By Liesbeth Zegveld
Armed competition teams typically struggle governments, looking overthrow and/or secession. yet who's liable below overseas legislation for the acts dedicated by means of those teams, or for the failure to avoid those acts? Zegveld examines the necessity legally to spot the events concerned whilst armed inner clash arises, and the truth in their call for for rights. even if at present such a lot armed conflicts are inner, they continue to be principally uncharted territory in legislation. This award-winning learn should be of curiosity to teachers, postgraduate scholars and pros concerned with armed clash and diplomacy.
Read or Download Accountability of armed opposition groups in international law PDF
Best foreign & international law books
While is it correct to visit warfare? the main persuasive resolution to this question has continuously been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new research, bringing jointly ethical philosophy, political technological know-how, and legislations, David Rodin exhibits what is wrong with this resolution. He proposes a entire new idea of definitely the right of self-defense which resolves a number of the puzzling questions that experience dogged either jurists and philosophers.
Past this yr, the Praemium Erasmianum beginning bestowed its annual award—the Erasmus Prize—on Benjamin Ferencz and Antonio Cassese, pioneers within the box of overseas legislation. Ferencz, a number one American prosecutor, writer, and lecturer, used to be current on the American struggle crimes trials in Dachau and was once the executive prosecutor within the Einsatzgruppen trials in Nuremburg.
The ICJ Opinion on Kosovo used to be a lot awaited either in politics and in educational literature because it used to be anticipated to include not just a decisive verdict on an enduring controversy at the Balkans but in addition a ground-breaking stock-taking on many pivotal questions of overseas legislations. The Opinion passed down by way of the ICJ on 22 July 2010 instantly gave upward push to excessive discussions that made wide connection with concerns similar to self-determination, secession, nation sovereignty, country acceptance and the constitutionalization of the overseas legislations order.
Among November 1945 and October 1946, 22 high-ranking Nazi officers defended themselves ahead of the overseas army Tribunal. Reproducing major sections of the trial checklist, this quantity additionally outlines the heritage to the trial, lines the arrangements made by means of the main actors within the court, and considers how the prosecution, safety, and tribunal handled the counts opposed to the accused.
- Globalisation and Legal Theory
- European Sports Law: Collected Papers
- Trade Marks and Free Trade: A Global Analysis
- Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol.XXVII (French Edition)
- The 'Militant Democracy' Principle in Modern Democracies
- Amnesty for Crimes against Humanity under International Law
Extra resources for Accountability of armed opposition groups in international law
Such recognition of belligerent status has been very infrequent, however. The reason is that the criteria for applicability of the humanitarian rules were high. The armed opposition groups had to control and govern a substantial part of the state territory and engage in a widespread armed conﬂict. Even then, in practice, the consent of the government of the state against which they were ﬁghting was required for the humanitarian rules to be applied. Also today, there are few situations to which these criteria apply.
At the third level, the state itself may be accountable, in that it is responsible for acts committed by its agents. My concern is to discuss the extent to which there is – or can be – a parallel chain of accountability on the insurgent side which is a counterpart to the one just outlined, applicable to the government side. The ﬁrst question then is whether members and leaders of armed opposition groups can be held criminally accountable for violations of international law. The second level of accountability would be the accountability of the armed opposition groups as such.
1345. R. Baxter, ‘Jus in Bello Interno: the Present and Future Law’, in J. ), Law and Civil War in the Modern World ( Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1974), pp. 518, 527–8. Unlike Protocol II, Common Article 3 does not require armed opposition groups to exercise territorial control in order to be bound by the provisions set forth in this article, see below, Chapter 4, Section 1. 23 This explanation views the relationship between the established government and armed opposition groups as hierarchical in nature.
Accountability of armed opposition groups in international law by Liesbeth Zegveld