Revisiting the Battle of Solferino: The Worsening Plight of Civilian Casualties in War and Conflict

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 837-841
Author(s):  
Frederick M. Burkle
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
War Injuries ◽  
Golden Hour ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Asymmetric Conflicts ◽  
War And Conflict ◽  
Armed Violence ◽  
The 19Th Century

ABSTRACTThe toll of civilian deaths in current wars and conflicts has been building for decades. Civilian populations, particularly since WWII, have suffered most of the consequences of armed violence and today represent the most at-risk population. This is attributed to the rise of religious and ethnic hatreds, the collapse of State structures, the battle for control of natural resources, the vast availability of weapons, the proliferation of acts of terrorism, and the spread of so-called asymmetric conflicts. Protections provided to innocent civilians under International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions have been ignored. This commentary captures the experience of the immediate care and transportation provided to military casualties of the Battle of Solferino in 1859 with civilian casualties recently documented in a Stanford-led study during the “golden hour” after injury in 13 conflicts from 1990 to 2017. Despite many advances in triage and management of war injuries over the intervening decades, the common thread of these 2 scenarios is that transport times and early resuscitation capacity and capabilities, first recognized in the 19th century wars and now accepted as global norms and markers for survival from trauma, are as unavailable today to civilians caught up in war and conflict as they were to soldiers in the 19th century.

Parties to Non-International Armed Conflicts under International Treaty Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Chapter 2 examines international humanitarian law treaties. Using classical treaty interpretation methods, it establishes what degree of organization is required from a non-state armed group to become ‘Party to the conflict’ under article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, or an ‘organized armed group’ under article 1(1) of the Additional Protocol II or under the ICC Statute. Chapter 2 also analyses the travaux préparatoires of the different treaties, subsequent practice, and engages with the main doctrinal debates surrounding these questions. By subjecting the three treaties to thorough analysis, the chapter presents concise interpretations of the relevant organizational requirements, and compares the different thresholds. It also identifies and addresses under-researched questions, such as whether the organization criterion under international humanitarian law requires the capacity to implement the entirety of the applicable law.

scholarly journals ‘Not dead but sleeping’: Expanding international law to better regulate the diverse effects of ceasefire agreements

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 731-743
Author(s):  
Marika Sosnowski
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Development Studies ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Economic Networks ◽  
Citizenship Rights ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
New Research

AbstractCeasefire agreements are legally governed by international humanitarian law because they have generally been considered in relation to how they affect levels of violence. However, new research in the fields of anthropology, security, and development studies suggests that ceasefires can have many more ramifications. These range from their ability to influence governance institutions, property and citizenship rights, economic networks, and security mechanisms. Consequently, this article suggests that a broader legal framework is needed through which to consider ceasefires and their consequences. While canvassing the option of ceasefires being types of contractual documents or as special agreements under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the article concludes that the best way to regulate ceasefire agreements is through an expanded version of lex pacificatoria. Rather than being governed by hard international law, such a move would allow for the implementation of more flexible programmatic standards to influence the myriad ways ceasefires are negotiated, the conduct of belligerents, and their diverse effects on the ground during wartime.

Some Reflections on the Future of International Humanitarian Law

1984 ◽  
Vol 24 (238) ◽  
pp. 18-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Peter Gasser
Keyword(s):  
Customary Law ◽  
Financial Resources ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Future ◽  
War Victims ◽  
Political Negotiation ◽  
Substantial Extent ◽  
Written Sources

The four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims and the two 1977 Additional Protocols are the written sources of modern international humanitarian law. This monumental work of some 600 articles represents an impressive investment of intellect, arduous political negotiation, financial resources and goodwill. Modern written international humanitarian law is the result of one of the greatest efforts of successive legal codifications we know of. And, of course, customary law supplements the written rules to a substantial extent.

Japanese Red Cross Society: The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols as a cornerstone of peace-loving Japan

1987 ◽  
Vol 27 (258) ◽  
pp. 288-292
Author(s):  
Sumio Adachi
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Legal Measure

International humanitarian law is, so to speak, a legal measure for moral enforcement which in turn bridges the gap between law and politics. It prescribes minimum duties of contending parties in case of an international or non-international armed conflict.

