Search

Women and girls are increasingly the direct and targeted victims of armed conflict and studies show that they are disproportionately and differentially affected. However, humanitarian laws, policies, and protocols have yet to be meaningfully interpreted and adapted to respond to their specific needs, including to sexual and reproductive health services and rights. In particular, safe abortion services are routinely omitted from sexual and reproductive health services in humanitarian settings for a variety of reasons, including improper deference to national law, the disproportionate influence of restrictive funding policies, and the failure to treat abortion as medical care. However, properly construed, abortion services fall within the purview of the universal and non-derogable protections granted under international humanitarian and human rights law. This commentary considers the protections of international humanitarian law and explains how abortion services fall within a category of protected medical care. It then outlines contemporary challenges affecting the realisation of these rights. Finally, it proposes a unification of current approaches through the use of international humanitarian law to ensure comprehensive care for those affected by armed conflict.

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 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]

The relevance of this study lies in the need to understand the interaction between conventional law and the circumstances of society in wartime, especially in the context of modern conflicts. The purpose of this study was to identify this interaction and determine its impact on the current legal environment. To fulfil this purpose, various research methods were employed, including literature review, document analysis, empirical research, comparative analysis, and expert evaluation. These methods helped to systematise information and carry out a reasoned analysis of the interaction between legal norms and the circumstances of modern society in the context of military operations. The findings of this study show that the problem of implementing conventional law in the context of armed conflict is caused not only by different interpretations of its provisions, but also by systematic violations of international humanitarian law by the parties to the conflict. It is noted that some of these violations may be the result of a lack of clarity or contradictions in the texts of the conventions, as well as differences in national legislation. Specific examples were considered in the context of different types of conflicts, including armed conflicts and situations of occupation, where systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian standards are recorded. Specifically, the study investigated the attitude towards civilians, the circumstances of warfare, the treatment of prisoners of war, the provision of medical care in the conflict zone, humanitarian aid, access to education and food. The study also examined the manipulation of information and the legal framework by Russia. In view of the identified difficulties in implementing conventional law, the study proposed concrete ways to improve the international legal mechanism, namely by clarifying and harmonising the rules of international humanitarian law, ensuring more effective monitoring and accountability for violations, and engaging in dialogue with all stakeholders, neutral observers and partner countries to jointly find solutions. This allows formulating recommendations for international organisations, states, and human rights groups on further measures to ensure compliance with conventional law in the context of armed conflict and improve human rights protection

Despite the fact that there is a trend in understanding international humanitarian law and international human rights law as two separated branches of international law, discussions about these two concepts and their relationship continues. Rather than looking for which approach is correct, we should analyse what implications these discussions have in both theoretical and applied terms. To achieve that it is necessary to ascertain what is the nature and, consequently, what are the implications of identifying international humanitarian law and international human rights law as branches of international law, as well as the attributing specific norms to a particular branch.

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]

This article is an attempt to add layers to the discussions of ongoing mass atrocities committed in several parts of the world by discussing an under-reported situation of large scale violence unfolding in Sudan since April 2023, in the hope that the ‘international community’ can address multiple catastrophic situations with similar urgency, mobilise for justice for all peoples, end the culture of impunity, and eventually shift the discourse towards the structural causes of such large-scale violence in different parts of the world.

