Global ETD Search

51	Against the world : South Africa and human rights at the United Nations 1945-1961 Shearar, Jeremy Brown 30 November 2007 (has links) At the United Nations Conference on International Organization in April 1945 South Africa affirmed the principle of respect for human rights in a Preamble it proposed for inclusion in the Charter of the United Nations. The proposal was approved and the Preamble was accorded binding force. While South Africa participated in the earliest attempts of the United Nations to draft a bill of rights, it abstained on the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because its municipal legislation was incompatible with some articles. Similarly, South Africa did not become a party to the international human rights instruments the declaration inspired, and avoided an active role in their elaboration. Subsidiary organs of the General Assembly undertook several studies on discrimination in the field of human rights. They provided evidence that racial discrimination in South Africa intensified after the National Party came to power in May 1948 on the platform of apartheid and diverged from global trends in humanitarian law. The gap between the Union and the United Nations widened. At the first General Assembly in 1946, India successfully asked that the treatment of persons of Indian origin in South Africa be inscribed on the agenda. The Indian question was later subsumed in the charge that South Africa's racial policies violated the Charter and in 1952 the General Assembly began to discuss apartheid. South Africa protested that these actions contravened Charter Article 2(7), which prohibited intervention in matters of domestic jurisdiction, and were ultra vires. Criticism of the Union increased in intensity, until in 1960 it culminated in calls for economic and diplomatic sanctions. Research shows that South Africa was the main architect of its growing isolation, since it refused to modify domestic policies that alienated even its potential allies. Moreover, it maintained a low profile in United Nations debates on human rights issues, abstaining on all substantive clauses in the two draft covenants on human rights. These actions were interpreted as lack of interest in global humanitarian affairs. South Africa had little influence on the development of customary international law in the field of human rights but was a catalyst in the evolution of international machinery to protect them. / Jurisprudence / (LL.D) South Africa Apartheid South African Indians Racial discrimination United Nations International law State Sovereignty Domestic jurisdiction Self-determination Commission on Human Rights International Court of Justice Human rights -- South Africa Apartheid -- South Africa United Nations -- South Africa Humanitarian law Jurisdiction (International law)
52	Waging Wars in Cyberspace: How International Law On Aggression And Self-Defense Falls Short Of Addressing Cyber Warfare.Could Iran Legally Retaliate For The Stuxnet Attack? Rubin, Willa 16 June 2016 (has links) No description available. International Law International Relations Law Legal Studies Political Science cyber cyber security cyber warfare cyber crime cyber cyber attack cyber operation stuxnet article 51 un un charter jus ad bellum jus in bello international law rome statute aggression self-defense international court of justice icj
53	Plaidoyer pour une responsabilité intégrée de l'ONU : le cas des opérations de paix Ngamilu, Geoffrey 04 1900 (has links) C'est avec beaucoup de complexité et d'ambiguïté que les opérations de la paix des Nations Unies se sont déployées sur la scène internationale au cours des dernières décennies. Si le déploiement de ces opérations reflète avant tout la matérialisation de l’un des buts fondamentaux de l’ONU, à savoir : le maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationale (Article 1(1) de la Charte des Nations Unies), il n'en reste pas moins manifeste que les actions qu’elles entreprennent sur le terrain sont susceptibles de produire des effets préjudiciables pour les tiers. La question que pose le présent mémoire est donc de savoir si, et dans quelle mesure, la responsabilité de l'ONU est régie par le droit international lorsque des tiers subissent des dommages matériels et corporels du fait des troupes des opérations de paix des Nations Unies. Que prévoit le droit international ? Existe-t-il pour les victimes des voies de réparations ? S’interroger sur la responsabilité de l’ONU suppose que l’on tienne compte avant tout de sa personnalité juridique internationale, car l’existence juridique de l’Organisation universelle constitue le postulat primaire sur lequel sera fondée sa responsabilité internationale. L’avis consultatif de la Cour