"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.

Norme séculaire et universelle, l’immunité des non-combattants a été gravement affectée par l’avènement de l’arme aérienne. L’introduction de la troisième dimension dans la guerre a permis d’attaquer des objectifs à l’arrière des lignes de front. Dans le contexte de la guerre totale, le bombardement stratégique a érigé la population et les biens civils en objectifs militaires afin de porter atteinte au moral de la première et de hâter la fin du conflit. Le résultat a été le massacre de millions de civils pour un bilan militaire plutôt mitigé. Ces bombardements tranchent avec la pratique actuelle par laquelle les États-majors s’efforcent de prévenir au maximum les dommages collatéraux. Comment expliquer un tel gouffre dans la manière d’envisager le bombardement aérien ?La population est devenue le centre de gravité des conflits contemporains. Que ce soit dans les interventions humanitaires ou dans la stratégie de la contre-insurrection, il convient de la préserver et de la conquérir sous peine de voir la mission échouer. Cette approche est exacerbée par la géographie moderne de la guerre se déroulant au sein de la population. Elle est compliquée par l’asymétrie morale opposée par les belligérants non-étatiques, se distinguant peu des civils et opérant à proximité ou à l’intérieur de zones peuplées. Dès lors, un paradigme de la modération s’applique aux bombardements aériens poussant parfois le commandement à aller au-delà du droit international humanitaire, là où, pendant une bonne partie du XXème siècle, ils étaient encore soumis au paradigme de la force de la guerre traditionnelle. / Immunity of non-combatants is a secular and universal norm which has been severely affected by the advent of air power. The introduction of the third dimension in the war led to attack targets behind the front lines. In the context of total war, strategic bombing has elevated population and civilian objects as military targets in order to undermine the morale of the first and hasten the end of the conflict. The result was the massacre of millions of civilians for a military rather mixed record. These bombings contrast with the current practice whereby staffs strive to maximize the prevention of collateral damage. How to explain such a gap in the approach of aerial bombardment?The population has become the center of gravity of contemporary conflicts. Whether in humanitarian interventions or in counter-insurgency, it should be preserved and conquered in order to avoid mission failure. This approach is exacerbated by modern geography of the war taking place within the population. It is complicated by the moral asymetry of the non-state belligerents, who are not very distinguished from civilians. Furthermore, they operates near or within populated areas. Therefore, a paradigm of moderation applies to aerial bombing, sometimes pushing the command to go beyond the international humanitarian law. For much of the twentieth century, they were still subject to the paradigm of the strength of the traditional war.

Le droit international humanitaire fait partie de ses rares branches du droit international qui bénéficient d’une très large adhésion de la part de la Communauté Internationale et de la société civile. Les juridictions internationales, Cour Internationale de Justice et Tribunal Pénal International, ainsi que la doctrine se sont accordés pour voir dans les règles du droit des conflits armés des normes dotées d’une valeur supérieure aux normes ordinaires. Elles ont ainsi été qualifiées d’obligations erga omnes, de principes intransgressibles du droit international et enfin de jus cogens ou normes impératives. Il ne saurait y avoir de plus grande reconnaissance juridique au sein de l’ordre public international à ce jour. En sus, le droit international humanitaire apparaît comme un des éléments fondamentaux d’une morale internationale dans un monde globalisé. Aux côtés des États et du CICR, la société civile s’est emparée de la question de son respect et même de son développement et nombre d’organisations internationales travaillent en ce sens. On ne pourrait ainsi envisager une situation plus propice à son respect que cette unanime consécration juridique et sociale. Pourtant le droit international humanitaire est violé à chaque seconde qui passe. L’objet de cette thèse est de tenter de réfléchir aux facteurs qui expliquent la récurrence de ces violations, qu’ils soient juridiques, anthropologiques ou sociologiques / International humanitarian law is one of the rare domains of international law which receive almost the entire support of the International Community and the Civil Society. Moreover, almost all of the rules that form international humanitarian law are part of international customary law which is compulsory for all, except for persistent objector. International jurisdictions, International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, as well as doctrine agree that the rules of the law of armed conflict should be considered of superior value compared to ordinary norms. They have been qualified as obligations erga omnes, intransgressible principles of international law and even as jus cogens or imperative law. One cannot think of a better legal acknowledgment. Furthermore, international humanitarian law, at least its essential principles, appears to be one of the fundamental elements of an international moral in a globalized world. With the States and the ICRC, civil society has seized the question of its respect and even its development and many NGO work for it. We couldn’t contemplate a more favorable situation to ensure its respect that this unanimous legal and social recognition. However, the international humanitarian law is infringed every passing second. The aim of this thesis is to try to study the factors which explain the recurrence of infringements, be them legal, anthropological or sociological

