No description available.

No description available.

<p>In this minithesis, I demonstrate that International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law are two distinct but related fields of law. First, the examination deals with the instance that the aim of both branches of law, the protection of human rights, is common, but the approach to reach this aim is different. In this regard, I show numerous points of divergence of both branches of law which have their origin in the fundamentally different historical developments of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. I give the main attention to the application of both sets of law, whereby the contractions and legal gaps of the protection of human rights become apparent. The proposals dealing with the solution of these issues are discussed. I argue that a new legal instrument for a comprehensive and compatible protection of human rights is necessary, especially in times of internal strife. Regarding the question as to whether International Humanitarian Law or International Human Rights Law should apply if both branches are applicable, I take the view to apply the roman principle of law lex specialis derogat legi generali in such a way that the more specific rule whenever they have a specific justification for dealing with specific problems is applicable. Both branches of law do not merge to one, but they converge to a harmonious relationship, where they complement each other and provide the highest protection of human rights.</p>

No description available.

The main objective of this thesis is to investigate, using the dialectical method, why human rights are not only just emancipatory in the international context but are also often used for the legitimation of repressive policies. The argument in this thesis accepts that human rights have an important role in the general development of international law, and that their historical development has had a transformational effect on international politics. My thesis is that political groups have sought to mould political and social interactions by questioning and reshaping both the definitions and the system of human rights. In doing so, those actions – defined as political power – are used to legitimise new social and political constellations by changing the legal definitions of rights and by erecting new forms of protection. In the development of my argument, I analyse first the different historical moments in which significant transformations and redefinitions of human rights occurred. For that, I will identify two processes: the formalisation of rights (emancipatory) and their de-formalisation (repressive). Secondly, I will seek to show that these processes are politically constituted in a dialectic that operates in the implementation of such rights by the State in both domestic and international spheres. I shall then provide an interpretation that tries to explain how this dialectic has helped legitimise the system of international human rights. As a result, it can be observed that while in the West there was, domestically, an emancipatory movement able to formalise rights that progressively reached larger social groups, the same cannot be said for those who lived in the colonial world. Internationally, there have been different interpretations that prevented the expansion and implementation of human rights on the same basis as in the domestic sphere. The dialectic of emancipation and repression, therefore, can be visualised by looking, historically, at political struggles between formalising and de-formalising forces.

The context for this work is set by the proliferation of intrastate conflicts and the international legal debate of humanitarian intervention. The thesis specifically addresses the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) as formulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The objective is to assess the present quality of R2P as a concept of international law. Five components of the R2P framework are discussed: the primary responsibility of every state to protect its population from large-scale killings and large-scale ethnic cleansing; the right of other states to collective humanitarian intervention through the United Nations; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention without prior Security Council authorization; the responsibility of the international community to take military action; and the criteria for external military involvement. Methodologically, the analysis is grounded in the dominant theory of legal positivism and its doctrine of sources, which requires notably an analysis of treaties and customary international law. An ethical theory is devised and applied, however, to remedy inadequacies of a strictly positivist method that sets out to determine international law solely on the basis of hard facts. These ethical considerations serve as a background theory to provide guidance in difficult cases of treaty or customary law analysis, and they fill gaps in positive international law as legally binding “principles of ethical law”. In conclusion, the individual components of R2P differ in terms of their legal status and the degree to which it can be explained by the traditional posivist approach to international law. The primary responsibility of every state has become accepted as a hard norm of international customary law; the right of collective humanitarian intervention is provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention has become part of the international legal system as a “principle of ethical law”; the residual responsibility of the international community is a principle of “legal soft law”; finally, positive international law defines no criteria delineating the permissible and required use of force for the protection of foreign populations.