The purpose of this essay/editorial - closed on 8 January 2024 - is to formulate as fully as possible, although necessarily provisional, an approach from the perspective of International Law to the war in Gaza that began a little over three months ago, and more generally to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has lasted at least seventy-five years, with the creation of the state of Israel, the first Arab-Israeli war and the Nakba to which the Palestinian people have been condemned. In other words, this is a brief international legal approach to a moment of crisis and intensification of a historic conflict that, in these months, has been a real turning point in the endless cycle of violence that has plagued the region for decades.To this end, this essay addresses various issues of international legal relevance in relation to the current war in Gaza, such as the conceptualisation of international terrorism; the justification of legitimate self-defence used by Israel and, in particular, the conditions required by International Law for its exercise; as well as the possible commission of serious crimes of international concern - war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide -, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law and the call for individual criminal responsibility in this context.This essay also analyses the response of the international community organized in the United Nations to the current war in Gaza, highlighting the insufficient action of the Security Council during these months of acute crisis, the majority reaction of the General Assembly calling for a cessation of hostilities, and the repeated and futile humanitarian appeals made by its Secretary-General.In order to place the current crisis in the perspective of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there are also briefly discussed the historical and political context, in particular the results of the occupation of territories in the Six-Day War of 1967, the consistent position of the General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the United Nations action on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as the Security Council’s action on these Territories and the proposed peace initiatives, in particular with regard to the two-State solution.The essay concludes with concluding remarks and an epilogue where, in view of the current humanitarian catastrophe and the protracted nature of the conflict, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of hostages, and for the current phase of the conflict to become a genuine turning point that can be grasped as an opportunity for peace in the region. LA GUERRA EN GAZA Y EL CONFLICTO PALESTINO-ISRAELÍ: UN PUNTO DE INFLEXIÓN EN MEDIO DE UN CICLO SIN FIN DE VIOLENCIA El objeto de este ensayo/editorial -que se ha cerrado el 8 de enero de 2024- es el de formular de la manera más completa posible -aunque resulte necesariamente provisional- una aproximación desde la perspectiva del Derecho Internacional a la guerra en Gaza iniciada hace poco más de tres meses y, en general, al conflicto palestino-israelí que perdura, como mínimo, desde hace más de setenta y cinco años, con la creación del Estado de Israel, la primera guerra árabe-israelí y la Nakba a la que fue abocado el pueblo palestino. Es decir, se trata de una somera aproximación jurídico-internacional a un momento de crisis y de agudización de un conflicto histórico, que configura en estos meses un auténtico punto de inflexión en el ciclo sin fin de violencia que asola la región desde hace décadas.A estos efectos, en este ensayo se abordan diversas cuestiones de relevancia jurídico-internacional en relación con la actual guerra en Gaza, como la conceptualización del terrorismo internacional; la justificación de la legítima defensa usada por Israel y, en especial, las condiciones que exige el Derecho Internacional para su ejercicio; así como la posible comisión de graves crímenes de trascendencia internacional -crímenes de guerra, crímenes contra la humanidad y genocidio-, la aplicabilidad del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y la exigencia de responsabilidad penal individual en este contexto. También se analiza en este ensayo la reacción de la comunidad internacional organizada en las Naciones Unidas ante la actual guerra en Gaza y, por tanto, se presenta la insuficiente actuación del Consejo de Seguridad a lo largo de estos meses de crisis aguda, la mayoritaria reacción de la Asamblea General pidiendo un cese de las hostilidades y los llamamientos humanitarios formulados vana y reiteradamente por su Secretario General. Para situar la fase actual de crisis en la perspectiva del conflicto palestino-israelí se aborda asimismo, sumariamente, su contexto histórico-político, en particular con los resultados de la ocupación de territorios en la guerra de los Seis Días de1967; la constante posición de la Asamblea General sobre la cuestión Palestina; la acción de las Naciones Unidas en relación con los derechos humanos en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados; así como la actuación del Consejo de Seguridad respecto de estos Territorios y las iniciativas de paz propuestas especialmente en relación con la solución bieestatal. Por último, se formulan unas consideraciones finales y un epílogo en el que, atendiendo a la actual catástrofe humanitaria y a la perdurabilidad del conflicto, se formula un llamamiento para el cese inmediato de las hostilidades y la liberación de los rehenes y para que la actual fase del conflicto se convierta en un genuino punto de inflexión que pueda propiciar una oportunidad para la paz en la región. LA GUERRE À GAZA ET LE CONFLIT PALESTINO-ISRAÉLIEN : UN TOURNANT AU MILIEU D’UN CYCLE DE VIOLENCE SANS FIN Le but de cet essai/éditorial - qui s’est achevé le 8 janvier 2024 - est de formuler aussi complètement que possible - bien qu’il soit nécessairement provisoire - une approche du point de vue du Droit International de la guerre à Gaza qui a commencé il y a un peu plus de trois mois et, en général, du conflit palestino-israélien qui dure depuis au moins soixante-quinze ans, avec la création de l’État d’Israël, la première guerre israélo-arabe et la Nakba à laquelle le peuple palestinien a été contraint. En d’autres termes, il s’agit d’une brève approche juridico-internationale d’un moment de crise et de l’intensification d’un conflit historique qui, en ces mois, constitue un véritable tournant dans le cycle sans fin de la violence qui sévit dans la région depuis des décennies.À cette fin, cet essai aborde diverses questions de Droit International en rapport avec la guerre actuelle à Gaza, telles que la conceptualisation du terrorisme international, la justification de la légitime défense utilisée par Israël et, en particulier, les conditions requises par le Droit International pour son exercice, ainsi que la commission éventuelle de crimes graves de portée internationale - crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité et génocide -, l’applicabilité du Droit International Humanitaire et l’exigence de responsabilité pénale individuelle dans ce contexte. Cet essai analyse également la réaction de la communauté internationale organisée au sein des Nations unies à la guerre actuelle à Gaza et présente donc l’action insuffisante du Conseil de sécurité tout au long de ces mois de crise aiguë, la réaction majoritaire de l’Assemblée générale appelant à la cessation des hostilités et les appels humanitaires lancés à maintes reprises et en vain par son secrétaire général. Afin de replacer la phase de crise actuelle dans la perspective du conflit palestino-israélien, sont également brièvement évoqués le contexte historico-politique, en particulier les résultats de l’occupation des territoires lors de la guerre des six jours de 1967, la position constante de l’Assemblée générale sur la question palestinienne, l’action des Nations unies en matière de droits de l’homme dans les Territoires Palestiniens Occupés, ainsi que l’action du Conseil de sécurité sur ces Territoires et les initiatives de paix proposées, notamment en ce qui concerne la solution à deux États. L’essai se termine par quelques considérations finales et par un épilogue dans lequel, compte tenu de la catastrophe humanitaire actuelle et de la durée du conflit, un appel est lancé en faveur d’une cessation immédiate des hostilités et de la libération des otages, et pour que la phase actuelle du conflit devienne un véritable tournant qui pourrait offrir une occasion de paix dans la région.

