International Humanitarian Law and Its Application in Outer Space

Author(s):  
Cassandra Steer ◽  
Dale Stephens

International humanitarian law (IHL) is applicable in outer space as a matter of international law, yet there are some challenges when it comes to specific principles and rules. The kinds of weapons that have been and might be used in space are discussed, as well as the ways in which space assets are used with respect to conflicts on Earth. An analysis then follows of the core principles of IHL and how they apply in space: the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in attack. While it is imperative that States recognize the applicability of IHL to all their activities in space that involve conflicts on Earth and/or in space, care must be taken in weighing the traditional principles and their application to this new domain. As the technology that increases warfighting capability advances, so does the imperative to understand the applicable legal framework for the use of such technology.

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 731-743
Author(s):  
Marika Sosnowski

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.


2022 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-126
Author(s):  
Virajati Adhazar ◽  
Suhaidi Suhaidi ◽  
Sutiarnoto Sutiarnoto ◽  
Jelly Leviza

Self-defense as an inherent right owned by a country is regulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter and due to the use of Space-Based Missile Interceptor (SBMI) weapons in space, the 1967 outer space treaty must also be guided. Because Article 4 of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits the use of weapons in space, the legality of using SBMI weapons is questionable. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the legal provisions, forms of state accountability and the process of prosecuting compensation for countries using these weapons according to international law. The results of the study indicate that the use of SBMI weapons does not conflict with international law, because it is based on Article 103 of the UN Charter which states that if there are provisions in other legal rules that are contrary to the UN Charter, the UN Charter must be guided. So that self-defense actions based on Article 51 of the UN Charter do not violate the law. The party that must be absolutely responsible is the country that started the conflict, because it has violated the rules of international law in Article 2 paragraph (4) of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. The compensation process is carried out according to the rules of the space liability convention 1972 and if in practice the party who is responsible does not show good faith in providing compensation, then it can be continued by referring to the dispute resolution process in the UN Charter.


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (04) ◽  
pp. 922-956
Author(s):  
Lisa Hajjar

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.


2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 24-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amichai Cohen

This article seeks to evaluate Israel's implementation of the international law of occupation in the territories which it came to control after the Six-Day War, from a new perspective. Many scholars have criticized or justified specific Israeli policies by comparing them to specific norms of international law. Contrary to this scholarship, this article addresses the questions at the core of current debates over the implementation of international law: Why has Israel chosen to implement some specific rules of international law and to ignore others? And what caused the changes in Israel's implementation of international law?Some of the answers to these questions can be found by examining the interests of various institutions involved in the implementation of International law, and the interplay between them. I suggest that in order to understand Israel's initial behavior one must look at the interests, goals and culture of the Israeli army, the IDF, the institution initially responsible for administering the territories. I shall further argue that subsequent changes in policies are a result of the struggle between the IDF and other Israeli institutions attempting to gain influence over the way the territories were controlled.


1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-245
Author(s):  
Marten Zwanenburg

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (906) ◽  
pp. 1037-1074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Polina Levina Mahnad

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 335-357
Author(s):  
Juan Felipe Idrovo Romo

The paper critically explores those scenarios (hypothetical, but probable) in which armed conflicts take place in outer space. First, the problem regarding the definition and delimitation of outer space will be analyzed. In this regard, the reasons why there is no consensus among the States, and even within the scientific community, will be explained. Subsequently, the relevant branches (for the topic) of Public International Law will be introduced (International Space Law, International Humanitarian Law, and Ius ad Bellum) and their key regulations will be identified. At this point, the main reasons why International Humanitarian Law shall be applied in the event that an armed conflict develops in outer space will be explained taking into account PIL formal and auxiliary sources. Likewise, specific challenges, that result from the application of International Humanitarian Law in outer space, will be exposed and analyzed. These challenges include: (i) attacks on dual-use objects; (ii) the obligations of the parties to the conflict when there is human direct or physical participation; and (iii) the applicable regulations for the development and use of new weapons. For each problem raised, possible solutions based on the rules and principles of current law will be provided. Finally, the need for the eventual creation of a specific treaty to regulate the matter will be emphasized, in view of the unique nature of this type of conflict.


Author(s):  
Bruch Carl ◽  
Payne Cymie R ◽  
Sjöstedt Britta

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosmas Pipyros ◽  
Lilian Mitrou ◽  
Dimitris Gritzalis ◽  
Theodoros Apostolopoulos

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (906) ◽  
pp. 1075-1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela-Chiara Gillard

AbstractIn recent years there have been repeated calls for the establishment of so-called “safe areas” to protect civilians from the effects of hostilities in a number of contexts. The present article presents the international law framework relevant to the establishment and operation of such areas: the provisions of international humanitarian law on protected zones; the rules regulating resort to armed force, Security Council authorization and mandates for the establishment of such areas by multinational forces in the absence of agreement between belligerents; and the refugee and international human rights issues raised by such zones. Using the example of the “protection of civilians sites” in South Sudan, the article then highlights some of the operational challenges raised by safe areas. It concludes with some reflections on how to enhance the likelihood that belligerents will establish such protected zones in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document