The Lieber Code and the regulation of civil war in international law

In this paper, we consider one particularly interesting feature of the Lieber Code, which is the fact that it was drawn up by the U.S. Government to regulate the conduct of its armed forces in a civil war. In so doing, we hope to explore the extent to which there may be links between the Lieber Code and the contemporary regulation of non-international armed conflicts. In particular, we explore some similarities and contrasts between the views on the regulation of civil war that existed at the time of the drafting of the Lieber Code and the position that exists today.

Islamic law and international law: the terms of a relationship

The relationship between Islamic Law and other legal systems (basically western type domestic legal orders and international law) is often thought of in terms of compatibility or incompatibility. Concerning certain subject matters of choice, the compatibility of Islamic (legal) principles with the values embedded in legal systems that are regarded as characteristic of the Modern Age is tested by sets of questions: is democracy possible in Islam? Does Islam recognize human rights and are those rights equivalent to a more universal conception? Does Islam recognize or condone more extreme acts of violence and does it justify violence differently? Etc. Such questions and many more presuppose the existence of an ensemble of rules or principles which, as any other set of rules and principles, purport to regulate social behavior. This ensemble is generically referred to as Islamic Law. However, one set of questions is usually left unanswered: is Islamic Law a legal system? If it is a legal system, what are its specific characteristics? How does it work? Where does it apply? It is this paper`s argument that the relationship between Islamic Law and domestic and international law can only be understood if looked upon as a relationship between distinct legal systems or legal orders.

Typology of instruments of public environmental international law

At the second meeting of the focal points appointed by the Governments of the signatory countries of the Declaration on the application of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, which was held in Guadalajara, Mexico, on 16 and 17 April 2013, a decision was made to form working groups to advance towards the creation of a regional instrument. Thus, a working group on access rights and the regional instrument was formed for the purpose of gaining more in-depth knowledge on access rights in order to make a proposal on the nature and scope of the application of a regional instrument. At its first meeting, the working group determined that a study describing the different types of international instruments would be useful in helping it achieve its objective. This report explores the different types of instruments that are used in public international law, with an emphasis on the instruments that are relevant to Principle 10. The report has three chapters, which are as follows. The first chapter analyses the term “international instrument” and discusses the distinction between binding and non-binding legal instruments, illustrated with examples. The second chapter describes the function of implementation and compliance mechanisms in an international instrument, providing examples of these mechanisms. The third chapter presents the multilateral and regional instruments relevant to access rights regarding information, participation and justice in environmental matters in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Roundtable discussion on the nature of the regional instrument: Summary of the answers and the comments from experts in public environmental international law

This document summarizes the development and conclusions of the sixth meeting of the working group on access rights and the regional instrument held virtually on August 1st, 2014. The meeting, which was for information purposes only, had the aim of advancing in the discussions on the nature of the regional instrument by holding a round table discussion with the renowned experts in Public International Law.

Does Israel Follow the Law? A Critical Analysis of Israel's Application of the International Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Occupied Territories

Israel's occupation of territories it captured in 1967 has become one of the longest and most controversial occupations of the last fifty years. Eschewing the traditional political analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this paper aims to explore whether Israel has adequately applied international law in the occupied territories, in particular, the law of belligerent occupation. The two actors under assessment are the Israeli government, particularly its military which enforces and maintains the law in the territories, and the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power of review over military actions in the territories. The particular issues of the occupation that are critically analyzed are the general legal framework that Israel established in the territories, Israel's civilian settlement policy in territories, and Israel's construction of a barrier in the West Bank. This paper concludes that Israel has incorrectly applied the legal framework of belligerent occupation by refusing to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention; it has wrongly concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories conform with international law; yet it has rightly concluded that the construction of the barrier in the West Bank is permissible under international law, in contrast to the conclusion of the much publicized International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the 'Wall.' Along with these general assessments, the author will also provide some historical and political insight into why the Israeli government and the Supreme Court may have applied the law in the way that they did.