Nonstate Actors and Their Negative Impact on Human Security -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Nonstate Armed Actors (NSAAS) in the ``New´´ Armed Conflicts -- 3 The Afghan Case: A Fragmented and Violent Environment -- 3.1 The Weakness of the Afghan State After Decades of Conflict -- 3.2 Specific Features of the Afghan Armed Conflict: Asymmetric Warfare -- 3.3 NSAAs in Afghanistan -- 3.3.1 Progovernment Groups -- 3.3.2 Militias, Paramilitaries, and Auxiliary Police Forces -- 3.3.3 PMSCs and the Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF) -- 3.4 Insurgents -- 4 The Syrian Case: Anarchic War and Sectarianism -- 4.1 Specific Features of the Syrian Armed Conflict: The War of All Against All -- 4.2 NSAAs in Syria -- 4.2.1 Militias -- 4.2.2 Mercenaries and PMSCs -- 4.2.3 Foreign Combatants/Terrorists -- 5 Implications for Human Security (HS) -- 6 Conclusions -- References -- Delimitation and Presence of PMSCs: Impact on Human Rights -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The Rise of PMSCs: Keys to Understanding the Industry´s Development -- 3 Delimitation and Presence of PMSCs -- 3.1 Home and Contracting Countries -- 3.2 Services -- 3.3 Territorial Countries -- 3.4 Operational Contexts -- 4 Impact on Human Rights -- 4.1 Main Trends in PMSCs´ Impact on Human Rights -- 4.2 Analysis by Operational Context -- 4.2.1 Occupations -- 4.2.2 Critical and Strategic Infrastructure -- 4.2.3 Logistics Convoys and/or Escorts -- 4.2.4 Extractive Industry Projects -- 4.2.5 Prisons -- 4.2.6 Borders and Immigration Control -- 4.2.7 Homeland Security -- 5 Conclusions -- References -- The Ineffectiveness of the Current Definition of a ``Mercenary´´ in International Humanitarian and Criminal Law -- 1 The Evolution of Mercenarism and the Development of International Norms 1950-2016

Today the majority of the armed conflicts around the world are fought between States and armed groups, rather than between States. This book brings significant new insight to the question of whether and when armed groups are bound by human rights law.

It was around the beginning of November 2006. I was reading a book by Prof. Koen De Feyter World Development Law where I first see the term 'indigenous peoples'. Two of the cases summarized in the book had taken my attention, i.e., the case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni indigenous community of Nicaragua, and Ogoni people of Nigeria. The cases were brought at different regional human right courts of America and Africa, respectively. However, both cases involved TNCs complicity in human rights violations of indigenous communities namely, Sol del Caribe S.A. (SOLCARSA) in Nicaragua, and Royal Shell in Nigeria. Both allegations were also brought against the respective states. I keep wondering why the TNCs escape liability which becomes the basic research question for this thesis. The thesis is a critical legal analysis of TNCs human rights liability from the perspective of indigenous peoples human rights violations. The study analyses the problematic situation of TNCs liability in existing state-centered system of international law. It observes the particular weakness of the current system of international law when the human rights victims of TNCs happened to be indigenous peoples. The study also analyses the effectiveness of different attempts made by international organization, corporations and civil society groups towards imposing human rights liability on TNCs. Despite the lack of legal bite and enforceability, the study founds the lack of sensitivity to indigenous peoples human rights in such emerging regulatory and voluntary initiatives which are categorized broadly as soft-laws, self-regulations and social initiatives. This study argues for a binding international law on TNCs as an ultimate solution, but it also equally argues for increased concern to indigenous peoples human rights as an indispensable issue in corporate human rights discourse. In this regard the thesis offers some general and transitional policy measures.

With the importance of non-State actors ever increasing, the traditional State-centric approach of international law is being put to the test. In particular, significant accountability lacunae have emerged in the field of human rights protection. To address these challenges, this book makes a case for extraterritorial due diligence obligations of States in international human rights law. It traces back how due diligence obligations evolved on the international plane and develops a general analytical framework making the broad and vague notion of due diligence more approachable. The framework is applied to different fields of international law which provides guidance on how due diligence obligations can be better conceptualized. Drawing inspiration from these developments, the book analyses how extraterritorial human rights due diligence obligations could operate in practice and foster global human rights protection.

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.