scholarly journals REVISITING THE ISSUE ON THE EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT OF THE RUSSIAN LAW AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2017 ◽  
pp. 50-69
Author(s):  
O. Zadorozhnii
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Crimean Peninsula ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article covers the issue of specific breaches of international law provisions owed to Ukraine by Russia. The article also examines problems in the application of international law by Russia. In the course of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the former is carrying out the military occupation of the Crimean peninsula and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and prosecutes Ukrainian citizens (Nadiya Savchenko, Oleh Sentsov, Oleksandr Kolchenko, Hennadii Afanasyev, Yurii Soloshenko and others) in violation of international law. Both Russian executives and doctrine attempt to substantiate the cases against Ukrainian citizens, however, their arguments suffer both legal and factual problems. An illustrative in this regard is Savchenko’s case, which has become important Russian propaganda tool to help reinforce the accusations of the “atrocities committed by the Kyiv junta”. The analyses shows that Savchenko case could have been used to complete different tasks – starting from lifting the sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation and finishing with increasing the number of Russian volunteers in the war against Ukraine. Also, Russia has prosecuted Oleh Sentsov who has been charged with creating a terrorist group and committing two acts of terrorism. One of the most untenable legal arguments of the Russian Federation is a qualification of the aggression as a non-international armed conflict. In this regard, Russian authorities and doctrine insist on Russia’s not being bound or entitled to apply the rules of international armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (III) to Savchenko. At the same time, a considerable amount of data speaks for an aggressive war the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation launched against Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Russian Federation has also grossly violated the norms of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

scholarly journals REVISITING THE ISSUE ON THE EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT OF THE RUSSIAN LAW AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2017 ◽  
pp. 50-69
Author(s):  
O. Zadorozhnii
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Crimean Peninsula ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article covers the issue of specific breaches of international law provisions owed to Ukraine by Russia. The article also examines problems in the application of international law by Russia. In the course of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the former is carrying out the military occupation of the Crimean peninsula and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and prosecutes Ukrainian citizens (Nadiya Savchenko, Oleh Sentsov, Oleksandr Kolchenko, Hennadii Afanasyev, Yurii Soloshenko and others) in violation of international law. Both Russian executives and doctrine attempt to substantiate the cases against Ukrainian citizens, however, their arguments suffer both legal and factual problems. An illustrative in this regard is Savchenko’s case, which has become important Russian propaganda tool to help reinforce the accusations of the “atrocities committed by the Kyiv junta”. The analyses shows that Savchenko case could have been used to complete different tasks – starting from lifting the sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation and finishing with increasing the number of Russian volunteers in the war against Ukraine. Also, Russia has prosecuted Oleh Sentsov who has been charged with creating a terrorist group and committing two acts of terrorism. One of the most untenable legal arguments of the Russian Federation is a qualification of the aggression as a non-international armed conflict. In this regard, Russian authorities and doctrine insist on Russia’s not being bound or entitled to apply the rules of international armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (III) to Savchenko. At the same time, a considerable amount of data speaks for an aggressive war the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation launched against Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Russian Federation has also grossly violated the norms of international humanitarian law and international human rights 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.

Complex Battlespaces

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Urban Environments ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Unmanned Aerial Systems ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Modern Warfare ◽  
Aerial Systems

The conduct of warfare is constantly shaped by forces beyond the battlefield. These forces create complexities in the battlespace for military operations. The ever-changing nature of how and where wars are fought creates challenges for the application of the unchanging body of international law that regulates armed conflicts. The term “complex” is often used to describe modern warfare, but what makes modern warfare complex? Is it the increasingly urbanized battlefield where wars are fought, which is cluttered with civilians and civilian objects? Is it the rise of State-like organized armed groups that leverage the governance vacuum created by failed or failing States? Is it the introduction of new technologies to military operations like autonomous weapons, cyber capabilities, and unmanned aerial systems? Or is it the application of multiple legal regimes to a single conflict? Collectively, these questions formed the basis for the Complex Battlespaces Workshop in which legal scholars and experts from the field of practice came together to discuss these complexities. During the workshop, there was a general consensus that the existing law was sufficient to regulate modern warfare. The challenge, however, arises in application of the law to new technologies, military operations in urban environments, and other issues related to applying international human rights law and international humanitarian law to non-international armed conflicts. This inaugural volume of the Lieber Book Series seeks to address many of the complexities that arise during the application of international law to modern warfare.

