Principles Of IHL Research Articles

Submarine Communication Cables and Belligerent Rights in Armed Conflict

Abstract This article takes up the significant yet understudied issue of belligerent rights regarding submarine communication cables in armed conflict. The article takes up three key questions that have persistently evaded clarity. First, what actually is the law applicable to cables in wartime? Second, how is this law to be applied in practice? And third, is it fit for purpose? The article concludes that, as a matter of lex lata, no lex specialis rules have emerged specific to the protection of submarine cables in armed conflict, either in treaty or customary international law. However, this does not MEAn that belligerents are free to target submarine cables in times of armed conflict. Instead, important international law constraints are to be found in general IHL principles, the law of neutrality, and law of the sea protections that persist in times of armed conflict. Applied to the technical configurations of submarine cables as currently deployed and used, it is far from clear that these rules and principles permit the targeting of submarine cables in wartime.

The Role of International Human Law in Armed Conflicts Involving Non- State Actors an Analytical Study

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) holds a paramount position in regulating armedconflicts that involve non-state actors. As non-state armed groups are on the rise and theirparticipation in conflicts becomes more prevalent, it becomes imperative to ensure that theseactors are bound by the same rules and principles as state actors. The cardinal principles ofIHL, including but not limited to the principle of distinction, proportionality, and necessity,are applicable to all involved parties in an armed conflict, irrespective of their status as stateor non-state actors. The involvement of non-state armed groups in conflicts is on the rise,presenting distinctive challenges to the implementation of IHL. Due to the lack of acentralized command structure and non-adherence to IHL principles, it becomes strenuous tohold these actors accountable for their actions. However, recent advancements ininternational law, such as the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over non-state actors,have fortified the legal framework for holding these actors responsible for their actions

Particular Approaches to the System of International Humanitarian Law Special Principles: Substance and Evolution

INTRODUCTION. The list and the contents of branch (special) principles of IHL are considered to be a current subject of study. Along with the traditional legal approaches, the study forward additional theoretical arguments to include the environmental protection and the responsibility of officials and militaries for war crimes in the system of IHL principles. Besidesthat, it is obvious that the record of IHL prohibitions to belligerents as general international legal rules to conduct hostilities, is refined. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The above study is based both on scientific researches of Russian and foreign authors in the field of IHL and analysis of international legal acts on universal level. Methodological basis of research includes general scientific methods (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, modeling and systematization) and special legal methods (legal comparativistics, formal legal). RESEARCH RESULTS. Completed systematization of IHL principles shows combination of different legal concepts, either of which has a certain scientific value. It looks important to summarize the international legal sources and trends taking place in UN system in order to expand the list of the mentioned principles. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In frames of this study the author is proposing the impartial assessments of established scientific approaches to definition and contents of IHL branch (special) principles. Both the forms of international legal cooperation of states to create an institution of responsibility for war crimes and the results of Nuremberg military tribunal regarding prevention of IHL violations are examined separately. The complimentary legal grounds of modern international courts functioning are determined by combination of national and interstate jurisdiction in the above field.

THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE IN ISLAMIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Warfare is just as bad as could be considered, but despite this fact, wars have been fought and shall continue in the future as well. War is an intense armed conflict between states and paramilitary groups characterized by the presence of violence, aggression, and destruction of life and property using military tactics. Even in such circumstances, the Islamic law as well as international law has described some fundamental rules, which shall be followed by the warring parties. This portion of law is known as the jus in bello, while the portion of the legal rules talking about the legitimacy of warfare is known as the jus ad bellum. The conduct of war is differently explained by Islamic law and the International Humanitarian Law. International Humanitarian Law can be defined as the body of laws governing the conduct of states during an armed conflict. The guiding principles of IHL arise from the need of placing limits on the conduct of warfare to diminish its damages. Whereas the Islamic law of war has been derived by the Muslim Jurists through the primary sources, the Holy Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad saw Sunnah. Secondary sources include early Islamic precedents, consensus between the jurists (Ijma), jurists’ rulings through analogy, and public interest (Al-Dawoody, 2017). Keywords: Conduct of Warfare, Jus in Bello, Jus ad Bellum, Islamic Law, International Law

