Search

BACKGROUND: This study explores the impacts of attacks perpetrated in the context of armed conflict, to female health workers in three Colombian territories. METHODS: We conducted a document review of the reports and databases of the Colombian Truth Commission, 17 in-depth semi-structured interviews with experts on the national and regional armed conflict and the medical mission, and 26 female health workers who were victims of attacks. RESULTS: Experts and female health workers reported attacks to health activities, facilities, equipment, and personnel, including attacks to traditional doctors belonging to indigenous communities. The most frequent attacks were threats and retention of health personnel; theft of supplies and medicines; damage and use of infrastructure and means of transport for purposes other than health care; and hinderance of health service provision. The attacks occurred in a framework of structural violence that intersects with poverty, racism, and gender bias. The impacts of these attacks include gender-based violence, significant disruption of the lives of health workers, and physical, emotional, psychological, social, and economic effects on the victims and their families. The government response to protect victims and populations has been absent or insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Attacks to health care were reported in all the studied territories obstructing adequate health care. Impacts of these attacks affect negatively the professional and personal life of the workers and are aggravated by structural violence and absent or little institutional response.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the analysis of the situation in Ukraine regarding the number of military personnel with combat experience and the need for their reintegration into society during the transition from military to civilian life after the war, as well as the analysis of foreign experience, the need to develop a legal mechanism for creating private military companies in Ukraine is substantiated. The current state of developing a legal mechanism for creating private military companies is analyzed, particularly scientific developments, draft laws submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and conclusions. It is stated that in Ukrainian society and politics, there is an understanding of the need to legalize the activities of private military companies. At the same time, a legal mechanism for such activities has not yet been developed. When developing such a mechanism, special attention should be paid to the compliance of the activities of private military companies with the Constitution of Ukraine, as well as the norms of international and international humanitarian law. The provisions of the Montreux Document signed by Ukraine, The International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, documents of the United Nations, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe should be considered. It has been deemed appropriate to use the experience of the United States, Canada, Germany, and other countries, which successfully attracted former military personnel who participated in military operations to work in such companies when developing the mechanism for creating and operating the PMC. It is concluded that the creation and functioning of private military companies in Ukraine based on international and international humanitarian law using the existing human potential can become a significant factor in security while ensuring a comfortable transition from military to peaceful life for a substantial part of Ukrainian combatants, as well as additional financial revenues to the budgets of Ukraine. At the same time, insufficiently thought-out decisions in this area can have very negative consequences. Therefore, solving the difficult task of creating and functioning private military companies requires serious scientific research, which is highly insufficient in Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of cyber operations in armed conflicts has become a reality, with several states openly admitting to being involved in such activities. An increasing number of nations are developing military cyber capabilities, and the use of these operations is expected to rise. Advancements in offensive cyber capabilities have demonstrated that these operations can significantly impact civilian infrastructure and cause harm to humans. This study explores the complex application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to cyber warfare, focusing on the evolving roles of both state and non-state actors. It examines the difficulties in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants in the light of the concept of direct participation in hostilities during cyberattacks. Furthermore, this paper examines the responsibilities and legal consequences for states that direct or control non-state actors and the need to adapt IHL to the specific nature of cyber conflicts. It underscores the crucial need for strong legal frameworks to protect civilians and uphold humanitarian principles in the digital era. This study employs cyberattacks which occurred during the Russian-Ukraine armed conflict as a case study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is aimed at highlighting the issue of existing ways of compensation for victims of military conflict. It is stated that international law requires violating States to take appropriate measures to compensate for the damage caused directly by their actions or by the actions of persons acting on their orders. The author establishes that the beneficiaries of reparation for violations of IHL are the persons who have been victims or suffered as a result of such violations, namely: civilians, prisoners of war, family members and relatives of victims, and the State. The author provides options for filing claims for compensation for damage caused as a result of war: appeals to national courts, courts of foreign countries, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, investment arbitration, specially created funds or commissions. It is emphasised that currently there is no universal mechanism for compensation for damage caused by Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. However, the most realistic mechanism for Ukraine is the established international compensation mechanism, which aims to compensate for damage and losses caused by the Russian Federation and provides for the possibility of compensation for various types of losses - from destruction and damage to property to damage due to loss of control over property. It is concluded that: the importance of compensation is significant, especially in the context of IHL, as people who have been victims of armed conflict face long-term consequences affecting their health, earning potential and overall stability of life; an important element of reparation and one of the guarantees of its implementation in practice is the collection and