RECONCEPTUALISING THE LEGAL RESPONSE TO FOREIGN FIGHTERS

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-134
Author(s):  
John Ip
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Legal Response ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Syrian Civil War ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Foreign Fighters

AbstractThe Syrian civil war has highlighted the phenomenon of foreign fighting, in which individuals leave their home State to join an armed conflict overseas. The predominant paradigm for regulating foreign fighting, centred on United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178, is based on counterterrorism, which in essence treats foreign fighting as a form of terrorism. This paradigm is largely reflective of the domestic legislation of the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia. This article argues that this approach is problematic, and that an alternative paradigm based on the international law of neutrality and related domestic legislation provides a better means for regulating foreign fighting.

Comparing Interpretations of States’ and Non-State Actors’ Obligations Toward Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict and OccupationMilitary Manuals and the Law of War

2020 ◽  
pp. 56-81
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Varner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The United Kingdom

The 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954 Hague Convention) remains the leading treaty on the treatment of cultural heritage during armed conflict and occupation. After several decades of relative dormancy, eleven States have joined the 1954 Hague Convention in the last decade, including two major military powers: the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition to the 1954 Hague Convention, a host of laws touch on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, as well as those under customary international law. Nonetheless, there are disagreements in interpretations of States’ obligations toward cultural property during armed conflict stemming from a variety of factors. These factors can include: whether States are Parties to the instrument that conveys the obligation or if the obligation is one of customary international law, which itself is often contested; the individual State’s interpretation; interpretation by tribunals; and a plethora of other factors. Given these discrepancies in interpretation, a review of States’ military manuals is useful to see if they shed any light on the State’s interpretation of their obligations toward cultural property under the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and international obligations in LOAC more generally. This chapter will analyze and compare the military manuals of the United States and the United Kingdom to determine how they elucidate several key issues in the protection of cultural property during armed conflict, such as the definition of ‘cultural property’, requirements for ‘respect’, the doctrine of military necessity, and laws applicable in non-international armed conflicts.

scholarly journals PREEMPTIVE SELF-DEFENCE ON ISRAEL-HEZBOLLAH ARMED CONFLICT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 686
Author(s):  
Wiwilliem Rizki Limboto ◽  
Teddy Nurcahyawan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Preemptive Strike ◽  
Self Defence

The legalization of war has legitimized wars of “self-defence”. On January 18, 2015 on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, Israel launched an airstrike that killed six Hezbollah fighters and an Iranian brigadier general, Mohammed Ali Allahdadi. Israel claims that it acted preemptively in order to preserve its existential security by implementing a defensive policy commonly dubbed as the “War Between Wars” policy, to disrupt Iran’s supply of advanced weaponry for Hezbollah. On the other hand, Hezbollah in its continuous defiance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 claims that the aforementioned arms supply was meant to preserve Lebanon’s security against future Israeli aggression. The facts of the case presented certain legal issues, as to whether or not Israel’s airstrike towards Hezbollah constitute a legitimate self-defence and its permissibility under international law. This is a normative legal research, thus relies heavily on library research, the IRAC method was used in deciphering the issue. After careful considerations, by attributing the said airstrike with the preemptive strike theory, it has been found that Israel’s airstrike was not preemptive, but rather preventive in nature, and should have been illegal under international law. However, a just cause test was conducted on both sides, and it has been found that the odds are more in favor towards Israel than Hezbollah. Ultimately, the research concluded that although preventive warfare was deemed to be illegal under international law, Israel’s claim of self-defence was more likely to be permitted in the international arena than Hezbollah’s.

scholarly journals Introductory Remarks by Vincent-Joël Proulx

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 301-303
Author(s):  
Vincent-Joël Proulx
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Terrorist Organizations ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Legislative Activities ◽  
Foreign Fighters ◽  
Armed Opposition Groups

In recent years, individuals have increasingly travelled from their respective countries to join the ranks of armed opposition groups and terrorist networks, oftentimes in zones of ongoing armed conflict. One must look no further than recent newspaper headlines to realize that the “foreign fighters” phenomenon is as pervasive across borders as it is challenging, both from policy and legal standpoints. While the prospect of individuals travelling abroad to join ongoing hostilities is far from novel, the number of such foreign fighters lending support to terrorist organizations has been unprecedented in recent years, posing considerable threats to domestic, regional, and international peace and security. Hence, domestic, regional, transnational, and international actors have adopted measures to counteract terrorism, more broadly, and have begun to address the problem of foreign (terrorist) fighters. The contributions of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are particularly noteworthy and, indeed, there has been growing interest in that organ's “quasi-legislative” activities.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2474

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Claire Clement
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Collective Voice ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Missing Persons ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
First Time

On June 11, 2019, the United Nations (UN) Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2474 on missing persons in armed conflict. The resolution marks the first time the Security Council has agreed on a thematic text dedicated to this issue, lending its collective voice to call for more effective implementation of existing obligations towards missing persons—both civilian and military—and their families under international law.

Resolutions and vetoes in the UN Security Council: their relevance and significance

1990 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Morphet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Majority Vote ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

IntroductionThe aim of this paper is to look at the United Nations Security Council and certain of the 646 resolutions and 232 public vetoes (vetoing 192 draft resolutions) cast between 1946 and the end of 1989, and to discover in what ways both it and they have been legally and politically relevant and significant. Security Council resolutions are, of course, passed by majority vote. This had to be 7 out of 11 votes until the end of 1965 when the Council was enlarged from 11 to 15. Security Council resolutions have had since then to be passed by at least 9 votes: these can only be vetoed by the five Permanent Members (the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China) if the resolution would otherwise have been passed. By the end of 1989 the veto total for each Permanent Member (the Peoples Republic of China took over the China seat in 1971) was as follows: Soviet Union 114; United States 67; United Kingdom 30; France 18 and China 3.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document