Internationale de Justice du 11 avril 1949 sur la Réparation des dommages subis au service des Nations Unies représente le moment précis de cette personnification de l’ONU sur la scène internationale. D’un point de vue plus substantiel, les contours de la responsabilité onusienne dans le contexte du maintien de la paix se dessineront autour d’un élément central : « le fait internationalement illicite ». Celui-ci comprend deux éléments; d’une part, un élément objectif consistant en un comportement précis (action ou omission)violant une obligation internationale; et, d’autre part, un élément subjectif attribuant à l’Organisation ce manquement au droit international. Cette ossature de la responsabilité onusienne permettra d’appréhender de façon plus précise dans quelle mesure l’Organisation pourrait être tenue responsable de ses actes ou omissions dans le contexte du maintien de la paix. Plus encore, elle nous permet de plaider pour une responsabilité intégrée tenant compte des facteurs endogènes propres à toute situation, mais aussi faisant de l’individu dans le droit international des sujets dont les intérêts sont susceptibles de protection juridique. / It is with great complexity and ambiguity that the United Nations Peace Operations took place on the international scene during the last decade. Since their deployment reflects first and foremost one of the most fundamental goal of the Unites Nations Organization, namely: to maintain international peace and security (Section 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations), it is predictable that the actions they undertake on the field may produce harmful effects for the third parties. The question raised by this thesis aims to discover if and to what extent the UN responsibility is governed by International Law when such third parties suffer from material and personal damages at the hand of UN Peace Operations troops. What does International Law provide? Are there any means of reparation for the victims? Searching for the UN responsibility includes the supposition that the Organization possesses the international legal personality, because its legal existence represents the basic postulate on which its responsibility will be based. The Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949 of the International Court of Justice on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations constitutes the exact moment of the personification of the UN on the international scene. From a more substantial perspective, the outlines of the UN responsibility in the peacekeeping context are being drawn around one crucial element: « the internationally wrongful act ». This element includes two parts; on the one hand, an objective component which consists of a specific conduct (action or omission) breaching an international obligation; and, on the other hand, a subjective component attributing to the Organization the breach of this international obligation. This framework of the UN responsibility will allow a better understanding of the extent to which the responsibility of the Organization can be retained for actions or omissions committed in a peacekeeping context. More importantly, it allows us to plead for a responsibility which encompasses not only the endogenous characteristics of each situation, but also a legal protection by International Law of the interest of each individual. Droit international public Responsabilité internationale Nations Unies Opérations de paix Personnalité internationale Fait internationalement illicite Commission du droit international Maintien de la paix Public International Law International responsibility United Nations Peace Operations International personality Internationally wrongful act International Law Commission Peacekeeping
54	Plaidoyer pour une responsabilité intégrée de l'ONU : le cas des opérations de paix Ngamilu, Geoffrey 04 1900 (has links) C'est avec beaucoup de complexité et d'ambiguïté que les opérations de la paix des Nations Unies se sont déployées sur la scène internationale au cours des dernières décennies. Si le déploiement de ces opérations reflète avant tout la matérialisation de l’un des buts fondamentaux de l’ONU, à savoir : le maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationale (Article 1(1) de la Charte des Nations Unies), il n'en reste pas moins manifeste que les actions qu’elles entreprennent sur le terrain sont susceptibles de produire des effets préjudiciables pour les tiers. La question que pose le présent mémoire est donc de savoir si, et dans quelle mesure, la responsabilité de l'ONU est régie par le droit international lorsque des tiers subissent des dommages matériels et corporels du fait des troupes des opérations de paix des Nations Unies. Que prévoit le droit international ? Existe-t-il pour les victimes des voies de réparations ? S’interroger sur la responsabilité de l’ONU suppose que l’on tienne compte avant tout de sa personnalité juridique internationale, car l’existence juridique de l’Organisation universelle constitue le postulat primaire sur lequel sera fondée sa responsabilité internationale. L’avis consultatif de la Cour Internationale de Justice du 11 avril 1949 sur la Réparation des dommages subis au service des Nations Unies représente le moment précis de cette personnification de l’ONU sur la scène internationale. D’un point de vue plus substantiel, les contours de la responsabilité onusienne dans le contexte du maintien de la paix se dessineront autour d’un élément central : « le fait internationalement illicite ». Celui-ci comprend deux éléments; d’une part, un élément objectif consistant en un comportement précis (action ou omission)violant une obligation internationale; et, d’autre part, un élément subjectif attribuant à l’Organisation ce manquement au droit international. Cette ossature de la responsabilité onusienne permettra d’appréhender de façon plus précise dans quelle mesure l’Organisation pourrait être tenue responsable de ses actes ou omissions dans le contexte du maintien de la paix. Plus encore, elle nous permet de plaider pour une responsabilité intégrée tenant compte des facteurs endogènes propres à toute situation, mais aussi faisant de l’individu dans le droit international des sujets dont les intérêts sont susceptibles de protection juridique. / It is with great complexity and ambiguity that the United Nations Peace Operations took place on the international scene during the last decade. Since their deployment reflects first and foremost one of the most fundamental goal of the Unites Nations Organization, namely: to maintain international peace and security (Section 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations), it is predictable that the actions they undertake on the field may produce harmful effects for the third parties. The question raised by this thesis aims to discover if and to what extent the UN responsibility is governed by International Law when such third parties suffer from material and personal damages at the hand of UN Peace Operations troops. What does International Law provide? Are there any means of reparation for the victims? Searching for the UN responsibility includes the supposition that the Organization possesses the international legal personality, because its legal existence represents the basic postulate on which its responsibility will be based. The Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949 of the International Court of Justice on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations constitutes the exact moment of the personification of the UN on the international scene. From a more substantial perspective, the outlines of the UN responsibility in the peacekeeping context are being drawn around one crucial element: « the internationally wrongful act ». This element includes two parts; on the one hand, an objective component which consists of a specific conduct (action or omission) breaching an international obligation; and, on the other hand, a subjective component attributing to the Organization the breach of this international obligation. This framework of the UN responsibility will allow a better understanding of the extent to which the responsibility of the Organization can be retained for actions or omissions committed in a peacekeeping context. More importantly, it allows us to plead for a responsibility which encompasses not only the endogenous characteristics of each situation, but also a legal protection by International Law of the interest of each individual. Droit international public Responsabilité internationale Nations Unies Opérations de paix Personnalité internationale Fait internationalement illicite Commission du droit international Maintien de la paix Public International Law International responsibility United Nations Peace Operations International personality Internationally wrongful act International Law Commission Peacekeeping.