documentation of a high-quality evidence base of the damage caused both in civil and criminal proceedings; the main indicator for choosing a particular mechanism of reparation is its effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global landscape, enshrined in a wide range of international legal agreements, envisions an era of peaceful coexistence among nations. This vision is based on fundamental legal acts, such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice (dated 26.06.1945), which enshrine the principle of peaceful coexistence. In addition, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (24.10.1970) and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (01.08.1975) build on this foundation, strengthening the doctrine of peaceful interaction between states. The United Nations Charter resonates as a clear call to nations to prioritize peace and diplomacy over confrontation. The provision that “all Members of the United Nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner as not to endanger international peace, security and justice” (Article 2(3)) is not just a statement of intent; it is a guiding principle that emphasizes the value of peaceful coexistence. This principle favors dialogue over discord, cooperation over confrontation, and understanding over unilateral action. However, the development of international relations from the mid-20th century to the beginning of the 21st century demonstrates a somewhat opposite dynamic. Despite these well-established doctrines, there have been many instances where disputes have escalated into armed conflicts. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, multiple conflicts in the Middle East, and the recent civil war in Syria are just a few examples that have left a deep mark on the structure of world relations. Such events demonstrate the unfortunate tendency of states or groups within states to resort to force or the threat of force as a means of resolving disputes. This departure from the established norm of peaceful settlement raises a number of pressing questions and concerns, especially within the framework of international humanitarian law. How to accurately define “armed conflict”? What distinguishes an international conflict from a non-international one? When delving into this sub-topic, it is very important to distinguish between different classifications of conflicts. A thorough understanding of the criteria that distinguish, for example, between international conflicts, internal unrest, and other types of hostilities is of paramount importance. Referring to these criteria not only helps to accurately categorize conflicts, but also ensures that appropriate legal mechanisms are applied to mitigate the humanitarian consequences of such events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the analysis of the institute of control in international law as one of the elements for attributing the behaviour of a separatist entity or other anti-governmental organisation to the state in the process of bringing the latter to international legal responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, primarily massive human rights violations. The author emphasises the growing importance of the issue of control in the context of modern armed conflicts, where ‘proxy’ forces are increasingly used, acting formally independently but in fact controlled by states. This raises new challenges for international law, especially in the area of human rights protection, including during armed conflicts, and State responsibility. The article examines the provisions of some international instruments relating to the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, and in particular those provisions which provide for attribution of conduct of individuals or groups of individuals acting ‘at the direction’, or ‘under the direction’, or ‘under the control’ of the State. The article discusses three main concepts of control, namely: strict control, effective control and general control. The authors analyse in detail the history of the emergence and development of each concept, as well as explain the main differences between them, and reveal their strengths and weaknesses. It is argued that strict control requires complete dependence of the organisation on the state, while effective control allows for autonomy of the organisation, but requires a certain influence of the state on its actions. Overall control emphasises the importance of structured interaction between the state and the group. The authors provide examples of the application of these concepts in the practice of international justice bodies, including the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, highlighting the difference in approaches to assessing control and responsibility of states. These examples demonstrate the difficulty of proving a certain level of control, which affects the resolution of disputes in international courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outbreak of the Russian–Ukrainian war fundamentally shook the international legal order. Consequently, possibilities of holding the aggressor state and potential perpetrators of international crimes accountable became a central topic. Options for establishing state responsibility for violating international law are limited. Possible individual criminal prosecution mechanisms are available at both national and international levels. At the national level, several jurisdictional bases can be found for prosecuting the most serious international crimes. In addition to the procedures at the national level, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction at the international level in terms of holding persons accountable; however, this also faces challenges. In connection with the current conflict, the International Criminal Court cannot conduct proceedings in relation to all categories of crimes, so the international community seeks to rely on alternative mechanisms that support prosecution efforts. Furthermore, there is an increasing political demand for the creation of new mechanisms which, however, for the time being, are based on shaky international legal grounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aggression and the 'special military operation' against Ukraine by the Russian Federation have, since their outset, implied not only the violation of fundamental customary and treaty norms of international law, but, at the same time also undermine the foundations of the contemporary international legal order. The 'special military operation' violates several universal international conventions in the elaboration of which the predecessor state of contemporary Russia, the Soviet Union had a definitive role; furthermore, it expressly breaches Russian undertakings concerning respect for the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine. Since in this case the aggressor state is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, thus, instead of the Council, the emergency