Frederik Naert, International Law Aspects of the EU’s Security and Defence Policy, with a Particular Focus on the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights. intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford and Portland, 2010, ISBN 9789050957717, xxviii + 682 pp., EUR 125.00

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 513-515
Author(s):  
Gerhard Hafner
Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 36-43
Author(s):  
Viktor Bazov

The article discusses topical issues of the formation and further development of the theory of international humanitarian law. Explored the basic concepts of this area of humanitarian public law. For the first time, international humanitarian law is defined as a set of conventional and customary international legal norms that govern the law of armed conflict and human rights law. The processes of globalization of modern international relations, characterized by increasing influence of leading international organizations and crises in individual states, objectively affect the renewal and further development of the theory of international humanitarian law as one of the rapidly developing branches of public international law. New conceptual approaches to the modern definition of international humanitarian law, its philosophy and legal nature require a rethinking of scientific views as classics of international law, including the founder of the theory of natural law and modern science of international law Hugo Grotius, researcher of state interests in «just war» Thomas Hobbes and the founder of the «social contract», the sentimentalist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the views of such prominent scholars as Immanuel Kant, Fedor Martens and Jean Pictet. Given the normative definition, «the law of armed conflict» and «the law of human rights» are two independent legal systems within the framework of international humanitarian law, which operate mainly in different periods: during armed conflicts or in peacetime, respectively. These legal systems, although closely interlinked within the framework of international humanitarian law, are still independent and relatively independent of each other, as they have features in the sources and mechanisms of implementation and control over compliance with their norms and principles. Key words: theory of international humanitarian law, international relations, state, international organization, international court.


Author(s):  
Tsvetelina van Benthem

Abstract This article examines the redirection of incoming missiles when employed by defending forces to whom obligations to take precautions against the effects of attacks apply. The analysis proceeds in four steps. In the first step, the possibility of redirection is examined from an empirical standpoint. Step two defines the contours of the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Step three considers one variant of redirection, where a missile is redirected back towards the adversary. It is argued that such acts of redirection would fulfil the definition of attack under the law of armed conflict, and that prima facie conflicts of obligations could be avoided through interpretation of the feasibility standard embedded in the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Finally, step four analyzes acts of redirection against persons under the control of the redirecting State. Analyzing this scenario calls for an inquiry into the relationship between the relevant obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law.


Author(s):  
Paul David Mora

SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document