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 ‘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.

“The Rights and Obligations of Parties to International Armed Conflicts”

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janina Dill
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Community Interest ◽  
The Individual

This chapter argues that the process commonly described as the development of international law “from bilateralism to community interest” should be dis-aggregated into its formal, procedural, and substantive dimensions. A move away from formal and procedural bilateralism is always a move towards community interest because it furthers the rule of law. In contrast, a move away from formal/procedural bilateralism does not guarantee a better protection of the community’s substantive interests. International humanitarian law is a trailblazer of procedural and formal progress, yet a slacker in the substantive move toward what is commonly taken to be community interest: protecting the individual. The chapter further shows that alongside protecting the individual, the international community has a second competing substantive interest in the regulation of warfare: preserving military efficacy. International humanitarian law’s development highlights that progress in international law is more complex than the phrase “from bilateralism to community interest” suggests .

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.

From Complicity to Due Diligence: When Do States Incur Responsibility for Their Involvement in Serious International Wrongdoing?

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 667-707
Author(s):  
Anja Seibert-Fohr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Involvement ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Positive Knowledge

The article considers different modes of State involvement in serious violations of international law and the legal criteria for unlawful contributions. Giving special attention to participation below the level of complicity – when a State contributes to serious violations without possessing positive knowledge – the author considers primary rules of international law that prohibit indirect participation, such as the duty to respect and ensure fundamental human rights. The article argues in favour of a risk-based ex ante responsibility in order to prevent cooperation between States which violate fundamental legal norms of the international community. Accordingly, States incur responsibility for indirect participation if they do not exercise the necessary diligence to prevent such violations. Though due diligence is usually referred to when States fail to intervene in cases of third party abuse, it applies a fortiori in cases of active contributions. While the article concentrates on serious human rights violations, it also refers to other fields of international law, including breaches of international humanitarian law. By specifying the legal parameters of due diligence as a general principle it thus contributes to the scholarly debate on the content of due diligence in international law more generally.

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.

scholarly journals PENGRUSAKAN TEMPAT BERSEJARAH DALAM PERANG ANTARNEGARA SEBAGAI PELANGGARAN HUKUM HUMANITER INTERNASIONAL

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dyan Sitanggang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Protection

Cultural property, in this present case: historical object, is protected and respected as world’s asset with great value in international law especially international humanitarian law through its various institutions and instruments. The historical object with great importance to humanity has to be protected at all times and deserves international protection. However, some people oftentimes forget its obligation and intentionally destroy such objects, even though they are well aware that States and people have the obligation to protect, respect and safeguard those objects. Hague Convention 1954 boldly states that the destruction of such objects is a violation of customs of law and international humanitarian law. Keywords: Destruction, cultural property, historical object, armed conflict, international humanitarian law

Ensuring national compliance with IHL: The role and impact of national IHL committees

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (895-896) ◽  
pp. 1043-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Pellandini
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Large Range ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups

Since the First Geneva Convention was adopted in 1864, international humanitarian law (IHL) has become a complex and steadily developing body of international law. Its conventions, protocols and customary rules encompass a large range of subjects, from the protection of the sick and wounded, civilians, civilian objects, prisoners of war and cultural property to the restriction or prohibition of specific types of weapons and methods of warfare. All parties to a conflict are bound by applicable IHL, including armed groups involved in non-international armed conflicts.

Part VII Inter-linkages with Other Regimes, Ch.50 Armed Conflict and the Environment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruch Carl ◽  
Payne Cymie R ◽  
Sjöstedt Britta
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Starting Point

This chapter looks at how the concern for the environment in relation to armed conflict can be addressed from several bodies of international law. These diverse bodies of law emerged largely isolated from one another: international humanitarian law, international environmental law, international criminal law, international human rights law, the United Nations (UN) Charter, and so on. Hence, a fragmented and unclear legal framework protects the environment in times of armed conflict. The chapter focuses on the interlinkages between international environmental law and other bodies of international law to protect the environment in relation to armed conflict. The thesis is that international environmental law norms are increasingly shaping protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict, in contrast to the relative rigidity of international humanitarian law norms, which is traditionally the starting point for analysing wartime environmental protection. The chapter begins with a brief consideration of international law applicable during all temporal phases of armed conflict: before conflict (including conflict prevention); during conflict; and after conflict. It then explores the issues and relevant law particular to specific phases.

