Human Rights Brief, Volume 17, Issue 1 (Fall 2009) | Perpustakaan Universitas Bhayangakara Jakarta Raya
Advanced SearchHuman Rights Brief, Volume 17, Issue 1 (Fall 2009)
Informasi Detil
| Volume |
Vol. 17, Issue 1 (Fall 2009)
|
|---|---|
| Penerbit | American University Washington College of Law : Washington., 2009 |
| ISSN |
1533-6808
|
| Subyek |
Artikel Jurnal
| Judul | Abstract | Halaman |
|---|---|---|
| Ensuring Respect: United Nations Compliance with International Humanitarian Law | This article will begin with an introduction to UN peace operations, highlighting some cases of alleged abuse. The second section will examine the applicability of IHL to the UN. First, the section will examine the nuances of IHL by describing the differences between international, non-international, and internationalized armed conflict. It will then demonstrate that the UN is bound by IHL. The article will conclude by examining several potential mechanisms to enforce the UN’s obligations under IHL: international state responsibility; domestic proceedings in the troop-contributing state; human rights mechanisms; claims commissions; the International Criminal Court (ICC); and ombudspersons. Finally, the article will offer brief recommendations for how the UN can ensure its compliance with IHL while adequately supporting victims’ needs. | 1-11 |
| The Regulation of Armed Non-State Actors: Promoting the Application of the Laws of War to Conflicts Involving National Liberation Movements | This article seeks to investigate how non-state actors, specifically national liberation movements, are and could be regulated by IHL. It seeks to give an overview of the relevant legal provisions and illustrates the difficulties faced by national liberation movements if they do wish to accede to IHL instruments and apply IHL in their conflicts. As it is the aim of IHL to protect both combatants and civilians in armed conflicts, it is important that this body of law is practically applied and implemented in all conflict situations to the greatest extent possible. However, in the past, national liberation movements have encountered difficulties when seeking to apply IHL to their conflicts due to the nature of the legal framework and, indeed, the nature of international law itself. | 12-18 |
| Counter-Insurgency, Human Rights, and the Law of Armed Conflict | This paper develops this argument by illustrating how recent evolutions in human rights norms, particularly in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, may serve to fill gaps in IHL as applied to counter-insurgency operations such as those conducted in Afghanistan. First, the paper looks at recent trends in ECtHR jurisprudence relating to military or quasi-military situations. Second, it looks at the various laws and policies that govern troops fighting in Afghanistan. Finally, it compares the applicable IHL and human rights rules on a number of sensitive issues regarding the use of lethal force and protection of civilians. These examples illustrate that broader human rights rules may be more applicable to the counter-insurgency context, when IHL rules prove insufficient for the complexities of such irregular warfare. | 19-23 |
| U.S. Policy Recommendation: Ottawa Convention on Anti Personnel Landmines | This article examines the consequences of the U.S. refusal to sign the Ottawa Convention and examines the implications of its continued refusal for the Ottawa Convention and customary international law. The United States has historically been a global leader and advocate for human rights and humanitarianism. In order to maintain this position, the United States must acknowledge the trend within the international community toward human security and protection and remain at, or at least near, the forefront of human rights law and IHL. Furthermore, continued U.S. refusal undermines the Ottawa Convention, which like other international law instruments, garners validity through consensus and mutual agreement. Without the support of the world’s dominant power, the Ottawa Convention cannot become customary international law; thus U.S. refusal provides leeway for rogue states to continue the use and production of persistent landmines. | 24-28 |
| Opuz v. Turkey: Europe's Landmark Judgment on Violence against s Landmark Judgment on Violence against Women | A recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights attacks domestic violence head on. On June 9, 2009, the Court announced its judgment in Opuz v. Turkey, a case brought by a victim of domestic violence against the Turkish government for failing to protect her and her mother from attacks perpetrated by her husband. Ruling for the plaintiff, the Court found that the Turkish government violated three articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 2, the right to life; Article 3, the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment; and Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination. Critically, the Opuz decision holds governments accountable for failing to take adequate steps to protect victims of repeated domestic violence, even absent any active malfeasance on the state’s part. Additionally, the decision marked the first time the Court recognized that the failure of states to address gender-based domestic violence can amount to a form of discrimination under the Convention. | 29-33 |
| Narratives of Oppression | Our task — and the reason why the Chagossian litigation is so important — is to construct the narrative of what was taken from indigenous people. It is a reflection of basic truths about advocacy that our task as lawyers is not only to have ways of seeing, but also ways of saying. In our culture and our tradition, the story always precedes the lesson, and we must make the story effective. Here, I confess, I have a disagreement about advocacy with some of my wonderful colleagues, here. We do not need to read books about the psychology of persuasion; we need to read books about the course of human history. The great lawyers of this or any other time have been students of human history, not skilled carnival barkers. That must be our study, so that we can make these connections. The story, therefore, is told from human experience. It is mediated by us — who are in that sense translators — but its foundation is authentic human experience. | 34-38 |