special session of the UN General Assembly proceeds on the basis of the Uniting for Peace resolution and makes recommendations for collective measures to the Member States. The present study discusses the most important international norms breached with the aggression and during the war, the resolutions of the emergency special sessions of the UN General Assembly, the post-war situation, as well as the issue of remedy and reparation due to Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2022, for the first time in some while, the public around the world was confronted with an armed conflict between states, which directly involved a nuclear facility, specifically a nuclear power plant in operation. Unfortunately, the situation following Russia's armed attack on Ukraine on 24 February 2022 and the acts of war around the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant once again draw attention to the need to protect nuclear facilities during armed conflicts. Therefore, this paper reviews the relevant rules of public international law and scrutinizes the norms that have been established through international legislation and soft law mechanisms to protect and guarantee the nuclear safety and security of nuclear installations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Attacks on healthcare have been committed throughout the Syrian conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), contributing to the devastation of the country's healthcare system. The conflict has also forcibly displaced over half of Syria's pre-conflict population, 7.2 million of whom are internally displaced. In this retrospective analysis, we aim to assess the relationships between (1) healthcare attacks and general conflict and (2) healthcare attacks and forced displacement between 2016 and 2022. Methods: Data on healthcare attacks, conflict events, and displacement were extracted from the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), Uppsala Conflict Data Project, and OCHA Türkiye, respectively. The analysis addresses three research questions: the associations between (1) healthcare attacks and conflict events, (2) healthcare attacks and conflict events in the week after an attack on a healthcare facility, and (3) healthcare attacks and forced displacement. For each, we used generalized additive models with a negative binomial distribution that also accounted for spatial and temporal factors. Results: SAMS recorded a total of 541 attack events, comprising 650 attack rounds over 235 facilities between 2016 and 2022. Conflict events were significantly associated with healthcare attacks in the same week (IRR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.12–1.17), and healthcare attacks in one week were associated with a maximum of 1.44 greater risk (95% CI 1.08–1.91) of conflict events in the following week, even when accounting for general conflict levels in the previous weeks. Healthcare attacks were also significantly associated with increased displacement up to three months following the attacks. Discussion: We find that healthcare facilities are not avoided during conflict (as obliged under IHL), and that healthcare attacks significantly precede an escalation of general conflict in the same area. Healthcare attacks are also significantly associated with displacement for months following the attacks, even when accounting for conflict levels. Based on these findings, we present a framework outlining one pathway through which healthcare attacks may contribute to larger conflict tactics. Our findings highlight the critical role of healthcare infrastructure in conflict and reaffirm calls to hold perpetrators of these attacks accountable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of international human rights law and international humanitarian law regarding the protection of the right to property, in particular the permitted limitations of this right, the relevant practice of international human rights courts and international criminal tribunals, the connection between the institution of derogation and the law of armed conflicts, as well as problematic issues of the protection of the right to property damaged during the russian-Ukrainian armed conflict. The author considers the provisions of some international treaties, which provide for the protection of the right to own property in peacetime, as well as the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights related to the violation of the right of applicants to own their property in accordance with Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in connection with an international armed conflict or a situation of occupation. The author also analyzes the provisions of some sources of international humanitarian law regarding property as an object that must be protected during armed conflicts, in particular in occupied territories, and also provides examples of cases of international criminal tribunals, in whose decisions the destruction of property was recognized as a component of crimes against humanity. The author examines the question of the relationship between the sources of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the context of the protection of the right to peaceful possession of property. The peculiarities of the institution of derogation in the context of the right to property in the conditions of an international armed conflict are analyzed. Ukraine's derogation from its obligations under international human rights treaties, including the right to peaceful possession of property, in the conditions of russian armed aggression, is studied. In addition, in the context of the armed conflict between Ukraine and russia, the objects of property rights and the interested subjects of the right to property, which is violated or limited as a result of military operation, are singled out, and the collective dimension of the right to property, which was damaged during the russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, was investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ben & Jerry's – the famous ice cream brand known for its quirky flavours and social justice ethos – announced in 2021 that it would withdraw its products from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). This announcement sparked controversy, with an impact on the company and its parent, Unilever. While the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) (UNGP) have established themselves as the leading international governance framework for the social responsibilities of businesses, their application to conflict-affected areas lacks clarity. Questions remain, including when is a company legally complicit in violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), and when is a corporate exit from an area under military occupation the appropriate and responsible thing to do. This article uses Ben & Jerry's withdrawal from the OPT as the basis for investigating these questions. It finds that while it is unlikely that Ben & Jerry's would be exposed to any legal liability for violating IHL through its product sales in Israeli settlements in the OPT, its withdrawal aligns with its responsibilities under the UNGP as a reasonable and prudent corporate action in response to its activities being linked to enduring and severe IHL violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arab Journal for Scientific Publishing is the property of Research & Development of Human Recourses Center (REMAH) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) propagates the need for environmental sustainability from warfare. Thus, the study explores the effect of Military Expenditures (ME) and their interaction effect with wars and conflicts on the environment in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region by using the dataset from 19 MENA countries for the period 1997-2020. The novel spatial econometrics is utilized to find the direct, spillovers, and total effects of military expenditures, renewable energy, economic progress, and wars and conflicts on CO2 emissions. The results substantiate the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) in the nexus between economic progress and emissions. Moreover, spillovers of CO2 emissions are found positive in the region. Renewable energy is found helpful in reducing emissions in local economies but could affect them in neighboring counterparts and the entire region. The military expenditures raise emissions in the entire region. Accordingly, military expenditures have adverse local and spillover environmental effects in the region. Moreover, wars and conflicts have positively moderated the connection between ME and emissions in the entire region. Thus, wars and conflicts in the MENA region are responsible for increasing military expenditures and emissions with spillover effects, which are damaging the ecology of this region. The study recommends that governments of this region should increase spending on renewable energy projects and reduce military expenditures. Moreover, the wars and conflicts should be resolved with dialogues to protect the region from CO2 emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Attacks on healthcare have been committed throughout the Syrian conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), contributing to the devastation of the country’s healthcare system. The conflict has also forcibly displaced over half of Syria’s pre-conflict population, 7.2 million of whom are internally displaced. In this retrospective analysis, we aim to assess the relationships between (1) healthcare attacks and general conflict and (2) healthcare attacks and forced displacement between 2016 and 2022. Methods Data on healthcare attacks, conflict events, and displacement were extracted from the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), Uppsala Conflict Data Project, and OCHA Türkiye, respectively. The analysis addresses three research questions: the associations between (1) healthcare attacks and conflict events, (2) healthcare attacks and conflict events in the week after an attack on a healthcare facility, and (3) healthcare attacks and forced displacement. For each, we used generalized additive models with a negative binomial distribution that also accounted for spatial and temporal factors. Results SAMS recorded a total of 541 attack events, comprising 650 attack rounds over 235 facilities between 2016 and 2022. Conflict events were significantly associated with healthcare attacks in the same week (IRR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.12–1.17), and healthcare attacks in one week were associated with a maximum of 1.44 greater risk (95% CI 1.08–1.91) of conflict events in the following week, even when accounting for general conflict levels in the previous weeks. Healthcare attacks were also significantly associated with increased displacement up to three months following the attacks. Discussion We find that healthcare facilities are not avoided during conflict (as obliged under IHL), and that healthcare attacks significantly precede an escalation of general conflict in the same area. Healthcare attacks are also significantly associated with displacement for months following the attacks, even when accounting for conflict levels. Based on these findings, we present a framework outlining one pathway through which healthcare attacks may contribute to larger conflict tactics. Our findings highlight the critical role of healthcare infrastructure in conflict and reaffirm calls to hold perpetrators of these attacks accountable.

BACKGROUND: Colombia has experienced decades of conflict between the government and non-state actors. Attacks on healthcare have been a grave but regular facet of that violence. In response, the Misión Médica (MM) program was developed to support, protect, and defend healthcare. Sporadic violence continues, with many recent attacks perpetrated not by armed actors but by residents. Given the history of conflict and ongoing violence, we sought to capture the perspectives of both healthcare workers (HCWs) and community members (CMs) regarding the characteristics and impacts of attacks on health in Colombia to gain insight into how to better prevent violence and mitigate its impacts. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from January to March 2021 in seven departments in Colombia in regions that witnessed attacks on healthcare. Questionnaires were administered to HCWs and CMs via purposive sampling, probing their experiences with attacks on health with both closed and open-ended questions. The categorical responses were stratified by health worker vs. non-health worker and descriptively analyzed. Narrative responses were analyzed via a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Seventy-three individuals participated in the study (36 HCWs and 37 cm). Approximately 77% of HCWs believed that attacks on healthcare impacted health outcomes while 68% of CMs did not see a direct connection between violence against healthcare and poor health outcomes. Awareness of the MM program was significantly different between HCWs (83.3%) and CMs (37.8%). The survey responses explored the characteristics of attacks on health, compounded impacts of violence on the health system, personal impacts, and perspectives on mitigation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that: (1) attacks on healthcare are context-dependent and require a local lens for mitigation and management; (2) both HCWs and CMs have critical perspectives that must be considered, (3) the impacts of violence against healthcare are complex and compounded and (4) that awareness of the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions must be combined with education on the health impacts for robust protection strategies. Critically, Both CMs and HCWs experience fear and psychosocial ramifications of these attacks, suggesting the need for stronger protections and resources to support the health workforce and the local community.

