Law JournalFeeds

The status of the Gaza Strip as occupied territory has been the subject of renewed policy, judicial and academic debate following a series of noteworthy developments in the territory since 2005. This article considers the present status of Gaza from the perspective of international humanitarian law in light of these events, which include Israel’s ‘disengagement’ from the Gaza Strip in 2005, its declaration of Gaza as a ‘hostile territory’ in 2007, and the military action labelled ‘Operation Cast Lead’ which commenced in late 2008. It addresses the concept of occupation and the application of the laws of belligerent occupation, making recourse to the travaux préparatoires of relevant treaties, and international and national jurisprudence. In focusing on the situation in the Gaza Strip, the article assesses the various criteria identified in customary international law for determining the existence of a situation of [...]

Transnational non-State armed violence calls for a reconsideration of the existing concepts of the ius contra bellum, the ius in bello and international human rights law, and international criminal law in order to see whether new concepts such as the category of ‘transnational armed conflict law’ are needed. This article suggests that current international law can adequately deal with transnational armed conflicts without having to devise fundamentally new legal categories. Instead, it is possible, though intellectually demanding, to adjust and to fine tune the existing legal concepts including, in particular, the right to self-defence and the law of non-international armed conflict, and to construe on that basis an overall legal framework that provides for both a coherent and a reasonably balanced answer to the challenges [...]

In international peace and security dialogue, the fear provoked by climate change pales in comparison with that incited by terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. Climate change is, after all, a non-traditional ‘threat’. Yet climate change may well merit the same level of attention as traditional threats. In light of the growing realities of climate change, unmet through mitigation, it appears that more concerted action is needed. This paper argues that it is to the United Nations Security Council that the world ought to turn for leadership of a global response to climate change security threats through Chapter VII collective security mechanisms. It is argued that climate change threats are tantamount to threats to international peace and security given the evolution of threats since the Charter of the United Nations was signed in 1945. However, an incremental use of Chapter VII measures is necessary, progressing from the less coercive measures to the most extreme use of force only when prompted by the most extreme of circumstances. This paper concludes that there is scope for these Chapter VII measures to be implemented in conjunction with the international environmental law regime to combat climate [...]

This article is a response to the challenge of nuclear non-proliferation for the twenty-first century. It describes the new landscape of nuclear risk and explains the role that the extraordinary developments in nuclear forensics science can play in generating an expansive deterrence to improve nuclear security by governments, and diminish the nuclear risk presented by terrorists and other non-state actors. Exploring the potential of nuclear forensics science, it provides the analysis to understand why that potential is not being realized. The article then proposes, as a practical and achievable foundation for a new and expansive deterrence, the establishment of an international nuclear forensics data bank, and the legal and institutional basis required. It explains the superiority of the proposed international data bank to alternative modalities of nuclear risk reduction such as the imposition of sanctions, revealing the guiding principles for effective nuclear containment in the twenty-first [...]

United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations have been increasingly deployed in many crisis contexts. The practice has been established by the UN to ensure peace and protect victims of different types of armed conflict. Unfortunately, during the past ten years, several cases of serious human rights violations committed by peacekeepers against people who should be protected by them have emerged. The UN has gone through a widespread analysis of the issues involved, from the managerial, administrative and legal points of view. The 2005 Zeid Report has provided the basis for further action within the UN system. Since then, several policy and legal measures have been discussed by relevant UN bodies and organs, and some new developments have taken place. This article offers an account and an analysis of the different steps taken within the UN to face difficult cases of misbehaviour, including human rights violations, which may lead to forms of criminal conduct. It takes into consideration the suggestions provided by the Zeid Report and subsequent UN documents. It focuses on legal developments and discusses the main problems in understanding the legal complexity of this phenomenon. The article includes updated documents and proposals that have been discussed and adopted until the most recent reports in [...]

By the very nature of treaties, States give up some of their sovereignty in order to achieve a common, desired objective between the parties to the treaty. When it comes to the Chemical Weapons Convention, however, commentators overly emphasize its impact on State sovereignty and equality without acknowledging the ways that it actually preserves State sovereignty and equality, arguably better than other multilateral treaties. This article seeks to bring balance to the debate by focussing on these relatively innovative and much overlooked provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, with the hope of encouraging the last seven non-member States to join and the rest to have even greater confidence in this most important of disarmament [...]

Conventional international law contains various limitations on nuclear weapons, such as possession, testing, deployment, use or threat of use. There are a number of general principles of customary nature that could be considered as well with reference to the legality of these weapons of mass destruction. It is argued that given the current threats in the nuclear proliferation, a comprehensive abolition of nuclear weapons through international legal instruments is crucial. This article examines the jurisprudence of the International court of justice (ICJ) on the question of the legality of nuclear weapons in the light of progressive development of international law and recent state practice. It is suggested that modern technological and political developments in the area of nuclear weapons might be supportive of another advisory opinion by the ICJ that could enhance the debate on the comprehensive legal prohibition of nuclear weapons. Possible subject-matter to be included in a request to the ICJ to render an advisory opinion might be whether nuclear-weapon States fulfil their obligation and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to the comprehensive and effective abolition of these weapons of mass destruction. The article concludes that an appropriate framing of the request would reinforce the practical measures towards effective nuclear disarmament under the law. The ICJ could contribute to changing the whole concept of global and individual States’ security based on a comprehensive convention creating legal obligations for both states and non-states [...]

Under international ius ad bellum norms the use of force is always illegal, except when qualified as one of two exceptions: when authorized by a legitimate right of self-defence and when authorized by a relevant UN Security Council Resolution. The Iraq invasion of 2003 has been rationalized as lawful and authorized by a material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441. It is submitted that a breach of that Resolution is insufficient legal grounds for invasion. The Resolution is not explicit enough to warrant such construction and cannot claim to lift or abolish an existing state of cease-fire. It was for the UN not for individual states to decide whether Iraq had failed to fulfill its obligations to such an extent as to warrant punitive military action. The UN refused to take such action. The other argument presented in favour of the invasion’s legality was preventive self-defence. Not only was that argument irrelevant, it was also an exercise in convolution – it asserted that legally under certain circumstances pre-emptive self-defence is the same as preventive self-defence. It clearly is not. The self-defence argument rested on two conclusions, subsequently proved false – the alleged weapons of mass destruction arsenal in the possession of Iraq and the alleged links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The invasion wasn’t lawful under either of those two arguments. International law does need to adapt to new threats such as terrorist activity and cruel regimes, but not at the cost of making the whole system of ius ad bellum obsolete and [...]