The roles of the Security Council and the International Court of Justice in the application of international humanitarian law

2011 ◽  
pp. 41-65
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Schwebel
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 56-64
Author(s):  
Hisakazu Fujita
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Second World War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Fundamental Interest ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Second World

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996 concerning the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons contains many elements that are of fundamental interest from the standpoint of international humanitarian law. Indeed, humanitarian law, which has developed to a remarkable extent since the Second World War, has always lacked an express ruling on nuclear weapons.

The International Court of Justice as a Guardian of the Unity of Humanitarian Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
FABIÁN O. RAIMONDO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

This article seeks to examine whether the International Court of Justicehas developed jurisprudence on international humanitarian law and whether this has exerted any influence on the decisions adopted by other international courts and tribunals. In so doing, it revisits the issue of the value ofjudicial decisions under international law. Finally, it reveals that despite the non-operation of the rule of stare decisis in international law, the Court's jurisprudence on international humanitarian law has been a persuasive precedent for other international courts and tribunals.

Sources of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Ratner
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient ◽  
Shed Light

This chapter contends that international humanitarian law (IHL) and criminal law (ICL) cast serious doubt on the traditional doctrine and understanding of sources. Article 38 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute inadequately describes key modes for prescribing law in these areas. International courts are particularly important for both areas, perhaps because of their unprincipled approach to the indicia of custom. More fundamentally, IHL and ICL suggest that sources scholarship should see itself not as determining necessary and sufficient methods for the making of law, but rather as a search for relevant inputs that become indicators of law. Under this view, certain processes are more authoritative than others, but all deserve scrutiny. Moreover, a theory of sources must take account of the purpose of understanding sources, which is to promote compliance with rules. IHL and ICL also shed light on the importance of morality and ethics to the law-making process.

International humanitarian law and nuclear weapons

1996 ◽  
Vol 36 (313) ◽  
pp. 500-502
Author(s):  
The Review
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Health Organization

On 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion in response to two enquiries as to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Whilst the Court did not examine in detail the request put forward by the World Health Organization, it did give very close attention to the question presented by the General Assembly:“Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?”

International humanitarian law and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 35-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Doswald-Beck
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Right

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice represents the first time that the Court's judges have been called upon to analyse in some detail rules of international humanitarian law. Other instances, for example, the Nicaragua case, involved nowhere near such an extensive analysis. The Advisory Opinion is therefore of particular interest in that it contains important findings on the customary nature of a number of humanitarian law rules and interesting pronouncements on the interpretation of these rules and their relationship with other rules. Most judges based their final decision on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons on teleological interpretations of the law, choosing either the right of self-defence as being the most fundamental value, or the survival of civilization and the planet as a whole as paramount. Unfortunately, space does not permit a comment on these highly important analyses of the underpinnings of humanitarian law and its purpose in the international order. Therefore, rather than focusing primarily on the Court's conclusion as to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, this short comment will concentrate on the various pronouncements made on humanitarian law rules. Reference to the Court's finding on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons will only be made from the point of view of how it has contributed to the interpretation of those rules. For this purpose, reference will be made not only to the Advisory Opinion as such (hereafter referred to as the “Opinion”), but also to the various Separate and Dissenting Opinions.

When is a conflict international? Time for new control tests in IHL

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (903) ◽  
pp. 1019-1041
Author(s):  
Djemila Carron
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

AbstractThis article clarifies the control a State should have over an armed group for the triggering act of an international armed conflict and for the internationalization of non-international armed conflicts in international humanitarian law. It explains the reasons for the distinction between these two types of attribution and details the specificities of each test, with an innovative approach. The author proposes new control tests for both triggering and internationalization, rejecting the effective and overall control tests regarding internationalization proposed by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. For instance, regarding the internationalization of a non-international armed conflict, a general and strict control test is proposed. Finally, this article addresses specific issues like the difficult question of the control required for an occupation through an armed group.

scholarly journals The Use of PMSCs by the United Nations in Times of Armed Conflict, Application of IHL and Responsibility Matters

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Gamarro González
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations

The companies dealing with military and security matters are on the rise, and today they provide services to a very wide client list, which includes states and international organizations (IOs). It is well known that these companies have been deployed in a large number of armed conflicts, and indeed, some of them have become prominent in the sector not only for their military results but also for their abuses of international humanitarian law and human rights. Surprisingly, it is lesser known that the United Nations (UN) has also had recourse to private military and security companies in the context of United Nations military operations with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security.The engagement of private military security companies in UN peace operations entails multiple legal questions. This dissertation is especially intended to shed some light over the extent to which PMSCs deployment in UN peace operations is compatible with international humanitarian law and how the law of institutional responsibility deals with the violations of international humanitarian law committed by such companies when providing services to the UN. For that purpose and to that extent due recourse has been made to the most relevant international law sources on the matter, such as the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and other relevant instruments such as the ILC Articles on State and IO responsibility, and the Montreux Document. Jus cogens and international custom, including the practice of international organizations and states, and opinion juris as ascertained by legal scholars and the International Court of Justice, play an essential role in this dissertation, since the United Nations has not become yet a party to any IHL treaty, thus employing an inductive methodology. A comparative approach was adopted in regard to the observations of the most eminent institutions and jurists, and domestic and international courts, including the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights for the purpose of ascertaining the different rules of attribution of conduct existing in international law. Besides, certain decisions of the latter Court were analysed in order to clarify by analogy whether the application of international humanitarian law and the imputation of acts can function under the same degree of control test.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document