The Notion of ‘Objects’ during Cyber Operations: A Riposte in Defence of Interpretive and Applicative Precision

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael N Schmitt

This article responds to the two articles published in this journal that criticise the approach taken by the International Group of Experts (IGE) who prepared the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Their authors took issue with the approach of the majority of the IGE over the question of whether data qualifies as an ‘object’ under international humanitarian law such that, for instance, cyber operations that target civilian data violate the prohibition on attacking civilian objects. The majority of the experts took the position that the law had not advanced that far and that pre-existing law could not be definitively interpreted to encompass data within the meaning of ‘objects’. In this article, the Director of the Tallinn Manual Project responds to the authors' criticism of the majority view by explaining and clarifying its reasoning.

Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman

This chapter considers the consequences of breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law for the responsible international organizations. It concentrates on the obligations owed to injured individuals. The obligation to make reparation arises automatically from a finding of responsibility and is an obligation of result. I analyse who has this obligation, to whom it is owed, and what it entails. I also consider the right of individuals to procedures by which they may vindicate their right to a remedy and the right of access to a court that may be implied from certain human rights treaties. In tandem, I consider the relationship between those obligations and individuals’ rights under international law. An overarching issue is how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialized regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and particularly, their application to individuals.


Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman

This book is concerned with reparation for human rights and international humanitarian law breaches committed by or attributed to international organizations. These breaches constitute internationally wrongful acts which, according to the International Law Commission’s Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, give rise to an obligation on the offending organization to afford reparation. However, in practice, the obligation to afford reparation is unimplemented. The book explores why this is. It considers how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialized regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and, particularly, their application to remedies and reparation owed to individuals. It reviews the various gaps in the law and the limitations of existing redress mechanisms. The book analyses the cogency of the arguments and rationales that have been used by international organizations to limit their liability and the scope and functioning of redress mechanisms, included by the resort to lex specialis principles. It is postulated that the standards of reparation must be drawn from the nature of the breach and the resulting harms and not by who is responsible for the breach. In this respect the book is an exercise in the progressive development of the law. Having determined that existing redress mechanisms cannot afford adequate or effective remedies and reparation, the book explores how to move towards a model that achieves greater compliance.


2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (863) ◽  
pp. 599-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Fallah

AbstractCorporate actors are taking on an increasingly significant role in the prosecution of modern warfare. Traditionally, an analysis of the law applicable to corporate actors in armed conflict commences with inquiry into the law as it applies to mercenaries. As such, the rise of the private military industry invites a reconsideration of the conventional approach to mercenaries under international law. This article critically surveys the conventional law as it applies to mercenaries, and considers the extent to which corporate actors might meet the legal definitions of a “mercenary”. It demonstrates that even mercenaries receive protection under international humanitarian law.


Author(s):  
V. A. Bugaev ◽  
A. V. Chaika

The article discusses the problems of the relationship between international law in general and, in particular, international humanitarian law and the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation in determining responsibility for international humanitarian crimes. The analysis of the emergence of international humanitarian law, its fundamental principles and their reflection in the law of Russia and the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Kleffner Jann K

This chapter addresses the scope of application of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law regulates, and as a rule applies in times of, armed conflicts. Accordingly, it is also referred to as the law of armed conflict or jus in bello. The three interchangeable terms denote the only branch of public international law that is specifically designed to strike a balance during armed conflicts between preserving humanitarian values, on the one hand, and considerations of military necessity, on the other by protecting those who do not or no longer directly participate in hostilities and by limiting the right of parties to the conflict to use armed force only to the amount necessary to achieve the aim of the conflict, which is to weaken the military potential of the enemy. While international humanitarian law specifically regulates situations of armed conflicts, it does not automatically supersede all other areas of public international law in the event of an armed conflict. The chapter then focuses on the law enforcement aspects, the continued relevance of rules of international law of peace during armed conflict, and the relevance of humanitarian law in peacetime and post-conflict military operations.


2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 467-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRÉDÉRIC MÉGRET ◽  
FREDERICK PINTO

The outbreak of the ‘war against terrorism’ has provoked a deluge of images. It is uncommon for lawyers to think of the impact of the media on the production of law, yet a specific set of images has had a considerable impact on how legal issues surrounding the use of violence have been framed. The article seeks to explore this novel area by focusing on international humanitarian law and how it deals with the recurring question of prisoners. Some of the distortions the media community imposes on the law are uncovered, but the law's inherent malleability to such distortions is also underlined.


Author(s):  
Robert Kolb ◽  
Katherine Del Mar

This chapter begins with a discussion of the importance of treaties in the law of armed conflict. Specifically, it presents seven reasons why the law of armed conflict is one of the branches of public international law that has been the most intensely codified through treaties. It then discusses treaties and international customary law; the main treaties on international humanitarian law (IHL); problems of ratification of IHL treaties; reservations to IHL treaties; legal relationships between IHL treaties; interpretation of IHL treaties; special agreements; denunciation of IHL treaties; and the legal effects of a breach of an IHL treaty.


2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 111-115
Author(s):  
Itamar Mann

It is a tremendous honor being here today and participating in this esteemed panel on the “Law (and Politics) of Displacement,” which Jill Goldenziel has organized. I would like to share some research Umut Özsu and I are working on. This is a work in progress, but I still think its outlines are worth discussion, by way of historical background. I hope the project also demonstrates quite well why several of us at the International Migration Law Interest Group at the American Society of International Law have been thinking that migration should become more central to the discipline of international law; as central, say, as international humanitarian law.


1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (309) ◽  
pp. 583-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Doswald-Beck

The law regulating the use of force at sea has long been due fora reevaluation in the light of developments in methods and means of warfare at sea and the fact that major changes have taken place in other branches of international law of direct relevance to this issue. This need was reflected in Resolution VII of the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, which noted that “some areas of international humanitarian law relating to sea warfare are in need of reaffirmation and clarification on the basis of existing fundamental principles of international humanitarian law” and therefore appealed to “governments to co-ordinate their efforts in appropriate fora in order to review the necessity and the possibility of updating the relevant texts of international humanitarian law relating to sea warfare”.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelleke van Amstel

Arbitrary deprivation of liberty is prohibited by international law; hence even during armed conflict internment of adversaries must have a legal basis in international humanitarian law or national law. The law of non-international armed conflict contains an inherent power to intern. Nevertheless, a further legal source is needed to ensure detention is not arbitrary, outlining grounds and procedure of detention. Such legal grounds do not exist for internment by organised armed groups. This article will outline the possible consequences for members of armed groups when interning without a further legal basis, thus in violation of the prohibition of arbitrary detention, and will subsequently suggest solutions to overcome the imbalance between obligations imposed upon and instruments granted to these actors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document