The main objective of this thesis is to investigate, using the dialectical method, why human rights are not only just emancipatory in the international context but are also often used for the legitimation of repressive policies. The argument in this thesis accepts that human rights have an important role in the general development of international law, and that their historical development has had a transformational effect on international politics. My thesis is that political groups have sought to mould political and social interactions by questioning and reshaping both the definitions and the system of human rights. In doing so, those actions – defined as political power – are used to legitimise new social and political constellations by changing the legal definitions of rights and by erecting new forms of protection. In the development of my argument, I analyse first the different historical moments in which significant transformations and redefinitions of human rights occurred. For that, I will identify two processes: the formalisation of rights (emancipatory) and their de-formalisation (repressive). Secondly, I will seek to show that these processes are politically constituted in a dialectic that operates in the implementation of such rights by the State in both domestic and international spheres. I shall then provide an interpretation that tries to explain how this dialectic has helped legitimise the system of international human rights. As a result, it can be observed that while in the West there was, domestically, an emancipatory movement able to formalise rights that progressively reached larger social groups, the same cannot be said for those who lived in the colonial world. Internationally, there have been different interpretations that prevented the expansion and implementation of human rights on the same basis as in the domestic sphere. The dialectic of emancipation and repression, therefore, can be visualised by looking, historically, at political struggles between formalising and de-formalising forces.

The law of Blockade is derived from customary law that developed during the height of eighteenth and nineteenth century naval warfare. As a method of warfare that has the goal of crippling an adversary’s economy, blockade can devastate not only the military apparatus of a country, but the civilian population as well. In this manner, it is a method of warfare that cannot distinguish in its effects between civilians and military objectives. The existing IHL framework governing blockade does not provide satisfactory protections to the civilian populations of affected states. Starvation, malnutrition and disease are the consequential effects of a lengthy and effective blockade. A new approach to the law of blockade is required, one that will codify contemporary practice and obligate those engaging in blockade operations to ensure that humanitarian relief cannot be denied to affected civilian populations. / Thesis (Master, Law) -- Queen's University, 2012-03-03 16:13:35.593

This thesis is concerned with reparation for human rights and international humanitarian law breaches committed by or attributed to international organizations. These breaches constitute internationally wrongful acts which according to the International Law Commission's Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, give rise to an obligation on the offending organization to afford reparation. However, in practice, the obligation to afford reparation is unimplemented. The thesis explores why this is. The thesis considers how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialised regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and particularly, their application to remedies and reparation owed to individuals. It reviews the various gaps in the normative framework and the limitations of existing redress mechanisms. The thesis analyses the cogency of the arguments and rationales that have been used by international organisations to limit institutional liability and the scope and functioning of redress mechanisms, included by the resort to lex specialis principles. It is postulated that the standards of reparation must be drawn from the nature of the breach and the resulting harms and not by who is responsible for the breach. In this respect the thesis is an exercise in the progressive development of the law. Having determined that existing redress mechanisms cannot afford adequate or effective remedies and reparation, the thesis explores how to move towards a model that achieves greater compliance. Indeed, should it be accepted that international organizations must afford remedies and reparation for breaches of human rights and IHL that correspond to the standards that exist in those specialised fields then it is argued that there is a corresponding obligation on them to put in place the modalities for that to be achieved.

No description available.

The thesis employs critical discourse analysis to map the debate regarding the deployment of armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in warfare and analyses the arguments that legitimise drone strikes and those which criticise their deployment. It also identifies the contentious issues regarding new technologies in warfare. The thesis is aimed at examining the kinds of arguments and justifications that have been provided by different actors for the deployment of armed drone strikes by the United States in Pakistan over a fifteen-year period, beginning with the first strikes in June 2004. It focuses on the bureaucratic debates regarding the strikes and how political leaders have framed the rationale for their deployment. Consequently, it is important to critically analysis how the strikes by United States have been interpreted by different voices and whether the actions of the United States and its drone policy can or cannot be normatively and ethically justified. The thesis sets out by identifying the common themes that emerge from the public discourse and sets out to answer one key question that assesses the intertextual framework that has bounded the official discourse, the wider political, academic and public debate regarding armed unmanned drone strikes. That is: How have the US drone campaigns...

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation analyses the domestic implementation of the repression of violations of International Humanitarian Law. Through this analysis it seeks to clarify the obligations placed on States under International Humanitarian Law to ensure an effective and workable system for the repression of violations. In assessing these obligations, this dissertation attempts to highlight the importance of an effective system that is properly implemented in a timely manner. It is shown that the obligations placed on States are not burdensome and are outweighed by the advantages of proper implementation. This dissertation demonstrates these advantages through a case study of Uganda where the consequences of the failure to implement an effective system of repressions of violations of International Humanitarian Law are documented. Practical solutions that may assist in remedying the defective system to repress violations in Uganda are provided. It is argued not only for the need to properly implement an effective system of repression of violations, as required under International Humanitarian Law, but for the need to implement a system that goes beyond that which States are legally obliged to do. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Public Law / unrestricted

Magister Philosophiae - MPhil / The purpose of this mini-thesis is to address International Humanitarian Law (IHL) violations occurring within the Occupied Palestinian Territories relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. Importantly, various IHL violations that occur within the Green Line will be expanded upon. The mini-thesis will shed light on the lack of international action, specifically the inaction of the UN and the ICRC, in ending the decades of IHL violations by both the Israeli and Palestinian forces. As a means to an end, further destruction of property and loss of life that inhibits the quality of life of Palestinians and Israeli citizens trapped within the ongoing conflict, this mini-thesis will endeavour to provide solutions to ending the occupation. These solutions include: a UN Resolution directed toward the demolition of the wall; establishing permanent means of access to all basic needs; and lastly, addressing the influence of the United States of America (USA) and Egypt, respectively.

Journalists reporting from conflict zones are increasingly at risk of injury or death. Not only are they at risk of becoming a casualty in the crossfire, they are now often directly targeted and killed because of their profession. The legal framework protecting journalists in conflict zones consists predominantly of International Humanitarian Law, supplemented by International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law. The main body of law providing protection to journalists consists of the Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols, which are now several decades old. Since their drafting, there have been significant changes in the way we conduct wars, as well as in the way journalists operate and report from conflict zones. This raises the question whether this legal framework is still suitable for the protection of journalists in contemporary conflicts. This thesis confirms that the legal framework contains, at least in theory, a significant number of provisions that continue to provide protection for journalists in conflict zones. What is clear, however, is that there are significant differences in the protection awarded to journalists based on the type of journalist, for example whether they are embedded or function independently in conflict zones, the type of conflict they are covering and even their nationality. The result is a rather complicated legal framework that is not always easy to apply in practice. It has been argued by the International Committee of the Red Cross, a view also reflected in most of the academic literature, that the protection offered by the current legal framework is adequate, but that the enforcement of it is lacking. This is considered the predominant reason why journalists reporting on conflicts currently face such significant risks to their safety. While this is clearly part of the problem, this thesis challenges the notion that the legal framework provides all necessary protection and that only through stronger enforcement can protection be increased. In particular, it suggests that this ignores the effect that clarity and the comprehensiveness of the framework can have on enforcement. Having explored the gaps and limitations in the existing law, this thesis sets out the case for introducing a dedicated convention for the protection of journalists in conflict zones in order to clarify and streamline the current legal framework.