Search

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.

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]

The concept of the levée en masse was designed to legitimise armed civilian opposition to an unfolding invasion by conferring temporary combatant status upon certain civilians. The range of individuals eligible for this status was defined narrowly to include only ‘inhabitants’ of invaded territories. This approach made sense in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when international travel was beyond the reach of all but the elite minority. Today however, mass air transit has expanded horizons and allows people to travel and to emigrate much more readily. Consequently, the global diaspora of emigrants is larger now than ever before. As seen during the Russian invasion of Ukraine beginning in February 2022, many among these diaspora communities wish to return to defend their homelands upon invasion. This is precluded under the orthodox interpretation of international humanitarian law owing to their lack of residency. This is unsatisfactory as it bars individuals with legitimate familial, political, cultural, and historical connections to a State from participating in a levée in its defence. This article sets out the policy and legal arguments in favour of recognising non-resident citizens – or ‘diaspora fighters’ – as legitimate participants in levées en masse. [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]

BACKGROUND: Colombia has experienced decades of conflict between the government and non-state actors. Attacks on healthcare have been a grave but regular facet of that violence. In response, the Misión Médica (MM) program was developed to support, protect, and defend healthcare. Sporadic violence continues, with many recent attacks perpetrated not by armed actors but by residents. Given the history of conflict and ongoing violence, we sought to capture the perspectives of both healthcare workers (HCWs) and community members (CMs) regarding the characteristics and impacts of attacks on health in Colombia to gain insight into how to better prevent violence and mitigate its impacts. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from January to March 2021 in seven departments in Colombia in regions that witnessed attacks on healthcare. Questionnaires were administered to HCWs and CMs via purposive sampling, probing their experiences with attacks on health with both closed and open-ended questions. The categorical responses were stratified by health worker vs. non-health worker and descriptively analyzed. Narrative responses were analyzed via a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Seventy-three individuals participated in the study (36 HCWs and 37 cm). Approximately 77% of HCWs believed that attacks on healthcare impacted health outcomes while 68% of CMs did not see a direct connection between violence against healthcare and poor health outcomes. Awareness of the MM program was significantly different between HCWs (83.3%) and CMs (37.8%). The survey responses explored the characteristics of attacks on health, compounded impacts of violence on the health system, personal impacts, and perspectives on mitigation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that: (1) attacks on healthcare are context-dependent and require a local lens for mitigation and management; (2) both HCWs and CMs have critical perspectives that must be considered, (3) the impacts of violence against healthcare are complex and compounded and (4) that awareness of the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions must be combined with education on the health impacts for robust protection strategies. Critically, Both CMs and HCWs experience fear and psychosocial ramifications of these attacks, suggesting the need for stronger protections and resources to support the health workforce and the local community.

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]

The atrocities of Israel's aggression perpetrated from 07 October 2023 on the civilian population and the treatment of prisoners of war shocked the world. Western governments have encouraged Israel to continue its tyranny. Many other governments around the world preferred to remain silent despite the presence of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This has led to a re-launch of the debate on the credibility of IHL and the positioning of International Islamic Humanitarian Law (IIHL) on the world stage. The aim of this study is therefore to compare IHL and IIHL, from a theoretical and practical point of view, in the field of the protection of civilians during war and the treatment of prisoners of war. To do this, we opted for a comparative approach between these two components, both conceptually and functionally. This approach focused, on the one hand, on the main sources of the Sharia, the Quran and the Sunnah, as well as on the opinions of Muslim scholars (ulamas), supported by concrete examples of the application of Islamic norms by the Prophet and the Rashidoun caliphs. On the other hand, it also examined all the conventions, treaties and other documents that constitute the sources of the IHL. From a theoretical point of view, the results showed that there are many similarities between the two laws. In practical terms, however, the IIHL stands out for its concrete form and effective application. These observations led us to recommend that the current world order be rethought in view of the juxtaposition of the IIHL and IHL rules.

The results of the monitoring of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine regarding compliance with the labor rights of persons with the status of persons who have disappeared under special circumstances are presented. The actuality of the topic is due to the fact that ensuring compliance with the constitutional rights of citizens, primarily citizens who need additional social protection, is a priority of the state. Attention was drawn to the fact that the observance of such rights, especially in the conditions of martial law, is an important aspect of state policy. The purpose of the article is to analyze the legislation regulating compliance with the labor rights of civilian employees who are missing due to military aggression by the russian federation. Achieving the outlined goal became possible thanks to the use of a complex of methods of scientific knowledge: dialectical, comparative-legal, formal-logical, systemic-structural. On the basis of the conducted analysis, it was established that the legal norms that guarantee the preservation of the labor rights of the investigated category of employees are imperfect, which prevents the proper realization of the constitutionally guaranteed labor rights of employees who are missing. It has been established that there are different approaches to ensuring the labor rights of civilian employees depending on the position. It was established that the absence of a clear list of persons authorized to perform state functions makes it impossible to determine a complete list of such persons. The role of the Ombudsman of Ukraine in observing the labor rights of the specified category of persons is emphasized. The imperfection of the mechanism of informing the owner of the Register of missing persons of the employer about the acquisition of such a status by the person was noted. It has been established that in the absence of a missing person, the employer is unable to pay wages to the relatives of the missing person, and there is no order among relatives in the possibility of receiving wages. On the basis of the conducted research, conclusions were formulated regarding the gaps in the legislation, which lead to the violation of the labor rights of the specified category of citizens. On the basis of the received conclusions, in the future, proposals for normative legal acts may be formulated with the aim of restoring the violated constitutional rights of the missing persons, as well as their family members and relatives.

The enduring conflicts among Middle Eastern nations have caused devastating casualties and loss of life, leading to deep human suffering and significant societal distress. Their impact is not limited to the immediate regions involved but has reverberated across communities within those countries. Additionally, the international community has been deeply affected by the conflict and has made efforts to seek a resolution. The inadequate understanding of collateral damage and a primitive mindset have resulted in the unfortunate deaths of numerous innocent civilians. This article explores the psychological mechanisms underlying collateral damage in the context of war and conflict. In an effort to shed light on the multifaceted nature of collateral damage and its impact on both affected populations and combatants, the complex interplay of cognitive, emotional, and social factors was explored. The aim was to explore the psychological consequences of collateral damage and provide theoretical assumptions to understand collateral damage and war. The SANRA narrative review method was adopted to discuss the psychological underpinnings of collateral damage. Several studies have explored the concept of collateral damage in the context of war and psychology. By understanding the psychological mechanisms behind collateral damage, it is possible to effectively address the root causes and develop strategies to minimise its occurrence in armed conflicts. Moreover, it is essential to prioritise the education of leaders and military personnel regarding the concept of collateral damage

Rule of proportionality strikes a bargain in launching attacks. It demands that military commanders suspend or cancel operations if collateral damage anticipated from an attack exceeds the potential military advantage offered. The definitional phrase military advantage has been the subject of a rich debate, varyingly interpreted to expand or limit the scope of attacks. This paper participates in the debate, advocating that military advantage must be limited to exclude attacks on objects that indirectly contribute to military potential, such as, economic, social, psychological or political advantage, which invariably target civilians or civilian enterprises. It critically engages with the principles and precedents invoked to legitimise a broader understanding of military advantage. It posits that such attacks disregard belligerents’ privileges, and render unbound categories of civilian objects susceptible to destruction. Pursuantly, the rule of proportionality, originally articulated to nuance and improve the rule of distinction, is usurped to violate the latter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the critical issue of detainee protection in the complex landscape of contemporary non-international armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations. It examines the interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, highlighting the challenges in their application and interpretation. The article delves into the contemporary challenges faced in protecting detainees, including the involvement of non-state armed groups, extraterritorial detention practices, administrative detention, and the impact of counterterrorism measures. It proposes a multifaceted approach to enhancing detainee protection, encompassing strategies for strengthening compliance with the legal framework, addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups, and promoting best practices and capacity-building. The article argues that a comprehensive and contextualised approach, grounded in the principles of humanity and human dignity, is essential to effectively safeguard the rights and well-being of detainees in these challenging contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the development of the last decade of the current century as a temporal reference point, this study tackles the urgent task of understanding and promoting an effective implementation of IHL (International Humanitarian Law) within the context of the armed conflict in the Colombian Caribbean region. Based on this analysis, there's an identified need for a harmonious approach grounded in participatory premises, considering both local residents and actors directly involved in the conflict. It's worth noting that this analysis particularly highlights the case of the Gulf Clan as an example. Employing a primarily qualitative methodology, in line with its nature, this study aims to provide a refreshed and contextual perspective that can guide future research and public policies in the realms of IHL. Consistent with its objectives, the importance of refining methodologies given the ever-changing nature of conflicts in the region is emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Araucaria is the property of Araucaria-Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofia, Politica y Humanidades 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.)

