Violations Of International Law Research Articles

Optional but not qualified: Neutrality, the UN Charter and humanitarian objectives

Abstract Neutral States must abstain from supporting a party to a conflict with military equipment and assistance. This core aspect of the law of neutrality has not changed with the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, or with the brutal Russian aggression against Ukraine. That said, by reviewing the changes to neutrality law over time, this article finds plausible reasons to believe that neutrality has – for better or worse – become optional for the vast majority of States, which can today opt to be non-belligerent States – i.e., States that are neither neutral nor parties to the armed conflict. All States have to cooperate to bring to an end serious violations of international law, including humanitarian law, and this duty of cooperation has abolished “sitting-still neutrality”, but it does not render neutrality law moot. This reading of “optional but not qualified” neutrality maintains the core neutrality idea of abstaining in military matters. In this article, I argue that views of “obsolete” or “qualified” neutrality are not new at all but depart from well-accepted rules of legal interpretation and raise concerns about double standards. Viewing neutrality as optional but unqualifiable offers greater conceptual clarity, is more honest than alternative views, and comes with advantages for humanitarian action.

International Obligation to Counter Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan

The following article was first published in the Columbia Law Journal and is reproduced with permission and an updated introduction.
 Since they returned to power in August 2021, the Taliban are again imposing a regime of gender apartheid in Afghanistan in violation of international law, just as they did in the 1990s. Given that it is pervasively discriminatory, gender apartheid poses specific human rights problems requiring particular, heightened responses. A system of governance based on subordination of women institutionalizes sex discrimination across state political, legal, and cultural infrastructures. It necessitates different counter-strategies.
 This article suggests conceptual architecture for analyzing and responding to this aspect of the current Afghan crisis. Specifically, the robust international legal framework that helped end racial apartheid should be urgently adapted to address gender apartheid and concert the responses of other states to it. 
 There are three principal arguments in favor of this approach. 1) It is essential for fulfilling states’ international legal commitments on sex discrimination across every document in the International Bill of Human Rights, as well as the specific target they affirmed in the Sustainable Development Goals to achieve gender equality by 2030. 2) Any other stance leads to an unacceptable imbalance in the manner in which international law addresses discrimination on the bases of sex and race. 3) This may be the only way to effectively tackle systematic Taliban abuses, as the organization is deeply committed to its violations of women’s rights and already sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. Such an approach marshals the resources of the international community to constrain the Taliban, and is the best hope for ensuring the credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness of the international legal response.

Reading China's Global Security Initiative Through an International Legal Lens

Closely related to China's response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Global Security Initiative (‘GSI’) has attracted attention to its vision on the current international legal order. This essay examines three major themes of the GSI through an international legal lens: common security, sovereign equality and the amorphous idea of ‘legitimate security interest’. Firstly, it highlights the risk that the notion of common security and the related emphasis on ‘major countries’ relationship in the GSI could be abused to justify state oppression of domestic population or major countries’ domination over ‘minor countries’ and proposes a reading to limit these concepts to promoting peace-making efforts led by states, particularly ‘major countries’, with cascading effects on other countries in conflicts. Secondly, it argues that the GSI's re-emphasis on sovereign equality usefully counters unilateralism and should be interpreted not retrospectively to avoid accountability but prospectively to combat impunity for serious violations of international law. Thirdly, it argues that while the notion of legitimate security interest may be irrelevant to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations, it could be a useful consideration in discharging states’ obligation to settle international disputes peacefully.

International legal regulation of the use of reprisals as a form of political responsibility of states

The article attempts to determine the principles of international legal regulation of the use of reprisals as a form of political responsibility in international law, since reprisals are illegal actions committed in response to previous illegal actions of the state, proportional to the initial offense. International law has changed the application of the doctrine of retaliation to avoid an upward spiral of violence where one side retaliates against the illegal actions of another, causing ever more violent bloodshed, while the laws of war are meant to regulate and limit such harm. Theoretical provisions regarding the international legal regulation of the use of reprisals as one of the forms of political responsibility according to international law are analyzed. In order for reprisals against permitted categories of persons and objects not to be illegal, five conditions must be met. Most of these conditions are laid down in military instructions and confirmed by official statements. The following conditions: the purpose of reprisal (can be used only in response to a previous serious violation of international law and only to induce the adversary to comply with the law); last resort (can only be used as a last resort when there are no other legal measures), proportionality (measures must be proportionate to the violation it aims to stop), decision at the highest level of government (the decision must be taken at the highest level of government), termination (must be terminated as soon as the adversary begins to enforce the law). The occurrence of reprisals in real cases is analyzed - Naulilaa Incident (When Portugal was neutral, in October 1914, a German group entered the Portuguese-African territories from German South­West Africa) and «Israel against Palestine» (After the Second World War the Jews wanted their own country. They were given a large part of Palestine, which they considered their traditional home, but the Arabs did not accept the new country. In 1948, both sides went to war); the use of reprisals in today's world is analyzed.

