A Guide to State Practice Concerning International Humanitarian Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 435-641
Keyword(s):  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Practice

Due Diligence in International Humanitarian Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 183-199
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Occupied Territory ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Relevant Case

This chapter assesses due diligence in international humanitarian law. It identifies international humanitarian law rules governed by due diligence in the fields of the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, the conduct of hostilities, the protection of civilians and persons hors de combat, and the administration of occupied territory. It is argued that international humanitarian law embodies both obligations of result (for instance, negative obligations) and obligations of diligent conduct. In order to identify the obligations of diligent conduct, the chapter relies on state practice and relevant case law, as well as on textual indications embodied in the relevant international humanitarian law provisions. Finally, the chapter argues that the inclusion of some due diligence obligations in international humanitarian law strengthens states’ implementation of this branch of international law.

scholarly journals The Rule of Surrender in International Humanitarian Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Buchan
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Careful Examination ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law Of War ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
Opposing Force ◽  
State Practice

Under international humanitarian law it is prohibited to make the object of attack a person who has surrendered. This article explores the circumstances in which the act of surrender is effective under international humanitarian law and examines, in particular, how surrender can be achieved in practical terms during land warfare in the context of international and non-international armed conflict. First, the article situates surrender within its broader historical and theoretical setting, tracing its legal development as a rule of conventional and customary international humanitarian law and arguing that its crystallisation as a law of war derives from the lack of military necessity to directly target persons who have placed themselves outside the theatre of armed conflict, and that such conduct is unacceptable from a humanitarian perspective. Second, after a careful examination of state practice, the article proposes a three-stage test for determining whether persons have surrendered under international humanitarian law: (1) Have persons attempting to surrender engaged in a positive act which clearly reveals that they no longer intend to participate in hostilities? (2) Is it reasonable in the circumstances prevailing at the time for the opposing force to discern the offer of surrender? and (3) Have surrendered persons unconditionally submitted to the authority of their captor?

3 Components of the International Law of Weaponry

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boothby William H
Keyword(s):  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Status ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
The Law

This chapter considers the sources of the law of weaponry and discusses matters critical to understanding it. Taking the traditional approach, in addition to general principles of law recognized by nations, the sources of the law consist of customary law and of treaty law, the latter referred to as ‘conventional law’. The chapter looks at customary law, which is, according to Article 38(1)(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the law applied by the court as including ‘international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law’. The chapter discusses what does, and respectively does not, comprise state practice and then looks at treaties, how they are made and interpreted, how states explain their understandings of them and related matters. Individual sections then address the status at law of the ICRC Study of Customary International Humanitarian Law and of the UN Secretary General’s Bulletin.

11. International humanitarian law

2021 ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Nicole Scicluna
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The Political ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Legitimate Target ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Status ◽  
International Legal Order

This chapter investigates whether and how the laws that govern armed conflict achieve their objective of minimizing the suffering of combatants and non-combatants alike. International humanitarian law (IHL) reflects the tensions of an international legal order that oscillates between the apologist tendency to reflect state practice and state self-interest and the utopian desire to reflect higher values of justice and human dignity. The chapter begins with a brief overview of the evolution of this body of law, the codification of which dates from the second half of the nineteenth century. It then turns to the question of terminology, analysing the political origins and legal implications of the relatively recent term ‘international humanitarian law’. The chapter focuses on two key questions. Firstly, who or what is a legitimate target during an armed conflict? Secondly, what are legitimate means of conducting armed conflict? The chapter also considers the status of nuclear weapons under international law, a topic that captures well both the possibilities and limits of IHL.

Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Ten Years of Affirmative State Practice within United Nations Resolutions

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilia Maria Siatitsa ◽  
Maia Titberidze
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Two Bodies ◽  
Real Test

The debate concerning the interrelation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law is certainly not new within the relevant academic circles. Nevertheless, a comprehensive study of recent State practice in the UN political bodies, that puts the opposition to the applicability of human rights to a real test, adds a new and rather intriguing twist to the matter. It appears that the statements of governments arguing for the exclusive application of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts are not always supported by their own practice within the UN political bodies. The present article explores the potential influence and importance of this observation for bridging the possible gaps between these two bodies of international law. It further identifies a number of interesting trends in the application of specific human rights norms in armed conflicts.

The Historical Evolution of Allegiance During Occupation

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-100
Author(s):  
Manuel Galvis Martinez
Keyword(s):  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Historical Evolution ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Abstract The article traces the historical evolution of an understudied area of International Humanitarian Law (IHL): the rules on allegiance during occupation. By mapping state practice and scholarly opinions, the article shows the abandonment of the automatic transfer of the population’s allegiance to the occupant in favour of other theories. Nonetheless, the discussions surrounding this topic show a general struggle to label the relation between inhabitants and occupiers, and a general rejection of any theory that directly or indirectly presumes sovereignty of the occupier over the inhabitants. The article presents an element that is rarely included in debates on allegiance and occupation, i.e. the efforts of states to reinforce their sovereignty over occupied population through criminal prosecution of those who collaborated with the occupant. Finally, contemporary practice aimed at bypassing the regulations is presented as incongruent with the rules regarding occupation in the Geneva Conventions. Despite the landmarks achieved in regulating the matter, the article shows that many aspects remain under discussion and formation. Furthermore, many current rules, practices and discussions only serve the interests of states and are oblivious of the hardships faced by individuals under occupation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document