El objeto de este ensayo/editorial –que se ha cerrado el 8 de enero de 2024– es el de formular de la manera más completa posible –aunque resulte necesariamente provisional– una aproximación desde la perspectiva del Derecho Internacional a la guerra en Gaza iniciada hace poco más de tres meses y, en general, al conflicto palestino–israelí que perdura, como mínimo, desde hace más de setenta y cinco años, con la creación del Estado de Israel, la primera guerra árabe–israelí y la Nakba a la que fue abocado el pueblo palestino. Es decir, se trata de una somera aproximación jurídico–internacional a un momento de crisis y de agudización de un conflicto histórico, que configura en estos meses un auténtico punto de inflexión en el ciclo sin fin de violencia que asola la región desde hace décadas.A estos efectos, en este ensayo se abordan diversas cuestiones de relevancia jurídico–internacional en relación con la actual guerra en Gaza, como la conceptualización del terrorismo internacional; la justificación de la legítima defensa usada por Israel y, en especial, las condiciones que exige el Derecho Internacional para su ejercicio; así como la posible comisión de graves crímenes de trascendencia internacional –crímenes de guerra, crímenes contra la humanidad y genocidio–, la aplicabilidad del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y la exigencia de responsabilidad penal individual en este contexto. También se analiza en este ensayo la reacción de la comunidad internacional organizada en las Naciones Unidas ante la actual guerra en Gaza y, por tanto, se presenta la insuficiente actuación del Consejo de Seguridad a lo largo de estos meses de crisis aguda, la mayoritaria reacción de la Asamblea General pidiendo un cese de las hostilidades y los llamamientos humanitarios formulados vana y reiteradamente por su Secretario General. Para situar la fase actual de crisis en la perspectiva del conflicto palestino–israelí se aborda asimismo, sumariamente, su contexto histórico–político, en particular con los resultados de la ocupación de territorios en la guerra de los Seis Días de1967; la constante posición de la Asamblea General sobre la cuestión Palestina; la acción de las Naciones Unidas en relación con los derechos humanos en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados; así como la actuación del Consejo de Seguridad respecto de estos Territorios y las iniciativas de paz propuestas especialmente en relación con la solución biestatal. Por último, se formulan unas consideraciones finales y un epílogo en el que, atendiendo a la actual catástrofe humanitaria y a la perdurabilidad del conflicto, se formula un llamamiento para el cese inmediato de las hostilidades y la liberación de los rehenes y para que la actual fase del conflicto se convierta en un genuino punto de inflexión que pueda propiciar una oportunidad para la paz en la región. THE WAR IN GAZA AND THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT: A TURNING POINT IN THE MIDST OF AN ENDLESS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE The purpose of this essay/editorial – closed on 8 January 2024 – is to formulate as fully as possible, although necessarily provisional, an approach from the perspective of International Law to the war in Gaza that began a little over three months ago, and more generally to the Palestinian– Israeli conflict that has lasted at least seventy–five years, with the creation of the State of Israel, the first Arab–Israeli war and the Nakba to which the Palestinian people have been condemned. In other words, this is a brief international legal approach to a moment of crisis and intensification of a historic conflict that, in these months, has been a real turning point in the endless cycle of violence that has plagued the region for decades.To this end, this essay addresses various issues of international legal relevance in relation to the current war in Gaza, such as the conceptualisation of international terrorism; the justification of legitimate self–defence used by Israel and, in particular, the conditions required by International Law for its exercise; as well as the possible commission of serious crimes of international concern – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide –, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law and the call for individual criminal responsibility in this context. This essay also analyses the response of the international community organized in the United Nations to the current war in Gaza, highlighting the insufficient action of the Security Council during these months of acute crisis, the majority reaction of the General Assembly calling for a cessation of hostilities, and the repeated and futile humanitarian appeals made by its Secretary–General. In order to place the current crisis in the perspective of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, the historical and political context, in particular the results of the occupation of territories in the Six–Day War of 1967, the consistent position of the General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the United Nations action on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as the Security Council’s action on these Territories and the proposed peace initiatives, in particular with regard to the two–State solution, are also briefly discussed. The essay concludes with concluding remarks and an epilogue where, in view of the current humanitarian catastrophe and the protracted nature of the conflict, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of hostages, and for the current phase of the conflict to become a genuine turning point that can be grasped as an opportunity for peace in the region. LA GUERRE À GAZA ET LE CONFLIT PALESTINO-ISRAÉLIEN : UN TOURNANT AU MILIEU D’UN CYCLE DE VIOLENCE SANS FIN Le but de cet essai/éditorial – qui s’est achevé le 8 janvier 2024 – est de formuler aussi complètement que possible – bien qu’il soit nécessairement provisoire – une approche du point de vue du Droit International de la guerre à Gaza qui a commencé il y a un peu plus de trois mois et, en général, du conflit palestino–israélien qui dure depuis au moins soixante–quinze ans, avec la création de l’État d’Israël, la première guerre israélo–arabe et la Nakba à laquelle le peuple palestinien a été contraint. En d’autres termes, il s’agit d’une brève approche juridico–internationale d’un moment de crise et de l’intensification d’un conflit historique qui, en ces mois, constitue un véritable tournant dans le cycle sans fin de la violence qui sévit dans la région depuis des décennies. À cette fin, cet essai aborde diverses questions de Droit International en rapport avec la guerre actuelle à Gaza, telles que la conceptualisation du terrorisme international, la justification de la légitime défense utilisée par Israël et, en particulier, les conditions requises par le Droit International pour son exercice, ainsi que la commission éventuelle de crimes graves de portée internationale – crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité et génocide –, l’applicabilité du Droit International Humanitaire et l’exigence de responsabilité pénale individuelle dans ce contexte. Cet essai analyse également la réaction de la communauté internationale organisée au sein des Nations unies à la guerre actuelle à Gaza et présente donc l’action insuffisante du Conseil de sécurité tout au long de ces mois de crise aiguë, la réaction majoritaire de l’Assemblée générale appelant à la cessation des hostilités et les appels humanitaires lancés à maintes reprises et en vain par son secrétaire général. Afin de replacer la phase de crise actuelle dans la perspective du conflit palestino-israélien, sont également brièvement évoqués le contexte historico–politique, en particulier les résultats de l’occupation des territoires lors de la guerre des six jours de 1967, la position constante de l’Assemblée générale sur la question palestinienne, l’action des Nations unies en matière de droits de l’homme dans les Territoires Palestiniens Occupés, ainsi que l’action du Conseil de sécurité sur ces Territoires et les initiatives de paix proposées, notamment en ce qui concerne la solution à deux États. L’essai se termine par quelques considérations finales et par un épilogue dans lequel, compte tenu de la catastrophe humanitaire actuelle et de la durée du conflit, un appel est lancé en faveur d’une cessation immédiate des hostilités et de la libération des otages, et pour que la phase actuelle du conflit devienne un véritable tournant qui pourrait offrir une occasion de paix dans la région.

