Suchergebnisse

Among international scholars, much emphasis has been given on how in situations of warfare, international humanitarian law can impact upon international human rights law (IHRL). The opposite scenario has been little explored. On this account, the article will explore how under the influence of IHRL in instances of wounded civilians feeling mental anguish as a result of their uncertainty whether or not they will remain alive, a state can be found as violating these civilians' right to life vida digna facet. At the same time, the article will proceed to analyze how such vida digna mental anguish parameter must be seen not just as general carte blanche for expanding the notion of psychological injury beyond cases of mental harm in all military operations, but as relevant only in instances, like 'kill or capture' operations where the state is seen in a position to consider in advance the conditions under which a military engagement takes place.

The interests of justice are embedded in Article 53 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). They give the Prosecutor the right to decline to initiate an investigation or suspend a prosecution. In these cases, the interests of justice act as a basis for the Prosecutor to refrain from any action. This article argues that due to their non-positivist character, the interests of justice could serve as the platform also of prosecutorial action, acting as the legal vehicle for a broad interpretation of the Rome Statute in the name of justice. Nevertheless, such broad, interests of justice-instigated interpretation, cannot but have positivism as its outmost limit. The Rome Statute is an international criminal law instrument and international criminal law is governed by the legality principle, which narrows any hermeneutical endeavors. Along these lines, this article examines the nexus between the expansive interpretational interests of justice function and its limits by referring to cases where the International Criminal Court (icc) was called to endorse or not a broad interpretation of notions included in the Rome Statute. The article examines cases arising from situations referred to the icc by States and by the un Security Council.

Abstract
In recent years, international law scholars have discussed how civilian mental harm in warfare should also form part of the jus in bello proportionality principle and be balanced to the anticipated military advantage. Yet, these scholars have not proceeded one step further to examine whether socio-economic parameters shaping the individual's personality, such as education, family ties or the level of income, should be also taken into account as varying variables in this balancing task. This is particularly important given that the particular parameters are tied to the socio-economics rights discourse and the relevant minimal living standards notion developed there. Based on a study we conducted, the article explores whether civilian mental harm should be affected by socio-economic parameters and what this means for the wider role socio-economic rights can play in armed conflicts as well as for the reading of jus in bello along Marxist terms.