Search

Abstract 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.

The article reveals the criminal law characteristics of war crimes in the International Criminal Law, International Humanitarian Law and under the National Criminal Law. The category of “war crimes” is analysed and its Criminal Law description is made in terms of substantive, international and national components in the context of combining theoretical and applied aspects of war crimes research. A comparative analysis of war crimes in both International Criminal Law and National Criminal Law has been made, with the examples of application of Article 438 of the CC of Ukraine from judicial practice provided, and the legislative regulation of the term “war crimes” in the CC of Ukraine has been proposed, given the trend of clear separation of the category of war crimes which has been observed since the beginning of the armed conflict in Ukraine in the National Criminal Law science and in law application which remains doctrinal. The range of problematic issues of interpretation and enforcement of Art. 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine arising in court practice in the course of implementation of this provision has been outlined, such as the “international legal” blanket nature of the disposition of Art. 438 of the CC of Ukraine, the need for ratification of the Rome Statute and implementation of its provisions into national legislation, low sanctions for war crimes, distinguishing war crimes from other international crimes, as well as war crimes from “general criminal” offences provided for in other articles of the Special Part of the CC of Ukraine. It has been proved that courts in criminal proceedings should establish a contextual element when qualifying violations of the laws and customs of war under Article 438 of the CC of Ukraine as an independent element of war crimes, which makes it possible to distinguish them from "general criminal" offences provided for in other sections of the CC of Ukraine. The low sanction of Part 1 of Art. 438 of the CC of Ukraine has been stated and proposals have been made to strengthen it in order to establish in the Criminal Law a relevant punishment for persons who committed war crimes during the armed conflict in Ukraine, which is a requirement of today.

INTRODUCTION. In recent decades, there has been an escalation of armed clashes in the territories of African states, the states of the Middle East and Central Asia with the participation of military formations, international terrorist groups that everywhere use the practice of attacking and looting cultural property as a military strategy. In this regard, of scientific and practical interest is a comprehensive study of the legal and organizational foundations of international legal regulation of the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts, evaluation of their effectiveness and identification of promising tasks for the development of additional measures and strategies for the preservation of cultural heritage, taking into account new challenges and threats.MATERIALS AND METHODS. This paper examines the provisions of key international treaties, decisions of the main bodies and specialized agencies of the UN, which together form the existing international legal regime for the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. The author also analyzes the jurisprudence of international criminal justice bodies on bringing individuals to justice for deliberate attacks on cultural sites as part of hostilities. Special attention is paid to the study of scientific works of both domestic and foreign scientists, within which international legal concepts are formed, designed to resolve existing problems in the current international legal regulation of the issue under study, as well as to form promising concepts in the framework of the development of the doctrine of international law. The methodological basis is made up of general scientific and special research methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. According to the results of the study, it was found that during the XX century states have consistently developed norms for the protection of cultural property from threats associated with armed conflicts, while the XXI century was marked by best practice in the application of the rules on liability for attacks on cultural property in situations of armed conflict in the activities of international justice bodies. In addition, it was determined that for the first time in the history of UN peacekeeping, the UN Security Council tested the mandate of the Multidisciplinary Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, in which the peacekeeping contingent, among other things, performed the tasks of protecting, safeguarding and restoring cultural heritage sites together with UNESCO. It seems significant to identify and generalize the prospects for the development of new international legal measures for the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations, taking into account the changing nature of armed conflicts, the intensification of the activities of international terrorist groups and the growing practice of destroying the centuries-old cultural heritage of peoples in the framework of the so-called “cultural cleansing". The topical aspect of the study was the establishment of new approaches of states to the protection of cultural heritage as a means of ensuring international peace and security.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The publication presents the author's objective assessments of the established international legal framework, judicial practice of international criminal justice bodies, as well as doctrinal approaches of both domestic and foreign scientists on the issue of international legal regulation of the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts. Separately, the forms of international legal cooperation of states at the UN site within the framework of the UNESCO profile organization for the development of modern regulatory and organizational foundations for the interaction of the competent authorities of states to prevent and suppress the destruction of cultural heritage, as well as the looting and illegal export of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict, especially terrorist groups.

