Propaganda, War Crimes Trials and International Law addresses the emerging jurisprudence and international law concerning propaganda in war crimes investigations and trials. The role of propaganda in the perpetration of atrocities has emerged as a central theme in the war crimes trials in the past century. The Nuremburg trials initially, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda currently, have all substantially contributed to the development of international law in this respect. Investigating and exploring the areas between lawful and unlawful propaganda, they have dealt with specific mechanisms and consequences of the phenomenon within the perspective and framework of their international legal mandates. But the cultural codes and argots through which propaganda operates have vexed international courts struggling to assign responsibility to the instigators of mass crimes, as subtle, but potentially fatal, communications often remain undetected, misinterpreted or even dismissed as entirely irrelevant. With contributions from leading international scholars and legal practioners, Propaganda, War Crimes Trials and International Law pursues a comparative approach to this problem: providing an overview of the current state of the theory of propaganda in the social sciences; exploring this theory in the legal analysis of war crimes and related proceedings; and, finally, offering a study of the prosecution of propaganda-related crimes in international law, and the newly emerging jurisprudence of war crimes propaganda cases.

The book presents the international laws on the use of force whilst demonstrating the unique insight a feminist analysis offers this central area of international law. The book highlights key conceptual barriers to the enhanced application of the law of the use of force, and develops international feminist method through rigorous engagement with the key writers in the field

The book looks at the key aspects of the UN Charter relevant to the use of force ? Article 2(4), Article 51 and Chapter VII powers ? as well as engaging with contemporary debates on the possibility of justified force to meet self-determination or humanitarian goals. The text also discusses the arguments in favour of the use of pre-emptive force and reflects on the role feminist legal theories can play in exposing the inconsistencies of contemporary arguments for justified force under the banner of the war on terror. Throughout the text state practice and institutional documentation are analysed, alongside key instances of the use of force.

The book makes a genuine, urgently needed contribution to a central area of international law, demonstrating the capacity of feminist legal theories to enlarge our understanding of key international legal dilemmas.

This book presents ten original essays that reassess the meaning, relevance, and legacy of Michael Walzer's classic, Just and Unjust Wars. Written by leading figures in philosophy, theology, international politics and the military, the essays examine topics such as territorial rights, lessons from America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the practice of humanitarian intervention in light of experience, Walzer's notorious discussion of supreme emergencies, revisionist criticisms of noncombatant immunity, gender and the rights of combatants, the peacebuilding critique of just war theory, and the responsibility of soldiers for unjust wars. Collectively, these essays advance the debate in this important field and demonstrate the continued relevance of Walzer's work.

This book explores attempts to develop a more acceptable account of the principles and mechanisms associated with humanitarian intervention, which has become known as the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P).

Cases of genocide and mass violence have raised endless debates about the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention to save innocent lives. Since the humanitarian tragedies in Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere, states have begun advocating a right to undertake interventions to stop mass violations of human rights from occurring. Their central concern rests with whether the UN's current regulations on the use of force meet the challenges of the post-Cold War world, and in particular the demands of addressing humanitarian emergencies. International actors tend to agree that killing civilians as a necessary part of state formation is no longer acceptable, nor is standing by idly in the face of massive violations of human rights. And yet, respect for the sovereign rights of states remains central among the ordering principles of the international community. How can populations affected by egregious human rights violations be protected? How can the legal constraints on the use of force and respect for state sovereignty be reconciled with the international community's willingness and readiness to take action in such instances? And more importantly, how can protection be offered when the Security Council, which is responsible for authorizing the use of force when threats to international peace and security occur, is paralyzed? The author addresses these issues, arguing that R2P is the best framework available at present to move the humanitarian intervention debate forward.

This book will be of interest to students of the responsibility to protect, war and conflict studies, human security, international organisations, security studies and IR in general.

This volume is a collection of the key writings of Professor Ramesh Thakur on norms and laws regulating the international use of force.

The adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle by world leaders assembled at the UN summit in 2005 is widely acknowledged to represent one of the great normative advances in international politics since 1945. The author has been involved in this shift from the dominant norm of non-intervention to R2P as an actor, public intellectual and academic and has been a key thinker in this process. These essays represent the author's writings on R2P, including reference to test cases as they arose, such as with Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008.

Comprising essays by a key thinker and agent in the Responsibility to Protect debates, this book will be of much interest to students of international politics, human rights, international law, war and conflict studies, international security and IR in general.

