Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- The right of initiative of impartial humanitarian bodies -- The duty of states to cooperate -- The strategic consent of fighting parties -- Limits to the exercise of the strategic consent of fighting parties -- The obligations and rights of fighting parties -- The obligations and rights of international humanitarian relief actors -- Conclusion.

Introduction -- The right of initiative of impartial humanitarian bodies -- The duty of states to cooperate -- The strategic consent of fighting parties -- Limits to the exercise of the strategic consent of fighting parties -- The obligations and rights of fighting parties -- The obligations and rights of international humanitarian relief actors -- Conclusion.

Front Matter -- -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- China, Global Governance and International Law: Towards a Relational Normativity -- China and Collective Security -- China and Peacekeeping -- China and Arms Control -- China and the War on Terror -- China and Post-conflict Justice.

A three-part investigation on the origins and evolving roles that Islamic law and international humanitarian law have played in regulating conflict and violence, War and Law in the Islamic World brings to light legal and policy complexities that plague modern-day armed conflict in the region

Armed conflict, today, has diverged from war as it was known in generations past, and from this, has tested the means by which conflicts and violence are regulated. Written with an eye to a region plagued by such conflicts, War and Law in the Islamic World examines the origins and roles that two distinct systems of governance – Islamic law and international humanitarian law – have played in conflicts past and present. Meant equally for the scholar or student, this book presents the legal and policy complexities of today's conflicts in a new light through its careful and well-researched investigation of the past and the present.

During non-international armed conflicts, fighting parties have repeatedly denied international humanitarian relief to the civilian population under their territorial control leaving them at the brink of starvation. Debates on criminal accountability for violating the prohibition of the use of starvation against the civilian population as a method of warfare have yet to address the question of ownership of the right to consent to offers of international humanitarian relief before criminalising their denial. In respect of such right to consent at the strategic level, there are divergent interpretations on the application of the principle of symmetrical rights and obligations of fighting parties in the realm of international humanitarian relief. Humanitarian and state-centric perspectives, respectively, grant or deny non-state armed groups an independent right to consent to offers of international humanitarian relief. The humanitarian perspective argues that the asymmetry of such right in favour of the government party to the conflict and at the expense of the non-state armed groups is no longer justified, especially when the right of control at the operational level (after an offer has been accepted) is equally bestowed upon all parties to the conflict. The state-centric perspective defends the exclusive right of the government party to the conflict and fears that an equal right to strategic consent for non-state armed groups would increase their legitimacy. This study argues that neutrality upheld by international humanitarian relief actors, including impartial humanitarian bodies, such as the ICRC, and the Security Council gives rise to an interdependent exercise of the right to strategic consent by all fighting parties instead.