A growing number of states use private military and security companies (PMSCs) for a variety of tasks, which were traditionally fulfilled by soldiers. This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the law that applies to PMSCs active in situations of armed conflict, focusing on international humanitarian law. It examines the limits in international law on how states may use private actors, taking the debate beyond the question of whether PMSCs are mercenaries. The authors delve into issues such as how PMSCs are bound by humanitarian law, whether their staff are civilians or combatants, and how the use of force in self-defence relates to direct participation in hostilities, a key issue for an industry that operates by exploiting the right to use force in self-defence. Throughout, the authors identify how existing legal obligations, including under state and individual criminal responsibility should play a role in the regulation of the industry.

This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or impending humanitarian crisis, such as found in Rwanda in early 1994, Kosovo in 1999, and Darfur more recently. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect asserts that when a state is failing to uphold its citizens' human rights, the international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens, including by undertaking humanitarian intervention. It is unclear, however, which particular agent should be tasked with this responsibility. Should we prefer intervention by the UN, NATO, a regional or subregional organization (such as the African Union), a state, a group of states, or someone else? Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect answers this question by, first, determining which qualities of interveners are morally significant and, second, assessing the relative importance of these qualities. For instance, is it important that an intervener have a humanitarian motive? Should an intervener be welcomed by those it is trying to save? How important is it that an intervener will be effective and what does this mean in practice?
James Pattison then considers the more empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current interveners actually possess these qualities, and therefore should intervene. For instance, how effective can we expect UN action to be in the future? Is NATO likely to use humanitarian means? Overall, it develops a particular normative conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. It uses this conception of legitimacy to assess not only current interveners, but also the desirability of potential reforms to the mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention.

With 'displacement' as the guiding thread, the purpose of this study is twofold. Firstly, it derives from the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law a legal framework for the protection of displaced persons in armed conflict, both from and during displacement. It contains a case study on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the recent Advisory Opinion on the Separation Wall, and addresses such issues as humanitarian assistance for displaced persons, the treatment of refugees in the hands of a party to a conflict and the militarisation of refugee camps. Secondly, it examines the issue of displacement within the broader context of civilian war victims and identifies and addresses the normative gaps of international humanitarian law, including the inadequacy of concepts such as 'protected persons' and the persistence of the dichotomy between international and non-international armed conflicts, which is at odds with the realities of contemporary armed conflicts.

Georg Nolte Excellencies, dear Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, I welcome you to our colloquium on the occasion of the sixtieth an- versary of the International Law Commission. The Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich and the Humboldt University of Berlin are happy that you have followed our invitation. We are particularly proud that a majority of the members of the Int- national Law Commission have accepted our invitation. The presence of one former member of the Commission deserves special mention: Bruno Simma is now not only a Judge at the International Court of J- tice but also, if I may say so, the "local hero," having held the wond- ful Chair for International Law at the University of Munich for more than thirty years. He is still living in Munich when he is not in The Hague. We are glad that participants have come from nearby, from neighbouring regions and countries, as well as from countries as far away as Brazil and China. I am personally very content that our group represents a fine mixture of experienced international lawyers and younger colleagues and students. This composition gives us the opp- tunity for fruitful exchanges, and for the ILC to reach out and to - ceive feedback. The International Law Commission needs no introduction. Like a few happy persons, at age sixty it can look back onto a largely successful - reer.

What should be the role of our institutions of higher education? To promote good moral character? To bring an end to racism, sexism, economic oppression, and other social ills? To foster diversity and democracy and produce responsible citizens? In Save the World On Your Own Time, Stanley Fish argues that, however laudable these goals might be, there is but one proper role for the academe in society: to advance bodies of knowledge and to equip students for doing the same. When teachers offer themselves as moralists, political activists, or agents of social change rather than as credentialed experts in a particular subject and the methods used to analyze it, they abdicate their true purpose. And yet professors now routinely bring their political views into the classroom and seek to influence the political views of their students. Those who do this will often invoke academic freedom, but Fish suggests that academic freedom, correctly understood, is the freedom to do the academic job, not the freedom to do any job that the professor so chooses. Fish insists that a professor's only obligation is "to present the material in the syllabus and introduce students to state-of-the-art methods of analysis. Not to practice politics, but to study it; not to proselytize for or against religious doctrines, but to describe them; not to affirm or condemn Intelligent Design, but to explain what it is and analyze its appeal." Given that hot-button issues such as Holocaust denial, free speech, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are regularly debated in classrooms across the nation, Save the World On Your Own Time is certain to spark fresh debate-and to incense both liberals and conservatives alike-about the true purpose of higher education in America. "A vigorous defense of that abstemious understanding of the teacher's task, laced with numerous examples of its egregious violation." -First Things "Exhilarating, the thought polished and white-hot, this book makes the reader think and often wince, especially teachers like me who have aged out of the intellectual into the easy and congenial. A close reading of Save the World should purge much nonsense from classrooms." -Sam Pickering, author of Letters to a Teacher

