Search results

AbstractCyber warfare figures prominently on the agenda of policymakers and military leaders around the world. New units to ensure cyber security are created at various levels of government, including in the armed forces. But cyber operations in armed conflict situations could have potentially very serious consequences, in particular when their effect is not limited to the data of the targeted computer system or computer. Indeed, cyber operations are usually intended to have an effect in the 'real world'. For instance, by tampering with the supporting computer systems, one can manipulate an enemy's air traffic control systems, oil pipeline flow systems, or nuclear plants. The potential humanitarian impact of some cyber operations on the civilian population is enormous. It is therefore important to discuss the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern such operations because one of the main objectives of this body of law is to protect the civilian population from the effects of warfare. This article seeks to address some of the questions that arise when applying IHL – a body of law that was drafted with traditional kinetic warfare in mind – to cyber technology. The first question is: when is cyber war really war in the sense of 'armed conflict'? After discussing this question, the article goes on to look at some of the most important rules of IHL governing the conduct of hostilities and the interpretation in the cyber realm of those rules, namely the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. With respect to all of these rules, the cyber realm poses a number of questions that are still open. In particular, the interconnectedness of cyber space poses a challenge to the most fundamental premise of the rules on the conduct of hostilities, namely that civilian and military objects can and must be distinguished at all times. Thus, whether the traditional rules of IHL will provide sufficient protection to civilians from the effects of cyber warfare remains to be seen. Their interpretation will certainly need to take the specificities of cyber space into account. In the absence of better knowledge of the potential effects of cyber warfare, it cannot be excluded that more stringent rules might be necessary.

AbstractComplementarity and mutual influence inform the interaction between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in most cases. In some cases when there is contradiction between the two bodies of law, the more specific norm takes precedence (lex specialis). The author analyses the question of in which situations either body of law is more specific. She also considers the procedural dimension of this interplay, in particular concerning the rules governing investigations into alleged violations, court access for alleged victims and reparations for wrongdoing.

AbstractThe article outlines the legal framework that governs transfers of individuals, and in particular the international law principle ofnon-refoulementand other obstacles to transfers. The author addresses some of the new legal and practical challenges arising in detention and transfers in the context of multinational operations abroad and analyses the contemporary practice of transfer agreements.

An examination of whether the Guiding Principles (GPs) have improved protection for internally displaced persons (IDPs) points out that recent legal developments have strengthened the law upon which the GPs are based & numerous treaties have been ratified by a growing number of states. In spite of these advances, implementation is often difficult to achieve. Most displacement is caused by unlawful behavior & could be prevented if there was universal respect for human rights & the existing rules of war. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThe principle of humane treatment, as Jean Pictet wrote in 1958, is in truth the leitmotiv of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 3 common to these Conventions and other provisions of International Humanitarian Law embody this absolute and minimum rule by prohibiting torture, cruel or inhuman treatment and outrages upon personal dignity. These notions can be interpreted in meaningful and practical ways through the existing instruments and jurisprudence on the prohibition of ill-treatment. Their assessment must take into account the need to respect the human being in all his or her physical, mental and moral integrity, mindful of all the circumstances of the case.

AbstractThis article takes a critical look at the development of international humanitarian law (IHL), from its early codification in the Hague and Geneva Conventions to the present day. It examines why and how IHL develops – through treaty, custom, interpretation and soft-law instruments, as well as the influence of jurisprudence and other branches of law. In doing so, it highlights some of the distinctive elements of IHL that set it apart from other bodies of law and explains how these elements influence IHL development. Turning to the present, it addresses some of the key arguments commonly heard against attempting any further development of IHL, by answering the following three key questions: Does IHL need to develop further? If so, how can this be achieved? And what are the prospects for such development in the near future? In answering these questions, the article argues that IHL will continue to develop in many ways, and that while the current environment does not appear propitious for new legally binding norms of IHL, they continue to be both necessary and possible.

Le droit international humanitaire n'a cessé d'évoluer et de se perfectionner au fil des ans. Respecter le DIH est un enjeu permanent concernant toutes les parties en cause. Des progrès restent à faire notamment pour les groupes non étatiques et pour la prise en compte des personnes capturées.

On 24–25 September 2009, the Faculty of Laws, University College London and the International Humanitarian Law Project, London School of Economics held a conference in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross entitled 'The European Convention on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law'.Armed conflict situations (including belligerent occupations) have increasingly become the subject of litigation before national courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). As a result, there is now a substantial body of case-law on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in armed conflict situations. The ECtHR has had to engage with questions involving situations of armed conflict and occupation since the Turkish intervention in Northern Cyprus in the 1970s. The increasing resort to the ECHR by claimants whose rights have allegedly been violated in contemporary armed conflicts and occupations, raise new and complex questions of law. To what extent does the ECHR, as a human rights legal regime, apply in such situations, especially when alleged violations have been perpetrated abroad? How does the ECHR interact with international humanitarian law (IHL)?

Considerable research has been conducted, particularly since the Iraq-Kuwait war of 1991, on the legal protection of the environment in armed conflicts. Much of this research has focused either on the specific protections provided in international humanitarian law (IHL), or on the applicability of international environmental law to situations of armed conflict. Rather than focusing on these specific provisions, this article seeks to examine the general protections under IHL, in particular the characterisation of the natural environment as a civilian object and the legal protection flowing from this characterisation – namely the general rules on the conduct of hostilities. After addressing these general rules, it briefly recalls some other relevant provisions of IHL before turning to possible avenues to strengthen the legal protection of the environment in armed conflict by clarifying or further developing IHL in this respect, taking into account the protection provided by international human rights law and international environmental law.