Deconstructing Corruption: From (Un)Fixed Definitions to Evolving Perspectives

Introduction: The ongoing conflict in Palestine has severely impacted its healthcare system, with hospitals and medical personnel frequently targeted by Israeli forces. This paper examines the unjustifiable targeting of healthcare in Palestine, highlighting violations of human rights and international law. Objective: The study investigates the extent of these attacks, analyzes their legal implications, and proposes recommendations for protecting healthcare in conflict zones. Research problems: It addresses the legal issues of systematic and deliberate targeting of healthcare in Palestine, which constitutes a grave violation of human rights and international law, and seeks to shed light on the magnitude and consequences of this problem. Method: Using a multidimensional approach, this paper analyzes the legal and contextual issues surrounding the targeting of healthcare in Palestine. The analysis employs human rights theory to assess the impact of these attacks on fundamental rights. Results: Findings reveal a systematic pattern of attacks on healthcare facilities and personnel, leading to numerous casualties, infrastructure damage, and disruption of essential medical services. These attacks violate international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Conclusion: targeting of healthcare in Palestine is a serious violation of human rights and international law, calling for immediate action to protect healthcare and hold perpetrators accountable. Recommendations include strengthening international monitoring mechanisms, pursuing legal accountability through international courts, and increasing international pressure on Israel to respect its obligations under international law. Legal professionals must act decisively to address this crisis, aiming for a future where peace, justice, and the right to life and health are respected for all.

The situation in Palestine has influenced the deployment of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The impact of longterm Israeli occupation and the rule of the Palestinian Authority in the Occupied Territory is multifaceted. Despite the various research on Palestine, human rights, and the rule of law, few studies have been conducted on the enforcement mechanisms of human rights in Palestine. This study examines the applicability of international human rights and humanitarian laws as well as domestic laws to assess the contribution of these directives in protecting the fundamental human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory. It conducts an in-depth case study of three basic rights: the right to movement, the right to property, and the right to equality and non-discrimination in the Occupied Territory. The study further examines the role of the Palestinian High Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court in implementing domestic and international laws. In this regard, the study examines the major laws which are invoked, in certain circumstances, to limit the ability of Palestinians to confiscate, expropriate, and destruct their private property, and to implement discriminatory practices against them. The study further examines whether the available international and domestic mechanisms are effective, and if not, it suggests modifications upon which a functional national and international system could be built. The findings of the research demonstrate that international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law conventions are de facto and de jure applicable in the Occupied Territory. As a result of the aforementioned in-depth study cases, it can be concluded that human rights violations against Palestinians in the Occupied Territory are committed by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. In addition, the Palestinian and the Israeli judiciaries have failed to grant Palestinians reasonable protection or a just remedy, and they are dysfunctional and politically driven. The study concludes with a proposal for new mechanisms for Palestinians to redress human rights violations. The further outcomes of this study argue that neither international human rights nor humanitarian law guarantee full protection for Palestinians. Hence, the implication of the findings indicates that the regulations of international human rights and humanitarian laws, which were made by the powers of the nineteenth century with their colonial provisions, might not fit to the present complications of the current challenges to international law in Palestine. The goal is to promote a re-thinking approach to the employment of human rights to serve all people in an efficient and well-organized system. The scope of this study is not meant to grant Palestinians favorable treatment in the multilateral international system, but to achieve just and successful remedies for victims of human rights violations.

Recently the issues of prevention of human rights violations has been attracting the attention of the world community Comprehensive consideration of the basic parameters of the general international state obligations to prevent human rights violations by international human rights bodies, as well as inter-State discussions to develop the concept of the responsibility to prevent human rights violations indicate the formation of a new in contemporary international law principle: the principle of the responsibility to prevent human rights violations. The purpose of this article is to study the legal enshrining of the content and legal nature of the principle. In order to achieve the objective the article 1) identifies and analyses the main parameters of an international responsibility of a State to prevent violations of human rights and freedoms in the areas of international law such as international human rights law, international criminal law and international law of armed conflict; 2) through comparative-legal analysis of international treaties and the practice of international bodies justifies cross-sectoral nature of the emerging and universally recognized principle of international law; as well as 3) analyses the main controversial points held within international bodies discussions to develop the content of the concept of the responsibility to prevent violations of human rights and freedoms It is concluded that there is the need for codification of the rules on prevention of violations of human rights in contemporary international law, on the basis, inter alia, of generalization of the relevant international practice with sufficient uniformity for recognition of the emergence of a new intersectoral principle of contemporary international law: the principle of the responsibility to prevent human rights violations.