ПРАВОВИЙ РЕЖИМ ВІЙСЬКОВОПОЛОНЕНИХ У РОСІЙСЬКО-УКРАЇНСЬКОМУ КОНФЛІКТІ

The article examines the content of the legal regime defined by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and the First Additional Protocol of 1977 regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. The content of the obligations of the subjects of international relations for the implementation of the norms and principles of IHL was studied. The results of the implementation activities of Ukraine and the Russian Federation before the start of full-scale aggression and after it were analyzed. Attention is paid to the importance of researching the content of the updated 2020 Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention and its implementation into national legislation. The content of the main principles of International Humanitarian Law regarding the treatment of prisoners of war is described in detail. It is noted that the level of effectiveness of compliance with the norms and principles of IHL during the conflict depends on the completeness of the implementation. As of February 2022, both states were not ready to fulfill their obligations to comply with GCIII. Ukraine, as a party to the conflict, quickly began implementation activities and adopted a number of acts on the treatment of prisoners of war, including a national information bureau. On the other hand, the Russian Federation did not and still does not intend to initiate similar implementation measures. The problem of the procedure of activating the legal regimes "state of war" and "martial law" by political leadership of Ukraine, as well as the formal recognition of the existence of an international armed conflict, is considered. The National Information Bureau in Ukraine was created and started its activities. In Russia internal legal and political discourse still does not recognize the existence of an armed conflict which hinders the implementation process.

‘Avengers, [Lawfully] Assemble!’ – Military Human Enhancement and the Disruption of Fundamental Principles of International Humanitarian Law

Spanning across early history until modern day, military application of human enhancements has consistently challenged the evolutionary trajectory of the human species with the promise of providing soldiers abilities beyond current ones on the battlefield. As States pursue the tantalizing ‘bio-revolution’ to dramatically alter the makeup of their military capabilities, concerns have been raised as to whether these unprecedented advances in human enhancement technologies mark a paradigm shift that cannot be easily accommodated by current IHL frameworks that could either improve adherence to or degrade soldiers’ respect for the fundamental principles of IHL.

Roots of Restraint in War: The Capacities and Limits of Law and the Critical Role of Social Agency in Ameliorating Violence in Armed Conflict

Abstract International humanitarian law (ihl) primarily applies to govern the conduct of individuals in the most desperate time of human endeavour, namely armed conflict, in order to ameliorate violence. However, understanding how ihl is disseminated, trained and actually applied in the battlespace is, remarkably, a relatively underexplored area. There are countless volumes dedicated to analyzing and parsing the myriad of words and formulas that comprise this burgeoning body of law. However, there is very little empirical analysis undertaken on effective training strategies and even less on tracking nuanced compliance and decision-making processes in actual armed conflict. Against this background, the 2018 icrc study ‘The Roots of Restraint in War’ offers an insightful account of how to best frame training strategies and how to optimize compliance in the battlespace. It consciously adopts an inter-disciplinary approach. It accepts fully the role of social, ethical and moral factors that can orientate decision making in a manner that combines with the applicable law. The goal is restraint in war, of a type that comes not from clinical compliance with complex legal formulas and interpretative rectitude but is derived from a deeper sense of professional self-identity. It acknowledges the risks inherent in its approach and yet, compellingly, offers a blueprint for melding principles of ihl with a sense of personal commitment. Such an approach is to be celebrated for the audacity and courage that it exhibits.

Mainstreaming Human Rights Education: What’s Radical About That?

One of the most radical ways of teaching about universal human rights and international humanitarian law would be to teach about these fundamental internationally-recognized standards for humane interpersonal conduct to every child who enters school in the United States. American illiteracy about human rights and humanitarian law standards contributes to the climate in which the United States preaches human rights to it's perceived opponents while refusing to apply universally recognized hr and ihl principles to itself. From the failure to incorporate into the American educational structure the cultural and linguistic rights of Indigenous peoples and ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to the refusal to submit to the same standards of international humanitarian law which apply to all combatants, U.S. political and military leaders have been able to rely on the unfamiliarity of most Americans with the fundamental principles of human rights and international humanitarian law to insulate them from effective public scrutiny and meaningful challenge. This article describes efforts to mainstream human rights education at all levels of public education so it becomes a part of the educational experience of every child and, thus, part of the background of every adult. The risks of having HRE co-opted are dwarfed by the risks of having HRE sidelined.

