In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.

In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.

The construction of International Humanitarian Law and the norms regarding protection of prisoners of war have evolved as a reaction to the horrors of war. After September 11 and the following war on terrorism the notion of POWs has been widely debated. The USA holds prisoners at the navy base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba without granting them status as POWs; this thesis is placing the treatment of these detainees within a historical context. The norm concerning rights of POWs is today both internationalized and institutionalized, but that has not always been the case. This thesis illuminates how the norms have evolved during World War I, World War II and Vietnam War; finally the war against terrorism and the treatment of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is analyzed. The intention of the thesis is to use a historical overview of the evolution of IHL, and the rights of POWs in particular, to formulate a wider assumption about the implication of IHL in the war against terrorism and the future. The thesis adopts a theory which combines constructivism and John Rawls´ theory of justice and uses constructivist ideas about the nature of the international system applied to Rawls´ notion of justice. The constructivist theory and ontology are the basis of the theoretical framework of this thesis and Rawls´ definition of justice as the base of social institutions are viewed from a constructivist perspective. IHL and the norms regarding protection of POWs are thus considered as social facts, constructed and upheld through social interaction between states.

In the last decade the fight against terrorism was carried out not only by measures indicated in national criminal procedure laws or international treaties outlining measures in the fight against terrorism, but also using military forces and carrying out military measures. Thus the dissertation aims to establish when and to what extent is the international humanitarian law (hereinafter – IHL) applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, to analyze in what cases the fight against terrorism amounts to armed conflict, what is the status of terrorists taking part in the armed conflict according to IHL, and to evaluate in the light of IHL principles and rules the specific measures taken against terrorists. Firstly the dissertation analyses the question of the definition of terrorism and proposes a possible definition of this phenomenon. Further on the dissertation analyzes the instances when the IHL rules are applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, when such situation amounts to an armed conflict, and evaluates the main criteria of armed conflict – intensity and organization – and their application in the fight against terrorism. The dissertation also explores the questions of the status of terrorists taking part in an armed conflict, distinguishing those taking part in international and non-international armed conflicts, and exploring the criteria for the direct participation in hostilities for such persons. Finally, the dissertation analyzes the specific measure of... [to full text] / Pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais kovą su terorizmu pradėta vykdyti ne tik pasitelkiant nacionaliniuose baudžiamojo proceso įstatymuose ar tarptautinėse sutartyse, skirtose kovai su terorizmu, numatytas priemones, tačiau ir naudojant karines pajėgas bei atliekant karinius veiksmus. Taigi disertacijoje iškeliamas tikslas nustatyti, kada ir kokiu mastu taikoma tarptautinė humanitarinė teisė (toliau – THT) kovoje su terorizmu, tai yra, ištirti, kokiais atvejais kova su terorizmu laikytina ginkluotu konfliktu, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT ir atsižvelgiant į THT normas įvertinti specifines kovos priemones, naudojamas kovojant su teroristais. Pirmiausiai disertacijoje analizuojamas terorizmo apibrėžimo klausimas ir pateikiamas galimas terorizmo apibrėžimas. Toliau disertacijoje vertinama, kuriais atvejais kovojant su terorizmu bus taikomos THT normos, tai yra, kada kova su terorizmu prilygsta ginkluotam konfliktui, tiriami ginkluoto konflikto intensyvumo ir organizuotumo kriterijai ir jų taikymas kovos su terorizmu situacijose. Disertacijoje taip pat tiriama, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT, išskiriant tarptautiniuose ir netarptautiniuose ginkluotuose konfliktuose dalyvaujančius asmenis, taip pat išsamiai išanalizuojant asmenų tiesioginio dalyvavimo ginkluotame konflikte kriterijus. Galiausiai disertacijoje tiriama specifinė kovos su terorizmu priemonė – tikslinių nužudymų, ypač naudojant... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

Pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais kovą su terorizmu pradėta vykdyti ne tik pasitelkiant nacionaliniuose baudžiamojo proceso įstatymuose ar tarptautinėse sutartyse, skirtose kovai su terorizmu, numatytas priemones, tačiau ir naudojant karines pajėgas bei atliekant karinius veiksmus. Taigi disertacijoje iškeliamas tikslas nustatyti, kada ir kokiu mastu taikoma tarptautinė humanitarinė teisė (toliau – THT) kovoje su terorizmu, tai yra, ištirti, kokiais atvejais kova su terorizmu laikytina ginkluotu konfliktu, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT ir atsižvelgiant į THT normas įvertinti specifines kovos priemones, naudojamas kovojant su teroristais. Pirmiausiai disertacijoje analizuojamas terorizmo apibrėžimo klausimas ir pateikiamas galimas terorizmo apibrėžimas. Toliau disertacijoje vertinama, kuriais atvejais kovojant su terorizmu bus taikomos THT normos, tai yra, kada kova su terorizmu prilygsta ginkluotam konfliktui, tiriami ginkluoto konflikto intensyvumo ir organizuotumo kriterijai ir jų taikymas kovos su terorizmu situacijose. Disertacijoje taip pat tiriama, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT, išskiriant tarptautiniuose ir netarptautiniuose ginkluotuose konfliktuose dalyvaujančius asmenis, taip pat išsamiai išanalizuojant asmenų tiesioginio dalyvavimo ginkluotame konflikte kriterijus. Galiausiai disertacijoje tiriama specifinė kovos su terorizmu priemonė – tikslinių nužudymų, ypač naudojant... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / In the last decade the fight against terrorism was carried out not only by measures indicated in national criminal procedure laws or international treaties outlining measures in the fight against terrorism, but also using military forces and carrying out military measures. Thus the dissertation aims to establish when and to what extent is the international humanitarian law (hereinafter – IHL) applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, to analyze in what cases the fight against terrorism amounts to armed conflict, what is the status of terrorists taking part in the armed conflict according to IHL, and to evaluate in the light of IHL principles and rules the specific measures taken against terrorists. Firstly the dissertation analyses the question of the definition of terrorism and proposes a possible definition of this phenomenon. Further on the dissertation analyzes the instances when the IHL rules are applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, when such situation amounts to an armed conflict, and evaluates the main criteria of armed conflict – intensity and organization – and their application in the fight against terrorism. The dissertation also explores the questions of the status of terrorists taking part in an armed conflict, distinguishing those taking part in international and non-international armed conflicts, and exploring the criteria for the direct participation in hostilities for such persons. Finally, the dissertation analyzes the specific measure of... [to full text]

Cyber has been around for over a decade and yet we are still faces with a situation of a very weak or rather no regulation. This is being heavily influenced by our weak technological development and due to the nature of cyberspace and the Internet. Cyber warfare poses interesting questions for us. It is one of a kind type of warfare, the one we cannot see or feel, but it‘s impacts are instantaneous and potentially devastating. States and scholars agree on that. This thesis attempts to explore possibilities of application of existing international laws to amend this situation and answer the questions if it is adequate or at all possible. While scholars are still arguing about the basics of what cyber warfare and cyberspace actually is, it keeps on evolving. States on the other hand have recognized the potential threat of cyber warfare a long time ago and are attempting to mend the existing legal void, however not successfully. The effects of their efforts are limited only to a small number of States. States who are not willing to give up their cyber capability would also stay clear from such international legislation. International treaties and State practice were analyzed in search of a way to accommodate cyber warfare under the current regime. The findings show that application of existing legal basis to cyber warfare is at best difficult and strained. The reality is that cyber warfare does not fit adequately under any of the legal umbrellas at the moment. Application of... [to full text] / Kibernetinis karas jau egzistuoja daugiau nei dešimtmeti tačiau mes vis dar turime labai silpną šio reiškinio reguliavimą. Tokia situacija yra stipriai įtakota mūsų silpnu techniniu galimybių bei interneto struktūros. Kibernetinis karas yra labai keblus. Tai yra naujoviškas kariavimo būdas kurio mes nematome, bet jo pasekmes gali būti žaibiškos ir niokojančios. Mokslininkai ir pasaulio valstybės tai jau seniai pripažino. Šis darbas bando atskleisti galimybes tarptautines teises reguliavimui kibernetinio karo atžvilgiu, jeigu tai iš viso yra įmanoma. Tačiau mokslininkai vis dar ginčijasi dėl kibernetinio karo ir kibernetines erdvės terminologijos, tuo tarpu kibernetinio karo grėsme tik didėja. Pasaulio valstybes tai suprasdamos bando ištaisyti teisės trukumus, tačiau nesėkmingai. Bet kokie pasiūlymai ir susitarimai galioja tik nedideliam valstybių ratui. O didžiosios valstybės tuo tarpu nenoriai atsisakytu savo kibernetinio pajėgumo. Darbe buvo išanalizuotos tarptautinės sutartys bei valstybių praktika bandant pritaikyti esamus režimus kibernetinio karo reguliacijai. Darytinos išvados, kad esamos tarptautinės teisinės bazės taikymas geriausiu atveju yra sudėtingas ir nenatūralus. Realybė yra tai, kad kibernetiniam karui netinka nei vienas režimas. O toks jo taikymas, deja sukelia daugiau problemų nei buvo prieš tai. Tačiau dar nėra išsemtos visos galimybės ir ateitis gali parodyti teisingą sprendimą. Tuo tarpu valstybes yra pasiruošusios vesti derybas dėl tarptautinės... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

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.

