Search

The first Geneva Conventions were signed in 1864 and this initial effort to put humanity in war has since developed into a network of international conventions and customary rules which include the dead as a group that must be protected during and following armed conflicts. During the First and Second World Wars, parties to the conflict were obliged to recover the dead from battlefields, document identifying marks including the collection of identification discs, and to bury the body in a marked grave. Those parties' signatory to the laws regulating war at the time, could not have predicted the millions of losses of civilians and combatants resulting in the thousands of casualties left unrecovered at the end of both world wars. The prolonged requirement to recover, identify and bury newly-found World War dead is managed differently by each country; albeit with no universal approach that acknowledges the need to integrate the moral imperative of dignified post-war care of the dead with rapidly changing technology and equally rapidly ageing of families of the missing. The International Committee of the Red Cross is a longtime actor in providing humanitarian service to soldiers and civilians in war. This includes expertise in the legal framework regulating armed conflict, in the provision of a central system to aid in tracing those who go missing during war, including those from the world wars, and in the growing field of humanitarian forensics. This paper will discuss the applicable international frameworks for the protection world war dead, while promoting the ICRC's role as resource and advocate., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Under customary international law, the First Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, medical personnel are protected against intentional attack. In § 1 of this paper, we survey these legal norms and situate them within the broader international humanitarian law framework. In § 2, we explore the historical and philosophical basis of medical immunity, both of which have been underexplored in the academic literature. In § 3, we analyse these norms as applied to an attack in Afghanistan (2015) by the United States; the United States was attempting to target a Taliban command-and-control centre but inadvertently destroyed a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital instead, killing 42 people. In § 4, we consider forfeiture of medical immunity and, more sceptically, whether supreme emergency could justify infringement of non-forfeited protected status., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Since 1945, the reason for humanitarian crises and the way in which the world responds to them has dramatically changed every 10 to 15 years or less. Planning, response, and recovery for these tragic events have often been ad hoc, inconsistent, and insufficient, largely because of the complexity of global humanitarian demands and their corresponding response system capabilities. This historical perspective chronicles the transformation of war and armed conflicts from the Cold War to today, emphasizing the impact these events have had on humanitarian professionals and their struggle to adapt to increasing humanitarian, operational, and political challenges. An unprecedented independent United Nations-World Health Organization decision in the Battle for Mosul in Iraq to deploy to combat zones emergency medical teams unprepared in the skills of decades-tested war and armed conflict preparation and response afforded to health care providers and dictated by International Humanitarian Law and Geneva Convention protections has abruptly challenged future decision-making and deployments. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:109-115).

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 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]

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]

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.)

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”.

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 Russian aggression against Ukraine involves extensive use of air power, proving that without the sufficient level of air control, the combat operations on the ground face significant operational challenges. The use of air power raises questions regarding the legality of the aerial actions conducted over Ukraine. This conflict in the air domain is characterised by separate campaigns. The first one was a battle over the air superiority of Ukraine, which was relatively short in time (February–April 2022), albeit intense, and lost by the Russian Air Force due to the inability to destroy Ukrainian air defence assets and Ukrainian military aviation. The second one, still in progress at the moment this article is being written, looks to become an unresolved contest of attrition, as both belligerents vastly increased their air disruption capabilities. In particular, during the last period of the first phase, it is believed that many of the Russian air strikes were, in fact, indiscriminate or deliberately directed against civilian objectives. The aim of the article is to analyse the overall conduct of the air war over Ukraine and pinpoint the legal challenges in assessing the legality of such air operations. In the context of available information, the paper will seek to understand the legal framework concerning the destruction of the An-225 at the Hostomel airport during the first phase of hostilities, the use of certain aerial weapons, and the selection of targets.

The protection of civilians is a basic ethical, strategic, and legal requirement for the international community and every democratic state, one of the key aspects of any military (combat) action. Such protection should not only be proclaimed, but also serve as a priority. If armed forces during armed conflicts rely on the foundation laid by international humanitarian law and adhere to civilised rules of military (combat) operations, then the damage caused to the civilian population can be minimised. This problem is also important in terms of the international and national legal protection of the civilian population during the international military conflict in Ukraine.

