Initial advances into Iranian territory were repulsed and by 1982 Iraq had withdrawn to previously recognised international boundaries. The war on land lapsed into statement with neither side being capable of launching a sufficiently strong offensive to terminate hostilities. Partly in retaliation for Iran's successful blockade of Iraqi shipping and partly in an attempt to cripple Iranian oil exports and undermine the enemy war effort, Iraq expanded the conflict onto the waters of the Persian Gulf. Exclusion zones were declared in the northern Gulf, and shipping calling at the Iranian oil terminal at Kharg Island singled out for unannounced missile attacks. Iraq has hit over 170 tankers in the Gulf war. Iran has made fewer attacks but most of these have occurred outside both the Iranian and Iraqi war zones. Neutral shipping calling at neutral Gulf ports are considered lawful targets for destruction. Recently Kuwaiti-bound' vessels have been hit. Neutral merchant shipping is being stopped and searched at the entrance to the Gulf. The United States, having committed itself to upholding the freedom of neutral navigation in the region, has transferred Kuwaiti tankers to US registration and is escorting the re-flagged vessels to protect them from Iranian interference and attack. The United Nations Security Council has passed Resolutions calling for an end to the hostilities and has denounced attacks on neutral shipping in international waters. No Chapter Vll procedures for collective security enforcement under the Charter have been invoked 6. and not one of the Resolutions is binding.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The Nuremberg Judgment on the leaders of Nazi Germany proclaimed ‘crimes against peace’ – the planning and waging of aggressive wars – to be ‘the supreme international crime’.  This charge was premised on two innovative ideas: that aggressive war was a crime, and that individuals could be held responsible for it. Although heralded as an historic milestone at the time, it turned out to be a transient legal anomaly.  At the Nuremberg Tribunal, the number of acquittals, coupled with the relative leniency of the sentences, indicated the judges’ unease about convicting on the basis of ‘crimes against peace’.  At the Tokyo Tribunal, some judges questioned the validity of the charge and filed dissents.  Legal observers, meanwhile, were outspoken in their criticisms, and argued that it was an ex post facto enactment, selectively applied. Aside from retroactivity and selectivity, the main difficulty arose from the internal contradictions within the charge itself, which rendered it unsustainable as a component of international law.  On jurisdiction, it enhanced the sovereignty of nations by protecting them against aggression, while simultaneously undermining sovereignty by subjecting leaders to international law.  On enforcement, while judicialising punishment after the event, it simultaneously de-legitimised both aggression and attempts to prevent it.  These weaknesses were confirmed by the failure of ‘crimes against peace’ to become part of customary international law. If the Rome Statute is amended to include ‘crime of aggression’ within the International Criminal Court’s operative remit, these latter problems are likely to occur.

This paper examines the Eritrean-Ethiopian border conflict as a modern case study concerning the shortcomings of international law. It examines the history between the two countries and how the conflict emerged despite strong social and cultural ties between the two. After a 30-year long war where Eritrea gained its independence, a brief period of peace was overcome by war and tension. A United Nations (UN) commission tasked with distributing the disputed lands to its rightful owner ruled that the lands belonged to Eritrea and the UN Security Council (UNSC) agreed to enforce this ruling. Ethiopia re-occupied it and the UNSC has yet to act. This essay looks at a range of international legal theories and tries to explain this case using these concepts. These include realism, neo-realism, liberalism, constructivism, and critical legal studies. This paper concludes neo-realism and critical legal studies accurately depict the events. This paper looks at the shared characteristics between these two theories and what they tell us about the status of international law. These findings indicate imbalanced power structures and a world where the powerful can impose their will on the weak with little ramifications.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis makes the case for eliminating the distinction between types of armed conflict under international humanitarian law (IHL). Currently, IHL makes the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts. International armed conflicts are regulated by more treaties than their non-international counterparts. Furthermore, the regulation of international armed conflicts is also considerably more comprehensive than that offered for participants in and victims of non-international armed conflicts. This bifurcation of the law was logical at the time the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were drafted and adopted, as the majority of armed conflicts prior to that point had been international in character. However, in the years following the adoption of the Conventions, there has been a proliferation of non-international armed conflicts, which presents challenges to a body of law that has few tools to adequately address such occurrences. The adoption of the Additional Protocols in 1977 went some way to addressing the legal lacunae that existed, but significant gaps still remain. Mindful this history, this thesis tracks the growth and evolution of the laws of armed conflict in the modern era, since the first document of the laws of war produced for the American Civil War. In doing so, this thesis demonstrates how the law of armed conflict has become increasingly harmonised in its application, with more rules of IHL being generally applicable in all instances of armed conflict, regardless of characterisation. This thesis then makes the argument that the time has come for the final step to be taken, the elimination of the distinction between types of armed conflict, and the complete harmonisation of the laws of war. Focusing specifically on the issue of combatants and POWs in armed conflicts, this thesis draws on considerable legal precedent, legal theory, and policy arguments to make the case that it is time for the law relating to the regulation of armed conflicts to be more uniformly applied.

The 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees were established after World War II and are the primary documents that dictate international refugee policy. They were intended to protect the basic human rights of refugees; ensure them safe asylum; protect against refoulement; and provide refugees with basic services and assistance such as food, legal documents, and primary education. Despite the creation of these protective instruments, human rights abuses against refugees continue to be reported as the global refugee crisis worsens, raising into question the effectiveness of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol. In this thesis, Jordan, Tanzania, and Thailand will serve as cases studies for exploring the effectiveness of the current international refugee regime. Both legislation and narratives will be analyzed in order to fully comprehend the context of the situation.