Jus ad bellum economicum and jus in bello economico: The Limits of Economic Sanctions Under the Paradigm of International Humanitarian Law

2015 ◽  
pp. 95-124
Author(s):  
Nema Milaninia
Keyword(s):  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

scholarly journals Fiqh al-Jihād in Modern Warfare: Analyzing Prospects and Challenges with Reference to International Humanitarian Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 241
Author(s):  
Fajri Matahati Muhammadin ◽  
Thara Kunarti Wahab
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Literature Research ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Modern Warfare ◽  
The Way

In discussing the compatibility of the Islamic concept of jihād and international law, most researches focus on the jus ad bellum (justifications of war) of fiqh al jihād and less on the jus in bello (lawful conducts of war). This article observes the relation between fiqh al-jihād and modern international humanitarian law, and sets out both the prospects and challenges of such a concept in modern times. It is argued that some challenges are due to the lack of emphasis on the principles of fiqh al-jihād that are shared with modern International Humanitarian Law, or the existence of differing opinions between Islamic scholars. Using a literature research, this article finds that the way to address this is to make a unified code of fiqh al-jihād, involving scholars from all schools of thoughts, to agree on a common set of rules.

The Relationship between Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Okimoto Keichiro
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses the relationship between jus ad bellum (international law regulating the resort to force) and jus in bello (law of armed conflict). It examines state practice, international decisions, and expert opinions to determine how the relationship has been addressed in practice. The chapter considers the question of whether jus in bello applies equally to the unlawful and lawful parties to an armed conflict before turning to the legal implications of the cumulative requirements of the law of self-defence and international humanitarian law (IHL) imposed on a use of force in self-defence. Finally, it considers the legal implications of the concurrent application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and IHL with respect to use authorized under Chapter VII.

Aggression and the symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Kalmanovitz
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Hard Choice ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Causes Of War ◽  
Widespread View

Recent scholarship in just war theory has challenged the principle of symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This revisionist work, which is increasingly dominating the field of contemporary war ethics, rejects the idea that the rules of conduct of war (jus in bello) should be agnostic about the justice of the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum). Just wars are perceived to be inherently at odds with the principle of symmetrical application of IHL, which appears to create a hard choice between justice and legality. I show that this challenge to IHL is misplaced. It derives from a widespread view among just war theorists according to which only one side in a just war can be justified in using force. By looking closely at the nature of adjudication of just causes of war, I show that there can be cases of war in which both sides are justified in using force, and cases in which, though not objectively justified, both sides may be excused for fighting. On the basis of this understanding of jus ad bellum, I argue that the principle of symmetrical application of IHL in fact best reflects the uncertainty and complexity that should characterize the practical doctrine of jus ad bellum.

scholarly journals Chinese perspectives on the ad bellum/in bello relationship and a cultural critique of the ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Zhuo Liang
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
World Order ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Cultural Critique ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Holistic Understanding ◽  
The World

Abstract The intriguing relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello has provoked perennial academic debates. This article examines this issue from Chinese perspectives and offers a cultural critique of the well-entrenched norm of the ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law. Based on its distinctive traditional perception of the world order and the meaning of war, China embraces a holistic understanding of the ad bellum/in bello relationship. This relationship is construed as essentially harmonized. The cardinal moral principle underpinning it is that a just war should be conducted in a just way. The ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law has a Western origin, and the rationale behind it intimates Western sensitivity to the European just war tradition in which jus in bello was parasitic on jus ad bellum. It is assumed that jus ad bellum and jus in bello are irreconcilably in conflict once they come into contact with one another. This assumption is followed by a widely-held belief that any attempt to reconnect the two concepts would bring nothing but the subordination of jus in bello to jus ad bellum as experienced in European just war and, consequently, the collapse of the former. Chinese perspectives nevertheless evidence that this conventional line of thinking, hampering scholars from thinking beyond the sealed ad bellum/in bello separation, is not sound. A proposal for a more constructive solution should be taken into consideration.

