The geographic footprint of contemporary warfare often challenges the existing understanding of the term ‘non-international armed conflict’, a term not defined in international humanitarian treaty law. This article examines whether the opening lines of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions include a geographical requirement. Controversy surrounds this question which until recently has received little attention. The customary interpretation of Common Article 3 is that it has a geographical scope of application limited to non-international armed conflicts which take place exclusively within the borders of a single member state (internal armed conflict). The 2016 ICRC Commentaries to the First Geneva Conventions challenges this traditional view and argues in favour of a broader interpretation of the scope of application of Common Article 3. This re-interpretation recently has gained traction in scholarship. The ICRC’s position serves as a possible solution to prevent a lacuna in humanitarian protection in situations where conflicts fit neither the understanding of ‘international armed conflict’ nor ‘internal armed conflict’. By evaluating the merits of the arguments posed by the ICRC, the article assesses whether the phrase ‘conflict not of an international character’, as included in Common Article 3, conclusively limits its geographical application to an armed conflict occurring within the boundaries of a single state.
相似文献This article examines whether there is a link between the legality or otherwise of an armed conflict under jus ad bellum and the subsequent conduct of the campaign under jus in bello. This is done by comparing two conflicts where the legality was not in serious dispute, the Falklands/Malvinas conflict and the Iraq War 1990–1991, and three where the legality has been questioned, Kosovo 1999, the ‘global war on terror’ and the Iraq War 2003. In looking for a common link, the author is drawn away from concerns over the jus ad bellum to doubts over the content of the relevant law governing the conduct of hostilities. Uncertainties in the law have occurred both from the extension to non-international armed conflict of ‘Hague law’, traditionally applicable only in international armed conflicts, and the overlap between human rights law and the law of armed conflict. The author concludes that there is a danger that the balance between military necessity and humanity may be disturbed so that the law will become impracticable in the cauldron of conflict to the detriment of all, soldier and civilian alike.
相似文献This article explores the implications for the protection of civilians and other vulnerable persons, of the requalification of a conflict downwards from international to non-international, focusing in particular on the changes in the characterization of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 and 2003 respectively.
Determining the legal character of an armed conflict is rooted in an inherently political interpretation of black letter treaty law. It is generally agreed that when the United States and its coalition allies entered the wars in Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, their operations in those countries were initially subject to the laws of international armed conflict. However the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has determined that the conflict in Afghanistan became noninternational with the establishment of the United States’ backed government of Hamid Karzai on 19 June 2002 and that the conflict in Iraq became non-international with the establishment of the Iraqi Interim Government on 28 June 2004. The basis for this requalification is Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions read in conjunction with an interpretation of the meaning of ‘state’ (and of its power to authorize a foreign intervention in its own territory) that is inherently, and possibly inevitably, political.
Changes in the legal characterization of a war have profound implications for the protection of both non-combatants and combatants under international humanitarian law, in particular for humanitarian access; for the protection of non-nationals from deportation; for the protection of detainees; for the conduct of hostilities; and for the protection of persons transferred into the hands of local authorities. The practical consequence of a requalification of an armed conflict downwards to non-international is a marked loss of protection for persons that were protected by the Geneva Conventions in the earlier stages of the conflict.
相似文献In this article I discuss the legality of Israel’s interception of the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010. Although Israel’s stopping, boarding and inspection of the Mavi whilst on the high seas would undoubtedly constitute a violation of the law of the sea during peace time, I examine whether this violation can be justified on the basis of international humanitarian law. Specifically, Israel asserts that it was enforcing a naval blockade. I examine the legality of this blockade. I suggest that the blockade was unlawful on the basis that customary international humanitarian law permits the use of naval blockades only in times of an international armed conflict. I argue that on 31 May 2010 Israel was not engaged in an international armed conflict with Hamas. Moreover, I submit that customary international law prohibits the use of blockades where they are intended to deny the civilian population objects essential for its survival or where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Israel argues that the intention of the blockade was to prevent war material from being delivered to Hamas fighters. This notwithstanding, I argue that because this blockade was causing a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza on 31 May 2010, it was incompatible with customary international law and therefore unlawful. Furthermore, even if the deployment of the blockade could be considered lawful, I argue that the enforcement of the blockade was unlawful because Israel’s use of force to capture the vessel went beyond what was necessary in the circumstances.
相似文献‘A book may be good for nothing; or there may be onlyone thing in it worth knowing; are we to read it all through?’(Samuel Johnson) This section is dedicated to the review ofideas, articles, books, films and other media. It will includereplies (and rejoinders) to articles, the evaluation of newideas or proposals, and reviews of books and articles both directlyand indirectly related to intellectual property law.In a recent article,1 Professor Torremans argues that the countryof origin (sometimes called the lex originis) should be thelaw applied to authorship and ownership of copyright.2 There is no doubt that several countries do apply the countryof origin to initial ownership and authorship of copyright works.Citing both the Austrian and Belgian Codes on Private InternationalLaw as examples,3 Professor Torremans also mentions the decisionof the US Second Circuit of Appeals in
- Capital liberalization was the norm of internationaleconomic relations until the Economic Depression of the 1930swhen exchange restrictions became an important instrument ofeconomic policy of many countries.
