Search

The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of international human rights law and international humanitarian law regarding the protection of the right to property, in particular the permitted limitations of this right, the relevant practice of international human rights courts and international criminal tribunals, the connection between the institution of derogation and the law of armed conflicts, as well as problematic issues of the protection of the right to property damaged during the russian-Ukrainian armed conflict. The author considers the provisions of some international treaties, which provide for the protection of the right to own property in peacetime, as well as the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights related to the violation of the right of applicants to own their property in accordance with Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in connection with an international armed conflict or a situation of occupation. The author also analyzes the provisions of some sources of international humanitarian law regarding property as an object that must be protected during armed conflicts, in particular in occupied territories, and also provides examples of cases of international criminal tribunals, in whose decisions the destruction of property was recognized as a component of crimes against humanity. The author examines the question of the relationship between the sources of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the context of the protection of the right to peaceful possession of property. The peculiarities of the institution of derogation in the context of the right to property in the conditions of an international armed conflict are analyzed. Ukraine's derogation from its obligations under international human rights treaties, including the right to peaceful possession of property, in the conditions of russian armed aggression, is studied. In addition, in the context of the armed conflict between Ukraine and russia, the objects of property rights and the interested subjects of the right to property, which is violated or limited as a result of military operation, are singled out, and the collective dimension of the right to property, which was damaged during the russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, was investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Considering that neither customary international law nor international treaties have specifically addressed the legality of autonomous weapons from the point of view of international humanitarian law, the law on autonomous weapons should be analyzed under the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. The first purpose of this study is to explain the autonomous weapons and then to analyze the legality of such weapons through the lens of international humanitarian law. The basic question of the paper is whether the deployment of autonomous weapons is legal in light of technological and legal limitations? On the other hand, the paper also seeks to examine the legalization of autonomous weapons. In fact, the findings of our study will show that although autonomous weapons currently violate international humanitarian law, they have the potential to be more consistent with the principles of international humanitarian law in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is aimed at highlighting the issue of existing ways of compensation for victims of military conflict. It is stated that international law requires violating States to take appropriate measures to compensate for the damage caused directly by their actions or by the actions of persons acting on their orders. The author establishes that the beneficiaries of reparation for violations of IHL are the persons who have been victims or suffered as a result of such violations, namely: civilians, prisoners of war, family members and relatives of victims, and the State. The author provides options for filing claims for compensation for damage caused as a result of war: appeals to national courts, courts of foreign countries, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, investment arbitration, specially created funds or commissions. It is emphasised that currently there is no universal mechanism for compensation for damage caused by Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. However, the most realistic mechanism for Ukraine is the established international compensation mechanism, which aims to compensate for damage and losses caused by the Russian Federation and provides for the possibility of compensation for various types of losses - from destruction and damage to property to damage due to loss of control over property. It is concluded that: the importance of compensation is significant, especially in the context of IHL, as people who have been victims of armed conflict face long-term consequences affecting their health, earning potential and overall stability of life; an important element of reparation and one of the guarantees of its implementation in practice is the collection and documentation of a high-quality evidence base of the damage caused both in civil and criminal proceedings; the main indicator for choosing a particular mechanism of reparation is its effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the analysis of the institute of control in international law as one of the elements for attributing the behaviour of a separatist entity or other anti-governmental organisation to the state in the process of bringing the latter to international legal responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, primarily massive human rights violations. The author emphasises the growing importance of the issue of control in the context of modern armed conflicts, where ‘proxy’ forces are increasingly used, acting formally independently but in fact controlled by states. This raises new challenges for international law, especially in the area of human rights protection, including during armed conflicts, and State responsibility. The article examines the provisions of some international instruments relating to the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, and in particular those provisions which provide for attribution of conduct of individuals or groups of individuals acting ‘at the direction’, or ‘under the direction’, or ‘under the control’ of the State. The article discusses three main concepts of control, namely: strict control, effective control and general control. The authors analyse in detail the history of the emergence and development of each concept, as well as explain the main differences between them, and reveal their strengths and weaknesses. It is argued that strict control requires complete dependence of the organisation on the state, while effective control allows for autonomy of the organisation, but requires a certain influence of the state on its actions. Overall control emphasises the importance of structured interaction between the state and the group. The authors provide examples of the application of these concepts in the practice of international justice bodies, including the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, highlighting the difference in approaches to assessing control and responsibility of states. These examples demonstrate the difficulty of proving a certain level of control, which affects the resolution of disputes in international courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global landscape, enshrined in a wide range of international legal agreements, envisions