Purpose - The thesis aims to provide a framework of measuring the performance of pur-chasing consortia humanitarian sector. The performance measurement seeks to identify the competitive advantages of being a member of purchasing consortia during purchasing activities of transportation ervices. Design/methodology/approach – The research is based on a qualitative study with de-ductive and explanatory approach. Semi-structured interviews with experts within the humanitarian sector have been conducted to gain necessary and credible data. Findings – It has been identified that purchasing consortia do not mutually operate physical purchasing activities. However, the consortia performance measurement framework, derived from the resource-based view, illustrates that being a member gen-erates the capabilities of decreased purchasing complexity, learning capabilities and ca-pacity sharing. These capabilities have a significant impact on the purchasing process for transportation services and lead to the competitive advantages of (1) having access to extensive knowledge, (2) reducing operational efforts, (3) reducing lead-time and (4) improving learning procedures. Research limitations/implications – As the literature on humanitarian logistics is still in its infancy, further applications from the commercial sector were considered to strengthen the results of the framework. Practical implications - The extent of collaboration of purchasing consortia indicates that managers of HOs are able to gain significant expertise and offers advantageous opportunities in handling purchasing activities in humanitarian logistics. The implications cover strategic as well as operational issues. Originality/value – The thesis gives an insight about practical purchasing operations of existing consortia and detects previously unknown aspects within the literature of humanitarian logistics.

The context for this work is set by the proliferation of intrastate conflicts and the international legal debate of humanitarian intervention. The thesis specifically addresses the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) as formulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The objective is to assess the present quality of R2P as a concept of international law. Five components of the R2P framework are discussed: the primary responsibility of every state to protect its population from large-scale killings and large-scale ethnic cleansing; the right of other states to collective humanitarian intervention through the United Nations; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention without prior Security Council authorization; the responsibility of the international community to take military action; and the criteria for external military involvement. Methodologically, the analysis is grounded in the dominant theory of legal positivism and its doctrine of sources, which requires notably an analysis of treaties and customary international law. An ethical theory is devised and applied, however, to remedy inadequacies of a strictly positivist method that sets out to determine international law solely on the basis of hard facts. These ethical considerations serve as a background theory to provide guidance in difficult cases of treaty or customary law analysis, and they fill gaps in positive international law as legally binding “principles of ethical law”. In conclusion, the individual components of R2P differ in terms of their legal status and the degree to which it can be explained by the traditional posivist approach to international law. The primary responsibility of every state has become accepted as a hard norm of international customary law; the right of collective humanitarian intervention is provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention has become part of the international legal system as a “principle of ethical law”; the residual responsibility of the international community is a principle of “legal soft law”; finally, positive international law defines no criteria delineating the permissible and required use of force for the protection of foreign populations.

The law of Blockade is derived from customary law that developed during the height of eighteenth and nineteenth century naval warfare. As a method of warfare that has the goal of crippling an adversary’s economy, blockade can devastate not only the military apparatus of a country, but the civilian population as well. In this manner, it is a method of warfare that cannot distinguish in its effects between civilians and military objectives. The existing IHL framework governing blockade does not provide satisfactory protections to the civilian populations of affected states. Starvation, malnutrition and disease are the consequential effects of a lengthy and effective blockade. A new approach to the law of blockade is required, one that will codify contemporary practice and obligate those engaging in blockade operations to ensure that humanitarian relief cannot be denied to affected civilian populations. / Thesis (Master, Law) -- Queen's University, 2012-03-03 16:13:35.593

<p>In this minithesis, I demonstrate that International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law are two distinct but related fields of law. First, the examination deals with the instance that the aim of both branches of law, the protection of human rights, is common, but the approach to reach this aim is different. In this regard, I show numerous points of divergence of both branches of law which have their origin in the fundamentally different historical developments of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. I give the main attention to the application of both sets of law, whereby the contractions and legal gaps of the protection of human rights become apparent. The proposals dealing with the solution of these issues are discussed. I argue that a new legal instrument for a comprehensive and compatible protection of human rights is necessary, especially in times of internal strife. Regarding the question as to whether International Humanitarian Law or International Human Rights Law should apply if both branches are applicable, I take the view to apply the roman principle of law lex specialis derogat legi generali in such a way that the more specific rule whenever they have a specific justification for dealing with specific problems is applicable. Both branches of law do not merge to one, but they converge to a harmonious relationship, where they complement each other and provide the highest protection of human rights.</p>