Doctors Playing Gods? The Legal Challenges in Regulating the Experimental Stage of Cybernetic Human Enhancement

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Thibaut Moulin
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Human Enhancement ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Medical Progress ◽  
Unique Nature ◽  
The Military

The emergence of new technologies might challenge our assumptions about biomedical research: medical progress may not only cure but enhance human capacities. In particular, the emergence of brain-machine interfaces will admittedly allow disabled people to move or communicate again, but also has various military applications, such as remote control of drones and avatars. Although there is no express legal framework pertaining to the experimental phase of human enhancement techniques, they are actually constrained by international law. According to international humanitarian law, civilians and prisoners of war may be subjected to experiments only when required by their state of health or for medical treatment. According to international human rights law, experimentations are permissible when they meet two conditions: (i) free consent, and (ii) proportionality (that is, the adequacy of risk and benefit). In light of these conditions, this article assesses the situations in which experimentation involving brain-computer interfaces would be lawful. It also gives specific attention to those experimentations carried out on members of the armed forces. In fact, owing to the military hierarchy and the unique nature of its mission (to protect national security at the risk of their own lives), it is necessary to determine how the military may comply with this legal framework.

Casting light on the legal black hole: International law and detentions abroad in the “war on terror”

2005 ◽  
Vol 87 (857) ◽  
pp. 39-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Borelli
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Domestic Courts

AbstractThousands of individuals have been detained abroad in the context of the “war on terror”, both during the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and in Iraq and as a result of transnational law-enforcement operations. This paper argues that, notwithstanding contrary positions expounded by some States, the protections of international humanitarian law and/or international human rights law remain applicable to these individuals, wherever detained, and examines recent decisions of domestic courts and international bodies which appear to reveal a reassertion of international standards.

scholarly journals ARMED CONFLICT IN THE SOUTH-EAST OF UKRAINE: LEGAL QUALIFI-CATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-412
Author(s):  
Petr P. Kremnev
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The South ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Consequences

Unconstitutional change of power in Ukraine as a result of the "Maidan revolution" in February 2014, with the subsequent power grab by Ukrainian radicals of local authorities under nationalist slogans, led to the establishment of control over parts of the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk regions by Donbass militias, and then to the ongoing fighting between the armed formations of the latter with units of the regular armed forces of Ukraine. The purpose of this publication is to establish the form of the armed conflict and its legal consequences from the standpoint of current international law, which has not yet found proper legal analysis and coverage in either domestic or foreign (including Ukrainian) legal doctrinе. In official statements and legislative acts of Ukraine, this conflict is declared as a "state of war with Russia", "aggression of Russia", and the Ukrainian doctrine of international law almost unanimously declares the need to apply to the conflict the norms of international humanitarian law and qualifies it as an international armed conflict. In this publication, on the basis of the analysis of existing international legal norms and legal doctrine, the qualification of existing forms of armed conflicts is carried out: war, international armed conflict, non-international armed conflict, internationalized armed conflict. This examines the legal consequences (or otherwise the obligations of the parties to the conflict) that are caused by each form of such armed conflict, that is concealed and ignored by the Ukrainian side. On the basis of the theoretical and legal analysis of the UN Charter, the relevant provisions of the Geneva conventions on the protection of victims of war of 1949 and Additional protocols I and II of 1977, the author qualifies the situation in the South-East of Ukraine as a non-international armed conflict and the obligation to comply with applicable legal norms by all parties to the conflict. At the same time, the author comes to the conclusion about the insolvency of the claims about the applicability of the rules governing other mentioned forms of armed conflicts.

scholarly journals PECULIARITIES OF THE MICROFIELD “HOSTILE TROOPS” IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE ASSOCIATIVE-SEMANTIC FIELD “ENEMY” (based on the discourse of the Russian-Ukrainian information war)

2019 ◽  
pp. 106-124
Author(s):  
Olha Kyryliuk
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Semantic Field ◽  
Information Campaigns ◽  
Semantic Fields ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Ukrainian Society

