Search

It is indicated that russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea by the russian federation, has since intensified significantly, especially after the large-scale invasion of russia in February 2022. This armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine led to a serious humanitarian crisis, serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), international criminal law (ICC) and international human rights law (IHRC). The article explores the international legal responses to russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine, beginning with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and intensifying with the full-scale invasion in February 2022. This war has led to severe humanitarian crises and widespread violations of international humanitarian law, international criminal law, and international human rights law. The paper focuses on war crimes, including targeting civilians, the use of prohibited weapons, and the unlawful deportation of children to russia. This article addresses the scientific literature on the war crimes committed by russia against Ukraine and IHL implementation, noting the lack of research on forensic methodologies for war crime investigations in Ukraine. While Ukrainian scholars emphasize integrating international law into national legislation, foreign experts provide more detailed forensic approaches. The study evaluates the actions of international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations, alongside efforts by the European Union and others, to ensure accountability and reparations, with particular focus on the various mechanisms established to address war crimes, human rights abuses, and the path toward reparations and justice for Ukraine. Special attention is given to international initiatives, such as the Atrocity Crime Advisor Group (ACA) and the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression (ICPA), which are crucial in enhancing Ukraine’s ability to prosecute atrocity crimes. The article underscores the need for coordinated international legal and financial support to achieve justice for the victims and rebuild Ukraine.

This post analyses the separation between jus ad bellum / in bello as arising from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. This separation was challenged by many States appearing before the Court, some of which implied that Israel’s policies and practices, as violations of jus in bello, rendered the occupation unlawful under jus ad bellum. The Court ultimately reaffirmed the separation with a twofold argument, namely qualifying the ‘legality of the occupation’ as a jus ad bellum question, and framing Israel’s policies and practices (prolonged occupation, annexation, and settlement policy) as violations of jus ad bellum.

This contribution discusses three possible rationales for the Court’s rejection of the relevance of Israel’s security concerns: Lack of proof of serious and legitimate security concerns by Israel, the insufficiency of broad security concerns to justify the continued use of force, and the insufficiency of broad security concerns to deny realization of Palestinian self-determination. As long as international law doctrine on the duty to end a belligerent occupation despite the prevalence of serious security concerns remains contested, and as long as security conditions in the region remain extremely unstable, it is unlikely that a withdrawal will be deemed practicable

It is no understatement to say that the 19 July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion constitutes a seismic change in the international law and practice on the question of Palestine. In one fell swoop, the ICJ has shifted what was hitherto an almost exclusive focus of the international community on how Israel has administered its 57-year occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory under International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, to the requirement that Israel end its occupation of that territory as “rapidly as possible”.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine, or more accurately, between the two Peoples, has persisted for over a century. A tragic reminder of the unbearable costs of this conflict is the deadly October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, and the ensuing war, which has led to horrific consequences, with thousands of Israelis and Palestinians killed, many severely injured, and extensive damage to the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. In these circumstances, an important question arises: what role should international law and international tribunals play in mitigating the grave harm to all those involved in the conflict?

This article is an attempt to add layers to the discussions of ongoing mass atrocities committed in several parts of the world by discussing an under-reported situation of large scale violence unfolding in Sudan since April 2023, in the hope that the ‘international community’ can address multiple catastrophic situations with similar urgency, mobilise for justice for all peoples, end the culture of impunity, and eventually shift the discourse towards the structural causes of such large-scale violence in different parts of the world.

The Russian aggression against Ukraine involves extensive use of air power, proving that without the sufficient level of air control, the combat operations on the ground face significant operational challenges. The use of air power raises questions regarding the legality of the aerial actions conducted over Ukraine. This conflict in the air domain is characterised by separate campaigns. The first one was a battle over the air superiority of Ukraine, which was relatively short in time (February–April 2022), albeit intense, and lost by the Russian Air Force due to the inability to destroy Ukrainian air defence assets and Ukrainian military aviation. The second one, still in progress at the moment this article is being written, looks to become an unresolved contest of attrition, as both belligerents vastly increased their air disruption capabilities. In particular, during the last period of the first phase, it is believed that many of the Russian air strikes were, in fact, indiscriminate or deliberately directed against civilian objectives. The aim of the article is to analyse the overall conduct of the air war over Ukraine and pinpoint the legal challenges in assessing the legality of such air operations. In the context of available information, the paper will seek to understand the legal framework concerning the destruction of the An-225 at the Hostomel airport during the first phase of hostilities, the use of certain aerial weapons, and the selection of targets.

Article 82 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions requires competent legal advisors to be available, when necessary, to advise military commanders at the appropriate level on the application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). One of the most important fields of IHL application which requires legal advice is attacks on the enemy, which need to follow the principles of military necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality, and are also affected by the requirement to undertake all feasible precautions in order to avoid or at least minimise incidental harm to civilians (collateral damage). One of the ways to ensure that attacks on enemy remain compliant with the requirements of IHL is by adopting appropriate targeting procedures and tools facilitating avoidance or minimising collateral damage, such as the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology (CDEM). Media coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian war has contributed significantly to the misperception of IHL provisions applicable to targeting. During the war in Ukraine, political declarations were made several times that a war crime had occurred in the form of a deliberate attack on the civilian object. However, the legality of a particular strike can rarely be judged based upon the results of the strike or via post-strike Battle Damage Assessment (BDA). The so-called Rendulic rule emphasises that military necessity, proportionality, and precautions are judged a priori, based upon by the information available at the time of the decision (circumstances ruling at the time) and not on the basis of information emerging after the decision had been made. Legal Advirsors’ role in the targeting process requires them to possess at least the basic knowledge of the Targeting Process and the CDEM, general military expertise in the fields of Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs), as well as effects of the employment of particular weapon systems in given circumstances. This should be supported by thorough knowledge of IHL, in particular the practical aspects of its application in military operations. It should be about the intersection of legal and technical expertise.

