Search results

How relevant is the concept of war today? This book examines how notions about war continue to influence how we conceive rights and obligations in national and international law. It also considers the role international law plays in limiting what is forbidden and legitimated in times of war or armed conflict. The book highlights how, even though war has been outlawed and should be finished as an institution, states nevertheless continue to claim that they can wage necessary wars of self-defence, engage in lawful killings in war, imprison law-of-war detainees, and attack objects which are said to be part of a war-sustaining economy. The book includes an overall account of the contemporary laws of war and delves into whether states should be able to continue to claim so-called 'belligerent rights' over their enemies and those accused of breaching expectations of neutrality. A central claim in the book is as follows: while there is general agreement that war has been abolished as a legal institution for settling disputes, the time has come to admit that the belligerent rights that once accompanied states at war are no longer available. The conclusion is that claiming to be in a war or an armed conflict does not grant anyone a licence to kill people, destroy things, and acquire other people's property or territory.

This work presents an approach to human rights which goes beyond the traditional focus on states and outlines the human rights obligations of non-state actors. It finishes with examples of how they can be held legally accountable for their actions in various jurisdictions.

This article considers the so-called belligerent rights of States in times of war. In particular it focuses on booty of war, blockade, and the capture of merchant ships and their cargo. It is suggested that, while the rules may not often be applied today, they nevertheless continue to exert a certain influence, contributing to confusion about the boundaries of the legitimate use of force and a blurring of the distinction between military objectives and civilian objects. Considering that the UN Charter has outlawed the use of force, the article also questions why such rules concerning capture should continue to have place in international law and its manuals. An application of the rules in effect rewards an aggressor State with the belligerent right to acquire enemy or neutral property. The chapter ends with suggestions for a radical rethink of the rules on seizure of enemy and neutral ships and the cargoes they are transporting. It asks why being at war should entitle States to capture and permanently acquire enemy or neutral property. In sum, it questions whether prize law should exist at all today. The article is part of a larger enquiry into how the concept of war permeates our thinking with often-disastrous effects.

Does international law entitle armed groups to detain people? And what obligations are imposed on such non-state actors when they do detain? This article sets out suggested obligations for armed groups related to the right to challenge the basis for any detention and considers some related issues of fair trial and punishment. The last part of this article briefly considers the legal framework governing state responsibility and individual criminal responsibility for those that assist armed groups that detain people in ways that violate international law.