55	Le statut des tribunaux ad hoc en droit international pénal / The status of the ad hoc tribunals in international criminal laws Hassan, Kamal 30 June 2015 (has links) Cette thèse a pour objet d’examiner les tribunaux ad hoc en analysant leur définition en droit international public, leurs principes juridiques fondateurs, leur compétence face aux crimes internationaux et leurs objectifs pour déterminer s’il existe un statut international commun pour ces tribunaux. La mise en œuvre des premiers tribunaux ad hoc sur la scène internationale après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les TMI de Nuremberg et de Tokyo, était due à l’incapacité ou à l’absence de volonté du système judiciaire interne des pays intéressés pour traduire en justice les auteurs des crimes de guerre. Par la suite, neuf tribunaux ad hoc ont été créés (soit unilatéralement par le Conseil de sécurité, soit par un accord international) en vue de juger les crimes internationaux les plus monstrueux, tels que les crimes de génocide, les crimes contre l’humanité et les crimes de guerre. Nous pouvons dire à cet égard que les tribunaux ad hoc bénéficient de tous les mécanismes nécessaires pour être efficaces, comme la responsabilité pénale individuelle, la primauté sur les juridictions nationales et l'obligation des Etats de coopérer, et ils ont réussi à satisfaire l'objectif de justice. Toutefois, ces tribunaux s'étaient vu attribuer, outre leur fonction naturelle d'assurer la justice, un objectif supplémentaire, à savoir la réalisation de la paix et de la sécurité internationales, objectif qu'ils n'ont pu réaliser, car un organe juridique ne peut pas atteindre un objectif dont les motifs sont politiques. Après avoir étudié le statut des tribunaux ad hoc, et nécessairement avoir analysé tous les textes qui organisent la fonction de ces Tribunaux, nous sommes à même de confirmer que les tribunaux ad hoc ne seront pas remplacés par d'autres types d'organes de justice, tels que la justice transitionnelle et la compétence universelle. En outre, malgré l'entrée en fonction de la CPI en 2002, en tant que Cour permanente, nous assisterons à de nouvelles créations de tribunaux ad hoc, dont les statuts pourront s'inspirer du statut commun et de nos propositions personnelles. / The purpose of this thesis is to examine the ad hoc tribunals by analysing their definition in international public law, their founding legal principles, their jurisdiction over international crimes and their goals to determine wether there is a common international status for these tribunals.The implementation of the first ad hoc tribunals on the international stage after World War II, the IMT of Nuremberg and Tokyo, was due to the inability or unwillingness of the internal judicial system in the countries concerned to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice.Subsequently, nine ad hoc tribunals were established (either unilaterally by the Security Council or through an international agreement) with a view to prosecute the most monstrous crimes, such as crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In this respect, we can say that the ad hoc tribunals benefit from all the mechanisms required to be efficient, such as individual criminal responsibility, primacy over nation courts and the obligation of States to cooperate,and they have succeeded to achieve the purpose of justice.However, in addition to their natural function to ensure justice, these tribunals had been given a further aim : to achieve international peace and security. They were not able to achieve this aim, because a legal body cannot reach a goal whose motives are political.After studying the status of the ad hoc tribunals and thus necessarily analysing all the texts which organise the function of these tribunals, we are in a position to confirm that the ad hoc tribunals will not be replaced by other judicial bodies, such as transitional justice or universal jurisdiction.Moreover, despite the entry into force of the ICC as a permanent court in 2002, new ad hoc tribunals will be established. Their status could be based on the common status and on our proposals. Absence de volonté Agression Crimes de guerre Crimes contre l’humanité Conseil de sécurité Cour pénale internationale. Cour internationale de justice Droits de l’homme Droit international humanitaire Droit international pénal Emprisonnement Extermination Génocide Guerre Froide Justice transitionnelle Responsabilité pénale individuelle Terrorisme Ad hoc tribunal Crimes against humanity Criminal procedure Deportation Genocide Human rights Humanitarian law Individual criminal responsibility International Court of justice International criminal court Non bis in idem Prosecutor Security Council Transitional justice War Crimes
