The “War on Terror” and the Principle of Distinction in International Humanitarian La

Las nuevas amenazas a la seguridad que han surgido en los últimos años están poniendo seriamente en juego la importancia y la implementación del derecho internacional humanitario. Este artículo investiga el impacto de la guerra del terror en el principio de distinción en el derecho internacional humanitario. Examina, de forma específica, prácticas estatales, por ejemplo, de los Estados Unidos, que han cedido frente al surgimiento de nuevas reglas relativas al principio de distinción. Para esto, se hace un análisis de dicho principio bajo dos perspectivas: blancos concretos y captura

First victims then perpetrators: child soldiers and International La

Este artículo examina la cuestión de los niños soldados en el Derecho Internacional. Después de haber hecho algunas observaciones preliminares sobre el enfoque del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y del derecho humanitario sobre la protección de los derechos de los niños que se encuentren en un conflicto armado, el artículo revisa la prohibición del reclutamiento de los menores y la responsabilidad penal personal de los que los reclutan. También, será analizada la jurisprudencia sobre el reclutamiento de los niños. En la cuarta parte del artículo, se dará cuenta de la hipótesis de los menores autores de crímenes internacionales y se considerarán los enfoques de la justicia retributiva y de la justicia restaurativa

Securitización en el desierto: Una respuesta al terrorismo en Malí y en Níger, 2009 - 2013.

Este es un estudio sobre las dinámicas de seguridad en Malí durante el periodo de 2009 a 2013. La investigación busca explicar de qué manera se ha dado un proceso de securitización de los grupos insurgentes frente a la amenaza generada por la proliferación de grupos armados no estatales en el territorio comprendido entre Malí y Níger. Se toma a Níger con el ánimo de ver la existencia de un subcomplejo regional de seguridad entre este país y Malí. De esta manera se afirma que el aumento de las actividades insurgentes y terroristas en la zona compuesta por Malí y Níger se da por la proliferación de actores armados no estatales, entre los cuales se encuentran los grupos seculares e insurgentes Tuareg, las agrupaciones islamistas fundamentalistas y los grupos que se componen entre rebeldes Tuareg, criminales e islamistas, éstos actores han afectado la percepción que tiene Malí sobre su seguridad.

Estrategia de intervención militar de Estados Unidos en Medio Oriente: dinámicas y consecuencias del uso de drones en Yemen y Pakistán entre 2009 a 2013

Este es un estudio sobre la estrategia de guerra estadounidense en Medio Oriente basada en el uso sistemático de drones durante el periodo comprendido entre 2009 y 2013. Se busca explicar de qué manera puede considerarse el uso de este tipo de armamento como una práctica basada en la proyección de poder sin mayor vulnerabilidad. Los casos de Pakistán y Yemen son abordados, ya que evidencian las características de las operaciones selectivas por las que ha abogado el Presidente Obama. El estudio se inscribe dentro del realismo ofensivo, haciendo también referencia a sus limitaciones explicativas. Empero, se afirma que las dinámicas y consecuencias de la utilización de drones son intrínsecas a la necesidad estadounidense de combatir actores no estatales mediante prácticas que garanticen su seguridad y pretensiones hegemónicas a pesar de las implicaciones políticas , legales y sociales en las que puede incurrir.

Framing the local and the global in the anti-nuclear movement: Law and the politics of place

This article examines the politics of place in relation to legal mobilization by the anti-nuclear movement. It examines two case examples - citizens' weapons inspections and civil disobedience strategies - which have involved the movement drawing upon the law in particular spatial contexts. The article begins by examining a number of factors which have been employed in recent social movement literature to explain strategy choice, including ideology, resources, political and legal opportunity, and framing. It then proceeds to argue that the issues of scale, space, and place play an important role in relation to framing by the movement in the two case examples. Both can be seen to involve scalar reframing, with the movement attempting to resist localizing tendencies and to replace them with a global frame. Both also involve an attempt to reframe the issue of nuclear weapons away from the contested frame of the past (unilateral disarmament) towards the more universal and widely accepted frame of international law.