an era of peaceful coexistence among nations. This vision is based on fundamental legal acts, such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice (dated 26.06.1945), which enshrine the principle of peaceful coexistence. In addition, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (24.10.1970) and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (01.08.1975) build on this foundation, strengthening the doctrine of peaceful interaction between states. The United Nations Charter resonates as a clear call to nations to prioritize peace and diplomacy over confrontation. The provision that “all Members of the United Nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner as not to endanger international peace, security and justice” (Article 2(3)) is not just a statement of intent; it is a guiding principle that emphasizes the value of peaceful coexistence. This principle favors dialogue over discord, cooperation over confrontation, and understanding over unilateral action. However, the development of international relations from the mid-20th century to the beginning of the 21st century demonstrates a somewhat opposite dynamic. Despite these well-established doctrines, there have been many instances where disputes have escalated into armed conflicts. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, multiple conflicts in the Middle East, and the recent civil war in Syria are just a few examples that have left a deep mark on the structure of world relations. Such events demonstrate the unfortunate tendency of states or groups within states to resort to force or the threat of force as a means of resolving disputes. This departure from the established norm of peaceful settlement raises a number of pressing questions and concerns, especially within the framework of international humanitarian law. How to accurately define “armed conflict”? What distinguishes an international conflict from a non-international one? When delving into this sub-topic, it is very important to distinguish between different classifications of conflicts. A thorough understanding of the criteria that distinguish, for example, between international conflicts, internal unrest, and other types of hostilities is of paramount importance. Referring to these criteria not only helps to accurately categorize conflicts, but also ensures that appropriate legal mechanisms are applied to mitigate the humanitarian consequences of such events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outbreak of the Russian–Ukrainian war fundamentally shook the international legal order. Consequently, possibilities of holding the aggressor state and potential perpetrators of international crimes accountable became a central topic. Options for establishing state responsibility for violating international law are limited. Possible individual criminal prosecution mechanisms are available at both national and international levels. At the national level, several jurisdictional bases can be found for prosecuting the most serious international crimes. In addition to the procedures at the national level, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction at the international level in terms of holding persons accountable; however, this also faces challenges. In connection with the current conflict, the International Criminal Court cannot conduct proceedings in relation to all categories of crimes, so the international community seeks to rely on alternative mechanisms that support prosecution efforts. Furthermore, there is an increasing political demand for the creation of new mechanisms which, however, for the time being, are based on shaky international legal grounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aggression and the 'special military operation' against Ukraine by the Russian Federation have, since their outset, implied not only the violation of fundamental customary and treaty norms of international law, but, at the same time also undermine the foundations of the contemporary international legal order. The 'special military operation' violates several universal international conventions in the elaboration of which the predecessor state of contemporary Russia, the Soviet Union had a definitive role; furthermore, it expressly breaches Russian undertakings concerning respect for the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine. Since in this case the aggressor state is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, thus, instead of the Council, the emergency special session of the UN General Assembly proceeds on the basis of the Uniting for Peace resolution and makes recommendations for collective measures to the Member States. The present study discusses the most important international norms breached with the aggression and during the war, the resolutions of the emergency special sessions of the UN General Assembly, the post-war situation, as well as the issue of remedy and reparation due to Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2022, for the first time in some while, the public around the world was confronted with an armed conflict between states, which directly involved a nuclear facility, specifically a nuclear power plant in operation. Unfortunately, the situation following Russia's armed attack on Ukraine on 24 February 2022 and the acts of war around the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant once again draw attention to the need to protect nuclear facilities during armed conflicts. Therefore, this paper reviews the relevant rules of public international law and scrutinizes the norms that have been established through international legislation and soft law mechanisms to protect and guarantee the nuclear safety and security of nuclear installations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On November 27, 2020, Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of Iran's most prominent nuclear scientists and head of the ministry of defense's research and innovation organization, was assassinated near Tehran and achieved the grace of martyrdom. Given that the assassination of Martyr Fakhrizadeh took place outside the framework of an armed conflict during peacetime, it is a clear example of the use of lethal force in peacetime and the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. Accordingly, the question of the paper is what is the nature of the targeted assassination of this nuclear scientist from the perspective of the rules of IHRL and IHL? In order to reach the answer, the research studied the issue by a descriptive-analytical method and in the framework of the international IHRL and IHL regimes, collecting valid and credible documents through documents and libraries and referring to the materials published in reputable international think tanks. The findings show that this assassination is in objective contradiction with the rules of IHRL and IHL regimes, therefore violates the most obvious principles and rules of this legal regime, including the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, which has led to extrajudicial killings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animals have played an important role in armed conflicts since ancient times. Transporting supplies, soldiers and military and medical equipment, searching for wounded soldiers, damaging enemy positions, especially by detonating bombs attached to animals or their carcasses, are among the most important forms of using animals in conflict. Considering the increase in the use of animals, especially dolphins, by states to