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]

In today's world, peace, human rights respect, and ensuring a decent life for individuals still represent an objective we strive for. This paper aims to highlight the potential of the two frameworks, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Agenda for Humanity, but more importantly why it is crucial for them to work together to address ongoing conflicts, such as in the Gaza Strip, where both frameworks can tackle a complex cause and promote lasting peace in the region. Thus, the objectives of this paper are to analyze the two frameworks, identify connecting elements for them to work together, and examine the unfolding conflict in the Gaza Strip, particularly in the context of the violation of International Humanitarian Law, the insecurity of civilians in this territory, and the challenges of intervening or alleviating the conflict in this region. Finding answers to these questions will help achieve the goal of identifying how to strengthen the relationship between International Humanitarian Law and the 2030 Agenda and promote lasting peace [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The trend toward the "humanization" of international law reflects a greater emphasis on individuals rather than simply states as objects of concern. The advance of human rights law (HRL) has been an important impetus for this trend. Some observers suggest that humanization can be furthered even more by applying HRL rather than international humanitarian law (IHL) to hostilities between states and nonstate armed groups, unless a state explicitly declares that it is engaged in an armed conflict. This essay argues, however, that a court should not defer to a state's characterization of hostilities, but should base its analysis on whether hostilities meet the criteria for an armed conflict. Applying HRL to hostilities that effectively are an armed conflict but not acknowledged as such risks diluting the legitimacy and normative force of HRL. On the one hand, if a court applies conventional stringent HRL standards, this body of law may be seen as unrealistic and is likely to be ignored. On the other hand, a court that adapts HRL standards to armed conflict may need to take a consequentialist approach at odds with HRL's deontological foundations. Clearly differentiating between HRL and IHL may thus best promote the humanization of warfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL) contain few obligations for rebel groups, yet those groups are nonetheless under pressure to comply with their foundational international norms. This case study of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) analyzes the evolution of its discourse and behavior related to human rights and IHL. It then compares changes in the group's discourse to evidence of changes in behavior. The study finds that the KLA does significantly change its language, gradually incorporating such language over time, but it also demonstrates that this change is not accompanied by improvements in human rights and IHL adherence in its behavior. The study considers whether greater adoption of these norms is better explained by a constructivist or a rationalist approach and, in particular, looks at the role of legitimacy. In addition, it offers insight into how groups may respond to future pressure to follow these norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the extent to which peacekeeping operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and specifically Operation Sukola II, effectively applied the UN human rights due diligence policy (HRDDP) in the period under review (2014–2021), based upon reports and interviews with individuals with knowledge of the peacekeeping operations. It analyses the complexity and challenges the peacekeepers and Congolese government confronted in the application of HRDDP in the DRC, noting the different challenges in applying this policy due to the highly volatile situations faced. The study argues that in applying the policy in situations such as the DRC, where the conflict is complex, the UN needs to be responsive to unexpected contingencies, with a high degree of flexibility and resilience. It recommends that the UN should review its HRDDP and update its procedures based on gained experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing timely and adequate humanitarian access to those affected by natural disasters and conflicts remains a key subject of the United Nations (UN) Summits. This article examines the role of UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions in the formation and advancement of the international legal framework for humanitarian assistance. To examine this role, this article first examines the main international legal provisions developed within the framework of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, and how they apply to situations requiring humanitarian assistance. The article then provides a comprehensive analysis of UNGA resolutions titled “Strengthening the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the UN.” This analysis coverage began with the first adopted resolution in 1991 and continued through the most recent resolution adopted in 2022. This article notes how the UNGA identifies the key principles of humanitarian assistance, which are impartiality, neutrality, independence, and humanity that are considered to have a key role in addressing the issues related to humanitarian assistance from the UNGA’s perspective. The analysis reveals the relevant international legal rules applicable to the delivery of humanitarian assistance and demonstrates the critical role of the UNGA in defining the legal grounds for humanitarian assistance. UNGA resolutions cover