Pushed to Breaking Point? The Prohibition of ‘Constructive’ or ‘Disguised’ Refoulement under International Law

Abstract The cornerstone of international refugee law is the principle of non-refoulement, which protects refugees, asylum seekers, and other persons with protection needs from being returned against their will to a place where they risk facing persecution or other fundamental rights violations. A person who is protected against refoulement may, however, return voluntarily. Determining when such returns are truly voluntary is an issue increasingly at the heart of discussions about the lawfulness of returns, including recently in the Lake Chad Basin, East Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Australia. Today, there does not appear to be a generally agreed legal standard to determine when a return is truly voluntary. Likewise, international law does not define a clear line at which State action to ‘incentivize’ or ‘induce’ returns amounts to refoulement or an unlawful expulsion. However, recent publications by international law expert bodies and ensuing debate among States have provided some indications as to where international law stands on the issue and the direction in which it might develop. Thus, this article first examines the interplay between voluntary returns and the principle of non-refoulement. Secondly, it analyses recent positions taken by the International Law Commission and the United Nations Committee against Torture concerning legal limits on the measures that States may take to incentivize or induce returns. Thirdly, the article considers certain measures taken by States to incentivize or induce the ‘voluntary’ return of a person and indicates when such measures may amount to acts of coercion or force in violation of international law.

Factors shaping the content in the definition and species characterization of sanctions in public international law

In modern conditions, international legal sanctions continue to be the most important manifestation of coercion in interstate relations, playing a primary role in the protection of international law and order, as they are used by subjects of international law to respond to international violations, if necessary.
 International legal sanctions have become an important instrument of international relations used to ensure the implementation of international law, resolve conflicts and establish order in the world. This article examines the various types of international legal sanctions, their mechanisms of application and potential challenges faced by the international community.
 The institution of international legal sanctions is a special law enforcement and law enforcement institution. It performs the function of enforcing the correction of the mechanism of international legal regulation when, as a result of an international offense, changes occur in its normal functioning and the restoration of international legal order is not possible or cannot be ensured by means of exclusively conciliatory (voluntary) means of procedural settlement. The institution of international legal sanctions is closely related to the institution of international legal responsibility. The specificity of the relationship lies in the fact that international legal sanctions are applied only to the offending entity that resists the voluntary fulfillment of its obligations to eliminate the harmful consequences of an international offense, and are ultimately aimed at reaching an agreement between the entities applying international legal sanctions and the offending entity.
 The application of international legal sanctions involves an active role of international organizations, in particular the United Nations. The decision to impose sanctions is made by consensus or voting in cases of systemic violations of international law or threats to international security.
 Although international legal sanctions are considered to be an important tool in the regulation of international relations, there are challenges that require increased attention.
 The article systematizes the types of international legal sanctions, including economic, military and diplomatic sanctions. The author highlights their focus on states, groups or individuals, as well as the mechanisms for their introduction and lifting. In particular, the author examines the effectiveness and possible negative consequences of sanctions for the population and economy of the targeted countries.
 Special attention may be paid to the interaction of international legal sanctions with other instruments of international politics, such as diplomacy, negotiations and peacekeeping measures.

The responsibility of corporate actors involved in international crimes through autonomous weapons systems (AWS) before the international criminal court (ICC)

