Suchergebnisse

International humanitarian law (IHL) protects persons and property affected by armed conflicts. Focusing on the controversies that impact IHL in practice, this much-anticipated book from leading expert Marco Sassòli discusses when IHL applies, its substantive rules, how to ensure its respect and whether the traditional distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts remains relevant. Sassòli draws on a depth of practical experience to provide invaluable insight and comprehensive guidance on the rules protecting certain categories of persons (for example, civilians, wounded, etc.) during conflict and the rules governing different types of conduct (for example, occupation, naval warfare, etc.). The book examines how these rules interact with other branches of international law, such as human rights and international criminal law, and how the rules are applied to non-State armed groups. Cross-cutting issues, including terrorism, autonomous weapons, cyber warfare, gender and cultural heritage, are also addressed, providing readers with a well-rounded view of IHL and associated concerns. Structured in a clear and accessible way, this book will be the turn-to resource for scholars, lawyers, civil servants and other actors directly involved in the sphere of IHL. It will also be the essential text for forthcoming generations of students, giving them a solid understanding of both the rules relating to IHL and how they are implemented in practice

AbstractThis article tries to imagine how the development of international humanitarian law (IHL) could continue despite current difficulties, increasing the ownership and contribution of States and armed groups in this process. After suggesting that some traditional assumptions about IHL may need to be abandoned, it tries to suggest a new way in which IHL rules could be developed, through States adopting together core obligations and principles and each State and armed group then specifying the details internally, but publicly. Finally, it stresses the importance and difficulties of involving non-State armed groups in this process.

The contribution discusses the general problems armed groups face when they want to respect, as they must, international humanitarian law (IHL) and specific difficulties in the field of the conduct of hostilities : whether the police and government officials may be targeted; how the proportionality of an attack aiming at symbolic political advantages can be assessed; how they can accept the surrender of government soldiers and then detain them; or the feasibility of precautionary measures when the group has only one weapon that is capable of reaching the enemy. The author however recalls that the rules of IHL are flexible and the obligations are situation-dependent. Therefore most rules are capable of being respected by an armed group, if interpreted taking the peculiarities of armed groups into account.

This contribution argues that autonomous weapon systems may have advantages from the perspective of ensuring better respect for international humanitarian law (IHL), if they are one day capable of perceiving the information necessary to comply with IHL, then to apply IHL to that information, and if it can be ensured that they will not do what humans who created them did not want them to do. In view of the author, targeting decisions do not imply subjective value judgements, a machine would be unable to make. However, to respect IHL by using such autonomous systems, agreement must be found on how to interpret certain IHL rules discussed in this contribution properly when a machine executes autonomously attacks according to parameters established by human beings. In particular, the accountability of those who produce and program such systems must be clarified; the sytem must be constantly updated with information on the military advantage to enable it to determine what is a military objective and to apply the proportionality principle; parameters must be established for comparing the performance of autonomous weapon systems with that of human beings in carrying out attacks; and the feasibility of precautions must be redefined in relation with attacks using such systems.

In a debate with Prof. Yuval Shany, the author argues that the equality of belligerents in international humanitarian law of non-international armed conflicts should be abandoned, because it either subjects many armed groups to unrealistic requirements they cannot comply with or it limits the obligations of governmental forces to minimal obligations. The author provides examples of fields in which IHL of non-international armed conflicts, which becomes increasingly similar to IHL of international armed conflicts, is unrealistic for most armed groups. The author suggest rather a sliding-scale of obligations for armed groups, that will increase according to the intensity of violence and the degree of organization of the group.

AbstractMost contemporary armed conflicts are not of an international character. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applicable to these conflicts is equally binding on non-State armed groups as it is on States. The legal mechanisms for its implementation are, however, still mainly geared toward States. The author considers that the perspective of such groups and the difficulties for them in applying IHL should be taken into account in order to make the law more realistic and more often respected. It is submitted that the law is currently often developed and interpreted without taking into account the realities of armed groups. This contribution explores how armed groups could be involved in the development, interpretation and operationalization of the law. It argues that armed groups should be allowed to accept IHL formally, to create – amongst other things – a certain sense of ownership. Their respect of the law should also be rewarded. Possible methods to encourage, monitor and control respect of IHL by armed groups are described. The author suggests in particular that armed groups should be allowed and encouraged to report on their implementation of IHL to an existing or newly created institution. Finally, in case of violations, this contribution proposes ways to apply criminal, civil and international responsibility, including sanctions, to non-State armed groups.

AbstractThe implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL) is confronted with many challenges. Some of them are inherent since IHL applies to armed conflicts: a situation must be classified before IHL can be applied. Existing implementation mechanisms either do not function at all or have their limits. In certain conflicts, such as asymmetric conflicts, and with regard to certain players, such as armed groups, it is particularly difficult to obtain respect of IHL. Beyond that, there is a perhaps even more dangerous challenge in perception.The gap between the burgeoning promises of protection by the law made by doctrine, jurisprudence and sometimes even by States, and the systematic non-respect of that law, which (in the author's view wrongly) transpires from the media and NGO reports, undermines the credibility of the law and the willingness to respect it. The author advocates ways to reduce this gap.

SommaireLes États-Unis ont qualifié les attaques du 11 septembre 2001 ainsi que leur lutte contre le terrorisme de "guerre." L'auteur analyse l'applicabilité et l'application du droit international humanitaire à ces événements. Il arrive à la conclusion que ce droit ne régit pas les attaques contre New York et Washington, mais la guerre en Afghanistan, indépendamment de la légitimité de celle-ci et des causes soutenues par les parties. En conséquence, tout au moins les membres des forces armées talibanes — et possiblement certains membres d'Al-Qaeda, qui sont tombés, en Afghanistan, au pouvoir des forces américaines, sont en principe et jusqu'à ce qu'une décision individuelle statuant le contraire soit rendue, des prisonniers de guerre protégés par la IIIe Convention de Genève. Les dispositions de celle-ci sont appropriées pour régir le traitement de ces personnes en partie détenues à Guantánamo Bay. Toutes les autres personnes arrêtées par les États-Unis et leurs alliés en Afghanistan sont des civils protégés par la IVe Convention de Genève. En tant que tels, elles ne peuvent pas être détenues à Guantánamo. Pour terminer, l'auteur revoit les différents arguments avancés ces derniers temps selon lesquels les Conventions de Genève ne sont pas adaptées à la "guerre contre le terrorisme." Selon l'auteur, cette thèse n'est pas justiWée et il serait en tout état de cause impossible d'adopter de nouvelles règles mieux adaptées.