The article explores the question of crimes committed against the civilian population during the war in Ukraine and the possible ways of bringing to justice those responsible. A full-scale aggression launched by Russia has caused death and widespread suffering of thousands of Ukrainian civilians and combatants. The article focuses on the events following 24th February, 2022, bearing in mind that the conflict had started much earlier – with the illegal annexation of Crimea and the beginning of fighting in eastern part of the Ukraine in 2014. After introductory remarks in the first section, the second part of this article will be focusing on different acts constituting war crimes that were committed during the war in Ukraine, and the third part will address existing accountability mechanisms and briefly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

The protection of civilians is a basic ethical, strategic, and legal requirement for the international community and every democratic state, one of the key aspects of any military (combat) action. Such protection should not only be proclaimed, but also serve as a priority. If armed forces during armed conflicts rely on the foundation laid by international humanitarian law and adhere to civilised rules of military (combat) operations, then the damage caused to the civilian population can be minimised. This problem is also important in terms of the international and national legal protection of the civilian population during the international military conflict in Ukraine.

One of the most important goals of developing the rules of international humanitarian law is to protect people who are not directly involved in war in most cases, but the violence and suffering caused by war is imposed on them. As one of the vulnerable groups, women are exposed to being victimized due to war crimes or crimes against humanity, especially during civil wars. When a civilian group, in the territory of a government enters into conflict with that government, a situation of non-international armed conflict is created; A situation that will be governed by different rules than those governing international armed conflicts. The rules that result from Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the second additional protocol and international custom. Dominating a part of the territory of a country by the forces on a continuous basis, having minimum facilities to establish a base inside the territory of the conflict, having a responsible commander, etc. are the most important characteristics of a hostile group, and in this case, it is possible to implement the rules of law. International humanitarianism is expected from them. The black figure of women's victimization due to their gender in armed conflicts has led to the lack of identification of the perpetrators and the lack of necessary support for them, and this itself leads to their secondary victimization. In internal armed conflicts, the issue of women's victimization, due to the occurrence of violence inside the territory of a country and its inability to be monitored by international institutions on the one hand, and their victimization (direct and indirect) from different directions on the other hand, along with numerous problems It becomes more important in repairing the damage caused to them. In addition, the governments do not want to provide humanitarian support and aid to their nationals and citizens in the event of a civil war, and in the event of this type of conflict, they seek to suppress the opposition to the extent that the perpetrators of war crimes and ... be. Today, the violation of women's rights in internal armed conflicts as people who did not play an active role in these conflicts is recognized as a war crime. Because war crime is known as a gross violation of international humanitarian rights in armed conflicts, and the violation of women's rights is a gross manifestation of this violation. Although committing these actions in some cases leads to a crime against humanity or even genocide. Since the violation of the rules of humanitarian rights has been done in the territory of a state, not only the people involved in these conflicts, but also the states (whether the state that is a party to the conflict or the state that helps one of the parties to the war) are committed and obliged to respect the rights are international humanitarians and in case of violation of these international rules, they will be responsible for the victims of crimes. In the rules of international humanitarian law governing civil wars, the civil and international responsibility of governments and perpetrators of crimes in these conflicts is emphasized. In addition to accepting the violation of women's rights as a war crime and a crime against humanity (as the case may be), the statutes and jurisprudence of international criminal courts have considered the perpetrators of these crimes to be criminally responsible. This article, using the descriptive-analytical method, using library resources and card cabinet tools, seeks to investigate the issue of what are the most important manifestations of the violation of women's rights in civil wars as a violation of international humanitarian rights and its effects, and the procedure How has international criminal courts been in identifying numerous cases of violation of women's rights? Sexual violence, as the most obvious example of the violation of women's rights in internal armed conflicts, has led to many destructive effects on women, which is confirmed by the studies conducted during internal armed wars and especially after the end of the war and violence. What the numerous cases of internal armed wars and the judicial procedure of international criminal courts show is the lack of appropriate solutions and treatment for women victims of violence in the process of reacting to the violation of their rights, especially in criminal proceedings (Submitting a complaint to the corrupt criminal system, the lack of proper services from lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and the criminal justice system in general), which requires providing different ways of support than what currently exists.

The Israeli army has developed an artificial intelligence-based system called “Lavender”. This approach promises faster and more accurate targeting; however, human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have warned of deficits in responsibility for violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). In the following, we will examine these concerns and show how responsibility for violations of IHL remains attributable to a state that uses automated or semi-automated systems in warfare.

The International Law Commission is preparing to continue discussions on Draft Articles on the Immunity of State Officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction at its forthcoming 75th summer session. This article focuses on two issues: the scope of immunity and its exceptions. These issues, which are widely discussed internationally, are far from being resolved. In this state of flux, a common ground is needed to move forward, which I try to outline in this blog post.

The war in Ukraine brought the collective security system towards a dead-end street. After raising the question of nuclear threat, another long-time forgotten question arises again, waking up the ghosts that slept for more than a half-century- the use of cluster bombs. Although an international convention prohibits this type of weapon, neither Ukraine, Russia, nor the United States are part of it, which leads back to the agony of fragmentation of international law versus the erga omnes concept of universally applicable norms and customary rules. Since the war is official and intensive, the law of armed conflict applies no matter which of the states involved denies it or names it differently. The use of cluster munitions from both sides is highly contested in international law—the paper aimed to provide an overview of the applicable legal framework through analytical and comparative methods. Although there is a general notion that cluster munition is banned under international law, the paper’s results show this is not the ultimate case. Contextualisation relies on the four basic principles of humanitarian law.

