There is no shortage of scholarly literature on the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (the right to health) in general. However, little research exists with a focus on the specificities of the legal framework in African countries, including an investigation into domestic constitutional and statutory regimes of these countries. Furthermore, while human rights treaties and domestic laws on the right to health do not distinguish between modern and traditional medicines, there is a shortage of studies, including monographs, on access to modern and traditional medicine (TM) as part of the right to health. The present study partly fills in the gap by dealing with access to medicines as part of the right to health in two Sub-Saharan African countries, namely the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the United Republic of Tanzania. The thesis combines this general inquiry into the right to health with a specific focus on TM, including access to traditional medicines. TM is often overlooked in mainstream scholarship despite its immense practical importance for many people worldwide, especially in the DRC and the URT. Addressing TM in the context of the human right to health and analysing its challenges from a human rights perspective constitute an essential contribution to human rights scholarship. Therefore, the study considers modern and TM as part of the right to health under the global, African continental, and SADC regional and domestic human rights law.

Warzones are sometimes described as lawless, but this is rarely the case. Armed insurgents often replace the state as the provider of law and justice in areas under their authority. Based on extensive fieldwork, Rebel Courts offers a compelling and unique insight into the judicial governance of armed groups, a phenomenon never studied comprehensively until now. Using a series of detailed case studies of non-state armed groups in a diverse range of conflict situations, including the FARC (Colombia), Islamic State (Syria and Iraq), Taliban (Afghanistan), Tamil Tigers (Sri Lanka), PKK (Turkey), PYD (Syria), and KRG (Iraq), Rebel Courts argues that it is possible for non-state armed groups to legally establish and operate a system of courts to administer justice. Rules of public international law that regulate the conduct of war can be interpreted as authorising the establishment of rebel courts by armed groups. When operating in a manner consistent with due process, rebel courts demand a certain degree of recognition by international states, institutions, and even other non-state armed groups. With legal analysis enriched by insights from other disciplines, Rebel Courts is a must read for all scholars and professionals interested in law, justice, and the effectiveness of global legal standards in situations of armed conflict.

In international humanitarian law (IHL), the principle of distinction delineates the difference between the civilian and the combatant, and it safeguards the former from being intentionally targeted in armed conflicts. This monograph explores the way in which the idea of distinction circulates within, and beyond, IHL. Taking a bottom-up approach, the multi-sited study follows distinction across three realms: the kinetic realm, where distinction is in motion in South Sudan; the pedagogical realm, where distinction is taught in civil-military training spaces in Europe; and the intellectual realm, where distinction is formulated and adjudicated in Geneva and the Hague. Directing attention to international humanitarian actors, the book shows that these actors seize upon signifiers of 'civilianness' in everyday practice. To safeguard their civilian status, and to deflect any qualities of 'combatantness' that might affix to them, humanitarian actors strive to distinguish themselves from other international actors in their midst. The latter include peacekeepers working for the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), and soldiers who deploy with NATO missions. Crucially, some of the distinctions enacted cut along civilian-civilian lines, suggesting that humanitarian actors are longing for something more than civilian status - the 'civilian plus'. This special status presents a paradox: the appeal to the 'civilian plus' undermines general civilian protection, yet as the civilian ideal becomes increasingly beleaguered, a special civilian status appears ever more desirable. However disruptive these practices may be to the principle of distinction in IHL, the monograph emphasizes that even at the most normative level there is no bright line distinction to be found.

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.

Women and the LGBT community in Russia and Turkey face pervasive discrimination. Only a small percentage dare to challenge their mistreatment in court. Facing domestic police and judges who often refuse to recognize discrimination, a small minority of activists have exhausted their domestic appeals and then turned to their last hope: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The ECtHR, located in Strasbourg, France, is widely regarded as the most effective international human rights court in existence. Russian citizens whose rights have been violated at home have brought tens of thousands of cases to the ECtHR over the past two decades. But only one of these cases resulted in a finding of gender discrimination by the ECtHR-and that case was brought by a man. By comparison, the Court has found gender discrimination more frequently in decisions on Turkish cases. Courting Gender Justice explores the obstacles that confront citizens, activists, and lawyers who try to bring gender discrimination cases to court. To shed light on the factors that make rare victories possible in discrimination cases, the book draws comparisons among forms of discrimination faced by women and LGBT people in Russia and Turkey. Based on interviews with human rights and feminist activists and lawyers in Russia and Turkey, this engaging book grounds the law in the personal experiences of individual people fighting to defend their rights.

