Protection Of War Victims Research Articles

Humanitarnyi dostup pid chas zbroinykh konfliktiv

The article analyses the right to humanitarian access, which finds its expression in humanitarian aid and protection during armed conflicts in accordance with the norms of International Humanitarian Law. The basics of humanitarian access activities are determined. Mechanisms for ensuring and supporting effective humanitarian access as a result of collective action and efforts of humanitarian actors are considered. The article reaffirms that the provision of humanitarian assistance is the responsibility of all parties to an armed conflict in accordance with International Humanitarian Law. International Humanitarian Law is a constant of legal norms that must be applied by all parties to an armed conflict. Determinant in this definition is the presence of armed conflict, not the «humanitarian» component. Authors of the article emphasize that the axiom of International Humanitarian Law is the protection of war victims, which corresponds to the key principle of humanity. Access standards are reflected in the four Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1977. Unless a State or other party to an armed conflict is a party to a treaty, customary International Humanitarian Law operate in parallel with contractual rules. Humanitarian protection is designed to protect and restore human rights, which is based on the provisions of international human rights law and forms the basis of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The provisions of international criminal law, in particular the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are strengthens humanitarian access. The article argues that addressing issues such as the accreditation of humanitarian missions, the humanitarian aid coordination system and overcoming regulatory gaps will address the current challenges of humanitarian access in armed conflict mainly due to the difficulties of interaction of international humanitarian missions with the warring parties. The authors of the article confirmed that the violation of the right to humanitarian access poses a threat to peace and security in the world.

Protection of War Victims in Modern Era

Рецензия содержит взгляд автора на монографию В.Н. Русиновой, посвященную современному правовому регулированию ряда аспектов международного права применительно к вооруженным конфликтам. Дается положительная оценка работы.

Międzynarodowoprawny status archipelagu Wysp Alandzkich : kwestia demilitaryzacji i neutralizacji Alandów

This article deals with the question of demilitarization and neutralization of the ?land Islands in respect to international law regulating this issue. In this paper it was not intented to go into details of all historical phases and changes of the ?land's status, but rather to concentrate on international treaties regulating this question, which are still in force. ?land is an autonomous, demilitarized and neutralized region of Finland with a largely Swedish-speaking population. The ?land Islands form an archipelago in the Baltic Sea. They are situated in the entrance to the Gulf of Bothnia. Its legislative autonomy and a strong protection for its population's Swedish language and culture are enshrined in the Finnish constitution. The ?land Islands are located in a very strategically important place. There are three problems under international law connected with the ?land Islands: that is to say, demilitarization, neutralization and autonomy of ?land. After the Crimean war it was decided that Russia should not fortify the ?land Islands. The strategic position was one of the factors that influenced the decision of the Paris Peace Conference in 1856 to demilitarize the ?land Islands. After the Crimean War (1854-56) an appendix to the 1856 Treaty of Paris forbade Russia from establishing fortifications, maintaining or building up a military presence and naval forces on the islands. In 1917 Finland gained independence from Russia and ?land became for a number of years a source of controversy or even conflict between Finland and Sweden as a result of the ?landers' demand for ?land's reunification with Sweden. In 1921 the League of Nations resolved the ?land question. ?land remained a part of Finland but gained autonomy along with the historically rooted principles of neutrality and demilitarization. In October 1921 the Convention relating to the non-fortification and Neutralization of the ?land Islands was signed by Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Western powers did not regard Bolshevik Russia as a sovereign state after the revolution of 1917 and Russia (the Soviet Union) was not a party to this convention. The treaties that regulatedthe demilitarization and neutralization were: 1) the 1856 Convention on the Demilitarisation of the ?land Islands (annexed to the 1856 Paris Peace Treaty), 2) the 1921 Convention on the Demilitarization and Neutralization of the ?land Islands, 3) bilateral treaty of 1940 between Finland and Russia (the Soviet Union) on the demilitarization of the ?land Islands and 4) the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty. There is no cause to doubt the continuance in force of the demilitarization and neutralization of ?land. The treaties and agreements of 1921,1940 and 1947 are still in force. ?land's demilitarization and neutralization remain beyond question, despite the changes in the political context. The ?land Islands are both demilitarized and neutralized, the main purpose is to keep it completely outside the armed actions of armed conflicts. ?land's status received renewed attention in the 1990s in view of the changes taking place in Europe. The 1994 treaty on Finland's accession to the EU recognizes in its Protocol No. 2, that the ?land Islands enjoy a special status under international law. Furthermore, another legal regulation dealing with this question is the Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of war victims (Article 60) obligates States Parties to respect demilitarized zones during international armed conflicts. ?land's demilitarized and neutralized status has a strong foundation and position in the international law. Some experts and writers have described this status as a example of a "permanent settlement" or "objective regime" in international law. According to another experts (H. Rotkirch), the special status of the ?land Islands is of such long standing " that it has without doubt become part of customary international law and is thus binding on the international community as a whole". Since 1970, ?land has had its own representation in the Nordic Council and participates in the work of the Nordic Council of Ministers. Since 1989, ?land is a member of the Council of Europe. One might also mention the fact that, ?land stands outside the EU tax union and has retained the limitations on ownership of land and operation of business.

