What does the notion of "direct participation in hostilities" mean? What is the status of the ICRC's Interpretive Guidance document? What are the main questions addressed in the ICRC's Interpretive Guidance?"ĥ. What has the ICRC done to address these challenges?Ĥ. What are the current challenges arising in relation to civilian participation in hostilities?ģ. What does the notion of "direct participation in hostilities" mean?Ģ. You are allowed to answer in English or Norwegian.1. On what legal grounds can State A use to keep the resistance movement members detained?Ĭ) Discuss the difference between perfidy and ruses of war as laid down in Section I of Part III of the 1977 First Additional Protocol. 3. State A is determined to keep the three members of the resistance movement detained for security reasons even if they had not participated in the sabotage operation. A few days later, State A military police arrests three other members of the resistance group, who did not take part in the sabotage operation.ġ. Was it lawful for State A military forces to shoot the escaping resistance fighters? 2. What status should the two captured resistance fighters be given in this situation? Discuss the potential difference between the rules applicable to this situation set out in: 1) the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and 2) the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Two of the four resistance fighters are killed as they try to escape, the other two are captured. The group of resistance fighters are spotted and shot at by State A military guards. They manage to emplace a bomb in the large production hall, light a fuse and escape the building just before the explosion takes place. They are dressed in dark clothes, one of them is carrying a revolver, otherwise they are unarmed. Four resistance fighters manage to enter the factory during the night. The resistance movement decides to sabotage a large weapons factory, which State A now controls. State B puts up very little armed resistance in the beginning, but a national resistance movement is being set up in the course of a few months. Each of the two states denied that their group initiated the exchange of fire.ġ. What are the consequences of these acts for the application of international humanitarian law? 2. If applicable, would IHL apply in the entire territory of each State or only in the area where the hostilities took place? 3. If this situation does not generate the application of IHL, what consequences would the shooting have for the persons firing the shots?ī) State A starts a large military offensive against State B, resulting in the occupation of the territory of State B within a week. Each of the groups that had fired had remained on the territory of its state of origin. UN peacekeeping troops were posted around and in the demilitarised zone between State A and State B.Īs the international attention had been focussed on the situation between State A and State B, it came as a surprise that on the 1 of January 2001, shots were exchanged between customs officers of State A and the special forces of State C. State A had been the political centre in SFABC, and had tried to dominate the neighbouring areas for centuries. The political situation was nevertheless tense after a long history of political rivalry and several previous violent clashes between the groups. JUR5730 - International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict)Įxam JUR5730 International Humanitarian Law/ Law of Armed Conflict Spring 2007Ī) States A, B and C used to be federal republics of the Socialist Federation of ABC (SFABC), but gained independence after the fall of communism in a peaceful transition.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |