دور القانون الدولي الإنساني في حماية الأسرى في أثناء النزاعات المسلحة : قراءة في اتفاقية جنيف الثالثة : دراسة قانونية = The Role of International Humanitarian Law in the Protection of Prisoners during Armed Conflict : Reading in the Third Geneva Convention

2019 ◽  
pp. 19-36
Author(s):  
حميد ، عبد الوهاب كريم
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Third

Prisoners of War: A Comparative Study of the Principles of International Humanitarian Law and the Islamic Law of War

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed El Zeidy ◽  
Ray Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Law Of War ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Individual

AbstractThe treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) has been an issue of concern to all those engaged in armed conflict for centuries. The problem of how to deal with POWs is not a new one and their treatment is a question with which the laws of war have been particularly concerned. Not all persons captured in the course of armed conflict are entitled to POW status. Generally, only persons recognized as "combatants" in accordance with international humanitarian law are entitled to POW status upon capture by an adverse party in armed conflict. Under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, POWs are the responsibility of the capturing power from the moment of capture, and not of the individual or military units, which actually capture them. POWs must at all times be humanely treated and the Third Convention provides clear rules in relation to their camps, quarters, food and clothing. The principles embodied in the Islamic Law of War also provide a comprehensive framework for the protection of POWs. Nevertheless, there are some important differences between Islamic Law of War and the principles contained in the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations, especially in relation to triggering the application of the laws of war and the concept of armed conflict. What is most striking is the similarity in the protection provided by both legal frameworks. However, the single biggest challenge to both regimes remains the implementation of the relevant principles.

Thresholds in Flux—the Standard for Ascertaining the Requirement of Organization for Armed Groups under International Humanitarian Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutaka Arai-Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Threshold Condition ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Abstract The requirement of organization is supposed to be of special importance in international humanitarian law (IHL). In the situation of international armed conflict (IAC), this requirement is implicit as part of the collective conditions to be fulfilled by irregular/independent armed groups to enable their members to claim the prisoners of war status under Article 4 A(2) of the Third Geneva Convention. In a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), the eponymous requirement serves, alongside the requirement of intensity of violence, as the threshold condition for ascertaining the onset of a NIAC. While the requirement of organization has not caused much of disputes in IACs, the international criminal tribunals have shown a willingness to examine scrupulously if armed groups in NIACs are sufficiently organized. Still, this article argues that there is need for a nuanced assessment of the organizational level of an armed group in some specific phases of the ongoing armed conflict whose legal character switches (from an NIAC to an IAC, vice-versa, and from a NIAC to a law-enforcement model). It explores what rationales and argumentative model may be adduced to explain such varying standards for organization in different contexts.

Health Care Providers in War and Armed Conflict: Operational and Educational Challenges in International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions, Part I. Historical Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick M. Burkle ◽  
Adam L. Kushner ◽  
Christos Giannou ◽  
Mary A. Paterson ◽  
Sherry M. Wren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
The Impact

AbstractSince 1945, the reason for humanitarian crises and the way in which the world responds to them has dramatically changed every 10 to 15 years or less. Planning, response, and recovery for these tragic events have often been ad hoc, inconsistent, and insufficient, largely because of the complexity of global humanitarian demands and their corresponding response system capabilities. This historical perspective chronicles the transformation of war and armed conflicts from the Cold War to today, emphasizing the impact these events have had on humanitarian professionals and their struggle to adapt to increasing humanitarian, operational, and political challenges. An unprecedented independent United Nations–World Health Organization decision in the Battle for Mosul in Iraq to deploy to combat zones emergency medical teams unprepared in the skills of decades-tested war and armed conflict preparation and response afforded to health care providers and dictated by International Humanitarian Law and Geneva Convention protections has abruptly challenged future decision-making and deployments. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:109–115)

Applying Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions to the United Nations Forces

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 234-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artem Sergeev
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Hostile Environments

Following the widespread participation of United Nations (UN) forces in hostile environments, this article aims to expand the obligations of the UN under International Humanitarian Law. The article argues that Additional Protocol II (AP II) to the Geneva Conventions can bind UN forces, even though the UN is not formally a party thereto. The argument is built on three distinct legal issues: the first issue is whether the UN’s involvement in a conflict internationalizes a non-international armed conflict; the second issue is the legal nature of the UN’s obligations under AP II, which will be explained through two legal theories of indirect consent; and the third issue is the conformity of UN forces to the criteria of an armed group outlined in AP II. The article concludes that if UN forces meet certain conditions, as will be outlined herein, they should be bound by the provisions contained in AP II.

scholarly journals La Réparation Individuelle en Application des Mécanismes Prévus par le Droit International Humanitaire

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 431
Author(s):  
Sophie Rondeau
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Present State ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Droit International ◽  
The Right ◽  
Droit International Humanitaire

Le présent article fait état d’un questionnement sur l’état actuel du rôle des normes juridiques émanant du système de droit international humanitaire (DIH) en ce qui a trait au droit à la réparation, en prenant soin de mettre la personne en tant que victime de la guerre au centre de notre réflexion. En considérant la notion de réparation sous l’angle de la victime comme un tout à décrire et à analyser, nous cherchons à savoir s’il existe un droit à la réparation que possède la victime d’un conflit armé régi par le droit international humanitaire. Le fondement même de cette recherche s’appuie donc sur le cadre normatif conventionnel du DIH régissant la notion de réparation, que cette dernière accorde ou non un droit à une victime.This paper presents a series of questions on the present state of the role of judicial standards arising from the system of international humanitarian law [IHL] as regards the right to compensation, by making it a point to place the person as a war victim at the center of our reflection. In considering the concept of compensation from the angle of the victim as a whole, we seek to know whether there exists a right to compensation to which the victim of an armed conflict governed by international humanitarian law is entitled. The very foundation of this research is thus based on the conventional normative framework of IHL governing the concept of compensation, whether or not it grants a right to a victim.

