scholarly journals Hysteresis of targeting civilians in armed conflicts

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Uih Ran Lee

This article explores warring groups’ intentional targeting behavior against civilians, a strictly prohibited war strategy by international norms. Using dynamic panel regressions run on a comprehensive dataset of contemporary warfare, which covers 22 years (1989-2010), I find that warring actors involved in prolonged armed (15-22 years) conflict target civilians more often than those involved in shorter-duration warfare. Also, for warring groups engaged in prolonged armed conflict, lethal behavior against civilians tends to be intensified if targeting is repeated over time, although this hysteresis effect appears to persist only for one year. It is hypothesized that the mounting war cost of prolonged conflict inclines warring groups toward the presumably cheaper targeting of noncombatant civilians rather than battling combatant military or other armed personnel. [JEL code: F51]

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-336
Author(s):  
Sabin Guţan

Abstract The armed conflict in Ukraine raises questions about the typology of armed conflicts and the application of international humanitarian law in modern armed conflicts. Many controversies are found at international level regarding the involvement of other countries in the armed conflict in Ukraine. In this study we intend to analyse facts and international norms regarding the armed conflict in Ukraine and establish the kind of conflict and therefore what the applicable rules of international law are.


2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne

AbstractThis article offers a fresh examination of the distinction drawn in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. In particular, it considers this issue from the under-explored perspective of the influence of international human rights law (IHRL). It is demonstrated how, over time, the effect of IHRL on this distinction in IHL has changed dramatically. Whereas traditionally IHRL encouraged the partial elimination of the distinction between types of armed conflict, more recently it has been invoked in debates in a manner that would preserve what remains of the distinction. By exploring this important issue, it is hoped that the present article will contribute to the ongoing debates regarding the future development of the law of non-international armed conflict.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
D. A. Abgadzhava ◽  
A. S. Vlaskina

War is an essential part of the social reality inherent in all stages of human development: from the primitive communal system to the present, where advanced technologies and social progress prevail. However, these characteristics do not make our society more peaceful, on the contrary, according to recent research and reality, now the number of wars and armed conflicts have increased, and most of the conflicts have a pronounced local intra-state character. Thus, wars in the classical sense of them go back to the past, giving way to military and armed conflicts. Now the number of soldiers and the big army doesn’t show the opponents strength. What is more important is the fact that people can use technology, the ideological and informational base to win the war. According to the history, «weak» opponent can be more successful in conflict if he has greater cohesion and ideological unity. Modern wars have already transcended the political boundaries of states, under the pressure of certain trends, they are transformed into transnational wars, that based on privatization, commercialization and obtaining revenue. Thus, the present paper will show a difference in understanding of terms such as «war», «military conflict» and «armed conflict». And also the auteurs will tell about the image of modern war and forecasts for its future transformation.


Author(s):  
Danil Sergeev

The article evaluates current conditions of international criminalization of offences relating to cultural property and makes a brief historical review of developing international protection of cultural property and elaborating a corresponding notion. Having analyzed the international instruments, the author concludes that offences relating to cultural property may include deliberate seizure, appropriation, demolition as well as any other forms of destruction or damage to objects and items protected under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict committed during international and non-international armed conflicts. These offences do not include such possible acts toward universal cultural values committed either beyond any armed conflict or without direct connection with it. Taking the examples of destruction of Buddhas of Bamiyan, Nimrud, Palmyra, and mausoleums of Timbuktu, the author states that international criminalization of offences relating to cultural property is insufficient, because it does not encompass such cases when objects or items of cultural value are damaged or destroyed under the control of national administrations or with their knowledge.


Author(s):  
Ilias Plakokefalos

This chapter explores the problems that environmental damage in armed conflict pose to the determination of shared responsibility, and especially the determination of reparations, in the context of the jus post bellum. When two actors are engaged in armed conflict, there arise no serious issues as to sharing responsibility for violations. But the fact that modern armed conflicts often involve more than two actors (e.g. Libya 2011) complicates the matters arising out of environmental harm, as there may be two or more actors contributing to the same harmful event. This is a typical situation of shared responsibility. Shared responsibility provides that the problem of reparations for environmental harm is to be examined in situations where there is a multiplicity of actors that contribute to a single harmful outcome. This definition covers the breach of obligations under jus ad bellum and jus in bello, as well as under international environmental law.


Author(s):  
Christopher Tuck

This chapter charts the key developments in European land warfare since 1900. On the one hand, it is possible to identify overarching explanatory ideas, metanarratives, that can be used to identify continuities in development over time across Europe’s armies. These include the concept of ‘modern system’ land warfare and the ‘transformation paradigm’. However, as this chapter also shows, these two points of continuity do not mean either that European armies are homogenous, or that their conceptual assumptions are uncontested. European land warfare remains a heterogeneous phenomenon, shaped by the variety in national contexts and by contending debates on how appropriate Europe’s armies are to the actual challenges of contemporary and future armed conflict.


Author(s):  
Ian Park

The introduction sets out the broad questions to be addressed, namely: do states have right to life obligations during armed conflict; if so, what are these obligations; when do they apply, and in respect of whom; and how can states best ensure compliance with these obligations? The introduction also provides a précis of each chapter and the themes explored therein. Additionally, it makes reference to the fact that UK armed forces doctrine and procedures in respect of recent armed conflicts will be used as examples to explore the issues under consideration in the book. The aim is also to proffer a view on where the current UK procedures do not comply with the state’s right to life obligations and how this can be rectified.


Author(s):  
Kubo Mačák

This chapter analyses the legal qualification of complex conflict situations that feature more than two conflict parties. It examines whether such situations qualify as a single internationalized armed conflict or a number of independent international and non-international armed conflicts. With this in mind, this chapter puts forward a model based on the retention of autonomy of the allied conflict parties. It argues that once the autonomy is foregone and replaced with a single use of force by the parties, the law of international armed conflict applies ‘globally’ to the situation at hand. However, until that moment, the situation should be seen as ‘mixed’; in other words, as a set of mutually independent conflict pairs.


Author(s):  
Kubo Mačák

This chapter introduces the central aim of this book: to provide a comprehensive examination of the notion, process, and effects of internationalization of armed conflicts in international law. It presents a brief research overview, outlining the scope of the enquiry, the research methodology, and the structure of the book. It then lays out the conceptual and normative framework for the rest of the book. To that end, it first justifies the need for the present study by confirming the continuing distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts in international law. Then, it puts forward a conception of internationalization that expresses the legal transformation from a non-international to an international armed conflict.


Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser

The first chapter opens the substantive analysis of the organization requirement for non-state parties to armed conflicts. First, it briefly examines why the laws of war have originally been state-focused, and shows how this state focus coined international law requirements of main characteristics of a party to an armed conflict. Second, it analyses how philosophers broadened the legal notion of ‘war’ as to include conflicts involving certain non-state entities. Subsequently, this chapter examines state practice to identify which qualities a non-state armed group needed to possess to obtain the ‘belligerent’ status. It also examines the question of which kind of entities could qualify as ‘insurgents’ or ‘rebels’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document