Asymmetrical Reciprocity and Compliance with the Laws of War

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rene Provost
Keyword(s):  
Laws Of War

Humanizing the Laws of War

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Laws Of War

Cyberwarfare and the Laws of War

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Harrison Dinniss
Keyword(s):  
Laws Of War

September 11 and the Laws of War

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Jinks
Keyword(s):  
September 11 ◽  
Laws Of War

Part I: Conclusion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Basic Principle ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Connected Group ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Analysing the development of the concept of non-state parties to an armed conflict from the writings of philosophers in the eighteenth century through international humanitarian law (IHL) treaty law to contemporary practice, three threads can be identified. First, as pointed out by Rousseau almost two and a half centuries ago, one basic principle underlying the laws of war is that war is not a relation between men but between entities. Accordingly, the lawful objective of parties cannot be to harm opponents as individuals but only to overcome the entity for which the individual fights. This necessitates that any party to an armed conflict is a collective, organized entity and not a loosely connected group of individuals. Second, de Vattel already stressed that civil war is fought between two parties who ‘acknowledge no common judge’ and have no ‘common superior’ on earth....

Of Rebels, Insurgents, and Belligerents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
State Practice

The first chapter opens the substantive analysis of the organization requirement for non-state parties to armed conflicts. First, it briefly examines why the laws of war have originally been state-focused, and shows how this state focus coined international law requirements of main characteristics of a party to an armed conflict. Second, it analyses how philosophers broadened the legal notion of ‘war’ as to include conflicts involving certain non-state entities. Subsequently, this chapter examines state practice to identify which qualities a non-state armed group needed to possess to obtain the ‘belligerent’ status. It also examines the question of which kind of entities could qualify as ‘insurgents’ or ‘rebels’.

Was He Guilty?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
International Morality

The trial might well have taken place were it not for a variety of unforeseen circumstances. For example, the Dutch might have agreed to the Kaiser’s surrender and the Kaiser might even have agreed to the trial. Other options would have been a trial in absentia or a trial in the Netherlands itself. Had a trial been held, the enigmatic charge of an ‘offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties’ would have required interpretation. Many considered that it would have covered not only violations of the laws of war within the conflict, but also the launching of the aggressive war. This would have necessitated proof that Germany was actually responsible for starting the war, and a possible inquiry into the conduct of the European Powers over several years prior to 1914, something for which the British and the French had little enthusiasm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document