Issues of legal regulation of military captivity are very relevant. At different times, humanity has experienced many wars and military conflicts, with which came experience and the realization that even during armed confrontation it is necessary to respect the law, show mercy and humanity towards an enemy who is helpless or does not want to fight. The emergence of norms in the field of military captivity in international humanitarian law dictated the necessary desire of countries to implement these norms into national legislation. The rapid development of modern law and legal policy determines the increase in the culture of society, and at the same time the preservation of humanity and respect for the human dignity of prisoners of war. Our country, being a highly developed and rule-of-law state, has always strived to implement the norms of international law in the field of military captivity, both in Soviet and Russian legislation. However, in the history of domestic law to this day, organizational, political and legal problems arise in the implementation of the norms of international humanitarian law relating to military captivity into national legislation. The above problems are a consequence of a complex of social reasons, both objective and private. Continuing research into the dynamics of the process of implementing the norms of international law in the field of military captivity into Russian legislation, a comprehensive study of the issue of legal implementation of the implemented norms will allow us to find ways to solve problems in this area, as well as draw a conclusion regarding the further development of legal norms relating to military captivity in our country.

The book "International Humanitarian Law and its applications to armed conflicts in Iraq" is one of the books that sheds light on the many armed conflicts that our country, Iraq, has fought in. These conflicts formed fertile material for legal studies concerned with international humanitarian law in order to apply it to armed conflicts and to know the extent of the ability of these rules to withstand the challenges posed by these conflicts. Thus, the most prominent obstacles for implementation are the mechanisms that the international community came up with capablity of resolving and confronting these conflicts and mitigating their repercussions.

The article concerns the convergence of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in armed conflicts. International humanitarian law and human rights law converge and permeate each other because both these disciplines of public international law are founded on natural law. Although international humanitarian law constitutes a lex specialis, the general rules on the interpretation of treaties clearly indicate that international human rights law must be interpreted in the context of other rules of international law, and its derogations, if any, must be compatible with other international obligations of the state, including with humanitarian law. Where a conflict arises between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the mechanism for resolving conflicts between norms has been supplemented by the International Court of Justice by applying an interpretation based on the principle of systemic integration, resulting in the “humanization” of international humanitarian law. As regards the application of universal and regional instruments of international human rights law, we face a “humanization” of them. That is why more and more attention is paid in practice to the complementarity of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and this is confirmed in United Nations discussions and resolutions on the situation in armed conflicts.

The aim and objective of this study is to outline the evolution and mechanisms of humanitarian aid provided by the European Union. Unquestionably, this is a significant issue, which, however, only found a direct legal basis in the Treaty of Lisbon, referring to humanitarian aid, and became the subject of a separate policy. Its principles, structure, and mechanisms of financing were clarified through the unification and harmonization of acts of secondary law. This also includes sui generis acts, which had a specific impact on the area of external actions in the discussed aspect. The fundamental goal of this study is to present the legal and political framework of humanitarian aid along with examples regarding practical aspects of providing assistance. The study employs the method of investigation of the law in force and legal comparison, consisting in, e.g., an attempt to find adequate legal solutions for broadly understood humanitarian aid provided by the European Union.

Nicaragua alleges that Germany violates the Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law by assisting Israel and also by failing to prevent violations of these bodies of law. It requests the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures, which would oblige Germany inter alia to stop assisting Israel. While the Court may be barred from exercising its jurisdiction over Nicaragua’s claims relating to the Genocide Convention it may be able to hear the claims regarding Germany’s duties under IHL.

This study discusses the status of civilian foreign citizens who participated in the war to defend Ukraine under international humanitarian law and state responsibility for foreign civilians participating in the war to defend Ukraine under international humanitarian law. The purpose of this research is: to analyse the status of foreign nationals, especially those contained in the Geneva Convention of 1949; and accountability countries that are fair to foreign nationals based on humanitarian law international. The method used in this research is normative. Results from this research that the status of foreign citizens who are involved in fighting for Ukraine are entitled under International Humanitarian Law treated as prisoners of war and entitled to equal treatment of humans. Actions committed by foreign civilian citizens, from each country are obliged to provide accountability to the aggrieved party. The rights of foreign nationals are protected by conflicting countries but do not reduce the privileges of the state against its own citizen. The link between international human rights law and law international humanitarian law is also one of the basic reasons for detaining power does not have the right to commit acts of cruelty. Keywords: Foreign Nationals, International Humanitarian Law, State Responsibility Tanggung Jawab Negara Terhadap Warga Negara Asing yang Bertugas Sebagai Angkatan Bersenjata Ukraina: Perspektif Hukum Humaniter Internasional Abstrak Penelitian ini membahas tentang status warga sipil asing yang turut serta dalam perang membela Ukraina berdasarkan hukum humaniter internasional dan tanggung jawab negara terhadap warga sipil asing yang ikut serta dalam perang membela Ukraina berdasarkan hukum humaniter internasional. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah: menganalisis status warga negara asing khususnya yang tercantum dalam Konvensi Jenewa 1949; dan akuntabilitas negara yang adil terhadap warga negara asing berdasarkan hukum humaniter internasional. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini bahwa status warga negara asing yang terlibat dalam perjuangan Ukraina berhak, menurut Hukum Humaniter Internasional, diperlakukan sebagai tawanan perang dan berhak atas perlakuan yang sama terhadap manusia. Perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh warga negara sipil asing, dari masing-masing negara wajib memberikan pertanggungjawaban kepada pihak yang dirugikan. Hak-hak warga negara asing dilindungi oleh negara-negara yang berkonflik namun tidak mengurangi keistimewaan negara terhadap warga negaranya sendiri. Keterkaitan antara hukum hak asasi manusia internasional dengan hukum hukum humaniter internasional juga menjadi salah satu alasan mendasar mengapa pihak yang tidak berhak melakukan tindakan kekejaman ditahan. Kata Kunci: Warga Negara Asing, Hukum Humaniter Internasional, Tanggung Jawab Negara

While ambiguity is a common feature of international obligations, there is a strong theoretical anticipation that ambiguities may be exploited, and obligations circumvented, under competing interests. This article largely backs this anticipation. The article scrutinises how ambiguous arms export control obligations are handled under strong incentives for arms export. The empirical case explored is the UK government's arms exports to Saudi Arabia during the war in Yemen. Exports continued despite evidence that the Saudi-led coalition was violating international humanitarian law (IHL) in Yemen, and despite obligations not to export if there is a risk that the exported equipment can be used in IHL violations. A resulting legal challenge against the UK government provides valuable information about the role of ambiguity in the implementation of arms export controls. Drawing on primary sources from the legal process, this article argues that the UK government has taken advantage of linguistic ambiguity. The article also argues that the government has engaged in the continuous construction of ambiguity around events in Yemen and around the ideal parameters for arms trade risk assessment. Together, these strategies have facilitated continued arms exports to Saudi Arabia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article is devoted to the problems of development of private military companies in Russia. It shows the practice of private military companies in the current political situation in the world. The phenomenon of private military companies (PMCs) is a rather controversial and ambiguous topic. Over the past more than thirty years, PMCs have played an increasingly important role in local wars and regional conflicts. With further globalization of the world economy, the role of PMCs in future wars and armed conflicts will be increasing. The authors study international documents regulating the activities of these organizations. They point out the necessity of adopting a law to allow this type of activity on the territory of the Russian Federation. Private military companies actually exist within the country and their legalization would allow to introduce their activities into the legal field. Private military companies influence the sphere of human rights, is connected with corruption and dishonest performance of obligations in implementation of contracts. The penalties for establishing and participating in illegal armed groups are shown. The possibilities of their application, both in Russia and abroad, are highlighted.

Is Germany legally obligated to condemn violations of international humanitarian law? This argument was recently put forward in an article on Verfassungsblog. Elsewhere it was claimed that Germany, along with other States failing to utilize their full repertoire of diplomatic options (including “[calling] for a permanent ceasefire”), is in breach of its own IHL-responsibilities. Admittedly, international law does have a say when organs of States speak. Nevertheless, the intricacies of this matter go beyond first impression. I submit that such a duty is not as easy to derive in the present case as is suggested by opposing views.

Over the last weeks, we were forced to realize that the way our – i.e. German – public opinion (and politicians) react to the ruthless assault of Hamas on 7 October differs markedly from the intuitions of the broad public in the Islamic world (and large parts of the ´Global South´ in general). Whereas our media (and speeches of politicians) are full of references to Israel´s right to self-defence, the sentiments voiced on the streets in the Middle East (and publicly stated by politicians such as Turkish President Erdogan) go in the opposite direction, stress the legitimate cause of the Palestinians and term the Hamas as a movement of national liberation. Clearly there is a legitimate cause in the fight of Palestinians against endless occupation. But do ends really justify means, at all price, as the praise for Hamas seems to suggest? A closer look to the normative underpinnings of current international law confirms the intuition that this is more than doubtful, as a thorough analysis of the (intensely debated) provisions on the status of movements of national liberation in IHL tells us.

On 24 November 2023, the Barcelona City Council passed a resolution, suspending diplomatic ties with Israel, until a permanent ceasefire is established. While this may not reflect the stance of the Spanish government, it has nevertheless condemned ‘the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians’. As more EU States (such as Belgium, France, and Ireland) have raised their concerns regarding Israel’s continuous military operations in Gaza, Germany has remained steadfast in its ‘unwavering’ and ‘unreserved’ support for Israel. To the extent that Israel has failed to comply with international humanitarian law (IHL), Germany’s position might amount to a breach of its obligation under common Article 1 (CA1) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (GC) to ‘ensure respect’ for IHL. While this obligation is incumbent on all States parties to the GC, this post focuses on Germany due to its particularly affirmative position with respect to Israel’s conduct.

In light of the atrocities committed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters in Israel on October 7, 2023 and the days thereafter, and against the backdrop of Germany’s historical responsibility, the German government and German politicians have unanimously expressed solidarity with Israel and emphasized its right to self-defense. Following the October 17, 2023 call by Kai Ambos for a differentiated debate, we explain which international humanitarian law precautions are relevant and what German policy can contribute to contain the escalation of violence as well as the suffering of the civilian population in the immediate conflict and in the future.

The actions of Hamas have been called in a detailed declaration drafted by Israeli international lawyers, also signed by this author, for what they are: core crimes under international law, possibly even amounting to genocide directed against the Jewish population of Israel. This should be beyond dispute among international (criminal) lawyers. Nonetheless, especially in Germany we have to critically ask ourselves the follow-up question of how far our support for Israel’s military counterattack can go.

What is permissible for the Israeli government to do in response to the murderous attack by Hamas? The answer to this is difficult, not only because blood is boiling and hearts are broken, but also because there is a complex moral dilemma here. In this blog, we hope to offer some guidelines to clarify the issue. We do not claim to provide definitive answers. The required analysis is complex, and it is incumbent upon the Israeli government and the IDF to ensure that the various steps taken are morally justified.

