INTRODUCTORY STUDY ON THE INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW APPLICABLE TO ARMED CONFLICTS AT SEA

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-186
Author(s):  
Ana Savu
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Land Conflicts ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Exhaustive Study

The purpose of the international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts at sea is the same as the International Humanitarian Law relevant to land conflicts: to reduce the destructive consequences of the armed conflict to a minimum, to protect the civilians and other non-combatants, as well as the civilian and cultural objects, to ensure a minimal consideration of some fundamental human rights and to limit the means and methods of warfare in accordance with the four customary cardinal principles, as considered by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons: the principles of humanity, distinction, proportionality and military necessity. Without any pretense of being an exhaustive study on the subject, the purpose of this article is to offer introductory insight into the international law of naval warfare.

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 56-64
Author(s):  
Hisakazu Fujita
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Second World War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Fundamental Interest ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Second World

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996 concerning the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons contains many elements that are of fundamental interest from the standpoint of international humanitarian law. Indeed, humanitarian law, which has developed to a remarkable extent since the Second World War, has always lacked an express ruling on nuclear weapons.

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?”

International humanitarian law and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 35-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Doswald-Beck
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Right

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice represents the first time that the Court's judges have been called upon to analyse in some detail rules of international humanitarian law. Other instances, for example, the Nicaragua case, involved nowhere near such an extensive analysis. The Advisory Opinion is therefore of particular interest in that it contains important findings on the customary nature of a number of humanitarian law rules and interesting pronouncements on the interpretation of these rules and their relationship with other rules. Most judges based their final decision on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons on teleological interpretations of the law, choosing either the right of self-defence as being the most fundamental value, or the survival of civilization and the planet as a whole as paramount. Unfortunately, space does not permit a comment on these highly important analyses of the underpinnings of humanitarian law and its purpose in the international order. Therefore, rather than focusing primarily on the Court's conclusion as to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, this short comment will concentrate on the various pronouncements made on humanitarian law rules. Reference to the Court's finding on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons will only be made from the point of view of how it has contributed to the interpretation of those rules. For this purpose, reference will be made not only to the Advisory Opinion as such (hereafter referred to as the “Opinion”), but also to the various Separate and Dissenting Opinions.

When is a conflict international? Time for new control tests in IHL

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (903) ◽  
pp. 1019-1041
Author(s):  
Djemila Carron
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

AbstractThis article clarifies the control a State should have over an armed group for the triggering act of an international armed conflict and for the internationalization of non-international armed conflicts in international humanitarian law. It explains the reasons for the distinction between these two types of attribution and details the specificities of each test, with an innovative approach. The author proposes new control tests for both triggering and internationalization, rejecting the effective and overall control tests regarding internationalization proposed by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. For instance, regarding the internationalization of a non-international armed conflict, a general and strict control test is proposed. Finally, this article addresses specific issues like the difficult question of the control required for an occupation through an armed group.

The Advisory Opinion: The Light Treatment of International Humanitarian Law

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kretzmer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
West Bank And Gaza ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Ever since the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began in 1967, the Supreme Court of Israel has entertained petitions challenging actions of the Israeli authorities in those territories. The Court has delivered dozens of judgments in which it addressed questions of international humanitarian law in a situation of belligerent occupation. For a long time the Supreme Court was the sole judicial actor in this sphere. While its judgments were subjected to scrutiny and criticism by academics, no other judicial organs, domestic or international, ruled on the difficult legal issues discussed by the Court. The request for an advisory opinion provided the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with a unique opportunity to address and clarify some of the issues that had previously remained in the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court of Israel. Unfortunately, the Court did not take full advantage of this opportunity. As Judge Rosalyn Higgins noted in her separate opinion, the Court refrained from engaging in a detailed analysis of the law, thereby failing to follow “the tradition of using advisory opinions as an opportunity to elaborate and develop international law.” The opinion is especially weak on questions of international humanitarian law (IHL), which makes it extremely difficult to know what the Court actually decided on these questions.

Critical Reflections on the International Humanitarian Law Aspects of the ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ardi Imseis
Keyword(s):  
Geneva Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences

I shall confine my brief thoughts on the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) to the Court’s treatment of international humanitarian law (IHL) in general, and to the law of belligerent occupation in particular. To that end, I will focus on the following four areas: the Court’s consideration of the applicable law as regards IHL; the Court’s interpretation of Article 6 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; the Court’s consideration of the concept of military necessity in the context of foreign military occupation; and the Court’s consideration of the responsibility of third states, particularly the high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, for violations of relevant principles of IHL by an occupying power.

scholarly journals The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to International Humanitarian Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 349-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Gardam
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Rules And Principles

This article considers the contribution of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) to the development of the rules and principles of international humanitarian law (‘IHL’). In recent times, the contribution of the Court to this body of the law has been overshadowed by the work of the two ad hoc international criminal tribunals, the ICTY and the ICTR, established by the Security Council to punish those responsible for serious breaches of IHL. Nevertheless, the ICJ, in both its contentious and advisory jurisdictions, has considered the provisions of IHL on a number of occasions, and in the process has clarified many areas of IHL. This article is concerned with one particular issue: how does the Court perceive the fundamental nature of IHL? The analysis adopts two themes. First, an assessment is made of the part played by the Court in the process of bringing IHL into conformity with the changing emphasis of general international law. In both the Nicaragua case and the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion the Court continued the process of what has been referred to as the “humanization of international law.” Second, the approach of the Court to the vexed issue of the relationship between ius ad bellum and IHL is considered. The conclusion is reached that the approach of the Court to this latter issue has undermined its contribution to infusing the humanitarian ethos into IHL.

ICRC statement to the United Nations General Assembly on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 118-119
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

The debate in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (51st Session, 1996) on agenda items 71 and 75 (disarmament and the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention) gave the ICRC the opportunity to make the following brief comment on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice relating to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons:This was the first time that the International Court of Justice analysed at some length international humanitarian law governing the use of weapons. We were pleased to see the reaffirmation of certain rules which the Court defined as “intransgressible”, in particular the absolute prohibition of the use of weapons that are by their nature indiscriminate as well as the prohibition of the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. We also welcome the Court's emphasis that humanitarian law applies to all weapons without exception, including new ones. In this context we would like to underline that there is no exception to the application of these rules, whatever the circumstances. International humanitarian law is itself the last barrier against the kind of barbarity and horror that can all too easily occur in wartime, and it applies equally to all parties to a conflict at all times.

A non liquet on nuclear weapons — The ICJ avoids the application of general principles of international humanitarian law

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 76-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy L.H. McCormack
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The Advisory Opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons was a somewhat disappointing if not entirely unexpected decision. After the final paragraph, which constitutes the dispositif, all fourteen judges appended either personal declarations, separate opinions or dissenting opinions to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with specific findings and particular aspects of the reasoning behind the Opinion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document