We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article explores the role of Article 6(5) of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions in balancing justice and peace during transitions from armed conflict to peace. It argues that the provision, which encourages the granting of broad amnesties at the cessation of hostilities, requires a re-evaluation of the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish under international law. By analyzing the legal context and scope of Article 6(5), as well as its application in transitional justice models such as in Colombia, the article highlights how the principle of peace can be prioritized alongside justice without undermining victims’ rights. The discussion critically addresses maximalist interpretations of justice, presenting a nuanced approach that foregrounds restorative justice and the importance of reconciliation in post-conflict societies.
Around the world, armed conflict is increasingly occurring in capital cities and governments are relying on pro-government, rurally recruited, militia to suppress anti-government political violence. Pendle and Maror draw lessons from South Sudan where recruits from rural areas were brought to Juba to help defend the government. Drawing on ethnographic observations and qualitative interviews with combatants, this article uses “rural radicalism” to argue that patterns of violence by these rurally recruited forces were shaped by histories of rural violence over previous decades and can be read to include a political objective that challenges the inequities in safety and security between rural areas and the capital city.
Chapter 11 examines the role of institutions. Specifically, it explores how institutions can be undermined by rent-seeking activities that bias decision-making toward suboptimal alternatives and consume valuable resources. Furthermore, this erosion of institutions leads to a decline, or at best stagnation, in the standard of living of the society by diverting a significant portion of productive forces. The chapter presents two models of war in which the armed conflict is produced by resource inequality (the book also acknowledges other types of causes of war like ethnic, religious, etc.) and offers recommendations on how to prevent them. Specifically, a one-sided transfer of resources from wealthy to less developed countries may provide incentives for peace even in the absence of enforceable agreements.
Le présent article se propose de concevoir l’influence de la notion de légitimité au-delà du rôle lui étant communément attribué en droit international humanitaire (DIH), en s’intéressant particulièrement à la relation entre ce dernier et les causes de la guerre, la nature des acteurs impliqués dans les conflits armés ainsi que les motivations des parties. En remettant notamment en question de l’idée d’une stricte séparation entre jus in bello et jus ad bellum, il est soutenu que les tentatives visant à isoler le DIH de ces questions de légitimité sont à la fois vaines, mais également à rebours de l’évolution et des logiques du régime. Il est en revanche défendu que la notion de légitimité en DIH se manifeste à travers deux modes de légitimation — l’un dérivant du statut, l’autre de la cause — à partir desquels la distribution de droits, devoirs, immunités, privilèges ou encore statuts s’opère et se voit justifiée au sein du régime. Ce faisant, de nombreux discours empruntant au second registre, souvent qualifiés d’aberrations du point de vue du DIH, ou dont la nature juridique est contestée, s’avèrent finalement être des arguments juridiques parfaitement valides et ancrés dans l’évolution et les logiques du DIH.
International humanitarian law (IHL) does not address business entities, except in situations where they directly participate in hostilities, and there is no reference to business actors in the International Committee of the Red Cross's recent Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict. Yet, there has been an increasing reaffirmation of specific “duties”, “obligations” or “responsibilities” imposed on private companies operating in conflict zones. For instance, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights suggest that business entities should respect IHL rules in addition to human rights during armed conflicts, and the third revised draft of the international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises refers to IHL as an interpretative framework of human rights obligations of States and businesses. The International Law Commission's 2022 Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment during Armed Conflicts are even more specific, providing that corporations should exercise due diligence concerning the protection of the environment when acting in conflict-affected areas. However, these references to IHL as applicable to business activities remain vague and lack elaboration. This paper intends to close this gap by clarifying whether and, if so, the extent to which IHL imposes environmental obligations upon private companies in conflict situations. It submits that business entities bear environmental duties during armed conflicts deriving from IHL rules and other complementary sources of international law. The paper further discusses the content of the obligation of business entities not to harm the environment as well as their due diligence obligation.
This article seeks to demonstrate the nexus between agent-related technology and the protection of the environment in armed conflicts, looking at how agent-based modelling and simulation (ABMS) can be used as a tool to protect the environment in armed conflicts. It further analyzes the precautionary principle and due regard, as relevant rules, and explains the legal benefits of deploying ABMS to protect and preserve the natural environment. The article argues that the deployment of ABMS helps States to better understand the environmental effects of conflicts, reassess their military activities and comply with the relevant applicable rules and norms.
Humanitarian crises and armed conflicts lead to a greater prevalence of poor population mental health. Following the 1 February 2021 military coup in Burma, the country's civilians have faced humanitarian crises that have probably caused rising rates of mental disorders. However, a dearth of data has prevented researchers from assessing the extent of the problem empirically.
Aims
To better understand prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders among the Burmese adult population after the February 2021 military coup.
Method
We fielded an online non-probability survey of 7720 Burmese adults aged 18 and older during October 2021 and asked mental health and demographic questions. We used the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 to measure probable depression and anxiety in respondents. We also estimated logistic regressions to assess variations in probable depression and anxiety across demographic subgroups and by level of trust in various media sources, including those operated by the Burmese military establishment.
