Search

At the time of composing the Oslo Manual, there were some fundamental differences of opinion among States as to the interpretation or acceptability of terms such as “cyber means of warfare”, “cyber methods of warfare”, and “cyber attacks”. The Group of Experts took cognizance of those differences of opinion but concluded, coherent with the view of the International Court of Justice, as expressed in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion that the cardinal principles of LOAC would apply to all forms of warfare. This includes cyber warfare.

Enemy military personnel and civilians who have been directly participating in hostilities who manifest the intent to surrender and who comply with the additional requirements of Rules 103 and 104 arehors de combatand may not be denied quarter.

During an international armed conflict

For the purposes of this Manual, a “remotely piloted aircraft” (RPA) is an aircraft that is controlled via a remote communication link by a human operator who is not located on board the aircraft.

For the purposes of this Manual, “Shipwrecked” means persons, whether military or civilian, who are in peril at sea or in other waters during an armed conflict as a result of misfortune affecting them or the vessel, aircraft, or spacecraft carrying them.

Those who decide upon, plan, order or execute military operations during an armed conflict bear individual criminal responsibility for war crimes they have committed.

“Cultural property” means movable or immovable property, whether secular or religious and irrespective of origin or ownership, which is of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people. Examples include buildings and other monuments of historic, artistic or architectural significance; archaeological sites; artworks, antiquities, manuscripts, books, collections thereof, and collections of reproductions thereof; scientific collections; and archives. The term “cultural property” extends to buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit movable cultural property and to refuges intended to shelter it, as well as to centres containing a large amount of movable or immovable cultural property.

States, having laid submarine cables or pipelines, or whose nationals have laid and operate such cables and pipelines, are entitled to take protective measures with a view to preventing or terminating any harmful interference.

When planning and conducting military operations during an armed conflict, due regard should be given to the natural environment.

To a certain extent, this Section overlaps some provisions of chapter “Section III: Remote and Autonomous Weapons” inasmuch as both Sections deal with unmanned systems. However, whereas chapter “Section III: Remote and Autonomous Weapons” addresses both unmanned platforms and weapon systems, the present Section focuses on unmanned maritime platforms that may or may not be integral parts of a weapon system. The maritime platforms and systems dealt with here must therefore be distinguished from automated weapon systems, in particular those for the defence of surface platforms against missile threats. Accordingly, the terminology used in this Section does not necessarily replicate that used in chapter “Section III: Remote and Autonomous Weapons”.

Withholding of consent can be arbitrary if it is not compatible,inter alia,with other obligations under applicable principles and rules of LOAC, or if it is unreasonable given the needs of the civilian population in the prevailing circumstances.

In the context of armed conflict—whether international or non-international—civilians who conduct attacks using unmanned systems, including RPA and UMS, are directly participating in hostilities.

“Military objectives”, as far as objects are concerned, are those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use, make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

With due regard for the rights of other States, coastal States are entitled to install, operate and maintain undersea systems and devices, whether military or civilian in nature, in their territorial sea, continental shelf and EEZ.

It is specifically prohibited to destroy, damage or seize enemy private or public property unless such destruction is justified by military necessity under the principles and rules of LOAC.

For the purposes of this Manual

The right of self-defence applies in response to an armed attack by non-State armed groups.

"the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn". Attacks in wartime against military objectives often impact upon the environment. Oil facilities as military objectives can serve as a prime example. When an oil refinery is struck, this may give rise to toxic air pollution. When an oil storage facility is demolished, the oil may seep

Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is a product of the mid-1970s. It reflects the then-prevailingZeitgeist: the confrontational mentality of the Cold War; the defiance of the West by a suddenly assertive and temporarily united “Third World”; the tendencies on the part of an entrenched majority in international organizations and forums to show no tolerance for the dissenting voices of a large and influential minority; and the cynical sacrifice of good sense (and good law) on the altar of political expediency.

MOST international rights are conferred by international law on corporate entities. First and foremost among these entities are States, but international rights are also enjoyed (when certain conditions precedent are met) by international organisations 1 as well as by political units (such as colonies or protectorates) which are actually States in statu nascendi.2 Corporate entities benefit from a legal personality, yet, of course, they do not exist in reality. If we pierce the corporate veil of the legal personality, we find behind it the physical personalities of human beings serving as organs of the States or the other entities. Indirectly, therefore, State rights are human rights. In the final analysis, human beings are the subjects of all international rights. This, however, is not what is meant when we refer to international human rights. The rights which we have in mind are exceptional within the international legal system. They are accorded to human beings directly, without the interposition of the legal personality of a corporate entity. International law thereby protects the interests of the human being as such, and in fact protects them vis-a-vis a corporate entity, namely, the State. Human rights imply corresponding duties which devolve on States: direct rights of human beings infer limitations on the powers of States. Any subject-matter which comes within the ambit of international human rights is automatically excluded from the domain reserved for the domestic jurisdiction of States.

In response to the Camp David Framework for Peace in the Middle East, which specified that transitional arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza be based on full autonomy for the inhabitants, the Faculty of Law of Tel Aviv University brought together a group of experts--lawyers, historians, and political scientists--in the hopes of contributing to the success of the negotiations. More than one dozen papers identify and analyze models of autonomy, past and present. Introductory essays on the theoretical concept of autonomy supplement a survey of various autonomous arrangements in Europe, America, and Africa. This is followed by a systematic comparative analysis of autonomy in international law. Different aspects of negotiations between Egypt and Israel concerning autonomy for the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza are considered, and several tentative conclusions are drawn from the lessons of models of autonomy throughout history.