Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2006. / Title from title screen (site viewed on Nov. 22, 2006). PDF text: ii, 333 p. : ill. ; 1.82Mb. UMI publication number: AAT 3217536. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in microfilm and microfiche format.

No description available.

Si la loi du conflit dicte la conduite des hommes, tant dans leurs relations individualisées qu'au regard des communautés, elle emporte la nécessité de la contenir. Le droit de la guerre et de la paix, suscité par les Pères de l'Église, puis repris par les jurisconsultes, tout en s'en émancipant, reste l'instrument privilégié de cette maîtrise. Néanmoins, devant un danger potentiel, par le discours de revanche devant la défaite, préparer la guerre vise à assurer une cohésion nationale forte. Les institutions républicaines, qui se veulent indépendantes de toutes Églises, et l'Église Catholique elle-même, notamment par son clergé français, y travailleront, fût-ce par des voies au départ opposées. A cet égard, la Troisième République reste le cadre politique privilégié. La France, terre d'exemplarité dit-on et écrit-on, devient le terreau de la guerre sublimée. De cette analyse s'évincent cependant deux problématiques. Existe-t-il une constante au sein de l'Église de Rome relativement au droit de la guerre, une guerre qu'il faut gérer« au moins pire» possible, à l'instar de ce prescrivent les conventions internationales? La guerre n'est-elle qu'un moyen de survivre face à la peur de la mort, autrement dit ne serait-elle qu'une fatalité nécessaire ? / If the law of conflict dictates human conduct, both in their individual and community relationships, it is necessary to contain it. The law of war and peace, dictated by the Church Fathers, and then by the jurisconsults, remains the privileged instrument of this control. However, in front of a potential danger and the revenge speech after the defeat, preparing for war aims to ensure a strong national cohesion... [...]

Univerzita Karlova v Praze Právnická fakulta David Hlaváček ROZVOJ MEZINÁRODNÍHO TRESTNÍHO PRÁVA V KONTEXTU VÁLKY V BÝVALÉ JUGOSLÁVII Diplomová práce Vedoucí diplomové práce: doc. PhDr. Stanislava Hýbnerová, CSc. Katedra mezinárodního práva Datum uzavření rukopisu: 21. ledna 2015 Summary of the Thesis: The introductory historical overview (chapter two) gives an insight into the merits of the military conflict in the former Yugoslavia and lists the most fundamental causes behind this scandalous period of modern European history. Next, in chapter three, the thesis focuses on the impacts of this ongoing war on the international communities and their reactions, as well as on the particular measures taken by the United Nations, the universal platform established for these purposes. The most significant of these measures is undoubtedly the establishing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which prosecutes crimes against humanity, genocide, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws or customs of war. For the first time after forty years, the international criminal law had been applied. Before that, there was no institution entitled to enforce this law within the international criminal justice. In chapter four, the ICTY is characterized and described,...

It has become widely accepted that if a state sends troops into another state following a government request, it will not breach the prohibition on the use of force set out in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. This is known as "intervention by invitation." However, it is clearly open to abuse, especially when invoked as a legal justification for intervening in a civil war, allowing allies of ineffective governments to help suppress genuine popular revolts. Thus, many 20th century writers argued that intervention by invitation in civil wars was not lawful, on the basis that it would necessarily breach the principles of self-determination and non-intervention. Several 21st century writers have maintained this position. This thesis will challenge those claims. Its focus will be on the legal limits on intervening in a civil war: the key question being what circumstances, if any, preclude a state from responding to a government invitation to intervene in a civil war. Part I will set out the key doctrinal issues and the scope of the research question, including the definition of a civil war. In contrast to previous studies of intervention by invitation, it will critique the alleged prohibition on intervention in civil wars by analysing its two constituent elements, self-determination and non-intervention, from a historical and theoretical perspective, concluding that neither principle is sufficiently clear in definition or application to support a general prohibition on intervention by invitation. Part II will analyse recent state practice on intervention by invitation, in order to determine whether it is an evolving norm in light of new developments such as the global war on terror and the apparent decline of the effective control doctrine. It will also consider potential limits to intervention by invitation in civil wars in the absence of a general prohibition, such as loss of government status, coercion and the ways in which an invitation can be communicated, and the extent to which these limitations have been challenged or confirmed by recent state practice.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Tufts University, 2004. / Adviser: Hurst Hannum. Submitted to the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Includes bibliographical references. Access restricted to members of the Tufts University community. Also available via the World Wide Web;

Thesis (LL.M.)--The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, 2007. / Title from PDF t.p. (LLMC Digital, viewed on Mar. 22, 2010). "April 2007". Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (LL. M.)--George Washington University, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available via the Internet.

No description available.

The struggle between the President and the Congress over the power to control the use of military force is an enduring dimension of U.S. foreign policy. In the 20th century Arthur Schlesinger labeled the growth of Presidential war power the “Imperial Presidency.” While some scholars have attempted to explain the expansion of Presidential power based on the Cold War or nuclear weapons, there has been little work studying the link between America’s ascending role in international legal frameworks and this domestic legal transformation. In this dissertation, I argue that America’s participation in international legal frameworks, such as the United Nations and NATO, has been a central factor in enabling the growth of Presidential war power. These international frameworks allow the President to circumvent Congress and to assert that the use of military force was something other than a ‘war’ that would need Congressional authorization. In case studies of pre-WWII aid to Great Britain, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War, I demonstrate how the rise of executive war power relied on America’s growing participation in international legal frameworks. The dissertation contributes to the nexus of International Relations and Constitutional scholarship. It offers a unique interpretation of Presidential war power while also offering new insights on the nature of the United States’ relationship with international legal frameworks. I argue that participation in international legal frameworks has been ‘democracy-undermining’ as the President utilizes those frameworks to circumvent the Constitution’s restrictions on Presidential war power.