The use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) has led to several opposing legal opinions regarding their violations of international law. The responsibility of the state, individuals, and corporations as producers, designers, and programmers is all being taken into consideration. If the decision to kill humans without “meaningful human control” is transferred to computers, it would be hard to attribute accountability for the actions of AWS to their corporations. Consequently, this means that corporate actors will enjoy impunity in all cases. The present paper indicates that the most significant problem arising from the use of AWS is the attribution of responsibility for its violation. Corporations are not subject to liability for the legitimate use of weapons under international law. The main problem with corporate responsibility, according to article 25 (4) of the Rome Statute, is that the provision only relates to individual criminal responsibility and that the ICC shall only have jurisdiction over natural persons. Nevertheless, corporations may be held accountable under aspects of international law. The paper proposes a more positive view on artificial intelligence, raising corporations’ accountability in international law by historically linking the judging of business leaders. The article identifies aiding and abetting as well as co-perpetration as the two modes of accountability under international law potentially linked to AWS. The study also explores the main ambiguity in international law relating to corporate aiding and abetting of human rights violations by presenting the confusion on determining the standards of these 2 modes of liability before the ICC and International ad doc Tribunal. Moreover, with the new age of war heavily dependent on AI and AWS, one cannot easily and precisely ascertain who must be held accountable for war crimes because of the unanticipated facts in decision-making combined with the aiding or abetting of violations of international law. International law prioritizes the goal of ending impunity for the individual and largely neglects the need to achieve the same goal for corporate complicity. In sum, progress to regulate the use of AWS by corporate actors could be enormously helpful to the cause of ending impunity.

Yemeni and regional maritime doctrine in light of the decline of the liberal theory of freedom of navigation in EEZ

The presence of the USCENTCOM , AFRICOM and 34 foreign countries in the vital Yemeni, Arab, and national maritime spheres contributed to a flagrant violation of maritime laws and international political relations. Likewise, the presence and activities of the strategic and tactical military naval units of the aircraft carrier, submarines, and American and British nuclear naval destroyers in the Red Sea. The Gulf of Aden is a breach and violation of international law and agreements regulating freedom of navigation and a blatant assault on Yemeni sovereignty in its vital maritime sphere, as it is located in exclusive Yemeni economic waters, in addition to its nuclear effects in destroying the marine environment and human security. It constitutes a source of danger to food and maritime security, stability, and international peace. The study aims to clarify the influence of Western geopolitical thought and the behavior of American foreign policy in international relations and maritime laws, which is witnessing a major decline and failure in its global policy because it used the policy of American military force to achieve its own political goals and imposed the methodology of Western liberal maritime thought to control and limit the rights of the Yemeni, Arab, and Islamic coastal states. Which contradicts customs, laws, and agreements and affects historical rights and the Yemeni, Arab, and regional maritime domain. The study is expected to confirm the modern Yemeni, Arab, and Islamic hypothesis that the high seas and international maritime waters are within a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline and to affirm the right of Yemen and the Arab nation to be protected. The vital area of the United Arab Emirates and the Islamic and regional countries extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean, the Arabian Gulf, the eastern and western Indian Ocean to the Antarctic Ocean, and there is a call for holding maritime conferences in order to develop traditional Western maritime legal theories and concepts that seek to limit the rights of coastal states, establish perceptions, and reach an update to the laws regulating freedom of maritime navigation in accordance with the views of the peoples of the world and in response to global changes in multipolarity.

International law obligations for the disposal of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water under the principles of nuclear safety

The disposal of contaminated water from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant is a significant international nuclear safety issue with considerable cross-border implications. This matter requires compliance not only with the law of the sea but also with the principles of nuclear safety under international law. These principles serve as the overarching tenet of international and China’s domestic nuclear laws, applicable to nuclear facilities and activities. The principle of safety in nuclear activities is fully recognized in international and domestic laws, carrying broad legal binding force. Japan’s discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea violates its obligations under the principle of safety in nuclear activities, including commitments to optimum protection, as low as reasonably practicable, and prevention. The Japanese government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have breached the obligation of optimum protection by restricting the scope of assessments, substituting core concepts, and shielding dissenting views. In the absence of clear radiation standards, they have acted unilaterally without fulfilling the obligation as low as reasonably practicable principle. The discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water poses an imminent and unpredictable risk to all countries worldwide, including Japanese residents. Japan and the IAEA should fulfill their obligations under international law regarding disposal, adhering to the principles of nuclear safety, including optimum protection, the obligation as low as reasonably practicable, and prevention through multilateral cooperation. Specifically, the obligation to provide optimum protection should be implemented by re-evaluating the most reliable disposal technologies and methods currently available and comprehensively assessing various options. The standard of the obligation as low as reasonably practicable requires that the minimization of negative impacts on human health, livelihoods, and the environment should not be subordinated to considerations of cutting costs and expenses. Multilateral cooperation should be promoted through the establishment of sound multilateral long-term monitoring mechanisms for the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, notification and consultation obligations, and periodic assessments. These obligations under international law were fulfilled after the accidents at the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear power plants. The implications of the principles of nuclear safety align with the concept of building a community of shared future for nuclear safety advocated by China. In cases of violations of international law regarding the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water that jeopardize the concept of a community of a shared future for nuclear safety, China can also rely on its own strength to promote the implementation of due obligations through self-help.

