In a world shaped by the simultaneous forces of globalization and fragmentation, very few armed conflicts remain isolated from any foreign involvement and confined to the territory of one State. On the contrary, many begin as internal conflicts that gradually acquire international characteristics of varying degree and nature. Yet, the law of armed conflict forces each such conflict into one of two legal categories: it must either be a non-international, or an international armed conflict. Accordingly, the prevailing approach in the literature is to examine what type of conflict, if any, corresponds to a certain situation in reality at a given time. In contrast, this thesis opts for a dynamic approach, focussing on the combination of factors that transform a prima facie non-international armed conflict into an international armed conflict. It argues that four such modalities of internationalization have emerged thus far: (1) outside intervention; (2) State dissolution; (3) wars of national liberation; and (4) relative internationalization by way of recognition of belligerency, unilateral declarations, or special agreements. Since some situations feature more than two conflict parties, the thesis puts forward an autonomy-based interpretive model, which enables to determine whether such situations should be seen as a single internationalized armed conflict or a number of independent international and non-international armed conflicts. On the basis of this comprehensive map of conflict internationalization, the thesis turns to the effects brought about by this process. It analyses two areas of the law of armed conflict considered to be regulated differently in the two respective types of conflict, namely matters of combatant status and belligerent occupation. It argues that fighters belonging to non-State armed groups participating in internationalized armed conflicts are in principle eligible for combatant status and it proposes an interpretive model for the determination whether they in fact meet the relevant criteria in practice. Finally, the thesis argues in favour of the applicability of the law of belligerent occupation to internationalized armed conflicts. To substantiate this claim, it delineates the temporal, geographical, and personal scope of the law of occupation in such conflicts. In its totality, the thesis analyses the meaning, process, and effects of conflict internationalization and on this basis argues for a particular interpretation of the concept of internationalized armed conflict in international law.

The thesis explores the extent to which the UN post-conflict administrations are accountable towards the populations of the territories they administer. The post-conflict administrations temporarily assume legislative and administrative powers to support the peace processes, to help to resolve the sovereignty issues or to establish administrative structures that might be non-existent in these territories. The thesis argues that, while the exercise of these extensive powers entails the accountability of the UN, in practice this accountability is not effectively engaged. As opposed to other forms of accountability, the focus is on the international legal responsibility of the UN as the prominent and most meaningful form of accountability, in the accountability relationship between the administrator and the administered, which gives the populations of the administered territories the opportunity to challenge the acts of international administrations and seek redress. In exploring the legal responsibility of the UN and in line with Article 4 of the ILC Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, which states only an act of an international organization that constitutes a breach of an international obligation entails its responsibility, this thesis initially explores the extent of international obligations arising from, and the extent of applicability of, three bodies of law. First, the thesis discusses the applicability of international humanitarian law, the fundamental principles of which have traditionally been part of UN peace operations practice. Next, it considers the applicability of the law of occupation, which shares stark factual similarities with the UN post-conflict administrations. Finally, the applicability of international human rights law, which is consistently part of the applicable law in post-conflict territories, and the protection and promotion of which is consistently included in the mandates of post-conflict administrations is examined. The thesis argues that the simultaneous application these bodies of law would help to create a legal framework to engage the accountability of UN post-conflict administrations and this legal framework should be complemented by effective accountability mechanisms.

<p>What determines variation in military behavior toward civilians? In this dissertation, I examine the determinants of military behavior toward civilians, exploring the factors that lead armed groups to brutalize—or respect—civilian populations. I argue that military cultures embodying norms of civilian immunity can shape combatant preferences and, ultimately, military conduct, leading to battlefield restraint toward civilians. Focusing on case studies of the U.S. Army in Vietnam and Iraq and the Ugandan military, I examine the effect of military culture on conflict behavior utilizing detailed qualitative and quantitative data at macro- and micro-levels of analysis, including historical case studies, combatant survey data, field interviews, and a quantitative analysis of U.S. Army war crimes prosecution data. I find that military culture can fundamentally transform the preferences of combatants at all levels of the military organization, increasing combatants’ preferences for respect for civilians and producing restraint toward civilians in conflict. The findings of this research thus show that military cultures based in norms of civilian immunity can lead to the protection of civilians in war, even in the face of significant countervailing pressures that would otherwise produce mass civilian victimization.</p> / Dissertation

