Wednesday, August 26, 2009

IHL ESSAY

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS
7TH ANNUAL ESSAY COMPETION FOR THE EAST AFRICA UNIVERSITY LAW STUDENTS.






UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM SCHOOL OF LAW (FORMERLY FACULTY LAW)
P.O.BOX 35093.
DAR ES SALAAM
TANZANIA

NAME: PAUL ONESMO OLENGURUMWA
REG NO: 53890/T.2005
DATE 29/05/2009

QUESTION
DISCUSS THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND OTHER LEGAL REGIMES IN SITUATIONS OF VIOLENCE INCLUDING ARMED CONFLICTS.









TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
1.0 Abbreviations…………………………………………………………..I-II
2.0 International Legal Documents……………………………………… ..III-IV
3.0 General Introduction ………………………………………………… .1-2
4.0 Interplay between IHL And Human Rights…………………………… .3-7
5.0 Interplay between IHL And Refugee Law…………………………… 8-9
6.0 Interplay between IHL And International Criminal Law…………….. 10-12
7.0 IHL And Other International legal regimes…………………………. ..13-14
7.1 International Environmental…………………………………………. 13
7.2 International Customary Law…………………………………………. 14
8.0. Conclusion…………………………………………………………… 15
9.0 References















1. 0 Abbreviations
API Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed
Conflicts (Protocol I), of 8 June 1977
APII Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed
Conflicts (Protocol II), of 8 June 1977
GCI Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, of 12 August 1949

GCII Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,
of 12 August 1949
GCIII Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of
12 August 1949
GCIV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, of 12 August 1949


CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, 20/11/
1989

1899 Hague Declaration Declaration concerning the Prohibition of Using Bullets which
Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body (International Peace
Conference, The Hague, 1899)

1925 Geneva Protocol Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 for the Prohibition of the Use in
War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

1954 CCP Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966
ICTY Statute Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia
ICTR Statute Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
ICL International Criminal law
IHL International Humanitarian Law
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
ICC Statute Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998
1999 CCP Optional Protocol to the 1954 Convention for the Protection of
Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 26 March 1999
IAC International Armed Conflict
ICJ International court of Justice
NIAC Non international armed Conflict
SCSL Statute Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 16 January 2002
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
UN United Nation
























2.0 List of international legal instruments
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed
Conflicts (Protocol I), of 8 June 1977

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed
Conflicts (Protocol II), of 8 June 1977

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, of 12 August 1949

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,
of 12 August 1949

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of
12 August 1949

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, of 12 August 1949


Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, 20/11/
1989

Declaration concerning the Prohibition of Using Bullets which
Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body (International Peace
Conference, The Hague, 1899)

Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 for the Prohibition of the Use in
War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia

Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

15.Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998

16 Optional Protocols to the 1954 Convention for the Protection of
Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 26 March 1999
International Armed Conflict

17. Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 16 January 2002

18. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

19. 1980 convention on prohibitions or restriction on the use of certain weapons, which may be deemed excessively injurious, or to indiscriminative effects. Geneva 1980

20. The convention against torture The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman and degrading treatment or Punishment of 1984





















3.0 General introduction

International humanitarian law (IHL), often referred to as the laws of war, the laws and customs of war or the law of armed conflict, is the legal corpus "comprised of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, as well as subsequent treaties, case law, and customary international law." It defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other [1]

IHL also known as the law of armed conflicts or the law of war is the body of rules which, in wartime protects persons who are not or no longer participating in the hostilities. It limits the methods and means of warfare. The two branches of IHL draw their names from the cities where each was initially codified. But after establishment of additional protocols of 1977 the two branches wee combined, now that distinction is of merely historical and didactic value.