The article is devoted to the analysis of international normative legal acts in the context of determining the criteria for armed conflict. In addition, the authors pay attention to the wording of this concept for the proper qualification of the form of armed violence. The authors also explore the effect of international humanitarian law in the event of an armed conflict, because participants of an international armed conflict are obliged to comply with international humanitarian law applicable in such conflicts. The main sources of international legal regulation of armed conflicts include the so-called “Geneva law” and the “Hague Law”. The category of an “armed conflict” in international relations was first used in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, where, along with the term “war”, the concepts of “international armed conflict” and “non-international armed conflict” are used. In addition, the authors emphasize that the concept of an armed conflict should be distinguished from other related concepts such as war, internal unrest, tensions and acts of violence. The distinction between “war” and “armed conflict” is rather arbitrary. In particular, it is believed that the concept of an “armed conflict” is broader and encompasses the concept of “war”. However, not every armed conflict can be called a war, because war has the following features that are not inherent in an armed conflict: the act of declaring war; severance of diplomatic relations between the belligerent states, which is a consequence of the war declaration; the cancellation of bilateral treaties, especially political ones. The autors think that that today one of the most acute problems in the practice of an international humanitarian law application is the lack of a clear and complete definition of all situations to which its provisions should be applied. Thus, international humanitarian law only describes situations that should be regulated by its norms. At the same time, there are still no clear and unambiguous criteria by which such situations can be identified

The International humanitarian law, through a set of international conventions, protects prisoners of war from any violation or infringement of human rights during their captivity. The status of prisoners of war is only applicable in international armed conflicts. After The Hague Convention had failed to identify the categories of fighters who would benefit from their privileges as prisoners of war in World War II, the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and their protocols were established to justify the inclusion of broader categories of combatants. Descriptive and analytical approaches are used in the study reported in this article to identify the category of people regarded as prisoners of war. by examining international treaties and agreements in relation to the definition of a prisoner of war before characterising the individuals who fulfil the criteria of “prisoner of war” under these treaties. Moreover, it explains the legal mechanisms necessary to ensure that the parties involved in international conflicts comply with the international conventions on prisoners of war. This article concludes that the prisoners of war are often members of the military forces of one of the belligerents who fall into the hands of the opposing party and other types of people who possess the right to the status of prisoners of war or can be treated as prisoners of war following the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. In contrast, traitors, deserters and mercenaries are not considered the prisoners of war. If they commit a war crime, they can be prosecuted by the internal law of the Detaining Power. On the other hand, the overlapping definitions of the prisoners of war can create confusion in combatant interactions during the armed conflict, hence increases violations. Consequently, states must take practical steps to prevent any expected violations against the prisoners of war, for instance enacting national laws to ensure international treaties compliance and raise the awareness of international law among leaders and officials during armed conflicts to limit the violence against combatants.

Children are one of the most vulnerable categories of victims during armed conflicts. Although several international instruments exist to protect them and civilians in general, there are still many violations committed against children worldwide. This article reports a pure doctrinal research that has used a descriptive analytical approach. It seeks to address the issue of the protection of children from the perspective of International Humanitarian Law. The context of the study is its focus on Israeli violations committed during three wars in the Gaza Strip, i.e., in 2008, 2012 and 2014. The violations were analysed using the framework of the rules and principles of International Humanitarian Law, specifically the Geneva Convention IV and its two additional protocols regarding the protection of children during armed conflicts. It is important to understand the nature of the protection provided to children under International Humanitarian Law and to identify whether the Israeli forces breached the rules during the three wars. This will expose the Israeli violations and provide better protection for the people in Gaza, especially children in wartime. Finally, the study summarises that the International Humanitarian Law provides a special protection to children in wartime alongside the protection provided to civilians. It also concludes that during the wars in the Gaza Strip, i.e., in 2008, 2012 and 2014, Israel did violate the principles of International Humanitarian Law concerning children and the civilians in general.

Russia's conflict with Ukraine which has lasted for a long time has resulted in world commotion and disorder. This problem is certainly an important legal issue to be researched. Based on this, this study aims to examine and analyze the humanitarian law arrangements against Russia's armed attack on Ukraine. The research conducted in this paper is a type of doctrinal research. The conclusion is that based on international humanitarian law arrangements such as the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I 1997 provides protection for civilians and civilian objects in times of war. Russia's act of armed attack is a violation of international humanitarian law. It is hoped that proactive actions from the United Nations will be neutral by carrying out a peaceful settlement. However, if it fails to produce a decision that resolves the conflict, strict sanctions are needed against the violator in accordance with the applicable international humanitarian law regulations.

University is required to adapt the teaching method, creativity, and innovation during the covid outbreak. The learning method used in Learning Management System (LMS) is mixed with online methods by utilizing both synchronous and asynchronous multimedia. This study developed into several steps; the first step is identifying the problem in class participation before applying LMS and comparing it with the class participation afterward. Problem identification is carried out with a learning survey currently being carried out at the International Humanitarian Law class in Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa while applying mobile LMS to enhance class participation. Untirta's bold LMS (SPADA Untirta) can be upgraded to a more practical level by implementing SPADA mobile LMS applications as a valuable embodiment of LMS;

Today's the advancements of technology have an impact on many aspects of life, including health, education, transportation, business, information communication, and government administration. Nonetheless, given the strong relationship between technology and the military, technology advancements could lead to a war. The sheer proliferation of technologies implemented in military operations spawned technology-based warfare called cyber warfare. Cyber warfare refers to wars carried out through the virtual world and is coordinated with conventional warfare. In cyber warfare, opposing countries perform cyber operations through cyberspace as the latest weapon of warfare launched to destabilize the national security and stability of the target state. The current cyber warfare is in the international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This article analyses the deployment of cyber warfare in international armed conflict from the international humanitarian law perspective, and it also investigates Russia's use of cyber warfare against Ukraine. The purpose of this article is to understand how international humanitarian law rules the use of cyber warfare in international armed conflicts, in addition to the way Russia employs cyber warfare against Ukraine. This article is normative law research which uses the statute approach with juridical-normative research method. The findings found that cyber warfare carried out within the framework of international armed conflict is subject to international humanitarian law and that its use is also restricted by the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. The research also found that Russia's cyber warfare against Ukraine in an international armed conflict is against the principles of differentiation and proportionality.

