HUMAN RIGHTS IN TIMES OF ARMED CONFLICTS

The present contribution deals with the issue of human rights in armed conflicts versus the concept of war. This distinction was made in Article 2, and the same in all four Geneva Convention of 1949. In this article, the distinction is made between the universal system of human rights and the International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts (IHLAC). The difference of application between these two sets of law relies on the fact, that the universal agreements of human rights always apply, both in armed conflict and peace when the IHLAC applies only in times of armed conflicts. There is a difference between them in the regulation. Human rights regulate the relationship between the state and persons under its jurisdiction, regardless of their nationality and the IHLAC applies to states and individuals or armed groups distinguishing between a civilian or a veteran. About the compliance control, it is a different system too, for the IHLAC, it is the ICRC and criminal tribunals, and for human rights, there are different committees of tribunals like the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The exam of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR shows, that it does not make a distinction between a state of war and peace, which is called the humanization of the law of armed conflicts. Also, the very important question of the fragmentation of international law is examined, based on the jurisprudence of the ICJ.

Palestine's Accession to Geneva Convention III: Typology of Captives Incarcerated by Israel

Upon the 2014 State of Palestine's accession to Geneva Convention III, captured Palestinians who took part in belligerent acts against the occupier should be treated as prisoners of war due to the fact that they belong to a party to an armed conflict. These individuals fall under three categories: members of security forces, affiliates of armed resistance groups, and uprisers who fight the occupant spontaneously on an individual basis. Contrary to established rules of IHL, Israel does not make any distinction regarding the status of these three types. Unilateral Israeli treatment of its captives does not hold water under international law. Such actions may trigger liability based on international criminal law, particularly as the ICC decided in 2021 that it possesses jurisdiction to investigate crimes occurring in the territory of Palestine. The mere fact of confining prisoners of war after the cessation of hostilities may constitute a ground for criminal prosecution.

The updated ICRC Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention: A new tool to protect prisoners of war in the twenty-first century –CORRIGENDUM

The Authors apologise for two errors within their published Article. These appear on pages 391 and 416.

Les politiques d'asile en Russie : entre migration de retour et rapatriement

This article aims to highlight the way in which, in the Russian national context, public authorities erase the boundaries between return migration and asylum in order to support the repatriation of former Soviet citizens to Russia. This political phenomenon has its roots in the fall of the USSR when Russia has rapidly become a country of immigration. This resulted in the adoption of the Geneva Convention and the creation of the two socio‑legal categories of refugees in Russia: « forced migrants » and « refugees ». Cet article vise à mettre en lumière la manière dont, dans le contexte national russe, les autorités publiques effacent les frontières entre la migrationde retour et l’asile afin d’apporter le soutien au rapatriement des ex‑citoyens soviétiques en Russie. Ce phénomène politique prend ses racines au moment de la chute de l’URSS, alors que la Russie est rapidement devenue un pays d’immigration. En a résulté l’adoption de la Convention de Genève et la création des deux catégories socio‑juridiques de réfugiés en Russie : « les migrants forcés » et « les réfugiés ».

Offences against Internationally Protected Persons: Problems of International Legal Qualification

INTRODUCTION. The article examines various aspects of the international legal qualification of offences committed against internationally protected persons. The analysis of different elements of corpus delicti was laid at the heart of the study: namely, those of actus reus (whether the offence was perpetrate in the situation of an armed conflict), mens rea (whether the perpetrator was moved by a special intent, particularly the terrorist dolus specialis), and the legal status of a perpetrator (whether he or she was a state agent).MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials of the study encompass international conventions, rules and principles of customary international law, case law of international courts and tribunals and international legal doctrine. The paper uses the comparative method and those of analysis and synthesis. RESEARCH RESULTS. The key result of the study consists in the assumption that offences against internationally protected persons can be considered as either a conventional crime within the meaning of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (including, if a terrorist dolus specialis is established, as a crime of terrorism), or (in case of armed conflict) a violation of laws and customs of war, for this category of persons falls within the definition of protected persons by implication of Article 4 of the 1949 IV Geneva Convention, which gives grounds for the application of Article 146 of the 1949 IV Geneva Convention for purposes of the their criminal prosecution.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Given the result of the study, it is states that the following test can be applied for purposes of international legal qualification of offences against internationally protected persons: first, it is necessary to establish whether the offence of committed in a situation of armed conflict; second, it is highly important to enquire about the intent of the delinquent. If there is a terrorist dolus specialis, the offence can be qualified as terrorism-related. Moreover, it is necessary to establish the status of the delinquent and whether the one is a state agent or a private person, or, even if the person is a state agent, whether the one is a person acting sua sponte; additionally, the status of a delinquent and its relation with the belligerent state in regard to the situation of armed conflict is also significant for the qualification of respective offences in light of international law

Women, Security, and Peace: A Reading in Resolution 1325

security and peace are two concepts closely related to the rights of women, especially in the past two decades. In October 2000, Resolution 1325 was issued by the United Nations Security Council regarding women and armed conflicts, based on the role that women can play in building peace and achieving security, whether on the basis of The national or international level, especially that the women most affected during wars and armed conflicts, and some jurisprudential opinions began to take their way into international legislation and the rules of international humanitarian law regarding the protection of non-combatants and civilians in general and women in particular, and the Geneva Convention in 1949 and its annex to the Second Geneva Convention in 1949went 1977 to the necessity of protecting women against any assault, physical violence, or humiliation of all kinds. Therefore, the importance of the topic lies in knowing the role of Resolution in protecting women's rights, not to mention the need to know how women play a role in preserving international peace