In this minor dissertation, the use and choice of weapons employed during the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in 2008 over South Ossetia will be analysed. Due to the fact that cluster munitions were used by both parties, and that they are a controversial weapon with regard the principles regulating the use and choice of weapons, section I of this dissertation will focus on them and their regulation in international law. Section II will focus on the facts concerning the 2008 conflict over and South Ossetia. Section III will look at the international humanitarian laws applicable and relevant to this dissertation. In sections IV, V, and VI arguments will be raised in order to attribute violations of international humanitarian law to Georgia, while countering foreseeable arguments which could be invoked against Russia. This dissertation will therefore only analyse the provisions when they are pertinent to that aim. The desired outcome of proceeding in such a manner is that since both the viewpoints of the claimant and the defendant will be analysed, an extended and well-rounded view on the law, its interpretation, controversies, opinions of established scholars and jurisprudence, will be given. The relevant principles relating to the use and choice of weapons which will be analysed are: the principle of discrimination (section IV), the principle of proportionality (section V), as well as the prohibition to cause superfluous harm (section VI). Certain specific issues such as human shields will also be looked at in the analysis of a particular attack. In the analysis of this conflict, both well-established arguments, as well as controversial or disputed ones, will be presented in order to support either side. This analysis will argue that Georgia violated international humanitarian law, while defending Russia's conduct, however, the arguments presented will remain coherent and not contradict each other. This paper's scope will be limited to analysing attacks which are sufficiently documented and imply a problem of use and choice of weapons; as opposed to the ones which solely purport an issue of military objective and were hit by a precise missile. Indeed, this dissertation focuses more on controversial weapons and whether they violate international humanitarian law solely by their inherent nature, that is, the mere choice of using them would be in violation of the law; or by their specific use in the attack. The four attacks analysed will allow an in depth analysis of the different aspects that the use and choice of weapons can entail; the 2 dissertation will therefore be limited to them and any further attack which do not bring to light any new arguments will not be investigated. The attacks which will be examined in the context of the conflict over South Ossetia occurred both in South Ossetia as well as non-disputed Georgian territory. These are: the one launched by Georgia using BM-21 Grads multiple rocket launchers on Tskhinvali and surrounding villages lasting from the night of the 7th of August until some point during the day of the 8th of August;1 the 9th of August attack where Georgia employed Mk-4 cluster munition rockets containing M85 submunitions over Gori district villages, the Roki tunnel and according to a witness, Dzara Road2; Russia's attack on Gori city on the 12th of August using an Iskander-M SS-26 cluster munition missile;3 as well as the firing of a few missiles on a school in Gori city by the Russian air force on the 9th of August.4 The entirety of the facts pertaining to the conflict are drawn from the report on the conflict carried out by Human Rights Watch entitled 'Up in Flames'.5 The analysis of the relevant provisions will proceed as follows: the rules will be analysed one by one, following the general introduction to the rule, general statements regarding its interpretation and application, the law will then be applied to the different attacks, given that enough facts are provided and that it pertains to the aim of the dissertation. If there are specific interpretations or applications of the law which are only relevant to one attack, it will be mentioned directly under said attack.

Includes bibliographical references. / The United Nations was established to promote international peace and security and has become the world's most important peacekeeper and safeguard of human rights.1 Due to the increasing number of attacks against those who keep the peace in practice, the international community felt the urgent need for a better protection for its peacekeeping personnel.2 Therefore, attacks against peacekeepers have been incorporated in Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC-Statute) as well as later in Article 4(b) of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL-Statute). The incorporation of attacks against peacekeepers in the ICC-Statute was not the only novelty. It is the first international criminal code that provides a general part which explicitly includes the principle of legality (Articles 22- 24 ICC-Statute) and its component of specificity (nullum crime sine lege scripta) (Article 22(2) ICC-Statute). It is the aim of this paper to examine whether the war crimes of intentionally directed attacks against peacekeepers, in its current version, meets the requirement of specificity. This paper will argue that the notion of the principle of legality (nullum crime sine lege) in the ICC-Statute witnesses a development from a loose to a strict application of this principle, and its components. Due to the limitation of this paper, the discussion will focus on the most controversial elements of crime, namely "attack", "peacekeeping mission in accordance with the U.N. Charter" and "as long as they are entitled to the protection afforded to civilians under IHL." I will argue that the elements "attack" and "as long as they are entitled to the protection afforded to civilians under IHL" cannot be clearly defined and that their scope is controversy, which makes it impossible for the subject of law to determine whether certain behaviour has a criminal conduct. This paper will conclude that the current versions of Article 8(2)(b)(iii), (e)(iii) and Article 4(b) SCSL-Statute are consequently violating the principle of specificity, which makes them void. The conclusion will offer a possible lawful version.

Children have the right to preventive medical treatment and interventions that serve their best interests. In the case of minors, this right is exercised by the parent or legal guardian with hopes that they will exercise their responsibility positively. Over the years however, this right has been challenged by an increasing number of parents withholding consent to immunize their children against some deadly diseases for one reason or another. This has led to a conflict between parental consent and the child’s right to health and resolving this conflict is an issue of law. Childhood immunizations are the first line of defence for a child and as such, should be considered a basic human right that needs to be protected. By denying this right to the child, it infringes on that child’s right to health and right to life. This should not be the case as international human rights law demands the protection of society’s most vulnerable members, especially children.

