Medical personnel are entitled to protection in armed conflicts under international law. However, that protection will be lost unless such personnel strictly comply with the requirements set out in the relevant conventions. The authors examine the protection regime available to medical personnel including the regime applicable to hospital ships and medical aircraft. The authors argue that any permanent military medical personnel who engage in hostile acts without being correctly re-assigned permanently from their medical role could be liable for their conduct under the criminal law because they do not possess combatant immunity. The difficulty in re-assigning personnel from medical to non-medical roles and vice versa is examined against the background of the concept of civilians directly participating in hostilities. The authors examine the interpretive guidance issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the significant criticism of that guidance.
{"title":"Protection of Military Medical Personnel in Armed Conflicts","authors":"P. Waard, J. Tarrant","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2269600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2269600","url":null,"abstract":"Medical personnel are entitled to protection in armed conflicts under international law. However, that protection will be lost unless such personnel strictly comply with the requirements set out in the relevant conventions. The authors examine the protection regime available to medical personnel including the regime applicable to hospital ships and medical aircraft. The authors argue that any permanent military medical personnel who engage in hostile acts without being correctly re-assigned permanently from their medical role could be liable for their conduct under the criminal law because they do not possess combatant immunity. The difficulty in re-assigning personnel from medical to non-medical roles and vice versa is examined against the background of the concept of civilians directly participating in hostilities. The authors examine the interpretive guidance issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the significant criticism of that guidance.","PeriodicalId":41927,"journal":{"name":"University of Western Australia Law Review","volume":"35 1","pages":"157-183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2013-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2269600","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68048390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2006-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781843143208-10
J. Tarrant
Failure of consideration can be either total or partial. In this paper the author examines the doctrine of accrued rights and the role it plays in relation to total failure of consideration in the contractual context. The doctrine of accrued rights is well established in Australian contract law. Rights that accrue prior to termination of a contract survive termination and can therefore be enforced after termination. The author argues that when there is a total failure of consideration the doctrine of accrued rights operates to create a debt for the amount that is the subject of the total failure of consideration. The obligation to pay the debt arises within the law of contract. This conclusion will be contrasted with those who argue that an action for recovery, and the corresponding obligation to make payment, are independent of contract.
{"title":"Total Failure of Consideration","authors":"J. Tarrant","doi":"10.4324/9781843143208-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843143208-10","url":null,"abstract":"Failure of consideration can be either total or partial. In this paper the author examines the doctrine of accrued rights and the role it plays in relation to total failure of consideration in the contractual context. The doctrine of accrued rights is well established in Australian contract law. Rights that accrue prior to termination of a contract survive termination and can therefore be enforced after termination. The author argues that when there is a total failure of consideration the doctrine of accrued rights operates to create a debt for the amount that is the subject of the total failure of consideration. The obligation to pay the debt arises within the law of contract. This conclusion will be contrasted with those who argue that an action for recovery, and the corresponding obligation to make payment, are independent of contract.","PeriodicalId":41927,"journal":{"name":"University of Western Australia Law Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"132-152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70477440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Statutory limitations periods can bar claims to recover stolen artworks. In doing this, Australian limitations law generally does not consider the conduct of either a dispossessed owner or current possessor of a stolen work. This paper compares Australian, English and US law on the issue and argues that recent reform suggestions should be extended so Australian law does encourage all art market actors to be diligent in their dealings with works that may have been stolen.
{"title":"Recovering Stolen Art ? Australian, English and Us Law on Limitations of Action","authors":"A. Kenyon, Simon Mackenzie","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.307980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.307980","url":null,"abstract":"Statutory limitations periods can bar claims to recover stolen artworks. In doing this, Australian limitations law generally does not consider the conduct of either a dispossessed owner or current possessor of a stolen work. This paper compares Australian, English and US law on the issue and argues that recent reform suggestions should be extended so Australian law does encourage all art market actors to be diligent in their dealings with works that may have been stolen.","PeriodicalId":41927,"journal":{"name":"University of Western Australia Law Review","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68549056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：