The 20th century was marked by mass murder and crime to humanity, such as genocide, war crime, and ethnic cleansing, resulting in tens of millions of deaths throughout the world. While the objective of establishing the United Nations in 1945 aimed at preventing such crimes, mass murders kept on occurring, as the cases in Bosnia and Rwanda in 1990s. The responsibility to protect (R2P) concept emerged as a response to these failures, by proposing that the sovereignty of a country should be based on the responsibility to protect its citizens, rather than the right to take actions without any intervention from the international world. This research aims at exploring the R2P concept as an attempt to protect human rights in the international humanitarian law context by analyzing the relevant literature and legal norms to discover how this concept can be the basis for protecting human rights under conflict situation and four mass violations of human rights. It used normative legal research method based on international law framework. Two approaches were used, namely conceptual and comparative ones. The research results indicated that R2P concept was the best alternative for humanitarian intervention to protect mankind from such crimes as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. In an intra-country conflict, the international community was responsible through preventive and military intervention attempts. The R2P concept was also relevant in international humanitarian law since it gave a clear framework in protecting human rights and preventing mass crimes, especially in relation to the use of military power.

Modern armed conflicts demonstrate constant military transformation, and the weapon of the future will be precisely what we now name by the word “autonomous weapon systems” (AWS). Despite many advantages of using it, the possibility of lawful use of AWS and especially unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS remains a debatable issue in international law. It is primarily due to the loss of human control over the use of lethal force and the autonomy of such systems. AWS are already widely used by many countries, including Israel, the US, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and others, to protect their borders, increasing the response times and effectiveness of border forces both on land and at sea. Authors highlight a list of issues, namely the absence of the conventional definition of the term “autonomous weapon systems”, the possibility of individual prosecution due to the misuse of AWS, the protection of human life, privacy and appropriate remedies, the compliance of the use of AWS with the principles of distinction between civilians and combatants, military necessity and proportionality, precautions, etc. The problems of using autonomous weapon systems lie in both legal and ethical areas. Such uncertainty automatically narrows the protection of human rights in armed conflicts, which is unacceptable and illegal. Therefore, it is proposed at the regulatory level to prohibit states from using fully autonomous weapon systems and unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS that could use lethal force against humans, as well as to provide for the definition of AWS, their types, and principles of use, clearly define and limit their scope within which states could guarantee respect for human rights, as they are responsible for compliance with IHL and international human rights law.

Abstract The principle of military necessity is an important pillar of the international law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law. However, there is no clear definition of the principle which has many applications to complex cases, and this is due to the different categories of armed conflicts. Today , countries and armed groups use this principle as an excuse to violate the rules of international humanitarian law, which its original goal is to protect non-combatants during armed conflicts and considered a legal refuge for civilians during armed conflict. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols of 1977sets the legal basis for the principle of military necessity. This article attempts to shed light on the principle and its impact on civilians during armed conflicts . It argues that the use of this important principle during armed conflicts must take humanitarian considerations into account and not cause any unnecessary pain.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(3), 1575-1601 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Methodology. - II.1. Cause and effect: contextualising the EDF. - III. If you want peace, sell more guns? - IV. From theory to practice: the ineffectiveness of arms export controls in the EU. - V. Don't fuel the fire: the EU's duty to act as a responsible arms financier. - V.1. The EU as a guardian of the international legal order. - V.2. The EU as a consistent legislator. - V.3. The nature of the EU's duty to act as a responsible arms financier. - VI. Designing a more responsible European Defence Fund. - VI.1. Operationalising the EU's duty to act as a responsible arms financier. - VI.2. Analysing the EU's policy toolbox. - VII. Conclusion. | (Abstract) Through the European Defence Fund (EDF) the EU will become involved for the first time in arms development. EDF funding is intended to contribute to the EU's strategic autonomy in defence. But arms developed with EDF funding may also be exported to non-EU States. International and EU norms meant to ensure a humane and responsible arms trade are insufficiently effective, leaving room for Member States to export arms even when there is a serious risk of their use in violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). On the basis of both legal and policy-based arguments, this Article argues that the EU has failed to properly take these IHL concerns into account in the EDF Regulation. The EU's commitments to international law and to consistency require it to refrain from con-tributing to activities prohibited under international and EU law. These commitments oblige the EU to act as a responsible arms financier. This would also be in line with EU soft power efforts to pro-mote export norm adoption and compliance internationally. For such soft power efforts to be effective, the EU must visibly uphold those norms it is trying to promote. By failing to enact measures that could mitigate the risk of illegal exports of EDF-funded arms - such as a ban on financing certain high-risk activities or a financial clawback mechanism in case funding recipients export arms illegally - the EU is violating its commitments to international law and to consistency and jeopardising its reputation as an international norm entrepreneur.

[Purpose] Many recent conflicts in different places in the world are considered as a perfect illustration of the growing risks faced by media working in conflict zones. It is therefore important to call renewed attention to the fact that direct harms against the media and its role are illegal based on the principles of international humanitarian law, which is the law that regulates the conduct of war (jus in bello) and protects civilian persons and objects, as long as they are not making an effective contribution to military action. The role of media and its great value cannot be considered a legitimate target in conflicts. Respectively, the media also benefit from all measures that must be taken by the conflicting parties measures –not confined to them alone– such as the principle of proportionality and the obligation to give a warning. As of late, many books and articles have been addressing the media in the time of conflicts. They all appear to discuss it either from one perspective, or consider its role concerning one single issue, but not daring to dive too deeply into specific related issues to the media in a time of conflicts. The purpose of this paper is to present evidence on how media plays a role in armed conflicts so that can help to prevent insecurity and violent conflict, and contribute to peace and justice. It aims to help recognize the importance of media and its positive and negative potential about conflicts. [Methodology] The paper will examine the available literature on this subject specifically focusing on the challenges faced by media and underlining the knowledge gaps around media in armed conflicts. [Findings] We have directed ourselves to approach the topic from a different perspective. We hope to accomplish it, in part, by introducing the role of media in armed conflicts and whether it is still a good idea.

