On the particular example of the US new motto of the foreign policy after 9/11 --War on Terror I am trying to refer to the work of the non-profit organization Amnesty International in the field of the international relations. I am pointing out its importance in the decision-making process of the political elites. My intention is to find the correlation between the persuasion of the American population in relation to its leadership or leaders based on the expressed promises in the election campaign. As the object of my work I have chosen the current US President - Barack Obama whose one of his five main promises declared in the campaign was to defeat the terrorism, detain and adequately punish the masterminds of attacks from the September 2001 for the committed crimes. This point comprises the significant change from the approach of his predecessor and so the closure of the Guantanamo military base as a symbol of modern torture and denial of human rights which serves as a detention camp for the suspects of terrorism for more than 14 years now. This was a daring commitment but he gained millions of supporters thanks to it. This option comprised the expectations of sophisticated solutions for tens of substantial issues, including meeting the objective of punishment of the terrorists and establishment of deterrent precedent for any other similar attempts. Obama failed to accomplish it.

LL.M. (International Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract.

Quel est le point commun entre George Orwell, André Malraux, Davy Crockett et Oussama Ben Laden ?Cette question pourrait en surprendre certains. Comment trouver un point commun entre, l’auteur de La Ferme des animaux et de 1984, le résistant et ministre français et l’élu du Congrès des États-Unis ancré dans la culture populaire ?Qui plus est s’ils le partagent avec l’ancien leader d’Al Qaida.Comme des milliers d’autres, ils ont été des « combattants étrangers ». En des temps différents et pour défendre des causes différentes, ils entreprirent un voyage qui les mena à prendre les armes dans des guerres étrangères. Ce phénomène historique a connu, depuis la dernière décennie, un nouveau tournant juridique à travers le flux des milliers d’étrangers qui ont rejoint l’une des parties belligérantes en Syrie ou en Irak. Pour faire face à cette menace pour la paix et la sécurité internationales, les Nations unies ont alors créé le statut juridique de « combattant terroriste étranger », soumettant ces étrangers des conflits armés aux dispositions de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Toutefois, ce statut semble souffrir de nombreuses lacunes qui, notamment, ne permettent pas de différencier un terroriste international d’un simple volontaire international, d’un membre d’un groupe armé organisé ou encore d’un combattant d’une force armée étatique. George Orwell, André Malraux et Davy Crockett seraient aujourd’hui sûrement considérés comme des « combattants terroristes étrangers ». De plus, l’application de ce statut pour identifier des acteurs des conflits armés entre en opposition avec certaines règles du droit international. Finalement, pour trouver le statut juridique des « combattants étrangers », pour les identifier et encadrer leurs activités, y compris leurs actes terroristes, c’est vers les règles du Droit international humanitaire qu’il faut se tourner. Les « combattants étrangers », même terroristes, sont déjà identifiés par les statuts du Droit dans la guerre. / What do George Orwell, André Malraux, Davy Crockett and Osama Bin Laden have in common? This question might be surprising to some. How to find a common trait between the author of Animal Farm and 1984, the French resistance former minister, and the elected representative of the United States congress rooted in popular culture? Especially, if they are to share it with the former leader of Al Qaeda.Like thousands of others, they were "foreign fighters". In different times and to defend different causes, they undertook a journey which led them to take up arms in foreign wars. This historic phenomenon underwent a new legal turning point the last decade through the flow of thousands of foreigners who joined one of the belligerent parties in Syria and Iraq. To address this threat to international peace and security, the United Nations created the legal term of “foreign terrorist fighter”, subjecting these foreigners in armed conflicts to provisions in international counter-terrorism law. However, this status suffers shortcomings, which make it impossible, in particular, to differentiate between an international terrorist, an international volunteer, a member of an organized armed group or even a combatant of a state armed force. Today, George Orwell, André Malraux and Davy Crockett would probably be considered as "foreign terrorist fighters". In addition, the application of such status to identify actors of armed conflicts is in opposition with some rules of international law. Finally, to determine the correct legal status of "foreign fighters", to identify them and thus regulate their activities, including their terrorist acts, it is to the rules of international humanitarian law that we must turn. Even when qualified as “terrorists”, "foreign fighters" are already identified by the status of the law of war. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Mot bakgrund av den tidigare forskning och kritik kring ämnet digitala krigsspel har denna studie identifierat omfattningen av internationell humanitär rätt (IHL) i speltitlarna Call of Duty: Modern Warfare och This War of Mine samt diskuterat de etiska synpunkter som uppenbarats genom närläsning. Resultaten visar att dessa speltitlar skiljer sig i sin skildring av krig sett utifrån IHL. This War of Mine avbildar krig genom ett civilt perspektiv och genom sitt narrativ tar spelet ingen ställning till någon sida utan förmedlar, genom sina porträtteringar av brott mot IHL, den allvarsamma realiteten av krig. I kontrast till detta ställer sig Call of Duty: Modern Warfare på en sida av rättfärdigande av krig mot de makter som hotar den fria världen genom våldshandlingar som brott mot IHL, detta porträtteras genom både ett militärt och därtill civil perspektiv. Vidare har denna studie identifierat frågor vi anser vara av stort intresse för framtida forskning inom digitala krigsspel. / In the light of previous research and criticism on the subject of digital war games, this study has identified the scope of international humanitarian law (IHL) in the game titles Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and This War of Mine and discussed the ethical views revealed through close reading. The results show that these game titles differ in their depiction of war seen from the IHL. This War of Mine depicts war through a civilian perspective and through its narrative, the game takes no position on either side but conveys, through its portrayals of crimes against the IHL, the serious reality of war. In contrast, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare stands on one side of justifying war against the powers that threaten the free world through acts of violence as a crime against the IHL, this is portrayed through both a military and a civilian perspective. Furthermore, this study has identified issues we consider to be of great interest for future research in digital war games.