multiple responsibilities and obligations of states and the international community relevant to humanitarian assistance. The article concludes that UNGA resolutions have played a crucial and significant role in defining, clarifying, and expanding the international legal context for humanitarian assistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presented paper discusses the convergence of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in armed conflicts. International human rights law and the human rights law converge and interact with each other because natural law is at the core of both these disciplines of public international law. Although international humanitarian law is a lex specialis , the general rules regarding the interpretation of treaties clearly indicate that international human rights law must be interpreted in the context of other rules of international law, and its possible derogations must be compatible with other international obligations of the state, including humanitarian law. In the event of a conflict between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the mechanism for resolving conflicts between the standards was supplemented by an interpretation based on the principle of 'system integration' of the International Court of Justice which results in the 'humanization' of international humanitarian law. The evolution of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which takes into account the international humanitarian law as the reference norm that should be referred to, demonstrates the close relationship between these areas of law. In the case of the application of universal and regional instruments of international human rights law, we are dealing with the 'humanitarianization' of these rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The priorities reflected in the overarching system that includes the regimes dealing with international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law are currently undergoing a gradual but highly significant transformation. The cause is a growing preoccupation with 'atrocity crimes' in each of the three fields, along with the imposition of criminal sanctions in response to an ever increasing range of violations, the recasting of other violations as crimes (ecocide), and the urge to describe a great many situations as involving genocide. These developments have diminished the attention given to non-criminal violations and to techniques other than prosecution, and facilitated continuing neglect of the structural dimensions underpinning violations. In the foreign policies of key western states, sanctions against individuals now attract more attention than other human rights responses. The risk is that these trends will entrench an atrocity-centred normative hierarchy, empower judges and criminal lawyers at the expense of social movements, shine a spotlight on individual rather than collective responsibility, reinforce problematic North-South dynamics, and distort resource allocations at the international level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Knowledge: International Journal is the property of Institute for Knowledge Management 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 Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin 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 OSCE Moscow Mechanism is one of the generally little-known mechanisms, established in 1991 to facilitate resolution of a particular question or problem relating to the human dimension of the OSCE. This article aims to highlight its role and significant potential to identify relevant patterns of behaviour supported by collected information and evidence on violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in situations that need urgent attention by the international community. Its flexibility and short reactionary time serves to promptly document developments and make them publicly available to inform further actions. At the same time, the mechanism in practice encounters a number of challenges, such as lack of cooperation from the States "under investigation", very short missions' deadlines for submission of their findings and rather limited (technical) support by the designated OSCE Institution, the ODIHR. This article discusses the mechanism as such and then looks into the two of its reports from 2022 concerning the situation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and their impact within the OSCE and beyond. It provides some general conclusions and suggestions on possible improvements of the mechanism going forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the gendered constitution of the regulation of war runs even deeper than typically understood. Instead of merely the laws of war's internal categories being gendered, it is the entire apparatus of war's regulation as expressed in various versions of its denomination that manifests different shades of gender. Specifically, the article shows how the laws of war emerged as the hegemonic masculine synthesis between different conceptions of manhood, from the most unconstrained to the most chivalrous. As that compromise has been challenged by more 'feminine' approaches, this has triggered repeated reassertions of the regulation of war's inherently masculine character. The article speculates about the staying power of the masculine script of war through law at the intersection of misogyny, racism and the politics of legal expertise. It concludes by reflecting on what it might mean to transcend the implicit heteronormativity of the regulation of war by queering its categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal Of the College of Law /Al-Nahrain University 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.)