INTRODUCTION. Fighting is increasingly taking place in populated areas, including large cities, which leads to indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects. This problem is recognized by the UN, by an increasing number of States and requires training of combatants to choose and apply appropriate means and methods of war in populated areas to prevent or minimize accidental harm to the civilian population and civilian objects in such conditions. However, for example, the actions of the US-led coalition in 20162017 to liberate Iraqi Mosul from terrorists, the armed formations of Ukraine in the Donbas since 2014, which caused unjustifiably large civilian casualties and destruction of urban infrastructure, indicate that the Western powers and their satellites ignored these requirements.The purpose of the article is to identify and scientifically analyze problematic issues in the application of international humanitarian law for the protection of civilians and civilian objects in armed conflicts in urbanized areas.MATERIALS AND METHODS. To reveal the theoretical aspects of the problem under consideration, a system-structural approach, generalization, deduction, methods of scientific abstraction, logical and system analysis are applied. Special research methods were also used: historical-legal, comparative-legal and formal-legal.RESEAECH RESULTS. Within the framework of this publication, the authors analyzed the problems of international legal protection of civilians and civilian objects in the context of hostilities in an urbanized area and developed proposals for their solution.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. According to the results of the study, it was found that the principles and norms of international law developed by mankind as a whole make it possible to ensure the protection of the civilian population and civilian objects during the conduct of hostilities, including in cities, under the key condition the realization of responsibility for crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes.

With the advent of new weapons of different nature and type of use on the battlefields in recent regional and international conflicts and the increasing development of weapons of the autonomous, intelligent, UAV and non-lethal weapons, most activists and thinkers in the field of armed conflict To study the feasibility of observing the principles and regulations governing international humanitarian law, as well as the responsibility of the states that own and use these types of weapons, and to study and analyze theoretical and practical issues in this field. to describe precisely doubts have been risen for some that the rules and principles of the philanthropy international law is completely obsolete and inefficient in adapting the new ways of conflicts. But the fact is Yet with the notable advancements in the field of technology, these rules and principles are still in use. In fact, the origins of these rules, which are the public conscience, as well as the flexibility of humanitarian law rules make it possible to adapt to new conflicts. Although new software wars, like any other emerging phenomenon, have created legal challenges for manufacturers and tensions between countries, these tensions can be reduced by regulating specific regulations. Although the general principles governing armed conflict may suffice, in this area we need to update the rules governing them so that a precautionary approach can be taken to prevent tensions between the owners of these weapons and the limits of their use in accordance with international regulations and in the light of international responsibility. Specified the type of aggravated responsibility.

Children are one of the greatest victims of terrorist attacks and are subject to severe mental and physical harm. Using minors in terrorist actions and suicide operations, ISIS generates extensive moral and physical consequences for the children in addition to psychological ramifications. ISIS differs from other terrorist groups in how it influences children. It regards children as the primary source of its survival. It trains them to carry out suicide operations and terrorist attacks voluntarily. Thus, measures must be adopted to deter ISIS from incorporating and training children. The existing international documents are essential and influential in protecting minors.However, these documents lack effective sanctions. Eliminating the gaps and ambiguities in protecting children involved in suicide operations requires the effort of all members of the international community, collaboration, and solidarity among the international organizations and NGOs to promote the rights of vulnerable groups, such as children. Undoubtedly, the development of international law that has acquired a more humane face can accelerate this trend. International judicial bodies can also contribute to the cooperation and solidarity among the members of the international community.

