Violations Of International Humanitarian Law

Many perceive humanitarian intervention as a way to provide protection for people in instances of gross human rights violations, however, the concept has become increasingly contentious (Rashid, 2012). Contentions concerning humanitarian intervention are multifaceted; humanitarian intervention infringes upon state sovereignty which is perceived as a crucial basis for international order, yet, infringement is often justified by contentions focusing upon the universality of human rights and a responsibility

Humanitarian intervention is use of force or other sanctions by one state or group of states against another to prevent or stop the denial of the basic human rights of that states citizens. There is no actual definition of humanitarian intervention, only a basic notion of what it entails and the outstanding question of whether the human rights violations in a sovereign state are reason enough for others to intervene. In past wars the majority of casualties were the combatants, but today’s

Privatization of War; the New Challenges of Humanitarian Law of Germany Introduction In equating the conditions for the internationalization of an internal armed conflict with the conditions under which irregulars will be considered lawful combatants, the ICTY pointlessly forces a considerable narrowing of the class of protected combatants in international armed conflict. It confuses the application of common articles 13(2)/13(2)/4(A)(2), defining lawful combatants, with the application of common

Humanitarian intervention is a multifaceted issue that has been a topic of concern within international political and legal realms for many decades. It is often defined as “[…] the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied” (Keohane 1). After the

humanity and human life . Human Rights and Humanitarian Law both entail obligations and rights to be fulfilled. Obligations lies on the part of state to protect human rights and to make sure human rights are not violated under international law. State has this obligation to protect, respect and fulfill human rights which means that state must desist from being intrusive and curbing the absolute delight of human rights, second of obligation of state is to protect human rights and it leads to the

Humanitarian Intervention, as nice as it might sound, poses controversy among international society and world politics; mainly due to the fact that it directly contradicts with the principles of state- sovereignty, non- intervention, and the non-usage of force. However, the issue lies on the fact that human rights principles and the previous mentioned principles do often conflict, which results in questioning the concept of humanitarian intervention. Meanwhile, this paper will discuss the pros

sources of law at the national, regional and international levels (NGLS 2008).' A series of international human rights treaties and other instruments adopted since 1945 have conferred legal form on inherent human rights and developed the body of international human rights. States Parties have specific obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the rights contained in the conventions (UNDP 2005). Failure to uphold obligations and duties create violation of IHRL and IHL. Such violation requires

Respect for International Humanitarian Law Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions provides that States parties undertake to “ensure respect for the present Convention ”. The same provision is repeated in Additional Protocol I in relation to respect for the provisions of that Protocol . It further provides that in the event of serious violations of the Protocol, States parties undertake to act, jointly or individually, in cooperation with the United Nations and in conformity with the Charter of the United

includes behavior which violates international agreements and treaties. Non-mainstream theorists argue that UN sponsored international law often conceals the white, western, liberalist predominance instead of valid understandings of human nature. The current system has been criticised

intensification of worldwide social relations’, one of the biggest debates in the international society today is centred around the justification of humanitarian intervention. This essay will first present the proposing and opposing arguments for humanitarian intervention as well as argue that humanitarian intervention does ultimately represent a threat to international order. The primary and sole purpose of humanitarian intervention, as cosmopolitan interventionists see it, is the protection and saving