Copyright of Süleyman Demirel Law Review / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi 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 efforts to regulate private military and security companies (PMSCs) in different UN fora since 2005, in order to understand the processes that led to a significant dilution of initial regulatory ambitions. The analysis of the proceedings of the three working groups relevant to this process suggests a decreasing level of ambition concerning the creation of a binding international instrument that would ensure the compliance of PMSCs with international human rights standards and international humanitarian law. This article argues that the dilution of strong arguments in favor of binding regulation can be attributed to three types of factors: the shifting of the debate from experts and activists to state representatives; the existence of a North-South cleavage on the issue at the intergovernmental level; and the emergence of competing regulatory fora such as private governance by the industry itself (the International Code of Conduct Association) and the Swiss-led initiative for the creation of a soft law instrument (the Montreux Document). Thus, despite an initial general consensus on the threat that unregulated PMSCs pose to human rights, the structure of the regulation process led to a diluted outcome wherein human rights issues were relegated behind the interests of both hegemonic states and the industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution enquires into the relevance of the human security perspective in the analysis of the humanitarian situation created by the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. For this purpose, it will first characterize the war in Ukraine from an international legal perspective, and then introduce the main elements of the human security approach in order to apply it in a third step to the war in Ukraine. In this context the relevance of fact-finding on violations of International Humanitarian Law and human rights will be highlighted. The focus on vulnerabilities and a victim-oriented approach allows to better identify the threats to the security of people, in particular of vulnerable groups. The use of multilateral tools and the empowerment of civil society can help to provide assistance against the suffering and prepare for accountability for war crimes and human rights violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law of Ukraine / Pravo Ukraini is the property of Editorial Board of Journal "Law of Ukraine" 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.)