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

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.

Issues of legal regulation of military captivity are very relevant. At different times, humanity has experienced many wars and military conflicts, with which came experience and the realization that even during armed confrontation it is necessary to respect the law, show mercy and humanity towards an enemy who is helpless or does not want to fight. The emergence of norms in the field of military captivity in international humanitarian law dictated the necessary desire of countries to implement these norms into national legislation. The rapid development of modern law and legal policy determines the increase in the culture of society, and at the same time the preservation of humanity and respect for the human dignity of prisoners of war. Our country, being a highly developed and rule-of-law state, has always strived to implement the norms of international law in the field of military captivity, both in Soviet and Russian legislation. However, in the history of domestic law to this day, organizational, political and legal problems arise in the implementation of the norms of international humanitarian law relating to military captivity into national legislation. The above problems are a consequence of a complex of social reasons, both objective and private. Continuing research into the dynamics of the process of implementing the norms of international law in the field of military captivity into Russian legislation, a comprehensive study of the issue of legal implementation of the implemented norms will allow us to find ways to solve problems in this area, as well as draw a conclusion regarding the further development of legal norms relating to military captivity in our country.

Copyright of Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Luridica is the property of Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego 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 Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Luridica is the property of Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego 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.)

Autonomous Weapon Systems have been on the international agenda for more than ten years now. Autonomy in warfare and its attached promises have been dubbed as the most recent revolution in military technologies. Many commentators have a rather sceptical view of these systems. They believe that the very existence of international humanitarian law and the minimal protection offered by it are at risk due to the gradually increasing use of autonomous weapons. Albeit a minority, some other commentators welcome the development of these warrior machines, with the insinuation that wars will be conducted more humanely due to the dehumanisation of warfare. This paper undertakes to evaluate these autonomous systems in terms of their compatibility with the requirements brought about by the principle of distinction, one of the cardinal principles of international humanitarian law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The war in Ukraine brought the collective security system towards a dead-end street. After raising the question of nuclear threat, another long-time forgotten question arises again, waking up the ghosts that slept for more than a half-century-the use of cluster bombs. Although an international convention prohibits this type of weapon, neither Ukraine, Russia, nor the United States are part of it, which leads back to the agony of fragmentation of international law versus the erga omnes concept of universally applicable norms and customary rules. Since the war is official and intensive, the law of armed conflict applies no matter which of the states involved denies it or names it differently. The use of cluster munitions from both sides is highly contested in international law--the paper aimed to provide an overview of the applicable legal framework through analytical and comparative methods. Although there is a general notion that cluster munition is banned under international law, the paper's results show this is not the ultimate case. Contextualisation relies on the four basic principles of humanitarian law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Justicia (0124-7441) is the property of Universidad Simon Bolivar 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 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]

