Search results

General legal framework 1945-2001 : the UN charter paradigm and the jus ad bellum -- Military action against Afghanistan, 2001 : Operation Enduring Freedom -- Military action against Iraq, 2003 : Operation Iraqi Freedom -- Reappraising the resort to force? : jus ad bellum in the post-9/11 world.

Abstract
Belligerent reprisals are a controversial and largely discredited mechanism for the enforcement of international humanitarian law. Additional Protocol i of 1977 prohibits a range of reprisal activity, including reprisals against enemy civilians. A (relatively small) number of States are not Parties to Additional Protocol i, whilst some States Parties have made declarations and/or reservations to the Protocol which could be seen as attempts to limit the operation of the prohibition. Its status as a rule of customary international law is therefore an important question. This article argues that opposition to the prohibition in customary law is neither as widespread nor consistent as has previously been suggested and that the weight of evidence points towards the existence (or development) of a customary prohibition. Consistent opposition by the UK and the US, however, makes it unlikely that the customary prohibition would be opposable to those particular States.

Belligerent reprisals are a largely discredited method for the enforcement of international humanitarian law, which have been progressively limited and prohibited. Additional Protocol I of 1977 prohibits reprisals against enemy civilians but the United Kingdom lodged a reservation upon its ratification of the Protocol reserving the right to engage in reprisal activity against enemy civilians in certain circumstances. This article assesses the permissibility of the United Kingdom's reservation according to the regulatory framework set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides that a reservation is not permissible if it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. It then considers the possible legal effects of the reservation should it be determined to be impermissible.

The relationship between human rights and humanitarian law is a close one,
especially in the context of internal armed conflict. Although regulated
by humanitarian law, human rights law remains valuable in such conflicts
for several reasons. These include the possibility that enforcement
mechanisms created by human rights instruments could serve as alternative
fora for the enforcement of humanitarian standards. The Inter-American
machinery has been particularly active in this area, and this article
examines the relationship between human rights and humanitarian law
as it has been reflected and developed in the jurisprudence of the
Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights.

That humanitarian rules were applicable in armed conflicts was accepted long before the nineteenth century, but the fact that non-international armed conflicts were regarded as beyond the ambit of international regulation meant that the application of such norms to internal armed conflicts was certainly not a matter of course. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there had been a move towards the application of the laws of warfare to non-international armed conflicts as well as international conflicts, but this was based on the character of the conflicts and the fact that both were often of a similar magnitude, rather than any humanitarian concern to treat the victims of both equally. Not until the nineteenth century did the application of the laws of war to non-international armed conflicts become a widespread issue in international law.