The rapid development of the use of digital technologies has facilitated access to digital information and evidence. This information and digital evidence are obtained via the Internet, social media or satellite. And may be used to investigate violations of human rights and international criminal law. Therefore, there is a problem of rebalancing between the right to privacy and the use of information and digital evidence in the investigation of violations of human rights and international criminal law. This study has objective of unified universal principles that set out the origins and rules for the use of information and digital evidence in the investigation of violations of human rights and international criminal law. In order to ensure international and national justice and criminal accountability and to document all violations of human rights and international criminal law. The analytical approach will be used through analysis of previous studies on the use of digital information and evidence in the investigation of violations of human rights and international criminal law. And analysis of the Berkeley Protocol on Open-Source Digital Investigations. Several findings and recommendations were reached in this paper, the most important of which is the need for the international community to recognize the information and digital evidence obtained to demonstrate violations of human rights and international criminal law.

The United Nations is a worldwide organization devoted to promote international peace and security, economic and social growth, and human rights. From its founding in 1945, the UN has been involved in a number of disputes and violations of human rights, both as a mediator and as an active participant. This research investigates the UN's role in preventing wars and human rights violations all around the globe. Moreover, the UN has taken part in peacekeeping initiatives around the world, notably in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. These missions, which tried to re-establish security and stability in conflict-affected areas, have received praise in some instances but condemnation in others. This research paper examines how the United Nations responds to wars and breaches of human rights all across the world. It will specifically look at how the UN has intervened in numerous crises and peacekeeping operations, as well as how it has attempted to remedy human rights abuses by forging international laws and conventions. The essay will also look at instances where the UN's handling of conflicts and violations of human rights has come under fire and explore alternative avenues for the organization to increase its efficacy in advancing security, fairness, and human rights. The chapter on the United Nations, Wars, and Human Rights Violations has included several outlines that explore different aspects of the subject. First, an introduction of the book and its goals is presented, along with a short description of the United Nations and its efforts to date to address international conflicts and breaches of human rights. Second, The United Nations and Conflict Resolution Examines the UN's Authorization of Military Force and Peacekeeping Missions. The UN's abilities to avert violence, protect people, and promote stability during crises would be assessed. Third, The United Nations and Human Rights," and it looks at how the organization has responded to crises like the Rwandan genocide and the war in Yemen by enacting international treaties and conventions meant to defend human rights. The effectiveness of the United Nations in addressing human rights abuses, both in terms of preventing and reacting to mass crimes, would be evaluated. Forth, The UN's Response to Conflict and Human Rights Violations: A Critical Analysis is a chapter that examines the criticisms leveled against the United Nations for its response to conflicts and human rights violations, such as its inability to resolve ongoing conflicts and its inadequate response to genocide and other mass atrocities. The accountability procedures of the United Nations would be analysed to see how well they promote accountability and justice. Fifth, Case Studies Including the Rwandan genocide, the war in Syria, and the present situation in Myanmar, this chapter gives thorough case studies of various conflicts and human rights abuses in which the UN has been engaged. The UN's reaction to these crises and the lessons learnt from them would be the focus of this chapter. Sixth, "The Future of the UN," and it discusses the obstacles that the United Nations (UN) must overcome to fulfil its mission of promoting international peace, justice, and human rights. Addressing the causes of conflicts, promoting sustainable development, and forming partnerships with member states and other stakeholders are all possibilities that might increase the UN's efficiency in dealing with these issues. Seventh, Conclusion: An overview of the book's major arguments and conclusions, together with a discussion of their relevance to philosophy, policy, and practice. Every topic is structured in a way that provides a clear and concise overview of the topic, examines relevant research and literature, and offers insights and analysis into the key issues. The chapter would be intended for a broad audience, including students, scholars, policymakers, and anyone interested in the United Nations and its role in addressing global conflicts and human rights violations.