The traditional substantive framework of the use of force in international law has been challenged by recent developments involving non-state actors. This dissertation considers the legality of the use of force against non-state actors, specifically terrorists, where the terrorist acts are not attributable to the territorial state. The United States' air campaign against the Islamic State in Syria is examined to determine whether the United States' conduct constitutes a lawful exercise of the use of force in international law. The substantive framework of the use of force in international law is first analysed, which includes an explanation of the scope of the prohibition of the use of force in international law and the various exceptions to this prohibition. This is followed by a description of the focus of this paper, terrorism and counterterrorism, and of the development of the use of force against terrorists in international law. The current status of the use of force against terrorists in international law is elucidated. The United States' use of force against the Islamic State in Syria is contextualised through the provision of a brief history of the conflict in Syria and the emergence of the Islamic State as a terrorist threat. Possible legal justifications regarding United States' use of force in Syria are examined to conclude whether the air strikes are lawful in terms of international law on the use of force. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to the growing debate about the legality of the use of force against terrorists and eventually, to a clearer framework on the use of force in international law.

This thesis deals with the international law position of those entities which may be said to have status in relation to the territory known as Rhodesia (or Southern Rhodesia, if one is to give it its original name). These entities are the State of Rhodesia, the Government of Rhodesia, the People of Rhodesia and the United Kingdom which claims to exercise sovereignty over the territory of Rhodesia. Since the ambit of the thesis concerns the international law position of these entities it follows that other international law problems relating to Rhodesia, which concern third states and international organizations, fall outside its scope. These latter problems relate to obligations of third states and competences of international organizations to take action in the Rhodesian situation and do not relate to the status of Rhodesia itself. This thesis therefore does not deal with such matters as the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations and the obligations o f member states to participate in them. However, where obligations of third states are inextricably connected with the status of the territory itself, it is necessary to treat them. Thus the "duty not to recognize" Rhodesia owed by third states received full treatment in all its various facets for recognition is a concept which is of cardinal importance in considering status. For the purposes of exposition the thesis is divided into two main parts, a historical part and a contemporary part.

The Crimea Crisis didn't just influenced the political world, it also challenged the international law system. It is one of the major crisis after the Cold War where the relationship between western states and Russia were at a point of collapsing. After the fled of the former Russian president, the "Little Green Man" entered Crimea and took over the control over the territory. In the beginning Russia denied any connection to this rebel group, but according to the effecting control test, their action can be attributed to Russia. Therefore Russia used illegally force in Crimea. After holding a referendum, which didn't met the international standards, Crimea singed a treaty, which lead to the incorporation into the Russian Federation. Because of the link to the illegal use of force these actions violated international law. Crimea is therefore occupied territory and the law of occupation applies to the area. But because Russia considers the territory as part of the Russian Federation, it considers the law of state succession as the applicable law. When we compare the two legal systems in regards to the rights and citizenship, it can be concluded that none of the two legal systems are more beneficent for the inhabitants than the other. As a consequence one can hypothetical ask if there are legal arguments in international law, which can be put forward to underpin the assumption that for the benefit of the inhabitants the de jure legal system has to evade in favor for the de facto system. There are several possible legal arguments, but none of them is in the position to underpin the raised question. Even there are no legal arguments the current discussion in international has the possibility to strengthen the law of occupation.

Includes abstract. / The concept of child justice has existed for quite some time. The concept involves among other things, a separate judicial system for children who come into conflict with the law. The international community has embraced the concept in a number of international instruments to which States such as Zambia are a party. The effect of such ratification is that States Parties are administer child justice in the manner laid out by international standards and norms. This thesis therefore sets out to consider to what extent Zambia has complied with international law standards on child justice particularly for the juvenile offender. The international legal framework as it currently operates will therefore be considered in this study. An examination of Zambia?s current laws will also be taken into account and an analysis of whether or not such laws live up to international standards will be made. Recommendations will then be made on any shortcomings that may be observed

Includes bibliographical references. / The thesis makes a case for the creation of a legally binding instrument to regulate the conduct of multinational corporations operating in the Zimbabwean mining sector. The aim of this thesis is to explore the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its application (or lack thereof) in the Zimbabwean mining sector with a focus on multinational corporations.

Includes bibliographical references. / This dissertation will argue that the normative and procedural protection framework established under the international refugee law regime is inadequate to provide protection to refugee victims of sexual violence. It will also argue that the various duty bearers vis-a-vis the right to security of refugee women in Kenya are not living up to their legal obligations. It will also illustrate the po- tential benefits of using the human rights law regime to enhance the protection of refugee women from sexual violence. The study includes a detailed analysis of the international and regional treaties, declarations, general comments and resolutions which make explicit and implicit reference to the right to life, security of person, freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and the right to health and draws upon relevant case law which outlines the obligations of the various duty bearers.

This minor dissertation examines victim participation at the International Criminal Court in practice, focusing on the Kenya 2 proceedings. Victim participation has always been a significant part of the mandate of the International Criminal Court, however, the actual practice of victim participation is not well expounded upon in the Rome Statute or through the legal texts of the Court. It has largely been left up to individual chambers to determine and design what modality of victim participation is suitable for the circumstances of the case before it. The Kenya situation presented a number of novel circumstances that required the Court and Counsel to implement new and innovative victim participation practices. The failures and successes of the Kenya victim participation methods deserve to be documented so that lessons can be learnt for current and future victim participation practices.