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.)

As well as being a means to reduce international tension and promote peace, multilateral disarmament efforts support and strengthen international humanitarian law (IHL) by mitigating the impact of armed conflict. Multilateral disarmament treaties both remove types of weapons that by their nature are likely to be used in violation of IHL, and build global norms that stigmatize and delegitimize such weapons. These norms affect the behaviour even of states that have not joined the treaty concerned. These twin effects mean that over time, states become both less able and less willing to use weapons in violation of IHL. The experience with disarmament treaties such as the biological and chemical weapons conventions and the treaties banning antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions provides useful lessons for efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and to develop legally-binding measures to deal with autonomous weapon systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humanitarian diplomacy seeks the collaboration and complicity of public institutions to ensure the effectiveness of its prevention, promotion, protection and reparation functions. It aims to address the complex symbiosis between traditional diplomatic action and the praxis of the new humanitarianism in the interest of the persons affected, regardless of their affiliation in the conflict, and in accordance with international law. The success of this new institution will depend on its interaction with the elements --in terms of challenges and opportunities-- that define the current changing landscape of international society. The increasing and concurrent diversity of crises and disasters, the plurality and proliferation of new subjects and actors, the high intensity of asymmetrical and hybrid armed con- flicts, characterized by dehumanisation and denial of the other, the emergence of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, as well as the contempt for the most basic principles of international humanitarian law, are some of the challenges that humanitarian diplomacy will have to face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spain is committed to promoting justice, democracy and a multilateral order based on rules throughout the world because, although conflicts seem geographically distant from our borders, that peace is the necessary condition for international stability and for development, progress and, ultimately, freedom both within and beyond our borders. Among the measures adopted by our country, the approval in January 2023 of the first Humanitarian Diplomacy Strategy stands out, an exercise aimed at strengthening the humanitarian perspective in the State's foreign action and increasing the coherence of the instruments at our disposal through three of the five strategic objectives of the Agenda for Humanity: preventing and resolving conflicts; promote respect for International Humanitarian Law; protect people in vulnerable situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

This post analyses the separation between jus ad bellum / in bello as arising from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. This separation was challenged by many States appearing before the Court, some of which implied that Israel’s policies and practices, as violations of jus in bello, rendered the occupation unlawful under jus ad bellum. The Court ultimately reaffirmed the separation with a twofold argument, namely qualifying the ‘legality of the occupation’ as a jus ad bellum question, and framing Israel’s policies and practices (prolonged occupation, annexation, and settlement policy) as violations of jus ad bellum.

This contribution discusses three possible rationales for the Court’s rejection of the relevance of Israel’s security concerns: Lack of proof of serious and legitimate security concerns by Israel, the insufficiency of broad security concerns to justify the continued use of force, and the insufficiency of broad security concerns to deny realization of Palestinian self-determination. As long as international law doctrine on the duty to end a belligerent occupation despite the prevalence of serious security concerns remains contested, and as long as security conditions in the region remain extremely unstable, it is unlikely that a withdrawal will be deemed practicable

It is no understatement to say that the 19 July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion constitutes a seismic change in the international law and practice on the question of Palestine. In one fell swoop, the ICJ has shifted what was hitherto an almost exclusive focus of the international community on how Israel has administered its 57-year occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory under International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, to the requirement that Israel end its occupation of that territory as “rapidly as possible”.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine, or more accurately, between the two Peoples, has persisted for over a century. A tragic reminder of the unbearable costs of this conflict is the deadly October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, and the ensuing war, which has led to horrific consequences, with thousands of Israelis and Palestinians killed, many severely injured, and extensive damage to the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. In these circumstances, an important question arises: what role should international law and international tribunals play in mitigating the grave harm to all those involved in the conflict?