Suchergebnisse

This innovative text is shows how there has been a concerted effort, since the end of World War I, to curb a state's power and freedom of action through the concept of international accountability to a set of recognized rules and norms. A state not only is to adhere to these rules but also can be sanctioned by an international penal process through enforcement of international criminal law. Adoption of the Rome Statute and the creation of the International Criminal Court are the culmination of many years of effort to challenge the power of state action. Scholars and students of international law with an interest in international criminal law will find this volume an interesting narrative of how the developments of international penal mechanisms of the 20th century have contributed to a diminution of state sovereignty. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint

"In recent years military technology and strategy have developed apace particularly in regards to cyber and space warfare. In 2007 Estonia suffered a month long cyber assault to its digital infrastructure which it is presumed came from Russia in retaliation for the removal of a World War II-era statue of a Soviet soldier from its capital. This was described as some as the first war in cyberspace Web War I. Since then there have been several more cyber attacks on a State and its digital environment, in particular in Iran in 2010 when a worm Stuxnet was identified as having infected and damaged Iran's uranium enrichment plant presumably in an attempt to set back Iran's nuclear programme. This book takes a detailed look at these new theatres of war and considers their relation to international law on the use of force. The use of force, except in cases of self-defence or with the authorisation of a Security Council Resolution, is prohibited under the UN charter and customary international law however, the law of jus ad bellum was developed in a pre-digital era where current technological capabilities could not be conceived of. This book asks whether the law on the use of force is able to deal with legal disputes likely to arise from modern warfare. Among the questions it considers are : What amounts to an armed attack in an age of anti-satellite weaponry and lasers that can cripple satellites? Does the destruction of a State's vital digital eco-system or the "blinding" or jamming of military communication satellites constitute a threat? If so what is the threshold that would enliven the right of self-defence or retaliatory action? The book argues that while technology has leapt ahead the legal framework has failed to adapt, and as a result the ability of States to legally defend themselves has been impaired"--

"In recent years, threats to governmental, economic, and military interests via the information infrastructure have increased as governmental and non-governmental operations have become progressively supported by vast automated systems and electronic data. In 2007 Estonia suffered a month long cyber assault to its digital infrastructure, described in cyberspace as 'Web War I'. In 2010, a worm Stuxnet was identified as having infected and damaged Iran's uranium enrichment plant, presumably in an attempt to set back Iran's nuclear programme. This book takes a detailed look at these new theatres of war and considers their relation to international law on the use of force. Except in cases of self-defence or with the authorisation of a Security Council Resolution, the use of force is prohibited under the UN charter and customary international law. However, the law of jus ad bellum was developed in a pre-digital era where current technological capabilities could not be conceived. Jackson Maogoto asks whether the law on the use of force is able to deal with legal disputes likely to arise from modern warfare. Key queries include, how one defines an armed attack in an age of anti-satellite weaponry, whether the destruction of a State's vital digital eco-system or the "blinding" of military communication satellites constitutes a threat, and how one delimits the threshold that would enliven the right of self-defence or retaliatory action. The book argues that while technology has leapt ahead, the legal framework has failed to adapt, rendering States unable to legally defend themselves effectively. This book will be of great interest and use to researchers and students of international law, the law of armed conflict, Information Technology and the law, and counter-terrorism"--

The project of governance, which has been heralded as a contemporary advance in the development of international law, has a very old lineage. Since the beginnings of the modern discipline of international law in the sixteenth century, international law has devised a number of doctrines directed at shaping and reforming the government of the non-European State. This Paper argues that good governance exerts an extraordinarily powerful influence on the thinking of the international community in part because it is connected with human rights, the universal language in this "age of rights". The link suggests that the Third World State is the focus of concern: it is the aberrant Third World State which both violates rights and engages in bad governance. The Paper critiques the stance that the problem of addressing international justice can be largely achieved through the project of good governance which would reform the Third World State. It seeks to argue that democratic experimentalism, not the so-called "McDonaldization" (globalization as homogenization) of the world, is important. This is based on the premise that " McDonaldization" minimizes the complex way in which the local interacts with the international. © 2007 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

The tragedy which befell Rwanda in 1994 deserves a special place in the bloodstained pages of history. The Rwandan genocide merits distinction primarily because of its shocking ef ficiency, its scale and its proportional dimensions among the victim population. The Security Council's resolution establishing the ICTR articulates a set of decisions, assumptions, wishes, and objectives. Primarily, the States that voted in favour of the creation of the ICTR indicated that the root of the problem was
individual violations
of international criminal law. Only one State that voted for the resolution did not equate
ipso facto
ICTR actions with justice. That State considered the ICTR only one of the many tasks at hand for the international community. The ICTR was merely a vehicle of justice, 'but it is hardly designed as a vehicle for reconciliation . . . Reconciliation is a much more complicated process' (Czech Republic). Interestingly, Rwanda, which voted against the resolution, spoke of the problem in terms of a
culture of impunity
. The UN paid little to no heed to the subtle, but extremely different way in which the problem was characterized and the implications this would have on the type of tool needed to deal with that problem.