Humanitarian Negotiation with Parties to Armed Conflict

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-96
Author(s):  
Rob Grace

This article examines the role of international humanitarian law (ihl) and humanitarian principles in the discourse of humanitarian negotiation. The article is based on extensive, semi-structured interviews conducted with 53 humanitarian practitioners about their experiences engaging in negotiations in the field. The article proceeds in four parts. Part 1 discusses two key factors at play during humanitarian negotiation processes. The first factor is the counterpart’s familiarity with relevant legal and normative frameworks. The second factor is the interests that can drive counterparts’ behavior. Part 2 presents a framework for understanding how the interaction of these two factors – familiarity and interest-alignment – can shape the discourse of humanitarian negotiation. Part 3 addresses the impact of these same issues on the humanitarian side of the negotiation. In particular, there is the possibility that humanitarian actors themselves might also lack familiarity with ihl and/or humanitarian principles and might find that their interests exist in tension with humanitarian laws and principles. The final section offers concluding remarks.

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-236
Author(s):  
Bianca Maganza

Abstract The article analyses the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to UN ‘peace operations’ when, due to their factual involvement in hostilities, they become parties to a non-international armed conflict. It argues that the notion of party to the conflict allows to focus on the collective entity and its obligations, and to infer the status of individual members of the operation from the mission's collective status. In assessing the consequences of that scenario, the article further discusses the external and internal borders of the scope of the notion of party to the conflict as applied to UN peace operations, and examines the impact of the loss of protection from attack on the principle of distinction. It concludes by suggesting that, in light of the increasing involvement of UN peace operations in situations that factually amount to armed conflict, an evolutionary interpretation of the theory of IHL's application to the situation is needed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick M. Burkle ◽  
Adam L. Kushner ◽  
Christos Giannou ◽  
Mary A. Paterson ◽  
Sherry M. Wren ◽  
...  

AbstractSince 1945, the reason for humanitarian crises and the way in which the world responds to them has dramatically changed every 10 to 15 years or less. Planning, response, and recovery for these tragic events have often been ad hoc, inconsistent, and insufficient, largely because of the complexity of global humanitarian demands and their corresponding response system capabilities. This historical perspective chronicles the transformation of war and armed conflicts from the Cold War to today, emphasizing the impact these events have had on humanitarian professionals and their struggle to adapt to increasing humanitarian, operational, and political challenges. An unprecedented independent United Nations–World Health Organization decision in the Battle for Mosul in Iraq to deploy to combat zones emergency medical teams unprepared in the skills of decades-tested war and armed conflict preparation and response afforded to health care providers and dictated by International Humanitarian Law and Geneva Convention protections has abruptly challenged future decision-making and deployments. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:109–115)


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 431
Author(s):  
Sophie Rondeau

Le présent article fait état d’un questionnement sur l’état actuel du rôle des normes juridiques émanant du système de droit international humanitaire (DIH) en ce qui a trait au droit à la réparation, en prenant soin de mettre la personne en tant que victime de la guerre au centre de notre réflexion. En considérant la notion de réparation sous l’angle de la victime comme un tout à décrire et à analyser, nous cherchons à savoir s’il existe un droit à la réparation que possède la victime d’un conflit armé régi par le droit international humanitaire. Le fondement même de cette recherche s’appuie donc sur le cadre normatif conventionnel du DIH régissant la notion de réparation, que cette dernière accorde ou non un droit à une victime.This paper presents a series of questions on the present state of the role of judicial standards arising from the system of international humanitarian law [IHL] as regards the right to compensation, by making it a point to place the person as a war victim at the center of our reflection. In considering the concept of compensation from the angle of the victim as a whole, we seek to know whether there exists a right to compensation to which the victim of an armed conflict governed by international humanitarian law is entitled. The very foundation of this research is thus based on the conventional normative framework of IHL governing the concept of compensation, whether or not it grants a right to a victim.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Nyamutata

The impact of armed conflict on children has been recognized for some time as a major humanitarian problem. In 1999, the United Nations (UN) Security Council began taking up the abuse of children during armed conflict as a regular thematic issue. As part of the protective framework, the UN adopted a “strategy” of “naming and shaming” government forces and rebel groups recruiting, killing, maiming, raping or other sexual abusing of children during conflict. The philosophical justification of the public exposures is premised on the supposed stigmatic and deterrent effect on named and shamed offenders. However, little analysis has gone into the impact of this UN policy. This paper has the modest aim of assessing the UN’s naming and shaming practice since inception of the policy in 2002. The efficacy of shaming sanctions is contestable. The recent UN annual statistics on the exposed parties do not seem to evince a convincing causal link between of naming and shaming and adherence to international humanitarian law and international human rights law, particularly among armed non-State groups (ANSAs) so far. Naming and shaming represents an antagonistic modus operandi. This paper argues that humanitarian engagement with ANSAs offers a non-confrontational and corrective approach and thus greater promise for compliance and protection of children during armed conflict than naming and shaming.


