scholarly journals Pengaturan Perlindungan Satwa Terancam di Daerah Konflik Bersenjata

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 2073
Author(s):  
Yunia Utami ndah Haloho

AbstractHumans are often regarded as the only victims that are affected by the armed conflicts. But apparently not only humans, there are also the other living creatures that become the victims of the armed conflicts those are animals included threatened animals. Threatened animals are part of biological diversity that have a high extinction risk level because of the small amount of their populations that requires intensive protection. There are numbers of armed conflicts that happened in the world states where the threatened animals become the victims of it. Threatened animals have to experience the declining of their populations due to the destruction of their habitat, illegal trades of them for financing the conflicts, illegal poaching for their meats, or killed by the weapons that used during the conflicts. The results of this research demonstrates that the International Law through the International Environmental Law and International Humanitarian Law have indirectly provided the regulations about threatened animals in the armed conflict area.Keywords: Threatened Animals; Protection; Regulation.AbstrakManusia sering kali dianggap sebagai satu-satunya korban yang terdampak akibat terjadinya konflik bersenjata. Namun ternyata bukan hanya manusia saja, terdapat makhluk hidup lain yang juga turut menjadi korban akibat dari konflik bersenjata di suatu wilayah negara yaitu satwa termasuk satwa terancam. Satwa terancam yang merupakan bagian dari keanekaragaman hayati memiliki tingkat risiko kepunahan yang tinggi karena populasinya yang sedikit sehingga memerlukan perlindungan yang intensif. Terdapat beberapa konflik bersenjata yang terjadi di berbagai negara di dunia di mana satwa terancam menjadi salah satu korban dari konflik tersebut. Satwa terancam mengalami pengurangan jumlah populasi akibat rusaknya habitat mereka, perdagangan satwa terancam tersebut untuk membiaya konflik, perburuan liar satwa terancam untuk dikonsumsi, atau terbunuhnya satwa terancam akibat terkena serangan senjata yang digunakan dalam konflik. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Hukum Internasional melalui Hukum Lingkungan Internasional dan Hukum Humaniter Internasional telah sama-sama memberikan pengaturan terkait perlindungan satwa terancam di daerah konflik bersenjata walaupun bukan merupakan pengaturan yang mengatur secara langsung. Kata Kunci: Satwa Terancam; Perlindungan; Pengaturan.

2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (879) ◽  
pp. 569-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bothe ◽  
Carl Bruch ◽  
Jordan Diamond ◽  
David Jensen

AbstractThere are three key deficiencies in the existing body of international humanitarian law (IHL) relating to protection of the environment during armed conflict. First, the definition of impermissible environmental damage is both too restrictive and unclear; second, there are legal uncertainties regarding the protection of elements of the environment as civilian objects; and third, the application of the principle of proportionality where harm to the environment constitutes ‘collateral damage’ is also problematic. These gaps present specific opportunities for clarifying and developing the existing framework. One approach to addressing some of the inadequacies of IHL could be application of international environmental law during armed conflict. The detailed norms, standards, approaches, and mechanisms found in international environmental law might also help to clarify and extend basic principles of IHL to prevent, address, or assess liability for environmental damage incurred during armed conflict.


2013 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cordula Droege ◽  
Marie-Louise Tougas

Considerable research has been conducted, particularly since the Iraq-Kuwait war of 1991, on the legal protection of the environment in armed conflicts. Much of this research has focused either on the specific protections provided in international humanitarian law (IHL), or on the applicability of international environmental law to situations of armed conflict. Rather than focusing on these specific provisions, this article seeks to examine the general protections under IHL, in particular the characterisation of the natural environment as a civilian object and the legal protection flowing from this characterisation – namely the general rules on the conduct of hostilities. After addressing these general rules, it briefly recalls some other relevant provisions of IHL before turning to possible avenues to strengthen the legal protection of the environment in armed conflict by clarifying or further developing IHL in this respect, taking into account the protection provided by international human rights law and international environmental law.


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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (879) ◽  
pp. 593-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Wyatt

AbstractThe relationship between international environmental law and international humanitarian law, like relationships between many other subsystems of contemporary international law, has not yet been articulated. The problem of environmental damage in international armed conflict lies at the intersection of these two branches and thus provides an ideal opportunity to investigate this relationship. Rather than simply evaluating the applicable international law rules in their context, we break them into elements that we separately assess from both (international) environmental law and international humanitarian/international criminal law perspectives. By doing so, we identify how international law rules for cross-sectoral problems may appropriately combine the existing expertise and institutional strengths of simultaneously applicable branches of international law, and also discover how an evaluation of the ultimate appropriateness of the cross-sectoral rules adopted may be substantially affected by the different frames of reference that are used by those working within the different fields.


2019 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 184-198
Author(s):  
Maria Magdalena Kenig-Witkowska

Environmental protection in times of non-international armed conflicts is not subject to the sectoral or particular protection categories of environmental law and to date it has not been comprehensively regulated by international law. Except for generalities, it was also ignored in the 1992 Rio Declaration Principle 24 of which is not unambiguous in its expression. In fact, only the international humanitarian law of armed conflict contains norms which address the natural environment in times of armed conflicts. On the basis of a review of legal acts addressing the issues of environmental protection in times of non-international conflicts, negative conclusions de lege lata can be drawn as part of an attempt to answer the question whether international law ensures sufficient environmental protection in such circumstances. In the Author’s opinion, in international law there is a gap relating to the protection of the environment in times of non-international armed conflicts; the existing legal regulations which could be applied in these matters have a rudimentary characters.


