Who Makes International Law? The Case of the Law of Armed Conflict

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandesh Sivakumaran
2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 192-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niaz A. Shah

In 2010 the Taliban issued a third edition of their Layeha. The Layeha contains Rules and Regulations of Jihad for Mujahidin. This article first details the short history of the Layeha published by the Taliban. Subsequently its content is analysed and compared with the international law of armed conflict that applies in conflicts of an international and non-international character. The author demonstrates that, whilst some rules are incompatible or ambiguous, most rules of the Layeha are compatible with the international law of armed conflict. Compliance with the rules that are compatible could help to achieve the objectives of the law of armed conflict: to minimise unnecessary suffering in armed conflict. The author submits that considering that the Taliban are engaged in fighting in Afghanistan and that they have control of or influence in parts Afghanistan, it is encouraging that they have produced such a self-imposed code. Any minimum restraint, whether self-imposed or imposed by municipal or international law, is better than no restraint at all.


Author(s):  
Boothby William H

This relatively brief chapter introduces the book as a whole. It positions weapons law within the framework of international law in general, and of the law of armed conflict in particular, noting the important distinctions between international and non-international armed conflicts, and between the law on the resort to the use of force and that which regulates the conduct of hostilities. The logical flow of the book is presented, and certain terms that are vital to the ensuing discussion, namely weapons, means of warfare and methods of warfare are explained. The all-important distinction between weapons law and the legal rules that regulate targeting is noted. A concluding section addresses the recently-adopted Arms Trade Treaty.


1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (309) ◽  
pp. 595-637 ◽  

The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988–1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. The purpose of the Manual is to provide a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. The Manual includes a few provisions which might be considered progressive developments in the law but most of its provisions are considered to state the law which is currently applicable. The Manual is viewed by the participants of the Round Tables as being in many respects a modern equivalent to the Oxford Manual on the Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations Between Belligerents adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1913. A contemporary manual was considered necessary because of developments in the law since 1913 which for the most part have not been incorporated into recent treaty law, the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 being essentially limited to the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea. In particular, there has not been a development for the law of armed conflict at sea similar to that for the law of armed conflict on land with the conclusion of Protocol I of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Although some of the provisions of Additional Protocol I affect naval operations, in particular those supplementing the protection given to medical vessels and aircraft in the Second Geneva Convention of 1949, Part IV of the Protocol, which protects civilians against the effects of hostilities, is applicable only to naval operations which affect civilians and civilian objects on land.


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinah Shelton ◽  
Isabelle Cutting

This article examines the extent to which international legal obligations aimed at protecting the environment apply to military activities in peacetime and during armed conflict. The discussion draws on international environmental law, human rights law, the law of armed conflict, and the law of State responsibility in evaluating the extent to which States have a duty to prevent or mitigate environmental harm and remediate or compensate for any such damage caused by their military activities. The article also examines international law on liability for the injurious consequences of lawful activities, to assess whether this equitable doctrine supports shifting the clean-up costs of environmental harm to the acting State even when there is no breach of international law. The article concludes that international law requires measures be taken to prevent environmental harm and could support a claim for remediation or compensation where norms of international law have been breached. It also suggests the need to develop specific rules in peace treaties and status of forces or bases agreements, to address the consequences of environmental harm resulting from military activities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document