The prohibition of the use of force in international law is one of the major achievements of international law in the past century. The attempt to outlaw war as a means of national policy and to establish a system of collective security after both World Wars resulted in the creation of the United Nations Charter, which remains a principal point of reference for the law on the use of force to this day. There have, however, been considerable challenges to the law on the prohibition ofThe prohibition of the use of force in international law is one of the major achievements of international law in the past century. The attempt to outlaw war as a means of national policy and to establish a system of collective security after both World Wars resulted in the creation of the United Nations Charter, which remains a principal point of reference for the law on the use of force to this day. There have, however, been considerable challenges to the law on the prohibition of the use of force over the past two decades. This Oxford Handbook is a comprehensive and authoritative study of the modern law on the use of force. Over seventy experts in the field offer a detailed analysis, and to an extent a restatement, of the law in this area. The Handbook reviews the status of the law on the use of force, and assesses what changes, if any, have occurred in consequence to recent developments. It offers cutting-edge and up-to-date scholarship on all major aspects of the prohibition of the use of force. The work is set in context by an extensive introductory section, reviewing the history of the subject, recent challenges, and addressing major conceptual approaches. Its second part addresses collective security, in particular the law and practice of the United Nations organs, and of regional organizations and arrangements. It then considers the substance of the prohibition of the use of force, and of the right to self-defence and associated doctrines. The next section is devoted to armed action undertaken on behalf of peoples and populations. This includes self-determination conflicts, resistance to armed occupation, and forcible humanitarian and pro-democratic action. The possibility of the revival of classical, expansive justifications for the use of force is then addressed. This is matched by a final section considering new security challenges and the emerging law in relation to them. Finally, the key arguments developed in the book are tied together in a substantive conclusion. The Handbook will be essential reading for scholars and students of international law and the use of force, and legal advisers to both government and NGOs.

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in its current form is incomplete and outdated. Due to significant development at a legislative and judicial level, the right to life spans beyond what is enumerated within Article 2. With the belief that Article 2 is still relevant, this book investigates how the right to life can be better protected within Europe. It advocates for the modernisation of Article 2 through codifying legislative and judicial developments relevant to this provision in the form of guidelines. It also considers the improvements that can be made by the Council of Europe (CoE) bodies - the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Committee of Ministers (CoM), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the CoE Commissioner for Human Rights - to encourage adherence to Article 2 and promote effective remedies to prevent future violations. It uses the experience from four internal European conflicts - the Basque conflict, the Chechen conflict, the Northern Ireland Troubles and the Turkish-Kurdish conflict - to illustrate its points.

Why would anyone commit a mass atrocity such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or terrorism? This question is at the core of the multi- and interdisciplinary field of perpetrator studies, a developing field which this book assesses in its full breadth for the first time. Perpetrators of International Crimes analyses the most prominent theories, methods, and evidence to determine what we know, what we think we know, as well as the ethical implications of gathering this knowledge. It traces the development of perpetrator studies whilst pushing the boundaries of this emerging field. The book includes contributions from experts from a wide array of disciplines, including criminology, history, law, sociology, psychology, political science, religious studies, and anthropology. They cover numerous case studies, including prominent ones such as Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia, but also those that are relatively under researched and more recent, such as Sri Lanka and the Islamic State. These have been investigated through various research methods, including but not limited to, trial observations and interviews.

