Humanitarians are saviours, people employed by organisations that were created to provide neutral and professional help in times of conflict, disaster, or other emergencies. We assume that we can trust the humanitarians. This, at least, is the theory of humanitarianism. However, news outlets depict the actions of humanitarians somewhat differently. The accusations levied at humanitarian actors, including Oxfam and the ICRC within the past three years, include that individuals have committed crimes against those they are meant to be helping, organisations have swept said abhorrent behaviour under the rug, and that the consequences for the individuals concerned are, at worst, being ‘let go’ or demoted. These scandals have besmirched the reputation of the humanitarian profession. In some instances, the scandals have undermined perceptions of humanitarian actors and, consequently, mired funding for the important work that they do. Although a multitude of actors’ act in the same spaces and places, including in armed conflict and disasters, only some are subject to accountability and responsibility on the international stage. Our question is what can and could be done at the international level to address the accusations and, in some cases, unlawful behaviour? This article explores avenues within and outside of the international legal system to ensure responsibility of those embroiled in illegal acts.
{"title":"International Non-State Humanitarian Actors outside of the International Legal System: Can there be any Legal Consequences for Humanitarian Actors?","authors":"Scarlett Mcardle, Christy Shucksmith-Wesley","doi":"10.1093/JCSL/KRAB018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JCSL/KRAB018","url":null,"abstract":"Humanitarians are saviours, people employed by organisations that were created to provide neutral and professional help in times of conflict, disaster, or other emergencies. We assume that we can trust the humanitarians. This, at least, is the theory of humanitarianism. However, news outlets depict the actions of humanitarians somewhat differently. The accusations levied at humanitarian actors, including Oxfam and the ICRC within the past three years, include that individuals have committed crimes against those they are meant to be helping, organisations have swept said abhorrent behaviour under the rug, and that the consequences for the individuals concerned are, at worst, being ‘let go’ or demoted. These scandals have besmirched the reputation of the humanitarian profession. In some instances, the scandals have undermined perceptions of humanitarian actors and, consequently, mired funding for the important work that they do. Although a multitude of actors’ act in the same spaces and places, including in armed conflict and disasters, only some are subject to accountability and responsibility on the international stage. Our question is what can and could be done at the international level to address the accusations and, in some cases, unlawful behaviour? This article explores avenues within and outside of the international legal system to ensure responsibility of those embroiled in illegal acts.","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45920382","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}
{"title":"Stuart Casey-Maslen and Tobias Vestner, A Guide to International Disarmament Law.","authors":"Christopher P. Evans","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/krab016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krab016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41648423","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}
The nuclear sharing arrangements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are arrangements that pre-date the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This article revisits the nuclear sharing arrangements in light of the NPT, then examines the issues in light of a new treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The question of the compatibility between these arrangements and the NPT was initially solved by an understanding that the stationing of the US nuclear weapons in host States did not involve transfer of ownership or transfer of control of these weapons to host States. Compared to the initial acceptance of this interpretation, the contemporary acceptance is less solid. The nuclear sharing arrangements are questioned or criticised in the NPT Review process, both by non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-weapon States. In contrast, with regard to the TPNW, there seems to be no controversy; the TPNW explicitly provides that the States Parties must not allow stationing of nuclear weapons. The nuclear sharing arrangements would be incompatible with this prohibition. The article also briefly deals with a separate question, whether a client State of extended nuclear deterrence that does not allow stationing of nuclear weapons in its territory would also contravene the prohibitions in the TPNW. Given the scope and the nature of provisions of the TPNW, the article concludes that it would, if such a client State joins the treaty without a change in its policy regarding extended deterrence.