The article concerns the convergence of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in armed conflicts. International humanitarian law and human rights law converge and permeate each other because both these disciplines of public international law are founded on natural law. Although international humanitarian law constitutes a lex specialis, the general rules on the interpretation of treaties clearly indicate that international human rights law must be interpreted in the context of other rules of international law, and its derogations, if any, must be compatible with other international obligations of the state, including with humanitarian law. Where a conflict arises between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the mechanism for resolving conflicts between norms has been supplemented by the International Court of Justice by applying an interpretation based on the principle of systemic integration, resulting in the “humanization” of international humanitarian law. As regards the application of universal and regional instruments of international human rights law, we face a “humanization” of them. That is why more and more attention is paid in practice to the complementarity of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and this is confirmed in United Nations discussions and resolutions on the situation in armed conflicts.

BackgroundAttacks on health care in armed conflict, including those on health workers, facilities, patients and transports, represent serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Information about these incidents and their characteristics are available in myriad forms: as published research or commentary, investigative reports, and within online data collection initiatives. We review the research on attacks on health to understand what data they rely on, what subjects they cover and what gaps exist in order to develop a research agenda going forward.Methods and findingsThis study utilizes a systematic review of peer-reviewed to identify and understand relevant data about attacks on health in situations of conflict. We identified 1479 papers published before January 1, 2020 using systematic and hand-searching and chose 45 articles for review that matched our inclusion criteria. We extracted data on geographical and conflict foci, methodology, objectives and major themes. Among the included articles, 26 focused on assessment of evidence of attacks, 15 on analyzing their impacts, three on the legal and human rights principles and one on the methods of documentation. We analyzed article data to answer questions about where and when attacks occur and are investigated, what types of attacks occur, who is perpetrating them, and how and why they are studied. We synthesized cross-cutting themes on the impacts of these attacks, mitigation efforts, and gaps in existing data.ConclusionRecognizing limitations in the review, we find there have been comparatively few studies over the past four decades but the literature is growing. To deepen the discussions of the scope of attacks and to enable cross-context comparisons, documentation of attacks on health must be enhanced to make the data more consistent, more thorough, more accessible, include diverse perspectives, and clarify taxonomy. As the research on attacks on health expands, practical questions on how the data is utilized for advocacy, protection and accountability must be prioritized.

Article is devoted to the problems of development of private military companies in Russia. It shows the practice of private military companies in the current political situation in the world. The phenomenon of private military companies (PMCs) is a rather controversial and ambiguous topic. Over the past more than thirty years, PMCs have played an increasingly important role in local wars and regional conflicts. With further globalization of the world economy, the role of PMCs in future wars and armed conflicts will be increasing. The authors study international documents regulating the activities of these organizations. They point out the necessity of adopting a law to allow this type of activity on the territory of the Russian Federation. Private military companies actually exist within the country and their legalization would allow to introduce their activities into the legal field. Private military companies influence the sphere of human rights, is connected with corruption and dishonest performance of obligations in implementation of contracts. The penalties for establishing and participating in illegal armed groups are shown. The possibilities of their application, both in Russia and abroad, are highlighted.

The promotion of international humanitarian law is one of the main objectives of the external security policy, by assuming the commitment to ensuring the protection of an international system based on rules, which have the role of contributing to stability, respect for universal human rights and strengthening the rule of law. In this context, it became necessary to harmonize the legal instruments in the military field for the new categories of missions, which include clear criteria for the use of military force and which guarantee compliance with the objectives of national defense, without contravening to international law and treaties.

Muhariplerin eşitliği ilkesi, uluslararası insancıl hukukun temel ilkelerinden biridir. İnsancıl hukuk kurallarının bir silahlı çatışmanın tüm taraflarına, onların silahlı çatışmaya müdahil olma nedenlerine bakılmaksızın eşit olarak uygulanması manasına gelmektedir. Kökeni yüzyıllar öncesine dayandırılan bu ilkenin hem içeriği hem de geçerliliği zaman zaman tartışma konusu olmaktadır. Bu tartışmalardan biri de 1945 Birleşmiş Milletler Şartı ile devletlerin bir silahlı çatışmaya müdahil olmaları meşru müdafaa durumları haricinde yasaklandığında ortaya çıkmıştır. Uluslararası toplumun, jus cogens niteliği atfedilen bu yasağı ihlal eden taraf ile ona karşı kendini savunmak zorunda kalan tarafa artık eşit yaklaşmadığı sonuç olarak da ilkenin eskidiği ya da terk edildiği öne sürülmüştür. Bu çalışmada bu iddia uluslararası toplumun büyük çoğunluğunun taraflardan birini desteklediği 2022 Rusya-Ukrayna Savaşı üzerinden ele alınmaktadır.

