Suchergebnisse

Interventions in internal conflicts in the pre-charter era -- Intervention and use of force in the United Nations era -- Interventions by invitation between legitimacy and effectiveness -- Intervention by invitation and governmental (il)legitimacy : rethinking the traditional approaches -- Interventions in favour of governments committing gross and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law -- Legitimacy of rebels in international law -- Use of force by and against legitimate rebels : towards the emergence of a jus ad bellum applicable to internal armed conflicts? -- Interventions in favour of rebels and human rights -- Conclusions.

Cover -- Dedication -- Title Page -- Acknowledgements -- Abstract -- Contents -- Abbreviations -- Table of Cases -- Table of Treaties and National Legislation -- Table of Documents and Resolutions -- Introduction -- Scope of the Study -- Outline -- PART I: SOVEREIGNTY, INTERVENTION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS: THE EVOLUTION OF A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP -- 1. Interventions in Internal Conflicts in the Pre-Charter Era -- I. The Use of Force as Crucial Prerogative of State Sovereignty: From Bellum Justum Doctrines to the Right to War -- A. Just War Doctrines -- i. The Origins of Bellum Justum Doctrines -- ii. Just War in the Scholastic Thought -- B. The Right to Wage War -- i. Emergence of the Right to War as a Prerogative of Sovereignty -- ii. First Endeavours to Restrict the Right to War -- II. The Emergence of the Principle of Non-intervention as Fundamental Rule Protecting Sovereignty -- A. Ne Pas Se Mêler: The Principle of Non-intervention in the Eighteenth Century -- B. The Principle of Non-intervention in the Nineteenth Century -- III. Interventions in Internal Conflicts before the General Ban on the Use of Force -- A. Recognition of Belligerency -- B. Recognition of Insurgency -- C. The Spanish Civil War and the Failure of the Recognition Doctrines -- IV. Concluding Observations -- 2. Intervention and Use of Force in the United Nations Era -- I. Interventions in Internal Conflicts -- A. The Principle of Non-intervention: Meaning and Typologies -- B. Defining Non-international Armed Conflicts -- II. The Ban on the Use of Force -- A. The Content of the Prohibition -- B. The Nature of the Prohibition -- C. Forcible Interventions in Favour of Opposition Groups and the Question of State Attribution -- III. Non-intervention, Sovereignty, and Human Rights -- A. Westphalian Sovereignty between Myth and Reality -- B. Legitimacy, Effectiveness, and Sovereignty.

Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, the current international legal framework has drastically changed. In its traditional understanding, aggression is "the supreme international crime" aimed at protecting sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states. On the other hand, the U.N. Charter endorses an understanding of peace in the negative sense, that is, as mere absence of war. As human rights have gained momentum, they have helped reshape the legal landscape, a phenomenon referred to as the humanization of international law. How do peace and aggression fit within the humanized legal framework? This article will investigate the effects of the humanization of international law on peace and aggression. Specifically, it argues that a new trend is emerging, whereby human rights, more than the maintenance of peace per se, are increasingly seen as the pivotal aim of the current international legal framework. Ultimately, this analysis will question whether this is a welcomed development and will highlight its risks.

AbstractThis article aims to clarify how international humanitarian law (IHL) rules on targeting apply when drug cartels are party to a non-international armed conflict. The question of distinguishing between a cartel's armed forces and the rest of the cartel members is a pertinent matter. It is crucial to avoid considering every drug dealer a legitimate target, just as we do not consider that everyone working for the government is a legitimate target. Nevertheless, it is unclear at what point a member of a cartel would change from being a criminal to being a member of the armed wing of the cartel, hence becoming a legitimate target. The present article will suggest a teleological approach to solving this conundrum.

This book investigates the extent to which traditional international law regulating foreign interventions in internal conflicts has been affected by the human rights paradigm. Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, foreign armed interventions in internal conflicts have turned into a common practice. At first sight, it might seem that state practice has developed in a chaotic fashion, however on closer examination, specific patterns emerge. The book charts these patterns by examining the traditional doctrines of intervention and testing them against state practise. The book has two aims. Firstly, it seeks to clarify the current legal framework regulating interventions in internal conflicts. Secondly, it plots the emergence of new trends and investigates whether they are becoming part of positive international law. By taking this dual focus, it offers the first truly comprehensive examination of foreign interventions in internal conflicts.