Human Rights Education (HRE) involves more than knowledge of rights and wrongs. It developed to enable individuals to act in an informed way to protect human rights or to prevent human rights viola-tions. HRE is therefore both empowering and restraining in order to protect human dignity. Freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading practices is central to human dignity. This article starts from the universal and absolute prohibition of torture under international human rights law. While considering the contradictive relationship between war and torture the article focuses on the war against terror as defined by the US administration as new type of warfare requires a new think-ing in the law of war. From this point of departure the article elaborates the challenges to human rights education developing from the debate on the legalization of torture. While comparing the dis-cussion and application of law in Germany and U.S.A. the author argues for a more coherent interna-tional human rights protection system and for the establishment of a comprehensive accountability mechanism within international human rights law. Particular attention will be paid to artificial loopholes in international law which facilitate a lack of accountability. The article also focuses on the arguments for legalizing and legitimating torture so as to highlight how HRE can be employed to foster the norma-tive understanding of human rights such as the right to freedom from torture. By highlighting the moral, political, legal and social dimensions to human rights standards, it will be shown that HRE can help to close loopholes in international law and counteract arguments against the absolute prohibition of tor-ture.

There is no doubt that the World Wars I & II fought between 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945 prompted the establishment of international institutions such as the League of Nations created after World War I and the subsequent United Nations formed in 1945 which laid the groundwork for global cooperation to address violations of human rights. Despite the efforts made to maintain global peace over the past years, there have been gross violations of human rights as the world continues to witness a series of wars. The recent conflicts in Syria, the war between Russia and Ukraine, and the Gaza war between Hamas and the Israeli Forces have led to widespread human rights violations, which highlights the urgency or need to address human rights violations beyond state sovereignty. This research explores the conflict between state sovereignty and enforcing human rights globally. It examines legal frameworks of international organizations, and alternative tools like sanctions, alongside the role of civil society against human rights violations. While International law offers mechanisms such as the United Nations human rights system, their effectiveness is limited by politics. The study acknowledges the growing influence of "soft law" through public pressure from NGOs and the media. Beyond legal avenues, the research explores the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, allowing intervention in extreme human rights violations despite sovereignty concerns. It emphasizes the need for cultural sensitivity to avoid neo-colonial approaches. The research also proposes several approach that prioritizes human rights while acknowledging the complexities of the international landscape which includes economic pressure through targeted sanctions and diplomatic actions. As a recommendation, it highlights the power of civil society and grassroots movements in challenging state impunity even as it advocates for a shift towards a more holistic approach involving diverse actors to bridge the gap between theory and practice in global human rights enforcement. Keywords: State Sovereignty, Human Rights Enforcement, Responsibility to Protect (R2p), International Law, Civil Society

In the context of full-scale armed aggression against Ukraine, the issue of torture is becoming particularly acute. The use of torture in occupied territories, in places of detention, and against civilians and prisoners of war is not only a gross violation of human rights, but also a serious war crime. The classification of such acts is complicated by the specifics of martial law, the multiplicity of possible criminal offenses, and the need to simultaneously apply the norms of national criminal law and international humanitarian law. The lack of consistency in legislative norms, the absence of uniform judicial practice, and the need to comply with international human rights standards necessitate a scientific analysis of this issue. The correct legal classification of torture determines not only the effectiveness of criminal prosecution of the perpetrators, but also the restoration of justice for the victims and the formation of an evidence base for international courts. The article examines the problem of qualifying torture in conditions of martial law and armed conflict, which is particularly relevant in the context of contemporary challenges related to military aggression against Ukraine. It analyzes the norms of national criminal legislation, international legal acts, and the practice of international judicial institutions regarding the definition of torture, its composition, and characteristics. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between torture and war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the rules of war. The problems of distinguishing torture from other crimes against human life, health, and honor are considered, as well as the peculiarities of qualification, taking into account martial law as a qualifying circumstance. The need to improve criminal law mechanisms for bringing to justice those who commit torture in armed conflict and to bring national practice into line with international human rights standards is justified. Keywords: torture, war crime, martial law, international law, criminal legislation of Ukraine.

