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.

scholarly journals Islamic Contributions to International Humanitarian Law: Recalibrating TWAIL Approaches for Existing Contributions and Legacies

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 271-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corri Zoli
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Third World ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
National Leaders ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Short Essay

This short essay focuses on the involvement of Muslim-majority state leadership in the pre-World War II development of international humanitarian law (IHL), including their appeals to Islamic norms. This historical snapshot reveals how national leaders joined debates during conferences leading up to the revised 1949 Geneva Conventions, the heart of modern IHL. Such accounts complicate our assumptions about the cultural and national composition of public international law as “Western,” and shed light on global hierarchies involving modern Arab and Muslim states and their investment in such norms. The essay argues by example that, ultimately, in Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) more emphasis is needed on history, traditions of governance, and states’ distinctive responses to macrostructural pressures—rather than on static notions of identity, resistant narratives, and presumed shared ideologies. TWAIL seeks alternatives to international law’s presumed oppressive role in Western-non-Western power dynamics, and new ideas and opportunities for a “third-world” legal scholarship beyond current global underdevelopment dynamics.

Refugees and internally displaced persons — International humanitarian law and the role of the ICRC

1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (305) ◽  
pp. 162-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Philippe Lavoyer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Internally Displaced Persons ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Displaced Persons ◽  
Internally Displaced ◽  
Geneva Conventions

The main purpose of this brief study is to show the importance of international humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, for internally displaced persons, i.e. persons displaced within their own country, and to refugees, i.e. persons who have fled their country. Not only does this body of international law protect them when they are victims of armed conflict, but its rules — if scrupulously applied — would make it possible to avoid the majority of displacements.

Unlawful Combatants

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Knut Dörmann
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Military Campaign ◽  
Unlawful Combatants

The legal situation of ‘unlawful combatants’ has been one of the most contentious issues in international humanitarian law. It has been addressed in some detail in legal writings following the adoption of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and then before the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions were adopted. The United States-led military campaign in Afghanistan, which started in 2001, revived the debate. This chapter examines the debate concerning the legal framework applicable to the possible detainability and targetability of ‘unlawful combatants’. It first considers ‘unlawful combatants’ in the hands of the enemy within the framework of international and non-international armed conflicts. It then discusses the penal prosecution of ‘unlawful combatants’ as well as their status under the rules of the conduct of hostilities. The chapter concludes by looking at the practice in Israel and the United States, the former in reference to the incarceration of unlawful combatants and the latter with respect to the fight against terrorism.

The Counterterrorism War Paradigm versus International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Contradictions and Global Consequences of the US “War on Terror”

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (04) ◽  
pp. 922-956
Author(s):  
Lisa Hajjar
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Strategic Objectives ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government

Since 2001, we have witnessed the development of a counterterrorism war paradigm built to advance claims about the post-9/11 scope and discretion of US executive power and to articulate specific interpretations of national security interests and strategic objectives in the “war on terror.” What makes this a paradigm rather than merely a conglomeration of evolving policies is the cohesiveness and mutual reinforcement of its underlying rationales about the rights of the US government to prosecute a territorially unbounded war against an evolving cast of enemies. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of a juridical field, the article focuses on how officials who constructed a legal framework for this paradigm, rather than disregarding international law wholesale, have engaged in interpretations and crafted rationales to evade some international humanitarian law (IHL) rules and norms while rejecting the underlying logic or applicability of others. This article traces the counterterrorism war paradigm’s development and explains how it now competes with and threatens to supersede the customary law principles enshrined in IHL.

Compromise or Commitment: Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Obligations for UN Peace Forces

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-245
Author(s):  
Marten Zwanenburg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The One

Allegations of human rights and humanitarian law violations by UN forces have highlighted the need for more clarity in this area. This requires a focus on human rights and humanitarian norms applicable to UN forces, and the question of responsibility for violations of those norms. To a large extent, these questions concern the relations between the UN, national contingents, and troop contributing states. What are their respective rights and obligations? In this paper it is submitted that the answer given to this question under international law differs from the one given in the specific legal framework and practice of UN forces.

Special agreements as a means of enhancing compliance with IHL in non-international armed conflicts: An inquiry into the governing legal regime

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (895-896) ◽  
pp. 1195-1224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezequiel Heffes ◽  
Marcos D. Kotlik
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Domestic Law

AbstractCommon Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions encourages the parties to a non-international armed conflict to bring into force international humanitarian law provisions through the conclusion of special agreements. Since armed groups are ever more frequent participants in contemporary armed conflicts, the relevance of those agreements as means to enhance compliance with IHL has grown as well. The decision-making process of special agreements recognizes that all the parties to the conflict participate in the clarification and expansion of the applicable rights and obligations in a way that is consistent with the principle of equality of belligerents. This provides incentives for armed groups to respect the IHL rules they have themselves negotiated. However, even upon the conclusion of such agreements, it remains unclear which legal regime governs them. This paper will argue that special agreements are governed by international law instead of domestic law or asui generislegal regime.

