Search

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

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

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

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

On 4 August 2022, Amnesty International published its report 'Ukraine: Ukrainian Fighting Tactics Endanger Civilians', in which it accused Ukraine of violating international humanitarian law 'by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals' and in this way putting civilians at risk. According to the report, '[s]uch tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure'. The report sparked some controversies. The question that the author attempts to answer in this article is whether there are any factual or legal arguments supporting the conclusions of the report. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Gdansk Journal of East Asian Studies / Gdanskie Studia Azji Wschodniej is the property of Jagiellonian University Press 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.)

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]

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been widely recognized as one of the most significant threats to peace and security in Europe since World War II. The large-scale proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles in this conflict reveals how drones and autonomous weapons systems are transforming warfare. At the same time, they are raising concerns about the way conflicts are being fought, and how international peace and security is being secured through international humanitarian law. This article therefore provides a deep empirical analysis of the types of drones being deployed in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and their specific contributions to the conflict. The study provides several charts that indicate the make of the drones being used, their type, and the function of each drone employed by both parties to the conflict. The charts highlight various parameters such as maximum speed, endurance, and altitude capabilities. The empirical part of the article then feeds into the second part of the article which delves into the question of whether the drones being used there meet the requirements of the principles of distinction and proportionality as mandated in international humanitarian law. It argues that there seems to be evidence of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, and investigations need to be carried out to determine whether there should be accountability. The article argues that the artificial intelligence being used in drones make them distinct from ordinary weapons as it is their autonomy to make decisions which ensures that accountability for IHL violations is problematic. The article argues that IHL ought to be reformed to deal with these new warfare capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scale of attacks on healthcare has become more visible and its impact greater in recent armed conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan and Myanmar. In these conflicts, combatants systematically target health facilities and ambulances. We need to ensure that attacks on healthcare do not become the new norm amongst governmental troops and non-State armed groups. There is limited evidence about why and how attacks on healthcare have become "normal" practice amongst many combatants, despite the likely tactical and strategic costs to themselves. We are convinced that the problem now needs to be tackled like any other public health issue by assessing: the scale of the problem; who is the most at risk; identifying risk factors; developing new interventions to prevent the risks or address the issue; and evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The natural environment has long been the silent casualty of war according to the Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). As presented by the ICRC, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not reflect the reality of warfare today. Hence, this article builds on the ICRC recommendations with the aim of underlining changes that are essential for protecting the environment during war. Drawing on the experiences from the past and applying them to the current conflict in Ukraine, I propose four broader categories of change. First and foremost, the consensus within the international community is viewed as the basis for any further developments. Thus far politicization has prevented agreement, yet the events since February 24th, 2022, show that there are lessons to be learned. Compromise on the standards and implementation is thus called for, particularly when it comes to the conditions severe, long-term, and widespread damage. From this point of view, international condemnation of environmentally harmful practices in warfare is limited by the conditions' disproportionately broad scope which arguably needs to be narrowed. Secondly, I suggest that mainstreaming environmental protection during armed conflict is of great importance. Such mainstreaming might be most relevant among military personnel during non-international armed conflicts because of the individualistic approach of national military manuals. Nonetheless, mainstreaming could prove appropriate in international armed conflicts as well, given the limited number of rules relating to the environment in international customary and treaty law. Thirdly, the interconnectedness between energy and environment, and the dangers associated with the destruction of energy infrastructure must be made very clear. Bombings or destabilization of nuclear power plants might be even more catastrophic than the burning and spills of oil wells. The last point of this brief is the need for greater accountability for environmental destruction incurred during armed conflict, especially from a systematic point of view. From this standpoint, the past events such as the establishment of the United Nations Compensation Committee for Kuwait, which inter alia addressed the environmental impacts of the conflict, or the ICC decision to focus more on environmental issues could provide inspiration in relation to Ukraine. Besides, the situation in Ukraine could become a potential landmark case. Consequently, the aim of the four propositions presented here is to define the most pressing limitations of IHL related to the natural environment, and to outline potential recommendations for policy makers who address the crisis in Ukraine as well as any further conflicts to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study discusses foreign fighters who take part in the Ukrainian armed conflict. The aim of this study is to know about the history of the armed conflict of Ukraine, study the relevance of International Humanitarian Law to foreign fighters, and study the implementation of Human Rights obtained by foreign fighters based on International Humanitarian Law. The used is juridical-normative legal research or also called document research with secondary data as the main source. Researchers conduct legislative studies to see synchronization between legislation. Data were collected using literature review techniques, such as perusing, analyzing, and drawing conclusions from relevant documents. The results of this study conclude, first, the history of the Ukrainian armed conflict starting from the independence of Ukraine and culminating in the Russian special military operation that occurred on February 24, 2022. Second, the relevance of international humanitarian law to foreign fighters has no specific definition describing foreign fighters and only foreign terrorist fighters. Third, the implementation of human rights against foreign fighters is an inviolable or inalienable human right. However, in its implementation there are still many violations that occur in the armed conflict of Ukraine. Several methods are needed to overcome this problem, namely, the need to increase understanding and awareness regarding IHL and human rights, especially for foreign fighters, to all parties and, make policy recommendations regarding clarity of understanding for foreign fighters, which can then be used as a guide for policymakers and practitioners to increase the certainty of humanitarian protection for foreign fighters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Relaciones Internacionales (1699-3950) is the property of Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, International Relations Studies Group (GERI) Law Faculty 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 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.)