Ce travail porte sur ce qu'il définit comme des États fantoches ou encore des exemples d'occupation masquée. Afin d’éviter les conséquences politiques et particulièrement les obligations légales qu'imposent le droit international humanitaire et le droit international en général au pouvoir d'occupation, de plus en plus d'États créent des entités sécessionnistes à l'intérieur d'autres ¬États. Ces entités sécessionnistes, qui ont tous les aspects d'un État de fait, sont en réalité contrôlées par l’État commanditaire. En outre, ce dernier non seulement utilise la force militaire pour établir un État fantoche, mais contrôle sa vie quotidienne par des moyens militaires, économiques et politiques. Cinq régions dans le monde sont dans cette situation, tandis qu'une sixième est en cours de création en Ukraine de l'Est. En effet, la Chypre du Nord, le Haut Karabakh, la Transnistrie, l'Ossétie du Sud et l'Abkhazie peuvent tous être définis comme des États fantoches. Le statut peu clair de ces régions en fait des lieux d'impunité totale, des régions qui échappent à l'application du droit international. Non seulement les commanditaires de ces entités échappent au droit international humanitaire, mais les États fantoches sont des trous noirs dans le droit international en matière de protection des droits de l'homme, et des lieux où il est facile de se livrer à du trafic et à de la vente illégale d'armes pour le compte des États commanditaires – des zones d'impunité presque totale. La thèse analyse ce phénomène dans une perspective critique et dévoile les lacunes juridiques qui permettent l'utilisation d'états fantoche pour échapper à la charge du droit international humanitaire, tout en traçant les moyens possibles de résoudre ce problème. / This research deals with what it defines as puppet states or instances of covert occupation. In order to bypass the political burden and especially the legal obligations which international humanitarian law and general international law impose on the occupying power, a growing trend has come into place for states to create secessionist entities within another state. These secessionist entities, which have all outside aspects of a de facto state, are in fact effectively controlled by their sponsor state. Furthermore, the sponsor state not only establishes the puppet state through military force, but also controls its everyday life through the use of military, economic and political means, leading to a de facto annexation of the given territory. Five regions in the world are in this situation, while a sixth is under creation in Eastern Ukraine. Northern Cyprus, Nagorno Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia can all be defined as puppet states. The unclear status of these regions makes them areas of impunity, regions which largely fall outside the implementation of international humanitarian law. The present research analyzes this phenomenon from a critical perspective and unveils the legal gaps that enable the use of puppet states for escaping the burden of international humanitarian law, while mapping possible ways of tackling this problem.

The United States increasingly has resorted to the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for targeted killings of terrorists as a counterterrorism strategy. More states and terrorist organizations also are acquiring UAVs and this development can lead to indiscriminate and unregulated use of UAVs. Previous researchers have indicated the surveillance ability and precise weapon delivery capacity of UAVs make them a weapon of choice for U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Although the U.S. government estimated the collateral damage involved in the use of UAVs at 3-5%, nongovernmental sources put it at 25-40%. A gap exists in the current literature regarding public perception of the use of UAVs as a counterterrorism measure and how international humanitarian law (IHL) may interpret employment of UAVs. The purpose of this quantitative, cross-sectional study is to determine if a relationship exists among public support of the use of UAVs for targeted killing, attitudes towards counterterrorism, and public perceptions of IHL. An online survey was used to collect data from 104 adult participants using the convenience sampling method. Logistic regression, ANOVA, and correlational analyses helped to determine the relationships. The outcomes contributed to the existing literature by providing important data related to public perception of the use of UAVs with the potential to enhance global peace and security. The results contributed to social change initiatives through the potential to facilitate the establishment of international and domestic legal frameworks to regulate the future employment of UAVs for targeted killing.

<p>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.</p><p>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.</p>