The Responsibility to Protect and the Responsibility While Protecting: Why Did Brazil Write a Letter to the UN?

2013 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger Österdahl
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Additional Layer ◽  
Un Security Council

The responsibility to protect was invoked by the United Nations (UN) Security Council in support of its authorization of a military intervention in Libya in 2011. In the wake of the intervention, Brazil approached the UN with a new doctrine: the responsibility while protecting. The responsibility while protecting implies a greater degree of caution on the part of the international community in its exercise of the responsibility to protect. Intentionally or unintentionally, Brazil mixes aspects of the jus ad bellum with aspects of the jus in bello in the new doctrine. This is controversial and potentially detrimental to both areas of law. An additional layer of limitations on the use of armed force in multinational peace operations is introduced beyond the existing restrictions on warfare following from international humanitarian law. A lack of clarity pertaining to the use of force and to the respective roles of the Security Council and the General Assembly in this respect in the exercise of the responsibility to protect contribute to making the responsibility while protecting seem increasingly enigmatic. Interpreted constructively, however, the responsibility while protecting simply urges the international community to follow international law. This would be good.

Cyberoperations and international humanitarian law

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosmas Pipyros ◽  
Lilian Mitrou ◽  
Dimitris Gritzalis ◽  
Theodoros Apostolopoulos
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Evolutionary Process ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Cyber Attacks ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Cyber Warfare ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Cyber Attack ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fifth Dimension

Purpose – The increasing number of cyber attacks has transformed the “cyberspace” into a “battlefield”, bringing out “cyber warfare” as the “fifth dimension of war” and emphasizing the States’ need to effectively protect themselves against these attacks. The existing legal framework seem inadequate to deal effectively with cyber operations and, from a strictly legal standpoint, it indicates that addressing cyber attacks does not fall within the jurisdiction of just one legal branch. This is mainly because of the fact that the concept of cyber warfare itself is open to many different interpretations, ranging from cyber operations performed by the States within the context of armed conflict, under International Humanitarian Law, to illicit activities of all kinds performed by non-State actors including cybercriminals and terrorist groups. The paper initially presents major cyber-attack incidents and their impact on the States. On this basis, it examines the existing legal framework at the European and international levels. Furthermore, it approaches “cyber warfare” from the perspective of international law and focuses on two major issues relating to cyber operations, i.e. “jurisdiction” and “attribution”. The multi-layered process of attribution in combination with a variety of jurisdictional bases in international law makes the successful tackling of cyber attacks difficult. The paper aims to identify technical, legal and, last but not least, political difficulties and emphasize the complexity in applying international law rules in cyber operations. Design/methodology/approach – The paper focuses on the globalization of the “cyber warfare phenomenon” by observing its evolutionary process from the early stages of its appearance until today. It examines the scope, duration and intensity of major cyber-attacks throughout the years in relation to the reactions of the States that were the victims. Having this as the base of discussion, it expands further by exemplifying “cyber warfare” from the perspective of the existing European and International legal framework. The main aim of this part is to identify and analyze major obstacles that arise, for instance in terms of “jurisdiction” and “attribution” in applying international law rules to “cyber warfare”. Findings – The absence of a widely accepted legal framework to regulate jurisdictional issues of cyber warfare and the technical difficulties in identifying, with absolute certainty, the perpetrators of an attack, make the successful tackling of cyber attacks difficult. Originality/value – The paper fulfills the need to identify difficulties in applying international law rules in cyber warfare and constitutes the basis for the creation of a method that will attempt to categorize and rank cyber operations in terms of their intensity and seriousness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document