The face of modern warfare is changing as more and more humanitarianorganizations, private military companies, and non-state groups entercomplex security environments such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti.Although this shift has been overshadowed by the legal issues connectedto the War on Terror and intervention in countries such as Rwanda andDarfur, it has caused some to question the relevance of existinginternational humanitarian law.

To bridge the widening gap between the theory and practice of thelaw, "Modern Warfare" brings together both scholars andpractitioners who offer unique, and often divergent, perspectives onfour key challenges to the law's legitimacy: how to ensurecompliance among non-state armed groups; the proliferation of privatemilitary and security companies and their use by humanitarianorganizations; tensions between the idea of humanitarian space andcounterinsurgency doctrines; and the phenomenon of urban violence. Thecontributors do not simply consider settled legal standards -- theywiden the scope to include first principles, related bodies of law, humanitarian policy, and the latest studies on the prevention andmitigation of violence.

By bringing to light international humanitarian law'slimitations -- and potential -- in the context of modernwarfare's rapidly changing landscape, "Modern Warfare"opens a path to preventing further unnecessary suffering andviolence.

Benjamin Perrin is an assistant professor in theFaculty of Law at the University of British Columbia. He is currentlyserving as Special Advisor, Legal Affairs and Policy, in the PrimeMinister's Office in Ottawa.

This comprehensive reference work serves as an important resource for anyone interested in the international prosecution of war crimes and how it has evolved. War Crimes and Trials analyzes the evolution of war crime trials through primary sources. Beginning with a general discussion of why regulations for war have evolved, it then illustrates the resulting changes in the nature and consequences of war as well as attitudes toward war as a part of international life. Moreover, it contextualizes contemporary rules that pertain to both international and non-international armed conflicts. The heart of the book focuses on 12 World War II cases central to the development of war law over the next 50 years, including the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of major war criminals. It additionally dedicates discussion to the evolution of the law after World War II as set in motion by the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and amendments, the background and operation of the ad hoc international criminal courts, and the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court, illustrating problems and successes through 12 cases drawn from these four courts. Walks readers through the evolution of present standards of battlefield conduct Concisely summarizes the background of each war crime trial Shows through testimony how standards have been applied in war crime trials Leads readers to understand the difficulty of international prosecution for war crimes Provides resources for further study

The high civilian death toll in modern, protracted conflicts such as those in Syria or Iraq indicate the limits of international law in offering protections to civilians at risk. A recent conference of states convened by the International Committee of the Red Cross referred to 'an institutional vacuum in the area of international humanitarian law implementation'. Yet both international humanitarian law and the law of human rights establish a series of rights intended to protect civilians. But which law or laws apply in a particular situation, and what are the obstacles to their implementation? How can the law offer greater protections to civilians caught up in new methods of warfare, such as drone strikes, or targeted by new forms of military organisation, such as transnational armed groups? Can the implementation gap be filled by the growing use of human rights courts to remedy violations of the laws of armed conflict, or are new instruments or mechanisms of civilian legal protection needed? This volume brings together contributions from leading academic authorities and legal practitioners on the situation of civilians in the grey zone between human rights and the laws of war. The chapters in Part 1 address key contested or boundary issues in defining the rights of civilians or non-combatants in today's conflicts. Those in Part 2 examine remedies and current mechanisms for redress both at the international and national level, and those in Part 3 assess prospects for the development of new mechanisms for addressing violations. As military intervention to protect civilians remains contested, this volume looks at the potential for developing alternative approaches to the protection of civilians and their rights.