Results
We found consistently high rates of probable anxiety and depression combined (60.71%), probable depression (61%) and probable anxiety (58%) in the sample overall, as well as across demographic subgroups. Respondents who ‘mostly’ or ‘completely’ trusted military-affiliated media sources (about 3% of the sample) were significantly less likely than respondents who did not trust these sources to report symptoms of anxiety and depression (AOR = 0.574; 95% CI 0.370–0.889), depression (AOR = 0.590; 95% CI 0.383–0.908) or anxiety (AOR = 0.609; 95% CI 0.390–0.951).
Conclusions
The widespread symptoms of anxiety and depression we observed demonstrate the need for both continuous surveillance of the current situation and humanitarian interventions to address mental health needs in Burma.
Chapter 3 proposes an original conceptual framework built on gender and security studies and supported by existing international legal standards and norms to reframe the interpretation of the refugee definition and better reflect the nature of violence in armed conflicts. In doing so, it reasserts the Refugee Convention as the cornerstone of international protection. This chapter claims that the ongoing dynamics of violence in situations of armed conflict provide a more valuable lens to interpret the Refugee Convention definition where persons flee armed conflicts as it focuses on the nature of violence, including its continuum, features, application, direction, motivation and impact. A micro-level analysis of this type also enables the identification of gender dynamics that are essential in understanding violence in armed conflicts. The framework outlines the knowledge that should be incorporated into the process of interpreting the refugee definition to ensure effective protection of refugees fleeing armed conflicts. The chapter is broken down into the characteristics of contemporary armed conflicts and how these features relate to the refugee definition, including the temporality of armed conflicts, the rise of non-state actors, weak states, and the objectives, gendered strategies and tactics of fighting parties.
Chapter 2 reviews the international and EU legal frameworks that apply to the international protection of persons fleeing contemporary armed conflicts from a gender perspective. The chapter explores the relationship between international law and armed conflicts, then turns to the interaction between international refugee law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. The chapter emphasises the role of international human rights law in recognising the context of armed conflicts for the protection of human rights from a gender perspective. It then examines whether the Refugee Convention definition applies to persons fleeing armed conflicts in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) , but also more broadly whether international refugee law is able to fulfil its purpose of international protection in light of the changing characteristics of contemporary armed conflicts. The central claim of this chapter is that interpreting the Refugee Convention definition to ensure the effective protection of persons fleeing contemporary armed conflicts requires the incorporation of existing knowledge found in conflict and gender literature. This interpretative obligation is then discussed in the context of EU Member States (MS) acting within the EU legal order.
The Introduction sets out how the number of forcibly displaced persons in the world is the highest ever recorded. Violence associated with armed conflict has become the main cause of forced displacement in the twenty-first century and most refugees are fleeing armed conflicts. Most asylum seekers in the European Union (EU) originate from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there are many misconceptions whether persons fleeing armed conflicts are refugees as defined by the Refugee Convention. This book is thus an enquiry into the continued relevance of the Refugee Convention and examines the extent to which asylum appellate authorities in the EU take into account the changing nature of contemporary armed conflicts. The book also explores how the Refugee Convention may be interpreted in a manner that better responds to the changed nature of contemporary armed conflicts from a gender perspective, thus reconceptualising the concept of the refugee. The Introduction sets out the conceptual notions adopted in the book, such as the importance of distinguishing between violence and armed conflicts, the research methodology and sampling of 320 asylum appeal decisions from Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Finally, it sets out the structure of the book.
Based on a systematic and empirical comparative study of six European Union countries, Christel Querton explores judicial decision-making in the context of persons fleeing armed conflicts in the EU. Addressing and redressing misconceptions about the relevance of the Refugee Convention, this book demonstrates how appellate authorities across the EU approach situations of armed conflict predominantly through outdated understandings of warfare and territoriality. Thus, they apply a higher standard of proof than is warranted by international refugee law. Adopting a gender perspective, Querton also shows how appellate authorities fail to acknowledge the gender-differentiated impact of armed conflicts. Drawing from gender and security studies, this book proposes an original conceptual framework which, supported by existing international legal standards, reframes the definition of 'refugee' and better reflects the reality of violence in modern-day conflicts. In doing so, it re-asserts the Refugee Convention as the cornerstone of international protection.
This chapter demonstrates that drone programs – the combination of legal narratives, shifts in military strategy, and technological change – bring about an anywhere war. Combat drones have been deployed against non-state actors extraterritorially, including on the territory of non-belligerent states, because of the presence on those territories of members of terrorist groups. To allow this, drone programs have involved the creation of concepts such as “outside areas of active hostilities” or “outside hot conflict zones.” These non-legal concepts posit that jus in bello applies wherever the belligerent is, including on the territory of a state where the hostilities are not taking place. This practice, accompanied with supportive legal and political rationales, has sparked a heated debate among scholars on the geographical scope of armed conflicts under the jus in bello. Departing from the normative discussion for or against a geographical limitation of conflicts, the chapter shows that there is no such a thing as a legal geographical limitation of conflicts in the law and that its absence is exploited by drone programs, whose technological features eventually create the prospect of an anywhere war taking place wherever the enemy is.