The law of Geneva was designed to safeguard the civilians and military personnel who no longer take part in hostility also known as While the law of The Hague establishes the rights and obligations of belligerents in the conduct of hostility, military operations and limits the means of harming the enemy. Currently the four Geneva conventions[2] and their additional protocols of 1977[3], 1980[4] and protocol of 2006[5] are the main principal instruments of IHL






Objectives of IHL
Restricts the right of the parties to a conflict to use the means and methods of warfare of their choice
Protects persons and property affected or liable to be affected by the conflict

Generally IHL was originally emerged as the branch of international law to care the wounded and sick at the time of war[6] IHL never work it self, there is general framework of relations between IHL and the other bodies of law .In this essay we shall discuss the way IHL interplay with branches of laws in violence situations. These branches are International refugee law, International Criminal law and International human rights law. My focus will base on protected persons, displaced persons, and deprivation of liberty, judicial guarantees, the use of force and Mechanisms for the implementation /enforcement and relief actions.

















4.0 The interplay between IHL and Human Rights Law
International human rights law and IHL are two branches of International law with common purpose. Human rights law establishes rules for harmonious development of individual in society. The main purpose is to safeguard dignity.[7]

4.1 Application
It is form 1940’s after 1984 UDHR that protection under human rights and IHL began to overlap. The 1864 convention sought to protect the combatant from state of action or the combatant. Following World War II the general conventions were revised to extend the protections of humanitarian law in light of experience. Then those expansions began to overlap with emerging schemes being the protection of individuals.[8]

States have obligation under the human rights law to protect the citizens. This principle is implicitly in famous obiter dictum of ICJ in the Barcelona Traction Case in which it classifies under the obligation Erga Omnes (the rule concerning the basic rights of human being[9] But the same regime in constitutional law and international instrument after World war two came with derogation clauses where during serious civil unrest or insurgency constitutional guarantee are suspended or made inoperative.

It is certainly no coincidence that common Article 3 to GC contains some rights, which were later, formulated as non-derogable rights under the human rights conventions. GC were adopted one year after UDHR.Then under common article 3 binding force was given to those provisions of UDHR, which were considered to be essential under all circumstances.

Myren says, human rights which apply at all times have often influenced humanitarian law which applies only to situations of armed conflicts and common article 3 (commonly small convention within a large convention). This offers a prime illustration on this two legal regime interplay. These provisions in GC’s mirror those of UDHR.[10] which were negotiated at the same time in peace as well as in time of armed conflicts for the preservation of peace, human life and integrity. Then we can say common article 3 is core legislation on human rights law.

Protocol II to GC is mixture of human rights and IHL. Part 1,III and IV deals with armed conflicts while part II contain genuine human rights law. Protocol 2 supplements principle of humane treatment by providing fundamental guarantee Art 4 and 1.

The question to determine the intensity of armed conflicts or threshold for the applicability still remain unresolved by IHL, but by human rights law the non-derogable rights - continue to govern the acts of violence committed during armed conflicts

4.3 Enforcement Mechanisms
While human rights regimes adopted the systems of individual complaints by having human rights commission 1969 individual application were declared admissible in Europe and additional protocol of ICCPR of 1973. But the GC drafters were not much claver to think on how those conventions can be implemented. Article one common to all four Geneva conventions provide that “High contracting parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the prevention of convention.

Christine Cerna [11] says human rights regime is an integral system, human rights regimes are instruments designed to apply to all human being in war and in peace. The majority of the provision of the regional human rights instruments set forth primarily civil and political rights to be observed in time of peace, however thus doesn’t not exclude the fact that such regime also comprehend during wars.
1964 International human rights Commission of Jurists at the time headed by Mack Bride said, that whenever an internal conflicts or disturbance arises in any party of the world, the Secretary General of the United Nations or some other UN officials should send to the belligerents a notice of the provisions of the law of Nation as elaborated by GC as well as provisions of the UDHR.[12]

GCI - Art. 49: "The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article"

Once G.A.D. Draper said (1971) the 2 bodies of law have met and fusing together at some speed and speed that in number of practical instance the regime of human rights is setting the general direction and objectives for revision of the law of War. This can contemporarily be witnessed by emerging issues confronting IHL.We have peacekeeping operations and anti terrorism acts. USA operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan need multiple approaches to determine whether there is breach or violations of various rights.

