The thesis functions as an overview of the protection of children used in hostilities and their targetability under international law, primarly in international humanitarian law. The author questions the established presumption, that children directly participating in hostilities, shall be equally targetable as their adult colleges and counter parts. In times of conflicts, international humanitarian law offers children a special protection status. The prohibition against recruitment and use of children under the age of 15 illustrates two of the most relevant protective regimes. Despite these protective rules, children directly participating in hostilities remain lawful targets and their special protection status becomes severely less useful. For these reasons, the author argues, that the presumption of equal target ability hinders the Special protection of children to have the practical impact for children used on the battlefield it intened to.The tremendous amounts of child soldiers recruited by non-state armed groups shows that the prohibition against recruitment and use aren't respected. However, the author argues that the ICC juris prudence and national initiatives illustrate that the presumption of equal targetability can be challenged under international law. And, that the special protection for children in times of conflict, and international law as a whole does motivate differanting rules for targeting children versus adults participating in hostilities. For arguments presumably made on moral grounds, military personnel are willing to put themselves at greater risk to spare the life of a child soldiers forced to take part in a conflict, he or she definitely did not start. The Vancuver principles and the The Canadian Armed Forces Joint Doctrine Note shows that states are willing to follow in these footsteps by adding extra precautionary measures in the planning state of a military operation and to completely differentiate the rules for targeting children and adults. Lastly, the author argues that the rules for targeting cultural property ( set out in the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property), could be an example on how to differentiate the rules for targeting children. In this regard the author argues that, like cultural property, children directly participating in hostilities should only be lawfully targeable, at last resort, when there is no other way to fulfill the military advantage.

This doctrinal thesis centers around the topic of voluntary human shields as a complex phenomenon requiring further scholarly attention. Specifically, this paper acknowledges that the actions of certain voluntary shields renders their classification as civilians strenuous, in which it is explored if the notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities might apply. As such, the research question contemplates: To what extent, if at all, can voluntary human shields be considered as taking a direct part in hostilities when shielding lawful targets?  The analyses have concentrated on both a theoretical examination of the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance, and on an empirical investigation into two cases of voluntary human shields: the Serbian citizens in 1999 and the Palestinian women in 2006. Evidently, the findings indicate that voluntary human shields can to some extent take a direct part in hostilities, while the generalizability of our results are appreciated. Ultimately, this thesis provides additional insights into the topic, as increasingly relevant and required within the contradictory and existing research field, while also anticipating avenues for future research.

No description available.

In this essay I examine whether the CIA operatives can be considered as legitimate practitioners of violence in a conflict situation, thus looking through a lens where terrorism is treated as an act of war. This paper does not purport to evaluate and review the legality of targeted killing as a mean of warfare or a tool for criminal enforcement but rather the CIA agent’s status from an international law perspective, specifically humanitarian law. I further examine the role of CIA operatives from a moral perspective. Using the framework set up by Just War Theory I examine whether a CIA operative is regarded as a combatant or a civilian from a moral standpoint.

Within the fight against terrorism, conflicts may arise between the interest of the state to maximize the effectiveness of methods of combating terrorism and the international standard of human rights. One of the methods that some states carry out to combat terrorism is targeted killing. Legitimate effort of states to suppress terrorism and may not lead to violations of human rights. The thesis aims to answer the question: "Is targeted killing a permissible method of combating terrorism, in terms of the lex lata of human rights law, humanitarian law and rules for the use of force between states?" Regarding the methodology of the thesis I was inspired by the books: "Vědecká propedeutika pro právníky" by Viktor Knapp," Metodologie vědy" by František Ochrana and "Jak studovat politiku" by Peter Drulák. The thesis consists of four chapters. The objective of the first chapter is descriptive. The first chapter should clarify the terminology and content of key concepts. The content of the second chapter is an analysis of the legality of targeted killings under human rights law. The third chapter examines the conditions of legality of targeted killings in humanitarian law. Chapter Four deals with the admissibility of targeted killings in the light of law of interstate force. Through an analysis of...

"Child soldier from the perspective of International Law" (Thesis title) This diploma thesis deals with a protection of a child and relation between international humanitarian law and human rights law. The main emphasis is put on particular legal agreements governing status of children in armed conflicts and providing them with protection. In this work are also discussed merits of particular international conventions, as well as issues of their application and supervision. The first chapter pursues rise in interest of society in position of child soldiers and inspects motives and causes of participation of children in armed conflicts. After that the thesis explores historical connection between children and their involvement in armed conflicts. In the end it considers impact of those conflicts on physical and mental health of children and consequences, which arise by their involvement in armed conflicts. The second chapter focuses on defining fundamental terms such as child and armed conflict. Those terms are studied further in accordance with individual and different ways of interpretation of particular conventions. This chapter points out, that decisive criteria for the involvement of children in government's armed forces or non-state army and therefore for their protection is age. The difference...

