Humanitarian Law Compliance

R. Alley
{"title":"Humanitarian Law Compliance","authors":"R. Alley","doi":"10.1163/18781527-BJA10032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Ensuring humanitarian law compliance and repression of its violations receives constant reiteration but to mixed effect. While international judicial, jurisprudential and investigatory modalities have advanced, requisite State level competencies exhibit marked variability. This paper devotes most attention to disadvantaged States – those that, for whatever reason, lack the judicial, institutional or administrative capacity to ensure humanitarian law compliance and repression of its violations. Here a profile of 46 States is selected for review, 20 of which are identified as impacted by previous or continuing forms of armed conflict. Data from the World Justice Project’s 2020 Rule of Law Index is utilised. Chosen indicators assess individual State legislative, judicial, due process, and criminal investigatory capacities as perceived and recorded by local publics and individual experts. A comparative evaluation of this data reveals differences within profiles of disadvantaged States. They are investigated to better comprehend humanitarian law compliance challenges facing such States. They include international cooperation, utilisation of amnesties, and the conduct of armed non-state actors. The paper’s central thesis is that humanitarian law compliance, and repression of its violations, remains inadequate without remediation of the capacity impediments evident in disadvantaged States.","PeriodicalId":41905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-BJA10032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ensuring humanitarian law compliance and repression of its violations receives constant reiteration but to mixed effect. While international judicial, jurisprudential and investigatory modalities have advanced, requisite State level competencies exhibit marked variability. This paper devotes most attention to disadvantaged States – those that, for whatever reason, lack the judicial, institutional or administrative capacity to ensure humanitarian law compliance and repression of its violations. Here a profile of 46 States is selected for review, 20 of which are identified as impacted by previous or continuing forms of armed conflict. Data from the World Justice Project’s 2020 Rule of Law Index is utilised. Chosen indicators assess individual State legislative, judicial, due process, and criminal investigatory capacities as perceived and recorded by local publics and individual experts. A comparative evaluation of this data reveals differences within profiles of disadvantaged States. They are investigated to better comprehend humanitarian law compliance challenges facing such States. They include international cooperation, utilisation of amnesties, and the conduct of armed non-state actors. The paper’s central thesis is that humanitarian law compliance, and repression of its violations, remains inadequate without remediation of the capacity impediments evident in disadvantaged States.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
遵守人道主义法
确保遵守人道主义法和镇压违反人道主义法的行为不断得到重申,但效果喜忧参半。虽然国际司法、法理和调查模式已经取得进展,但国家一级的必要能力表现出明显的可变性。本文件主要关注处境不利的国家,这些国家无论出于何种原因,都缺乏确保遵守和制止违反人道主义法行为的司法、体制或行政能力。这里选择了46个国家进行审查,其中20个国家被确定为受到先前或持续形式武装冲突的影响。使用了世界正义项目2020年法治指数的数据。选定的指标评估当地公众和个人专家所感知和记录的国家立法、司法、正当程序和刑事调查能力。对这些数据的比较评估显示,处于不利地位的国家的情况各不相同。对它们进行调查是为了更好地了解这些国家在遵守人道主义法方面面临的挑战。其中包括国际合作、大赦的利用以及非国家武装行为者的行为。该文件的核心论点是,如果不补救弱势国家明显存在的能力障碍,遵守人道主义法和镇压违反人道主义法的行为仍然不够。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies is a peer reviewed journal aimed at promoting the rule of law in humanitarian emergency situations and, in particular, the protection and assistance afforded to persons in the event of armed conflicts and natural disasters in all phases and facets under international law. The Journal welcomes submissions in the areas of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international refugee law and international law relating to disaster response. In addition, other areas of law can be identified including, but not limited to the norms regulating the prevention of humanitarian emergency situations, the law concerning internally displaced persons, arms control and disarmament law, legal issues relating to human security, and the implementation and enforcement of humanitarian norms. The Journal´s objective is to further the understanding of these legal areas in their own right as well as in their interplay. The Journal encourages writing beyond the theoretical level taking into account the practical implications from the perspective of those who are or may be affected by humanitarian emergency situations. The Journal aims at and seeks the perspective of academics, government and organisation officials, military lawyers, practitioners working in the humanitarian (legal) field, as well as students and other individuals interested therein.
期刊最新文献
Lessons from the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: The Plight of Diaspora Fighters in Levées en Masse Proportionality in Bello: A Case Against Indirect Military Advantage in War Environmental Protections During Armed Conflict as Supportive Mechanisms for the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes Safeguarding the Vulnerable: A Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Detainees in Contemporary Non-International Armed Conflicts and Counterterrorism Operations Demokratia: Will the Greek Ideal Work in Greece’s Favour to Return the Parthenon Marbles under International Law?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1