achieve military objectives in armed conflicts, it is necessary to know the standards and support frameworks regarding them. Therefore, this article, based on a descriptive-analytical method, answers the question, what approach has international humanitarian law adopted in this regard? This article concludes that due to the lack of specific rules in international humanitarian law on the ban on the use of animals as military purposes, it must be referred to the general humanitarian rules especially the articles of the first additional protocol to the Geneva conventions of 1949 to explain the legal system of the subject. By considering animals as a part of the environment and placing them in the category of special and protected objects under Article 54 of the said protocol, A support system can be considered for them. Of course, due to the special situation of animals compared to the human, the implementation of the principles of humanitarian rights, such as separation, proportionality, precautions in attack is faced with complications and ambiguities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the study of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a hypothetical court of human rights. Two questions guide the theoretical reflection and aim of this study: first, can the activities of the Court be viewed through the paradigm of human rights, and second, can the ICJ be considered a functional court of human rights? To answer these questions, the broad concept of a "court of human rights" is used, which refers to an institutionalized judicial mechanism intended to take necessary legal measures to record relevant human rights violations and to protect and restore such rights, regardless of who may be the claimant in such a case (a state or a person). The study demonstrates that it is appropriate to consider the activities of the ICJ through the paradigm of human rights, as evidenced by the Court's jurisprudence and numerous academic studies in the West. However, after analyzing the relevant arguments and counterarguments, the assumption that the Court can be regarded as a court of human rights is refuted. While many human rights conventions assign a special role to the ICJ in resolving disputes, human rights have never been the sole object of dispute in these proceedings; instead, they have always been part of an interstate dispute. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly shown an ambiguous attitude towards methods of recording violations of human rights conventions, fact-finding methodology in such cases, and criteria for compensating victims of such violations, which has not contributed to the protection of human rights in relevant cases. The article also emphasizes the importance of the human factor in shaping the Court's jurisprudence and expresses hope for an evolution of quality in the ICJ's treatment of human rights, should a majority of judges adopt a human-centred approach to international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article dedicated to investigating the object of the composition of a criminal offense of violation of the laws and customs of war. The relevance of the topic is determined by the increase in violations of international humanitarian law in contemporary armed conflicts, including in the context of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The author analyses various approaches to defining the concept of "object of criminal offense," critically assessing the traditional Soviet notion of the object as social relations. The need to move away from this concept in favour of a broader understanding of the object as a complex of socially significant values, interests, and goods protected by criminal law is substantiated. The article discusses the specificity of the object of violations of the laws and customs of war, as defined by international acts regulating the conduct of war. The author emphasizes that this object includes the international legal order in the sphere of armed conflicts, the principles of international humanitarian law, rules of conduct of hostilities, and the protection of war victims. An additional optional object of violation of the laws and customs of war analysed is the life and health of the person. It is emphasized that a mandatory feature of the object for this criminal offense is its subject matter, which constitutes objects of civilian purpose, including national property, which serves as a material carrier of cultural values. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the structure of criminal offenses against peace, security of humanity, and international order, which differs from the traditional structure of a criminal offense and includes material, mental, and contextual elements. The author also examines the concept of command responsibility, which is an important component of criminal responsibility for violations of the laws and customs of war. The conclusions assert that a clear understanding of the object of violations of the laws and customs of war is crucial for the correct qualification of actions and ensuring the inevitability of punishment for criminal offenses against peace, security of humanity, and international order. The author emphasizes the need for further improvement of approaches to defining the object of this criminal offense considering the development of international criminal law and the practice of international judicial institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article emphasizes that protecting the rights and interests of children is the most important task of any democratic state. International human rights law and international humanitarian law regulate the rights of children and their protection, as well as the respective obligations of states and non-state institutions in this area. The universally recognized mechanism for the protection of children's rights remains almost unchanged, but in the conditions of martial law, new circumstances arise in which children's rights may be violated, especially the right to protection from violence and ill-treatment. The main violations of children's rights are: recruitment of children, use of prohibited weapons to wage war, obstruction in the provision of humanitarian aid, deprivation of citizenship, illegal deportation of children, murder and mutilation, damage to health care facilities, educational institutions, which leads to the impossibility of realizing the rights of the latter. The article describes the peculiarities of the legal regulation of the status of a child who suffered as a result of hostilities and armed conflicts. The legislation of Ukraine does not contain a uniform approach to the protection of children during the violation of certain types of rights and freedoms. In addition, some of the existing guarantees have no practical application due to the lack of a mechanism for their implementation or inconsistency with the realities of today. The international community, together with Ukraine, implemented a mechanism to protect and restore the rights of Ukrainian children. The violated rights of children during a full-scale invasion must be protected and restored through both national and international institutions. In this context, the Children of War platform created in Ukraine plays an important role. This is the only platform that collects information about children affected by war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arab Journal for Scientific Publishing is the property of Research & Development of Human Recourses Center (REMAH) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Legal & Economic Research / Mağallaẗ Al-Buḥūṯ Al-Qānūniyyaẗ wa Al-Iqtiṣādiyyaẗ is the property of Beni Suef University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Public & Private International Law Bulletin is the property of Public & Private International Law Bulletin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Anbar University for Law & Political Sciences is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Principle of distinction, one of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law dictates, that participants in hostilities at all times distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives, as well as between civilians and combatants. This article addresses the adequacy of the protection offered by the principle in the cyber domain. Great reliance of militaries on civilian cyberinfrastructure expands the range of military objectives to the systems which key civilian activities depend on. There are many unknowns in fulfilling even the simple conditions for the combatant status, as well as in regulation of civilian direct participation in hostilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers a summary of a discussion on the definition of a vulnerable witness, a subject extensively explored by the author in her book 'The Vulnerable Witness in the Practice of International and Hybrid Courts.' While the paper specifically addresses trauma as a factor in determining witness vulnerability, the book encompasses a wider examination of various factors that contribute to the classification of a witness as vulnerable. Despite the frequent use of the term 'vulnerable witness', a clear and comprehensive understanding of its scope remains elusive. The discretion exercised by legal practitioners, especially judges, prosecutors, and investigators, in deciding whether to classify a witness as vulnerable, elicits concerns regarding the justice system's capacity to meet the genuine needs of these individuals. There is a risk that the incorrect use of mechanisms intended for this group may compromise their welfare. Very often, it is precisely these witnesses who are pivotal in ascertaining the truth, owing to their direct knowledge of the facts concerning the events being investigated. Given the international community's recognition of the threat to vulnerable witnesses and the need for special protection, this paper contributes to the discourse by examining key elements critical to the effective treatment of vulnerable witnesses in the context of criminal proceedings involving violations of international humanitarian law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direitos Fundamentais & Democracia is the property of Revista de Direitos Fundamentais & Democracia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines the evolution of international legal standards aimed at defining responsibility for violations of laws and customs of war from the second half of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. It emphasizes that war is undoubtedly one of the most dreadful events that can impact people's lives and society. However, if it is not controlled or conducted in accordance with international norms and standards, its consequences can be even more devastating and catastrophic. Since the beginning of the full-scale armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the term «violation of laws and customs of war» has become widespread. Responsibility for such actions is provided for by Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, the criminalization of this act is not related to Ukraine's domestic legal order, as violations of laws and customs of war are an international crime that causes serious harm to people, economic objects, and cultural heritage, creating a high level of societal danger. The article covers an analysis of key international documents such as the Geneva Conventions, decisions of the Hague Conferences, and UN resolutions, exploring their influence on shaping legal norms in this area. It examines changes in legal regulation, their causes, and consequences, as well as the role of specific individuals and historical events in this process. This research is important for understanding past experiences in the context of current challenges and conflicts, as well as for further development of international law and ensuring the protection of human rights during armed conflicts. In conclusion, it is noted that the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries witnessed significant development of international legal standards concerning responsibility for violations of laws and customs of war. This period was crucial in shaping the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law aimed at protecting human rights during armed conflicts. As a result of this process, a series of international treaties and conventions were adopted, which established rules of conduct in armed conflicts and mechanisms for accountability for their violations. These standards have been an important step in humanizing war and protecting human rights during armed conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is dedicated to exploring the legislation of Ukraine in the sphere of regulating war crimes. The research is based on the analysis of normative acts of international humanitarian and criminal law, which have established serious violations of the laws and customs of war and equated them with serious international crimes. Additionally, attention is focused on the longstanding experience of international institutions dealing with the regulation of the mechanism of punishment for war criminals. For Ukraine, the issue of war crimes has become relevant in the conditions of armed conflict caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation. Currently, the number of these crimes is gradually increasing. By the end of 2023, over 109,000 instances of war crimes committed by the Russian armed forces had been documented. Alongside, the number of criminal proceedings for violations of the laws and customs of war is increasing. It was further noted that deficiencies in the legislative definition of war crimes and the lack of necessary legal practice in such a specific category of offenses lead to difficulties in qualifying war crimes. The basis for qualifying a crime is the composition of a criminal offense. In Ukraine, there is a single provision providing for criminal liability for violations of the laws and customs of war -- Section 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This article lacks both a definition of war crime and a clear objective aspect of the offense, and the punishment is less severe compared to other general criminal statutes. Section 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is generic. Due to such wording of war crimes in Ukraine, the practice of additional qualification of violations of the laws and customs of war under articles on torture, intentional grievous bodily harm, intentional moderate bodily harm, intentional minor bodily harm, coercion to testify, etc., has spread. Avoiding difficulties in qualifying war crimes can be achieved through access to sources of international humanitarian and criminal law. