The Security Council on women in war: between peacebuilding and humanitarian protection

2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (877) ◽  
pp. 197-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain-Guy Tachou-Sipowo

AbstractHaving established that massive human rights violations in armed conflict constitute a threat to peace and that women are the most severely affected by the scourge of war, the Security Council has since 1999 adopted a number of resolutions intended specifically for this group. These instruments contribute to the development of humanitarian law applicable to women and acknowledge the value of active participation by women in peace efforts. The following article first analyses the foundations on which the Council has been able to assume responsibility for protecting women in situations of armed conflict, and then considers the actual protection it provides. It concludes that the Council has had varying success in this role, pointing out that the thematic and declaratory resolutions on which it is largely based are not binding and therefore, they are relatively effective only as regards their provisions committing United Nations bodies. The author proposes that the Council's role could be better accomplished through situational resolutions than through resolutions declaratory of international law.

Author(s):  
W Ochieng

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.


1983 ◽  
Vol 23 (236) ◽  
pp. 246-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Junod

Human rights, particularly civil and political, have influenced the latest developments in international humanitarian law, especially 1977 Protocol II relating to non-international armed conflicts. At the Teheran Conference in 1968 the United Nations began to reconcile these two branches of international law; it was at this Conference that international humanitarian law was first called “human rights in periods of armed conflict”. This rapprochement was helped further by the adoption in the 1977 Protocols of some basic rules identical to those in the Human Rights Conventions; it helps strengthen the protection of human beings in situations of armed conflict.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boyd van Dijk

AbstractThe relationship between human rights and humanitarian law is one of the most contentious topics in the history of international law. Most scholars studying their foundations argue that these two fields of law developed separately until the 1960s. This article, by contrast, reveals a much earlier cross-fertilization between these disciplines. It shows how “human rights thinking” played a critical generative role in transforming humanitarian law, thereby creating important legacies for today's understandings of international law in armed conflict.


1993 ◽  
Vol 33 (293) ◽  
pp. 94-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Doswald-Beck ◽  
Sylvain Vité

International humanitarian law is increasingly perceived as part of human rights law applicable in armed conflict. This trend can be traced back to the United Nations Human Rights Conference held in Tehran in 1968 which not only encouraged the development of humanitarian law itself, but also marked the beginning of a growing use by the United Nations of humanitarian law during its examination of the human rights situation in certain countries or during its thematic studies. The greater awareness of the relevance of humanitarian law to the protection of people in armed conflict, coupled with the increasing use of human rights law in international affairs, means that both these areas of law now have a much greater international profile and are regularly being used together in the work of both international and non-governmental organizations.


2019 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted—jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7. deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted — jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies. Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 deals with the issue of regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.7 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


Author(s):  
Aoláin Fionnuala Ní

Principle 29 deals with restrictions on the jurisdiction of military courts. Under this Principle, the adjudication of human rights violations by military courts is explicitly excluded, and ordinary domestic courts are mandated as the only appropriate venue of judicial oversight. Nevertheless, military courts remain functionally important for the routine and uncontroversial deployment of military law consistent with international law. The chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 29 before discussing its theoretical framework and how military courts are used in various countries such as Ireland and Turkey. Issues arising when civilians find themselves within the jurisdiction of military courts are also examined, along with the difficulties of ensuring fair trials in military courts. This chapter shows that military courts, while certainly serving important functions within the military forces of states, remain subject to human rights and humanitarian law compliance.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Teddy Nurcahyawan ◽  
Lauw Wisnu

As a soverign state in the Middle East, Syria has received badly effect of Arab Spring revolution. Thousand of students launched demonstration claiming Bashar Al-Assad to step down. In response to it, Bashar Al-Assad attacked the prodemocracy students by arresting and torturing them. This arms conflict has not only brought many civilians as victims of civil war but involved some other foreign states as well. To avoid matters worse, Security Council of United Nations has issued a Resolution Number 2328/2016 to give sanctions affirming Bashar-Assad to have violated international humanitarian law. The question comes up whether or not this resolution could present the effectiveness of the sanctions. This research has revealed that the Security Council Resolution is effective and Syria has complied with it in line with the international law.  


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-222
Author(s):  
Getahun Kumie Antigegn

The emergence of regional human rights systems depicts one of the greatest achievements in the internationalization of human rights. The foundation of the charter paved the way for the birth of the court thereafter. The African Court is established by virtue of the 1998 protocol to the Charter and the court is built upon an arsenal of protective and remedial techniques. The establishment of the court has reset the stage and created a new platform for the protection of human rights in Africa. The cardinal objective of the paper is to investigate the role of African Court on human and Peoples’ rights protection in Libya Crises taking the case of Saif Al Islam Gaddafi. The paper has utilized qualitative methodology. The government of Libya responded with brutal force against civilian protesters in contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law. The security force of the government of Libya killed many protesters as well. This situation intensified human rights violations and enforced many of the peoples to displace. The court issued an important ruling in March 2011, ordering provisional measures against Libya in the armed conflict in its territory. Libya government denied the claims of human rights violations in its territory and showed its willingness to subject itself to criminal investigations by the Court if necessary. The issue of the fund, independence, commitment and competence of judges to interpret mandate and jurisdiction, the willingness of the states to support and to abide by court decisions, and powers of the concerned body to enforce court decisions hampered the court from being effective. Generally, African States act in good faith with respect to the decisions of the African Human Rights Court, the court becomes more import.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document