| 51. |
- Kleffner, Jann, Professor, 1973-
(författare)
-
The Legal Fog of an Illusion : Three Reflections on “Organization” and “Intensity” as Criteria for the Temporal Scope of the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict
- 2019
-
Ingår i: International Law Studies. - : Stockton Center for the Study of International Law of the U.S. Naval War College. - 2375-2831. ; 95, s. 161-178
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The "organization" of the non-State armed group and the "intensity" of the violence between it and its opponent(s) have emerged as the two key criteria to determine the temporal scope of the law of non-international armed conflict. These criteria have served to lift the fog of law in some important respects. Yet, several aspects of the temporal scope of the law of non-international armed conflict remain unsettled. This article addresses three of them, namely the assertion that the factors for ascertaining organization and intensity that have evolved in the jurisprudence of international criminal courts and tribunals are indicative rather than determinative, to whom the criterion of organization is to be applied, and whether the requisite level of intensity of armed violence can be cumulative when multiple organized armed groups are pitted against each other and government forces even though the armed violence that arises in the bilateral relations between two opposing parties does not reach the requisite level of intensity.
|
|
| 52. |
|
|
| 53. |
- Kleffner, Jann, Professor, 1973-
(författare)
-
The unilateralization of international humanitarian law
- 2022
-
Ingår i: International Review of the Red Cross. - : Cambridge University Press (CUP). - 1816-3831 .- 1607-5889. ; 104:920-921, s. 2153-2169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Traditionally, international humanitarian law (IHL) is conceptualized as a body of mutually binding, horizontal international legal rules that are agreed upon by States and that govern the relationships between parties to armed conflicts. Yet, there is discernible evidence that contemporary IHL – and the broader normative environment that pertains to the regulation of armed conflicts in which it is situated – is incorporating elements of unilateralization, manifested in legal and non-legal norms that regulate armed conflicts taking the form of commitments whose validity is not dependent on being reciprocated. This article examines some of the systemic implications of unilateralization of IHL and considers its pitfalls and potential.
|
|
| 54. |
|
|
| 55. |
- Longworth, Sally
(författare)
-
Commentary : Admissibility challenge
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals. - Antwerp : Intersentia. ; , s. 201-212
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 56. |
|
|
| 57. |
|
|
| 58. |
|
|
| 59. |
-
The Legitimacy of International Criminal Tribunals
- 2017
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- With the ad hoc tribunals completing their mandates and the International Criminal Court under significant pressure, today's international criminal jurisdictions are at a critical juncture. Their legitimacy cannot be taken for granted. This multidisciplinary volume investigates key issues pertaining to legitimacy: criminal accountability, normative development, truth-discovery, complementarity, regionalism, and judicial cooperation. The volume sheds new light on previously unexplored areas, including the significance of redacted judgements, prosecutors' opening statements, rehabilitative processes of international convicts, victim expectations, court financing, and NGO activism. The book's original contributions will appeal to researchers, practitioners, advocates, and students of international criminal justice, accountability for war crimes and the rule of law.
|
|
| 60. |
-
The Practice of Shared Responsibility in International Law : International Military Operations cluster
- 2017
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- This is the third book in the series Shared Responsibility in International Law, which examines the problem of distribution of responsibilities among multiple states and other actors. In its work on the responsibility of states and international organisations, the International Law Commission recognised that attribution of acts to one actor does not exclude possible attribution of the same act to another state or organisation. Recognising that the applicable rules and procedures for shared responsibility may differ between particular issue areas, this volume reviews the practice of states, international organisations, courts and other bodies that have dealt with the issue of international responsibility of multiple wrongdoing actors in a wide range of issue areas, including energy, extradition, investment law, NATO-led operations and fisheries. These analyses jointly assess the fit of the prevailing principles of international responsibility and provide a basis for reform and further development of international law.
|
|