In July 2016, the Supreme Court of India held that the use of excessive or retaliatory force by the security forces is not permissible in the course of the discharge of their duty under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), and that the Act does not allow blanket immunity to perpetrators of unjustified deaths. Recently, the Supreme Court directed that FIRs be lodged against security personnel engaged in encounter killings. This ruling has serious ramifications for the forces deployed in counter-insurgency operations. The AFSPA has become one of the most controversial laws, both in India and the world. The loud and continuous clamour against the Act has drawn the attention of various international organizations. In May 2017, the UN Human Rights Council, during the Universal Periodic Review of India's human rights record called for bringing the provisions of the AFSPA in line with the international human rights treaties. The armed forces, however, maintain that the AFSPA is a functional requirement for tackling the growing menace of insurgency and protecting their men from the unnecessary harassment caused by litigation. On the other hand, the Delhi High Court has recently directed the Government of India to pay a compensation of Rs 55 lakh to an air force pilot who was injured while flying a poorly maintained MiG 21 aircraft. This case highlights the other side of the issue of human rights in the context of members of the armed and security forces. This book will help to enhance the understanding of the legal position of the armed forces, which is of paramount importance today due to the blurring of the lines between national security, anti-insurgency operations and law enforcement. It will also create an awareness of the difficulties being faced by the armed forces during domestic deployment and of the need to protect the rights of military and security personnel. The book provides an insight into the legislative efforts of other democracies to meet the challenges of growing terrorism. It delves into cases of human rights violations in which members of the armed forces have been implicated. It concludes by identifying current deficiencies in the legal system and makes a few recommendations for the consideration of the government and armed forces.

The application and interpretation of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 have developed significantly in the sixty 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 second volume. Its preparation was coordinated by Jean-Marie Henckaerts, ICRC legal adviser and head of the project to update the Commentaries. The Second Convention is a key text of international humanitarian law. It contains the essential rules on the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea, those assigned to their care, and the vessels used for their treatment and evacuation. This article-by-article Commentary takes into account developments in the law and practice 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, including naval experts. It is an essential tool for anyone working or studying within this field.

The chief means to limit and calculate the costs of war are the philosophical and legal concepts of proportionality and necessity. Both categories are meant to restrain the most horrific potential of war. The volume explores the moral and legal issues in the modern law of war in three major categories. In so doing, the contributions will look for new and innovative approaches to understanding the process of weighing lives implicit in all theories of jus in bello: who counts in war, understanding proportionality, and weighing lives in asymmetric conflicts. These questions arise on multiple levels and require interdisciplinary consideration of both philosophical and legal themes.

The purpose of this book is to consider the legality of the changing practice of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). It provides extensive legal analysis of the ICRC as an organisation, legal person, and humanitarian actor. It draws on the law of organisations, International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and other relevant branches of international law in order to critically assess the mandate and practice of the ICRC on the ground. The book also draws on more abstract human-centric concepts, including sovereignty as responsibility and human security, in order to assess the development of the concept of humanity for the mandate and practice of the ICRC. Critically this book uses semi- structured interviews with ICRC delegates to test the theoretical and doctrinal conclusions. The book provides a unique insight into the work of the ICRC. It also includes a case study of the work of the ICRC in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Ultimately the book concludes that the ICRC is no longer restricted to the provision of humanitarian assistance on the battlefield. It is increasingly drawn into long-term and extremely complicated conflicts, in which, civilians, soldiers and non-State actors intermingle. In order to remain useful for the people on the ground, therefore, the ICRC is progressively developing its mandate. This book questions whether, on occasion, this could threaten its promise to remain neutral, impartial and independent. Finally, however, it should be said that this author finds that the work of the ICRC is unparalleled on the international stage and its humanitarian mandate is a vital component for those embroiled in the undertaking of and recovery from conflict.

Genocide is one of the most heinous abuses of human rights imaginable, yet reaction to it by European governments in the post-Cold War world has been criticised for not matching the severity of the crime. European governments rarely agree on whether to call a situation genocide, and their responses to purported genocides have often been limited to delivering humanitarian aid to victims and supporting prosecution of perpetrators in international criminal tribunals. More coercive measures - including sanctions or military intervention - are usually rejected as infeasible or unnecessary. This book explores the European approach to genocide, reviewing government attitudes towards the negotiation and ratification of the 1948 Genocide Convention and analysing responses to purported genocides since the end of the Second World War. Karen E. Smith considers why some European governments were hostile to the Genocide Convention and why European governments have been reluctant to use the term genocide to describe atrocities ever since.