2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (887) ◽  
pp. 1125-1134 ◽  

With the globalisation of market economies, business has become an increasingly prominent actor in international relations. It is also increasingly present in situations of armed conflict. On the one hand, companies operating in volatile environments are exposed to violence and the consequences of armed conflicts. On the other hand, some of their conduct in armed conflict may lead to violations of the law.The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) engages with the private sector on humanitarian issues, with the aim of ensuring compliance or clarifying the obligations that business actors have under international humanitarian law (IHL) and encouraging them to comply with the commitments they have undertaken under various international initiatives to respect IHL and human rights law.In times of conflict, IHL spells out certain responsibilities and rights for all parties involved. Knowledge of the relevant rules of IHL is therefore critical for local and international businesses operating in volatile contexts. In this Q&A section, Philip Spoerri, ICRC Director for International Law and Cooperation, gives an overview of the rules applicable to business actors in situations of conflict, and discusses some of the ICRC's engagement with business actors.Philip Spoerri began his career with the ICRC in 1994. Following a first assignment in Israel and the occupied and autonomous territories, he went on to be based in Kuwait, Yemen, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Geneva, he headed the legal advisers to the Department of Operations. He returned to Afghanistan as head of the ICRC delegation there from 2004 to 2006, when he took up his current position. Before joining the ICRC, he worked as a lawyer in a private firm in Munich. He holds a PhD in law from Bielefeld University and has also studied at the universities of Göttingen, Geneva, and Munich.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 84-95
Author(s):  
N. A. Sokolova

The paper is devoted to international legal protection of the environment during armed conflicts. The author emphasizes that armed conflicts, both international and non-international, continue to be one of the most serious threats to a healthy environment. An armed conflict taking place in the environment invariably poses a threat to ecosystems.The author summarizes that in international law there are special norms for the protection of natural environment during armed conflicts. At the same time, increasing the level of protection requires a clearer definition of the scope of application of customary law and the further development of treaty rules. While the objectives of protecting the natural environment are linked to the survival and protection of civilians, recognition of environmental protection during armed conflict as such constitutes an important trend. International law calls on States to enter into agreements that provide for additional protection of the natural environment during armed conflicts. The concept of “protecting the natural environment” in international humanitarian law refers to a wide range of obligations that can help protect the natural environment or its parts from damage. A high threshold for potential harm continues to pose the risk that such protection is not fully applicable in practice. There is an obvious tendency to use the potential of the principles of international environmental law when applying the norms of international humanitarian law. Thus, even in cases where the assessment of new means and methods of warfare does not provide scientific certainty with regard to their impact on the natural environment, this does not absolve the parties to the conflict from taking appropriate precautions. It is not enough that there are important rules of international humanitarian law protecting the natural environment during armed conflict; they need to be better disseminated, implemented and enforced, as well as validated and clarified.


1996 ◽  
Vol 36 (310) ◽  
pp. 36-42

Commission I, which was chaired by H.E. Ambassador Hisashi Owada, Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations in New York, had two main items on its agenda: discussion of the follow-up to the 1993 International Conference for the Protection of War Victims held in Geneva and action to be taken in that regard by the 26th International Conference, and examination of a number of humanitarian issues relating to the protection of the civilian population in times of armed conflict. The Commission also took note of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.


2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (895-896) ◽  
pp. 1195-1224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezequiel Heffes ◽  
Marcos D. Kotlik

AbstractCommon Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions encourages the parties to a non-international armed conflict to bring into force international humanitarian law provisions through the conclusion of special agreements. Since armed groups are ever more frequent participants in contemporary armed conflicts, the relevance of those agreements as means to enhance compliance with IHL has grown as well. The decision-making process of special agreements recognizes that all the parties to the conflict participate in the clarification and expansion of the applicable rights and obligations in a way that is consistent with the principle of equality of belligerents. This provides incentives for armed groups to respect the IHL rules they have themselves negotiated. However, even upon the conclusion of such agreements, it remains unclear which legal regime governs them. This paper will argue that special agreements are governed by international law instead of domestic law or asui generislegal regime.


Author(s):  
W Ochieng

Since the Geneva Conventions, the architecture of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has been founded upon a distinction between international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict. Today, this claim stands to be revisited since international and non-international armed conflicts are no longer strict organising frameworks for the categorisation of rules of armed conflicts. This is seen in that over fifty years ago, when the four Geneva Conventions were negotiated, the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention were the cornerstones of international law and while their force today is still apparent, the interdependence of states, and global concerns such as terrorism and the commission of widespread human rights violations have eroded the traditional inviolability of borders. The dichotomy in humanitarian law is as implausible today as it is also fundamentally unworkable given the current conditions of conflicts. This dualist conception is no longer adequate to deal with current features of armed conflict, which do not fit neatly into the two categories and frequently contain mixed elements which thus make the task of classification highly complex. The codification of customary rules of international humanitarian law has narrowed the grounds on which the distinctions are predicated. In addition, the two regimes apply simultaneously on multiple situations. Moreover, the question of contemporary armed conflicts raises serious doubts as to whether the traditional understanding of international law still suffices to explain the complexities of modern day armed conflicts. This essay seeks to offer a different perspective on armed conflicts by suggesting a systematic rethinking of the categorisation of conflict. It argues that some of the dilemmas of contemporary conflicts may be attenuated by a new conceptualisation of this bipolar distinction namely a need for a unitary conception of armed conflict.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document