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is one of the most important legal acts that has codified the entire range of elements of war crimes and detailed them. Ukraine is a signatory to the Rome Statute, but has not yet ratified it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the analysis of violations by the Russian Federation of the provisions of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in relation to certain categories of socially vulnerable groups of the population in the context of a full-scale invasion (on the example of Chernihiv region). It is emphasized that Ukraine is currently a socially oriented state, its activities are aimed at providing life support and support to socially vulnerable citizens, creating conditions for their decent existence in society. One of the elements of the national state policy in the field of social protection of the population is a well-developed system of state social and medical institutions for persons with mental disorders, the elderly, persons with disabilities, patients, etc. A significant number of people living in these institutions are unable to take care of themselves and need constant care and attention. Chernihiv region, which borders the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus in the north of Ukraine, is one of the ten regions most affected by the aggression of the above-mentioned states. During the period of occupation of Chernihiv region by the military of the Russian Federation, from February 24, 2022 to April 3, 2022, a number of episodes of violations of the laws and customs of warfare were documented - shelling of civilians and evacuation routes with prohibited weapons, executions, looting, rape, etc. Numerous cases of shelling of social welfare institutions and medical facilities where socially vulnerable groups of the population were permanently or temporarily residing were emphasized, which is a gross violation of Articles 16, 18, 20, 28 of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The documented war crimes committed by Russian military personnel against civilians from among socially vulnerable citizens need to be studied, made public and condemned by the international community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal for Technology in Theory & Practice / Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis (TATuP) is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The relationship between human rights and humanitarian law is now understood as a complementary one, insofar as human rights rules are no longer applicable in peacetime but at all times. The International Court of Justice has emphasized this issue in numerous Decisions. In international law literature, the main focus is on the interaction between these two branches of law, while less attention is paid to the complementarity of their rules and the interpretation of one’s rules in light of the other especially in light of the principle of systemic integration. The present paper examines the utility as well as the challenges and potential harms of using this approach in the general context of international law. Finally, it concludes that using systemic integration principle can strengthen application of human rights rules through international humanitarian law, or prevent normative conflict between different norms of the two branches of law, especially in regard to forceful and arbitrary detention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Legal & Comparative Jurisprudence Studies (LCJS) / Mağallaẗ al-Duwaliyyaẗ Li-&-Dirāsāt al-Qānūniyyaẗ Wa-al-Fiqhiyyaẗ al-Muqāranaẗ is the property of Refaad for Studies, Research & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article highlights the contribution of Muslim legal scholars and the importance of Islamic legal tradition in general in the elaboration of contemporary international humanitarian law (IHL). Based on the historical analysis and a critical re-examination of the origins of international law, the main finding of this article is that Muslim delegations and jurists have played a significant role in the development of legal rules in this field of international law. This Muslim influence has manifested itself in both general and specific ways. Especially, the founding fathers of IHL, such as Genevan Henry Dunant, showed great interest in the humanitarian principles emanating from the Muslim legal tradition. Although little reference is made to this influence in the contemporary international humanitarian law doctrine, the founding fathers of this branch of international law have indeed acknowledged the contribution of Muslim traditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the classification of armed conflicts under Islamic International Law, with a primary focus on comparing it to international humanitarian law (IHL). The main objective is to determine whether such classification could result in a type of armed conflict known as an 'internationalised armed conflict'. According to IHL, this classification arises when a third state intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), thereby introducing international elements that have significant implications within the IHL framework. This article investigates whether foreign intervention in a NIAC would lead to the applicability of different legal rules under Islamic International Law, based on the emergence of a new classification distinct from both international armed conflicts (IACs) and NIACs? Such intervention could involve either a non-Muslim country intervening in a NIAC between Muslim parties or a Muslim country intervening in a NIAC involving non-Muslim parties. The central argument of this article is that Islamic International Law (jus ad bellum) primarily focuses on the legality of intervention in NIAC suggesting that different rules might apply depending on the legality of the intervention, while the protective rules of Islamic International Law (jus in bello) remain applicable regardless of the intervention's legality in Islamic International Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the creation of courts by non-State armed groups (“NSAG”) in non-international armed conflicts (“NIAC”) through the lens of classical Islamic law and its relationship to International Humanitarian Law (“IHL”). We begin with an overview of the IHL rules related to judicial guarantees and the establishment of NSAG courts. Although the creation of courts is generally the purview of States, it is possible for an NSAG to establish a parallel judicial system during a NIAC, with courts that can be IHL-compliant. We then move to a discussion of the classical Islamic law framework, and whether or not a court established thereunder would meet the relevant IHL requirements related to such a court. Classical Islamic law generally meshes with IHL in this respect, although there are some areas where the two seem to diverge (in particular, the independence of the judiciary, and potential discrimination issues due to certain jurisdictional principles). Finally, we explore NSAG courts in NIAC situations today, using the examples of two groups purporting to follow Islamic law, namely the Islamic State and Boko Haram. We find that, in relation to courts and judicial guarantees, neither group practices Islamic law as it was conceived during the classical period, and that the courts of these particular groups would be at odds with IHL. Nonetheless, the classical Islamic law framework is useful for anyone more generally attempting to ensure that courts in armed conflict are IHL-compliant, and they should not overlook it in their efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arab Future is the property of Centre for Arab Unity Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The aim of this paper is to examine the lessons learned till mid-2023 from