Jus in Bello and the Acts of Terrorism

2020 ◽  
pp. 1363-1378
Author(s):  
Mohammad Saidul Islam
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Conceptual Reasoning ◽  
Terrorist Groups

Terrorism is a big threat to international peace and security. The rapid and substantial development of terrorist groups across the globe has highly complicated the application and implementation of the international humanitarian law. People have been facing this heinous violent act from time immemorial, but recently it has increased enormously. This study presents the legal and conceptual reasoning and justifications of the act of terrorism as an armed conflict. It also examines whether it is an international armed conflict or non-international armed conflict where the international humanitarian law can be applied.

Jus in Bello and the Acts of Terrorism

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Mohammad Saidul Islam
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Conceptual Reasoning ◽  
Terrorist Groups

Terrorism is a big threat to international peace and security. The rapid and substantial development of terrorist groups across the globe has highly complicated the application and implementation of the international humanitarian law. People have been facing this heinous violent act from time immemorial, but recently it has increased enormously. This study presents the legal and conceptual reasoning and justifications of the act of terrorism as an armed conflict. It also examines whether it is an international armed conflict or non-international armed conflict where the international humanitarian law can be applied.

The Involvement of the Security Council in Maintaining International Humanitarian Law

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Th.A. van Baarda
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The Other ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Relief ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The One

In this article the author discusses the growing involvement of the Security Council in humanitarian protection and assistance in armed conflict. Given the fact that the Security Council is apolitical body par excellence, its involvement in the humanitarian relief effort may prejudice the neutrality and independence of the latter. He finds himself in agreement with the ICRC, which has proposed that the UN should make a clear distinction between encouraging respect for humanitarian law on the one hand, and the effort to maintain international peace and security on the other.

And Yet It Exists: In Defence of the ‘Equality of Belligerents’ Principle

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
VAIOS KOUTROULIS
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Court

AbstractThe equal application of international humanitarian law (jus in bello) to all parties to an international armed conflict is a cornerstone principle of jus in bello. In his article, Professor Mandel casts doubt on the legal basis of this principle. Reacting to this claim, this contribution demonstrates that the ‘equality of belligerents’ is a principle firmly grounded in both conventional and customary international law. Moreover, its legal force withstands the test of international jurisprudence, including the International Court of Justice's controversial Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion.

The Relationship between Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Okimoto Keichiro
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses the relationship between jus ad bellum (international law regulating the resort to force) and jus in bello (law of armed conflict). It examines state practice, international decisions, and expert opinions to determine how the relationship has been addressed in practice. The chapter considers the question of whether jus in bello applies equally to the unlawful and lawful parties to an armed conflict before turning to the legal implications of the cumulative requirements of the law of self-defence and international humanitarian law (IHL) imposed on a use of force in self-defence. Finally, it considers the legal implications of the concurrent application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and IHL with respect to use authorized under Chapter VII.

TheJus Ad Bellum/Jus In BelloDistinction and the Law of Occupation

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 246-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rotem Giladi
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Broad Scope ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Occupied Territories ◽  
Conventional Expression ◽  
The Law

This is a preliminary inquiry into the application to occupation law of the distinction betweenjus in bello(or IHL) andjus ad bellum.Under current doctrine, the two are mutually exclusive: the former applies irrespective of the “nature or origin of the armed conflict or the causes espoused by the Parties.” I argue that occupation law, although generally considered part of IHL, is intrinsically less susceptible to a strict application of the distinction.Exploring its pedigree, meaning, and rationale, the paper notes the distinction's scant, soft Conventional expression and brief history, but also its fundamental character and the broad scope attributed to it under contemporary IHL. Although the distinction sometimes fulfill important humanitarian functions in occupied territories, occupation law—in regulating governance of territory—differs from ordinary IHL norms; this and other differences render the strict application of the distinction to occupation law, whose key norms often depend on jus ad bellum references to the “nature, origin and causes” of armed conflict, impossible.The last part of the Paper calls for a more nuanced approach to the application of the distinction to occupation law and identifies some of its contours. Such an approach can enhance the efficacy of occupation law and facilitate fulfillment of the two different functions of occupation law: protection of individuals and the maintenance of international peace and security. The Paper concludes with preliminary observations on the roles and powers, under bothjus ad bellumandjus in bello,of the Security Council with regard to occupied territories.

scholarly journals Humanitarian Access in conditions Armed Conflict: The International Legal Aspect

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Marina Rylskaya
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Current System ◽  
Legal Aspect ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peace And Security

The article reveals a number of legal issues related to humanitarian assistance; some of them are being regulated from the point of view of International Humanitarian Law. It is also stressed that the current system of international relations is not always capable of maintaining peace and security, which leads to the shift of the international community's efforts from the level of forceful resolution of conflicts to the format of humanitarian Cooperation.

Section IX of the ICRC Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities: The End of Jus in Bello Proportionality as We Know It?

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jann K Kleffner
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Direct Participation ◽  
Direct Attack

Section IX of the ICRC Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities asserts: ‘In addition to the restraints imposed by international humanitarian law on specific means and methods of warfare, and without prejudice to further restrictions that may arise under other applicable branches of international law, the kind and degree of force which is permissible against persons not entitled to protection against direct attack must not exceed what is actually necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose in the prevailing circumstances’. The present article scrutinises arguments that have been, or can be, advanced in favour of and against a ‘least harmful means’ requirement for the use of force in situations of armed conflict as suggested in Section IX. The principal aim of the article is to examine the question whether such an additional proportionality requirement forms part of the applicable international lex lata.

18 Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism, and International Humanitarian Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saul Ben
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Terrorist Groups ◽  
Forms Of Violence

This concluding chapter addresses the debate about the coverage, adequacy, and effectiveness of international humanitarian law (IHL) in regulating ‘terrorism’. IHL does not recognize any specific legal categories for, or special regime governing, terrorists and terrorist groups. Rather, the general norms of IHL apply to terrorists according to their conduct. IHL was precisely developed as a kind of exceptional or emergency law comprehensively addressing all forms of violence in armed conflict, including that which is labelled ‘terrorist’ in other areas of law. Particularly relevant to terrorism are the general IHL rules on the classification of violence as armed conflict, the categorization of persons during conflict, targeting, detention, criminal liability, and fair trial. Thus, terrorist and counter-terrorist violence may constitute a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which IHL applies if the violence is sufficiently intense and organized. The chapter then considers three key legal issues of particular relevance and specificity to terrorism in armed conflict.

I. Co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia

1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 947-954
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Colin Warbrick
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Domestic Law

The Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (the Tribunal) by Resolution 827.1 It “determined” that the widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 827 is a Chapter VII resolution. The Council “decided” that all States shall co-operate fully with the Tribunal and its organs and that they shall “take any measures necessary under their domestic law” to give effect to the resolution and obligations which arose under the Statute of the Tribunal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document