Based on the monitoring of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, the article reveals the state of observance of labour rights of civilian hostages. The article identifies problematic issues that obstruct the realisation of these rights of persons who have been deprived of their personal liberty as a result of armed aggression. It is noted that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War prohibits the taking of hostages. Failure to comply with the principles of international humanitarian law by representatives of the Russian Federation leads to the inability to ensure the protection of civilian hostages in accordance with international norms due to the unresolved nature of this issue. The Russian Federation, despite international norms, keeps such persons in captivity, does not notify them of their detention, does not provide them with the appropriate status, as a result of which the detained person cannot appeal against his or her detention, has no opportunity to report it. According to international standards, victims of enforced disappearances have the right to compensation from the state, which provides them with the maximum possible rehabilitation. It is noted that the protection of the constitutional rights of civilian hostages is provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Persons in respect of whom the deprivation of personal liberty as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine and members of their families has been established”. In addition, it is noted that civilian hostages have the right to keep their jobs, but the law does not provide for the payment of wages. The article establishes that it is impossible to properly exercise the labour rights of employees who have become civilian hostages guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. The emphasis is placed on the legislative gaps that do not allow civilian hostages to exercise the guaranteed right to credit their insurance period. The article provides for the crediting of insurance periods to civilian hostages, which affects social guarantees and, subsequently, the level of pension provision. Due to the uncertainty of the payer of the unified social contribution, such credit is not given for persons in respect of whom the deprivation of personal liberty as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine has been established. Deprivation of personal liberty is the basis for postponement or extension of annual leave and is also included in the length of service that gives the right to annual basic leave. Civilian hostages are additionally entitled to a one-time voucher to maintain their competitiveness in the labour market through retraining, specialisation, advanced training, and education in professions and specialities for priority economic activities. It is found that the problem of civilian hostages is closely related to the problem of missing persons. It is proved that there is a need to expand the labour rights of civilian hostages by guaranteeing the payment of wages.

The atrocities of Israel's aggression perpetrated from 07 October 2023 on the civilian population and the treatment of prisoners of war shocked the world. Western governments have encouraged Israel to continue its tyranny. Many other governments around the world preferred to remain silent despite the presence of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This has led to a re-launch of the debate on the credibility of IHL and the positioning of International Islamic Humanitarian Law (IIHL) on the world stage. The aim of this study is therefore to compare IHL and IIHL, from a theoretical and practical point of view, in the field of the protection of civilians during war and the treatment of prisoners of war. To do this, we opted for a comparative approach between these two components, both conceptually and functionally. This approach focused, on the one hand, on the main sources of the Sharia, the Quran and the Sunnah, as well as on the opinions of Muslim scholars (ulamas), supported by concrete examples of the application of Islamic norms by the Prophet and the Rashidoun caliphs. On the other hand, it also examined all the conventions, treaties and other documents that constitute the sources of the IHL. From a theoretical point of view, the results showed that there are many similarities between the two laws. In practical terms, however, the IIHL stands out for its concrete form and effective application. These observations led us to recommend that the current world order be rethought in view of the juxtaposition of the IIHL and IHL rules.