The Crime of Indiscriminate Attack and Unlawful Conventional Weapons: The Legacy of the icty Jurisprudence

The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, which encompasses either ‘indiscriminate attacks’ stricto sensu and the so-called ‘disproportionate attacks’, is at the heart of the law governing the conduct of hostilities, as it aims to implement two cardinal principles of international humanitarian law (ihl), distinction and proportionality. This contribution examines the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (icty) establishing the individual criminal responsibility for indiscriminate attack. The author considers the possible rationale to illustrate why the icty has never adjudicated neither indiscriminate attacks nor disproportionate attacks per se, as separate, autonomous offences under customary international law. It is submitted that a possible reason to explain the prudency of the icty judges when dealing with the crime of indiscriminate attack is that from an international criminal law perspective it is more than a challenge to apply these ihl principles of distinction and proportionality. The author contends that the icty jurisprudence that practically examined the principle of prohibiting indiscriminate attacks by means of unlawful conventional weapons confirm such difficulties. In particular, because the icty failed to fully clarify to what extent an attack by means of indiscriminate and/or inaccurate weapons violating fundamental principles of the conduct of hostilities, such as distinction and proportionality, may amount to the crime of indiscriminate attack.

Is Formalism a Friend or Foe?

Contemporary armed conflicts are known to blur the categories of civilians and combatants, leading to problems with the principle of distinction. These categories are the result of an essentially formalised IHL, and have become less accurate by being over- or under-inclusive. Although formalism is vital to IHL’s functioning, maintaining it in its present excessive strength perpetuates distinction problems. In numerous cases a functional inroad based on actual conduct has been introduced, for instance with the concept of direct participation in hostilities. This solution should be implemented across a wider spectrum. Where the two categories are difficult to tell apart, a functional approach for one category benefits the other. This article shows how this can be attained by using existing rules and principles of IHL, such as the concept of military objectives and the prohibition on terrorism, or newer rules.

Proportionality in Modern Asymmetrical Armed Conflics

States which face non-state actors in military armed conflict tend to claim that changes to IHL/LOAC are required. This study attempts to show that a proper interpretation of the existing principles of IHL might sometimes provide satisfactory answers to the problems posed by non-state actors. Its main argument involves the principle of proportionality. This principle is best understood as an administrative or institutional principle intended to be based on the reasonable discretion of the commander in the field. This discretion is not unlimited – it is guided by respect for human life and civilian immunity. It should be reviewed in advance to make sure that the proper questions are asked. It should be reviewed after the actions take place in order that mistakes might save future commanders from similar mistakes.

Are United States of America's Drone Targeted Killings within the Confines of the Law?

Part One of this paper introduces this research by setting the stage through a background on the problem of terrorism and the recent response of the U.S with drone targeted killings. It also highlights key questions on the legality of drone targeted killings and how other scholars have responded to them. Further, it gives definitions on key terms; i.e. drones and what is meant by targeted killings. In Part Two the focus is on the determination of applicable law for ascertaining the legality of drone targeted killings. The prime argument in Part Two is that no one framework should apply to the exclusion of the other. Part Three focuses on whether drones are consistent with international human rights norms. The author argues that drone targeted killings are inconsistent with the jus cogent right to life. Part Four is an analysis of whether the use of drones is consistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. The author concludes that most of the U.S drone targeted killings are inconsistent with principles of IHL. This Part also contains the final conclusions and recommendations.

Stuxnet as Cyberwarfare: Applying the Law of War to the Virtual Battlefield

In the field of international humanitarian law, there are a number of questions about the conduct of warfare in the cyber domain. In some cases, answers can be gleaned from treaties and customary international law but in other instances, solutions are seemingly intractable, begging for solutions that may only be answered by technology itself. From a legal perspective, such oversimplifications trivialize humanitarian law as well as other legal constructs already struggling to address complex issues in the cyber realm.It is within this context that this paper focuses on a recent event known as Stuxnet, a computer virus that infected and damaged a nuclear research facility in Natanz, Iran. Reflecting on this particular cyber attack, this paper addresses two IHL issues: Does the Stuxnet attack rise to the level of an armed attack within the meaning of international humanitarian law? If so, did it adhere to the two core principles of IHL, namely distinction and proportionality? This paper finds that the Stuxnet attack does in fact rise to the level of an armed attack within the meaning of IHL and adheres to the principles of distinction and proportionality.