In this iteration of the Review 's "Beyond the Literature" series, we have invited Ezequiel Heffes to introduce his recent book Detention by Non-State Armed Groups under International Law , before then posing a series of questions to Tilman Rodenhäuser, René Provost, Mariana Chacón Lozano and Katharine Fortin, who have agreed to serve as discussants of the book. Tilman Rodenhäuser is a Legal Adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), with particular expertise in non-State armed groups (NSAGs) and detention. René Provost is the James McGill Professor of Law at McGill University and has written extensively on public international law, including his recent monograph Rebel Courts: The Administration of Justice by Armed Insurgents. Mariana Chacón Lozano has served as the Operational Legal Coordinator for the ICRC in Colombia since October 2020 and has worked for the ICRC since 2011. Katharine Fortin is Associate Professor at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights within the Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance of Utrecht University. The Review team is grateful to all four discussants, and to Ezequiel, for taking part in this engaging conversation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dr Marja Lehto is Ambassador for International Legal Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, and Adjunct Professor of International Law at the University of Helsinki. She was a member of the United Nations (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) and served as the Special Rapporteur for the topic "Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts" from 2017 to 2022. Dr Lehto is also a member of the Council of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law since 2019. She has formerly served, inter alia , as Legal Adviser to the Finnish UN Mission in New York (1995–2000), as Head of the Unit for Public International Law (2000–09), and as Finland's Ambassador to Luxembourg (2009–14). For most of her career, she has worked on issues related to international peace and security, including international criminal justice and international humanitarian law (IHL), and she has published on a broad range of international legal questions related to the law of the sea, international environmental law (IEL), State succession, use of force, armed conflicts, terrorism and cyber security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The protection of the environment during warfare attracted significant attention in the 1990s, especially after the 1990–91 Gulf War. It became clear at that time that the few rules provided by international humanitarian law (IHL) aimed specifically at protecting the environment were insufficient. Various studies have since been undertaken with the aim of strengthening that protection from an IHL perspective. It is only recently that scholars and institutions like the International Law Commission have started to reflect on how to better protect the environment in armed conflict through the lens of another branch of international law, namely, international environmental law (IEL). Such an approach has involved examining the interplay between IHL and IEL, and scholars have subsequently proposed and then elaborated on frameworks in that respect. This paper intends to identify common trends of those frameworks and to critically appraise them, with the aim of providing a suitable approach to the interplay between IHL and IEL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is Germany legally obligated to condemn violations of international humanitarian law? This argument was recently put forward in an article on Verfassungsblog. Elsewhere it was claimed that Germany, along with other States failing to utilize their full repertoire of diplomatic options (including “[calling] for a permanent ceasefire”), is in breach of its own IHL-responsibilities. Admittedly, international law does have a say when organs of States speak. Nevertheless, the intricacies of this matter go beyond first impression. I submit that such a duty is not as easy to derive in the present case as is suggested by opposing views.

Through the idea of asking what I describe as 'jester's questions' that are comfortable with paradox, this Afterword to the Special Issue reflects upon the value of critical, multi-disciplinary approaches for international law, the parallel binaries and pluralities in international law, and the relevance and capabilities of international humanitarian law regarding legal identity under insurgencies and unrecognised states. I suggest that the critique offered by the multi-/inter-disciplinary approaches in this Special Issue highlights international law's limits given the realities of the issuance of identity documentation by non-state entities. At the same time, precisely by illuminating those practical realities, this collection alerts us to the accompanying nuances existing in the law. Through this entry point, we are encouraged back, better-equipped, to international law and to better understand where and how it can already cope with greater complexity and compromise than might often be assumed. It allows us to place real demands on the law to prove itself as relevant and capable of protecting people, somehow holding together that paradox of universal principle and grounded application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT launched in November 2022, triggering a global debate on the use of artificial intelligence (AI). A debate on AI-enabled lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has been underway far longer. Two sides have emerged: one in favor and one opposed to an international law ban on LAWS. This essay explains the position of advocates of a ban without attempting to persuade opponents. Supporters of a ban believe LAWS are already unlawful and immoral to use without the need of a new treaty or protocol. They nevertheless seek an express prohibition to educate and publicize the threats these weapons pose. Foremost among their concerns is the "black box" problem. Programmers cannot know what a computer operating a weapons system empowered with AI will "learn" from the algorithm they use. They cannot know at the time of deployment if the system will comply with the prohibition on the use of force or the human right to life that applies in both war and peace. Even if they could, mechanized killing affronts human dignity. Ban supporters have long known that "AI models are not safe and no one knows how to reliably make them safe" or morally acceptable in taking human life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International lawyers ascribe to the lex specialis principle three distinctly different meanings. Thus, lex specialis is referred to, first, as a norm designed to resolve conflicts between entire categories of norms; secondly, as a norm designed to resolve conflicts on a case-by-case basis; and, thirdly, as a rule of interpretation designed to avoid the occurrence of normative conflicts, rather than to resolve them. Scholars have attempted to explain this divergent use of legal language. In so doing, they have consistently had their focus on the different mind-sets or inclinations of lawyers active in different branches of international law. Symptomatic is Marko Milanović, who pictured the divergent use of lex specialis as a reflection of a debate waged between "human rights enthusiasts" and "human rights sceptics". This article approaches the issue at a different level of abstraction. As it argues, the divergent use of lex specialis is the result of users' different conceptions of an international legal system. Thus, lawyers conceive differently of the lex specialis principle, depending on whether they take the position of a legal positivist, a legal idealist or a legal realist. In no case are lawyers equipped to conceive of this principle in all of its three senses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

