Who Are Protected by the Fundamental Guarantees under International Humanitarian Law? Part 2: Breaking with the Control Requirement in Light of the icc Case Law

International humanitarian law provides for fundamental guarantees, the content of which is similar irrespective of the nature of the armed conflict and which apply to individuals even if they do not fall into the categories of specifically protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. Those guarantees, all of which derive from the general requirement of human treatment, include prohibitions of specific conduct against persons, such as murder, cruel treatment, torture, sexual violence, or against property, such as pillaging. However, it is traditionally held that the entitlement to those guarantees depends upon two requirements: the ‘status requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons must not or no longer take a direct part in hostilities, and the ‘control requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons or properties must be under the control of a party to the armed conflict. This study argues in favour of breaking with these two requirements in light of the existing icc case law. That study is divided into two parts, with each part devoted to one requirement and made the object of a specific paper. The two papers follow the same structure. They start with general observations on the requirement concerned, examine the relevant icc case law and put forward several arguments in favour of an extensive approach to the personal scope of the fundamental guarantees. The first paper, which was published in the previous issue of this journal, dealt with the status requirement. It especially delved into the icc decisions in the Ntaganda case with respect to the issue of protection against intra-party violence. It advocated the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in such a context by rejecting the requirement of a legal status, on the basis of several arguments. Those arguments relied on ihl provisions protecting specific persons as well as on the potential for humanizing ihl on the matter and also on the approach making the status requirement relevant only when the fundamental guarantees apply in the conduct of hostilities. The second paper, which is published here, deals with the control requirement. It examines several icc cases in detail, including the Katanga and Ntaganda cases, in relation to the issue of the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in the conduct of hostilities. It is argued that the entitlement to those guarantees is not dependent upon any general control requirement, and that, as a result, some of these guarantees may apply in the conduct of hostilities. This concerns mainly those guarantees whose application or constitutive elements do not imply any physical control over the concerned persons or properties.

Who Are Protected by the Fundamental Guarantees under International Humanitarian Law? Part 1: Breaking with the Status Requirement in Light of the icc Case Law

International humanitarian law provides for fundamental guarantees, the content of which is similar irrespective of the nature of the armed conflict, and which are applicable to individuals even if they do not fall into the categories of specifically protected persons under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Those guarantees, all of which derive from the general requirement of human treatment, include prohibitions of specific types of conduct against persons, such as murder, cruel treatment, torture and sexual violence, or against property, such as pillaging. However, it is traditionally held that entitlement to those guarantees depends upon two requirements: the ‘status requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons must not or must no longer take a direct part in hostilities, and the ‘control requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons or properties must be under the control of a party to the armed conflict. This study argues in favour of breaking with these two requirements, in light of the existing ICC case law. The study is divided into two parts, with each part devoted to one requirement and made the object of a specific paper. The two papers follow the same structure. They start with general observations on the requirement concerned, examine the relevant ICC case law and put forward several arguments in favour of an extensive approach to the personal scope of the fundamental guarantees. The first paper, which is published in this issue, deals with the status requirement. It especially delves into the ICC decisions in the Ntaganda case with respect to the issue of protection against intra-party violence. It advocates for the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in such a context by rejecting the requirement of a legal status, on the basis of several arguments. Those arguments rely on IHL provisions protecting specific persons, on the potential for humanizing IHL on the matter and on the approach making the status requirement relevant only when the fundamental guarantees apply in the conduct of hostilities. The second paper, which will be published in a coming issue, deals with the control requirement. It examines several ICC cases in detail, including the Katanga and Ntaganda cases, in relation to the issue of the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in the conduct of hostilities. It is argued that the entitlement to those guarantees is not dependent upon any general control requirement, and that, as a result, some of these guarantees (mainly those whose application or constitutive elements do not imply any physical control over the concerned persons or properties) may apply in the conduct of hostilities.

