O objetivo desta tese é questionar o discurso da imperatividade das normas de jus cogens no direito internacional, verificando se ele se é compatível com uma sociedade internacional de caráter horizontal, descentralizado e baseada fundamentalmente no consentimento dos Estados. Para isso, a primeira parte deste trabalho examinará se a configuração normativa do jus cogens apoia a imperatividade a ele conferida, começando pelo estudo do desenvolvimento e afirmação histórica do conceito, buscando identificar tanto suas raízes remotas quanto o conteúdo desenvolvido pela Comissão de Direito Internacional das Nações Unidas, que culminou com a positivação do jus cogens na Convenção de Viena de 1969 sobre o Direito dos Tratados. O segundo capítulo da primeira parte tentará esclarecer o conteúdo normativo do jus cogens, abordando sua fundamentação teórica e buscando identificar sua fonte, examinando características inerentes a tais normas, como a não-derrogabilidade e a possibilidade de modificação para, ainda, abordar a questão da identificação das normas de jus cogens. Na segunda parte, a aplicabilidade das normas de jus cogens no direito internacional será verificada, questionando se é possível que tais normas operem os efeitos que lhe são atribuídos. O primeiro capítulo desta parte examinará áreas do direito internacional chamadas de “consolidadas”, nas quais existe alguma regulamentação em relação às consequências das normas peremptórias, tais como o direito dos tratados e a responsabilidade internacional do Estado. Em seguida, o segundo capítulo abordará os efeitos atribuídos ao jus cogens em campos não consolidados, que não possuem de previsão legal, mas que são objeto de grande produção doutrinária e jurisprudencial, tais como a possibilidade de exercício jurisdicional em virtude de violações às normas peremptórias e de criação de uma hierarquia na ordem do direito internacional para, finalmente, tecer conclusões a respeito do tema. A pesquisa utilizou os métodos histórico e dedutivo, através de pesquisa documental. / The aim of this thesis is to question the imperativeness discourse of jus cogens norms in international law, verifying if it is compatible with an international society of horizontal and decentralized character, which is primarily based on the consent of states. For this purpose, the first part of this paper will examine whether the normative configuration of jus cogens supports the imperativeness attributed to such norms, beginning with the study of the historical development and affirmation of the concept, seeking to identify both its remote roots as well as the content developed by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, which culminated with the provision on jus cogens in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The second chapter of the first part attempts to clarify the normative content of jus cogens, approaching its theoretical foundation and seeking to identify its source, examining the characteristics inherent to these norms, such as non-derogation and the possibility of modification, also addressing the issue of identification of jus cogens norms. In the second part, the applicability of jus cogens norms in international law will be verified, questioning whether it is possible for these norms to operate the effects attributed to them. The first chapter of this part will examine the "consolidated" areas, in which there is some kind of regulation regarding the consequences of peremptory norms, v.g. the law of treaties and the international responsibility of the state. Then, the second chapter will address the effects attributed to jus cogens in the so-called unconsolidated fields, which lack legal provision, but which are the subject of great doctrinal and jurisprudential production, such as the possible exercise of jurisdiction due to violations of peremptory norms, as well as the creation of a hierarchy in the international law order, to finally draw conclusions on the subject. The research used historical and deductive methods, through documentary research.