Autonomy in weapon systems is already a genuine concern. States try to come up with their own definitions of these systems and pay utmost effort to impose their own understanding of these systems upon other states. For a fairly high number of states barring a total ban on such weapons would be the ideal solution; however, such states that are anxious about the increase in autonomy in war-making capabilities, adopts as a second-best scenario to contain risks created by the deployment of such systems. To this end, placing them under meaningful human control emerges as an important political and legal objective. The author believes that placing autonomous weapons under human supervision, despite its initial promise, will yield negative results. This is due to the fact that humans tend rather to be too willing to follow the solutions generated by autonomous systems. First observed in other industries of civilian nature like aviation or health, automation bias has the potential to negate most if not all of supervision measures expected to ensure proper implementation of international humanitarian law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is indicated that the problems of the interaction of international humanitarian law and international human rights law lie in the different historical origins, evolution and application of these two branches of law. The complexity of the interaction between the IHL and the ICRC lies in their extraterritorial action and different personal spheres of application. IHL undeniably applies to international and non-international armed conflicts, regulating the conduct of states and armed groups, while the IHL is recognized as the basis of law in peacetime, but also applies in periods of conflict. Finding the points of intersection between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in the context of armed conflicts is the main objective of this section. The merger of these two legal fields, traditionally divided into separate areas of responsibility in peacetime and wartime, has gained unprecedented importance in the legal analysis of modern conflicts. The impetus for the development of the new paradigm was the rapid evolution of the nature of war, characterized by the emergence of asymmetric warfare and the blurring of the boundaries between state and nonstate actors. Such transformations in the theater of war require a nuanced understanding of the legal instruments used in this context, which emphasizes the need for this analysis. The urgency of the issue is emphasized by the changing dynamics of international practice. The recognition by the International Court of Justice of the continued applicability of IHRL in conflict and the definition of IHL as lex specialis emphasizes that the legal landscape is in constant flux. At the heart of this analysis is the difficulty of determining the applicability of IHL, a task that is complicated by the problems of classifying conflicts as international or non-international. The principle of derogation - whereby states may temporarily suspend certain human rights obligations - creates an additional layer of complexity, affecting the interpretation and application of laws during armed conflict. Many provisions of international human rights conventions define the protected interest and then provide that any restrictions must be justified by reference to a list of aims, which varies from article to article and treaty to treaty, that are necessary for the achievement of the aim in question and are proportionate to its achievement. In this way, the IHRL provides a mechanism for balancing the requirements of individuals with those of others or the community itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study is devoted to the analysis of the evolution of international humanitarian law in the context of the protection of human rights and freedoms during armed conflicts. The historical development of legal norms is considered, starting from the early attempts to regulate military operations to the formation of the modern system of international law. Special attention is paid to three key areas of development of international humanitarian law: Geneva, Hague and New York. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and additional protocols to them, which became the foundation for the protection of war victims, are analyzed in detail. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which established the rules of warfare and the principles of peaceful resolution of conflicts, are considered. The role of the UN in the development of international law is highlighted, in particular through the adoption of resolutions and the holding of international conferences. The work emphasizes the importance of creating universal standards for the protection of human rights and their consolidation at the level of international law. Key international documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on Human Rights and European Conventions are analyzed. The study reveals the process of integration of various aspects of humanitarian law, which led to the formation of a comprehensive approach to the regulation of armed conflicts. There is a growing understanding of the relationship between human rights, the rules of war and the protection of civilians. Particular attention is paid to modern challenges in the field of human rights protection during armed conflicts, in particular in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Ukraine's efforts to adapt national legislation to the conditions of armed conflict and the implementation of international norms are considered. The study emphasizes the need for continuous improvement of mechanisms for the protection of human rights in the conditions of armed conflicts and adaptation of international law to the new realities of warfare. The work is important for understanding the current state of international humanitarian law and the prospects for its development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering that neither customary international law nor international treaties have specifically addressed the legality of autonomous weapons from the point of view of international humanitarian law, the law on autonomous weapons should be analyzed under the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. The first purpose of this study is to explain the autonomous weapons and then to analyze the legality of such weapons through the lens of international humanitarian law. The basic question of the paper is whether the deployment of autonomous weapons is legal in light of technological and legal limitations? On the other hand, the paper also seeks to examine the legalization of autonomous weapons. In fact, the findings of our study will show that although autonomous weapons currently violate international humanitarian law, they have the potential to be more consistent with the principles of international humanitarian law in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article explores the critical issue of detainee protection in the complex landscape of contemporary non-international armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations. It examines the interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, highlighting the challenges in their application and interpretation. The article delves into the contemporary challenges faced in protecting detainees, including the involvement of non-state armed groups, extraterritorial detention practices, administrative detention, and the impact