This thesis deals with the position of journalists in the situation of armed conflict, It is a category of persons, whose protection within the international humanitarian law has been discussed for many years. Mediation of information from the area of armed conflict is a growing phenomen and because of the technical equipment, it relates more and more to laymen, not just professionals. The question whether journalist should enjoy special protection in the situation of armed conflict was raised already in the process of adopting the Additional Protocols, the so far latest source of the "Geneva law". Since then, it has been subject to many iniciatives, whose aim is to emphasize the role and value of journalists on the battlefield and ensure them more safety. On the other hand, it is obvious that journalists are not an a priori object, which should be protected by the humanitarian law - victims of the armed conflict, either among combatants or civilists. The thesis therefore tries to map the current legislation (embodied mostly in the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols) and its historical and factual context. In the second part, it introduces and evaluates different initiatives that address the legislation - both those which try to change it and strenghten the protection of journalist in...

La question du terrorisme international retient l’attention constante des juristes et de la communauté internationale de manière plus grande encore depuis les attentats du 11 septembre 2001. A cette occasion, la doctrine de la « guerre contre le terrorisme » a prévalu. Cette doctrine tend à effacer la distinction entre l’état de guerre au sens du droit des conflits armés et le terrorisme régi traditionnellement par les règles du droit de la paix. Cette doctrine symbolise l’entrée de la lutte contre le terrorisme dans une ère nouvelle, celle du droit de la guerre qui conduirait à l’adoption de nouvelles règles du droit international humanitaire destinées à remplacer le droit existant, qui serait aujourd’hui dépassé. L’objet de cette thèse est de vérifier l’hypothèse d’une telle rupture et d’évaluer ce possible changement de paradigme sur les règles du droit international humanitaire. Dans cette perspective, la question de l’applicabilité du droit international humanitaire à la lutte contre le terrorisme ainsi que sa mise en œuvre dans la lutte contre le terrorisme seront étudiées. Pour chaque question, il sera nécessaire de faire le point sur le droit international humanitaire existant pour se demander si, et dans quelle mesure, la lutte contre le terrorisme met à l’épreuve ce corpus juris. / The question of international terrorism continually catches the attention of jurists and the international community since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. On this occasion, the doctrine of “war on terror” prevailed. This doctrine strives to remove the distinction between state of war in the sense of law of armed conflict and terrorism traditionally governed by the rules of law of peace. This doctrine symbolizes the entry of the fight against terrorism in a new era, that of the law of war which will bring to the adoption of new rules of international humanitarian law intended to replace existing law, that is said to be out-of-date. The purpose of this research is to check the assumption of such a break and evaluate this possible change of paradigm in the rules of international humanitarian law. From this perspective, the question of the applicability of international humanitarian law to the fight against terrorism as well as its implementation in the fight against terrorism will be examined. For each question, it will be necessary to study the international humanitarian law available to find out if, and to what extent, the fight against terrorism puts this corpus juris to the test.

Os deslocamentos forçados de pessoas em que presente causa ambiental são resultado de uma função complexa que envolve diversos fatores caracterizantes da vulnerabilidade. Em razão do potencial de agravamento da degradação ambiental e da exacerbação de eventos climáticos extremos, as mudanças climáticas apresentam-se como fator multiplicador de ameaças para o movimento de pessoas. O princípio da responsabilidade primária do Estado para a proteção de direitos humanos parece afastar a responsabilidade dos demais Estados para o enfrentamento do problema, mas o fato é que, muitas vezes, o próprio Estado de origem não é capaz de garantir proteção efetiva às comunidades vulneráveis mais impactadas, além de fluxos externos de deslocamentos por causas ambientais já serem observados. Por outro lado, os sistemas internacionais de proteção da pessoa humana, por meio do direito humanitário, do direito dos refugiados e dos direitos humanos, não enfrentam adequadamente a totalidade do problema. O tema aponta um novo momento de reconstrução dos direitos humanos, de natureza global, que deve enfrentar violações de direitos humanos por agentes indefinidos, conectados, cumulativos e globais. A interdependência das causas requer a interdependência para a solução. O enfrentamento adequado do problema necessita de uma mudança de foco, da responsabilização por dano transfronteiriço para a responsabilidade em cooperar. / The forced displacement of people with environmental causes result of a complex function that involves several factors characterizing vulnerability. Because of the potential for worsening environmental degradation and the exacerbation of extreme weather events, climate change presents itself as threat multiplier factor for the movement of people. The principle of primary responsibility of the State for the protection of human rights seems to exclude the responsibility of other States to deal with the problem, but the fact is that, often, the State of origin is not able to guarantee effective protection to vulnerable communities, which are the most impacted, as well as external flows of people with environmental causes are already be observed. Moreover, the international systems of protection of the human being, through humanitarian law, refugee law and human rights, do not properly face the problem. The theme indicates a new moment for human rights, global in nature, that must face human rights violations by undefined, connected, cumulative and global agents. Interdependence of causes requires the interdependence for the solution. The adequate confrontation of the problem requires a change of focus, from the accountability for transboundary damage to the responsibility to cooperate.