The Islamic world has been confronted with many challenges in recent history such as situations of violence, armed conflict, global pandemic and natural disasters. One of the many catastrophic consequences of such events are the findings of numerous unidentified bodies. Is the identification of dead bodies a legal obligation under both Islamic law and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or is it merely a moral duty to help grieving family members? The purpose of this research is first, to give an overview of the Islamic law principles governing the identification of the dead. Second, to illustrate those principles with current examples of humanitarian challenges in the Islamic world. Third, to compare those Islamic law principles to IHL rules applicable in armed conflicts and demonstrate that both IHL and Islamic Law aim to end the suffering of families of missing persons. This research demonstrates that both Islamic law and IHL have rules which aim to protect the dignity and respect of dead bodies and they complement each other in contexts of armed conflicts or other situations of violence. By identifying the similarities and complementarities of both bodies of law this research paper contributes to expanding the legal framework which can be promoted and used by humanitarians to protect families of the dead and end their suffering by obtaining information on the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones. In cases of mismanagement of the dead, in Muslim contexts, resulting in the burial of unidentified bodies, humanitarians should discuss with religious authorities and raise the various principles of Islamic law described in this paper such as the prohibition of collective graves and cremation and the exceptions made in practice for the exhumation of dead bodies. International scholars should also underscore the importance of storing information on the deceased before burying them and of participating in the development of forensic science in Islamic countries.

Reading the International Humanitarian Law, point of view of the status of subjects of Public International Law of the parties ist the only issue that involved in military conflicts matters so that they can be qualified as international or non-international, which depends directly on the volume of legal rules to be enforced and complied by the warring parties. Thus, members of peacekeeping operations conducted under the auspices of the UN, or with the participation of regional structures must strictly comply with the provisions of the rules of war throughout their actions in situations that may CZU: 341.3 https://doi.org/10.52277/1857-2405.2021.2(57).04 qualify as armed conflicts. Mechanisms and instruments for ensuring compliance with the rules of International Humanitarian Law by members of peacekeeping contingents shall be the subject of research in this article.

The purpose of the article is to analyse problems arising from applying the rules of International Humanitarian Law in cyberspace, particularly the problems of ratione materiae and ratione temporis of this branch of Public International Law in cyberspace. The rapid development of cyber technologies that can be used within an armed conflict affirm the applicability of this research. The existence of “The Tallinn Manual 2.0” on International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations also confirms the impact of this topic on the modern world. The fact that parties in armed conflicts use new technologies in cyberspace does not affect the applicability of IHL rules to such military actions. In the context of this issue, a key question which instigates scientific discussion is that of which cyber operations are subject to the regulation of the law of cyber armed conflicts. The urgent need to study this problem stems from the fact that cyberspace is not an ordinary theatre of war, with the means and methods of warfare used in it being in no way related to the traditional use of armed force; given this quality of cyber operations, it is essential to understand which areas may be subject to IHL. The article analyses two main doctrinal points of view in relation to this problem; as this doctrine (in the context of this issue) also addresses the legal qualification of cyber-attacks, the article also raises this topical issue. Based on the results of this analysis, the author concludes that, despite all the evidence of theoretical conclusions regarding the problems under analysis, they still do not seem comprehensive due to the lack of relevant state practice, which needs to be developed.

The legal regime of international humanitarian assistance provided during armed conflicts is based on several general legal principles. They are guiding principles that apply in all circumstances and situations, regardless of the nature of the armed conflict. The first principle entails that the state has primary responsibility to ensure that the basic needs of population under its jurisdiction are met during the armed conflict. The second principle, closely related to the first one, is the principle that third countries and international humanitarian organizations may offer assistance if a party to the conflict fails to undertake its duty to provide supplies necessary for the survival of the population. The next principles calls for the consent of all concerned parties in the provision of humanitarian assistance, as well as the duty of the parties to the conflict and all third countries to approve and facilitate the unimpeded passage of aid. The last principle is that staff involved in relief operations must be respected and protected. In addition to these general legal principles, international humanitarian assistance is regulated by a dozen of special rules covering various aspects of providing international humanitarian assistance during armed conflict. These rules are the result of a compromise between efforts to provide the vulnerable population with the necessities of life and a demand to protect the sovereignty of all parties to the conflict, but particularly of the state in which the aid is being sent. There is a difference between the rules governing humanitarian aid operations in international armed conflicts and the rules applicable in non-international conflicts. The first group of rules is far more numerous; they regulate in detail the issues related to relief actions, including the conditions for passage, delivery and distribution of consignments, the types of goods and services that can be sent, the category of persons who they are intended for, the position of the personnel engaged in these operations, and the technical conditions for implementing these rules. As regards non-international armed conflicts, the rules on humanitarian assistance are fewer, shorter and more general. These scarce rules are sometimes vague, and they mainly come down to the principle of humane treatment and the right of international humanitarian organizations to offer their assistance. Given that non international conflicts are the predominant form of armed conflict today, there is a strong tendency to extend the application of codified rules of international law governing the provision of humanitarian assistance to these conflicts. The practice of respecting almost all codified rules governing the provision of humanitarian assistance in modern armed conflicts and its wide acceptance by states and other participants confirms that the rules of customary International Humanitarian Law created in this area are applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Can armed groups socialize combatants to norms of restraint – in essence, train soldiers to adopt norms of international humanitarian law on the battlefield? How can social scientists accurately measure such socialization? Despite being the central focus of organizational and ideational theories of conflict, studies to date have not engaged in systematic, survey-based examination of this central socialization mechanism theorized to influence military conduct. This study advances scholarly understanding by providing the first comparative, survey-based examination of combatant socialization to norms of restraint, using surveys and interviews with US Army cadets at the US Military Academy (USMA), Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and active duty Army combatants. Additionally, to better understand 'restraint' from combatants' perspective, this study introduces the concept of the 'combatant's trilemma' under which combatants conceptualize civilian protection as part of a costly trade-off with the values of military advantage and force protection. Survey results hold both positive and negative implications for socialization to law of war norms: military socialization can shift combatants' preferences for battlefield conduct. However, intensive norm socialization may be required to shift combatants' preferences from force protection to civilian protection norms. Study findings hold significant implications for understanding violence against civilians in conflict and for policies to disseminate civilian protection norms in armed groups worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work deals with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and with the Western imperialist project, by clarifying the ideological background of the creators of this law and their relationship with the project and the Western expansionist context. It also attempts to understand the paradox that International Humanitarian Law created so the colonial past could be eliminated, but after a hundred and twenty years, it still uses the same arguments to exclude a certain category from the scope of application of its provisions. The article explains as well which category is excluded historically from the provisions’ report of this law, which can be called “the other” non-European or non-Western. Likewise, it points out the mechanics of International Humanitarian Law for the process of exclusion and inclusion. It will be explained how IHL carried out a compulsive humanization process of war by imposing the Western model of fighting and making it a standard for the inclusion of “the other” in the provisions of this law and which states and groups that fall under the name “the other” will fail to implement it, due to the difference in the historical context of social and cultural development of their nation. Finally, it will be established general conclusions related to the consequences of this merger between the law and the imperialist project on the field within the so-called war against terrorism.