How Close Will GATS Get to Human Rights?

This paper focused on the analysis of enforcement of state responsibility for breaches of some international obligations of an essential nature. These obligations relate to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against international terrorism, and the protection of fundamental human rights. Ali such obligations are considered to be essential and relate to new security challenges; there are, however, certain differences among them when considering the structure of primary obligations and legal consequences of their breach. Treaties on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons, by their nature, encompass obligations erga omnes partes which are interlinked. A breach by one state changes the position of the other State Parties (all-or-nothing obligations). Although classic legal responsibility consequences of unlawful conduct may, due to their erga omnes partes nature, apply only with limitations, the respective regimes established by the treaties rely on special control mechanisms. Erga omnes partes obligations of an integral nature apply primarily in the area of human rights. Such obligations were adopted to protect collective interests. Unlike obligations resulting from disarmament treaties, they represent a different type of obligation. A state may not stop observing human rights due to another state’s violation (i.e. not use symmetric countermeasures). Other parties to such an obligation may, on the other hand, require the responsible state to cease unlawful conduct. This mostly applies only within control mechanisms of a judicial or other nature established by treaties. Obligations arising out of responsibility can be of an erga omnes nature only in the case of violation of human rights obligations created by peremptory norms of general international law. Where multilateral treaties on terrorism are at issue, obligations have a partly bilateral, partly integral obligation character (resembling human rights treaties in this respect). Should a breach occur this gives rise primarily to responsibility of a state inter partes. However, the respective treaties do not provide for a special institutionalised control regime, and in this they differ from the two above-mentioned groups. The gap has recently been filled by resolutions of the UN Security Council establishing obligations erga omnes the breach of which may give rise to responsibility under general international law of a similar nature. Enforcement of obligations relating to the prohibition and non-proliferation of WMD and the fight against terrorism does not require new individual coercive means. First, states may use countermeasures without the use of farce. Second, collective coercive measures may be sometimes used instead of individual means upon the recommendation or decision of a body of the respective international organisation. Third, the use of farce may serve as an extreme means of coercion if it has been so decided by the UN Security Council according to Chapter VII of the Charter. Fourth, should a serious and imminent threat occur states may not be deprived of the right to individua] or collective self-defence. The situation seems to be much more complicated in the case of extremely serious violations of erga omnes obligations to protect human rights. However, individual or collective countermeasures free from force may not be excluded although their efficiency is usually disputable. The Security Council has proven that such cases can be designated as a threat to peace under Chapter VII of the Charter. Its permission is required for states to intervene using force. However, the right to self-defence may not be invoked due to the substance of the issue. If force were used for humanitarian reasons to stop genocide or mass violation of basic human rights, or to enforce responsibility erga omnes, the existing international law does not permit the use of individua) armed countermeasures. Considering the issue from the point of view of international legal rules de lege lata, humanitarian intervention cannot yet be regarded as legal no matter what criteria for its legitimacy may exist. Instead, it is necessary to seek a strengthening of collective coercive mechanisms. Therefore the latest proposals of institutional reform of the UN, which result, among other things, from a newly defined responsibility to protect, could be very important.

International human rights law is a complex multilayered reality that can be analysed in terms of legal pluralism. The paper submits that it is highly relevant for scholars of human rights law to study human rights law as an integrated whole: looking amongst others at issues of consistency and alignment as well as divergence, at gaps in the overall protection system, and at all kinds of cross-cutting or isolated dynamics.One such inconsistency in international human rights law concerns the attitude towards the recognition of legal pluralism, in the sense of an official legal system making room for a system of ‘traditional law’, a term which I intend to cover indigenous law, customary law as well as religious law. There is one field of international human rights law (the global regime concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, as laid down in ILO Convention 169 (1989) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries and in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)) that considers such a recognition as mandatory, and non-recognition as a violation of human rights. And there is another field of international human rights law (ECtHR case law) that considers such a recognition as a violation of human rights. The paper details each of these positions before examining whether their co-existence within international human rights law is sustainable or not.