{"title":"NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Arrangements Revisited in Light of the NPT and the TPNW","authors":"Mika Hayashi","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/krab015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krab015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The nuclear sharing arrangements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are arrangements that pre-date the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This article revisits the nuclear sharing arrangements in light of the NPT, then examines the issues in light of a new treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The question of the compatibility between these arrangements and the NPT was initially solved by an understanding that the stationing of the US nuclear weapons in host States did not involve transfer of ownership or transfer of control of these weapons to host States. Compared to the initial acceptance of this interpretation, the contemporary acceptance is less solid. The nuclear sharing arrangements are questioned or criticised in the NPT Review process, both by non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-weapon States. In contrast, with regard to the TPNW, there seems to be no controversy; the TPNW explicitly provides that the States Parties must not allow stationing of nuclear weapons. The nuclear sharing arrangements would be incompatible with this prohibition. The article also briefly deals with a separate question, whether a client State of extended nuclear deterrence that does not allow stationing of nuclear weapons in its territory would also contravene the prohibitions in the TPNW. Given the scope and the nature of provisions of the TPNW, the article concludes that it would, if such a client State joins the treaty without a change in its policy regarding extended deterrence.","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48513056","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}
This article focuses on a specific issue that emerged in the Arbitral Award on the Enrica Lexie case delivered in May 2020. The dispute involved Italy and India in relation to the killings of Indian fishermen by Italian marines in the waters outside India. The incident raised several legal issues concerning the application of the law of the sea, the legal determination of anti-piracy actions by States and jurisdictional immunities. The purpose of this article is to focus on one specific issue that emerges from this case: the uncertain legal status of security personnel deployed on private vessels in relation to anti-piracy protection. The first part of the article shall consider the status of military personnel deployed on merchant ships for anti-piracy protection. The problem is central to the matter because, depending on the definition of their status, limitations on the exercise of jurisdiction by other States may emerge. The second part of this article discusses more broadly the status of military and private security personnel in actions that could be defined as ‘international policing or security’ activities, which should be better clarified through better international cooperation, exchange of information and clear rules. A more defined legal setting for anti-piracy activities would prevent possible future disputes in similar cases. Furthermore, it would be useful to have clearer rules that could be applied also to face other types of crimes that occur on the sea.
{"title":"The Enrica Lexie Incident and the Status of Anti-Piracy Security Personnel on Board","authors":"M. Odello","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/krab014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krab014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article focuses on a specific issue that emerged in the Arbitral Award on the Enrica Lexie case delivered in May 2020. The dispute involved Italy and India in relation to the killings of Indian fishermen by Italian marines in the waters outside India. The incident raised several legal issues concerning the application of the law of the sea, the legal determination of anti-piracy actions by States and jurisdictional immunities. The purpose of this article is to focus on one specific issue that emerges from this case: the uncertain legal status of security personnel deployed on private vessels in relation to anti-piracy protection. The first part of the article shall consider the status of military personnel deployed on merchant ships for anti-piracy protection. The problem is central to the matter because, depending on the definition of their status, limitations on the exercise of jurisdiction by other States may emerge. The second part of this article discusses more broadly the status of military and private security personnel in actions that could be defined as ‘international policing or security’ activities, which should be better clarified through better international cooperation, exchange of information and clear rules. A more defined legal setting for anti-piracy activities would prevent possible future disputes in similar cases. Furthermore, it would be useful to have clearer rules that could be applied also to face other types of crimes that occur on the sea.","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47957614","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}
{"title":"Craig Jones, The War Lawyers: The United States, Israel, and Juridical Warfare","authors":"A. Sari","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/krab010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krab010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48882417","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}
This article considers the international law categories of unfriendly acts and retorsion in the modern context. To date, these categories articulating the freedoms that States enjoy below the threshold of international wrongfulness have received little attention in academic debate. But we consider both categories are of increasing relevance in the context of modern international conflict (in the broadest sense) and inter-State competition, particularly in relation to the regulation of hostile cyber activity between States. Unfriendly acts denotes State activity which, while lawful as a matter of international law, would nonetheless not be welcomed by the States it targets. Retorsion covers another sub-set of lawful but unfriendly State activity, substantively the same as unfriendly acts but done in response to prior unwelcome acts of other States. Having defined these categories, including by reference to a survey of contemporary State practice and judicial treatment, this article then considers why their utility and relevance to States are increasing. The article ends on the cautionary note that while unfriendly acts and retorsion may be increasingly necessary and desirable to States as international law tools as hostile activity occupies more of the space below forcible acts, they equally need to be properly understood and ‘handled with care’ by international lawyers, to ensure they are not bestowed with legal characteristics they do not possess, unduly constraining States in the process. The risk of misuse of these categories by States also needs to be kept in mind.
