{"title":"重新评价习惯国际人道主义法中对敌方平民的报复行为","authors":"Lindsay Moir","doi":"10.1163/18781527-bja10095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Belligerent reprisals are a controversial and largely discredited mechanism for the enforcement of international humanitarian law. Additional Protocol <jats:sc>i</jats:sc> of 1977 prohibits a range of reprisal activity, including reprisals against enemy civilians. A (relatively small) number of States are not Parties to Additional Protocol <jats:sc>i</jats:sc>, whilst some States Parties have made declarations and/or reservations to the Protocol which could be seen as attempts to limit the operation of the prohibition. Its status as a rule of customary international law is therefore an important question. This article argues that opposition to the prohibition in customary law is neither as widespread nor consistent as has previously been suggested and that the weight of evidence points towards the existence (or development) of a customary prohibition. Consistent opposition by the UK and the US, however, makes it unlikely that the customary prohibition would be opposable to those particular States.","PeriodicalId":41905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reappraising Reprisals Against Enemy Civilians in Customary International Humanitarian Law\",\"authors\":\"Lindsay Moir\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18781527-bja10095\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Belligerent reprisals are a controversial and largely discredited mechanism for the enforcement of international humanitarian law. Additional Protocol <jats:sc>i</jats:sc> of 1977 prohibits a range of reprisal activity, including reprisals against enemy civilians. A (relatively small) number of States are not Parties to Additional Protocol <jats:sc>i</jats:sc>, whilst some States Parties have made declarations and/or reservations to the Protocol which could be seen as attempts to limit the operation of the prohibition. Its status as a rule of customary international law is therefore an important question. This article argues that opposition to the prohibition in customary law is neither as widespread nor consistent as has previously been suggested and that the weight of evidence points towards the existence (or development) of a customary prohibition. Consistent opposition by the UK and the US, however, makes it unlikely that the customary prohibition would be opposable to those particular States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"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-bja10095\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-bja10095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reappraising Reprisals Against Enemy Civilians in Customary International Humanitarian Law
Belligerent reprisals are a controversial and largely discredited mechanism for the enforcement of international humanitarian law. Additional Protocol i of 1977 prohibits a range of reprisal activity, including reprisals against enemy civilians. A (relatively small) number of States are not Parties to Additional Protocol i, whilst some States Parties have made declarations and/or reservations to the Protocol which could be seen as attempts to limit the operation of the prohibition. Its status as a rule of customary international law is therefore an important question. This article argues that opposition to the prohibition in customary law is neither as widespread nor consistent as has previously been suggested and that the weight of evidence points towards the existence (or development) of a customary prohibition. Consistent opposition by the UK and the US, however, makes it unlikely that the customary prohibition would be opposable to those particular States.
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.