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.

Humanitarian law, human rights law and the bifurcation of armed conflict

This article offers a fresh examination of the distinction drawn in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. In particular, it considers this issue from the under-explored perspective of the influence of international human rights law (IHRL). It is demonstrated how, over time, the effect of IHRL on this distinction in IHL has changed dramatically. Whereas traditionally IHRL encouraged the partial elimination of the distinction between types of armed conflict, more recently it has been invoked in debates in a manner that would preserve what remains of the distinction. By exploring this important issue, it is hoped that the present article will contribute to the ongoing debates regarding the future development of the law of non-international armed conflict.

Protections for persons deprived of their liberty in international armed conflict

This contribution is about the protection of detained persons in international armed conflict. In particular, it compares how the relationship between IHL and IHRL is understood depending on whether one is speaking of the substantive or the procedural rules of protection for detainees. It will be suggested that, whereas the relationship between IHL and IHRL raises fewer problems when speaking of substantive rules, the situation is very different when speaking of procedural rules.

Regulating non-international armed conflicts: a review essay of 'The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict' by Sandesh Sivakumaran

This review essay engages with Sandesh Sivakumaran’s book The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict, exploring its significance both in international humanitarian law and international law more generally.

Between Two Fires: Civilian Resistance during Internal Armed Conflict in Peru

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Links between migration and the presence of foreign combatants in armed conflict

This article explores the connections between migration and foreign combat, offering an improved definition of „foreign fighters,” and a general concept of foreign combatants’ behaviour as an anomalous form of migration. In contrast with the popular discourse and terrorism-related concerns about present-day Western European foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria (and their return to Europe) and Middle Eastern migrant refugees (and their arrival in Europe), the intention of this article is to offer a conceptually thorough consideration of the causal connections between movements of migration and the presence of foreign combatants in armed conflict, informed by a wide sample of cases. Such an assessment has to take place with a view to all forms of migration (including forced migration), all forms of foreign combat (not only foreign combat on the side of non-state actors as David Malet's oft-cited but overly restrictive definition would imply), and regions of the world beyond the Middle East and Islamic countries. Along these guiding lines, the article points out many comparatively rarely considered cases of foreign combat as well as the underestimated obstacles in the way of fighting abroad. Taking account of the latter allows refutation of a key implication of „new war theory” (its focus on „greed” as a motive of combatants), in light of the continued importance of cultural factors and ideological motives for participation in foreign combat.

God and War: the Church of England and Armed Conflict in the Twentieth Century

Despite narratives of secularization, it appears that the British public persistently pay attention to clerical opinion and continually resort to popular expressions of religious faith, not least in time of war. From the throngs of men who gathered to hear the Bishop of London preach recruiting sermons during the First World War, to the attention paid to Archbishop Williams' words of conscience on Iraq, clerical rhetoric remains resonant. For the countless numbers who attended National Days of Prayer during the Second World War, and for the many who continue to find the Remembrance Day service a meaningful ritual, civil religious events provide a source of meaningful ceremony and a focus of national unity. War and religion have been linked throughout the twentieth century and this book explores these links: taking the perspective of the 'home front' rather than the battlefield. Exploring the views and accounts of Anglican clerics on the issue of warfare and international conflict across the century, the authors explore the church's stance on the causes, morality and conduct of warfare; issues of pacifism, obliteration bombing, nuclear possession and deterrence, retribution, forgiveness and reconciliation, and the spiritual opportunities presented by conflict. This book offers invaluable insights into how far the Church influenced public appraisal of war whilst illuminating the changing role of the Church across the twentieth century.

La incidencia del conflicto armado durante el primer mandato del presidente Uribe en las relaciones de seguridad fronteriza con Venezuela y Ecuador

