Regulation Of War Research Articles

Keikutsertaan Anak Anak Dan Perempuan Dalam Perang Menurut Kitab Fathul Qorib

This study aims: To determine the concept of the principles of applicable Islamic law and International Humanitarian Law regarding war; To know the implementation of the principles of applicable Islamic law and International Humanitarian Law regarding War; The scope of this research is the principles of Islamic Law regarding the regulation of war in International Humanitarian Law regarding the involvement of children and women in war; The research method, using a normative juridical approach, is a law-oriented research method that regulates the principles of Islamic law regarding war in International Humanitarian Law. This means collecting primary and secondary data, and tertiary data based on the object of research. The data in question is processed descriptively. The results of the study found that: From a juridical point of view, the Islamic Law System and humanitarian law question the protection of the rights and obligations of the civilian population against the rules regarding how to resolve conflicts and the consequences of the conflict itself. Implementation of the Islamic law system and humanitarian law in regulating legal protection for humans due to armed conflict, namely the existence of fair treatment of fellow human beings as well as respect and protection in the sense that the humanitarian element must be prioritized, so as to prevent acts that excessive as contained in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its Additional Protocol to Islamic Law derived from the Qur'an and Al-Hadith. This is meant, broadly speaking, stipulating a prohibition on killing civilians who did not participate in the war, killing children, women and the prohibition of destroying cultural objects, places of worship and other places of benefit.

The Concept of War in Political Realism

The article deals with the concept of war in modern political realism. Realism claims to have an original notion of war, which distinguishes it from empirical war studies and from other schools in international relations theory. Realism does not have a strict formal definition of war like empirical studies do, it focuses on understanding the causes and nature of war instead. The distinction between realism and other international relations theories like idealism, Marxism or constructivism consists in the realist notion of politics. Realism understands politics as an eternal struggle for power that underlies all social life, while war is the most intense manifestation of this struggle. Thus, the possibility of war cannot be eradicated. The article shows the normative aspects of such understanding of war. Realism, unlike pacifism or just war theory, is less enthusiastic about ethical or legal regulation of war; furthermore, it shows the dangers that may be caused by political moralism and “criminalization” of war. On the other hand, realism fails to provide a set of norms or principles that would surpass the just war principles. The realist principles of national interest and prudence are as vague, unclear and prone to misuse as classic just war principles are. Author draws a conclusion that to be able to create a valid set of principles of war, realism needs to further converge with international relations theory schools and “enlarge” the set of its base theoretical notions.

Monopolizing War: Codifying the Laws of War to Reassert Governmental Authority, 1856–1874

Abstract In this article, we challenge the canonical narrative about civil society’s efforts to discipline warfare during the mid-19th century – a narrative of progressive evolution of Enlightenment-inspired laws of war, later to be termed international humanitarian law. Conversely, our historical account shows how the debate over participation in international law-making and the content of the law reflected social and political tensions within and between European states. While the multifaceted influence of civil society was an important catalyst for the inter-governmental codification of the laws of war, the content of that codification did not simply reflect humanitarian sensibilities. Rather, as civil society posed a threat to the governmental monopoly over the regulation of war, the turn to inter-state codification of IHL also assisted governments in securing their authority as the sole regulators in the international terrain. We argue that, in codifying the laws of war, the main concern of key European governments was not to protect civilians from combatants’ fire, but rather to protect combatants from civilians eager to take up arms to defend their nation – even against their own governments’ wishes. We further argue that the concern with placing ‘a gun on the shoulder of every socialist’ extended far beyond the battlefield. Monarchs and emperors turned to international law to put the dreaded nationalist and revolutionary genies back in the bottle. These concerns were brought to the fore most forcefully in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871 and the subsequent short-lived, but violent, rise of the Paris Commune. These events formed the backdrop to the Brussels Declaration of 1874, the first comprehensive text on the laws of war. This Declaration exposed civilians to war’s harms and supported the growing capitalist economy by ensuring that market interests would be protected from the scourge of war and the consequences of defeat.

Taking ‘justness’ seriously in just war: who are the ‘miserable comforters’ now?

The laws of war are under mounting pressure and yet recent developments in the ethics of war have encouraged a growing disjunction between ethics and the law. Is this a problem, and does just war have a responsibility to address it? How then should we think about the relationship between ethics and law in war? Focusing on the debates between orthodox and revisionist theorists about principles of liability and immunity in war, I argue that these are actually about competing conceptions of justness. Revisionists privilege a ‘best ethics’ approach to justness, whereas orthodox theorists tend to work within a more rounded conception that embraces the legal and political dimensions of the regulation of war. I argue that there is a danger that those revisionist theorists, despite their impressive ethical innovations, nonetheless operate in a reductive way that does little to assist with the contemporary plight of law, and may inadvertently offer but ‘miserable comfort’ to those caught up in the battlefield. In contrast, the just war tradition generally is rooted in a practice that makes greater allowance for a politically configured concept of war, and takes more seriously the requirement for effective law.

The politics of gender in the UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security

ABSTRACTWomen’s groups have worked diligently to place gender and women’s vulnerability on the transnational security agenda. This article departs from the idea that negotiating and codifying gender and women’s vulnerability in terms of security represent a challenge to mainstream security contexts. By contrasting the UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security with feminist theory, this article aims to analyze what is considered to be threatened when women’s vulnerability is negotiated. The article identifies two approaches to the gender/security nexus: gendering security, which involves introducing ideas regarding gender-sensitive policies and equal representation, and securitizing gender, which proceeds by locating rape and sexual violence in the context of war regulations. We demonstrate that, although these measures are encouraged with reference to women’s vulnerability, they serve to legitimize war and the male soldier and both approaches depoliticize gender relations.

The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War

The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War

Zagreb u Prvome svjetskom ratu

Cilj rada je, koristeći ponajprije novine kao povijesne izvore, rekonstruirati socijalnu sliku Zagreba tijekom Prvoga svjetskog rata usredotočujući se na utjecaj ratnih prilika na svakodnevni gradski život, uvjete života i na položaj djece kao najosjetljivije skupine stanovništva. Nestašica papira i njegova skupoća u ratnim su godinama uzrokovale smanjen opseg dnevnih i tjednih novina, što je posljedično dovelo do svojevrsne „cenzure“ vijesti - različite tiskovine su često puta donosile i različite vijesti, odnosno, ono što je bilo objavljeno u jednim novinama, u drugima zbog štednje papira nije bilo objavljeno. Da bi se stoga stekla što cjelovitija slika, korištene su različite tiskovine („Narodne novine“, „Jutarnji list“, „Obzor“, „Novine“, „Hrvatska“, „Ilustrovani list“, „Katolički list“ i „Narodna zaštita“) koje su se pokazale kao neiscrpno vrelo podataka i suvremenih opservacija o navedenim problemima. Rad govori o općoj nesigurnost u gradu tijekom rata, katastrofalnim socijalnim uvjetima, karakterističnim ratnim motivima (ranjenici na ulicama, život pod ratnim uredbama, gotovo svakodnevne, usiljene dobrotvorne priredbe) i posljedicama ratnog stanja (nestašica životnih potrepština i siromaštvo, prosjačenje i skitnja, zapuštena djeca i ratna siročad, pomor dojenčadi). Radom je dokazano da su povijesne novine prvorazredan povijesni izvor, a temeljni je znanstveni doprinos rada rekonstrukcija dijela zagrebačke socijalne povijesti tijekom Prvoga svjetskog rata, uz naglasak da je taj dio hrvatske povijesti još uvijek slabo i necjelovito istražen.

Ius Gentium: A Defense of Gentili's Equation of the Law of Nations and the Law of Nature

The relation between the law of nature and the law of nations (ius gnetium) remains unclear. This paper examines Gentili's apparent equation of the two, and it considers more generally how abstract natural law reasoning might be improved by the sort of empirical/comparative law reasoning (as we would call it) that thinkers like Gentili, Grotius and others engaged in when they tried to determine what natural law teaches us about the regulation of war.

SAAVEDRA Y EL DERECHO DE GENTES MODERNO

The author in this article tackles firstly the question of diplomacy and regulation of war and peace with Saavedra Fajardo’s main work as his starting point. Secondly, he examines the principle of modern Ius gentium as it appears in the work of the baroque author.