The jus in bello proportionality rule establishes an upper boundary on how much collateral damage combatants can cause whilst striking a lawful target and its associated rule on precautions in attack compels them to take all feasible measures to properly understand the situation on the ground and to mitigate civilian harm. Proportionality and precautions in attack have been codified in API for over forty years, but in that time, it has been difficult to hold troops and their leaders accountable for breaches of these rules. In this study, I examine several reasons for why these rules have been difficult to apply ex post by considering the strategic motivations of state officials and prosecutors. Specifically, I propose a game-theoretic model which describes the decisions that state officials and prosecutors have historically made, and I explore what changes to this model would prompt these actors to behave differently. The model was developed using insights gained from legal case studies, archival research and a series of interviews with relevant actors. It suggests, inter alia, that to induce state officials to support a stricter liability standard for unlawful attacks, they must either ascribe much more value to legitimacy than to the success of future military operations, or they must perceive the success of future military operations to be unaffected by the possibility of losing criminal or civil adjudication. State officials may perceive losing a civil case based on state liability as being less likely to affect the success of future military operations compared with criminal liability against individual troops. Therefore, state officials may be inclined to support a stricter civil liability standard, if they believed it would help the state to secure greater legitimacy.

本論文は全ての形態の武力紛争における海上経済戦についての国際法による規律を取り扱う。国際的武力紛争において、海上経済戦は慣習海上経済戦規則に基づく交戦国の一方的行為として、第三国船舶に対する干渉が許容される。他方で、慣習海上経済戦規則はその性質及び慣行から非国際的武力紛争には適用できない。従って、非国際的武力紛争における海上経済戦を既存の法的枠組みにおいて正当化できない。 / This thesis deals with the rule of maritime economic warfare by international law in all forms of armed conflict. In international armed conflict, maritime economic warfare is authorized by customary rule of maritime economic warfare as a unilateral act by belligerent state. On the other hand, customary rule of maritime economic warfare cannot apply to non-international armed conflict because of its nature and practice. Consequently, maritime economic warfare in non-international armed conflict does not justify under the existing legal framework. / 博士(法学) / Doctor of Laws / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University

No description available.

The use of Private Military Companies (PMCs) has become an increasingly common feature of contemporary armed conflict. Because of their autonomous contractual status, PMCs have presented governments with problems of accountability on several levels, including violations of international human rights and humanitarian law (IHL) standards. This thesis argues that PMCs should be considered to be non-state actors (NSAs), subject to international law from both an International Relations Theory and a Legal Theory perspective. This conclusion is linked to the issue of whether individual PMC employees can be treated as legitimate combatants according to IHL. State practice has not led to a clear understanding of the definition of combatant, a problem which has been compounded by a lack of government policy on the use of PMCs. Using Canadian experience as a case study, the thesis concludes that IHL suggests two options for regularizing the status of PMCs which would both strengthen accountability and uphold the rule of law.

The use of Private Military Companies (PMCs) has become an increasingly common feature of contemporary armed conflict. Because of their autonomous contractual status, PMCs have presented governments with problems of accountability on several levels, including violations of international human rights and humanitarian law (IHL) standards. This thesis argues that PMCs should be considered to be non-state actors (NSAs), subject to international law from both an International Relations Theory and a Legal Theory perspective. This conclusion is linked to the issue of whether individual PMC employees can be treated as legitimate combatants according to IHL. State practice has not led to a clear understanding of the definition of combatant, a problem which has been compounded by a lack of government policy on the use of PMCs. Using Canadian experience as a case study, the thesis concludes that IHL suggests two options for regularizing the status of PMCs which would both strengthen accountability and uphold the rule of law.