2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (864) ◽  
pp. 905-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Churchill Ewumbue-Monono

AbstractThis report presents the instruments and strategies used by non-state actors to respect international humanitarian law during intra-state conflicts in Africa and highlights the recognition by these non-state actors of the role of humanitarian organizations. It examines the impact of such recognition on the development of international humanitarian law and the activities of humanitarian organizations, and shows the problems encountered by non-state actors with respect to their commitments. It concludes with some suggestions as to a way forward.


2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne

The nature of armed conflict has changed dramatically in recent decades. In particular, it is increasingly the case that hostilities now occur alongside ‘everyday’ situations. This has led to a pressing need to determine when a ‘conduct of hostilities’ model (governed by international humanitarian law – IHL) applies and when a ‘law enforcement’ model (governed by international human rights law – IHRL) applies. This, in turn, raises the question of whether these two legal regimes are incompatible or whether they might be applied in parallel. It is on this question that the current article focuses, examining it at the level of principle. Whilst most accounts of the principles underlying these two areas of law focus on humanitarian considerations, few have compared the role played by necessity in each. This article seeks to address this omission. It demonstrates that considerations of necessity play a prominent role in both IHL and IHRL, albeit with differing consequences. It then applies this necessity-based analysis to suggest a principled basis for rationalising the relationship between IHL and IHRL, demonstrating how this approach would operate in practice. It is shown that, by emphasising the role of necessity in IHL and IHRL, an approach can be adopted that reconciles the two in a manner that is sympathetic to their object and purpose.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
DARAGH MURRAY

AbstractInternational humanitarian law establishes explicit safeguards applicable to detention occurring in non-international armed conflict. However, debate exists as to whether these treaty provisions establish an implicit legal basis for detention. This article approaches this debate in light of the application of international humanitarian law to non-state armed groups. It examines the principal arguments against implicit detention authority and then applies the law of treaty interpretation to international humanitarian law's detention-related provisions. On the basis of current understandings of international law – and the prohibition of arbitrary detention in particular – it is concluded that international humanitarian law must be interpreted as establishing implicit detention authority, in order to ensure the continued regulation of armed groups. Although, perhaps, problematic from certain states’ perspective, this conclusion is reflective of the current state of international law. However, this is not necessarily the end of the story. A number of potential ‘ways forward’ are identified: implicit detention authority may be (i) rejected; (ii) accepted; or (iii) re-examined in light of the non-state status of armed groups, and what this means for the content of the prohibition of arbitrary detention. These scenarios are examined in light of the desire to ensure: the coherency of international law including recognition of the role of armed groups, the continued effectiveness of international humanitarian law, and state sovereignty. An emphasis is placed on understanding the non-state status of armed groups and what this means for international regulation and the content of imposed obligations.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Wotherspoon

When the Calderon Administration escalated anti-drug efforts in 2006, drug-related violence in Mexico reached unprecedented levels. The growing intensity of drug-related violence has led to uncertainty over how to classify the violence spreading across Mexico. Much of the public rhetoric argues that Mexico’s drug-related violence has surpassed that which typically characterizes the drug trade and is instead more similar to armed conflict. Due to the changing landscape of Mexican drug violence, an assessment of whether or not the conflict meets the requisite conditions for a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) is needed to determine if the application of international humanitarian law is appropriate. This paper argues that Mexico’s Drug War meets the conditions for NIAC status and application of IHL is appropriate. The question of how to respond to drug-related violence is becoming increasingly relevant as the effects of such violence extends to a more diverse geographic area within Mexico. NIAC status plays a central role in the future of anti-drug policy and has the potential to prompt significant changes in the handling of drug-related violence in Mexico. This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive answer to this question and identify the potential implications that recognition as a NIAC will have on Mexican anti-drug policy.


1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (305) ◽  
pp. 162-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Philippe Lavoyer

The main purpose of this brief study is to show the importance of international humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, for internally displaced persons, i.e. persons displaced within their own country, and to refugees, i.e. persons who have fled their country. Not only does this body of international law protect them when they are victims of armed conflict, but its rules — if scrupulously applied — would make it possible to avoid the majority of displacements.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Aldytia Bunga

<p><em>The vulnerable groups often become the victim of adverse party of armed conflict. Women is included in there. Women in armed conflict are affected directly or indirectly by the conflict, including gender based violence like rape, forced impregnation, or forced prostitution. In addition, armed conflict also affects the gender relation related to women, for example women become the breadwinner as the result of lost of husband due to the conflict. this research aimed to discuss on the impact of armed conflict on women, how international humanitarian law protects women in armed conflict and how the implementation of that protection.</em></p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document