SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF FORTRESSES OF THE BELGOROD LINE AS OF 1678

The article is devoted to the analysis of the social composition of the population of the fortresses of the Belgorod line in 1678. The main source of the work was the inventory of cities in 1678, which recorded various categories of the service and townspeople of Russia. The author analyzed the information on all the fortresses of the Belgorod line and made general conclusions. The heterogeneity of the various counties of the vast southern region is recorded: in some there is a wide variety of service categories of the population, developed crafts and trade, and a large number of landowners. In other regions, the social composition was very poor. There were a lot of these regions. Such fortresses were only military outposts on the border. They were of strategic importance, but their economic potential was low. Obviously, the emergence of many small fortresses was dictated by military necessity and their full development was impossible. These small fortresses did not have the opportunity to develop. Subsequently, already in the 18th century, most of them would become rural settlements. However, the significance of these fortresses was very great for their time. These small fortresses helped to ensure the stable development of major military and economic centers. Fortified cities such as Kursk, Voronezh, Yelets, Kozlov were able to take the path of urbanization precisely because they were protected by many small military settlements. This was their historical role.

Protection of the environment in times of international armed conflict: الحماية الدولية للبيئة من التلوث في زمن النزاعات المسلحة

The study aims to identify the most important international principles for protecting the environment in times of armed conflict, Whereas the environment is an ecosystem that consists of an interconnected group that differs in size and type of organisms and organic and inorganic elements that are balanced in a relatively stable manner. Since man is one of the most important living creatures, which necessitates human protection to preserve the environment and its balance, the international community has set controls for the use of military force, since wars are an inevitable evil, Among the most important of them is the principle of balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations. And we used the analytical method in the study by analyzing and studying the principles of international humanitarian law. And from the above, we divided the study into three demands, the first demands dealt with the concept of military necessity in international humanitarian law, while we discussed in the second demands the concept of the principle of balance in international humanitarian law, and in the third demands we dealt with the principle of balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations. One of the most important findings of this study is that the principle of military necessity protects the natural and civilian environment through its association with the principle of humanity, which constitute the principle of balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations, The principle of balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations regulates the use of weapons during armed conflicts and prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction to protect the environment during armed conflicts. The researcher recommends that the United Nations Organization renew international agreements prohibiting the use of weapons of mass destruction in line with modern science and developments in scientific fields.

Means and methods of combat - differing parameters and requirements of military necessity in international humanitarian law and international criminal law

<p>The concept of military necessity is of fundamental importance for International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Criminal Law (ICL) and International Law, generally. States and individuals have used military necessity as a justification when extraordinary situations “require the adoption of measures departing from the normally applicable law in order to protect basic values and fundamental interests.”1 Measures adopted on the grounds of necessity have been accepted at international law by international courts and tribunals, state practice, and international legal doctrine. This paper will analyse and explain the origins of military necessity under IHL, and how military necessity’s use has developed and influenced the behaviour of actors at international law, primarily during times of armed conflict. Furthermore, this paper will seek to establish the role that military necessity plays at ICL. This will be done by analysing various case law examples of international tribunals where the tribunals have been asked to determine whether military necessity constituted a legitimate justification for a particular course of action taken by an individual, primarily in positions of command. This paper will highlight the circumstances where a legitimate finding of military necessity existed, and will contrast this to occasion where actions did not meet the required threshold. It will also seek to determine how military necessity is interpreted and understood by various international organisations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations (UN), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The paper will begin with by providing an overview of the origins of military necessity under IHL and how it has evolved in its interpretation and usage by authors writing on military necessity, and states seeking to utilise it.</p>

Means and methods of combat - differing parameters and requirements of military necessity in international humanitarian law and international criminal law

<p>The concept of military necessity is of fundamental importance for International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Criminal Law (ICL) and International Law, generally. States and individuals have used military necessity as a justification when extraordinary situations “require the adoption of measures departing from the normally applicable law in order to protect basic values and fundamental interests.”1 Measures adopted on the grounds of necessity have been accepted at international law by international courts and tribunals, state practice, and international legal doctrine. This paper will analyse and explain the origins of military necessity under IHL, and how military necessity’s use has developed and influenced the behaviour of actors at international law, primarily during times of armed conflict. Furthermore, this paper will seek to establish the role that military necessity plays at ICL. This will be done by analysing various case law examples of international tribunals where the tribunals have been asked to determine whether military necessity constituted a legitimate justification for a particular course of action taken by an individual, primarily in positions of command. This paper will highlight the circumstances where a legitimate finding of military necessity existed, and will contrast this to occasion where actions did not meet the required threshold. It will also seek to determine how military necessity is interpreted and understood by various international organisations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations (UN), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The paper will begin with by providing an overview of the origins of military necessity under IHL and how it has evolved in its interpretation and usage by authors writing on military necessity, and states seeking to utilise it.</p>