On the nature of "context" in chemical education

Some of the most pressing problems currently facing chemical education throughout the world are rehearsed. It is suggested that if the notion of "context" is to be used as the basis for an address to these problems, it must enable a number of challenges to be met. Four generic models of "context" are identified that are currently used or that may be used in some form within chemical education as the basis for curriculum design. It is suggested that a model based on physical settings, together with their cultural justifications, and taught with a socio-cultural perspective on learning, is likely to meet those challenges most fully. A number of reasons why the relative efficacies of these four models of approaches cannot be evaluated from the existing research literature are suggested. Finally, an established model for the representation of the development of curricula is used to discuss the development and evaluation of context-based chemical curricula.

Legal outlier, again? U.S. felon suffrage: comparative and international human rights perspectives

The judiciousness of American felon suffrage policies has long been the subject of scholarly debate, not least due to the large number of affected Americans: an estimated 5.3 million citizens are ineligible to vote as a result of a criminal conviction. This article offers comparative law and international human rights perspectives and aims to make two main contributions to the American and global discourse. After an introduction in Part I, Part II offers comparative law perspectives on challenges to disenfranchisement legislation, juxtaposing U.S. case law against recent judgments rendered by courts in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and by the European Court of Human Rights. The article submits that owing to its unique constitutional stipulations, as well as to a general reluctance to engage foreign legal sources, U.S. jurisprudence lags behind an emerging global jurisprudential trend that increasingly views convicts’ disenfranchisement as a suspect practice and subjects it to judicial review. This transnational judicial discourse follows a democratic paradigm and adopts a “residual liberty” approach to criminal justice that considers convicts to be rights-holders. The discourse rejects regulatory justifications for convicts’ disenfranchisement, and instead sees disenfranchisement as a penal measure. In order to determine its suitability as a punishment, the adverse effects of disenfranchisement are weighed against its purported social benefits, using balancing or proportionality review. Part III analyzes the international human rights treaty regime. It assesses, in particular, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which proclaims that “every citizen” has a right to vote without “unreasonable restrictions.” The analysis concludes that the phrase “unreasonable restrictions” is generally interpreted in a manner which tolerates certain forms of disenfranchisement, whereas other forms (such as life disenfranchisement) may be incompatible with treaty obligations. This article submits that disenfranchisement is a normatively flawed punishment. It fails to treat convicts as politically-equal community members, degrades them, and causes them grave harms both as individuals and as members of social groups. These adverse effects outweigh the purported social benefits of disenfranchisement. Furthermore, as a core component of the right to vote, voter eligibility should cease to be subjected to balancing or proportionality review. The presumed facilitative nature of the right to vote makes suffrage less susceptible to deference-based objections regarding the judicial review of legislation, as well as to cultural relativity objections to further the international standardization of human rights obligations. In view of this, this article proposes the adoption of a new optional protocol to the ICCPR proscribing convicts’ disenfranchisement. The article draws analogies between the proposed protocol and the ICCPR’s “Optional Protocol Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.” If adopted, the proposed protocol would strengthen the current trajectory towards expanding convicts’ suffrage that emanates from the invigorated transnational judicial discourse.

State practice, customary humanitarian law and civilian casualties of armed conflict

The article examines the customary international law credentials of the humanitarian law rules proposed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICR) in 2005. It relies on the BIICL/Chatham House analysis as a ‘constructive comment’ on the methodology of the ICRC study and the rules formed as a result of that methodology with respect to the dead and missing as an aid to determination of their customary law status. It shows that most of the rules studied have a customary international lawpedigree which conforms to the conclusions formed on the rules generally in the Wilmshurst and Breau study. However, the rules with respect to return of personal effects, recording location of graves and notification of relatives of access to gravesites do not seem to have even on a majoritarian/deductive approach enough volume of state practice to establish them as customary with respect to civilians.

Second Strike and you are (finally) out? The Quashing of the Prevention of Infiltration Law (Amendment no. 4)

The blog-post critically analyses the Israeli Supreme Court judgment (HCJ 8425/13 Anon v. Knesset et al) quashing the Prevention of Infiltration Law (Amendment no. 4), offering themes of comparative constitutional interest.