The armed conflicts in Sudan present a prolonged and intricate humanitarian crisis marked by widespread human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). This research delves into the complex interplay between human rights principles and IHL within Sudan's conflict context, aiming to offer insights into challenges, dilemmas, and potential solutions in conflict-ridden African regions. Sudan's history is marred by various conflicts such as the Darfur conflict and the Second Sudanese Civil War, resulting in significant displacement, loss of life, and systematic violations of human rights and IHL. Understanding these conflicts' dynamics and their impact on civilians is crucial for developing effective strategies to address humanitarian concerns and foster peace and stability. Challenges in addressing human rights violations and ensuring IHL compliance in Sudan include blurred lines between state and non-state actors, asymmetric warfare, and complex socio-political dynamics. Non-state armed groups often operate outside international law, leading to human rights abuses like indiscriminate attacks on civilians and recruitment of child soldiers. State actors may also violate IHL through actions like arbitrary detention and restrictions on humanitarian access. This research adopts a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing on international law, political science, sociology, and conflict studies to analyze root causes and identify avenues for conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and human rights promotion. It critically evaluates the role of regional and international actors, offering practical recommendations to enhance human rights protection and IHL compliance in Sudan and similar African conflict zones.

Domestic Violence Asylum Claims and Recent Developments in International Human Rights Law: A Progress Narrative?

The protection of human rights is a cornerstone of international law, with states bearing primary responsibility for ensuring the rights and freedoms of individuals within their jurisdiction. This study provides an in-depth analysis of state responsibility in safeguarding human rights from an international legal perspective. Beginning with an exploration of the foundational principles enshrined in international human rights instruments and customary international law, the study examines the legal obligations incumbent upon states in upholding human rights standards. Key components of state responsibility in protecting human rights are delineated, including the duty to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, as well as the obligation to prevent and remedy human rights violations. Through a comprehensive review of relevant case law, treaties, and legal scholarship, the study elucidates the evolving nature of state responsibility and the mechanisms available for holding states accountable for human rights abuses. Furthermore, the study explores the role of international institutions, such as regional human rights bodies and the International Criminal Court, in adjudicating human rights violations and enforcing state compliance with international legal standards. Special attention is given to the intersection of state sovereignty and human rights protection, examining the balance between state autonomy and international intervention in cases of egregious human rights violations. In conclusion, the study underscores the indispensable role of states in fulfilling their duty to protect human rights, emphasizing the importance of effective domestic legislation, institutional mechanisms, and accountability measures. By elucidating the legal framework governing state responsibility in human rights protection, this analysis aims to contribute to the advancement of human rights norms and the promotion of global justice and dignity for all individuals.

Human rights as a strategic system, David Barnhizer human rights priorities and responsibilities for citizens, Noam Chomsky torture in the United States - connecting international human rights standards to abuse in American prisons, Bonnie Kerness tactical innovations for human rights, Douglas A. Johnson and Kate Kelsch the Bureau des Advocats Internationaux - a victim-centred approach, Brian Concannon Jr toward a more responsive sovereignty - confronting human rights violations through national reconstruction, Jennifer Moore protecting civilians in conflict and post-conflict, Kate Robertson babe politics and the victim subject - negotiating agency in women's human rights, Ratna Kapur human rights and the future of international politics - realism and global humanism, Robert Charlick a different look at sovereignty, Anthony D'Amato international jurisdiction and prosecutorial crimes, Richard J. Goldstone coping with chaos while acting justly - lessons from Rwanda, David Rawson the United States approach to international human rights law, David Weissbrodt prosecuting violations of human rights in US courts - a primer for the Justice Department on the Convention against Torture, William J. Aceves why the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over contemporary forms of slavery, James G. Wilson will history repeat itself? - case studies of systemic constraints on defence counsel in historic international war crimes trials and the need for resource parity, Richard J. Wilson the (al)lure of the genocide trial - justice, reconciliation and the reconstruction in Rwanda, Mark Drumbl the rights of indigenous peoples to a healthy environment and use of natural resources under international human rights law, Bradford C. Mank civil remedies for gross human rights violations, Michael Ratner holding multinational corporations accountable for human and environmental rights abuses, Richard Herz.