This article traces the expansion of international law from the Hague Conventions, where only a state's soldiers had legal status, to the contemporary understanding that international law governs all participants in conflict. This can be seen as a humanitarian shift that diminishes state power. This article, however, argues that the Hague Conventions only established a limited sphere of formal law because delegates deliberately left free-fighters outside the law, to be governed by their own will and moral code. In doing so, delegates echoed a philosophical tradition that situates true freedom outside the state. As this article shows, the expansion of law to include such fighters required the replacement of such alternative codes with a renewed and extended range of formal legal criteria. As such, the expansion of international law to the realm outside the state has led to a reaffirmation of that law which is synonymous with the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article arises as a product of updating and deepening the teaching activity in the area of Public International Law. The main objective is to describe the legal-political regulation for armed actors, legal and illegal, in the Colombian and demarcated territory in the context relative to the year 2021. The methodology obeys a descriptive investigation that is supported by the collection of information from secondary sources through the technique of webmining or electronic mining, using qualitative research techniques, framed in the scope of the Final Peace Agreement between the Farc-Ep and the Colombian State. It explores the areas of military privileges, amnesties for crimes considered political, and the transits of ordinary justice in exceptional frameworks of political conjunctures for the achievement of peace-building scenarios. The main results are classified in the regulation for legal and illegal armed actors and as a main conclusion, the difficulties of the imperative application of contemporary international regulations are put forward, given the custom acquired by international society within the classic scenario of international relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does international law restrict the use of force by states in self-defense even when their survival is threatened? Should it? To answer these questions, I compare international law to domestic law and develop two ideal-types of emergency: in a 'subject emergency' law imposes absolute, justiciable limits on self-defense. In a 'community emergency' the sovereign, not law, determines what is necessary for the survival of the community and its legal system: sustaining the rule of law justifies its temporary retreat. I show that international law has elements of both ideal-types. It imposes some absolute limits on self-defense. However, international law also retreats, allowing the victim state to determine the (1) aims, (2) ad bellum proportionality, and (3) end of self-defense, as if armed threats triggered community emergencies. These three retreats serve the function of sustaining the rule of international law over the states at war. Retreats (1) and (3) also help sustain the rule of international law over the international community. That international law does and should not treat armed threats against states simply as subject emergencies, shows it can only sustain the rule of international law in an emergency by retreating. This is a negative litmus test for international law's ability to diffuse anarchy in International Relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

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.)

This article analyzes the contribution to modern warfare that might potentially be made by the “cyber militia” – a body of volunteers undertaking defense-related activities in cyberspace on behalf of a state, with that state’s formal recognition, and with some degree of coordination or guidance by that state, but outside the ambit of the state’s regular armed forces or national security structure. Through real world examples from cyber warfare and a literary review of the field, this article suggests a definition for such a cyber militia and outlines the roles such a body may play. It also considers how international law may impact the type of cyber militia envisaged above. Account is taken both of relevant law applying outside armed conflict, and the international humanitarian law that applies in situations of armed conflict. The article discusses the possible benefits and challenges following a state’s adoption of a formally recognized cyber militia.