Neutrosophic Insights into Military Interventions: Assessing Legitimacy and Consequences in International Law


 This scientific paper analyzes the legitimacy of military interventions within the framework of international law and their potential consequences. It highlights the need to support these interventions with robust legal and moral reasoning due to their complexity and controversy in the international community. The interpretation of legal and ethical principles can be subjective and lead to disagreements among states and international actors. The consequences of military interventions are explored, ranging from loss of life and infrastructure destruction to population displacement, political instability, and humanitarian crises. Legality and proportionality in interventions are essential to ensuring their legitimacy, and the potential consequences must be carefully assessed before undertaking an intervention. Adherence to the international legal framework is crucial to prevent military interventions from being deemed violations of international law. The neutrosophic DEMATEL methodology used in the study identifies cause-and-effect relationships among key criteria related to military actions in the realm of international law. The article highlights the importance of carefully considering the legitimacy and potential consequences of military interventions within the context of international law.

THE EUROPEAN UNION'S CONTRIBUTION TO COUNTERING THE EFFECTS OF THE ALMOST TWO-YEAR RUSSIA'S WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE

For almost two years, Ukraine has faced the Russia's full-scale invasion and war of aggression, an illegal, premeditated and illegitimate act that represents an attack not only against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, but also a flagrant violation of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. The brutal military aggression against Ukraine caused destruction, material damages and widespread suffering for civilians, which has led to the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Consequently, the dramatic situation in Ukraine has caused new and unanticipated challenges for neighbouring countries, including Romania, given their proximity to the conflict zone. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to highlight, first of all, the EU emergency response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and also solidarity with Ukraine. Taking into account Romania's status as an EU member, the next objective of this study is to point out Romania's involvement and comprehensive support for Ukraine in the humanitarian field, especially on protection and inclusion of Ukrainian refugees. For almost two years, Ukraine has been facing the Russia's full-scale invasion and war of aggression, an illegal, premeditated and illegitimate act that represents an attack not only against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, but also a flagrant violation of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. The brutal military aggression against Ukraine caused destruction, material damages and widespread suffering for civilians, which has led to the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Consequently, the dramatic situation in Ukraine has caused new and unanticipated challenges for neighbouring countries, including Romania, given their proximity to the conflict zone. Therefore, the research undertaken for this study has been focused, first of all, on the EU's contribution to countering the effects of the Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, with accent on the EU emergency response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and also solidarity with Ukraine. Taking into account Romania's status as an EU member, the next objective of this study is to point out Romania's involvement and comprehensive support for Ukraine in the humanitarian field, especially on protection and inclusion of Ukrainian refugees. In order to achieve these proposed objectives, qualitative and quantitative research methods were utilised, written data being used, but also logical or statistical observations to draw conclusions. As well, inductive reasoning conducted the research from the specific to the general situations, while deductive reasoning allowed to make an inference by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

Russian-Ukrainian Relations in the Historical Context of the Formation of Sovereign Ukrainian Statehood

Introduction. The article is devoted to the analy- sis of historical factors, features and political and legal patterns of the formation of modern Ukrainian statehood, taking into account the difficult and constantly escalating Russian-Ukrainian relations, the growing Ukrainian nationalist radicalism, Russophobia and neo-Nazism, the formation of the state of a rigidly pro-Western-oriented regime of government. Special emphasis is placed on the problems of dynamically increasing difficulties in preserving and strengthening state sovereignty, ensuring financial, economic and military-political independence of the country, difficulties and prospects for implementing the European choice strategy in Ukrainian.Methodology and methods. dialectical-ma- terialistic model of research; principles of scientific, historicism and objectivity; methods of retrospection and comparison, analysis and synthesis, mental mod- eling, ascent from the abstract to the concrete.The results of the study. In the leading posi- tions of the presented research, the political and legal problems of destabilizing and disintegrating processes in the conditions of radicalization of the ruling Ukrainian regime of anti-Russian orientation, taking into account the historically difficult dialectics of the development of intra-national and interstate issues. In a comparative cross-country context, the features of the concept of building Ukrainian statehood as an- ti-Russia are analyzed, the author's concept of turning Ukraine into an instrument of Western forces in the fight against Russia, into a mercenary state and a springboard for military-ideological struggle with the Russian world in order to inflict strategic defeat on it is presented.Discussion and conclusion. Using the example of the difficult Ukrainian experience of post–Soviet state-building, the validity of the fact that the policy of the modern West is a policy of gross violation of international law, a policy of hegemonism and striving for world domination with the help of allied countries and at the expense of satellite countries and the enslavement of mercenaries is substantiated. Hence the gross interference in the internal affairs of other countries and peoples, direct interventions, the export of corruption, the imposition of morals of meanness, hostility and destruction, the unleashing of interstate, interethnic and interfaith conflicts, the policy of lies and provocations. Some judgments are formulated concerning the complex and far from un- ambiguously interpreted problems of state-building in the post-Soviet space in accordance with the ideals and values of a true democratic, legal, social, secular state.