-- A passionate critique of Milosevic's trial and the PR machine at the heart of international justice -- 'Study this story...The truth is hard to find, but in John Laughland we are fortunate to have a man blessed with the freedom to seek all facts, and the desire to find the truth.' Ramsey Clark, from the Foreword Slobodan Milosevic died in prison in 2006 during a four-year marathon trial at The Hague for war crimes. John Laughland was one of the last Western journalists to meet him. He followed the trial from the beginning and wrote extensively on it, challenging the legitimacy of the Yugoslav Tribunal and the hypocrisy of 'international justice' in the Guardian and The Spectator. In this short and readable book Laughland gives a full account of the trial -- the longest criminal trial in history -- from the moment the indictment was issued at the height of NATO's attack on Yugoslavia to the day of Milosevic's mysterious death in custody. 'International justice' is supposed to hold war criminals to account but, as the trials of both Milosevic and Saddam Hussein show, the indictments are politically motivated and the judicial procedures are irredeemably corrupt. Laughland argues that international justice is an impossible dream and that such show trials are little more than a propaganda exercise designed to distract attention from the war crimes committed by Western states.

Sustainable development requires consideration of the quality of life that future generations will be able to enjoy, and as the adjustment to sustainable lifestyles gathers momentum, the rights of future generations and our responsibility for their wellbeing is becoming a central issue. In this, the first book to address this emerging area of international law, leading experts examine the legal and theoretical frameworks for representing and safeguarding the interests of future generations in current international treaties. This unique volume will be required reading for academics and students of international environmental law and policy. Emmanuel Agius is Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Theology and Coordinator of the Future Generations Programme at the Foundation for International Studies, University of Malta. Salvino Busuttil is former Director General of the Foundation for International Studies. Future Generations and International Law is the seventh volume in the International Law and Sustainable Development series, co-developed with FIELD. The series aims to address and define the major legal issues associated with sustainable development and to contribute to the progressive development of international law. Other titles in the series are: Greening International Law, Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, Property Rights in the Defence of Nature, Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law, Greening International Institutions and Quotas in International Environmental Agreements. 'A legal parallel to the Blueprint series - welcome, timely and provocative' David Pearce Originally published in 1997

This book offers an overview of the challenges in the emerging regime of international criminal justice as a tool of sustainable peace. It illustrates the impact of the regime on international law and international relations, focusing on the obstacles to and concerns of its governance in the context of the maintenance and restoration of international peace and security. The author advocates for an appropriate interaction strategy between the United Nations and the Rome Statute institutions as a matter of international mutual concern and for the sake of human security. In multiple and inter-linked country situations the failure of strategies to prevent mass atrocity crimes have severely compromised the safety of civilians, including their individual fundamental rights. In several countries - such as in Libya, Syria, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Central African Republic, Ivory Coast and Mali - civilians have severely suffered the consequences of such failure.Furthermore, the right of humanitarian intervention that it is sometimes claimed the international community has is now challenged and qualified by the responsibility to protect civilians in situations of mass atrocity crimes. Such an international norm represents unfinished business in global politics and is considered by many to be far from capable of preserving the rule of international law. The preservation of the rule of law requires discussions and the advocacy of global values in international relations, such as multilateralism, collective responsibility, global solidarity and mutual accountability.

Providing a critical introduction to the notion of humanitarianism in global politics, tracing the concept from its origins to the twenty-first century, this book examines how the so called international community works in response to humanitarian crises and the systems that bind and divide them. By tracing the history on international humanitarian action from its early roots through the birth of the Red Cross to the beginning of the UN, Peter Walker and Daniel G. Maxwell examine the challenges humanitarian agencies face, from working alongside armies and terrorists to witnessing genocide. They argue that humanitarianism has a vital future, but only if those practicing it choose to make it so. Topics covered include: the rise in humanitarian action as a political tool the growing call for accountability of agencies the switch of NGOs from bit players to major trans-national actors the conflict between political action and humanitarian action when it comes to addressing causes as well as symptoms of crisis. This book is essential reading for anyone with an interest in international human rights law, disaster management and international relations.