{"title":"‘Antisocial Behaviour, Unfriendly Relations’: Assessing the Contemporary Value of the Categories of Unfriendly Acts and Retorsion in International Law","authors":"N. McDonald, Anna McLeod","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/krab011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krab011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article considers the international law categories of unfriendly acts and retorsion in the modern context. To date, these categories articulating the freedoms that States enjoy below the threshold of international wrongfulness have received little attention in academic debate. But we consider both categories are of increasing relevance in the context of modern international conflict (in the broadest sense) and inter-State competition, particularly in relation to the regulation of hostile cyber activity between States. Unfriendly acts denotes State activity which, while lawful as a matter of international law, would nonetheless not be welcomed by the States it targets. Retorsion covers another sub-set of lawful but unfriendly State activity, substantively the same as unfriendly acts but done in response to prior unwelcome acts of other States. Having defined these categories, including by reference to a survey of contemporary State practice and judicial treatment, this article then considers why their utility and relevance to States are increasing. The article ends on the cautionary note that while unfriendly acts and retorsion may be increasingly necessary and desirable to States as international law tools as hostile activity occupies more of the space below forcible acts, they equally need to be properly understood and ‘handled with care’ by international lawyers, to ensure they are not bestowed with legal characteristics they do not possess, unduly constraining States in the process. The risk of misuse of these categories by States also needs to be kept in mind.","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48541070","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}
{"title":"Jennifer Trahan, Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes","authors":"Ben L. Murphy","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/krab009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krab009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48080956","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}
{"title":"Emmanuel H. D. De Groof, State Renaissance for Peace: Transitional Governance under International Law","authors":"M. Saul","doi":"10.1093/JCSL/KRAB008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JCSL/KRAB008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/JCSL/KRAB008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45067699","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}
This Article explores the limits of judicial settlement of nuclear-weapon disputes through a case study of the Marshall Islands’ cases against India, Pakistan and the UK before the International Court of Justice in 2016. It posits that judicial settlement is limited mainly by the quality of the arguments and evidence submitted by the disputants, not by any limitations inherent in judicial settlement with such politically sensitive disputes. The lawyers in the Marshall Islands’ cases should have taken greater care in crafting their arguments and in tying them explicitly to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its customary equivalent.
{"title":"Deconstructing Dud Disarmament Disputes","authors":"J. D. Fry, S. Nair","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/kraa023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/kraa023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This Article explores the limits of judicial settlement of nuclear-weapon disputes through a case study of the Marshall Islands’ cases against India, Pakistan and the UK before the International Court of Justice in 2016. It posits that judicial settlement is limited mainly by the quality of the arguments and evidence submitted by the disputants, not by any limitations inherent in judicial settlement with such politically sensitive disputes. The lawyers in the Marshall Islands’ cases should have taken greater care in crafting their arguments and in tying them explicitly to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its customary equivalent.","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jcsl/kraa023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44207804","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}
The preliminary examination of Colombia is widely regarded as a successful instance of positive complementarity. Under the watchful eye of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), Colombian authorities have implemented comprehensive reforms and negotiated peace with the country’s main rebellion. That said, how much credit can the International Criminal Court (ICC) claim for these outcomes? And how did ICC–state relations develop over time? Drawing on in-person interviews carried out during a research trip to Bogotá, this article conducts a within-case analysis of the situation of Colombia over fourteen years (2004–18), seeking to explore the motives underlying state compliance with ICC treaty obligations and trace the evolution of ICC–state relations throughout two consecutive administrations of opposite political color. Unsurprisingly, state elites and transitional justice experts push back against the idea that the OTP has held state authorities accountable to domestic and international legal obligations through its lasting monitoring and involvement in internal affairs. Besides, while participants in this study agree on the timeliness of ICC intervention, they are split on their assessments of the Court’s performance. Finally, interviewees tend to agree that, upon giving ‘green light’ to the finalized peace accords in early September 2016, the ICC has at best a marginal role in Colombia’s politics..
{"title":"El Coco Does Not Frighten Anymore: ICC Scrutiny and State Cooperation in Colombia","authors":"Marco Bocchese","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/kraa013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/kraa013","url":null,"abstract":"The preliminary examination of Colombia is widely regarded as a successful instance of positive complementarity. Under the watchful eye of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), Colombian authorities have implemented comprehensive reforms and negotiated peace with the country’s main rebellion. That said, how much credit can the International Criminal Court (ICC) claim for these outcomes? And how did ICC–state relations develop over time? Drawing on in-person interviews carried out during a research trip to Bogotá, this article conducts a within-case analysis of the situation of Colombia over fourteen years (2004–18), seeking to explore the motives underlying state compliance with ICC treaty obligations and trace the evolution of ICC–state relations throughout two consecutive administrations of opposite political color. Unsurprisingly, state elites and transitional justice experts push back against the idea that the OTP has held state authorities accountable to domestic and international legal obligations through its lasting monitoring and involvement in internal affairs. Besides, while participants in this study agree on the timeliness of ICC intervention, they are split on their assessments of the Court’s performance. Finally, interviewees tend to agree that, upon giving ‘green light’ to the finalized peace accords in early September 2016, the ICC has at best a marginal role in Colombia’s politics..","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jcsl/kraa013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42355341","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：