Application Comparison of the Lex Loci Delicti Commission Theory between the Oil Spill Case in the Gulf of Mexico and the Carbon Emissions Case in the Netherlands

The event of a disastrous oil spill from British Petroleum's offshore drilling installation on the 20th of April 2010 was caused by a leaking underwater pipeline, which polluted the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Subsequently, there was the Carbon Emission Case in the Netherlands, which required Shell to reduce their carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 from the carbon emissions generated in 2019. Both events were deeply concerning and directly effected the citizens of the respective countries. In the first case, the spill of approximately 5,000 barrels or 210,000 gallons (795,000 liters) of crude oil spread extensively due to ocean currents where the contaminated area ended up covering 9,933 square kilometers of ocean (77 x 129km). This oil spill, which was a result of British Petroleum's negligence, lead to legal action taken against the company for violations of international environmental laws, due to environmental pollution. In the second case, Shell, was deemed to have contributed significantly to climate change in the Netherlands. The company was responsible for twice the amount of greenhouse gas emissions than the Netherlands. The research method employed in this journal uses a normative juridical research approach, focusing on legal norms within the decisions for Case MDL No. 2179 and the Verdict issued by the Haugue District Court. In this journal, the author concludes that both British Petroleum and Shell have been proven to commit unlawful acts against the international environment laws through environmental pollution.

Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity in Gaza: A Violation of International Law?

Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity in Gaza: A Violation of International Law?

Protection of Rights of the Crimean Tatars as an Indigenous People of Ukraine in the International Arena

The purpose of this article is to study the main types and forms of participation of the Crimean Tatar people aimed at protecting the rights of the Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people of Ukraine in the international arena after the occupation of the peninsula in 2014. The article analyzes the problem of violations of international human rights law and the rights of indigenous peoples on the territory of the occupied peninsula. The paper outlines the main types and forms of participation of Crimean Tatars aimed at protecting the rights of indigenous people in the international arena, in particular, the participation of the Mejlis as a representative body of Crimean Tatars, as well as leaders of the Crimean Tatar indigenous people and human rights organizations, etc. The author also provides a list of international documents adopted since the beginning of the occupation of Crimea, which were adopted as a sign of support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russian aggression and occupation of Crimea and criminal actions of the Russian authorities. The author concludes that such participation of the Crimean Tatar indigenous people, aimed at protecting the rights of the indigenous people of Ukraine in the international arena, has become an important element of Ukraine's diplomatic struggle for Crimea. It is also emphasized that cooperation between Ukraine and the Crimean Tatar indigenous people is an important guarantee of the future processes of de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea, as well as the preservation of Ukrainian statehood on the peninsula.

Dead or alive? Global constitutionalism and international law after the start of the war in Ukraine

Abstract Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine has sent shock waves around the world. Russia has violated the most fundamental rule of international law and most people intuitively feel that the war in Ukraine has changed the entire landscape of international society. Given what is clearly a turning point, it is difficult to assume that global constitutionalism founded on ‘human rights, the rule of law and democracy’, called ‘the constitutional trinity’, will not undergo any changes. Can global constitutionalism survive such a difficult moment? This is a fundamental question that global constitutionalists must address. This article answers this question in the affirmative. First, despite its gross violations of international law, Russia is not necessarily attempting to withdraw from the current framework of international law. The existing individual-centred elements in international law, which are the central pillar of global constitutionalism, will not be replaced by any alternatives. Second, even if the existing framework of international law remains viable, there is an undeniable risk that the polarization of international law accelerated by the ongoing war will negatively affect global constitutionalism. Such polarization may hollow out the constitutional trinity in international law. However, global constitutionalism will continue to function as the principal cognitive framework for international society because the exercise of individuals’ rights embedded in international law will incessantly provide energy for global constitutionalism. This article concludes that insofar as international law keeps its individual elements, global constitutionalism will be able to retain its normative power under the present predicament in the world.