武裝衝突法已成為各交戰國(方)爭取國際支持之重要手段，軍隊執行作戰任務，必須遵守武裝衝突法及國際法的相關規範，始可確保作戰行動的合法性及正當性。陸戰法規是一系列戰爭法規則和慣例的重要歷史淵源，為武裝衝突法之主體。隨著以規範交戰規則為主的海牙法體系與規範人道保護規則為主的日內瓦法體系逐漸整合，陸戰法規除規範作戰使用武器的規則外，其他有關交戰者、敵對行為及軍事佔領等規則均納入1949年日內瓦公約及1977年的兩項附加議定書。 觀察國際社會對陸戰法規實踐的面向，除可從戰史例證中得到驗證外，尚可從童兵、地雷、武裝衝突遺留爆炸物處理及文化資產保護等議題，得以進一步瞭解陸戰法規實踐的全貌。要禁止利用童兵的行為，除了國家行為者應負履約義務外，對非國家行為者侵犯兒童權利行為的制止是當務之急，國際刑事法院應扮演更積極的角色。2003年波灣戰爭中，《禁雷公約》雖未能阻止伊拉克使用人員殺傷雷，但已顯示該公約對非締約國產生的隱性約束力，禁用人員殺傷雷的規範雖未完全實現，但已為多數國家認同，未來可能成為一項習慣國際法。《戰爭遺留爆炸物議定書》雖可為解決武裝衝突結束後平民所面臨的主要威脅提供一項法律制度，但因條約內容強制性不足，成效尚難顯現。目前對文化資深保護的重點在於免遭武裝衝突毀損為主要議題，因武裝衝突而流落異域之文化資產回復或返還，可能成為未來發展之主要議題。 / The Law of Armed Conflict has become one of the important means to win the international support for all belligerent. The army must comply with the Law of Armed Conflict in combat, in order to ensure the legitimacy of military operation. The law of war on land has its historical origins for regulations and customary of the Law of War, and also has codified as the main body of the Law of Armed Conflict. The Law of The Hague and the Law of Geneva have been gradually integrated. All these regulations of the law of war on land about combatant, hostilities and military occupation were included in the “Geneva Conventions of 1949” and two “Additional Protocols of 1977”, except the regulations of the use of the weapon. Observing the different aspects of the law of war on land in the international community from the cases above, furthermore, the issues of “Child Soldier”, “Landmine”, “Explosive Remnants of Armed Conflict” and “Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”, can help to understand the full view of the practice of the law of war on land. For stopping the use of child soldiers, the obligation of convention should be executed by the state actors, the task of top priority should prevent the infringements of the right of child of the non-state actors, and the International Criminal Court should play a more positive role. In the “Gulf War 2003”, the rule, “Convention on Prohibition of Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Landmines and on Their Destruction”, although it has not prevent Iraq from the use of anti-personnel landmine, had showed the indistinct effect of the convention to the powers in the conflict that may not be parties to the convention. Although the rule of prohibition of use of anti-personnel mines has not completely realized, it had already been approved by most states, and may become one of the international customary in the future. The “Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War annexed to the “Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention)” provided a legal protection for the civilian after the armed conflict. Its effect was still too difficult to manifest, because the force of provisions of the protocol were insufficient. The protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict focuses on exempting from the damage of cultural property at present, but the issue like how to recover the cultural properties which were pillaged in armed conflicts, would become the main theme in the foreseeable future.

The use of Private Military Companies (PMCs) has become an increasingly common feature of contemporary armed conflict. Because of their autonomous contractual status, PMCs have presented governments with problems of accountability on several levels, including violations of international human rights and humanitarian law (IHL) standards. This thesis argues that PMCs should be considered to be non-state actors (NSAs), subject to international law from both an International Relations Theory and a Legal Theory perspective. This conclusion is linked to the issue of whether individual PMC employees can be treated as legitimate combatants according to IHL. State practice has not led to a clear understanding of the definition of combatant, a problem which has been compounded by a lack of government policy on the use of PMCs. Using Canadian experience as a case study, the thesis concludes that IHL suggests two options for regularizing the status of PMCs which would both strengthen accountability and uphold the rule of law.