The contribution discusses the implications of the current armed conflict in Eastern Europe, triggered by the act of aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, for jus in bello (international humanitarian law) and international human rights law. It argues that whereas the conflict has brought about serious challenges to these two branches of law, it has also triggered certain promising developments in IHL and IHRL. Those developments have so far manifested themselves in three main areas: the regulation relating to the application of IHL and IHRL; the substantive rules of the two branches; and the enforcement of such rules. Providing examples of such developments, the article argues that the overall impact of the conflict in Ukraine on IHL and IHRL could be, in the long run, predominantly positive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the conflict between Ukraine and Russia -from 2014 to mid-2022- and its impact on the international community. In turn, different episodes that occurred in the context of the conflict will be presented, from the perspective of International Humanitarian Law. Finally, the possible outcomes will be evaluated within the framework of International Criminal Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cuestiones Políticas is the property of Revista Cuestiones Politicas 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 war in Ukraine has caused immense shock in the international community by the serious and repeated violation of basic rules of International Humanitarian Law in particular, attacks on civilians and civilian objects. In addition, methods and means of warfare have been misused on the basis of the precepts and limitations set out in the Geneva Conventions and, specifically, in Additional Protocol (1), as it has been shown by the international press and various international organisations. This paper has as main obiective to reflect on these two issues, bearing in mind that it is an active conflict for what seems difficult, at this time, to assess accurately and in its fullness what will be all the consequences of the war in Eastern Europe. Anyways, the breakdown of the established legal order that has caused this international conflict requires examining the Russian actions on Ukrainian territory to determine which principles of international humanitarian law have been violated and to what extent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review essay aims to consider the law of neutrality, and whether it may be better situated within the jus ad bellum , the body of law governing the use of force, or the jus in bello , the body of law governing hostilities following the initial use of force. In doing so, the essay centres on the recent monograph by Constantine Antonopoulos on the subject of the law of neutrality, wherein the author assures us that despite the legal innovations of the last century, the law of neutrality has remained squarely within the modern jus in bello. The present writer takes a somewhat different approach, although appreciates the doctrinal allure of keeping the law of neutrality separate from jus ad bellum considerations, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the legality of Western states providing weapons to Ukraine. It focuses on five areas of international law: (1) the jus ad bellum ; (2) the law of neutrality; (3) international humanitarian law; (4) state responsibility for complicity in internationally wrongful acts; and (5) international criminal law. It concludes that weapons transfers likely violate the law of neutrality, entitling Russia to respond with countermeasures; that Russia can lawfully target transferred weapons under IHL; and that weapons transfers could lead to state and individual responsibility if evidence comes to light that the Ukrainian military is using weapons previously supplied by the West to commit war crimes. By contrast, providing weapons to Ukraine does not violate the jus ad bellum because they are in service of Ukraine's right of self-defence against Russia and does not make the supplying states co-belligerents in Russia's international armed conflict with Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International humanitarian law, known as the law of war, aims to limit the destructive effects of armed conflicts that can have a significant impact on human integrity. Through the provisions of the international legal norms, a special protection is granted both to combatants hors de combat and to civilians. Being part of the first mentioned category, prisoners of war have the protection provided by the 3rd Geneva Convention concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1949. Starting from the presentation of the main provisions of international humanitarian law regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, this paper aims to highlight the fact that there may be uncertainties regarding the application of international norms. This situation is argued through the study undertaken on the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict. An important finding is that the provisions of the Geneva Convention related to the analyzed issue were violated. Also, the situation in Ukraine demonstrates the difficulty through which the nature of an international conflict can be established. Last but not least, it is noted that the granting of prisoner of war status is closely related to the national interests of a state. This paper demonstrates which aspects contribute to the need to adapt the norms of international humanitarian law to the present. And this is its practical implication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The urgency of the research is conditioned by the actual status of the governmental and legal reality of Ukraine which is in conditions of the armed conflict seventh year in a row resulting in the need to ensure both state sovereignty and guarantee and protection of human rights. In this regard, the article is aimed at studying the interaction of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as their implementation in the legislation of Ukraine in conditions of an armed conflict. Scientific methods of research of the declared problems are the system method by means of which the international human rights law and the international humanitarian law are considered as two systems of more difficult complex - the international law. Using the structural-functional method, the structure and mechanisms of functional interaction of these systems on the legal regulation in the field of human rights in specific conditions are studied. The article analyzes the legal basis of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as their possible simultaneous application in the context of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. Emphasis is placed on the need to ensure compliance with the principles of international humanitarian law and to bring to justice those guilty of violating the rules of the IHRL and IHL. The research results can be used in the educational process and further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Continuing Professional Education: Theory & Practice is the property of Continuing Professional Education: Theory & Practice 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 Strategic Review / Przeglad Strategiczny is the property of Faculty of Political Science & Journalism, Adam Mickiewicz 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.)