This study discusses the status of civilian foreign citizens who participated in the war to defend Ukraine under international humanitarian law and state responsibility for foreign civilians participating in the war to defend Ukraine under international humanitarian law. The purpose of this research is: to analyse the status of foreign nationals, especially those contained in the Geneva Convention of 1949; and accountability countries that are fair to foreign nationals based on humanitarian law international. The method used in this research is normative. Results from this research that the status of foreign citizens who are involved in fighting for Ukraine are entitled under International Humanitarian Law treated as prisoners of war and entitled to equal treatment of humans. Actions committed by foreign civilian citizens, from each country are obliged to provide accountability to the aggrieved party. The rights of foreign nationals are protected by conflicting countries but do not reduce the privileges of the state against its own citizen. The link between international human rights law and law international humanitarian law is also one of the basic reasons for detaining power does not have the right to commit acts of cruelty. Keywords: Foreign Nationals, International Humanitarian Law, State Responsibility Tanggung Jawab Negara Terhadap Warga Negara Asing yang Bertugas Sebagai Angkatan Bersenjata Ukraina: Perspektif Hukum Humaniter Internasional Abstrak Penelitian ini membahas tentang status warga sipil asing yang turut serta dalam perang membela Ukraina berdasarkan hukum humaniter internasional dan tanggung jawab negara terhadap warga sipil asing yang ikut serta dalam perang membela Ukraina berdasarkan hukum humaniter internasional. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah: menganalisis status warga negara asing khususnya yang tercantum dalam Konvensi Jenewa 1949; dan akuntabilitas negara yang adil terhadap warga negara asing berdasarkan hukum humaniter internasional. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini bahwa status warga negara asing yang terlibat dalam perjuangan Ukraina berhak, menurut Hukum Humaniter Internasional, diperlakukan sebagai tawanan perang dan berhak atas perlakuan yang sama terhadap manusia. Perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh warga negara sipil asing, dari masing-masing negara wajib memberikan pertanggungjawaban kepada pihak yang dirugikan. Hak-hak warga negara asing dilindungi oleh negara-negara yang berkonflik namun tidak mengurangi keistimewaan negara terhadap warga negaranya sendiri. Keterkaitan antara hukum hak asasi manusia internasional dengan hukum hukum humaniter internasional juga menjadi salah satu alasan mendasar mengapa pihak yang tidak berhak melakukan tindakan kekejaman ditahan. Kata Kunci: Warga Negara Asing, Hukum Humaniter Internasional, Tanggung Jawab Negara

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.

Over the last weeks, we were forced to realize that the way our – i.e. German – public opinion (and politicians) react to the ruthless assault of Hamas on 7 October differs markedly from the intuitions of the broad public in the Islamic world (and large parts of the ´Global South´ in general). Whereas our media (and speeches of politicians) are full of references to Israel´s right to self-defence, the sentiments voiced on the streets in the Middle East (and publicly stated by politicians such as Turkish President Erdogan) go in the opposite direction, stress the legitimate cause of the Palestinians and term the Hamas as a movement of national liberation. Clearly there is a legitimate cause in the fight of Palestinians against endless occupation. But do ends really justify means, at all price, as the praise for Hamas seems to suggest? A closer look to the normative underpinnings of current international law confirms the intuition that this is more than doubtful, as a thorough analysis of the (intensely debated) provisions on the status of movements of national liberation in IHL tells us.