Protecting cultural property in Syria: New opportunities for States to enhance compliance with international law?

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (906) ◽  
pp. 1037-1074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Polina Levina Mahnad
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Community ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Loss Of Life ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Political Settlement

AbstractThe war in Syria has lasted for six years and has led to massive destruction and loss of life. Stymieing international peace efforts from the outset, there is increasing doubt that the conflict will reach a resolution or political settlement in the near future. This frustration has triggered an appetite among States, civil society and the international community for finite and concrete measures that can contribute to greater protection and compliance with international law. A recent constellation of events around the protection of cultural property appears to herald a shift in the response of the international community toward prescribing practical and actionable measures for third-party States. Drawing on the responsibility of third States “to respect and ensure respect for” international humanitarian law, this article examines the legal framework protecting cultural property and recent innovative protection responses that contribute to ensuring compliance with international law in Syria, short of military assistance and intervention.

scholarly journals REVISITING THE BIPOLAR DISTINCTION IN THE CHARACTERISATION OF ARMED CONFLICTS

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
W Ochieng
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Traditional Understanding

Since the Geneva Conventions, the architecture of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has been founded upon a distinction between international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict. Today, this claim stands to be revisited since international and non-international armed conflicts are no longer strict organising frameworks for the categorisation of rules of armed conflicts. This is seen in that over fifty years ago, when the four Geneva Conventions were negotiated, the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention were the cornerstones of international law and while their force today is still apparent, the interdependence of states, and global concerns such as terrorism and the commission of widespread human rights violations have eroded the traditional inviolability of borders. The dichotomy in humanitarian law is as implausible today as it is also fundamentally unworkable given the current conditions of conflicts. This dualist conception is no longer adequate to deal with current features of armed conflict, which do not fit neatly into the two categories and frequently contain mixed elements which thus make the task of classification highly complex. The codification of customary rules of international humanitarian law has narrowed the grounds on which the distinctions are predicated. In addition, the two regimes apply simultaneously on multiple situations. Moreover, the question of contemporary armed conflicts raises serious doubts as to whether the traditional understanding of international law still suffices to explain the complexities of modern day armed conflicts. This essay seeks to offer a different perspective on armed conflicts by suggesting a systematic rethinking of the categorisation of conflict. It argues that some of the dilemmas of contemporary conflicts may be attenuated by a new conceptualisation of this bipolar distinction namely a need for a unitary conception of armed conflict.

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission and Customary International Humanitarian Law

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Szpak
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Key Issues

The aim of the article is to highlight several issues concerning the customary international law status of a number of international humanitarian law (IHL) treaty provisions that arose during the proceedings of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission. Specifically, two key issues will be analyzed, namely the Commission's findings that the Geneva Conventions and some provisions of Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law and that international landmine conventions create only treaty obligations and do not yet reflect customary international law. Also, some more detailed conclusions relating to particular problems, such as the issue of the customary nature of the ICRC’s right to visit prisoners of war and its binding character for non-parties to the Geneva Conventions, will be discussed. The 2005 ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s jurisprudence will also be included as a point of reference to identify the customary character of certain provisions. The main conclusion is that the Commission has significantly contributed to the emerging consensus regarding the status of certain norms of international humanitarian law as customary norms. Furthermore, it has identified lacunae in the existing standards of humanitarian law and suggested the development of new norms to fill those gaps.

The Year in Review

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 213-253
Author(s):  
Avril McDonald
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law

Nineteen ninety-nine was a year of taking stock. For humanitarian lawyers, this was facilitated by the fact that it was a year of anniversaries. As well as being the final year of the decade of international law, it was also the centenary of the first Hague peace conference and the first Hague Convention and the fiftieth anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, providing ample occasion for reflection on the successes and failures of this branch of international law over the past century. The tone of the various commemorative meetings was chastened rather than celebratory. As one commentator noted: ‘At the end of a century which has seen so much of war and in which the laws of war have proven so comparatively ineffectual, it seems obvious that that law must be seen as deficient and the record of the last hundred years be adjudged one of failure rather than achievement. (…) Yet the principle conclusion is not that the world needs new law, or different law, but that the law which we have needs to be made more effective.’The major developments in international humanitarian law have closely tracked a century that has seen society and the nature and aims of warfare change dramatically. Developments in the law have been reactive rather than anticipatory and have built on a model that was designed in response to imperatives that were different than those faced today and those that will be faced in the future. The time has long since passed in many countries when the state has a monopoly on violence. Entire societies have been militarised, and in many areas war has been ‘privatised’ as ‘mercenaries, rebels, mutinous gangsters emerge to exploit the decline of the state’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document