Automatic Cyber Defence and the Laws of War

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 203-237
Author(s):  
Nicholas Tsagourias ◽  
Russell Buchan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Computer Hardware ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Cyber Attack ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

Automatic cyber defence describes computer operations to neutralise a cyber attack. Once a system detects that it is under cyber attack, it automatically launches offensive cyber operations that pursue the attacker back to its own network with the objective of rescuing stolen data or disabling or destroying the computer hardware and software that is responsible for hosting and distributing the attacking code. The aim of this article is to examine the legality of automatic cyber defence under the law regulating the use of force in international law (jus ad bellum) and under international humanitarian law (jus in bello). Thus, the first part of this article examines automatic cyber defence in the context of the jus ad bellum by considering the legal requirements of an armed attack, necessity, and proportionality. In the second part, it examines the jus in bello aspects of automatic cyber defence and, in particular, whether it triggers an international or a non-international armed conflict and, if so, whether it can comply with the principles of distinction and proportionality.

Not yet havoc: geopolitical change and the international rules on military force

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (S1) ◽  
pp. 51-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL BYERS
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This article considers the relationship between geopolitical change and the evolving international rules on military force. Its focus is the impact of the United States’ rise to hegemonic status on the rules governing recourse to force (the jus ad bellum) and the conduct of hostilities (the jus in bello, otherwise known as ‘international humanitarian law’). For reasons of space and clarity of analysis, the article does not focus on the different, more traditional IR questions of whether and why the behaviour of the United States might be constrained by these rules.

III. ASSASSINATION AND TARGETED KILLING—THE KILLING OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 778-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
APV Rogers ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Us ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Domestic Law

Osama Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011 in the course of an operation by US special forces (Navy Seals) in Abbottabad, Pakistan.1 The US forces were flown by helicopter from neighbouring Afghanistan. The death of Bin Laden renewed questions about the legality of such operations during armed conflicts and during peacetime.2 The potentially applicable law includes international humanitarian law, international human rights law, jus ad bellum and the domestic law of the US and Pakistan.3

Sequences of Military Necessity for the Jus in Bello

2020 ◽  
pp. 247-284
Author(s):  
Dino Kritsiotis
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
International Court

This chapter considers several discrete snapshots or “sequences” in the life of military necessity—as it has come to be understood within the laws of the jus in bello. Commencing with its relationship with self-preservation under the laws of war and peace, the chapter proceeds to examine the idea of “necessity” of self-defense within the laws of the jus ad bellum; it then turns to “military necessity” as invoked in the Lieber Code, the 1907 Hague Regulations, Additional Protocol I of 1977 and the 1954 Hague Convention, the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law as well as the advisory jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Consideration is given, too, to “necessity” as it features within the law of State responsibility, in order to more fully understand the function, status and standing of “military necessity” more generally within the jus in bello.

And Yet It Exists: In Defence of the ‘Equality of Belligerents’ Principle

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
VAIOS KOUTROULIS
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Court

AbstractThe equal application of international humanitarian law (jus in bello) to all parties to an international armed conflict is a cornerstone principle of jus in bello. In his article, Professor Mandel casts doubt on the legal basis of this principle. Reacting to this claim, this contribution demonstrates that the ‘equality of belligerents’ is a principle firmly grounded in both conventional and customary international law. Moreover, its legal force withstands the test of international jurisprudence, including the International Court of Justice's controversial Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion.

Jus in Bello and the Acts of Terrorism

2020 ◽  
pp. 1363-1378
Author(s):  
Mohammad Saidul Islam
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Conceptual Reasoning ◽  
Terrorist Groups

Terrorism is a big threat to international peace and security. The rapid and substantial development of terrorist groups across the globe has highly complicated the application and implementation of the international humanitarian law. People have been facing this heinous violent act from time immemorial, but recently it has increased enormously. This study presents the legal and conceptual reasoning and justifications of the act of terrorism as an armed conflict. It also examines whether it is an international armed conflict or non-international armed conflict where the international humanitarian law can be applied.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document