Sean Mac Bride called for the body after tribunal with international criminal jurisdiction to receive complaints against violations of GC (supra at p 388). Then 1970 J.G second report on respect for Human rights in armed conflicts noted that in some instances, the protection of human rights instruments was greater than protection under GC [13] But Rosaly Higgins, says that not all human rights are jus Cogens and therefore permit of no derogation UDHR admit no derogation [14]

IHL doesn’t have permanent international penal tribunal/ specific Mandate to prosecute grave breaches of IHL, prosecutions are national-based. The historical evidence shows that states are unwilling to implement the general convention and since the mechanism of protecting power remains key to implementation of GC a case study the acts of Government of Sudan to prohibit humanitarian actictivies to victims of NIAC, inter government human rights organizations may substitute for neutral states. Therefore regional intergovernmental human rights bodies appear to be the appropriate and logical institutions to serve as protecting powers cooperate with the parties to an armed conflicts and the supervise the application of the GC.

These human rights bodies also have the necessary autonomy and independence to integrate the norms of human rights, international law and IHL into one coherent, integral system, which protect the rights of the individuals in war and in peace.


4.4 Treatment Protected persons like Combatants, Civilians and Prisoners Of War.

Under this role IHL and Human rights complement each other, almost in every point. What IHL prohibit or guarantee is purely what human rights law does. All persons take place in conflict shall remain to have status of prisoners of wars .Any person took part in hostility not falling in the category of prisoners of wars and not recognized and benefit from GC IV, shall be protected by Article 75 of protocol 1

Protection of civilian and humane treatment of prisoners of war or those who fall not under that category is highly preached by IHL conventions and Human rights International instruments like UDHRA, ICSPR and convention against torture[15]. For is instance the case of Guantanamo treating prisoners of the so-called war on terror they way they do, is purely violations of human rights law and IHL. And both regimes should condemn such kind of treatment given to prisoners of war on terror. Human rights law remains essential in order to ensure their legal protection.
Legality of these self-help or Measures in relation to the right of recourse to force (Jus ad bellum) must be governed not only by UN-Charter but also human rights law

Jean Pictet[16] Says that internationally, can be put into one port deals with human law covering both law of armed conflicts and human rights law. To show the way they interplay Pictet formulated fundamental principles of human law, which include both IHL and human rights. For instance military necessity and the maintenance of public order must always be compatible with respect for the human person. Another principal common to both IHL and human rights is the right to of life of individual must be respected and her integrity, also the principle of torture degrading or inhuman punishment are forbidden by protocol I Art 75 and the 1984 convention against torture. Article 2 of P 11, 10 AND 75 all people must be treated equally. The protocol has a number of provisions for speed protection of women and children, which human convents do as well.

Oraa says, there are four rights that are non-derogable, these are right to life, the right to be free from torture and slavery and principle of non retroactive of penal laws.[17]
The principle is proper to the victims of conflicts (law of Geneva) art 27 para 3 of GC I and Art 64, Para 1 of A P I and Art 70 allow humanitarian and impartial relief actions, this is where the law of refugee comes in the victims of conflicts should be provided with an international protector once they no longer have natural protector
Terrorism acts can occur during peace time and like what happened in USA 2001 and 2008 in India and as well as during armed conflicts. Then IHL can apply only during armed conflicts and human rights law may apply during peacetime.







5.0 Interplay between IHL and refugee law

What is refugee law? Refugee law can be defined to be the branch of international law that deals with the people of have lost protection of their government and have left their homes due to well founded fear created by situations of violence. In 1951 International convention on the status of refugee was introduced.

Art 1 A (2) of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees, Person who owing to a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or due to such fear is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country[18]
Approximately 1.5 millions Hutus mostly civilians refugees, Fled into Zaire in July 1994, this then created immense humanitarian crisis. Then UN Rwanda emergence office had to summon UN –Agencies and International organizations like ICRC for humanitarian assistance.

The interplay between IHL and international refugee law can mainly be traced when the conflicts produced displaced people. For instance the case of refugees situated on the territory of a country in conflict or on borders.
IHL conventions seek to protect and care of people during armed conflicts particularly those who lost the protections of contracted state at the same footage refugee law cares those who lost protection of their government due to fear of violence.

IHL provides proper treatment of civilians while refugee protects the displaced[19] People whom, before the beginning of hostilities were regarded as stateless persons or refugees under the relevant laws shall be protected persons within part II and III of GC IV.