The International humanitarian law, through a set of international conventions, protects prisoners of war from any violation or infringement of human rights during their captivity. The status of prisoners of war is only applicable in international armed conflicts. After The Hague Convention had failed to identify the categories of fighters who would benefit from their privileges as prisoners of war in World War II, the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and their protocols were established to justify the inclusion of broader categories of combatants. Descriptive and analytical approaches are used in the study reported in this article to identify the category of people regarded as prisoners of war. by examining international treaties and agreements in relation to the definition of a prisoner of war before characterising the individuals who fulfil the criteria of “prisoner of war” under these treaties. Moreover, it explains the legal mechanisms necessary to ensure that the parties involved in international conflicts comply with the international conventions on prisoners of war. This article concludes that the prisoners of war are often members of the military forces of one of the belligerents who fall into the hands of the opposing party and other types of people who possess the right to the status of prisoners of war or can be treated as prisoners of war following the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. In contrast, traitors, deserters and mercenaries are not considered the prisoners of war. If they commit a war crime, they can be prosecuted by the internal law of the Detaining Power. On the other hand, the overlapping definitions of the prisoners of war can create confusion in combatant interactions during the armed conflict, hence increases violations. Consequently, states must take practical steps to prevent any expected violations against the prisoners of war, for instance enacting national laws to ensure international treaties compliance and raise the awareness of international law among leaders and officials during armed conflicts to limit the violence against combatants.

Children are one of the most vulnerable categories of victims during armed conflicts. Although several international instruments exist to protect them and civilians in general, there are still many violations committed against children worldwide. This article reports a pure doctrinal research that has used a descriptive analytical approach. It seeks to address the issue of the protection of children from the perspective of International Humanitarian Law. The context of the study is its focus on Israeli violations committed during three wars in the Gaza Strip, i.e., in 2008, 2012 and 2014. The violations were analysed using the framework of the rules and principles of International Humanitarian Law, specifically the Geneva Convention IV and its two additional protocols regarding the protection of children during armed conflicts. It is important to understand the nature of the protection provided to children under International Humanitarian Law and to identify whether the Israeli forces breached the rules during the three wars. This will expose the Israeli violations and provide better protection for the people in Gaza, especially children in wartime. Finally, the study summarises that the International Humanitarian Law provides a special protection to children in wartime alongside the protection provided to civilians. It also concludes that during the wars in the Gaza Strip, i.e., in 2008, 2012 and 2014, Israel did violate the principles of International Humanitarian Law concerning children and the civilians in general.