of counterterrorism measures. It proposes a multifaceted approach to enhancing detainee protection, encompassing strategies for strengthening compliance with the legal framework, addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups, and promoting best practices and capacity-building. The article argues that a comprehensive and contextualised approach, grounded in the principles of humanity and human dignity, is essential to effectively safeguard the rights and well-being of detainees in these challenging contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Belligerent reprisals are a controversial and largely discredited mechanism for the enforcement of international humanitarian law. Additional Protocol I of 1977 prohibits a range of reprisal activity, including reprisals against enemy civilians. A (relatively small) number of States are not Parties to Additional Protocol I, whilst some States Parties have made declarations and/or reservations to the Protocol which could be seen as attempts to limit the operation of the prohibition. Its status as a rule of customary international law is therefore an important question. This article argues that opposition to the prohibition in customary law is neither as widespread nor consistent as has previously been suggested and that the weight of evidence points towards the existence (or development) of a customary prohibition. Consistent opposition by the UK and the US, however, makes it unlikely that the customary prohibition would be opposable to those particular States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of the levée en masse was designed to legitimise armed civilian opposition to an unfolding invasion by conferring temporary combatant status upon certain civilians. The range of individuals eligible for this status was defined narrowly to include only 'inhabitants' of invaded territories. This approach made sense in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when international travel was beyond the reach of all but the elite minority. Today however, mass air transit has expanded horizons and allows people to travel and to emigrate much more readily. Consequently, the global diaspora of emigrants is larger now than ever before. As seen during the Russian invasion of Ukraine beginning in February 2022, many among these diaspora communities wish to return to defend their homelands upon invasion. This is precluded under the orthodox interpretation of international humanitarian law owing to their lack of residency. This is unsatisfactory as it bars individuals with legitimate familial, political, cultural, and historical connections to a State from participating in a levée in its defence. This article sets out the policy and legal arguments in favour of recognising non-resident citizens – or 'diaspora fighters' – as legitimate participants in levées en masse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rule of proportionality strikes a bargain in launching attacks. It demands that military commanders suspend or cancel operations if collateral damage anticipated from an attack exceeds the potential military advantage offered. The definitional phrase military advantage has been the subject of a rich debate, varyingly interpreted to expand or limit the scope of attacks. This paper participates in the debate, advocating that military advantage must be limited to exclude attacks on objects that indirectly contribute to military potential, such as, economic, social, psychological or political advantage, which invariably target civilians or civilian enterprises. It critically engages with the principles and precedents invoked to legitimise a broader understanding of military advantage. It posits that such attacks disregard belligerents' privileges, and render unbound categories of civilian objects susceptible to destruction. Pursuantly, the rule of proportionality, originally articulated to nuance and improve the rule of distinction, is usurped to violate the latter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the development of the last decade of the current century as a temporal reference point, this study tackles the urgent task of understanding and promoting an effective implementation of IHL (International Humanitarian Law) within the context of the armed conflict in the Colombian Caribbean region. Based on this analysis, there's an identified need for a harmonious approach grounded in participatory premises, considering both local residents and actors directly involved in the conflict. It's worth noting that this analysis particularly highlights the case of the Gulf Clan as an example. Employing a primarily qualitative methodology, in line with its nature, this study aims to provide a refreshed and contextual perspective that can guide future research and public policies in the realms of IHL. Consistent with its objectives, the importance of refining methodologies given the ever-changing nature of conflicts in the region is emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Araucaria is the property of Araucaria-Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofia, Politica y Humanidades and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Bulletin of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Law Series is the property of L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Bulletin of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Law Series is the property of L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Arab Journal for Scientific Publishing is the property of Research & Development of Human Recourses Center (REMAH) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

On November 27, 2020, Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of Iran's most prominent nuclear scientists and head of the ministry of defense's research and innovation organization, was assassinated near Tehran and achieved the grace of martyrdom. Given that the assassination of Martyr Fakhrizadeh took place outside the framework of an armed conflict during peacetime, it is a clear example of the use of lethal force in peacetime and the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. Accordingly, the question of the paper is what is the nature of the targeted assassination of this nuclear scientist from the perspective of the rules of IHRL and IHL? In order to reach the answer, the research studied the issue by a descriptive-analytical method and in the framework of the international IHRL and IHL regimes, collecting valid and credible documents through documents and libraries and referring to the materials published in reputable international think tanks. The findings show that this assassination is in objective contradiction with the rules of IHRL and IHL regimes, therefore violates the most obvious principles and rules of this legal regime, including the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, which has led to extrajudicial killings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animals have played an important role in armed conflicts since ancient times. Transporting supplies, soldiers and military and medical equipment, searching for wounded soldiers, damaging enemy positions, especially by detonating bombs attached to animals or their carcasses, are among the most important forms of using animals in conflict. Considering the increase in the use of animals, especially dolphins, by states to achieve military objectives in armed conflicts, it is necessary to know the standards and support frameworks regarding