At a time when the majority of conflicts are non-international, providing arms to the legitimate government or to the opposition forces may influence and even determine the outcome of a civil war. It is, therefore, not surprising that such a provision is subject to a web of rules. This dissertation focuses on those applicable to the EU Member States, which arise from international, European, and domestic law. Sanctions regimes are an integral part of this legal framework. Of primary importance are, naturally, sanctions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII, but also the more controversial EU restrictive measures are accounted for. The dissertation aims to clarify to whom EU Member States can legally provide arms and weapons during a civil war. This investigation is justified also in light of the positions adopted by individual EU Member States vis-a-vis the conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, three conflicts particularly relevant in political and economic terms for the EU and its Member States. By analysing these three case studies and putting the whole legal framework to the test the dissertation sheds light on how EU Member States justify their intervention. The adoption of these specific case studies allows for the assessment of their positions both when they provide arms to parties that intervene on request of the legitimate government and when they provide support to opposition forces. Despite being EU Member States subject to common European rules on arms exports and being all party to the Arms Trade Treaty, their practice is far from uniform. The result of these differences is far-reaching and has an impact not only on the civil war where the arms are provided but also on the EU.

This thesis focuses on the issue of drone strikes as a means of targeted killing of high value targets suspected of terrorist activities or affiliations. The United States of America has been using this method of elimination since the year 2001 as part of the Global War on Terrorism. However this practice raises a series of moral questions. It creates a new environment of alienation of the target and the person pulling the trigger. This thesis examines the compliance of drone strikes and the Global War on Terrorism as such with the Just War Theory. This theory is the leading concept in warfare ethics and offers a comprehensive research pattern. The finding of this thesis is that the use of drones, as it is employed today, is in conflict with the principles of this theory and therefore unjust. This finding is demonstrated by the research of two concrete drone strikes. Additionally, the Global War on Terrorism is also assessed to be an unjust war and therefore this thesis offers a comprehensive insight into the topic as it assesses both the practice and the overall context of drone strikes.

An important change wrought by the post-1994 South African Constitutions is the attempt to have South Africa recognised as a democratic and sovereign state in the "family of nations." The new Constitutions make extensive reference to the state's international obligations and represent an endeavour to [re]define the status of international law vis-a-vis national law. Some provisions utilise international law in the interpretation and formulation of national jurisprudence and represent an [albeit not totally successful] endeavour to attain greater harmonisation between international and national law. This is an attempt to systematize the various criticisms levelled against these provisions to date, and to highlight certain interpretational difficulties and problems that present themselves in the process. The distinction between the various terminologies and branches of international law is also taken to task. Lastly, this paper attempts to determine the extent to which international law is applied at national level under the post-1994 constitutions. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

An important change wrought by the post-1994 South African Constitutions is the attempt to have South Africa recognised as a democratic and sovereign state in the "family of nations." The new Constitutions make extensive reference to the state's international obligations and represent an endeavour to [re]define the status of international law vis-a-vis national law. Some provisions utilise international law in the interpretation and formulation of national jurisprudence and represent an [albeit not totally successful] endeavour to attain greater harmonisation between international and national law. This is an attempt to systematize the various criticisms levelled against these provisions to date, and to highlight certain interpretational difficulties and problems that present themselves in the process. The distinction between the various terminologies and branches of international law is also taken to task. Lastly, this paper attempts to determine the extent to which international law is applied at national level under the post-1994 constitutions. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.