The Role of Necessity in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Current Article ◽  
The Relationship

The nature of armed conflict has changed dramatically in recent decades. In particular, it is increasingly the case that hostilities now occur alongside ‘everyday’ situations. This has led to a pressing need to determine when a ‘conduct of hostilities’ model (governed by international humanitarian law – IHL) applies and when a ‘law enforcement’ model (governed by international human rights law – IHRL) applies. This, in turn, raises the question of whether these two legal regimes are incompatible or whether they might be applied in parallel. It is on this question that the current article focuses, examining it at the level of principle. Whilst most accounts of the principles underlying these two areas of law focus on humanitarian considerations, few have compared the role played by necessity in each. This article seeks to address this omission. It demonstrates that considerations of necessity play a prominent role in both IHL and IHRL, albeit with differing consequences. It then applies this necessity-based analysis to suggest a principled basis for rationalising the relationship between IHL and IHRL, demonstrating how this approach would operate in practice. It is shown that, by emphasising the role of necessity in IHL and IHRL, an approach can be adopted that reconciles the two in a manner that is sympathetic to their object and purpose.

scholarly journals Non-State Armed Groups, Detention Authority in Non-International Armed Conflict, and the Coherence of International Law: Searching for a Way Forward

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
DARAGH MURRAY
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Current State ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractInternational humanitarian law establishes explicit safeguards applicable to detention occurring in non-international armed conflict. However, debate exists as to whether these treaty provisions establish an implicit legal basis for detention. This article approaches this debate in light of the application of international humanitarian law to non-state armed groups. It examines the principal arguments against implicit detention authority and then applies the law of treaty interpretation to international humanitarian law's detention-related provisions. On the basis of current understandings of international law – and the prohibition of arbitrary detention in particular – it is concluded that international humanitarian law must be interpreted as establishing implicit detention authority, in order to ensure the continued regulation of armed groups. Although, perhaps, problematic from certain states’ perspective, this conclusion is reflective of the current state of international law. However, this is not necessarily the end of the story. A number of potential ‘ways forward’ are identified: implicit detention authority may be (i) rejected; (ii) accepted; or (iii) re-examined in light of the non-state status of armed groups, and what this means for the content of the prohibition of arbitrary detention. These scenarios are examined in light of the desire to ensure: the coherency of international law including recognition of the role of armed groups, the continued effectiveness of international humanitarian law, and state sovereignty. An emphasis is placed on understanding the non-state status of armed groups and what this means for international regulation and the content of imposed obligations.

Mexico’s Drug War, International Jurisprudence, and the Role of Non-International Armed Conflict Status

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Wotherspoon
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Geographic Area ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Drug War ◽  
Public Rhetoric ◽  
The Public ◽  
Drug Violence

When the Calderon Administration escalated anti-drug efforts in 2006, drug-related violence in Mexico reached unprecedented levels. The growing intensity of drug-related violence has led to uncertainty over how to classify the violence spreading across Mexico. Much of the public rhetoric argues that Mexico’s drug-related violence has surpassed that which typically characterizes the drug trade and is instead more similar to armed conflict. Due to the changing landscape of Mexican drug violence, an assessment of whether or not the conflict meets the requisite conditions for a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) is needed to determine if the application of international humanitarian law is appropriate. This paper argues that Mexico’s Drug War meets the conditions for NIAC status and application of IHL is appropriate. The question of how to respond to drug-related violence is becoming increasingly relevant as the effects of such violence extends to a more diverse geographic area within Mexico. NIAC status plays a central role in the future of anti-drug policy and has the potential to prompt significant changes in the handling of drug-related violence in Mexico. This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive answer to this question and identify the potential implications that recognition as a NIAC will have on Mexican anti-drug policy.

Refugees and internally displaced persons — International humanitarian law and the role of the ICRC

1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (305) ◽  
pp. 162-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Philippe Lavoyer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Internally Displaced Persons ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Displaced Persons ◽  
Internally Displaced ◽  
Geneva Conventions

The main purpose of this brief study is to show the importance of international humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, for internally displaced persons, i.e. persons displaced within their own country, and to refugees, i.e. persons who have fled their country. Not only does this body of international law protect them when they are victims of armed conflict, but its rules — if scrupulously applied — would make it possible to avoid the majority of displacements.

Women, Security, and Peace: A Reading in Resolution 1325

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 288-303
Author(s):  
SINAN RASHID ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Violence ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Know How ◽  
The Past

security and peace are two concepts closely related to the rights of women, especially in the past two decades. In October 2000, Resolution 1325 was issued by the United Nations Security Council regarding women and armed conflicts, based on the role that women can play in building peace and achieving security, whether on the basis of The national or international level, especially that the women most affected during wars and armed conflicts, and some jurisprudential opinions began to take their way into international legislation and the rules of international humanitarian law regarding the protection of non-combatants and civilians in general and women in particular, and the Geneva Convention in 1949 and its annex to the Second Geneva Convention in 1949went 1977 to the necessity of protecting women against any assault, physical violence, or humiliation of all kinds. Therefore, the importance of the topic lies in knowing the role of Resolution in protecting women's rights, not to mention the need to know how women play a role in preserving international peace

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document