This article investigates the main international remedies against infringement of civilians’ property rights that physical persons can make use of and, in some cases, have already made use of following violations of their property rights during the military operations in the East of Ukraine and during the annexation of Crimea by Russia. In particular, we analyse protection of property rights of civilians using the remedies for victims of violations of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts. The initial attention to this aspect is due to the fact that this branch of international law, although it should be applied in armed conflicts together with international human rights law, has the status of lex specialis in the event of a conflict of norms. A system of means to protect civilian objects on the basis of norms that create prohibitions or obligations was developed under the international humanitarian law in an effort to ensure the normal life of civilian population in the zone of armed conflict. Compliance with these norms by belligerents should contribute to the preservation of these objects and, therefore, of the property rights to them. At the same time, international humanitarian law does not comprehensively regulate the issue of liability for violation of property rights during armed conflicts and the procedure for bringing to liability, it is done by applying the law of international responsibility and international criminal law. The first defines the types of state liability for misconduct during armed conflicts, the second – the types of liability of physical persons responsible for committing war crimes, who are brought to liability, for example, through the mechanism of the International Criminal Court. At the same time, implementation of the universal treaty-based control mechanisms for the protection of human rights under the UN principles is complicated by the fact that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, as the most comprehensive document in the field of universal economic, social, and cultural rights, does not provide for the obligations of states to guarantee and protect property rights. Such protection can only be carried out indirectly on the basis of this act. This can also be done on the basis of other international human rights treaties, but only if the violation of property rights is the result of non-compliance with anti-discrimination norms. In addition, these procedures have systemic shortcomings (long-term nature, excessive bureaucracy, lack of effective mechanisms to influence the state that violates rights, moreover, to influence illegal territorial entities), which call into question their effectiveness. At the same time, other mechanisms may be implemented under the UN principles to help protect the rights of civilians during armed conflicts. Thus, the UN Human Rights monitoring mission in Ukraine is currently operating in Ukraine, with a mandate that takes into account provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which provides for the right of everyone to own property. Therefore, it includes all human rights without exception, which also allows the Mission to ascertain violations of property rights and track the progress that Ukraine is making in eliminating such violations, but the impact of this mission on the self-proclaimed republics of DPR and LPR, as well as on Russia, which systematically violates human rights in Crimea, is not so obvious and significant. At the same time, from the owner’s point of view, the most effective international legal mechanism for the protection of property rights is the mechanism of resolving disputes between physical persons and the state in the European Court of Human Rights, since if the court finds a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, the injured party can be awarded just satisfaction for material or moral damage. In addition, according to the principle of restitutio in integrum (restoration, as complete as possible, of the legal status of the recoverer before the violation of the Convention), the Court can rule for the state to adopt individual measures aiming to restore the violated rights of a person, which is of particular interest in matters of protection of property rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]