Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies最新文献

This article explores the critical issue of detainee protection in the complex landscape of contemporary non-international armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations. It examines the interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, highlighting the challenges in their application and interpretation. The article delves into the contemporary challenges faced in protecting detainees, including the involvement of non-state armed groups, extraterritorial detention practices, administrative detention, and the impact of counterterrorism measures. It proposes a multifaceted approach to enhancing detainee protection, encompassing strategies for strengthening compliance with the legal framework, addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups, and promoting best practices and capacity-building. The article argues that a comprehensive and contextualised approach, grounded in the principles of humanity and human dignity, is essential to effectively safeguard the rights and well-being of detainees in these challenging contexts.

The potential exacerbating impact of environmental damage incurred during armed conflict has gained increasing attention in regional and international fora. The links between conflict and the environment are indirect, but irrefutable. Environmental damage further has the potential to adversely affect risk factors associated with atrocity crimes. It is necessary to consider adequate environmental protections to avoid serious and negative long-lasting effects, and to prevent the exacerbation of conflicts into atrocity crimes. The vulnerability of the population generally and the environment is evident in armed conflict. This article explores the nexus between environmental damage and atrocity crimes generally before considering existing environmental protections during armed conflict and opportunities for progressive development. It argues that the enhancement of existing international legal obligations either through additional protections or improved implementation measures is necessary to protect the environment and contribute to the reduction of the risk of atrocity crimes.

This article reviews the recent publications concerning the centuries-old dispute over the Parthenon Marbles. The discussion focuses on the application of international law to the question of the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece, and reviews Professor Catharine Titi’s book The Parthenon Marbles and International Law, with reference to and comparison with Alexander Herman’s book The Parthenon Marbles Dispute. This review specifically evaluates the question of whether there is a customary international law on the return of unlawfully removed cultural heritage, which would require States, and specifically the United Kingdom, to be bound to such a rule. The existence of this rule would strengthen the efforts of Greece to argue for the return of the Marbles, which Titi argues is best resolved through diplomacy, and not recourse to the European Court of Human Rights or the International Court of Justice. Despite a growing global discussion about the need for repatriation of colonial-looted cultural objects, it remains to be seen whether it will have any impact, or indeed put pressure on, the Trustees of the British Museum or the UK Parliament which must pass an act to deaccession the Marbles from the national collection.

On 4 August 2022, Amnesty International published its report ‘Ukraine: Ukrainian Fighting Tactics Endanger Civilians’, in which it accused Ukraine of violating international humanitarian law ‘by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals’ and in this way putting civilians at risk. According to the report, ‘[s]uch tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure’. The report sparked some controversies. The question that the author attempts to answer in this article is whether there are any factual or legal arguments supporting the conclusions of the report.

The use of autonomous weapons systems (‘aws’) is the source of extensive discussions within the international legal community and beyond. After years of discussing definitions, the discourse is slowly moving on to discuss aws in light of existing law of armed conflict (‘loac’) rules. This article aims to support these discussions by providing a military legal perspective. aws offers great potential benefits to both soldiers and civilians, and control mechanisms already in place for military operations may be employed to define when and how aws can lawfully be used. aws can reduce the exposure of soldiers to dull, dirty and dangerous environments and the risk of incidental civilian harm. To exploit these potentials and ensure legality, regulators need to understand how military forces employ and control the use of force to support their operations, and military planners and decision-makers need to understand the limits of and possibilities within loac.

This review essay discusses two books: Fairness and Rights in International Criminal Procedure by Sophie Rigney and Punishing Atrocities through a Fair Trial by Jonathan Hafetz. It discusses the methods used in each book, their conceptions of fairness, and what they see as the future of fairness in international criminal law. The review argues that when the two books are read together they show how far fairness has come, where it is now, and where fairness is headed in the future.