Applying Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions to the United Nations Forces

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 234-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artem Sergeev
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Hostile Environments

Following the widespread participation of United Nations (UN) forces in hostile environments, this article aims to expand the obligations of the UN under International Humanitarian Law. The article argues that Additional Protocol II (AP II) to the Geneva Conventions can bind UN forces, even though the UN is not formally a party thereto. The argument is built on three distinct legal issues: the first issue is whether the UN’s involvement in a conflict internationalizes a non-international armed conflict; the second issue is the legal nature of the UN’s obligations under AP II, which will be explained through two legal theories of indirect consent; and the third issue is the conformity of UN forces to the criteria of an armed group outlined in AP II. The article concludes that if UN forces meet certain conditions, as will be outlined herein, they should be bound by the provisions contained in AP II.

scholarly journals SYRIA – “THE WAR WITH MULTIPLE PROXIES”. VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-178
Author(s):  
Daniela Vetina Ene
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil War ◽  
International Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Amnesty International ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Arab Spring

The civil war in Syria, triggered by the pro-democracy demonstrations of the "Arab Spring", was a complicated combination of religious, cultural and ethnic-identity contradictions. The non-international conflict was turned into a "battlefield" for foreign powers, which led to the transformation of a civil war into a "war with multiple proxies". The United Nations' efforts to mediate the conflict, based on a six-point plan, remained in the draft phase. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the al-Assad regime, which has widely used non-discriminatory weapons banned in violation of the Geneva Conventions, 1949. The Bashār al-Assad regime is accused by the international community of being guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but attempts to incriminate it have failed.

UN Peacekeeping Operations: Applicability of International Humanitarian Law and Responsibility for Operations-Related Damage

2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphna Shraga
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
First Time

In the five decades that followed the Korea operation, where for the first time the United Nations commander agreed, at the request of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to abide by the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Conventions, few UN operations lent themselves to the applicability of international humanitarian law

Who Are Protected by the Fundamental Guarantees under International Humanitarian Law? Part 2: Breaking with the Control Requirement in Light of the icc Case Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-58
Author(s):  
Raphaël van Steenberghe
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
General Control ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Control Requirement ◽  
Specific Paper

Abstract International humanitarian law provides for fundamental guarantees, the content of which is similar irrespective of the nature of the armed conflict and which apply to individuals even if they do not fall into the categories of specifically protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. Those guarantees, all of which derive from the general requirement of human treatment, include prohibitions of specific conduct against persons, such as murder, cruel treatment, torture, sexual violence, or against property, such as pillaging. However, it is traditionally held that the entitlement to those guarantees depends upon two requirements: the ‘status requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons must not or no longer take a direct part in hostilities, and the ‘control requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons or properties must be under the control of a party to the armed conflict. This study argues in favour of breaking with these two requirements in light of the existing icc case law. That study is divided into two parts, with each part devoted to one requirement and made the object of a specific paper. The two papers follow the same structure. They start with general observations on the requirement concerned, examine the relevant icc case law and put forward several arguments in favour of an extensive approach to the personal scope of the fundamental guarantees. The first paper, which was published in the previous issue of this journal, dealt with the status requirement. It especially delved into the icc decisions in the Ntaganda case with respect to the issue of protection against intra-party violence. It advocated the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in such a context by rejecting the requirement of a legal status, on the basis of several arguments. Those arguments relied on ihl provisions protecting specific persons as well as on the potential for humanizing ihl on the matter and also on the approach making the status requirement relevant only when the fundamental guarantees apply in the conduct of hostilities. The second paper, which is published here, deals with the control requirement. It examines several icc cases in detail, including the Katanga and Ntaganda cases, in relation to the issue of the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in the conduct of hostilities. It is argued that the entitlement to those guarantees is not dependent upon any general control requirement, and that, as a result, some of these guarantees may apply in the conduct of hostilities. This concerns mainly those guarantees whose application or constitutive elements do not imply any physical control over the concerned persons or properties.

Prisoners Dilemma: Ascertaining and Augmenting the Multinational NIAC Detention Regime

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 436-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yateesh Begoore
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Treatment Standards ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Prisoners Dilemma ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

While International Humanitarian Law (IHL) contains a comprehensive framework of rules and procedural protections for detainees in international armed conflicts (IACS), there is a conspicuous absence of such rules and protections for detainees in the case of non-international armed conflicts (NIACS). In fact, as the recent Serdar Mohammad v. Ministry of Defence case pointed out, the rules pertaining to NIACS make no mention of detention authority at all, leading some scholars to conclude that International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and not IHL, governs NIAC detention. Contrarily, this paper contends that not only does IHL govern (as well as grant authority for) NIAC detentions, the regime’s shortcomings regarding procedural safe-guards and treatment standards may be remedied through the application of the Copenhagen Process Principles – as evolutive interpretation or interpretation based on subsequent agreement – to Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Amnesties and international humanitarian law: Purpose and scope

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (910) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions

States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 have an obligation to take measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to their provisions. Moreover, States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or on their territory, and other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction, such as on the basis of universal jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. In accordance with these obligations and the limits they impose, States may adopt certain measures during and in the aftermath of armed conflicts to promote reconciliation and peace, one of which is amnesties. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules pertaining to the granting and scope of amnesties. Specifically, Article 6(5) of Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) provides that, at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict. Importantly, under customary IHL (as identified in Rule 159 of the ICRC customary IHL study), this excludes persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes in NIACs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document