Qualifiées d’ « actes de guerre », les attaques du 11 septembre 2001 ont permis au Président George W. BUSH de justifier ses interventions militaires déclenchées contre les Etats qu’il désignait comme étant l’ « Axe du Mal » en référence à l’ « Empire du Mal » dénoncé par Ronald REAGAN. Le 18 septembre 2001, le Congrès américain confortait cette militarisation de la lutte contre le terrorisme en votant presque unanimement l’ « Authorization for Use of Military Force ». La réaction des Etats-Unis se résume en quatre mots bien précis : « guerre contre le terrorisme » (« War on Terrorism ») ou « guerre contre la terreur » (« War on terror »). Dès le 6 octobre 2001, cette « guerre » prend la forme d’un conflit armé international en Afghanistan et en Irak. L’objectif principal des Etats-Unis était d’éradiquer le terrorisme en détruisant l’organisation terroriste Al-Qaïda dont son leader Oussama BEN LADEN, que George W. BUSH voulait « mort ou vif » (« Wanted dead or Alive ») en référence à la justice expéditive du Far West. Ces conflits armés ont conduit à la capture des combattants taliban et membres d’Al-Qaïda sur de différents champs de bataille. C’est sur la base du Military Order du Président américain, qu’ils seront pour la plupart d’entres eux détenus à la base navale américaine de Guantanamo bay, qualifiés de « combattants illégaux », puis privés du statut de prisonnier de guerre. La pratique quotidienne de la torture par des soldats américains fera de Guantanamo une véritable « zone de non-droit ». Les détenus se sont retrouvés dans un « trou noir juridique » du fait de l’incertitude créée autour de leur statut juridique. Pourtant, la guerre est réglementée par le droit international humanitaire à travers les règles du jus ad bellum déterminant les situations dans lesquelles il est licite de recourir à la force, et le jus in bello réglementant la conduite d’une guerre. Ce corpus juridique est aujourd’hui largement codifié par les Conventions de Genève de 1949 et leurs Protocoles additionnels de 1977. Mais, la « guerre contre le terrorisme » est incontestablement une nouvelle forme de « guerre » qui n’avait pas été envisagée lors de l’adoption des Conventions de Genève. Une lecture attentive de ces conventions peut laisser penser que ces dispositions ne s’appliquent pas aux terroristes qui s’engagent dans des activités totalement contradictoires au droit de Genève. Si bien que, l’applicabilité et l’application de ce droit dans cette « guerre » semblent controversées, notamment en ce qui concerne le statut des personnes arrêtées puis détenues par les Etats-Unis. Toutefois, la constante du droit international humanitaire veut qu’il soit applicable dès qu’une situation de violence se transforme en conflit armé / Described as "acts of war", the attacks of 11 September 2001 enabled President George W. BUSH to justify his military interventions against the states he designated as the "Axis of Evil" "Empire of Evil" denounced by Ronald REAGAN. On September 18, 2001, the US Congress reinforced the militarization of the fight against terrorism by almost unanimously voting the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". The reaction of the United States can be summed up in four very specific words: "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terror". As early as 6 October 2001, this "war" took the form of an international armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. The main objective of the United States was to eradicate terrorism by destroying the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, including its leader Oussama BEN LADEN, whom George W. BUSH wanted "dead or alive" Reference to the expeditious justice of the Far West. These armed conflicts have led to the capture of Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda members on different battlefields. It is on the basis of the US President's Military Order that most of them will be detained at the US naval base in Guantanamo bay, described as "illegal combatants", and then deprived of prisoner-of-war status. The daily practice of torture by American soldiers will make Guantanamo a true "no-law zone". The detainees found themselves in a "legal black hole" due to the uncertainty created around their legal status. Yet war is regulated by international humanitarian law through the rules of jus ad bellum, which determine the situations in which it is lawful to resort to force, and jus in bello regulating the conduct of a war. This corpus of law is today largely codified by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977. But the "war on terror" is undoubtedly a new form of "war" which was not envisaged The adoption of the Geneva Conventions. A careful reading of these conventions may suggest that these provisions do not apply to terrorists who engage in activities that are totally contradictory to Geneva law. Thus, the applicability and application of this right in this "war" seem controversial, particularly with regard to the status of those arrested and then detained by the United States. However, the constant of international humanitarian law is that it should be applicable as soon as a situation of violence turns into an armed conflict.