Background: Yemen has been experiencing a protracted civil war and humanitarian crisis since 2015, which has resulted in many war-related injuries. However, there is a lack of data on the epidemiology, characteristics, and outcomes of these injuries, especially the orthopedic ones. This study aimed to describe the war-related orthopedic injuries in Yemen and their impact on the patients' health and function. Methods: This was a retrospective study based on medical records and trauma registries of 3930 patients who were admitted to three major trauma centers in Sana'a city with war-related orthopedic injuries from January 2015 to December 2020. We collected data on demographics, injury mechanisms, injury types and locations, surgical procedures, complications, mortality, and functional outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire. We used descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze the data and performed a logistic regression analysis to identify the factors associated with mortality. Results: Most of the patients were young males and civilians who suffered from complex and severe injuries involving multiple body regions, especially the lower extremities. The main mechanisms of injury were gunshot wounds, blast injuries, and landmine explosions. The patients required multiple surgical procedures and implants, and had high rates of complications and mortality. The most common complications were infection, nonunion, malunion, and amputation. The most common cause of death was sepsis. The functional outcomes were poor, as indicated by the high mean MFA score. The logistic regression analysis showed that older age, blast injuries, spine injuries, vascular injuries, and infection were significant predictors of mortality. Conclusion: This study provides valuable information on the war-related orthopedic injuries in Yemen and their impact on the patients' health and function. It also identifies some areas for future research, such as exploring the risk factors for infection and nonunion/malunion, evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different surgical procedures and implants, assessing the long-term outcomes and quality of life of the patients, and developing novel strategies to enhance bone and soft-tissue healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The article focuses on the formation of the international law principle of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in the context of an international armed conflict, given the relevance of the issue of damage and destruction of property as part of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The author examines the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions through the prism of international human rights law - as such, where the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (property rights) has been enshrined in the international law system, and also through the prism of international humanitarian law and international criminal law - as such, which are special in relation to the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in the context of international armed conflict. The article examines the principle of inviolability of property rights at the national level, in particular, in legislative and judicial sources, and its impact on the formation of the relevant international law principle. In particular, the author analyses the philosophical development of the concepts of "sacredness" of property rights and inviolability of property rights, as well as the natural essence of this right for a person. The author examines in detail the rules of conventional and customary international humanitarian law on the right to peaceful enjoyment of property/property rights depending on the type of acts that may be committed against property and the type of property against which certain acts are directed in the context of an international armed conflict or legal regime of occupation. The provisions on the protection of civilian objects, as well as the non-absolute nature of the protection of property rights in international armed conflict in cases of urgent military necessity, are carefully considered. Based on this analysis, the author identifies the key fundamental provisions on the basis of which the international legal principle of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property in the context o f international armed conflict is formed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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]

International humanitarian law requires that the bodies of those who die as a result of armed conflict, whether of international or non-international character, must be protected, treated with dignity, and all available information recorded prior to their disposal. In practice, non-international conflicts have become more prevalent over the last years, resulting into a proliferation of non-state armed groups who increasingly hold territory and provide governance-like services, such as the case of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Iraq. In providing services to populations under control through the establishment of a civilian administration, non-state armed groups have recorded deaths and issued death certificates. In response, States have introduced cumbersome procedures to recognize the fact of death for inheritance purposes, though not necessarily recognizing insurgent death certificates alone as proof for death. Failure to obtain a valid proof of death for the death of a family members' results in denial of myriad rights afforded to surviving relatives. In considering the gravity and scale of this problem, this study considers whether the obligation to record deaths under humanitarian law, the obligation of humane treatment and the right to know the fate of relatives can shed light on how states may regard the validity of insurgent death certificates. [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]