Divided Sovereignty explores new institutional solutions to the old question of how to constrain states when they commit severe abuses against their own citizens. The book argues that coercive international institutions can stop these abuses and act as an insurance scheme against the possibility of states failing to fulfill their most basic sovereign responsibilities. It thus challenges the long standing assumption that collective grants of authority from the citizens of a state should be made exclusively for institutions within the borders of that state. Despite worries that international institutions such as the International Criminal Court could undermine domestic democratic control, citizens can divide sovereign authority between state and international institutions consistent with their right of democratic self-governance.
States are imperfect, incomplete political forms. They presuppose a monopoly of coercive power and final jurisdictional authority over their territory. These twin elements of sovereignty and authority can be used by state leaders and political representatives in ways that stray significantly from the interests of citizens. In the most extreme cases, when citizens become inconvenient obstacles in the pursuit of the self-serving ambitions of their leaders, state power turns against them. Genocide, torture, displacement, and rape are often the means of choice by which the inconvenient are made to suffer or vanish.
The book defends universal, principled limits on state authority based on jus cogens norms, a special category of norms in international law that prohibit violations of basic human rights. Against skeptics, it argues that many of the challenges of building an additional layer of institutions can be met if we pay attention to the conditions of institutional success, which require (1) experimentation with different institutional forms, (2) limitations on the scope of authority for coercive international institutions through clear, narrow, well defined mandates, and (3) understanding the limits of existing knowledge on institutional design, which should make us suspicious of proposals for grand institutional schemes, such as global democracy.

This book offers a discursive analysis of the Turkish Foreign Policy on Humanitarian Interventions (HI) and the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Across the chapters the author addresses important questions, such as: what is the position of the HI and R2P in the Turkish foreign policy discourse? Is there any variation between cases when it comes to the use of these concepts? How do these discourses shape/change/transform or sustain the Turkish identity? Despite the tendency in some countries to incorporate HI and R2P principles into their foreign policy (UK, Netherlands, Canada, Japan), and the fact that some countries are lobbying to make these principles a part of international or UN law, in the developing world these policies and concepts have not gained widespread recognition or approval. Countries like China, Brazil and India approach these concepts with suspicion or with reservation. The same tendency can be observed in the MENA region and in some parts of Africa and Asia. In this book, the author looks at the reasons behind these differences in approach and explores how the concept of identity affects Turkish foreign policy specifically. This study is invaluable for researchers and students of R2P and HI and foreign policy discourse in general.

First Published in 1998, this book presents an analysis of international humanitarian law, the law governing and seeking to mitigate the conduct of armed conflict. Since the first edition of this work came out in 1990 there have been important developments in the law and, sadly, a continuing experience of armed conflict and the humanitarian crises which it represents. As a result, this is not so much an 'updating' as the offering of a new book. International humanitarian law is here taken as coterminous with the jus in bello and covers both its 'Geneva' and 'Hague' elements dealing, respectively with the humanitarian protection and assistance of victims of armed conflict and the controls and restrictions placed upon methods and means of warfare. The rules and principles of international humanitarian law are presented and analysed in the context of their practical application in warfare, with emphasis upon recent experience. The Work is Primarily dedicated to the law relating to international armed conflict but also includes discussion of the relevant law applicable to non-international and 'low level' conflict.

This timely volume seeks to examine two of the most pertinent current challenges faced by asylum seekers in gaining access to international refugee protection: first, the obstacles to physical access to territory and, second, the barriers to accessing a quality asylum procedure - which the editors have termed 'access to justice'. To address these aims, the book brings together leading commentators from a range of backgrounds, including law, sociology and political science. It also includes contributions from NGO practitioners. This allows the collection to offer interdisciplinary analysis and to incorporate both theoretical and practical perspectives on questions of immense contemporary significance. While the examination offers a strong focus on European legal and policy developments, the book also addresses the issues in different regions (Europe, North America, the Middle East, Africa and Australia). Given the currency of the questions under debate, this book will be essential reading for all scholars in the field of asylum law.

This book analyses the way in which international human rights law (IHRL) and international investment law (IIL) are deployed - or fail to be deployed - in conflict countries within the context of natural resources extraction. It specifically analyses the way in which IIL protections impact on the parallel protection of economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) in the host state, especially the right to water. Arguing that current responses have been unsatisfactory, it considers the emergence of the 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' framework and the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (jointly the Framework) as a possible analytical instrument. In so doing, it proposes a different approach to the way in which the Framework is generally interpreted, and then investigates the possible applicability of this 'recalibrated' Framework to the study of the IHRL-IIL interplay in a host country in a protracted armed conflict: Afghanistan. Through the emblematic example of Afghanistan, the book presents a practical dimension to its legal analysis. It uniquely portrays the elusive intersection between these two bodies of international law within a host country where the armed conflict continues to rage and a full economic restructuring is taking place away from the public eye, not least through the deployment of IIL and the inaction - or merely partial consideration - of IHRL. The book will be of interest to academics, policy-makers, and practitioners of international organisations involved in IHRL, IIL and/or deployed in contexts of armed conflict.