1.1 Opening Remarks and Objectives Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law 2 be enforced. This is, perhaps, the most renowned citation from the judgment of the Int- national Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ("IMT"). In the six decades which have passed since the IMT judgment was handed down, the recognition of the c- cept of individual criminal responsibility for core international crimes has been significantly reinforced and developed, particularly since the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ("ICTY") and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ("ICTR") in the 1990's and most recently the International Criminal Court ("ICC"). The media has, of course, played a crucial role in increasing awareness of this concept, especially amongst the general populace. Indeed, the concept has, arguably, a much higher profile today, than ever before in its history. However, the concept of individual criminal responsibility for core inter- tional crimes is neither as straightforward nor as single-facetted, as might appear on first glance. While the general principle behind the concept does not generate too many difficulties, it is in its practical application that the more challenging aspects of the concept are brought to the fore. Each of these 'challenging - pects' can also be described as a 'pertinent issue' of the concept of individual criminal responsibility for core international crimes.

International human rights law grants individuals both rights and responsibilities. In this respect international criminal and international humanitarian law are no different. As members of the public international law family they are charged with the regulation, maintenance and protection of human dignity. The right and duty to disobey manifestly illegal orders traverses these three schools of public international law. This book is the first systematic study of the right to conscientious objection under international human rights law. Understanding that rights and duties are not mutually exclusive but complementary, this study analyses the right to conscientious objection and the duties of individuals under international law from various perspectives of public international law.

The book is a critical review of accountability conducted under the authority of the United Nations Security Council, by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). It is centred on two case studies: the 1999 events in Rwanda, and the 1999 mayhem in East Timor. The books subjects to testing cross-examination tools to hold accountable persons with the greatest responsibility" for serious international humanitarian law violations.

Despite the disasters of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and ever more visible evidence of the horrors of war, the concepts of 'Humanitarian Intervention' and 'Just War' enjoy widespread legitimacy and continue to exercise an unshakeable grip on our imaginations. Robin Dunford and Michael Neu provide a clear and comprehensive critique of both Just War Theory and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, deconstructing the philosophical, moral and political arguments that underpin them. In doing so, they show how proponents of Just War and R2P have tended to treat killing in a way which obscures the complex and often messy reality of war, and pays little heed to the human impact of such conflicts. Going further, they provide answers to such difficult questions as 'Surely it would have been just for us to intervene in the Rwandan genocide?' An essential guide to one of the most difficult moral and political issues of our age.

Recent armed conflicts, whether international or non-international in character, are in many respects characterized by a variety of asymmetries. These asymmetries may be overstressed, sometime even abused, and ultimately virtually meaningless. Still, either as such or in conjunction with other developments, they seem to challenge the law of armed conflicts or: international humanitarian law. These challenges may very well compromise the very function of that body of law, which is to mitigate as far as possible the calamities of war. Thus, the law of armed conflict may be deprived of its fundamental function as an order of necessity because its legally binding directives will increasingly be disregarded for the sake of allegedly superior values.

In order to discuss these and other questions a most distinguished group of experts in the field of the law of armed conflicts gathered in Berlin in June 2005. The goal of that colloquium, which marked the 70th birthday of Knut Ipsen, was to find operable solutions for problems and challenges the contemporary law of armed conflict is confronted with.

With contributions by Bill Boothby, Michael Bothe, Yoram Dinstein, Knut Dormann, Charles J. Dunlap Jr., Volker Epping, Dieter Fleck, Steven Haines, Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, Hans-Joachim Heintze, Rainer Hofmann, Frits Kalshoven, Stefan Oeter, W. Hays Parks, Michael Schmitt, Torsten Stein, and Andreas Zimmermann."

The application and interpretation of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977 have developed significantly in the seventy years since the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) first published its Commentaries on these important humanitarian treaties. To promote a better understanding of, and respect for, this body of law, the ICRC commissioned a comprehensive update of its original Commentaries, of which this is the third volume. The Third Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war and their protections, takes into account developments in the law and practice in the past seven decades to provide up-to-date interpretations of the Convention. The new Commentary has been reviewed by humanitarian law practitioners and academics from around the world. This new Commentary will be an essential tool for anyone involved with international humanitarian law.

