scholarly journals The Use of PMSCs by the United Nations in Times of Armed Conflict, Application of IHL and Responsibility Matters

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Gamarro González
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations

The companies dealing with military and security matters are on the rise, and today they provide services to a very wide client list, which includes states and international organizations (IOs). It is well known that these companies have been deployed in a large number of armed conflicts, and indeed, some of them have become prominent in the sector not only for their military results but also for their abuses of international humanitarian law and human rights. Surprisingly, it is lesser known that the United Nations (UN) has also had recourse to private military and security companies in the context of United Nations military operations with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security.The engagement of private military security companies in UN peace operations entails multiple legal questions. This dissertation is especially intended to shed some light over the extent to which PMSCs deployment in UN peace operations is compatible with international humanitarian law and how the law of institutional responsibility deals with the violations of international humanitarian law committed by such companies when providing services to the UN. For that purpose and to that extent due recourse has been made to the most relevant international law sources on the matter, such as the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and other relevant instruments such as the ILC Articles on State and IO responsibility, and the Montreux Document. Jus cogens and international custom, including the practice of international organizations and states, and opinion juris as ascertained by legal scholars and the International Court of Justice, play an essential role in this dissertation, since the United Nations has not become yet a party to any IHL treaty, thus employing an inductive methodology. A comparative approach was adopted in regard to the observations of the most eminent institutions and jurists, and domestic and international courts, including the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights for the purpose of ascertaining the different rules of attribution of conduct existing in international law. Besides, certain decisions of the latter Court were analysed in order to clarify by analogy whether the application of international humanitarian law and the imputation of acts can function under the same degree of control test.

scholarly journals Comment on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996: التعليق على فتوى محكمة العدل الدولية في مدى مشروعية التهديد  باستخدام الأسلحة النووية عام 1996م

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esam Elden Mohammed Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

The International Court of Justice had the opportunity to establish the principles of international humanitarian law and restrict the use or threat of nuclear weapons, on the occasion of its fatwa, on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, after realizing that the continued development of nuclear weapons exposes humanity to great risks, and its request It states, "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permissible under the rules of international law" (Atalm, 1996), (Shahab, 2000), Therefore, the comment seeks to answer the question: What is the legality of possession, production and development of nuclear weapons? What is the extent of the legality of the threat to use it in light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in this regard? Was the decision of the International Court of Justice in favor of documenting the principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law? Or was it biased in its decision to the interests of a particular class itself? The researcher used in that descriptive, descriptive and critical analytical method, and the results that lead to criticism of the work of the International Court of Justice in this regard were reached on the premise that they tended towards tipping the political nature of the issue presented to it under the pressures and directions of the major nuclear states and this strengthens my criticism to the United Nations that I see It only works for the benefit of the major powers under the auspices of the Security Council by veto (right to veto) at a time when the Security Council itself is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, just as it can be said that the United Nations does not work for the benefit of mankind but works for the five major countries Even with regard to nuclear weapons Regardless of whether or not there was a threat to international peace and security. From this standpoint, the researcher reached several recommendations, the most important of which is the necessity of the independence of the International Court of Justice in its work from the political considerations of member states, especially the major countries, as a step to establish and support international peace and security in a practical way in practice. The United Nations should also reconsider what is known as a veto, which is and it is rightly one of the most important and most important measures that truly threaten international peace and security.

Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates): So Far, So Good?

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-407
Author(s):  
Udoka Ndidiamaka Owie
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract International law has a long history of dealing with racial discrimination, including its involvement in the perpetration of racial discrimination. However, in establishing a body of norms to tackle the problems of racial discrimination, several multilateral instruments have been adopted under the auspices of the United Nations addressing this malaise to various extents with the most extensive being the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) of 21 December 1965. While lauded for its singular and dedicated focus on racial discrimination, the Convention is challenged, at least interpretatively, as to the grounds for racial discrimination within its remit. Events occurring between Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on 5 June 2017 have afforded the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, an opportunity—the third since the coming into effect of the Convention—to interpret this landmark treaty.