the war in Ukraine to find out how attacking or seizing nuclear power plants (NPPs) can be utilised to advance military and political objectives during an armed conflict. The qualitative research approach has been applied to the study, focusing on an analysis of academic research and relevant acts of international law. In order to examine Russia’s approach to the attacks against the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia NPPs, numerous reports, official statements by the authorities, press releases, and Internet sources have been analysed. For evaluation of nuclear security and safety standards in Ukraine, the “seven pillars” model proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency has been adopted. The study indicates that strategically located NPPs can be used as “nuclear shields” for the occupying forces deployed at the plant or nearby. They may also become useful tools of “lawfare” waged with the use of flawed interpretations of international humanitarian law. Finally, nuclear security-related narrations analysed in the paper clearly prove that seized NPPs can be effectively used in information warfare. The research leads to the conclusion that civil NPPs in war zones can be weaponised and exploited by the hostile forces not only for impeding energy supplies (and thus shattering the public morale of the adversary) but also for blackmailing and coercing the decisionmakers of the attacked state and their international allies with a vision of man-made nuclear disaster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cyberspaces can be significantly influenced by simple tools and tactics, and offer cost-effective solutions for states to achieve their objectives. However, it can also be used for conducting cyberwarfare, and its effects remain in gray areas. The spectrum of cyberwarfare activities ranges from minor web disruptions to crippling attacks on critical national infrastructures. Nevertheless, cyberattacks present a unique challenge in applying well-established humanitarian legal principles, particularly regarding the distinction between civilian and military targets. This is because of the interconnectedness and shared infrastructure of cyberspace between civilian and military entities, which blurs the lines between combatants and civilian populations. This article seeks to shift the general perception of the problems associated with this manner of conducting hostilities by building on the learning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Furthermore, the authors examine the cyber activities that occurred during the conflict and the legal and ethical challenges that arise from classifying these activities and applying international law. They try to distinguish cyber activities as an act of force or armed attack, with a focus on determining the criteria that played a role in this classification, in light of Articles 2 (4) and 51 of the UN Charter. With reference to the United Nations (UN) Charter and the principles of self-defence, the concept of attack is scrutinised. Furthermore, the article addresses the principles of distinction and proportionality in relation to qualified cyber activities as an armed attack in the same conflict, emphasising the importance of the principle of proportionality in assessing cyber warfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study explores the impacts of attacks perpetrated in the context of armed conflict, to female health workers in three Colombian territories. Methods: We conducted a document review of the reports and databases of the Colombian Truth Commission, 17 in-depth semi-structured interviews with experts on the national and regional armed conflict and the medical mission, and 26 female health workers who were victims of attacks. Results: Experts and female health workers reported attacks to health activities, facilities, equipment, and personnel, including attacks to traditional doctors belonging to indigenous communities. The most frequent attacks were threats and retention of health personnel; theft of supplies and medicines; damage and use of infrastructure and means of transport for purposes other than health care; and hinderance of health service provision. The attacks occurred in a framework of structural violence that intersects with poverty, racism, and gender bias. The impacts of these attacks include gender-based violence, significant disruption of the lives of health workers, and physical, emotional, psychological, social, and economic effects on the victims and their families. The government response to protect victims and populations has been absent or insufficient. Conclusions: Attacks to health care were reported in all the studied territories obstructing adequate health care. Impacts of these attacks affect negatively the professional and personal life of the workers and are aggravated by structural violence and absent or little institutional response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the Hamas attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023, the Israeli military has launched an assault in the Gaza Strip, which included over 12,000 targets struck and over 25,000 tons of incendiary munitions used by 2 November 2023. The objectives of this study include: (1) the descriptive and inferential spatial analysis of damage to critical civilian infrastructure (health, education, and water facilities) across the Gaza Strip during the first phase of the military campaign, defined as 7 October to 22 November 2023 and (2) the analysis of damage clustering around critical civilian infrastructure to explore broader questions about Israel's adherence to International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Methods: We applied multi-temporal coherent change detection on Copernicus Sentinel 1-A Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery to detect signals indicative of damage to the built environment through 22 November 2023. Specific locations of health, education, and water facilities were delineated using open-source building footprint and cross-checked with geocoded data from OCHA, OpenStreetMap, and Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team. We then assessed the retrieval of damage at and with close proximity to sites of health, education, and water infrastructure in addition to designated evacuation corridors and civilian protection zones. The Global Moran's I autocorrelation inference statistic was used to determine whether health, education, and water facility infrastructure damage was spatially random or clustered. Results: During the period under investigation, in the entire Gaza Strip, 60.8% (n = 59) of health, 68.2% (n = 324) of education, and 42.1% (n = 64) of water facilities sustained infrastructure damage. Furthermore, 35.1% (n = 34) of health, 40.2% (n = 191) of education, and 36.8% (n = 56) of water facilities were functionally destroyed. Applying the Global Moran's I spatial inference statistic to facilities demonstrated a high degree of damage clustering for all three types of critical civilian infrastructure, with Z-scores indicating < 1% likelihood of cluster damage occurring by random chance. Conclusion: Spatial statistical analysis suggests widespread damage to critical civilian infrastructure that should have been provided protection under IHL. These findings raise serious allegations about the violation of IHL, especially in light of Israeli officials' statements explicitly inciting violence and displacement and multiple widely reported acts of collective punishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since commencing its illegal invasion in 2022, the Russian military and authorities have committed numerous war crimes against the people of Ukraine. These include the mutilation and execution of combatants; the torture, kidnapping, forced expulsion, rape, and massacre of civilians; and indiscriminate attacks on densely populated areas. In this essay, I evaluate the strategic implications of this misconduct, focusing exclusively on Western responses. I argue that war crimes can and often do negatively impact the strategic goals of the perpetrator, but whether and how this occurs is rarely governed exclusively by the offending action. Western perceptions of battlefield atrocity, shaped as they are by identity, race, and politics, may radically shift from one context to another. In the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, the status of both the participants and the conflict itself has helped inculcate a particular sensitivity among Western actors to the battlefield criminality of Russia. Drawing on evidence from the 2022 Bucha massacre and the ongoing bombing of Ukrainian civilians, I argue that Russian misconduct has consolidated Western support for the Ukrainian military effort, politically, diplomatically, and materially. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Russia-Ukraine war demonstrates the crucial role of technology in modern warfare. The use of digital networks, information infrastructure, space technology, and artificial intelligence has distinct military advantages, but raises challenges as well. This essay focuses on the way it exacerbates a rather familiar challenge: the "civilianization of warfare." Today's high-technology warfare lowers the threshold for civilian participation in the war effort. A notable example is the widespread use of smartphone apps by Ukrainian civilians, who thereby help the armed forces defend against Russian aggression. Through the lenses of international humanitarian law, conventional just war theory, and revisionist just war theory, this essay evaluates the normative dimensions of such civilian participation. The analysis shows that civilians can lose their legal protections when they use these apps to directly participate in hostilities, and this loss of immunity can be justified by Michael Walzer's conventional just war theory. Revisionism, however, puts the justness of the war at the forefront, and so sheds doubt on the moral liability of Ukrainian civilians. Considering the broader implications, including the blurring combatant-civilian distinction, indicates that such civilianization of warfare should not be welcomed; the risks will often outweigh the benefits. At a minimum, states ought to exercise restraint in mobilizing civilians and inform them of the implications of their actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The criminal law assessment of each violation of the rules and customs of war under Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of Ukraine) requires reference to international treaties establishing such rules. This is indicated by the disposition of this article. In turn, international treaties have a list of provisions that contain instructions on prohibitions for parties to international armed conflicts and on specific violations of the rules and customs of war. This list is quite wide, due to which problems arise during the practical application of Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, when formulating an indictment. Serious violations of the rules and customs of war include, in particular, turning the civilian population or individual civilians into targets of attack. Establishing objective and subjective signs of this act is of scientific interest. In the norms of international humanitarian law, this violation is formulated atypically for domestic criminal legislation. In addition, there are issues of differentiation with other serious violations of the rules and customs of war, correlation with prohibitions and requirements established in the norms of international humanitarian law. In order to clarify the essence of this violation, the norms of international treaties, which are part of international humanitarian law, as well as their interrelationship, were analyzed. This made it possible to draw conclusions about the objective features by which it is possible to distinguish the analyzed violation from other homogeneous violations, for example, from committing attacks of an indiscriminate nature. Possible variants of a subjective attitude to the commission of such a violation as the transformation of the civilian population or individual civilians into an object of attack are also defined. In addition, examples from judicial practice were considered with an emphasis on ways of formulating charges under Art. 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The importance of instructions for the commission of a serious violation of an international agreement during the formulation of charges in such proceedings is emphasized and substantiated. Prospects for further research on issues related to the criminal-legal assessment of attacks on the civilian population in the context of an international armed conflict are outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of social network analysis (SNA) during the War on Terror has been a topic of significant political and academic discourse. SNA is an empirical method that graphically and mathematically represents interactions or relationships between nodes (eg, individuals, organizations) and the ties that connect them. The nature and degree of interdependence among nodes are believed to provide insights into the relationships and behaviour of members within a social network. The scarcity of precise and comprehensive data on the structure, functioning, and activities of terrorist groups has prompted some states to incorporate SNA into their intelligence efforts and rely on its data for counterterrorism activities, including lethal operations. However, the compatibility of SNA with international law remains underexplored. In this article, we adopt a legal-empirical approach to elucidate SNA in accessible terms and examine the challenges it presents for international law. We contend that SNA is fundamentally incompatible with international humanitarian law (IHL) targeting rules, as the data it provides do not pertain to legally relevant criteria. Nevertheless, SNA offers valuable insights for IHL by illuminating intra-group dynamics to facilitate conflict classification, identifying legally relevant characteristics in armed groups' internal networks, and determining the strength of relations between armed factions. Our findings underscore the importance of a nuanced understanding of SNA's applications and limitations in the context of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to examine the use of the OSCE Moscow Mechanism in the war in Ukraine. Following this brief introduction, the first section is devoted to OSCE mechanisms in general, with special emphasis on the Moscow Mechanism. Against this background, section two presents and analyses the conclusions of the reports of the OSCE missions to Ukraine. Finally, in the conclusions, the authors point to the value of the Moscow Mechanism and its meaning for peaceful resolution of conflicts and international security. The research method consists of formal-legal analysis of legal acts such as the Geneva Conventions on the protection of victims of armed conflicts (1949) and Additional Protocol