Academic discussion on the adequacy of international law, in particular international humanitarian law (IHL), to protect women from and to respond to gender-based violence against women (GBVAW) has so far omitted a detailed discussion on the law applicable in non-international armed conflict (NIAC). This article reviews the scope of international law, in particular IHL applicable to NIAC and international human rights law (IHRL), on the protection of women from GBVAW, firstly aiming to fill this lacuna in the literature on GBVAW and secondly in an examination as to whether the law on GBVAW in NIAC adequately protects women from GBVAW in NIAC. This analysis is performed distinctly for sexual violence, non-sexual violence, and women in detention. In applying the substance of the law regarding GBVAW under IHL and IHRL to the legal framework on the mutual application of IHL and IHRL in armed conflict, this article finds that IHL applicable to NIAC and IHRL generally may be interpreted harmoniously in substance regarding sexual violence and partially on non-sexual violence and detention. The consolidation of these regimes thus in theory results in a stronger and wider scope of protection from GBVAW. However, this protection may be limited in practice due to challenges in meeting due diligence in conflict and limited human rights responsibility for non-State parties to the conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In years past, much of the discussion around International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law has been dedicated to considering the convergence of the two regimes; to discover a way to increase respect for the protection of the individual in armed conflict. Meanwhile, egregious violations of individual's human rights continue to occur in armed conflicts – those in Ukraine, Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and many others. This paper surveys the relationship between the two international disciplines, and considers that though IHL and IHRL are two regimes that have different aims, both contain norms that strive for the protection of the individual in armed conflict. Ultimately, this paper argues that protection of individuals in armed conflict can be strengthened by importing IHL norms into the IHRL framework. This cross-pollination allows treaty bodies to interpret, and make comments about, State Parties' adherence to IHL that can increase respect for those norms, given IHRL's associated enforcement mechanisms and communications machinery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States have been increasingly engaging in a practice of ex gratia payments during armed conflict as a way to win 'hearts and minds' or mitigate local animosity from combat operations that cause civilian loss or damage. These represent voluntary payments for damages which are not the result of a violation of the laws of war. This practice provides a contrast to reparations, which are the result of a legal obligation to remedy breaches of law. This article critically assesses how these two concepts interact with each other. Analysing the current practice, this work argues that ex gratia payments can represent another barrier for victims seeking redress. Crucial here is that these payments are seen as both an explicit and implicit waiver of any future claims. This ignores the potential for synergy between the two concepts on both moral and operational grounds. To better facilitate this potential synergy, this article takes inspiration from some of the human rights jurisprudence surrounding reparations programs and considers ex gratia payments in light of their standards instead of accepting them as a blanket waiver. This would align these payments better with both the operational and moral imperatives underlying these payments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the beginning of the seventh century, Islamic law has played an essential role in protecting the personal, economic, judicial, and political rights of civilians during armed conflict. Fourteen centuries before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948, it had already initiated a human revolution consisting of a set of human principles. In addition, Islamic law has made a significant contribution to international humanitarian law (IHL). This paper focuses on two specific legal constructs in warfare: the definition of the combatant and the principle of distinction. This article comparatively examines how these two laws deal with different aspects of war that fall under jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. A comparative analysis of the various elements and aspects of just war theory in Islamic and contemporary international law provides a much deeper understanding of its limitations. We can safely conclude that there is a unique relationship between the Islamic law of war and IHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 20th century was marked by mass murder and crime to humanity, such as genocide, war crime, and ethnic cleansing, resulting in tens of millions of deaths throughout the world. While the objective of establishing the United Nations in 1945 aimed at preventing such crimes, mass murders kept on occurring, as the cases in Bosnia and Rwanda in 1990s. The responsibility to protect (R2P) concept emerged as a response to these failures, by proposing that the sovereignty of a country should be based on the responsibility to protect its citizens, rather than the right to take actions without any intervention from the international world. This research aims at exploring the R2P concept as an attempt to protect human rights in the international humanitarian law context by analyzing the relevant literature and legal norms to discover how this concept can be the basis for protecting human rights under conflict situation and four mass violations of human rights. It used normative legal research method based on international law framework. Two approaches were used, namely conceptual and comparative ones. The research results indicated that R2P concept was the best alternative for humanitarian intervention to protect mankind from such crimes as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. In an intracountry conflict, the international community was responsible through preventive and military intervention attempts. The R2P concept was also relevant in international humanitarian law since it gave a clear framework in protecting human rights and preventing mass crimes, especially in relation to the use of military power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Jurídicas CUC is the property of Corporacion Universidad de la Costa, CUC 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.)

Noting that 2022 marked the 45th anniversary of the Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions – the first treaties that explicitly noted the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law - this column reflects on how the relationship between these two bodies of law has developed since 1977. It demonstrates that while much progress has been made internationally towards understanding the relationship between two bodies of law, there are still obstacles to be overcome if the goal is to apply the two bodies of law in a complementary fashion and achieve the maximum protection of the human person. [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.)

Copyright of Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores is the property of Dilemas Contemporaneos: Educacion, Politica y Valores 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.)