The Israel‐Hamas War: Historical Context and International Law

AbstractThis essay contextualizes the 2023 Israel‐Hamas war within a century‐old legal history of Palestinian dispossession that has been facilitated through the violation and misuse of international law. It argues that Hamas's attacks of October 7 were not simply driven by sanguinary hatred of Jews, as some commentators have suggested. Instead, the war crimes were motivated by the Palestinians’ disillusionment with an international system that has consistently denied them their right to self‐determination. This has been exacerbated by Israel's criminalization of nonviolent resistance. Such historical perspective illuminates the underlying causes not just of the present war but of the broader Israeli‐Palestinian conflict.

What can we learn from Bonhoeffer concerning the churches facing Palestinian suffering?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s essay on “The Church and the Jewish Question” (1933) inspired already two ecumenical processes. The first one was the decision of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) in 1977 declaring apartheid a status confessionis, the second was the call of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) to engage in a processus confessionis “regarding economic injustice and ecological destruction” (1997). This led the LWF (2003), the WARC (2004) and also the World Council of Churches (WCC in 2013) to formally reject imperial neoliberal capitalism. Now it inspires the church actions against the state of Israel, depriving the Palestinians of their civil and political rights and the justification of this by misusing the Bible in (Christian) Zionism. This amounts to apartheid according to all relevant human rights organizations and the UN. There are important consequences for Christian-Jewish relations in Germany and the West today. After Western antisemitism and the horrific genocide by German Nazis against the Jewish people it was extremely necessary to overcome this past by intensive Christian-Jewish dialogue. However this has become a deal to silence critique of Israel’s constant violations of international law and human rights, as pointed out by the Jewish liberation theologian Marc Ellis. In order to overcome this a theology of land respectful of human rights is needed. Churches are being called to a process of study and discernment leading to action. A special responsibility lies with the churches in Germany and the USA because their governments must link their cooperation with the State of Israel to international law and human rights.

The constitutional right to a jury trial and a fast trial: the experience of the United States, international private law, international public law

International private law and international public law are branches of law that regulate various aspects of relations between states and other subjects. Their interaction is a multifaceted process that multifacetedly reflects various aspects of relations between states and directly affects both relations between legal entities and international politics. On the one hand, these two branches of international law hav e common goals and principles, such as ensuring justice, equality and protection of human rights. On the other hand, there are differences that can lead to a conflict between the norms of these branches of law. In such cases, it is necessary to decide which norm should be applied. In the context of interaction, the question of applying the norms of international law to private law relations arises. In some cases, norms of international law can be applied directly to private law relations. In such cases, norms of international law have priority over norms of national law. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a serious violation of international law. In response to this violation, Ukraine and other countries implemented a number of measures aimed at protecting people's rights and security. It is important that the norms of international and public law continue to be applied in Ukraine to protect the rights and safety of people. Armed conflicts are usually accompanied by large-scale human rights violations, such as killings, torture and deportation. In such conditions, it is important that the norms of international and public law continue to be applied to protect the rights and safety of people. However, the application of these norms may be complicated due to the special conditions of an armed conflict. In this work, an attempt is made to outline the main aspects of the interaction between private international law and public international law from the point of view of conflict, norms and their regulation in the context of the historical approach and modern challenges.

GREECE MILITARIZATION IN AEGEAN ISLAND: AN INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE

In June 2022, President Erdogan suspended bilateral contact with Greece, citing their alleged militarization of islands in the eastern Aegean Sea, as a violation of international law. The problem that Turkey and Greece currently dealing with was caused in the first place by Greece's militarization of an island in the Aegean Sea, which was supposed to be demilitarized in the Lausanne Peace Treaty. Greece claimed that the militarization was for self-defense. In the research, the author will examine the demilitarized state of the island from the perspective of international law, and the claim that Greece has the right to act in self-defense and within the framework of world norms, as well as to make recommendations regarding what Turkey needs to do in response. The research method used is normative legal research with a case approach. Greece has indeed violated the terms of the Lausanne Peace Treat and Greece's claims of self-defense are invalid because there were no circumstances that meet the definition of self-defense. Therefore, Turkey could potentially address the matter by bringing it before the International Court of Justice.