56	Analysis of the main elements of the International Court of Justice Judgment in the maritime dispute (Peru v. Chile) in the light of the parties positions / Análisis de los principales elementos de la sentencia de la Corte Internacional de Justicia en el caso de la controversia marítima (Perú c. Chile) a la luz de las posiciones de las partes Moscoso de la Cuba, Pablo 10 April 2018 (has links) On January 27, 2014 the International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations ruled in the case of the maritime dispute (Peru v. Chile), being Peru the one that brought forth the case in January 2008. During the proceedings in Court, the parties presented fundamentally different positions on the existence of a maritime boundary between them and how the Court should proceed solving the dispute. The Court should have considered the multiple legal reasonings presented by the States parties over the years to arrive to its ruling. Particularly, some of the legal reasonings presented by Peru were accepted by the Court and considered in the ruling, beginning from the interpretation given to the proclamations of Peru and Chile in 1947, going through the reasonings Peru presented about the 1952 Santiago Declaration (It was the main topic presented by Chile, which was discarded by the Court) until the reasoning presented by Peru saying that the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement didn’t create a zone of tolerance that extends to 200 nautical miles. However, the Court considered that in the 1954 agreement the parties accepted the existence of a tacit agreement, but this existence was not presented by them in the Court even though it has a legal support in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Then, the Court had to determine the extent of the tacit agreement, a very difficult duty because the parties hadn’t considered the existence of that situation and its extension. After establishing the implied legal agreement was for 80 nautical miles along a parallel of latitude, the Court proceeded to establish a maritime boundary applying thoroughly the rules and principles of maritime delimitation presented by Peru, which applied to the case determine the presence of an equidistant line. In relation to the starting-point of the maritime boundary, the Court didn’t use the point presented by Peru but, in a correct way, made it clear that the starting-point of the maritime boundary and the starting-point of the land boundary don’t have to match necessarily. Finally, the way how the Court established the maritime boundary recognizes, with no doubt, that the area previously named “outer triangle” belongs to Peru, as this country claimed and as Chile opposed repeatedly over the years. In summary, it is a decision based on International Law and adopted under the evidence presented in Court. The Court applied and confirmed various legal arguments presented by Peru during the process, in spite of the opposing position of Chile. / El 27 de enero de 2014, la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ), órgano judicial principal de la organización de las Naciones Unidas, dio su sentencia en el caso de la controversia marítima (Perú c. Chile), el cual el Perú presentó ante ella en enero de 2008. Durante el proceso ante la Corte, las partes presentaron posiciones fundamentalmente distintas sobre la existencia de un límite marítimo entre ellas y sobre cómo la Corte debía proceder para resolver este caso. Para llegar a su fallo, la Corte debió evaluar esos múltiples argumentos legales planteados por ambos Estados a lo largo de años. En particular, varios de los argumentos legales planteados por el Perú fueron aceptados por la Corte y acogidos en el fallo, desde la interpretación que dio a las proclamaciones de Perú y Chile de 1947, pasando por los argumentos que planteó el Perú sobre la Declaración de Santiago de 1952 (que había sido el núcleo del caso argumentado por Chile, el cual fue descartado por la Corte), hasta el argumento peruano en el sentido de que el Convenio sobre Zona Especial Fronteriza Marítima de 1954 no creó una zona de tolerancia que se extienda por doscientas millas marinas. Sin embargo, la Corte consideró que en ese tratado de 1954 las partes reconocieron la existencia de un acuerdo tácito, figura que no argumentaron las partes ante la Corte, pero que tiene su fundamentación legal en jurisprudencia previa de la CIJ. La Corte luego tuvo que determinar la extensión de ese acuerdo legal tácito, labor sumamente difícil ya que las partes no habían contemplado la existencia de esa figura ni argumentado hasta dónde se habría extendido la misma. Luego de establecer que el acuerdo legal tácito se extendía por ochenta millas marinas a lo largo de un paralelo de latitud, la Corte procedió a establecer un límite marítimo siguiendo exactamente las normas y principios sobre delimitación marítima planteados por el Perú, los cuales aplicados al caso determinan el establecimiento de una línea equidistante. Con relación al punto de inicio del límite marítimo, la Corte no empleó el punto planteado por el Perú pero, correctamente, dejó en claro que el punto de inicio del límite marítimo y el punto de inicio del límite terrestre no tienen necesariamente que coincidir. Finalmente, la manera como la Corte estableció el límite marítimo reconoce sin lugar a duda que el área antes llamada «triángulo exterior» corresponde exclusivamente al Perú, como ese Estado argumentó y Chile se opuso repetidas veces a lo largo de los años. En resumen, se trata de una decisión ajustada al derecho internacional y tomada sobre la base de la evidencia a disposición de la Corte, en la que esta emplea y confirma diversos de los argumentos legales planteados por el Perú durante el proceso, a pesar de todo lo que Chile argumentó contrariamente. Law International Court Of Justice Maritime Delimitation Maritime Boundary Maritime Border Supreme Decree 781 Of 1947 1952 Santiago Declaration Punto Concordia Point Named Concordia Boundary Marker Number 1 Starting Point Of The Maritime Boundary Corte Internacional De Justicia Delimitación Marítima Límite Marítimo Frontera Marítima Decreto Supremo 781 De 1947 Declaración De Santiago De 1952 Punto Concordia Hito Número Uno Punto De Inicio Del Límite Marítimo
57	Les effets juridiques des massacres commis contre les Armeniens en 1915 et leurs modes de resolutions judiciaires et extrajudiciaires possibles / The legal effects of the massacre committed against the armenians in 1915 and its possible judicial and extra-judicial resolution modes. Dakessian, Rodney 14 December 2012 (has links) Ma thèse vise en premier ressort à étudier toutes les questions juridiques concernant la ‘question arménienne’.D’abord, le sujet de l’existence des éléments du crime de génocide en 1915 au niveau du droit international conventionnel a été notre première question à étudier. Ensuite, il était indispensable d’étudier la nature du crime commis envers les Arméniens ottomans en 1915.En plus, est-ce que l’Etat Turc actuel peut-il être responsable d’un crime commis par l’Empire ottoman, selon le principe de la succession d’Etats en droit international, surtout que l’Etat Turc n’était créé qu’en 1923 ? Et en cas de l’existence de cette responsabilité, est-ce que l’Arménie a droit à l’action en responsabilité, surtout qu’au moment de la perpétration du crime, il n’y avait pas un Etat Arménien ? Les victimes étaient des ressortissants de l’Empire ottoman mais d’origine arménienne. Donc il faudra étudier la qualité de l’Arménie pour agir en justice, par des moyens judiciaires ou extrajudiciaires, vis-à-vis surtout du principe de la non-rétroactivité des traités, surtout que dans notre cas, le crime a été perpétré en 1915, alors que la Convention sur le génocide n’a été promulguée qu’en 1948.En fait, notre thèse vise en dernier ressort à rapprocher les deux pays et mettre fin réellement au conflit entre eux, à percevoir ce qui les rassemblent et non ce qui les divisent, et trouver une solution équitable et objective pour les deux pays afin de contribuer à mettre fin à leur litige historique, et cela à travers une étude réaliste, impartiale et basée sur la logique et la nature des choses et des circonstances du fait existantes. / The main purpose of my thesis is to study all the legal issues concerning the 'Armenian question'.First, the existence of the elements of the crime of genocide in 1915 at the conventional international law, made our first question to consider. Then, it was necessary to study the nature of the crime committed against the Ottoman Armenians in 1915.In addition, can Turkey be responsible for a crime committed by the Ottoman Empire, according to the principle of succession of States in international law, especially that the Turkish state was created in 1923?And in case of such responsibility, has Armenia the right to maintain a lawsuit against Turkey, especially at the time of the crime, there was no Armenian state?The victims were citizens of the Ottoman Empire but of Armenian descent.Also, the quality of Armenia to take legal action, by judicial or extrajudicial processes, must be studied, regarding especially to the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties, especially that in our case, the crime was committed in 1915, while the Genocide Convention was enacted in 1948.In fact, our thesis aims ultimately to bring the two countries closer and actually try to help reach the end of the conflict between them, perceive what gather them and not what divides them, and find a fair and objective solution for both countries, in order to help put an end to their historic dispute, and that through a realistic and impartial study, based on logic and the nature of things and the circumstances of the existing. Clause de Martens Traité de Sèvres Droit international coutumier Droit international humanitaire Droit pénal international Cour internationale de Justice Droits de l'homme Succession d'Etats Responsabilité erga omnes Responsabilité internationale Crime de génocide Génocide arménien Massacres arméniens Arménie Turquie Azerbaïdjan Région du Haut-Karabah Empire ottomann Non-rétroactivité des traités Imprescriptibilité Loi française du 29 janvier 2001 Martens Clause Treaty of Sevres Customary international lax International humanitarian lax International criminal lax International Court of Justice Human rights Succession of states Responsability erga omnes International responsability Crime of genocide Armenian genocide Armenian massacres Armenia Turkey Azerbaijan Nagorny karabagh Ottoman empire Genocide convention of 1948 Non-retroactivity of treaties Imperscriptibility French law of 29 january 2001