A Pragmatic Objection to Moral Distinctions: A Comment on The Morality and Law of War

This comment to Jeff McMahan's thought-provoking contribution does not aim to take issue with the interesting and rather compelling philosophical arguments he raises in support of moral-based norms. In the same vein, the comment does not criticize the way in which McMahan describes the international law doctrines governing war situations—a description which is generally accurate. Instead, I comment on the policy reasons that have led international law-maker to move away from some of the morality-based distinctions and normative choices expounded by McMahan. Hence, my focus in this comment is on the pragmatic constraints that limit the influence of moral ideas on the laws of war. Of course, the resort to pragmatism may be in itself morally justifiable, as the insistence on the application of pragmatic consideration is often linked to the promotion of laudable goals—aversion of war and reduction of casualties and damage. Hopefully, a better understanding of the reasons underlying the rejection of “pure morality” in the context of the regulation of war would contribute to a critical assessment of the desirability of McMahan's ideas and to identification of the institutional conditions that could facilitate their application.

‘The stranger in our gates’: Internment policies in the United Kingdom and Australia during the two world wars, 1914–39

Total war in the twentieth century witnessed the unprecedented expansion of executive powers in liberal democratic societies. In Australia and the United Kingdom the primacy of common law and parliamentary responsibility was severely challenged and modified. Nowhere were these radical processes so readily identified than in the area of policy towards enemy aliens. Traditionally a liberal haven for refugees, England began modifying its policies with the Aliens Act of 1905. Though not ethnically specific this legislation began a systematic dismantling of earlier procedures. Australia, like other Dominions, never subscribed to these abstract notions of tolerance, introducing racially discriminatory legislation early within the attainment of self‐government. The First World War transformed the status of law‐abiding alien residents into the ‘enemy within the gates’, subject to internment and deportation. In Australia not only were enemy aliens interned but also those British‐born residents of enemy alien heritage might find themselves interned. Racial categorization counted more than nationality. In the Second World War regulations addressed the question of ideology as well as ethnicity. Again Australia was far more vigilant to protect British ethnic identity, interning non‐British residents who were neutral and Allied nationals. In Australia and the United Kingdom in both wars, all legal arguments concerning whether common law or extraordinary war measures had precedence were resolved in favour of executive rule and the imposition of arbitrary authority.

A Lifetime of Campaigning: Ettie Rout, Emancipationist beyond the Pale

H.G. Wells called her 'that unforgettable heroine'. But she was forgotten, most particularly in New Zealand, where she was banned from mention in the newspapers under the War Regulations for her 'safe sex' work during the First World War - a very hypocritical move as it happened just as her work was officially taken on by the army. For this work she was dubbed the 'guardian angel of the ANZACs' by a French venereal disease specialist and awarded the Reconnaissance Franaise by the French. After the war she settled in London, marrying her long-time friend and wartime colleague, physical culturist Fred Hornibrook. Rout went on with her venereal disease prophylaxis campaign after the war. She also entered the birth control movement in the 1920s, playing a major role in the last big birth control court case, a role often attributed to Dora Russell, while Rout again is 'forgotten'. In her books, like the best selling Safe Marriage, a safe sex guide (which was banned in New Zealand), she encouraged women to own their own bodies and take responsibility for their own sexual health. She linked exercise and sex, arguing in books like Sex and Exercise, that exercise would enhance women's sex lives. She and Hornibrook, who wrote a best-selling book entitled The Culture of the Abdomen, presaging the current obsession with rocklike 'abs', made a pair, teaching fitness techniques, holding 'native dance' evenings, and being hailed as modern dance proponents. Rout also wrote books on vegetarianism, wholemeal cookery and Maori culture. The word most commonly used by people describing her throughout her life was 'energy'. She herself was very fit. But she did not fit in. Once her marriage to Hornibrook was over, in 1936, she returned to New Zealand, was rebuffed by former friends. She sailed for Rarotonga and died there, of a self-administered overdose of quinine that September. As she had remarked to H.G. Wells, 'It is a mixed blessing to be born too soon'. She anticipated many of the enthusiasms of our own time - in diet, in dance, in ideas about exercise and sexuality. But because she was so far ahead of her own time in her 'safe sex' campaign, she became persona non grata in her own country. With the advent of AIDS her contribution snaps into focus - and the AIDS clinic in the city of Christchurch where she used to live has been named after her.

A Treaty on the Regulation of war in 1820

A Treaty on the Regulation of war in 1820

The Regulation of War

The Regulation of War