←
→
maelorin: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

'new' rules of armed conflict

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 09:32pm on 12/12/2005 under , , ,

"A 5,000-page study by the ICRC has identified 161 rules of customary international humanitarian law that offer legal protection for people affected by war. These rules are based on "widespread, representative and virtually uniform" practice by States and, as such, were found to be universally binding."

I wonder if the executive of the government of the USA will call this new statement of the law that binds all nations 'quaint' or 'anachronistic' ... and how much of it contradicts the conduct of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places?

Now, to find a copy to curl up with for a nice bedtime read™ ...
Mood:: 'nostalgic' nostalgic
←
→
There are 4 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] mrabyssal.livejournal.com at 12:33pm on 12/12/2005
If you can find a copy I'd love one.

maybe we should find a nice little island somewhere to take over and found our own country. if we're small, inocuous and have not much in the way of natural resources we could live quite happily without any major nation wanting to plunder us.
[link] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

reportage

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 04:20pm on 12/12/2005
i'm going to try the local red cross. but i suspect it'll be a pay-per-copy deal. and since it's 5,000 pages in two volumes, i don't expect it'll be cheap.

which means hassling university libraries in hope one of them gets a copy in ...
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] jeffreysmith.livejournal.com at 04:42pm on 12/12/2005
This is the same ICRC that doesn't want the Mogen David Adom as a member? The same Mogen David Adom that has to pick up the pieces of Israelis blown up by Arab suicide bombers, who apparently don't accept widespread, representative and virtually uniform protection for other people?

Sorry, but you've touched on a pet peeve of mine, but it's relevant. If the ICRC is subject to politicization like that (since there's no reason in the world, no matter what your view about Israel may be, to exclude the Israeli version of the Red Cross from the international organization) like that, what it has to say about any sort of international law, etc. can't be taken as being accurate without prior review.

[link] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 05:02pm on 12/12/2005
actually, the mda is in the process of becoming a full member of the icrc. as is the palestinian organisation. amongst other recent events, the red cross has adopted a third sysbol, a red diamond [they call it a red crystal O_o], to enable organisations that do not like the cross or the cresent to have an alternative.

any and every organisation is political. it is unavoidable. they're comprised of people. nothing is perfect.

the report is important because customary international law applies to all nations, regardless of their politics. and as a lawyer with some specific expertise in the area of armed conflict law, i'm curious about what the red cross considers to be customary law in this area. to see what, by actual usage, just might be realistic to expect nations to follow.

the mda and the palestinian bodies inclusion amongst the membership of the icrc is not simply a one way matter. membership is subject to rules like any other organisation - which may not suit every potential applicant. membership, or otherwise, is just as political as any other matter in the international arena. there are people on both sides of every conflict. and often more than a few playing games in the middle.

unless and until i get a chance to actually see the report, i'm holding off on judgement of its contents.
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
 2
 
3
 
 4
1
 5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
31