Interview with Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court

Judge Philippe Kirsch (Canada) is president of the International Criminal Court in The Hague and is assigned to its Appeals Division. He is a member of the bar of the province of Quebec and was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1988. In 1998, Judge Kirsch served as chairman of the Committee of the Whole of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (the Rome Conference). He was also chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999–2002). Judge Kirsch has extensive experience in the development of international criminal law, with particular regard to issues related to terrorism. His experience in international humanitarian law includes serving as chairman of the Drafting Committee of the International Conference on the Protection of War Victims (1993), the Drafting Committee at the 26th and 27th International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1995, 1999) and related meetings. He also chaired the Canadian National Committee on Humanitarian Law (1998–9) and was a member of the Group of International Advisers to the International Committee of the Red Cross (2000–3).

Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement Seoul, 16–18 November 2005: Resolutions

The Council of Delegates,reaffirming the undertaking of all States and parties engaged in armed conflict to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law,recognizing the importance of working toward the universal ratification of treaties on international humanitarian law,considering the continued importance of customary international humanitarian law in the light of the fact that not all humanitarian treaties have been universally ratified,noting that treaty law governing non-international armed conflicts is not well developed although these conflicts predominate today,recalling Resolution 1 of the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and the mandate entrusted to the ICRC to prepare a study on customary rules of international humanitarian law applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts,noting with great appreciation the extensive efforts undertaken by the ICRC to prepare this study in accordance with the above-mentioned mandate,1. welcomes the study on customary international humanitarian law published by the ICRC as an important contribution to the protection of war victims;2. recommends the study to all components of the Movement as a basis for discussion, where relevant, with national authorities, armed forces, academic circles and parties to an armed conflict;3. invites National Societies, to the extent of their capacities, to disseminate the findings of the study as widely as possible.

François Bugnion's The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Protection of War Victims

The English-language version of François Bugnion's remarkable book could not appear at a more opportune time. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been under increased media scrutiny since the unauthorized publication in early May 2004 of its report on the treatment by Coalition forces of prisoners of war and other protected persons in Iraq. In some countries, the credibility or effectiveness of the ICRC's long-established confidential approach has been questioned.

International Humanitarian Law, the Prohibition of Terrorist Acts and the Fight against Terrorism

Terrorism is said to be a substitute for conventional — or classic — warfare. And the response to terrorism is now called a ‘war on terrorism’. Acts of terrorism have always been with us and so has war. Since time immemorial, warfare has been subject to legal regulations: the laws of war. Their foundations can be retraced to age-old practices established to mitigate the effects of recourse to violence when conflicts could not be resolved by peaceful means. These rules used to belong to customs observed by belligerents as a matter of course. Today, international treaties are the main source of the rules governing humanitarian aspects of the conduct of war: the Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977. Is international humanitarian law relevant to the horrors of modern warfare and, in particular, to terrorism? And does it sufficiently take into account the interest of states in combating terrorism?

Les Conventions de Genève de 1949: une percée décisive (seconde partie)

At the outbreak of the Second World War, international humanitarian law was made up of the various Hague Conventions of 1907 and the two 1929 Geneva Conventions, none of which dealt in a satisfactory manner with the risks faced by the civilian population. Experience during the war made a major revision of international humanitarian law a priority after 1945. This articles traces the history of that endeavour up to the adoption by a diplomatic conference, on 12 August 1949, of the four Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims. Particular emphasis is laid on the link between the ICRC's wartime experience with the inadequate law of the day and the negotiations for new legal provisions. The second part of the article identifies the major advances represented by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, one of the more important being the fact that the law's scope was extended to non-international armed conflicts. Though making no claim to perfection, the new Geneva Conventions nevertheless laid a sound basis on which adequate solutions may be found when military considerations and humanitarian exigencies clash.

Les Conventions de Genève de 1949: une percée décisive

Abstract At the outbreak of the Second World War, international humanitarian law was made up of the various Hague Conventions of 1907 and the two 1929 Geneva Conventions, none of which dealt in a satisfactory manner with the risks faced by the civilian population. Experience during the war made a major revision of international humanitarian law a priority after 1945. This article traces the history of that endeavour up to the adoption by a diplomatic conference, on 12 August 1949, of the four Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims. Particular emphasis is laid on the link between the ICRC's wartime experience with the inadequate law of the day and the negotiations for new legal provisions. The second part of the article identifies the major advances represented by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, one of the more important being the fact that the law's scope was extended to non-international armed conflicts. Though making no claim to perfection, the new Geneva Conventions nevertheless laid a sound basis on which adequate solutions may be found when military considerations and humanitarian exigencies clash.

Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949 and Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977: Ratifications, accessions and successions as at 31 December 1997

Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949 and Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977: Ratifications, accessions and successions as at 31 December 1997

Adoption of the 1977 Additional Protocols

The adoption of the 1977 Protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims was an event of great historic significance. In 1977 the States were convinced that developments in weaponry had made it necessary to adopt new rules of conduct in armed conflicts: methods of using conventional weapons were being perfected and the resulting casualty rates were approaching those of weapons mass destruction, affecting everyone without exception and also damaging the environment, and thus threatening the survival of entire nations. This fact persuaded the States to agree upon new rules of conduct in armed conflict.

Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949 and Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 Ratifications, accessions and successions as at 31 December 1996

The names of countries given in the following list may differ from the official names of States.The dates indicated are those on which the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received the official instrument from the State that was ratifying, acceding to or succeeding to the Conventions or Protocols or accepting the competence of the Commission provided for under Article 90 of Protocol I. They thus represent neither the date on which ratification, accession, succession or acceptance of the Commission was decided upon nor that on which the corresponding instrument was sent.

Follow-up to the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims (1993) — Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict

Resolution 1 adopted by the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (Geneva, 1995) endorsed the recommendations drawn up by an intergovernmental group of experts charged with translating the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims (Geneva, August/September 1993) into proposals for “concrete and effective measures”. These recommendations are addressed primarily to the States party to the Geneva Conventions, including the depositary of those instruments. However, the ICRC, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are also urged to contribute to the effort of achieving better implementation of international humanitarian law, the main objective being to prevent violations from occurring.

Commission I: War victims and respect for international humanitarian law

Commission I, which was chaired by H.E. Ambassador Hisashi Owada, Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations in New York, had two main items on its agenda: discussion of the follow-up to the 1993 International Conference for the Protection of War Victims held in Geneva and action to be taken in that regard by the 26th International Conference, and examination of a number of humanitarian issues relating to the protection of the civilian population in times of armed conflict. The Commission also took note of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and the protection of war victims

In its recent issues the International Review of the Red Cross announced the publication of a work entitled Le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et la protection des victimes de la guerre by François Bugnion, Deputy Director of the ICRC Department of Principles, Law and Relations with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.The book has already become the reference work par excellence on the International Committee of the Red Cross in that it analyses, in a combined historical and legal approach, the process whereby the international community came to entrust the Committee with tasks and areas of competence relating to the protection of war victims. It also highlights the interaction between the development of ICRC practice and that of international humanitarian law.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and the protection of war victims

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Preparing for the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent — Second Meeting of Legal Advisers of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (Geneva, 6–7 March 1995)

A second meeting of legal advisers of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, jointly organized by the ICRC and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, was held in Geneva on 6 and 7 March 1995.The advisers of some twenty National Societies, together with officials in charge of preparations for the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, devoted the first day of the meeting to examining the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the Protection of War Victims which met on 23 to 27 January 1995.

Preparing the meeting of the group of intergovernmental experts for the protection of war victims: Protection of war Victims — Suggestions of the International Committee of the Red Cross

This document is based on the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, the report prepared by the ICRC for that Conference and the note sent to States at the beginning of March 1994 by the Swiss Government, concerning the meeting of the group of experts.The present paper does not take up all the points referred to in the Swiss Government's note, but defines more precisely, for certain of them, issues that the experts might look into more closely.

Implementation of international humanitarian law - National measures: Information received by the International Committee of the Red Cross on implementation measures taken by the States at the national level

The importance of adopting national measures to implement international humanitarian law has been stressed on many occasions. It was repeated in the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims (Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993), which reaffirmed the obligation laid down in Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law in order to protect the victims of war. The Declaration urged all States to make every effort to “adopt and implement, at the national level, all appropriate regulations, laws and measures to ensure respect for international humanitarian law applicable in the event of armed conflict and to punish violations thereof”. The Conference thus reasserted the need to bring about more effective compliance with that law.

Preparing the meeting of the group of intergovernmental experts for the protection of war victims: Note by the Swiss Government March 1994

In its “Final Declaration” adopted on 1 September 1993, the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims (Geneva, 30 August to 1 September 1993) conferred upon an intergovernmental group of experts to be convened by the Swiss Government the mandate to study “practical means of promoting full respect for and compliance with [international humanitarian] law, and to prepare a report for submission to the States and to the next session of the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent”.