Esta investigación busca analizar el proceso de internacionalización del conflicto armado en Colombia, teniendo en cuenta que durante casi cincuenta años pasó desapercibido e incluso indiferente, tanto a nivel doméstico como por el sistema internacional. De igual manera, el objetivo general de este análisis es evaluar las consecuencias del conflicto armado en Colombia en las relaciones de seguridad fronteriza durante el periodo del 2002-2006; a partir de esto, se plantean cuatro propósitos principales. Primero, describir el proceso de internacionalización del conflicto, entendiendo que su incidencia en la zona se ha desarrollado desde el concepto del efecto derrame. Segundo, establecer si existe alguna diferencia sobre la incidencia del conflicto en los diferentes puntos de frontera y determinar por qué es diferente la situación en los puntos de frontera para Venezuela y Ecuador. Para ello, se analizarán las manifestaciones del conflicto que han incidido en las relaciones con Venezuela, y a partir de esto establecer sus repercusiones; de la misma forma, se examinaran las manifestaciones que han incidido del lado ecuatoriano. Tercero, se buscará establecer de qué manera es similar o diferente la incidencia del conflicto armado colombiano con respecto a cada frontera de estudio y determinar sus repercusiones en las relaciones sobre la seguridad fronteriza. Cuarto, se pretende evaluar la posibilidad de un acercamiento por parte de los tres países en aras de buscar un beneficio común, adoptando un régimen de seguridad colectiva o de intereses compartidos que permitan combatir en conjunto la seguridad en los puntos de frontera, que finalmente es la causa que distorsiona las relaciones.

Análisis de iniciativas de memoria colectiva de víctimas del conflicto armado en Colombia a través de expresiones artísticas musicales en Bogotá. Periodo 1991−2010

Dentro del conflicto armado en Colombia, algunas expresiones artísticas musicales se han convertido en mecanismos alternativos de construcción de memoria colectiva, al rescatar y hacer público memorias de individuos y hechos violentos que los relatos oficiales de poder pretenden olvidar.

Ley de Víctimas de Colombia y la responsabilidad de las personas jurídicas por violaciones de derechos humanos

En el año 2011, después de cuatro años de cabildeo y forcejeo político, Colombia aprobó la Ley 1448, más conocida como la Ley de Víctimas. Los objetivos perseguidos por esta ley son bastante amplios, en la medida en que pretende ser una regulación comprensiva para enfrentar los efectos que el conflicto armado ha infligido en la población civil. En este sentido, la ley incluye las reformas legales que fueron consideradascomo necesarias para restablecer el estado de derecho a través de la proteccióny cumplimiento de los derechos de las víctimas. Actualmente, el gobierno, la sociedad civil y la academia se han enfocado en el análisis de los dilemas y grandes temas dela ley. Sin embargo, esta nueva regulación, con sus 208 artículos, es más amplia y compleja, razón por la cual es indispensable hacer un análisis más detenido de sus múltiples provisiones. Una de estas, que parece no haber llamado la atención y que, por lo tanto, no ha sido objeto de estudio pormenorizado es el artículo 46. A primera vista, este parece estar encaminado a reforzar la investigación y juzgamiento de las personas jurídicas relacionadas con violaciones de derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario en el contexto colombiano. Este texto examina específicamente los alcances reales y dilemas del artículo, y propone algunas soluciones para llenar la laguna que existe actualmente en el país en la materia.

The project of land restitution in Colombia: an illustration of the civilizing force of hypocrisy?

This article offers a theoretical interpretation of the dispositions on land restitution contained in the famous “Victims’ Bill”, which was debated in the Colombian Congress during the year 2008. The bill included specific mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict. At the time, the bill was endorsed by all the main political actors in the country –notably the government and the elites that support it, on the one hand, and victims’ and human rights organizations and other opposition groups, on the other–. The fact that the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict was being considered as a serious possibility by all political actors in the country seemed to indicate the existence of a consensus among actors whose positions are ordinarily opposed, on an issue that has traditionally led to high levels of polarization. This consensus is quite puzzling, because it seems to be at odds with the interests and/or the conceptions of justice advocated by these political actors, and because the restitution of land faces enormous difficulties both from a factual and a normative point of view, which indicates that it may not necessarily be the best alternative for dealing with the issue of land distribution in Colombia. This article offers an interpretation of said consensus, arguing that it is only an apparent consensus in which the actors are actually misrepresenting their interests and conceptions of justice, while at the same time adopting divergent strategies of implementation aimed at fulfilling their true interests. Nevertheless, the article concludes that the common adherence by all actors to the principle of restorative justice might bring about its actual realization, and thus produce an outcome that, in spite (and perhaps even because) of being unintended, might substantively contribute to solving the problem of unequal land distribution in Colombia. Even though the article focuses in some detail on the specificities of the 2008 Bill, it attempts to make a general argument about the state of the discussion on how to deal with the issue of land distribution in the country. Consequently, it may still be relevant today, especially considering that a new Bill on land restitution is currently being discussed in Congress, which includes the same restitution goals as the Victims’ Bill and many of its procedural and substantive details, and which therefore seems to reflect a similar consensus to the one analyzed in the article.