Afin d’étudier l’impact de la surmaturation des poires sur les interactions parois-procyanidins, les parois et les procyanidines ont été isolées et caractérisées à partir d’une variété de poire à poiré à deux stade de maturité : mûres et surmatures. Leurs associations ont été quantifiées par la méthode des isothermes de Langmuir et par calorimétrie à titration isotherme.Les poires à poiré sont riches en procyanidines très polymérisées dont les unités constitutives sont principalement constituées de (-)-épicatéchine. Les parois du parenchyme et des cellules parenchymateuses sont principalement constituées de pectines hautement methylées et ramifiées alors que les parois des cellules pierreuses et de l’épiderme sont plutôt lignifiées et riches en hémicelluloses.La surmaturation n’induit pas de modification de la composition et ni de la distribution de la masse molaire des procyanidines. Par contre, la distribution des aggrégats de procyanidines dans les vacuoles change, de dispersée (poires mûres) à adjacente au tonoplaste (poire surmatures). Entre le stade mûr et surmature, les parois de poire perdent des chaînes latérales pectiques, principalement les chaînes d’arabinanes et de galactanes des parois du parenchyme et des cellules parenchymateuses.L'affinité des procyanidines vis-à-vis des parois diminue dans l’ordre suivant : cellules parenchymateuses> parenchyme>cellules pierreuses>épiderme d’après les isothermes de Langmuir. La quantité de procyanidines fixées sur les parois augmente avec la surmaturation surtout pour les parois de cellules pierreuses (et le parenchyme total). La calorimétrie à titration isotherme montre que la surmaturation induit également une modification du mécanisme de l’association parois-procyanidines en modifiant la balance hydrophile hydrophobe pour les cellules parenchymateuses.L'augmentation de la capacité d’adsorption des parois vis-à-vis des procyanidines à la surmaturation a été confirmée par des pressages de jus. Les jus de poires mûres sont plus riches en procyanidines que le jus extraits à partir poires surmatures alors que la concentration en procyanidines dans les fruits n’a pas changé. / In order to study overripening impact on cell wall–procyanidin interactions, perry pear cell walls and procyanidins were isolated and characterized at ripe and overripe stage. Their associations were quantified using Langmuir isotherms and isothermal titration calorimetry.Perry pears were rich in procyanidins with high degree of polymerization and their constitutive units were mainly (-)-epicatechin. Cell walls isolated from the whole flesh and parenchyma cells were characterized by extremely methylated pectin and highly branched rhamnogalacturonans whereas cell walls from stone cells and skin were more lignified and rich in hemicelluloses.Overripening did not modify procyanidin structure and molar mass distribution, but the distribution of the procyanidin-containg aggregates in the vacuoles was modified, from dispersed in ripe pears to close to the tonoplast in overripe pears. Between the ripe and overripe stage, pear cell walls lost pectic side chains, arabinans and galactan, mostly from cell walls isolated from parenchyma cells and the whole flesh.The affinity between procyanidins and cell walls decreased as follows: parenchyma cells > flesh > stone cells > skin as reported by Langmuir isotherms. The amount of bound procyanidins increased at the overripe stage notably for the cell walls from stone cells and whole flesh. Isothermal titration calorimetry indicated that overripening induced the modification of cell wall binding mechanism especially for parenchyma cells where interactions were driven by hydrophobic interactions.The increase of procyanidin binding capacity at the overripe stage was confirmed by juice pressing where overripe pear juices were poorer in procyanidins than ripe pear juices whereas fruit procyanidin contents did not change with overripening.