IHL aims at protecting victims of armed conflicts. Internal displacement due to armed conflicts falls within the scope of IHL.IDPs being victims of armed conflicts are therefore protected by IHL.IDPs are protected in IHL largely as civilians as well protected by refugee law as people who lost protection of their government.[20]

Refugee law becomes useful to IHL particularly when they want to grant an asylum seeker a legal status as a refugee. They have to make sure that there is violence at the country of origin. In doing so refugee organizations like UNHCR and ICRC have to find them selves working complimentarily.

The complementarity can mainly be noted where branch of law become weak to meet it objectives or similar objectives. For instance Refugee law aims to see all people displaced during conflicts are well gathered and receive humanly treatments, but on the other hand Refugee law cant trace or get proper records of missing persons or family reunification without depending on IHL. (ICRC tracing Agency)

This coordinated approach is useful especially when it comes that one branch is weak on a certain issue. Refugee law complements IHL provisions stated in Geneva Conventions and additional protocols on the rights of civilians, in particular the displaced persons in time of violence.





6.0 Interplay between IHL and International Criminal Law

When it comes to the questions how to treat those who violates Geneva conventions then both National and Internationals criminal law comes in. Most of the time in war transformed some of crimes into legitimate forms of conduct and suspend the application of criminal law.

It is time of war and not time of peace that the most numerous and most serous violation take place and go un punished. The GC provide for imposition of period sanctions against person committing grave breaches of their provision and thus include both at local and international levels. This is how then IHL interplay with ICL.

The charter Article 6(c) formulation was, the 1st instance in positive international criminal law which specific forms of crimes against humanity were used but the notions of protecting civilians in time of war was historically well established by International regulation of armed conflicts.[21]
Crimes against humanity can be committed against civilian’s population; both ICL and the laws of war and customs of war can have direct response. Many war crimes are crimes against humanity and many crimes against humanity are war crimes. Justice without force is important, force without Justice is tyrannical. Justice without force is infringed because there is always the mean, one must therefore combine justice and force and therefore make strong what is rights and make right what is wrong B. Pascal provisional letter (1991).

The evolution of IHL can never discussed, without taking into concern criminal responsibility for instance individual criminal responsibility is the result of IHL development. It is form the charter of Nuremberg and Tokyo, that the IHL and ICL was found to be of every important to each other. IHL provide rules and regulation to be adhered during the time of conflicts but when the those rules are breached then ICL and it is outstanding body of enforcement comes and prosecute those who committed war crimes and other violations of international criminal law and IHL. ICTR, SCSL are recent development that has shown that ICL and IHL are inseparable. Most of the time IHL became source of ICL as most of the crimes in ICC Rome Statute originate from GC’S
Therefore the Nuremberg and Tokyo charter which intended to deal with violation of laws of war came to be useful tool for individual enforcement of ICL. The seeds of the charter crimes against humanity were planted in the Hague convention of 1899 on the Laws and customs of war and the 4TH Hague convention 1907.[22]

The ICRC has always supported the creation of an international tribunal with jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes. For the ICRC, an international tribunal has the capacity to act as a catalyst and as an incentive for national courts to fulfill their obligation to prosecute those who commit war crimes (see for instance ICTR and Gachacha courts in Rwanda). It therefore welcomed the establishment of the ICC in July 1998. The ICC operates on the “complementarity principle,” which means it will act only if domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so.