War demands that scholars and policy makers use victory in precise and coherent terms to communicate what the state seeks to achieve in war. The failure historically to define victory in consistent terms has contributed to confused debates when societies consider whether to wage war. This volume explores the development of a theoretical narrative or language of victory to help scholars and policy makers define carefully and precisely what they mean by victory in war in order to achieve a deeper understanding of victory as the foundation of strategy in the modern world.

How, despite the enormous investment of blood and treasure, has the West's ten-year intervention left Afghanistan so lawless and insecure? The answer is more insidious than any conspiracy, for it begins with a profound lack of understanding of the rule of law, the very thing that most dramatically separates Western societies from the benighted ones in which they increasingly intervene. This volume of essays argues that the rule of law is not a set of institutions that can be exported lock, stock and barrel to lawless lands, but a state of affairs under which ordinary people and officials of the state itself feel it makes sense to act within the law. Where such a state of affairs is absent, as in Afghanistan today, brute force, not law, will continue to rule.

Why do international criminal tribunals write histories of the origins and causes of armed conflicts? Richard Ashby Wilson conducted empirical research with judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and expert witnesses in three international criminal tribunals to understand how law and history are combined in the courtroom. Historical testimony is now an integral part of international trials, with prosecutors and defense teams using background testimony to pursue decidedly legal objectives. Both use historical narratives to frame the alleged crimes and to articulate their side's theory of the case. In the Slobodan Milo evi trial, the prosecution sought to demonstrate special intent to commit genocide by reference to a long-standing animus, nurtured within a nationalist mind-set. For their part, the defense calls historical witnesses to undermine charges of superior responsibility, and to mitigate the sentence by representing crimes as reprisals. Although legal ways of knowing are distinctive from those of history, the two are effectively combined in international trials in a way that challenges us to rethink the relationship between law and history.

War, Conflict and Human Rights is an innovative inter-disciplinary textbook, combining aspects of law, politics and conflict analysis to examine the relationship between human rights and armed conflict. This third edition has been fully revised and updated, and contains a completely new chapter on business, conflict and human rights. Making use of both theoretical and practical approaches, the authors: examine the tensions and complementarities between protection of human rights and resolution of conflict - the competing political demands and the challenges posed by internal armed conflict and the increasing role of nonstate actors, including corporations, in armed conflicts; explore the scope and effects of human rights violations in contemporary armed conflicts, such as in Sierra Leone, Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the former Yugoslavia; assess the legal and institutional accountability mechanisms developed in the wake of armed conflict to punish violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law such as the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, hybrid or internationalized tribunals and the International Criminal Court; discuss continuing and emergent global trends and challenges in the fields of human rights and conflict analysis. This volume will be essential reading for students of war and conflict studies, human rights and international humanitarian law, and highly recommended for students of conflict resolution, peacebuilding, international security, transitional justice and international relations generally.

The book makes a comprehensive analysis of the basic principles and theories of military law, restructuring the theoretic framework of military law. It also puts forwards the new concepts of "core military law" and "international military law" for the first time in China, and even the world. The book could help legal scholars and lawyers, especially military lawyers and research fellows in military law, to have a new approach to study military law.

Terrorism and International Law: Accountability, Remedies, and Reform, researched and written by the International Bar Association's Task Force on International Terrorism, examines the developments in international law and practice in this dynamic and often controversial area. The Task Force comprises world famous jurists and, chaired by Justice Richard Goldstone, provides authoritative expert analysis of the operation and application of international law to terrorism and provides recommendations for reform.
This title covers developments in the counter-terrorism policies and practice of individual states and international and regional organizations. It examines the framework of derogations and national security limitations in international human rights law, as well as clarifying when international humanitarian law applies to terrorism and counter-terrorism. This title provides a global overview of counter-terrorism, including but not restricted to the US-led 'war on terror', by considering case law and examples of state practice from all continents.
The chapters cover the framework of international conventions against terrorism; international humanitarian law; international human rights law; the investigation and prosecution of terrorist crimes and of international crimes committed in the course of counter-terrorism; state responsibility for internationally unlawful acts as relating to terrorism and counter-terrorism; reform in counter-terrorism; and victims' right to a remedy and reparations. The book closes with conclusions and recommendations from the IBA Task Force on areas for reform and focuses on how the international community can ensure respect for human rights and the rule of law when responding to the threat of terrorism.

In this book, self-defence against non-state actors is examined by three scholars whose geographical, professional, theoretical, and methodological backgrounds and outlooks differ greatly. Their trialogue is framed by an introduction and a conclusion by the series editors. The novel scholarly format accommodates the pluralism and value changes of the current era, a shifting world order and the rise in nationalism and populism. It brings to light the cultural, professional and political pluralism which characterises international legal scholarship and exploits this pluralism as a heuristic device. This multiperspectivism exposes how political factors and intellectual styles influence the scholarly approaches and legal answers and the trialogical structure encourages its participants to decentre their perspectives. By explicitly focussing on the authors' divergence and disagreement, a richer understanding of self-defence against non-state actors is achieved, and the legal challenges and possible ways ahead identified.