Are human rights a single unit of an Indivisible or diminishing among those fundamental rights the right to adequate housing. And the right to adequate housing is one of the fundamental rights of shelter, or the void, which prevents the human from external factors and provides the needs necessary. The tender on the right to adequate housing changes, many are no longer limited to the ceiling and wall but also to the appropriate of the social and cultural location and the need for continuing basic services and personality and the nature of its inhabitants. The Caltech international charters for Human Rights paid great attention to the right to adequate housing after an essential part of human rights, it is no longer the human right to adequate housing is a topic or a personal right but it really became a collective of internationally hosted by the international legislation and international bodies involved in human rights and can have the right to adequate housing anyway. that means the minimum you can to ensure the survival, it is a prerequisite for Operations different case to a particular group and cross relationships. And promote the right to adequate housing and the importance of great owing to his enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and other rights are interrelated with each other. And can be seen to the human right to adequate housing in isolation from the fundamental rights of man is linked to the right of man to freely choose his residence and shall not be subject Lai arbitrary interference in his privacy or his home and his correspondence. The right man in the right to adequate housing has to be state intervention and the international community, the most important recognition of states and governments on the rights to adequate housing and protect and strengthen the provision of basic services for the right of water, electricity and etc. And the human right to adequate housing is the right to enjoy what is more than a roof and four walls it is the right of every man, woman and child in getting to the safe house and a local community that belongs to it, or live in peace and dignity.

This paper critically analyzes selected aspects of the current legal framework regarding the protection of the environment during the non-international armed conflict in Syria. The water damage that is occurring in Syria is particularly scrutinized. Preserving the environment is essential for safeguarding the planet for future generations. The potentiality of any armed conflict not only poses a threat to the peace and safety of the environment but can have exhaustive repercussions. Therefore, this topic is of the utmost importance and the objective of my research is to examine the relevant law, or the lack thereof. International humanitarian law will be placed at the forefront, along with customary international law which will provide an alternative approach. Where necessary, secondary sources will supplement the research in order to broaden its scope. The meaning of the ‘natural environment’ as opposed to the ‘environment’ will be assessed and applied to the water damage in order to establish whether or not it can be considered damage to the natural environment. A comparative approach will be taken for the purpose of analyzing all pertinent sources, with the intention of providing a conclusion that showcases the environment as the silent victim of armed conflicts.

This essay is a post-structuralist analysis of legal systems and terminology used in government-based high technology activities. In the pandemic contact tracing post 9-11 era of high technology global security, there is no single determinate structure for the application of basic international law principles. The legal terms in practice do not point at things, persons, structures, nor even at other words with reliable predictability. The novelty of the technologies used results in referent persons, locales, situations and governing laws being subject to the broadest interpretive license. Meanwhile, the originating spirit found in international legal rules protecting civilians, such as the Geneva Conventions, has been applied to electronic attacks during times of armed conflict. This essay discusses the semantic importance of “threat, crime, attack, security” language and the referent persons conducting the activities. A linguistic deconstruction of the techniques of intelligence gathering is discussed, such as packet sniffing, FBI cybercrimes investigations, data collection, remote sensing, storage and retrieval of records. This includes an analysis of the places involved in cyberattacks and digital trespass which redefine the meaning of borders through electronic security-surveillance during border entry such as airports. These surveillance, security and cybercrime concepts are grounded in a history and culture whose new laws are based on state-of-the-art applications and re-interpretations of traditionally accepted legal principles. Post-structuralism as applied to cyberlaw argues that to understand these legal referents, it is necessary to understand both the object itself and the historical technological lineage that produced the cybersecurity laws.

One of the most significant developments in international law was the establishment of Special Tribunals that could bring to justice individuals allegedly responsible for “grave breaches” and violations of the law against humanity. This is, undoubtedly, a recent global development that has challenged the issues of impunity and sovereignty. Since the Nazis’ atrocities and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes law has broadened its scope and has recognized a number of offenses considered as “international crimes” and which have also come to be described as “genocide”. However, although intended to put an end to the politics of impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes, a number of signatory states are reluctant to bring to justice those responsible for these defined international crimes. Indeed, the jurisprudence developed in these Special Tribunals provided an impetus for the development of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). More specifically, it has been argued that war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such heinous crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced and realized. However, a perfectly reasonable case can be made that the creation of these tribunals does represent a new era in international law.