práce je analyzovat dodržování základních pravidel mezinárodního Hlavní výzkumná otázka zní: "Inklinuje slabší či silnější těchto konfliktů k porušování povinností MHP více než ta druhá?" Hypotéza stanoví, že se slabší strany uchylují k porušování pravidel MHP více než jejich silnější protivníci. zpracována metodou komparativní případové studie ilně vyložena a operacionalizována na zkoumané případy aplikovatelná pravidla MHP. Těmi jsou společný článek 3 Ženevských úmluv, zásada vojenské nutnosti, zásada rozlišování, zásada proporcionality a zásada zakazující zbytečné útrapy. Následně je na základě údajů uvedených mezinárodních databázích ozbrojených konfliktů a rovněž informací získaných z odborných publikací proveden rozbor dodržování aplikovatelných norem MHP. Tento odhalil, že se porušování základních pravidel dopouštěly všechny strany zvolených konfliktů. Nebylo tak prokázáno, že by se slabší či silnější strany dopouštěly porušování více než jejich protivníci, čímž byla původní hypotéza vyvrácena. Bylo také zjištěno, že ačkoli byla v konfliktu stranami do jisté míry porušována stejná pravidla MHP, dělo se tak odlišným západosaharském konfliktu byla oběma stranami porušována stejná pravidla, a to jednáním totožným.

In the performance of law enforcement tasks, military forces frequently use expanding bullets. Such bullets are prohibited in international armed conflicts (IAC:s) by treaty, but in non-international armed conflicts (NIAC:s), the matter is regulated by the principle prohibiting means and methods of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (SIrUS), and possibly by an independent rule of customary international humanitarian law. This essay looks first to a proposed solution in which the law enforcement legal paradigm takes precedence, and finds such a solution incomplete and its application limited. It proceeds to look at the prohibition of expanding bullets in NIAC:s as an independent rule,exploring the formation of customary law, the evidence value of military manuals, expanding bullets as a war crime, and the ICTY Tadíc ruling. It finds the evidence of the existence of such a rule unconvincing. It then looks to principle of SIrUS and explores the best approaches for its interpretation and application. Ultimately, it argues that the military utility, in the form of stopping power and decreased risk of collateral injury, provided by expanding bullets is of such a scale and nature that the use of such bullets could reasonably be argued to pass the assessment as required by the principle. In light of this, the essay emphasises the need for treaty-based rules in order create effective weapons prohibitions, and that armed forces are still obliged to properly assess which set of rules govern the use of force.