58	Sovereignty, Peacekeeping, and the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), Suez 1956-1967: Insiders’ Perspectives Hilmy, Hanny 13 February 2015 (has links) This research is concerned with the complex and contested relationship between the sovereign prerogatives of states and the international imperative of defusing world conflicts. Due to its historical setting following World War Two, the national vs. international staking of claims was framed within the escalating imperial-nationalist confrontation and the impending “end of empire”, both of which were significantly influenced by the role Israel played in this saga. The research looks at the issue of “decolonization” and the anti-colonial struggle waged under the leadership of Egypt’s President Nasser. The Suez War is analyzed as the historical event that signaled the beginning of the final chapter in the domination of the European empires in the Middle East (sub-Saharan decolonization followed beginning in the early 1960s), and the emergence of the United States as the new major Western power in the Middle East. The Suez experience highlighted a stubborn contest between the defenders of the concept of “sovereign consent” and the advocates of “International intervention”. Both the deployment of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and its termination were surrounded by controversy and legal-political wrangling. The role of UNEF and UN peacekeeping operations in general framed the development of a new concept for an emerging international human rights law and crisis management. The UNEF experience, moreover, brought into sharp relief the need for a conflict resolution component for any peace operation. International conflict management, and human rights protection are both subject to an increasing interventionist international legal regime. Consequently, the traditional concept of “sovereignty” is facing increasing challenge. By its very nature, the subject matter of this multi-dimensional research involves historical, political and international legal aspects shaping the research’s content and conclusions. The research utilizes the experience and contributions of several key participants in this pioneering peacekeeping experience. In the last chapter, recommendations are made –based on all the elements covered in the research- to suggest contributions to the evolving UN ground rules for international crisis intervention and management. / Graduate / hilmyh@uvic.ca National Sovereignty Peacekeeping Peacemaking UNEF Decolonization End of Empire Israel Zionism Sevres Agreement Dag Hammarskjold U Thant General E L M Burns General Amin Hilmy II General Charles Keightley General Andre Beaufre General Indar J. Rikhye 1956 Suez War Good Faith Agreement 1967 Arab-Israeli War President Gamal Abdel Nasser Sovereign Consent International Human Rights Law Johan Galtung Lester Pearson President Dwight Eisenhower Secretary John F. Dulles Prime Minister Anthony Eden Prime Minister Guy Mollet Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion General Moshe Dayan General Abdel Hakim Amer Status of Forces Agreement Port Said Arab-Israeli Armistice Agreements UNTSO National Liberation Anti-Colonial Struggle Sovereign Equality Westphalia Kadesh Musketeer Uniting for Peace Resolution International Court of Justice UN Security Council UN General Assembly UN Charter Chapter VII Enforcement Measures Chapter VI Voluntary Compliance Palestinian Refugees Negev Desert Sharm El-Sheikh Sinai Peninsula Gaza Strip Gulf of Aqaba Cold War United States Soviet Union (USSR) Lavon Affair MEDO Operation ALPHA OMEGA Plan Baghdad Pact Bandung Conference Mohamed Heikal Aide Memoire Mohamed Mosaddegh Aswan High Dam 1888 Constantinople Convention USS Liberty Straits of Tiran International Law Mahmoud Fawzi Prime Minister Levi Eshkol President Lyndon Johnson Abbba Eban 1992 Agenda for Peace Boutros Boutros-Ghali 2000 Brahimi Report Lakhdar Brahimi 2001 Responsibility to Protect Kofi Annan General Romeo Dallaire Permanent UN Army 2000 SHIRBRIG International Human Rights Law International Humanitarian Law UNEF II status quo ante bellum locus standi pacta sunt servanda erga omnes Lord Caradon Security Council 242

Search results