|
|
- Prohibiting the use of biological weapons: diverging national measures, a
comparative analysis-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 195 - 211
Abstract: AbstractTo ensure an effective international prohibition on the use of biological weapons, an international framework of national prohibitions needs to exist. This article looks comparatively at the national prohibitions on the use of biological weapons and considers the effect of common approaches. This research is based on a near-comprehensive collection of national legislation addressing the use of biological weapons. Investigating the common approaches allows for the identification of potential gaps within the international framework of national prohibitions, indicating the potential benefit of developing an international obligation to implement national measures prohibiting the use of biological weapons.
PubDate: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/jcsl/krae008
Issue No: Vol. 29, No. 2 (2024)
- Allegiance in International Humanitarian Law: the duty of fidelity and the
laws of armed conflict-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 213 - 230
Abstract: AbstractAllegiance is a legal concept that seeks to regulate the duty of fidelity of individuals towards states. A particularity of allegiance is the fact that it has been repeatedly used in treaty provisions, as well as interpretation of rules, in the field of International Humanitarian Law. The fields in which it has been introduced are quite broad, from rules relating to Prisoner of War status, to defining the relationship between occupiers and occupied population, passing through rules on Protected Personal status for civilians, the internment of enemy aliens, rules on the conduct of hostilities, and deserters. The article analyses both the meaning of allegiance and how it has been used in International Humanitarian Law revealing some useful instances as well as a set of inconsistencies and potential perils for its use.
PubDate: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/jcsl/krae006
Issue No: Vol. 29, No. 2 (2024)
- Shifting responsibilities and security threats by depriving foreign
terrorist fighters of their nationality-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 231 - 248
Abstract: AbstractOne of the ways in which States of nationality have responded to the potential security threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and their family members who travelled to Syria and Iraq, is by stripping them of their nationality. This practice constitutes a form of ‘buck-passing’, as States shun their responsibilities and export the problem to other States or actors like the Syrian Democratic Forces. When a State strips its nationality, the depriving State is no longer responsible to take back its former national, while another State of nationality is now responsible to admit the FTF or family member and subsequently prosecute, re-integrate, rehabilitate, and monitor her or him if necessary. Furthermore, when the person concerned poses a possible security threat, it is not only a responsibility over the person that is exported to other States but also a risk of terrorism as well as a burden to counter that risk. The practice of nationality deprivation has extensively been scrutinized from a human rights perspective, with a focus on its consequences towards the individual concerned. This article, however, takes a different approach and looks at this practice from the perspective of inter-state relations, focusing on how it affects other involved States or actors. Thus, instead of focusing on international human rights law, this article looks at the inter-state perspective to nationality deprivation and examines public international law’s position towards this practice of buck-passing by examining other rules and obligations.
PubDate: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/jcsl/krae007
Issue No: Vol. 29, No. 2 (2024)
- Humanitarian exemptions: illusive progress in safeguarding humanitarian
assistance in the international counterterrorism architecture-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 249 - 272
Abstract: AbstractGlobal counterterrorism efforts have had a number of detrimental effects on the work of humanitarian actors in conflict zones. To mitigate these adverse effects and the underlying normative conflict between counterterrorism frameworks and international humanitarian law (IHL), scholars and humanitarian practitioners have been advocating for the introduction of humanitarian exemptions. These are clauses that exempt humanitarian assistance and related conduct from counterterrorism frameworks in order to ensure an unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance in areas in which entities designated as ‘terrorists’ are active. This article argues that the progress promised by the emergence of these exemptions remains at least partially illusive. The exemptions remain shaped by a security-oriented perspective on humanitarian assistance and are preoccupied with actors. As a result, they are beneficial primarily to the largest and most prominent humanitarian actors established in the Global North while neglecting small and local humanitarian actors in conflict areas. As such, they defy IHL’s deliberate openness regarding the actors providing humanitarian assistance. Moreover, they violate the obligations of non-belligerent states under IHL to allow and facilitate the free passage of relief consignments which equally protects transnational financial support to local humanitarian actors and applies irrespective of the source of that support. We conclude that humanitarian exemptions are detrimental to efforts to ‘localize’ and decolonize the humanitarian sector. Therefore, instead of focusing on humanitarian exemptions as a ‘micro-solution’, advocacy should pursue a more comprehensive critical approach towards the global counterterrorism architecture.
PubDate: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/jcsl/krae009
Issue No: Vol. 29, No. 2 (2024)
|
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