them. Therefore, this article, based on a descriptive-analytical method, answers the question, what approach has international humanitarian law adopted in this regard? This article concludes that due to the lack of specific rules in international humanitarian law on the ban on the use of animals as military purposes, it must be referred to the general humanitarian rules especially the articles of the first additional protocol to the Geneva conventions of 1949 to explain the legal system of the subject. By considering animals as a part of the environment and placing them in the category of special and protected objects under Article 54 of the said protocol, A support system can be considered for them. Of course, due to the special situation of animals compared to the human, the implementation of the principles of humanitarian rights, such as separation, proportionality, precautions in attack is faced with complications and ambiguities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the study of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a hypothetical court of human rights. Two questions guide the theoretical reflection and aim of this study: first, can the activities of the Court be viewed through the paradigm of human rights, and second, can the ICJ be considered a functional court of human rights? To answer these questions, the broad concept of a "court of human rights" is used, which refers to an institutionalized judicial mechanism intended to take necessary legal measures to record relevant human rights violations and to protect and restore such rights, regardless of who may be the claimant in such a case (a state or a person). The study demonstrates that it is appropriate to consider the activities of the ICJ through the paradigm of human rights, as evidenced by the Court's jurisprudence and numerous academic studies in the West. However, after analyzing the relevant arguments and counterarguments, the assumption that the Court can be regarded as a court of human rights is refuted. While many human rights conventions assign a special role to the ICJ in resolving disputes, human rights have never been the sole object of dispute in these proceedings; instead, they have always been part of an interstate dispute. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly shown an ambiguous attitude towards methods of recording violations of human rights conventions, fact-finding methodology in such cases, and criteria for compensating victims of such violations, which has not contributed to the protection of human rights in relevant cases. The article also emphasizes the importance of the human factor in shaping the Court's jurisprudence and expresses hope for an evolution of quality in the ICJ's treatment of human rights, should a majority of judges adopt a human-centred approach to international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article dedicated to investigating the object of the composition of a criminal offense of violation of the laws and customs of war. The relevance of the topic is determined by the increase in violations of international humanitarian law in contemporary armed conflicts, including in the context of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The author analyses various approaches to defining the concept of "object of criminal offense," critically assessing the traditional Soviet notion of the object as social relations. The need to move away from this concept in favour of a broader understanding of the object as a complex of socially significant values, interests, and goods protected by criminal law is substantiated. The article discusses the specificity of the object of violations of the laws and customs of war, as defined by international acts regulating the conduct of war. The author emphasizes that this object includes the international legal order in the sphere of armed conflicts, the principles of international humanitarian law, rules of conduct of hostilities, and the protection of war victims. An additional optional object of violation of the laws and customs of war analysed is the life and health of the person. It is emphasized that a mandatory feature of the object for this criminal offense is its subject matter, which constitutes objects of civilian purpose, including national property, which serves as a material carrier of cultural values. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the structure of criminal offenses against peace, security of humanity, and international order, which differs from the traditional structure of a criminal offense and includes material, mental, and contextual elements. The author also examines the concept of command responsibility, which is an important component of criminal responsibility for violations of the laws and customs of war. The conclusions assert that a clear understanding of the object of violations of the laws and customs of war is crucial for the correct qualification of actions and ensuring the inevitability of punishment for criminal offenses against peace, security of humanity, and international order. The author emphasizes the need for further improvement of approaches to defining the object of this criminal offense considering the development of international criminal law and the practice of international judicial institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article emphasizes that protecting the rights and interests of children is the most important task of any democratic state. International human rights law and international humanitarian law regulate the rights of children and their protection, as well as the respective obligations of states and non-state institutions in this area. The universally recognized mechanism for the protection of children's rights remains almost unchanged, but in the conditions of martial law, new circumstances arise in which children's rights may be violated, especially the right to protection from violence and ill-treatment. The main violations of children's rights are: recruitment of children, use of prohibited weapons to wage war, obstruction in the provision of humanitarian aid, deprivation of citizenship, illegal deportation of children, murder and mutilation, damage to health care facilities, educational institutions, which leads to the impossibility of realizing the rights of the latter. The article describes the peculiarities of the legal regulation of the status of a child who suffered as a result of hostilities and armed conflicts. The legislation of Ukraine does not contain a uniform approach to the protection of children during the violation of certain types of rights and freedoms. In addition, some of the existing guarantees have no practical application due to the lack of a mechanism for their implementation or inconsistency with the realities of today. The international community, together with Ukraine, implemented a mechanism to protect and restore the rights of Ukrainian children. The violated rights of children during a full-scale invasion must be protected and restored through both national and international institutions. In this context, the Children of War platform created in Ukraine plays an important role. This is the only platform that collects information about children affected by war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Legal & Economic Research / Mağallaẗ Al-Buḥūṯ Al-Qānūniyyaẗ wa Al-Iqtiṣādiyyaẗ is the property of Beni Suef University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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?