Loss of control in the appeal courts

The article critiques the ‘loss of self-control’ requirement within Loss of Control partial defence, investigating its meaning (legally and scientifically), as well as its theoretical purpose. We contend that the partial defence currently performs a curious and problematic role, promoting questions of self-control, that are most effectively dealt with at a post-conviction stage (ie, at sentencing), into questions for the liability stage. This could be (perhaps best) resolved through the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder, and subsequent abolition of the partial defences, but it is accepted that the current political reality weighs heavily against this option. Looking for viable alternatives, we highlight the advantages of an approach that maximises discretion based on a full appraisal of potentially extenuating circumstances; before discussing how the current partial defence, including the requirement for a loss of self-control, should be interpreted to move the current law closer to this goal.

A New Multilevel Inverter Topology with Reduced DC Sources

The component count for the multilevel inverter has been a research topic for the last few decades. The higher number of power semiconductor devices and sources leads to a higher power loss with the complex control requirement. A new multilevel inverter topology employing the concept of half-Bridge modules is suggested in this paper. It requires a lower number of dc sources and power components. The inverter is controlled using a fundamental frequency switching scheme. With the basic unit being able to produce 13 level voltage waveforms with three dc voltage sources, higher-level inverter configuration has also been discussed in the paper. The performance of the topology is analyzed in the aspects of circuit parameters and found better when compared to similar topologies proposed in recent literature. The comparison provided in the paper set the benchmark of the proposed topology in terms of lower component requirements. The topology is also optimized with two voltage fixing algorithms for maximizing the number of levels for the given number of IGBTs, drivers and dc sources, and the observations are presented. The efficiency analysis gives the peak efficiency as 98.5%. The simulations were carried out using the PLECS software tool and validated using a prototype rated at 500 W. The results with several test conditions have been reported and discussed in the paper.

Control strategies for COVID-19 epidemic with vaccination, shield immunity and quarantine: A metric temporal logic approach

Ever since the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, various public health control strategies have been proposed and tested against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. We study three specific COVID-19 epidemic control models: the susceptible, exposed, infectious, recovered (SEIR) model with vaccination control; the SEIR model with shield immunity control; and the susceptible, un-quarantined infected, quarantined infected, confirmed infected (SUQC) model with quarantine control. We express the control requirement in metric temporal logic (MTL) formulas (a type of formal specification languages) which can specify the expected control outcomes such as “the deaths from the infection should never exceed one thousand per day within the next three months” or “the population immune from the disease should eventually exceed 200 thousand within the next 100 to 120 days”. We then develop methods for synthesizing control strategies with MTL specifications. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically synthesize control strategies based on the COVID-19 epidemic models with formal specifications. We provide simulation results in three different case studies: vaccination control for the COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Lombardy, Italy; shield immunity control for the COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Lombardy, Italy; and quarantine control for the COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Wuhan, China. The results show that the proposed synthesis approach can generate control inputs such that the time-varying numbers of individuals in each category (e.g., infectious, immune) satisfy the MTL specifications. The results also show that early intervention is essential in mitigating the spread of COVID-19, and more control effort is needed for more stringent MTL specifications. For example, based on the model in Lombardy, Italy, achieving less than 100 deaths per day and 10000 total deaths within 100 days requires 441.7% more vaccination control effort than achieving less than 1000 deaths per day and 50000 total deaths within 100 days.

Classifying Non-International Armed Conflicts

In terms of Additional Protocol ii to the Geneva Conventions ‘territorial control’ is a requirement in order to determine whether, as contemplated by the provisions of the Protocol, a non-international armed conflict exists. Complex situations in which conflict is not confined to the territorial borders of the State where the non-international armed conflict originated increasingly present a challenge to those responsible for conflict classification under the conventional law of non-international armed conflict. In situations such as these, a non-international armed conflict is no longer restricted to the territory of a single State. Multiple non-international conflicts involving numerous actors can co-exist in a single territory at the same time or lead to fighting across borders. The complex conflict situations in the Central African Republic, Mali, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo serve as examples. Attaining legal certainty is pivotal with respect to conflict classification because the category of conflict determines the applicable rules of the conventional law of armed conflict. Even though Additional Protocol ii remains the only comprehensive treaty dedicated to the regulation of non-international armed conflict, there is a paucity of literature which analyses its scope of application, and specifically the territorial control requirement. This article offers an in-depth examination of the territorial control requirement.