Introduction. The era of information wars requires a great deal of mastery of the word. A wide range of recipient’s emotions that can be evoked by certain lexemes makes language an essential tool in the fight for people’s consciousness while conducting information campaigns that accompany armed conflicts. Purpose – the study of the structure of the associative-semantic field “hostile troops” based on the discourse of the Russian-Ukrainian information war. Methods. Methods of associative linguistic observation (emotional-expressive and figurative-sensual components of the semantics of the studied lexemes), associative-semantic modeling (associative-semantic fields and microfields formation) are being used. Results. As a result of the analysis, the structure of the associative-semantic microfield of the “hostile troops” has been modeled, within which eight groups (ASG) have been allocated. The main groups are: 1) terminolexemes with a component indicating Russia’s involvement in the Donbas conflict (Russian troops, armed forces of the Russian Federation); 2) names with “Putin”, “putinskyi” components that are synonymous with the concept of “Russia” (Putin’s terrorists); 3) metonymic names that associatively indicate the presence of troops of another state (foreigners, invaders); 4) terms without reference to the Russian trace, which are characteristic of the initial stage of the conflict, when the fact of Russian aggression has not yet been recognized by Ukrainian legislation (militants, separatists), etc. Conclusion. Thus, the terminology used by the Ukrainian society is an important mean of waging an information war, and more specifically, repelling not only the armed aggression, but also the information hostile aggression. The study of such names is especially relevant because it enables to form the linguistic identifiers of the war period and to follow the psycholinguistic reactions of the society to the frontline news.

scholarly journals Comparative Analysis of the Hybrid Tactics Application by the Russian Federation in Conflicts with Georgia and Ukraine

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 48-73
Author(s):  
Lesia Dorosh ◽  
Olha Ivasechko ◽  
Jaryna Turchyn
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Hybrid Methods ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Effective Combination ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Will Force ◽  
Hybrid War ◽  
The Military

The essence and main characteristics of the hybrid war are reviewed as a means of destroying the enemy country from inside due to the effective combination of conventional armed forces, subversion, propaganda, and dissemination of misinformation. The hybrid tactics used by the Russian Federation in Ukraine and Georgia are investigated. A comparativeanalysisof the military component in the confrontation between Russia, Ukraine and Georgia is conducted, the peculiarities of informational and psychological confrontation and factors that led to the significant achievements of the Russian side in the hybrid warfare are revealed, economic aspect of the hybrid confrontation are clarified (especially regarding the factors of financial, energy and raw material dependence) and, finally, the key conditions for the widespread use of hybrid methods of confrontation during modern armed conflicts are identified. Thedifference is proved between conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine, mainly in the use of military means. It is established that the conditions for the conflict in Crimea were unique, or at least extremely rare, and they can hardly be reproduced in any other place. It is noted that in the future, hybrid war will become rather a situational phenomenon, because the implementation of aggressive actions against another state without the necessary conditions for it will lead either to a quick defeat of the aggressor state, or will force such a state to move toconventional warfare, which requires significant financial costs and inevitably will cause decline in the prestige of such a state within the international community.

Commentary on Part I of the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 305-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Louise Tougas
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Security Companies

AbstractThe Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies (Montreux Document) was adopted in 2008 by seventeen States to reaffirm and, as far as was necessary, clarify the existing obligations of States and other actors under international law, in particular under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). It also aimed at identifying good practices and regulatory options to assist States in promoting respect for IHL and IHRL by private military and security companies (PMSCs). Today, fifty-one States and three international organizations have endorsed the Montreux Document. It contains twenty-seven “Statements” – sections recalling the main international legal obligations of States in regard to the operations of PMSCs during armed conflicts. Each statement is the reaffirmation of a general rule of IHL, IHRL or State responsibility formulated in a way that clarifies its applicability to PMSC operations. This article aims to detail the basis of each legal obligation mentioned in the first part of the Montreux Document (Part I). The article follows the structure of Part I, in order to better facilitate its comprehension. The second part of the Montreux Document, relating to good practices, is not covered in this article.

Show Us the Films: Transparency, National Security and Disclosure of Information Collected by Advanced Weapon Systems under International Law

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-491
Author(s):  
Eliav Lieblich
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Modern Technology ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Weapon Systems ◽  
High Quality Information

The advent of modern technology such as drones provides states with unique capabilities to acquire, with ease, high-quality information regarding acts performed by armed forces and agencies, such as (but not only) targeted killings. In some cases, this information can shed light on the facts of the case, when alleged violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law have occurred and thus investigation is called for. However, although calls for disclosure are increasing, states are reluctant to disclose information relating to such activities. This article discusses potential sources for obligations of disclosure, whether to civil society or to certain international bodies such as the International Criminal Court. In essence, the article posits that disclosure obligations can derive from the principle of transparency, as it applies, inter alia, to investigations, augmented by an emerging positive right to receive information. These obligations must be balanced, in turn, with considerations of national security. The article suggests that this balance, across a wide spectrum of international contexts, should be conducted in light of standards of necessity, proportionality and specificity. Accordingly, blanket non-disclosure may constitute a violation of international law or result in factual inferences to the detriment of states or individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document