Pourquoi certaines armes disparaissent des champs de bataille tandis que d’autres ne cessent d’y être déployées? Afin de répondre à cette question, notre travail entreprend d’analyser sous un angle inédit l’influence du droit de la guerre (jus in bello) dans le choix des acteurs (gouvernements et militaires) d’utiliser une arme plutôt qu’une autre. Plus précisément, il s’attache à démontrer que les perceptions collectives de ce que proscrit ou autorise le droit de la guerre concernant les conditions d’utilisation des armes (conceptualisées sous le nom de meta-norme du « combattre justement ») est décisif dans la manière qu’ont les acteurs d’appréhender, évaluer et utiliser leur armement. A travers l’analyse des trajectoires de trois armes différentes (armes chimiques, armes incendiaires et drones de combat) fondée sur des données objectives, archives et sources secondaires, nous démontrons que chacun des pics significatifs de l’utilisation de ces armes s’explique aussi par des changements importants dans les perceptions collectives du « combattre justement ». Ainsi, les acteurs cessent d’utiliser leurs armes, ou prétendent cesser, quand ils ne parviennent plus à justifier et démontrer que leur utilisation s’accorde avec leurs perceptions collectives du « combattre justement », et vice versa. In fine, notre travail démontre que la guerre demeure un processus de justification continu, et, parce que les perceptions du combattre justement forment le socle de ces justifications, elles sont décisives pour comprendre le choix des pratiques de guerre. En second lieu, parce que les perceptions collectives du combattre justement sont décisives pour comprendre les pratiques de guerre, notre travail s’intéresse à leur formation. Il démontre que les acteurs sont plus enclins à imposer leur propre perception comme étant la plus légitime lorsque leur argumentaire perpétue un ordre symbolique dominant et ne révèle pas les fondamentales contradictions inhérentes au droit de la guerre. Ainsi, notre travail propose d’analyser sous un nouvel angle l’impact du droit de la guerre, mais aussi celui des argumentaires et des symboles dans les pratiques de guerre. / The dissertation investigates why certain weapons continue, or cease to be employed on the battlefields. Employing an interpretivist perspective, it investigates an aspect largely overlooked by the extant literature: the impact of the meta-norm of 'fighting justly' on actors' weapons utilizations. The meta-norm of fighting justly is defined as the collective preconceptions shared by actors, on how and when the extant laws of war (jus in bello) either ban or allow weapons utilization. My work reveals that the significant shift in the utilization of three weapons (chemical weapons, incendiary weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles) can be explained by shifts in the dominant perceptions of the meta-norm of fighting justly. It is when actors believe that they cannot justify their weapons utilization with regards to their own meta-norm of fighting justly, that they decrease (or pretend to decrease by hiding) this utilization, or vice versa. In fine, when engaged in a war, militaries and states constantly seek to justify their actions, and the basis of these justifications is their understanding of the meta-norm of fighting justly. Because the meta-norm of fighting justly impacts on weapons variations, it is crucial to understand who shapes the norm, at the international level. My work reveals that states are engaged in a constant argument, where they defend, articulate and promote their own conception of fighting justly. In this 'battle for legitimacy', states are more likely to enshrine their own conception as the most legitimate one, under two conditions: namely, when their argument does not disrupt the extant symbolic order, and when it does not foster the inherent contradictions of the laws of war. Ultimately, this work aims to shed new light on how the laws of war influence practices of war. It also explores and provides new insights into the 'logic of arguing' and into the symbolic power in international relations.

This paper aims to shed light on the intersex infant, a baby born with an unclear gender. The main goal of the paper is to discuss whether unnecessary gender normalizing surgeries on infants, also called intersex genital mutilation (IGM) that is not necessary to preserve the life or physical health of the infant is in the best interest of the child. Legal method will be used to frame the topic in a legal context and discourse analysis in combination with content analysis will be applied in order to understand the transformation of intersex, from being a social emergency to becoming a human rights issue. The use of the concept, the best interest of the child will serve as an analytical framework together with a theoretical framework consisting of queer theory. Together it will help to map out the human rights challenges regarding IGM as a socially constructed medical product that needs to be highlighted and prevented in order to secure the rights of the child. Hopefully, the concluding results will contribute to further awareness on the issue of unnecessary infant intersex surgery and frame it in a human rights context.