The ICRC was very active in the preparatory work leading to the Rome Statute (Statute of the ICC) and took part in drawing up the Elements of Crimes that the States Parties adopted in September 2000. These Elements of Crimes detail the definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that the ICC Statute contains[23]The ICC is a permanent court with worldwide jurisdiction for trying individual charged with the most serious breaches of IHL, ICL and Human Rights law. (Art 8 of Rome statute)
The work of the ICC and that of the ICRC constitute alternative approaches to preventing IHL violations, approaches we see as complementary. While the ultimate objectives are similar, the tools are quite different. The ICC prosecutes and sanctions, whereas the ICRC promotes respect for IHL through confidential dialogue and persuasion.
In addition to having supported the establishment of the Court, the ICRC promotes the ratification and implementation of the ICC Statute through its Advisory Service. In practical terms, the ICRC uses the ICC Statute when assisting States in their efforts to adopt and implement effective domestic measures for the prosecution of war crimes.[24] One very positive element of the ICC Statute is that it includes quite a comprehensive list of war crimes, covering both international and non-international armed conflicts. This is the first time that such a list has been enshrined in an international instrument.
Security Council under chapter VII of UN Charter has Power to establish an international tribunal. Antonio Casses former President of ICTY expanded the traditional of establishment of such Tribunal by treaty was discarded as being too slaw. (Art 39,41 and 48 of UN charter) The Security Council through UNHCR was convinced that the massive flow of refugee and remnants of Hutu militias to neighboring country was the threat to International peace.[25] Therefore because Security Council was not legislative body, then it authorized the Tribunal to applying existing IHL applicable in NIAC’S, these are like Common Art 3, A.P II and others were the Genocide Convention and Nuremberg Charter (charter on military Tribunal 1945











7.1 IHL and International Environmental Law.
Military have deliberately harmed the environment as the wartimes strategy Thought the 24th century, the scope for destruction increased with development of weapons of mass destruction. This was evidenced during Vietnam war when wide spread use of chemical defoliants destroyed entire ecosystem and lead to public health concern in US and in Vietnam due to exposure of individual to the chemical used. This is ecological quench of armed conflicts (UNESCO)[26].

This needs another legal regime to mitigate military actions to contaminate water, air and soil. Also form large number of refugee who end up forming huge camps, hence environmental degradation as what happened in Tanzania refugees zones.[27] ICRC has once asserted that International Environmental Law remains generally applicable[28] during armed hostilities. This can mainly be referred to the case In ICTY.

Also Art 35(3) of AP I prohibits the employment of methods or means or warfare intended, or may be expected to cause widespread and severe damage to the environment. IHL and Environmental law prohibit any act that becomes a threat to environment including the use of weapons of widespread damage they as well prohibit the destruction of cultural objects.[29]









7.2 IHL and International Customary Law

According to the ICJ statute on of primary sources of International law is Custom as evidence of general principle accepted as law .The custom must be practice, usage which is required (opinion juris cive necessitates) That is practice must be carried out by the convictions. Indeed in the law of war, custom is to be found more in acts by states and non-states actors.
Therefore in IHL Baxter Paradox is mainly applicable. This Paradox states the rationale behind the practice of non-party states is more reliable in ascertaining custom, because the party states may be following a practice in pursuit of treaty obligation.[30] But in IHL, according to Meron the formation of custom in humanitarian fields, the practices of parties as well as non-parties apply [31]

Jus cogens and Customary international law have great role to play in IHL.Genocide is now universally deemed as jus cogens and it is violations imposes on states certain duties and obligations Erga Omnes [32]Nicaragua case[33] simultaneously strengthens the importance of practice as one two elements necessary for the formation of international law.







8.0 Conclusion
Despite the fact that IHL develops and new instruments emerge every year, the complimentarity between IHL and other legal regimes can never be avoided. Contemporary or new emerging types of conflicts and other serious violation of human rights and laws of war need a multiple approach to combat. Interplay between IHL and legal regimes like ICL, refugee law, International customary law and international environmental law are of every crucial point in determine which and how deferent legal regimes can be suitable to end impunity and maintain peace and justice.













9.0 References:
Bassiimi,.Cheri M. (1992) Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law Mertinus Nijhoff
Cerna,Christina .Human Rights in armed conflicts implementation of international humanitarian law norms by regional intergovernmental human rights bodies
Frits, K Yves, Sandoz (Ed) Implementation of international humanitarian law Martin Nijhof Publishers..(1989).
GIA.D Draper (1971) the relationship between human rights regime and the law of armed conflict, 11YBHR: 19.
Hewif, W.E. (1971) Respect Of Human Rights In Armed Conflicts. at 43 (in 4 NYV).
Higgins, R (1971). Derogation under human rights treaties BYIL: 281 at 282. Dunant, Hendry (1986) .A Memory of Selferin
ICRC (19990.Hand Book For Parliamentarian. Respect for International humanitarian Law No: 1
K. Suter, (1984) An International law of Guerilla warfare: The Global Politics of law Making London, P.3p