Negotiations with organized crime groups occur more often than realized, and raise complex questions of ethics, practice and policy. Currently, law provides few incentives for States to choose the path of negotiation, and thus the political costs and moral hazards remain very high and a mano dura (“firm hand”) approach prevails. This paper examines some of the challenges faced by those who in good faith might initiate or participate in negotiations with such groups, offering an assessment of how those challenges can be mitigated and an inquiry, in particular, into how law and policy might be improved or reimagined to make such negotiation more feasible and effective in contexts of armed conflict or other situations of violence.
Amid the emergence of modern warfare at the end of the nineteenth century, states agreed on a model to regulate armed conflicts centered on a body of internationally agreed norms known as international humanitarian law (IHL). While states have always been the sole law makers and are ultimately responsible for the implementation of the laws of war, the International Committee of the Red Cross placed itself at the very center of the new model, as the champion of IHL, filling the gaps in terms of sponsoring new rules, promoting the law, and monitoring its application in war zones. This unique model of governance was composed of states and independent humanitarian actors and combines features of a hierarchy and a network. While the model saved countless numbers of lives, it has been perpetually challenged, criticized, and violated. The model stood the test of time nonetheless and survived the conflicts of the twentieth century. It is still enduring today. This chapter analyses the reasons for the longevity of the model, looking at its evolution over time in terms of key moments, efficacy and legitimacy, changing composition, and growing complexity.
This article examines the usefulness of an encounter with queer theory to contribute to the peaceful resolution of armed conflicts, to question the traditional frontiers of international law, and to lay the groundwork for envisaging different forms of peace and peace-making. In a field where, arguably, little genuine progress has been made to resolve armed conflicts and to address underlying forms of violence, queer theory can reinforce a pluralistic understanding of law and suggest much-needed unsettling and creative approaches. The article focuses on queer theory’s specific critique of the construction and normalization of hierarchies, categories, and identities, which almost always – whether explicitly or implicitly – lie at the heart of armed conflicts and frame peace negotiations, without ever being truly reconsidered. Moreover, queer theory allows appreciating both peace and law beyond predetermined categorizations and as aspirational endeavours that are constantly evolving. Through a dialogue between two figures, which imagines what Peace and qt* might want to tell each other, this article also attempts to queer the standard academic format and to question the dominant forms of expression and knowledge-production in academia.
This chapter examines the contribution of the Special Court for Sierra Leone caselaw on the prosecution of child recruitment as a war crime under international law. The Sierra Leone conflict was widely known for its conscriptions of children as child soldiers, who under the influence of fear, drugs, and hallucinogens committed grave atrocities across Sierra Leone. Although the crime of child recruitment and conscription was recognized in 1998 when the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court was adopted, the Special Court was the first court to successfully charge and prosecute this particular war crime. In analyzing this novel prosecution, this chapter first addresses the creation and recognition of the war crime of child recruitment within the Rome Statute. Second, it examines the reasoning of the Appeals Chamber in holding that child recruitment is a crime recognized under customary international law. Third, it assesses the impact of the Special Court’s work on prosecuting child recruitment in developing the actus reus and mens rea of the crime. Finally, this chapter examines the impact of the Special Court on the International Criminal Court’s prosecutions of child recruitment in the recent cases of Lubanga and Ongwen.
Economic and armed non-state actors increasingly operate through their transnational activities. International public law excludes them from any international regulation or accountability process. International humanitarian law (IHL, the law of war) as a branch of international public law is an exception to this because it also regulates the behavior of non-state actors. Recent developments pertaining to the potential liability of business entities for involvement in international crimes, particularly when related to the activities of ANSGs challenge the traditional doctrine of international law and demonstrate the need for its norms to adapt to an evolving reality.
High rates of mortality and morbidity result from disasters of all types, including armed conflicts. Overwhelming numbers of casualties with a myriad of illnesses and patterns of injuries are common in armed conflicts, leading to unpredictable workloads for hospital health care providers (HCPs). Identifying domains of hospital HCPs’ core competency for armed conflicts is essential to inform standards of care, educational requirements, and to facilitate the translation of knowledge into safe and quality care.
Objective:
The objective of this study is to identify the common domains of core competencies among HCPs working in hospitals in armed conflict areas.
Methods:
A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. The review considered primary research and peer-reviewed literature from the following databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid EmCare, Embase, and CINAHL, as well as the reference lists of articles identified for full-text review. Eligibility criteria were outlined a priori to guide the literature selection.
Results:
Four articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted in different countries and were published from 2011 through 2017. The methods included three surveys and one Delphi study.
Conclusion:
This review maps the scope of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required by HCPs who are practicing in hospitals in areas of major armed conflict. Incorporation of identified core competency domains can improve the future planning, education, and training, and may enhance the HCPs’ response in armed conflicts.