In the brutal armed conflicts which take place even in the 21st century, without a basic observance of the rules of war, serious violations of the basic human rights are almost always present. Some of the recent armed conflicts have been so cruel that they have violated everything that has been adopted so far as standards of human behavior in war conditions. In most contemporary armed conflicts, civilians are often deliberately targeted through the use of illegal means and methods of warfare. Almost all contemporary armed conflicts cause serious violations of children's rights, forced displacement, damage to civilian infrastructure, sexual assaults, even using the humanitarian aid as a weapon of war. On many occasions, violations constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against international law. Unfortunately, the international community sometimes only witnesses these developments without significant results in their prevention. Human rights violations are often accompanied by impunity for the perpetrators, which in some ways undermines the basic idea of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. For these reasons, one of the conclusions in this paper is that the United Nations as a global international organization is most called upon to act effectively to prevent such crimes, as well as to locate responsibility if war crimes have taken place. Hence, the aim of this paper is to contribute to the debate on impermissible violation of international standards established with the International Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law. The paper provides an overview of the treatment of basic human rights in contemporary armed conflicts, with a special focus on conflicts that have taken place in the past two decades and those that are currently ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION. In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) transmitted by airborne droplets was recorded in Wuhan, China. In midJanuary, the virus was detected in Tailand and Japan; in March, the center of the pandemic moved to Europe; in early April, the United States came out on top in terms of the number of infections. To combat the virus, many states have introduced emergency measures, including lockdowns, social distance requirements, mass testing, etc. Te pandemic has affected all spheres of public life, including international relations and international law. Tis article continues the article “COVID-19 and International Law: General Issues”.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Te article analyzes the response to the pandemic on the part of states, organizations and the doctrine of international law; examines special international legal aspects of the pandemic: impact of the pandemic on human rights, WTO law, international investment law, and etc. Te problems of legal regulation in connection with the pandemic are defned and the ways of their solution are determined. Te subject of analysis is the materials of foreign legal press, frst of all, posts and articles on the Internet. In addition to the data of international law, scientifc categories of philosophy, economics and political science are used.RESEARCH RESULTS. In response to the pandemic, many states have closed their borders to the entry of foreigners and the exit of their own citizens; have closed their ports to foreign ships, banned disembarkation and change of crew, or introduced mandatory testing and quarantine; have suspended flights and restricted the export of pharmaceutical ingredients; inter alia, these measures affected foreign investors. Te pandemic has also exacerbated problems of wildlife trade, cybersecurity and compliance with international humanitarian law. Border closures and port restrictions have drawn criticism, including citing violations of International Health Regulations, the law of the sea, refugee law and human rights law. Responses to derogations from investment and WTO obligations have been more restrained; many authors noted the legitimacy of the respective actions of states.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In fact, the pandemic marks tectonic changes: the elimination of the outdated political model of the Modern Times and transition to a new political and legal paradigm. First, it is about changing the subject of the social contract. Te Hobbesian model of this contract implies obedience to the sovereign in exchange for guarantees of rights, as well as inviolability of private life; the new model presupposes the abolition of these guarantees and the imposition on the sovereign of the only obligation – the protection of biological (bare) life, which, in turn, means an unlimited right to intervene. Second, the pandemic is the backdrop for the redistribution of power between states, international organizations, corporations and media; by blurring the line between politics and expertise, it contributes to the anonymization of power, excludes political discussion and removes the requirement of public control. Tird, the pandemic radically changes management methods: under the pretext of a common threat, the state enters into direct contact with citizens, involving constant monitoring, verifcation and restrictions; the new mode of citizenship in this regard implies constant fear, consent to medical manipulations and refusal from unauthorized activity.

Copyright of Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Erciyes 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.)

INTRODUCTION. In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) transmitted by airborne droplets was recorded in Wuhan, China. In mid-January, the virus was detected in Thailand and Japan; in March, the center of the pandemic moved to Europe; in early April, the United States came out on top in terms of the number of infections. To combat the virus, many states have introduced emergency measures, including lockdowns, social distance requirements, mass testing, etc. The pandemic has affected all spheres of public life, including international relations and international law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article analyzes the response to the pandemic on the part of states, organizations and the doctrine of international law; examines the international legal aspects of the pandemic: application of the International Health Regulations 2005, possible responsibility of China and other states, impact of the pandemic on human rights. The problems of legal regulation in connection with the pandemic are defined and the ways of their solution are determined. The subject of analysis is the materials of foreign legal press, first of all, posts and articles on the Internet. In addition to the data of international law, scientific categories of philosophy, economics and political science are used.RESEARCH RESULTS. Major UN bodies have reacted to the pandemic with general statements. WHO positioned itself as an international center for the fight against the virus and made recommendations that, however, were not implemented by states which adopted more restrictive measures. The main document that guided WHO is the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR). Some states and the media accused China of a belated reaction and withholding information. As a result, the doctrine has discussed the issue of bringing a claim against China to the International Court of Justice. The legal basis for this claim could be the provisions of the IHR, the WHO Constitution and a number of duediligence obligations. The jurisdictional basis for applying to the ICJ could be Art. 75 of the WHO Constitution, and to an arbitration Art. 56 IHR. In response to the pandemic, many states have limited human rights; references have been made to the possibility of a temporary derogation from human rights obligations in an emergency and the possibility of limiting human rights in the interests of national security, health and the protection of the rights of others.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The foreign doctrine notes an nsufficient response frominternational organizations and makes proposals aimed at expanding the powers of the UN Security Council in combating the pandemic and at reforming the WHO. In addition, there are shortcomings of the IHR that hinder their effective use. The possibility of holding China accountable is questioned: there is nsufficient evidence of the violation; the threshold for breach of duediligence obligations is very high; China is unlikely to agree to participate in the lawsuit against it. Nevertheless, several lessons can be learned for the law of responsibility (the possibility of deviating from the principle of full compensation, etc.).The procedure for derogating from human rights obligations during a pandemic also needs clarification. In general, the international legal doctrine coped with the task of understanding of the pandemic phenomenon: it systematized and qualified the facts, discovered and formulated legal problems, both private and public, and suggested means to solve them. Few questioned the advisability of such a harsh global reaction and formulated a radical criticism; instead, the shortcomings of individual measures were noted and proposals were made to improve their effectiveness.