Common Concepts of Immanuel Kant's "The Perpetual Peace" and The Charter of the United Nations

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Musiał
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Core ◽  
Perpetual Peace ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
International Court ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The United Nations

The essay compares selected Kantian ideas stated in The Perpetual Peace with the institutions established by the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The concept of a nation and its position in international law in view of the Charter will be presented and linked with the Kantian theory of sovereignty of Nations. The core of the paper is an afterthought on the supremacy of three separate powers over the Nations, hence the question of the rules of procedure held by the International Court of Justice will be regarded as the consequence of the idea of sovereign equality. The Kantian concept: "Nations, as states, may be judged like individuals”: (Kant, 1917, p. 128) is observed from the perspective of state’s demand for independence. The institution of the International Court of Justice is presented as a universal supreme body. The key issue of the essay is the federative character of union as a guarantee of eternal peace seen as common point in both of the documents discussed.

The International Court of Justice as a Guardian of the Unity of Humanitarian Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
FABIÁN O. RAIMONDO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

This article seeks to examine whether the International Court of Justicehas developed jurisprudence on international humanitarian law and whether this has exerted any influence on the decisions adopted by other international courts and tribunals. In so doing, it revisits the issue of the value ofjudicial decisions under international law. Finally, it reveals that despite the non-operation of the rule of stare decisis in international law, the Court's jurisprudence on international humanitarian law has been a persuasive precedent for other international courts and tribunals.

Preparation of a New Treaty for the Settlement of International Disputes

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Louis B. Sohn
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

In declaring the period 1990–1999 as the United Nations Decade of International Law, the General Assembly of the United Nations listed among the main purposes of that decade the need “to promote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, including resort to and full respect for the International Court of Justice”.

All’s Well That Ends Well. Or Is It? More on the Publications of the International Court of Justice

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 586-592
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
American Society ◽  
Advisory Opinions

In 1987 I drew attention to a report published in 1986 by a member of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) of the United Nations, recommending a number of changes, some of them fundamental, in the presentation by the International Court of Justice of its judgments and advisory opinions. I indicated the principal objections that the Court had expressed on those recommendations, and pointed out that the implementation of some of them could constitute violations of the Charter, of which the Statute of the Court is an integral part. The matter was also the subject of a resolution adopted on April 9, 1987, by the American Society of International Law, reproduced in part in note 30 on page 695 of my Note. It is now possible to bring the story up-to-date and close an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Joint Inspection Unit.

International humanitarian law and nuclear weapons

1996 ◽  
Vol 36 (313) ◽  
pp. 500-502
Author(s):  
The Review
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Health Organization

On 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion in response to two enquiries as to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Whilst the Court did not examine in detail the request put forward by the World Health Organization, it did give very close attention to the question presented by the General Assembly:“Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?”

The Relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council in the Light of the Lockerbie Case

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Gowlland-Debbas
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

The relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council may be approached from the perspective of the United Nations Charter and the way it delimits competences between two principal UN organs and regulates the exercise of their concurrent powers. The Court, however, has a dual, ambivalent role. It is not only the principal judicial organ of the United Nations under Article 92 of the Charter; it is also an autonomous adjudicative body with the function, under Article 38 of its Statute, of applying international law to such disputes between states as are brought before it. Viewed in the light of Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie, the relationship between the judicial and political organs raises some fundamental questions of general international law that go beyond UN constitutional issues.

Sources and the Hierarchy of International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Separate Source ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Peremptory Norms ◽  
Different Sources

This chapter questions whether there is a hierarchy among the sources of international law and whether such a hierarchy is important for resolving norm conflicts stemming from the different sources of international law. It first examines whether the order between the sources listed in Article 38 (1) (c) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute is an indication of a hierarchy in accordance with the order and form in which the sources are listed or moulded. Thereafter, the chapter examines whether peremptory norms represent a substantive hierarchy. It also questions whether peremptory norms can be categorized in accordance with the sources listed in Article 38 (1) (c), or whether they constitute a separate source in international law. The chapter further engages in a similar analysis of obligations under the United Nations Charter. It concludes that peremptory norms and obligations under the Charter are indicative of a substantive hierarchy in international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document