Implementing International Humanitarian Law examines the international humanitarian law rules and their application by the ad hoc tribunals with regard to the substantive laws of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal Rwanda (ICTR). The practice of the ICTY and the ICTR and their contribution to international humanitarian law, together with their possible impact on the International Criminal Court, is examined in light of the decisions rendered by the ad hoc tribunals and of the latest international humanitarian law instruments such as the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind and the ICC Statute.

The post-World War Two period has witnessed numerous armed conflicts characterized by extensive violations of relevant obligatory international norms. Responding to these events, the United Nations General Assembly created a per-manent international court in 2003, with jurisdiction over selected international crimes. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was a precursor to this permanent court. It was established for the purpose of "prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia." As a precedent for what we may expect in the future, it deserves special attention from a historical, politi-cal, and especially an international law point of view.

The Prosecution of International Crimes comprehensively examines the creation, mandate, and challenges of the Inter-national Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Derived from a special issue of Criminal Law Forum: An International Journal, a peer-review journal dedicated to the advance-ment of criminal law theory, practice, and reform through-out the world, it is now available in paperback.

This book explores the question of whether peacekeeping commanders can be held accountable for a failure to protect the civilian population in the mission area. This requires an assessment of whether peacekeeping commanders have an obligation to act against such serious crimes being committed under domestic and international law. The work uses the cases of the Dutch and Belgian peacekeeping commanders in Srebrenica and Kigali as examples, but it also places the analysis into the context of contemporary peacekeeping operations. It unfolds two main arguments. First, it provides a critical note to the contextual interpretation given to international law in relation to peacekeeping. It is argued that establishing a specific paradigm for peacekeeping operations with clear rules of interpretation and benchmark criteria would benefit peacekeeping and international law by making the contextual interpretation of international law redundant. Second, it is held that alternative options to the existing forms of criminal responsibility for military commanders should be considered, possibly focusing more clearly on failing to fulfil a norm of protection that is specific to peacekeeping and distinct from protective obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

A soldier obeys illegal orders, thinking them lawful. When should we excuse his misconduct as based in reasonable error? How can courts convincingly convict the soldier's superior officer when, after Nuremberg, criminal orders are ex-pressed through winks and nods, hints and insinuations? Can our notions of the soldier's "due obedience," designed for the Roman legionnaire, be brought into closer harmony with cur-rent understandings of military conflict in the contemporary world? Mark J. Osiel answers these questions in light of new learning about atrocity and combat cohesion, as well as changes in warfare and the nature of military conflict.

Sources of atrocity are far more varied than current law as-sumes, and such variations display consistent patterns. The law now generally requires that soldiers resolve all doubts about the legality of a superior's order in favor of obedience. It ex-cuses compliance with an illegal order unless the illegality--as with flagrant atrocities--would be immediately obvious to any-one. But these criteria are often in conflict and at odds with the law's underlying principles and policies. Combat and peace op-erations now depend more on tactical imagination, self-disci-pline, and loyalty to immediate comrades than on immediate, unreflective adherence to the letter of superiors' orders, backed by threat of formal punishment. The objective of military law is to encourage deliberative judgment. This can be done, Osiel sug-gests, in ways that enhance the accountability of our military forces, in both peace operations and more traditional conflicts, while maintaining their effectiveness.

Osiel seeks to "civilianize" military law while building on sol-diers' own internal ideals of professional virtuousness. He re-turns to the ancient ideal of martial honor, reinterpreting it in light of new conditions, arguing that it should be implemented through realistic training in which legal counsel plays an en-larged role rather than by threat of legal prosecution. Obeying Orders thus offers a compelling answer to the question that has most haunted the moral imagination of the late twentieth cen-tury: the roots--and restraint--of mass atrocity in war.

The Birth of the New Justice is a history of the attempts to instate ad hoc and permanent international criminal courts and new international criminal laws from the end of World War I to the beginning of the Cold War. The purpose of these courts was to repress aggressive war, war crimes, terrorism, and genocide. Rather than arguing that these legal projects were attempts by state governments to project a "liberal legalism" and create an international state system that limited sovereignty, Mark Lewis shows that European jurists in a variety of transnational organizations derived their motives from a range of ideological motives - liberal, conservative, utopian, humanitarian, nationalist, and particularist. European jurists at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 created a controversial new philosophy of prosecution and punishment, and during the following decades, jurists in different organizations, including the International Law Association, International Association for Criminal Law, the World Jewish Congress, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, transformed the ideas of the legitimacy of post-war trials and the concept of international crime to deal with myriad social and political problems. The concept of an international criminal court was never static, and the idea that national tribunals would form an integral part of an international system to enforce new laws was frequently advanced as a pragmatic-and politically convenient-solution. The Birth of the New Justice shows that legal organizations were not merely interested in ensuring that the guilty were punished or that international peace was assured. They hoped to instil particular moral values, represent the interests of certain social groups, and even pursue national agendas. At the same time, their projects to define new types of crimes and ensure that old ones were truly punished also sprang from hopes that a new international political and moral order would check the power of the sovereign nation-state. When jurists had to scale back their projects, it was not only because state governments opposed them; it was also because they lacked political connections, did not build public support for their ideas, or decided that compromises were better than nothing.