In order to ensure its absolute authority, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (1946-1948), the Japanese counterpart of the Nuremberg Trial, adopted a three-tier structure for its interpreting: Japanese nationals interpreted the proceedings, second-generation Japanese-Americans monitored the interpreting, and Caucasian U.S. military officers arbitrated the disputes. The first extensive study on the subject in English, this book explores the historical and political contexts of the trial as well as the social and cultural backgrounds of the linguists through trial transcripts in English and Japanese, archival documents and recordings, and interviews with those who were involved in the interpreting. In addition to a detailed account of the interpreting, the book examines the reasons for the three-tier system, how the interpreting procedures were established over the course of the trial, and the unique difficulties faced by the Japanese-American monitors. This original case study of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal illuminates how complex issues such as trust, power, control and race affect interpreting at international tribunals in times of conflict.

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.

In 2005, the international community made a landmark commitment to prevent mass atrocities by unanimously adopting the UN's "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) principle. As often as not, however, R2P has failed to translate into decisive action. Why does this gap persist between the world's normative pledges to R2P and its ability to make it a daily lived reality? In this new book, leading global authorities on humanitarian protection Alex Bellamy and Edward Luck offer a probing and in-depth response to this fundamental question, calling for a more comprehensive approach to the practice of R2P - one that moves beyond states and the UN to include the full range of actors that play a role in protecting vulnerable populations. Drawing on cases from the Middle East to sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, they examine the forces and conditions that produce atrocity crimes and the challenge of responding to them quickly and effectively. Ultimately, they advocate both for emergency policies to temporarily stop carnage and for policies leading to sustainable change within societies and governments. Only by introducing these additional elements to the R2P toolkit will the failures associated with humanitarian crises like Syria and Libya become a thing of the past.

The book systematically analyses the relationship and interaction between rules of engagement (ROE) and the legal framework regulating armed conflicts, both at the international and national levels. At the international level, the relationship between ROE and human rights law and international humanitarian law is explored. At the national level, the book relates ROE to (comparative) criminal law. A separate chapter analyses the complex relationship between self-defence law and rules of engagement. It is the first monograph to comprehensively examine these issues and to analyse how ROE interact with the various sources of the (international) law of military operations, both in terms of the law as a source for these rules and how the law is reflected and implemented through them. In doing so, and based on the author's own experience, the book provides examples of how complicated, often controversial issues of law can be resolved while keeping the rules understandable at all levels of military operations. Aimed at both scholars and practitioners, the book provides a bridge between the academic world and the operational world. It provides new insights for both of those audiences in terms of understanding how the law applies to - and through - the rules on the use of force for military operations.

Seit 2003 hat sich die Europaische Union in mehr als zwanzig militarischen und zivilen Operationen engagiert. Spezifika der Europaischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (ESVP) sind zum einen ihre starke politische Pragung und zum anderen ihre Einbettung in das europaische Mehrebenensystem. Die Arbeit untersucht die verschiedenen Ebenen der europaischen Verteidigungsstrukturen vom Ausgangspunkt der Operation "Artemis." Die erste Problemlage "Streitkrafte im europaischen Verfassungsrecht" behandelt Fragen in Bezug auf die "Gewaltenteilung" im Rahmen der ESVP und die (parlamentarische) Legitimation von Streitkraften, die im Bereich solcher Operationen eingesetzt werden. Die zweite Ebene untersucht Befehlsketten und die Zurechnung von Verantwortung fur Entscheidungen, die in der ESVP gefallt werden. Die dritte Ebene geht der Frage nach, inwieweit die EU inhaltlich an das Volkerrecht gebunden ist, und welche Rolle sie im "conflict-management" der Vereinten Nationen spielt.

The book explores recent developments in the international and national prosecution of persons accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. It considers the relationship between national and international law, science and practice, with emphasis on the emerging principle of universial jurisdiction and the effect of "the war on terror" on legal norms.

This publication assists readers (be they academics, students, practitioners, experts or migrants themselves) to better orientate themselves in the web of norms and principles existing at the international level. The focus of the compendium is on bringing together a comprehensive compilation of universal instruments with varying degrees of legal force from authoritative international treaties, through customary international law, to the sets of principles and guidelines, which, although non-binding, are nonetheless of clear contemporary relevance and can contribute to the progressive development of law in areas not covered by 'hard' norms.