Reclaiming Protection as a Humanitarian Goal: Fodder for the Faint-Hearted Aid-Worker

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 382-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Mackintosh

AbstractHumanitarian action is under pressure on two fronts. On one side, western nations seek to use aid as a foreign policy tool, threatening the neutral image of humanitarian actors and placing them under suspicion. On the other, and in partial reaction to this, host states are re-asserting sovereignty and imposing new limits on humanitarian action in their territory. In many contexts, organisations are being limited by law or practice from addressing abuse of the populations they seek to assist. This is not a surprising reaction from states whose actions are scrutinised; but it is making inroads on the confidence of humanitarian actors themselves. Some are beginning to question not only the feasibility but also the appropriateness of the protection work they have taken on since the 1990s. The article seeks to reinforce the importance and legitimacy of humanitarian protection by showing that both assistance and protection are key goals of humanitarian action as defined by international law. It urges organisations to fight for the space the law has granted, in order to most effectively help the victims of armed conflict.

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 588
Author(s):  
Enny Narwati

The purpose of this paper is to analyze an implementation of neutrality principles at sea in time of armed conflict. It because the law of neutrality at sea has not progressed and seem stagnant since 1907 on the Hague Convention. Indeed, the UN Charter and UNCLOS 1982 set up significant developments on international law. On the other hand, there still found a lack of rules available in particular area, therefore international community provide San Remo Manual 1994. The San Remo Manual created based on the Hague Convention of 1907, the UN Charter, UNCLOS 1982, other international treaties and customary international law. To conclude, that the law of neutrality at sea should respected the sovereignty of neutral countries


Author(s):  
L. C. Green

In HisDe Jure Belli ac Paris, Grotius, quoting Cicero, stated that “there is no Middle between War and Peace,” and this sentiment seems to have received general agreement well into the twentieth century. Thus, inJansonv.Driefontein Consolidated Mines, Lord Macnaghten stated: “I think the learned counsel for the respondent was right in saying that the law recognises a state of peace and a state of war, but that it knows nothing of an intermediate state which is neither one thing nor the other — neither peace nor war.” One might have thought that the English courts would have abandoned this view in the light of their own experience during the Manchukuo incident, for by 1939 inKawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobev.Bantham S.S. Co.the Court of Appeal was prepared to concede that “war” might exist for some commercial purposes but not in so far as other legal relationships were concerned.


2021 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis

This chapter examines the rules of international law governing the birth, the life, and the death of treaties. Treaties, a formal source of international law, are agreements in written form between States or international organizations that are subject to international law. A treaty falls under the definition of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), no matter what form or title it may have. The most important factor is that it sets out obligations or entitlements under international law. The VCLT enumerates the rules governing the ‘birth’, ie the steps from the negotiation until the entry into force of the treaty; the ‘life’, ie the interpretation and application of the treaty; and its ‘demise’, ie its termination. The two fundamental tenets are, on the one hand, the principle ‘pacta sunt servanda’ and, on the other, the principle of contractual freedom of the parties.


Author(s):  
Bothe Michael

This chapter focuses on rules of the law of neutrality concerning the protection of the victims of armed conflicts, which must be considered as part of international humanitarian law. ‘Neutrality’ describes the particular status, as defined by international law, of a state not party to an armed conflict. This status entails specific rights and duties in the relationship between the neutral and the belligerent states. On one hand, there is the right of the neutral state to remain apart from, and not to be adversely affected by, the conflict. On the other hand, there is the duty of non-participation and impartiality. The right not to be adversely affected means that the relationship between the neutral and belligerent States is governed by the law of peace, which is modified only in certain respects by the law of neutrality. In particular, the neutral State must tolerate certain controls in the area of maritime commerce. The duty of non-participation means, above all, that the state must abstain from supporting a party to the conflict. This duty not to support also means that the neutral state is under a duty not to allow one party to the conflict to use the resources of the neutral state against the will of the opponent.


2018 ◽  
pp. 309-316
Author(s):  
Jane Sendall

This chapter focuses on the issue of parental child abduction, i.e. the removal of children by a parent to another country without the permission of the other parent or the permission of the court. It examines the phenomenon of parental child abduction; the national and international law assisting parents seeking the return of a child; and the law and procedure relevant to preventing child abduction.


2019 ◽  
pp. 309-316
Author(s):  
Jane Sendall ◽  
Roiya Hodgson

This chapter focuses on the issue of parental child abduction, i.e. the removal of children by a parent to another country without the permission of the other parent or the permission of the court. It looks at jurisdiction, in which circumstances removal may be lawful, passports, and port alerts. It examines the phenomenon of parental child abduction; the national and international law assisting parents seeking the return of a child; and the law and procedure relevant to preventing child abduction. Hague and non-Hague convention countries are also discussed, as well as what can be done if a child is abducted to a non-Hague convention country.


1926 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-256
Author(s):  
Charles Cheney Hyde

Naval fleets are maintained by development and replacement because their possessors dare not fail to make provision for a maritime war in which they may be participants. No means yet devised and accepted for the amicable adjustment of international differences have removed from responsible statesmen a sense of the necessity of anticipating such a contingency. Despite increasing efforts in every quarter to cultivate wills for peace and abhorrence of armed conflict, as well as a desire to adjust grave differences by judicial process or through commissions of conciliation, war is still regarded as a contingency which must be reckoned with, and as one which is as dangerous as it is seemingly remote. In making provision as against a contingency which none would welcome or hasten, the governments of maritime states do not necessarily encourage war or indicate approval of recourse to it. A particular conference of maritime states may in fact uplift the hopes of prospective belligerents which resent and oppose agreements restricting recourse to measures and instrumentalities on which they expect to rely. On the other hand, general arrangements respecting belligerent activities may serve to lessen a zeal for war and to remove its very approach further from the horizon. Everything depends upon the ambitions of the states which consent to confer. The point to be observed is that agreements for the regulation of maritime war in so far as they purport to proscribe or check the use of particular instrumentalities or recourse to particular measures, are not to be deemed bellicose in design or effect. Such regulatory agreements are advocates of peace rather than of war. Moreover, as will be seen, they may be the means of encouraging states to reduce armaments which would otherwise be maintained.


TheHandbookconsists of 32 Chapters in seven parts. Part I provides the historical background and sets out some of the contemporary challenges. Part II considers the relevant sources of international law. Part III describes the different legal regimes: land warfare, air warfare, maritime warfare, the law of occupation, the law applicable to peace operations, and the law of neutrality. Part IV introduces key concepts in international humanitarian law: weapons and the notion of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering, the principle of distinction, proportionality, genocide and crimes against humanity, grave breaches and war crimes, internal armed conflict. Part V looks at key rights: the right to life, the prohibition on torture, the right to fair trial, economic, social and cultural rights, the protection of the environment, the protection of cultural property, and the human rights of the members of the armed forces. Part VI covers key issues such as: the use of force, terrorism, unlawful combatants, the application of human rights in times of armed conflict, forced migration, and issues of gender. Part VII deals with accountability issues including those related to private security companies, the need to focus on armed groups, as well as questions of state responsibility brought before national courts, and finally, the book addresses issues related to transitional justice.


Author(s):  
Ward Thomas

International law and armed conflict have a rather contentious history together. One the one hand, armed conflict implies and absence of law, and yet, on the other, international law plays an important role in codifying the use of force. The UN Charter’s restrictions on the use of force, drafted in the waning days of a second cataclysmic world war, were intended to radically transform the centuries-old ideology of raison d’état, which viewed war as a sovereign prerogative. More precisely, Article 2(4) of the Charter forbids not just war but force of any kind, or even the threat of it. On its face, the Charter system is a model of simplicity, consisting of a clear prohibition and two exceptions to that prohibition. The apparent simplicity is misleading, however. Article 2(4) is violated so often that experts disagree about whether it should even be considered good law. The Chapter VII enforcement exception is rarely used, and the meaning of self-defense under Article 51 is the subject of contentious disagreement. Moreover, even some UN bodies have supported creating another exception (humanitarian intervention) that coexists uneasily with the organization’s foundational principles. In addition, there is yet another exception (the use of force by national liberation movements) that may be as significant as the others, yet is little discussed by contemporary commentators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document