An academic, legal text that places moral and political philosophy at the centre of certain legal debates. In this book, Professor Meyerson specifically investigates the "Limitation Clause" in the South African Constitution, a clause that leaves open the possibility of limits to the Bill of Rights and certain entrenched "freedoms". Through discussions regarding the Freedoms of Expression and Religion, this book aims to play a role in defining, expanding and challenging the South African Constitution.

The imperatives of sovereignty, human rights and national security very often pull in different directions, yet the relations between these three different notions are considerably more subtle than those of simple opposition. Rather, their interaction may at times be contradictory, at others tense, and at others even complementary. This collection presents an analysis of the irreducible dilemmas posed by the foundational challenges of sovereignty, human rights and security, not merely in terms of the formal doctrine of their disciplines, but also of the manner in which they can be configured in order to achieve persuasive legitimacy as to both methods and results. The chapters in this volume represent an attempt to face up to these dilemmas in all of their complexity, and to suggest ways in which they can be confronted productively both in the abstract and in the concrete circumstances of particular cases.

The act of fighting or being a fighter has certain consequences in international law. The most obvious example can be found in international humanitarian law, where a distinction is drawn between fighters and civilians, with fighters being military objectives and civilians being protected from attack. Another example is from international human rights law, where it has been held that the particular characteristics of military life have to be taken into account when interpreting the human rights of members of state armed forces. This volume focuses on the field of international criminal law and asks the question: what relevance does fighting have to victimhood in international criminal law? Among the topics which are explored are: how have international criminal courts and tribunals untangled lawful casualties of war from victims of war crimes? How have they determined who is a member of an organised armed group and who is not? What crimes can those who fight be victims of during hostilities? When does it become relevant in international criminal law that an alleged victim of a crime was a person hors de combat rather than a civilian? Can war crimes be committed against members of non-opposing forces? Can persons hors de combat be victims of crimes against humanity and genocide? What special considerations surround peacekeepers and child soldiers as victims of international crimes? The author carries out an in-depth exploration of case law from international criminal courts and tribunals to assess how they have dealt with these questions. She concludes that the import of fighting upon victimhood in the context of international criminal law has not always been appreciated to the extent it should have been.

Fully utilizing the latest archival material, this book provides a comprehensive, multi-dimensional and nuanced understanding of the Tokyo Tribunal by delving into the temporal aspects that extended the relevance and reverberations of the Tribunal beyond its end in 1948. With this as a backdrop, this book contributes to the study of Japanese postwar diplomacy. It shows the Tokyo Tribunal is still very much an experiment in progress, and how the process itself has helped Japan to quickly shed its imperial past and remain ambiguous as to its war responsibilities. From a wider vantage point, this book augments the existing scholarship of international criminal law and justice, offering a clear framework as to the limits of what international criminal tribunals can accomplish and offers a must-read for academics and students as well as for practitioners, journalists and policymakers interested in international criminal law and US-Japanese diplomatic history,

The unprecedented mass movement of populations since World War II has increased tensions among groups of people by breaking down the homogeneity of older countries and increasing the fragility of newly independent states encompassing several minorities within their borders. These changes, according to author Jay Sigler, dictate the necessity of clarifying human and minority rights. He highlights the main points of minority rights, traces their history, and demonstrates their distinctly modern features. Sigler considers the theoretical implications of minority versus individual and collective rights and examines the efforts in this area made by the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Finally, he proposes his own provisional theory of minority rights.

International refugee law anticipates state conduct in relation to nationality, statelessness, and protection. Refugee status under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and regional and domestic instruments referring to it can be fully understood only against the background of international laws regarding nationality, statelessness, and the consequences of national status or the lack of it. In this significant addition to the literature a leading practitioner in these fields examines, in the light of international law, key issues regarding refugee status including identification of 'the country of his nationality', concepts of 'effective nationality', and the inclusion within 'persecution' of a range of acts or omissions focused on nationality.