I on the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (1977) as well as reports of the OSCE expert missions and NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article seeks to raise awareness about the non-application of the norms of international humanitarian law (IHL) of international armed conflicts in situations of so-called internationalised armed conflicts – namely, when a non-state armed group (NSAG) that is engaged in an armed conflict against the territorial state enjoys a degree of support from another state. Debates in academic circles and international case law have focused largely on the appropriate test and threshold for establishing the relationship between the NSAG and the supporting state. Practice, however, shows that regardless of the legal test, the foreign state support to the NSAG in a (or an initially) non-international armed conflict is so politically charged that it leads to a complete non-application of the law of international armed conflict by the relevant actors. The article demonstrates its conceptual findings through four case studies: the armed conflicts in Donbas, Nagorno-Karabakh, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Yemen. Regardless of strong indications of foreign state support to the NSAG in these armed conflicts, no relevant actors applied the IHL norms of international armed conflict. The article provides broader suggestions on the possible avenues for remedying the issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Economic Administrative & Legal Sciences is the property of Arab Journal of Sciences & Research Publishing (AJSRP) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The relevance of the topic is substantiated by the rapid use of cyberspace for committing serious international crimes. States have reached a consensus that cyberspace is a new area requiring international legal regulation to prevent cybercrime and establish international criminal liability. The dependence of society and the armed forces on digital technologies and digital infrastructure leads to a growing number of cyberattacks in armed conflicts and hybrid wars. Such challenges require new approaches to countering cyberattacks. International humanitarian law can be used to reveal the criteria by which a cyberattack can be interpreted as an act of war and to consider the application of the principles of international humanitarian law to cyberwarfare. The article analyzes the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter in response to a cyberattack. The author substantiates whether a cyberattack can be considered an armed attack. The author examines the applicability of the basic principles of international humanitarian law jus in bello to cyberattacks. Cyberattacks can have the same effect as armed attacks. They can lead to human rights violations, destruction of critical infrastructure, loss of life and property. Cyberspace is an operational zone of military operations along with land, sea, and air. NATO states have identified cyberattacks as a major modern hybrid threat. The article analyzes expert opinions, scientific opinions, and international acts that disclose and establish the limits of liability for cyberattacks. The International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over crimes caused by cyberattacks, which constitute war crimes, has been examined. The proposal to extend the application of the Rome Statute of the ICC to cyberspace is studied. The growing intensity and frequency of cyber operations also emphasizes the importance of developing and improving the ICC's own operational practices. Today, given the rapid development of new weapons technologies, the international community has a duty to systematically assess the legality of weapons, methods and means of warfare. There is an urgent need to develop a policy for the investigation and prosecution of cyber criminals under the Rome Statute. A new view of international law is needed that takes into account the specifics of cyberspace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contemporary parlance, the environment and its preservation have emerged as a principal focus and concern for the global populace. This phenomenon is known to escalate during times of armed conflict. Armed conflicts directly impact the environment (such as destroying natural resources or pollution resulting from military operations). The investigation into the ecological destruction inflicted upon the natural world during the two world wars demonstrates that the emphasis on safeguarding the environment is no longer a theoretical notion but a concrete actuality encapsulated within the framework of legal doctrines. The protection of the environment encompasses a diverse array of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Criminal Law (ICL). This study scrutinized the safeguards and preservation of environmental rights in times of armed conflicts, whether domestic or international, through the lenses of ICL and IHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Syntax Literate is the property of Ridwan Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 ignited the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. Ukrainian government agencies, civil society organizations, and international agencies have gathered an unprecedented amount of data about the impact of war on the environment, which is often the silent victim of war. We review these data and highlight the limitations of international governance for protection of the environment during time of war. Methods: We performed an integrative review of academic, institutional, and media information resources using the search terms "Ukraine", "Russia", "war", "environment", "health", "human rights", "international humanitarian law", "international human rights law", "ecocide", and "war crimes". Main text: Nearly 500,000 military personnel have been killed or wounded during the war, and more than 30,000 civilians have been killed or injured. Indirect health effects of the war have likely accounted for an even greater amount of civilian morbidity and mortality. The war has displaced more than 11 million people. Russia's military forces have caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure. The war has devastated Ukraine's economy and reduced food and energy security in many countries. The war has caused more than $56.4 billion in damage to the environment. There has been widespread chemical contamination of air, water, and soil, and 30% of Ukraine has been contaminated with landmines and unexploded ordnance. Landscape destruction, shelling, wildfires, deforestation, and pollution have adversely affected 30% of Ukraine's protected areas. Russia's seizure of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam have posed risks of long-term environmental catastrophe. Most of these environmental impacts threaten human health. Conclusion: In addition to enormous human costs, Russia's war on Ukraine has had devastating impacts on the natural environment and the built environment. International law mandates that methods of warfare must be implemented with due regard to the protection and preservation of the natural environment. A just and lasting peace necessitates, among other requirements, rebuilding and restoration of Ukraine's natural environment and built environment. The environmental consequences of all wars need to be investigated and more effective measures need to be implemented to protect the environment during war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]