The purpose of the jus ad bellum is to draw a line in the sand: thus far, but no further. In the light of modern warfare, a state should today have an explicitly recognised and undisputed right of delimited unilateral defence not only in response to an occurring armed attack, but also in interception of an inevitable or imminent armed attack. This book, however, makes it evident that unilateral interception is not incontestably compatible with the modern right of self-defence in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Then again, unilateral defence need not forever be confined to self-defence only, wherefore the book proposes that the concept of defence may best be modernised by a clear legal division into responsive and interceptive defence. Since both threat and use of force are explicitly prohibited in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, this book further recommends that both responsive and interceptive defence should be explicitly excepted from this prohibition in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The modern jus ad bellum should thus legally recognise a dual face of defence: responsive self-defence if an armed attack occurs, and interceptive necessity-defence if a grave and urgent threat of an armed attack occurs. For without a clarifying and modernising revision, the concept of defence will become irreparably blurred until it is completely dissolved into the ever-shifting sands of war.

The purpose of this text is to evaluate the extent to which international judicial institutions-principally the four most prominent tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court- have proven effective in advancing human security. It examines the processes of international justice, the judicial outcomes of these institutions, and the more long-range impact of their work on human rights and peace to assess their consequences in the affected nations as well as the international community.

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 is the second volume of a projected five-volume series charting the causes of war from 3000 BCE to the present day, written by a leading international lawyer, and using as its principal materials the documentary history of international law, largely in the form of treaties and the negotiations which led up to them. These volumes seek to show why millions of people, over thousands of years, slew each other. In departing from the various theories put forward by historians, anthropologists and psychologists, Gillespie offers a different taxonomy of the causes of war, focusing on the broader settings of politics, religion, migrations and empire-building. These four contexts were dominant and often overlapping justifications during the first four thousand years of human civilisation, for which written records exist.

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.

Why should America restrain itself in detaining, interrogating, and targeting terrorists when they show it no similar forbearance? Is it fair to expect one side to fight by more stringent rules than the other, placing itself at disadvantage? Is the disadvantaged side then permitted to use the tactics and strategies of its opponent? If so, then America's most controversial counterterrorism practices are justified as commensurate responses to indiscriminate terror. Yet different ethical standards prove entirely fitting, the author finds, in a conflict between a network of suicidal terrorists seeking mass atrocity at any cost and a constitutional democracy committed to respecting human dignity and the rule of law. The most important reciprocity involves neither uniform application of fair rules nor their enforcement by a simple-minded tit-for-tat. Real reciprocity instead entails contributing to an emergent global contract that encompasses the law of war and from which all peoples may mutually benefit.

Necessity is a notoriously dangerous and slippery concept-dangerous because it contemplates virtually unrestrained killing in warfare and slippery when used in conflicting ways in different areas of international law. Jens David Ohlin and Larry May untangle these confusing strands and perform a descriptive mapping of the ways that necessity operates in legal and philosophical arguments in jus ad bellum, jus in bello, human rights, and criminal law. Although the term "necessity" is ever-present in discussions regarding the law and ethics of killing, its meaning changes subtly depending on the context. It is sometimes an exception, at other times a constraint on government action, and most frequently a broad license in war that countenances the wholesale killing of enemy soldiers in battle. Is this legal status quo in war morally acceptable? Ohlin and May offer a normative and philosophical critique of international law's prevailing notion of jus in bello necessity and suggest ways that killing in warfare could be made more humane-not just against civilians but soldiers as well. Along the way, the authors apply their analysis to modern asymmetric conflicts with non-state actors and the military techniques most likely to be used against them. Presenting a rich tapestry of arguments from both contemporary and historical Just War theory, Necessity in International Law is the first full-length study of necessity as a legal and philosophical concept in international affairs.

The purpose of this text is to evaluate the extent to which international judicial institutions-principally the four most prominent tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court- have proven effective in advancing human security. It examines the processes of international justice, the judicial outcomes of these institutions, and the more long-range impact of their work on human rights and peace to assess their consequences in the affected nations as well as the international community.