Efter Andra Världskriget och författandet samt ratificerandet av den traditionella folkrätten har huvuddelen av de väpnade sammandrabbningarna haft karaktären av icke-internationella konflikter med en asymmetrisk uppsättning aktörer. Samtidigt har den värst drabbade aktören kommit att vara civilbefolkningen. Syftet med denna uppsats är att problematisera skyddet av civilbefolkningen i den nya tidens konflikter. I uppsatsen genomförs en kvalitativ textanalys av Säkerhetsrådets resolutioner och missionsspecifika strategier för skydd av civila i de tre FN-missionerna UNMIS, UNAMID och MONUC. Resultatet av analysen problematiseras därefter utifrån van Crevelds non-trinitarian theory för att undersöka vilka problem det finns med att tillämpa det traditionella folkrättsliga skyddet av civila i nya tidens konflikter. Det sammanvägda resultatet av studien visar att det finns problem med att tillämpa det traditionella folkrättsliga skyddet av civila i nya tidens konflikter, och att ett av huvudproblemen är att skyddet endast tycks adresseras av världssamfundet. / After the Second World War, and the creation and ratification of the traditional international law, the majority of the armed clashes has had the character of non-international conflicts with an asymmetric set of actors. Meanwhile, the most affected actor has come to be the civilian population. The purpose of this study is to problematize the protection of civilians in the conflicts of the new era. A qualitative method is used in the study in order to analyze the Security Council’s resolutions and mission specific strategies for the protection of civilians in the three UN missions UNMIS, UNAMID and MONUC. The result of the analysis is then problematized with van Creveld’s non-trinitarian theory in order to investigate what problems there are in applying the international humanitarian legal protection of civilians in the conflicts of the new era.The aggregated result of the study show that there are problems in applying the traditional international legal protection of civilians in the conflicts of the new era, and that one of the main problems is that the protection only seems to be a subject for the international community.

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.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-07T14:27:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ArquivoTotal.pdf: 1257192 bytes, checksum: 61bc92d741b899fe160e5a3aef08fc87 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-05-27 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The object of this work is the problem of the effectiveness of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) rules regarding the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict. The phenomenon of the deliberate destruction of natural environment to meet military decisions in war scenarios is being used as a battle strategy that affects the nature, makes it a silent victim and endangers a healthy quality of life for this and future generations. These are graves breaches that face difficult legal enforcement, which were chronicled in recent years, for example, in conflicts in the Gulf (1992), Kosovo (1999), Lebanon (2006) and Palestine (2009). Despite the regulations produced by the instruments of IHL, the effectiveness of these normative acts just hampered by the lack of definition of the legal requirements for establishing the environmental damage resulting from military maneuvers, or the difficulty in meeting the high threshold of existing requirements. The problem arises when part of international literature takes humanitarian system for closed and self-contained, while other authors conceive the possibility of, given its ineffectiveness in protecting nature during hostilities, making it permeable to other special legal regimes such as Human Rights and Environmental Law. For the purposes of this study, given the absence of express incompatibility between the humanitarian and environmental special branches, facing the problem means stimulating greater interaction between the leges speciales of IHL and International Environmental Law, as a way of expanding the canons of nature conservation. Therefore, it sustains the viability of both formal and substantive interaction between these systems in the process of "greening" of humanitarian law, for the purpose of carrying out the protection of the physical environment during armed conflict. / O presente trabalho tem por objeto o problema da eficácia das normas de Direito Internacional Humanitário (DIH), em confronto com a proteção ao meio ambiente, no contexto de conflitos armados. O fenômeno do aniquilamento intencional do meio ambiente para cumprir metas e decisões militares, em cenários bélicos, vem sendo usado como estratégia de batalha que afeta a natureza tornando-a vítima silenciosa e comprometendo a sadia qualidade de vida para esta e futuras gerações. Tratam-se de delitos de requintada crueldade e de difícil enfrentamento legal, que foram historiados, nos últimos anos, por exemplo, nos conflitos do Golfo (1992), Kosovo (1999), Líbano (2006) e Palestina (2009). Apesar da regulamentação produzida pelos instrumentos de DIH, a eficácia normativa desses atos acaba prejudicada pela ausência de definição dos requisitos legais para a fixação do dano ambiental resultante de manobras militares, ou pela dificuldade em cumprir o rigor dos requisitos existentes. O problema surge quando correntes doutrinárias enxergam o sistema humanitário como regime jurídico fechado e autossuficiente (self-contained regime), ao passo que outras concebem a possibilidade de, diante da ineficácia em proteger a natureza durante hostilidades, torná-lo permeável a outros regimes especiais, como os Direitos Humanos e o Direito Ambiental. Para os fins deste trabalho, ante a inexistência de incompatibilidade entre os ramos especiais humanitário e ambiental, o enfrentamento do problema passa pela maior interação entre as leges speciales do DIH e do Direito Internacional Ambiental, como modo de ampliar os cânones de conservação natural. Sendo assim, sustenta-se a viabilidade formal e material de interação entre esses sistemas, em processo de ecologização do direito humanitário, com o propósito de efetivar a proteção do meio ambiente físico durante conflitos armados.