This dissertation explores the place that jus cogens occupies in contemporary international legal thought and practice. More specifically it looks at the place that the concept occupies within the discourse surrounding constitutionalism in international law. The question is asked whether it is viable to posit a specific constitutional structure for international law and whether such structure can be legitimized by the existence of certain values that are held in common by the international community. Both structural and value-based approaches posit a place for norms of jus cogens as possibly being seen as constitutional norms to some extent. Jus cogens as a now widely accepted concept in international law, continues to be the subject of much contemporary debate. The nature and function of the concept as proposed by various authors is looked at and the problematic aspects set out. Although there is a large amount of literature acknowledging the existence and importance of jus cogens, this has not been supported by international judicial practice. It seems that it is the practical difficulties surrounding the functioning of normative hierarchy that is the main reason for this. Chapter 1 introduces the approaches to the constitutionalism debate that have posited a legitimate place for norms of jus cogens. It also provides an introduction to the concept of jus cogens within contemporary international law. Chapter 2 starts out by defining certain concepts involved in the discourse surrounding constitutionalism. The strands of thought involved in the constitutionalism debate are then set out in order to provide the context for the placements of jus cogens posited by various authors. Chapter 3 looks at the evolution of the concept of jus cogens and the limited practical effect that has been given to the concept in international judicial practice. The main consideration here is the perceived inapplicability of jus cogens within cases concerning jurisdictional immunity. It therefore seems that jus cogens is, in general, limited to application against rules directly contradicting the substance of the jus cogens norm. Chapter 4 provides a critique of normative hierarchy theory, which is a main aspect dealt with in much constitutionalist thought. The chapter shows how the proposed functionality of normative hierarchy theory is unconvincing as only negative prohibitions can function as jus cogens under this construction. This further limits the instances where jus cogens can be seen as effective under constitutional thought. Chapter 5 concludes that under a strict conception of normative hierarchy, jus cogens is unlikely to receive much practical legal effect. This is due to the inapplicability of jus cogens in procedural matters and the limited number of norms that can function as jus cogens under normative hierarchy. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Public Law / unrestricted

Since the end of World War II there has been a rapid proliferation of international law and international legal institutions. Once limited to issues in maritime and trade law, today the most recognizable examples of international law govern issues such as human rights, intellectual property, crimes against humanity and armed conflict. In many ways, this proliferation has been a welcomed development. However, when coupled with international law’s decentralized structure, this rapid proliferation has also posed problems for how we (and in particular judges) identify if, when, and where international law exists. This dissertation puts forward a novel, dignity-based account for how we answer these questions. The upshot of my account is two-fold. First, it explains many features of international law that other theories leave unaccounted for or under-explained. And second, my dignity-based account provides for a mechanism through which the system can continue to be developed and improved. / 2023-02-22T00:00:00Z

No description available.

The development and application of artificial intelligence (AI) for military purposes are increasing rapidly in many parts of the world. Military powers are driving programs aimed at the advantages that AI can generate. Simultaneously, ethical questions arise concerning autonomous military systems. This study aims to provide clarity on how future Swedish officers with different backgrounds within the profession relate to the ethical issues that accompany the use of autonomous weapon systems. In this study, the respondents are presented with two fictitious scenarios based on the principles of distinction and proportionality, describing ethically problematic attacks that affect civilians. In each scenario, respondents are asked to take a stance on attacks carried out with different degrees of autonomy. The results of the study show that future officers consider the ethical defensibility of an attack to decrease as the degree of autonomy in the weapon system used increases.

This thesis considers the issue of the Responsibility to Rebuild in International Law. It posits that the R2R must be re-elevated to significance as a conceptual, normative, and functional element of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), with its institutional homes in the United Nation’s framework and the Secretary-General’s function adequately articulated. In most instances, the 2009 three-pillar R2P framework functions effectively, but it has the flaw of burying and overlooking the critical value of the initial ICISS third pillar, the responsibility to rebuild and reconstruct war-ravaged communities’ threshold of viability and self-sufficiency. This thesis draws some crucial insight from the significant international interventions of the twenty-first century and recalling the scope in which R2P was first conceived to illustrate the unique characteristics of its contribution to global politics or international policy. This thesis addresses the question of who should rebuild after a war. The ‘Belligerents Rebuild Thesis,’ which suggests that those who have been engaged in the battle - including the victor, just belligerent, unjust aggressor, or humanitarian intervener - should be charged with the responsibility of rebuilding, is held by many leading proponents of the importance of jus post-Bellum for Just War Theory. On the other hand, this thesis argues that there is a mutual, international responsibility to rebuild that should be delegated solely based on the agent's capacity to rebuild rather than the belligerents. / Graduate / 2022-08-09

No description available.