INTRODUCTION. The world has many times faced cardinal changes triggered by technological development. Creation of the Internet and the emergence of the artificial intelligence have become the major trend of the ongoing changes with the signifi-cant potential to affect all spheres of live, including the military affairs and the geopolitical phenomena in general. In this paper, in particular, we discuss the opportunities and challenges of the rapid technological development in the defense sector in the context of globalization. The pace and the nature of changes in defense dictate the necessity to analyze the current and future challenges of our digitized age in search of adequate and timely legal and strategic practical solutions. Cyber means of warfare are the weapons of the present. Over the past decades, cyber means of warfare have been frequently used against states in the context of international and non-international armed conflicts, as well as outside of such context. Thus, the fundamental scientific questions that arise are the following: a) are the current legal regulations at international and national levels sufficient to address all the challenges caused by the spillover of armed conflicts into the virtual domain and by the future advancement of cyber weapons, and b) are the current cyber weapons or those of the future capable of changing the nature of “war” described by General Carl von Clausewitz yet in the 19th century as a violent method of forcing its political will by one party of the conflict to the other. We have analyzed the above-mentioned questions in the light of the cyber weapons, which already exist and are being used for military purposes, in the light of possible advancement of cyber weapons and integration of AI into them, as well as in the light of the Big Data management. We have reflected on the dangers, which the smart and entirely data driven world would face, from legal and geopolitical perspectives, through the several possible scenarios of development, emphasizing, in particular, the probable military (defense) aspect of data management. While most frequently the specific problems of application of International Law to the traditional cyber warfare situations become subject for academic debates and discussions, we stress the necessity to also analyze the legal and practical implications of further advancement of cyber weapons, as well as the necessity to consider the role of Big Data management in changing the nature of war and, consequently, also the applicable legal solutions.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The works of academics and international scholars in the field of international law and, specifically, international humanitarian law, and military theorists, as well as international treaties, commentaries to international treaties, and national cyber defense and cyber security strategies comprise the theoretical basis for the current paper. The research has been conducted via general and specific scientific methods of cognition, in particular the dialectical method, comparative legal method, method of interpretation, as well as methods of deduction, induction, analysis, synthesis, and others.RESEARCH RESULTS. The ongoing changes taking place in the world have resulted in a situation, when cyber domain is considered one of the traditional war domains. In this context the international community is now debating more flexible interpretations of international legal regulations in order to most efficiently address the new reality. It is also important that states at national level undertake measures to timely and adequately address the challenges already created and those that potentially may take place as a result of the globalization along with the rapid evolution of the cyber technologies and their military use. In the current article we conclude that the categories of the present generation of cyber weapons are lawful. However, the future developments in cyber weapon technologies, as well as the possible quasi-military implications of Big Data management raise many theoretical and practical questions deserving attention. The efforts of the international community and individual states in the field of legal regulation of cyber technologies should be directed toward creating guarantees that the products of the technological development are used for the benefit of humankind. As one of such measures The Authors indicate national cyber security and cyber defense strategies, which according to the Authors, should be elaborated giving due consideration to the possible future developments.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In this paper we analyze the peculiar features of evolution of the world in the 21st century and argue that wars are not static and autonomous phenomena isolated from the global context and all the changes taking place in the world. In particular, we address one of the most popular debates among the scholars in the field of military affairs concerning the issue whether the nature of war has changed or will change overtime, referring to Carl von Clausewitz’s thoughts. With regard to the current generation of cyber weapons, we conclude that even if they might prima facie seem to be inherently indiscriminate (such as, for example, nuclear weapons) in reality cyber weapons are not per se indiscriminate, but rather are weapons with a very high potential of being used indiscriminately or in violation of the principle of discrimination. However, the high potential of indiscriminate use of cyber weapons does not outlaw the cyber weapons as such. We also agree with the widely accepted opinion that the cyber weapons, which are currently used, are sufficiently regulated by the International Law. At the same time, the future tendencies for advancement and improvement of military cyber technologies, inter alia, via integration of artificial intelligence, may seriously call into question the possibility of their application in compliance with the international legal regulations. Finally, the possible scenarios of advancement of Big Data management have led us to the conclusion that big data management per se has the potential of being used as a weapon with less lethal or even non-lethal consequences, however equally effective in enforcing one’s policy as the traditional weapons or potentially kinetic cyber-weapons. If big data analysis at its current stage of development does not produce very accurate predictions, the well-distributed and structured informational flow in the cyber domain is capable of influencing and manipulating behaviours. In such case if Big data monopoly (including both: hardware and soſtware) vests in one of several actor, it could drastically change the nature of war by making the element of violence redundant and consequently alter the geopolitical balance. One of the measures for early response to future challenges, in our opinion, could be through reflecting on lex ferenda in cyber security and cyber defence national strategies. From the analysis of the content of different strategies we could conclude that most states acknowledge cyberspace as a military domain like land, air or maritime, analyse the main specific characteristics of current generation of cyber weapons, and set state objectives and action plan for cyber offense, cyber defense and cyber deterrence respectively. While the future advancement of cyber means of warfare and the quasi-military dimension of the big data management seem to be overlooked by states in general.

What was the relationship between international law and colonial warfare in the period of both increasingly formal imperialism and international law's professionalisation and codification in the nineteenth-century's second half? Existing work may lead to assumptions that international law would not be seen to apply to colonial wars, or served to justify them alone. This article turns away from previous focuses on the intellectual history of international law, prescriptive sources such as military manuals, and approaches extending from criminal law and colonial policing to demonstrate how and why imperial officials, politicians, and activists believed international law applied to colonial wars. Examining the British Empire, it shows how arguments about the use of international law in this period initially varied in the service of imperial interests, how and why public activism increasingly encouraged a more consistent approach – and discusses implications for the history and present of the law of armed conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]