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua vs. USA). Merits, ICJ Report 1986 (Judgment of the 27 June)
Macalister, Smith Peter. (1985) International Humanitarian Assistance, Disaster, Relief Actions in International and Organization.Martinus Nijhoff.
Meron, T. (1987) Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Growing Convergence. Cambridge
_________(1987) human rights in International strife: Their International Protection.
__________(1989). Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Norms. Oxford

OCHA (1999) Hand Book For Applying the Guidelines Principle of Internal Displaced Persons (ADP’S).
Oraa, J. (Ed). Human Rights in State of Emergence in International Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996
Paul, J.Monarrella (2000) Justice in Africa, Rwanda Genocide. It’s Courts and The UN Criminal Tribunal, Ashgate.Florida USA.
Pictet, Jean (1975). Humanitarian law and the protection of war victims. Leyden: Sijthoff.
Pictet, Jean (1985). Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law. Martinus Nijhoff
.
__________ Commentary Vol. III (1960). 20
___________ Commentary Vol I (1952) at87
___________ Commentary Vol IV (1952) at 87

_________(1987) human rights in International law
Report of the Secretary General. A/8052, respect for human rights in armed conflicts 18 Sept 1970
West Arhur.Enviromental Protection from Wartime Damage. The role of International in N.P Gleiditsch, Ed., Conflict and Environment (1997) Pp 535-38
.


[1] ICRC Publications.
[2] 1949 Geneva Conventions (I – IV)
[3] 1977 1st and 2nd Additional Protocols to GCs
[4] 1980 convention on prohibitions or restriction on the use of certain weapons, which may be deemed excessively injurious, or to indiscriminative effects. Geneva 1980
[5] A P III on the use of ICRC Emblem
[6] Dunant, Hendry (1986) .A Memory of Selferino.
[7] ICRC (1999). Hand Book For Parliamentarian. Respect for International humanitarian, p 11
[8] Frits, K. Yves, Sandoz (Ed) Implementation of international humanitarian law.
[9] ICJ, Rep.1970, 34 at 32 .p 235.
[10] Meron, T. (1987) Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Growing Convergence. Cambridge
[11] Cerna, Christina M. Human Rights in armed conflicts implementation of international humanitarian law norms by regional intergovernmental human rights bodies .p32

[12] Ibid
[13] Report of the Secretary General. A/8052, respect for human rights in armed conflicts 18 Sept 1970

[14] Higgins, R (1971). Derogation under human rights treaties.
[15] The convention against torture The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman and degrading treatment or Punishment of 1984
[16] Pictet, Jean (1985). Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law.
[17] Oraa, J. (Ed). Human Rights in State of Emergence in International Law.
[18] Art 1 A (2) of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugee
[19] The UN guiding principles on Internal displacement
(Art 2) "Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflicts, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human made disasters and who have crossed an internationally recognized state border

[20] OCHA (1999) Hand Book For Applying the Guidelines Principle of Internal Displaced Persons (ADP’S).

[21] Bassiuni, Cherif M ( 1992) Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal.
[22] The Charter Of The International Military Tribunal For The Trial Of The Major War Criminals (1945) Article 6 And 5 Of Tokyo Charter.

[23] ICRC Publications
[24] Source ICRC
[25] Paul (2000) p 42
[26] UNEP (2002) International Environmental Law, (3rd Ed) Page 407
[27] See. Arthur, Westing. Enviromental protection from wartime damage.
[28] Agenda 21,para.39.6
[29] 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954
[30] Kwakwa, Edward. (1992) The International Law of Armed conflicts: Personal and Material Field of Application .M.N
[31] Ibid p 33
[32] Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Reservation to Genocide Convention 1951 ICJ.15
[33] Nicaragua vs. USA. Merits, ICJ Report 1986 (Judgment of the 27 June)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Betty

http://dogfurniture.info