- The IMF Articles of Agreementwere the outcome of efforts by several countries to providean acceptable international legal framework that would minimizethe negative impact of exchange restrictions while at the sametime preserving the right of Member States to impose exchangerestrictions when faced with balance-of-payment problems.
- Thatposition is to a large extent maintained by most modern investmenttreaties although subject to heightened scrutiny by internationalarbitral tribunals under the disciplines of expropriation, nationaltreatment and fair and equitable treatment standards among othersin order to protect investors’ interests whilst safeguardinghost states, regulatory autonomy.
- This article looks at the various elements of thedisclosure regimes for issuers that are admitted to EEA-regulatedmarkets, including the initial requirement for the productionof a prospectus on admission and on-going requirements to discloseprice sensitive information as it arises and to make regularreports to the market.
- After a brief analysis of some of thesimilarities and differences between the various regimes, thearticle makes an attempt to reconcile the differences by lookingat each regime in the context of the others and viewing themas a continuum.
- Finally, remaining problems concerning multi-jurisdictionliability for disclosure in the EEA and potential liabilityfor forward-looking disclosure are discussed.
- European Loan Only Credit Default Swap (‘LCDS’)documentation was published by the International Swaps &Derivatives Association, Inc. in the form of a Standard TermsSupplement and Form of Confirmation for use with Credit DerivativeTransactions on Leveraged Loans on 30 July 2007 (the ‘EuropeanLCDS’).
- This article reviews some of the changes thathave been made since the first circulation of the draft EuropeanLCDS documentation on 2 May 2006 (the ‘Draft LCDS’).
- Acomparison between the Draft LCDS, the current form of the EuropeanLCDS and the US LCDS (defined in the article below) providesan insight into how the development of the European LCDS hasrequired a compromise to be made between the needs and demandsof various market participants and the specifics of the Europeanleveraged loan market (as more fully described in our recentarticle1) and indicates points of convergence between the
. . . [Full Text of this Article]
This article draws upon social science literature to offer a new assessment of the normative value of human rights law vis-à-vis international humanitarian law in territory under armed groups’ control. In particular, the article considers how the two bodies of law can be applied in a complementary manner to regulate the everyday life of civilians who are not involved in hostilities. The article demonstrates that while it might be tempting to imagine that concerns relating to rights such as the freedom of movement, the right to work or protection from common crime are completely displaced by considerations of physical security and survival in times of armed conflict, in reality this is often not the case.
相似文献- Law created by European Institutions affects businessin all areas, none more so than in the financial sector, asthe recent financial crisis has thrown into sharp relief. Notonly the Directives that shape regulation of financial businesses(outside the scope of this article), but some provisions ofthe Treaty, Directives, Regulations and Decisions affect theability of banks to do business, in their dealings with States,as well as in their dealings with commercial customers and eachother.
- Key in the financial crisis have been the Treaty ruleson State aid: these have affected the ability of States to assistfinancial institutions in difficulty and the manner in whichthey give assistance; the recognition of the global financialcrisis as creating a disturbance in the economy of many MemberStates has been central to the swift approval of rescue aidin accordance with new guidance, while reconstruction
. . . [Full Text of this Article]
- The Task Force to Modernize Securities Legislationin Canada released its report entitled ‘Canada Steps Up’in October 2006. Its 65 recommendations focused on bringingCanadian securities law into the 21st century, enhancing Canada'scompetitiveness in the global marketplace and eliminating itshigher cost of capital relative to the US.
- This article reviewsand analyses the Task Force's recommendations in five criticalareas: cost–benefit analysis (CBA), improving access tocapital markets, the use from electronic disclosure systemsand financial literacy, the regulation of hedge funds and finally,enforcement.
- This article also reviews two issues that receivedsignificant Task Force discussion, but were left as ideas forconsideration, namely an insurance scheme for misinformationin the capital markets and subsidizing securities analysis toimprove analyst coverage of small firms.
- Finally, conclusionsare drawn from the Task Force's deliberations and recommendationsand next steps are suggested.
- Remote trading screens allow investors to trade onexchanges located in other jurisdictions. The Securities andExchange Commission (‘SEC’) has generally prohibitedthe placement of foreign trading screens in the United Statesunless the associated exchange complies with US regulatory requirements.While the SEC defends its position as an essential investorprotection, European officials complain that SEC requirementsconstitute an unfair barrier to trade.
- This article arguesthat technological advances have largely mooted this contro-versy.Current requirements do not protect US investors as much asthe SEC claims nor do they inhibit competition as much as theSEC's critics assert.
- To the extent that alternative tradingmechanisms already give US investors de facto access to unregulatedforeign exchanges, the SEC may well choose to revisit its positionon foreign trading screens, particularly as US and Europeanfinancial markets become more integrated and disclosure requirementson both sides of
. . . [Full Text of this Article]