In International Law, occupation is described as a temporary result, which involves no transfer of sovereign power. Belligerent Occupation is simply defined as a territory that is placed under the control of a hostile power/army. The basic principles of the Law of Belligerent Occupation are comprised from The Forth Geneva Convention, The Hague Regulations, as well as other bodies of International Law such as International Humanitarian Law and Additional Protocol I. There are four main principles: 1. The Belligerent occupation does not completely transfer sovereignty over territory to the occupying power (which exercises de facto authority) 2. The Occupation is that of a provisional occurrence. Whereby the rights of the occupant is governed by an “overriding obligation to respect the existing laws and rules of the administration” 3. The two basic rules that the occupying power must follow is the respect for the inhabitants and its fulfillment of its military needs. 4. The occupying power cannot and should not exploit the inhabitants of the belligerent territory to benefit its own population and territory. In addition, The Law acquires strict limitations to the occupying power and its relation to the economy of the occupied land and exceptions are made for only the following reasons: 1. To protect and ensure the well being and interest of the inhabitants 2. For the expenses involved in the occupation 3. Military needs The occurrence of the Occupation and its rules come into effect upon the start of military occupation, and remain in effect until the withdrawal of military occupation. According to the ICJ, it considers the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions, as well as Geneva IV with the consideration of the United Nations Inte... ... middle of paper ... ...as created in order to prevent another occurrence of ill treatment towards the occupied territories that occurred in WWII, and to be more effective than that of The Hague Regulations, which deemed unsuccessful in fulfilling the safety of the occupied. The Convention states and prohibits actions such as the captivating hostages, deportation of the people in the territories, collective punishments, humiliations and defying the dignity of the civilians based on race, nationality, religion and color. In short, the Geneva Convention serves the purpose to ensure the safety of the civilians in belligerent occupation equally (both the power and the belligerent). In addition, the Convention states when Belligerent occupation should end, and that is through effective political settlements of the dispute that relates and coincides with the rules of the International Law.
The validity of British’s occupation of Australia has been fundamentally shaken. The decision protected Aboriginal people’s cultures and lifestyles to a certain degree. Moreover, it guaranteed that some of the lands they live will not be developed. There were five key issues of importance to legal precedent in the Mabo decision for the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2017). For example, it helps to promote the idea of non-discrimination. From then on, a series of laws had been introduced to help safeguard their standard legal rights and
...state. Failure to include local forces immensely reduces our span of influence and increase dependency between the host nation and the USG.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
It has been debated by varying scholars as to whether Caesar Augustus’ foreign policy to expand Rome’s empire had more to do with defensive imperialism as a response to encroaching threats, or rather, an aggressively, unprovoked move to claim hegemony over the known world. However, I would like to postulate in support of the former theory that in an attempt to restore and ensure long-lasting security to their empire, Augustus was forced to take proactive measures in order to preserve it. With territorial boundaries normally running along the rivers so as to provide a better defensive posture, he felt it necessary to expand the northern border to the river so as to secure their autonomy and position. Perhaps if he could establish a wide buffer
The Geneva Convention was created to take care of prisoners of war. It contains rules about the treatment and rights of prisoners of war during captivity. A quote told by Michael Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry about the Geneva convention: “...our species is one, and each of the individuals who compose it are entitled to equal moral consideration.” It sets out:
Zacher, Mark W. “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force.” International Organization. Vol. 55, No. 2 (Spring 2001), 215-250.
The first element of international law is state practice. There are certain behaviors that are regarded as customs once they are practiced by a substantial amount of states over a prolonged period of time. However, it is important to note that this stand...
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
In order to do that, first, the essay will define what understand by “jurisdiction” and the elements of the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Next, it analyses some key decisions and advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice and the European regional system in order to prove that extraterritoriality jurisdiction is already applicable and therefore, if the State fails to guarantee the rights contemplated in the human rights treaties, it incurs in international responsibility. Lastly, the essay will sum up the analysis and make some final remarks.
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
Seeing the case of Polor and Volvor, it can be said that, it is the duty of the state itself to protect its citizens and residents from any internal or foreign attack, when the perpetrators plan ad executes the attacks while conspiring outside the borders of the state and the when host state fails to take necessary measures against such acts of non state groups. Moreover, the use of force by the Volvor is justified and does not constitute the violation of Polor’s sovereignty because Article 51 authorizes the victim state to use force in self defence to mitigate the anticipated threats, in response to such armed attack by the non state actors.
Tanzi, Attila., Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Law of the United Nations, EJIL, 6, (1995) 539-572.
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention . Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011]
...ccordance with international law, it is demonstrative of treating others as you wish to be treated.
A. Starting in 1948, right in the middle of the Arab-Israeli war, the initiation of the Arab League boycott of Israel was a coherent effort by Arab League member states, whose intention was to isolate Israel financially and economically (Perez). The League ventured effortlessly to prevent Arab states and disincentivize non-Arabs from providing support to Israel or adding to Israel's economic stability. The boycott was also designed to deter Jewish immigration to the region (Consequences of the War). There was a total of 22 Middle Eastern and African countries that supported the boycott and its effort to prevent any and all economic growth in Israel. Throughout the period of this ongoing boycott, many trade barriers have been put in place, limiting trade between Israel and other countries (Slavicek 65).