(Un-)bedingte Gleichheit nichtstaatlicher Gewaltakteure im Völkerrecht

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Finke

This analysis takes all relevant violent non-state actors into consideration instead of restricting the examination to just one. It takes a comparative angle to discuss whether terrorists, pirates, private security companies and civil war parties are treated coherently under public international law. Are civil war parties and private security companies treated similarly under international humanitarian law? How is the state’s right of self-defense affected if the aggressors are terrorists? What is the rationale behind the criminalisation of piracy? It concludes that all non-state actors should be subject to the same rules and regulations whenever they are engaged in military action with states. Whenever the objective is to vanquish a group of actors completely, a different treatment is warranted.

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 29-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Kreβ ◽  
Frédéric Mégret

The Debate section of the Review aims to contribute to reflection on contemporary questions of humanitarian law, policy or action. In this issue of the Review, we invited two experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) – Claus Kreβ and Frédéric Mégret – to debate on how IHL applicable in non-international armed conflict (NIAC) should develop. In the two pieces that follow, Professor Kreβ submits for debate a new norm of international law outlawing NIACs – a jus contra bellum internum – with a corresponding set of rules applicable in NIACs – a jus in bello interno. The jus in bello interno would give the “privilege of belligerency” – akin to combatants' privilege in international armed conflicts – to non-State actors in NIACs, providing an incentive for them to comply with these new rules of civil war. Frédéric Mégret critically examines the proposed privilege of belligerency, pointing out its problematic aspects and positing that the creation of such a privilege is, in fact, not desirable.


2022 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-126
Author(s):  
Virajati Adhazar ◽  
Suhaidi Suhaidi ◽  
Sutiarnoto Sutiarnoto ◽  
Jelly Leviza

Self-defense as an inherent right owned by a country is regulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter and due to the use of Space-Based Missile Interceptor (SBMI) weapons in space, the 1967 outer space treaty must also be guided. Because Article 4 of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits the use of weapons in space, the legality of using SBMI weapons is questionable. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the legal provisions, forms of state accountability and the process of prosecuting compensation for countries using these weapons according to international law. The results of the study indicate that the use of SBMI weapons does not conflict with international law, because it is based on Article 103 of the UN Charter which states that if there are provisions in other legal rules that are contrary to the UN Charter, the UN Charter must be guided. So that self-defense actions based on Article 51 of the UN Charter do not violate the law. The party that must be absolutely responsible is the country that started the conflict, because it has violated the rules of international law in Article 2 paragraph (4) of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. The compensation process is carried out according to the rules of the space liability convention 1972 and if in practice the party who is responsible does not show good faith in providing compensation, then it can be continued by referring to the dispute resolution process in the UN Charter.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Teddy Nurcahyawan ◽  
Lauw Wisnu

As a soverign state in the Middle East, Syria has received badly effect of Arab Spring revolution. Thousand of students launched demonstration claiming Bashar Al-Assad to step down. In response to it, Bashar Al-Assad attacked the prodemocracy students by arresting and torturing them. This arms conflict has not only brought many civilians as victims of civil war but involved some other foreign states as well. To avoid matters worse, Security Council of United Nations has issued a Resolution Number 2328/2016 to give sanctions affirming Bashar-Assad to have violated international humanitarian law. The question comes up whether or not this resolution could present the effectiveness of the sanctions. This research has revealed that the Security Council Resolution is effective and Syria has complied with it in line with the international law.  


Author(s):  
O’Keefe Roger

The beginnings of international cultural heritage law can be traced to rules on the treatment of cultural sites and objects in war—that is, to international humanitarian law, the branch of public international law dedicated to the regulation of the conduct of what we now refer to as armed conflict. Today there exists a detailed body of conventional and customary international humanitarian law designed to protect tangible cultural heritage, both immovable and movable, from destruction and damage and from all forms of misappropriation in the course of international and non-international armed conflict. The chapter provides an account and analysis of these rules.


2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 305-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Louise Tougas

AbstractThe Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies (Montreux Document) was adopted in 2008 by seventeen States to reaffirm and, as far as was necessary, clarify the existing obligations of States and other actors under international law, in particular under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). It also aimed at identifying good practices and regulatory options to assist States in promoting respect for IHL and IHRL by private military and security companies (PMSCs). Today, fifty-one States and three international organizations have endorsed the Montreux Document. It contains twenty-seven “Statements” – sections recalling the main international legal obligations of States in regard to the operations of PMSCs during armed conflicts. Each statement is the reaffirmation of a general rule of IHL, IHRL or State responsibility formulated in a way that clarifies its applicability to PMSC operations. This article aims to detail the basis of each legal obligation mentioned in the first part of the Montreux Document (Part I). The article follows the structure of Part I, in order to better facilitate its comprehension. The second part of the Montreux Document, relating to good practices, is not covered in this article.


Author(s):  
Kleffner Jann K

This chapter addresses the scope of application of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law regulates, and as a rule applies in times of, armed conflicts. Accordingly, it is also referred to as the law of armed conflict or jus in bello. The three interchangeable terms denote the only branch of public international law that is specifically designed to strike a balance during armed conflicts between preserving humanitarian values, on the one hand, and considerations of military necessity, on the other by protecting those who do not or no longer directly participate in hostilities and by limiting the right of parties to the conflict to use armed force only to the amount necessary to achieve the aim of the conflict, which is to weaken the military potential of the enemy. While international humanitarian law specifically regulates situations of armed conflicts, it does not automatically supersede all other areas of public international law in the event of an armed conflict. The chapter then focuses on the law enforcement aspects, the continued relevance of rules of international law of peace during armed conflict, and the relevance of humanitarian law in peacetime and post-conflict military operations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document