Ce travail évalue la licéité des systèmes d’armes autonomes au regard du droit international humanitaire en utilisant le mécanisme d’examen juridique des nouvelles armes prévu à l’article 36 du Protocole additionnel I de 1977 additionnel aux Conventions de Genève de 1949 (Protocole I). Il aborde également la responsabilité internationale, tant individuelle qu’étatique, pour les crimes commis à l’aide de ceux-ci. Il examine finalement l’état des discussions internationales et la position juridique des États au sujet des systèmes d’armes autonomes. / This work assesses the legality of autonomous weapon systems under international humanitarian law using the legal review mechanism of new weapons under Article 36 of 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Protocol I). It also addresses both individual liability and state accountability for crimes committed using autonomous weapon systems. Finally, it examines international discussions and the legal position of States regarding autonomous weapon systems.

The child soldier problem is an escalating and growing phenomenon around the world. It is a complex issue as it involves a wide range of areas such as human rights, politics and cultures. A comprehensive legal framework is in place to protect children in armed conflicts, yet they are still being targeted, recruited and deployed in armed groups and organizations. The purpose of this study is to conduct an exhaustive examination of current international law, de lege lata, regarding child soldiers aged 15-18. The legal-dogmatic method will be used to identify the merits, but above all the shortcomings and problems of the legislation. The result shows that international law treats children differently in terms of age and when they are no longer considered child soldiers. The findings demonstrate the difficulties between the two frameworks of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in relation to child rights and protection issues. Furthermore, it has been discovered that the international law regarding child soldiers is outdated, contradictory and inconsistent, as society and warfare have changed since the adoption of the documents. The lack of legal sanctions against recruiters and enablers complicates the situation even further.

The negotiation process of a peace agreement is an uncertain period where adversaries can have a difficult time credibly guaranteeing their commitment to an approaching agreement. However, violence is often ceased before a peace agreement is signed, demonstrating their importance for understanding non-violent and violent behavior by warring actors. Furthermore, research finds that rebels at times comply with laws of war during conflict and negotiations. Hence, the purpose of this study is to derive a better understanding of rebel groups’ non-violent behavior, and whether it relates to the commitment problem and the negotiation process. This paper argues that by complying with international law, rebels can convey a signal with a peace-making objective, increasing the likelihood of a successful negotiation. Through a qualitative, structured and focused comparative case analysis of the FMLN in El Salvador and the NPFL in Liberia, the study finds that rebel’s compliance with IHL may serve as a costly signal that mitigates the credible commitment problem and leads to the signing of a successful peace agreement. However, further research is needed to support this hypothesis.

The thesis purports to assess the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in maintaining international peace and security and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in prosecuting individuals who have committed severe violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international law, during humanitarian and counter-terrorism operations. The thesis endeavours to highlight the failures of both institutions, firstly, the UNSC being unable to fulfil its institutional mandate, which is mainly attributed to the abuse of veto privileges granted to the five permanent members (P5). This has effectively allowed individuals from the militaries of the P5 and their allies elude criminal liability, promoting a culture of impunity. The UNSC’s failure to prevent P5 members use of unauthorised military force in pursuing counter-terrorism operations and interpose expeditiously in humanitarian crises, have also contributed to the erosion of the institutions’ legitimacy, which is further perpetuated by the USA’s continued ‘War on Terror’ doctrine after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Secondly, the ICC’s inability to prosecute individuals for crimes under the Rome Statute will also be highlighted as the principle of complementarity and the court’s inability to enforce arrest warrants are significant factors contributing to the institutions inability to administer international criminal justice. The thesis draws upon practical examples to substantiate the failures of both institutions by referring to the conflicts in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Libya. Before concluding the UNSC and the ICC have become futile, the thesis will then make recommendations for reform and propose a novel solution to restore legitimacy back to both institutions.