In recent decades, various armed conflicts have created threats to the marine environment. The Gulf War of 1990-91, the Israeli attacks on The Jiyeh Power Station in 2006, and the massive oil spill in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea have all caused serious damage to the marine environment. The need to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment as a result of armed conflict is an important task for international humanitarian law. The purpose of this study is to explain the challenges faced by international humanitarian law in the protection of the marine environment. The findings of the paper show that international humanitarian law faces significant normative gaps in this field that seriously affect its ability to protect the marine environment. The appropriate responses to maritime environmental challenges during armed conflict include: adoption of precautionary measures, applying the Martens clause, updating pertinent provisions, explaining the scope of existing norms and conclusion of new provisions governing armed conflicts as regards maritime environmental protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the principles of legal policy in the field of treatment of prisoners of war. It is motivated that the actualization of the issue of the status of prisoners of war is due to the following circumstances: the presence of a state of war on the territory of Ukraine and an increase in the number of prisoners of war on both sides; the absence of a real mechanism to guarantee the proper treatment of prisoners of war, the weakness of international institutions in this area; normative legal acts were adopted after the Second World War in the conditions of the information society, globalization and changes in the life of society in all spheres, therefore a modern update of the norms and their clarification and the development of an effective policy in this area are necessary. It was established that a significant breakthrough in the direction of humanizing social development was the adoption of norms of international law, in particular, those related to the rules of treatment of prisoners of war. Formally, there is a model for protecting and ensuring the humane situation of this group of participants in the armed conflict. However, it is necessary to state a significant, even colossal problem: the declarativeness of international obligations, the ineffectiveness of international institutions and the lack of real influence on the party that holds prisoners of war. In this context, we should talk about updating the international norms of international humanitarian law in general, as well as prisoners of war in particular. The author points out the lack of a clear legal agreement on the concept of «prisoner of war» and the generally significant political nature of the issue. Within the scope of the represented scientific research, the essential principles (main principles) of the legal policy of democratic states in the field of treatment of prisoners of war are defined. They are grouped into two categories - general (prohibition of ill-treatment, humane treatment, right to dignity, preservation of personal belongings and documents, right to contact with family and protection agencies, right to return home) and special (rehabilitation and special state support prisoners of war after returning from captivity; support for families of prisoners of war). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Derecho del Estado is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The 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]

On 24 November 2023, the Barcelona City Council passed a resolution, suspending diplomatic ties with Israel, until a permanent ceasefire is established. While this may not reflect the stance of the Spanish government, it has nevertheless condemned ‘the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians’. As more EU States (such as Belgium, France, and Ireland) have raised their concerns regarding Israel’s continuous military operations in Gaza, Germany has remained steadfast in its ‘unwavering’ and ‘unreserved’ support for Israel. To the extent that Israel has failed to comply with international humanitarian law (IHL), Germany’s position might amount to a breach of its obligation under common Article 1 (CA1) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (GC) to ‘ensure respect’ for IHL. While this obligation is incumbent on all States parties to the GC, this post focuses on Germany due to its particularly affirmative position with respect to Israel’s conduct.

In light of the atrocities committed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters in Israel on October 7, 2023 and the days thereafter, and against the backdrop of Germany’s historical responsibility, the German government and German politicians have unanimously expressed solidarity with Israel and emphasized its right to self-defense. Following the October 17, 2023 call by Kai Ambos for a differentiated debate, we explain which international humanitarian law precautions are relevant and what German policy can contribute to contain the escalation of violence as well as the suffering of the civilian population in the immediate conflict and in the future.

The actions of Hamas have been called in a detailed declaration drafted by Israeli international lawyers, also signed by this author, for what they are: core crimes under international law, possibly even amounting to genocide directed against the Jewish population of Israel. This should be beyond dispute among international (criminal) lawyers. Nonetheless, especially in Germany we have to critically ask ourselves the follow-up question of how far our support for Israel’s military counterattack can go.

What is permissible for the Israeli government to do in response to the murderous attack by Hamas? The answer to this is difficult, not only because blood is boiling and hearts are broken, but also because there is a complex moral dilemma here. In this blog, we hope to offer some guidelines to clarify the issue. We do not claim to provide definitive answers. The required analysis is complex, and it is incumbent upon the Israeli government and the IDF to ensure that the various steps taken are morally justified.