Refugee protection in the context of armed conflicts

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the law that aims to reduce human suffering in situations of armed conflict. The contemporary roots of treaty-based IHL could arguably be traced back to the four Geneva Conventions, in which Thailand is also a party. States may choose from a wide variety of methods to domestically implement IHL. One such method is through national legislation. The Geneva Conventions, in particular, obliged its state parties to criminalize grave breaches. This article aims to assess this one aspect of the domestic implementation of IHL within Thailand. To accomplish this, Swiss and Malaysian laws are used as examples for the analysis of Thai law to reflect upon. It is argued that the current rules scattered through the Thai legal system are doctrinally insufficient to ensure the complete applicability of the grave breaches regime. The article will then suggest how the current Thai legal regime may be improved to ensure better compliance with the obligations to prevent grave breaches within the Geneva Conventions.

This research paper appraises the legal framework for the protection of civilians in cyber warfare under International Humanitarian Law. The paper examines the existing rules of IHL on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, their applicability or otherwise to cyber warfare, the existing gap in the law, with a view to making recommendations on more effective ways to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts. In doing this, the research methodology adopted is the doctrinal approach. Both primary and secondary sources of information were consulted and utilized in the course of this work. The primary sources include the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, the Rome Statute etc. The secondary sources include textbooks, journals, articles, newspaper, and online material retrieved from the ICRC website and other relevant websites. This paper finds that although International Humanitarian Law provides for robust rules aimed at the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, these rules do not sufficiently afford protection to civilians in cyber warfare as the complexity brought about by these new means and methods of warfare were not captured at the time the rules were made. This work identifies some of the challenges posed to the protection of civilians in cyber warfare and establishes a case for the need for a treaty to specifically regulate cyber warfare and provide for the protection of civilians in cyber warfare. This work also recommends that International policy debates on cyber warfare should be geared towards streamlining the various national views on cyber-attacks.

This article argues, through examples drawn mainly from the Sutta Piṭaka, that the Pali texts are characterised by an empirical realism that avoids neither the grim realities of conflict nor the underlying forces that drive it. Suttas such as the Cakkavatti-sīhanāda Sutta and the Mahā-dukkha-kkhanda Sutta are obvious examples of this realism. So also is the Aṅgulimāla Sutta, which deals with the phenomenon of a serial killer. Other texts examine causation, the Mahā-nidāna Sutta, for instance, which applies Buddhist causation theories to conflict and other forms of disruption in society. All focus on the almost intractable nature of conflict, when greed, hatred and delusion are embodied within human cultures and communities, producing diverse constructions of reality, fed by papañca, proliferating thought. I will argue that the empirical realism shown by texts such as the above can throw light on some of the bitter contexts of armed conflict that Buddhists are caught up in within the contemporary world, as combatants, humanitarian workers or members of civilian communities. They point to the difficulties that can arise, for instance, when humanitarian workers seek to enter zones of armed conflict to protect civilians and to encourage compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) as set out in customary law and treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols. The strength of the diverse constructions of reality present can mean that IHL, and also the demands of compassion, are subordinated to other concerns. This article therefore argues that Buddhism offers not only tools for effective compliance with IHL within situations of armed conflict, but also an analytical model for understanding why some contexts of armed conflict are resistant to the principles embodied in this law. It also suggests a primary initial role for external authorities in guarding against IHL abuses, before armed services personnel can cultivate mindful inner discipline in line with Buddhist ideals.

The aim of the article is to highlight several issues concerning the customary international law status of a number of international humanitarian law (IHL) treaty provisions that arose during the proceedings of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission. Specifically, two key issues will be analyzed, namely the Commission's findings that the Geneva Conventions and some provisions of Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law and that international landmine conventions create only treaty obligations and do not yet reflect customary international law. Also, some more detailed conclusions relating to particular problems, such as the issue of the customary nature of the ICRC’s right to visit prisoners of war and its binding character for non-parties to the Geneva Conventions, will be discussed. The 2005 ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s jurisprudence will also be included as a point of reference to identify the customary character of certain provisions. The main conclusion is that the Commission has significantly contributed to the emerging consensus regarding the status of certain norms of international humanitarian law as customary norms. Furthermore, it has identified lacunae in the existing standards of humanitarian law and suggested the development of new norms to fill those gaps.

International humanitarian law regulates armed conflict through a framework of customary and treaty-based norms, with the Geneva Conventions imposing legally binding duties on conflict parties to safeguard civilians and civilian objects. Despite this normative framework, enforcement mechanisms continue to demonstrate limited effectiveness, particularly in protracted armed conflicts. This study examines alleged violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention during the 2023, armed conflict in the Gaza Strip and evaluates the capacity of existing international humanitarian law enforcement mechanisms to protect Palestinian civilians. The research further analyzes avenues for strengthening judicial accountability through international criminal justice processes. Employing a socio-legal research design, the study integrates just war theory and law enforcement theory and applies qualitative descriptive-analytical methods to primary and secondary legal materials. The findings demonstrate that, first parties to the conflict committed serious breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention affecting civilian protection. Second, international enforcement mechanisms, including international judicial institutions, operated ineffectively due to political interference and limited State compliance. Third, expansive interpretations of military necessity weakened accountability for grave breaches of international humanitarian law. The study concludes that strengthening enforcement requires restricting such interpretations and ensuring the consistent implementation of international criminal court decisions to enhance legal accountability.

In a special edition of the VUWLR on the 60th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, it is timely to reflect on the achievements that have come about in the Pacific region, and why this is a cause for celebration. Nonetheless, there are other major international humanitarian law (IHL) instruments developed in the last 60 years which are yet to achieve universal ratification. In the Pacific, in particular, it is often difficult to demonstrate how IHL is relevant. This article addresses the challenges that the Pacific region poses in terms of IHL ratification and discusses how IHL instruments are indeed pertinent to the Pacific context, focusing on the three Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It concludes that in the Pacific these challenges should be seen as opportunities to address historical and current problems associated with war and that, by the next major anniversary, the Pacific might be, if not leading the way, at least not lagging behind.

This article examines the question of how a business operating in a conflict-affected area can uphold human rights. It contends that a crucial yet often overlooked element is a business’s commitment to embedding the fundamental standards of international humanitarian law (IHL) (as distinct from international human rights law) into its policies and practices. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights state that companies doing business in conflict-affected areas should respect IHL—the law of armed conflict. However, businesses are often unfamiliar with IHL and its relevance to their operations; it both provides legal protections and represents potential risks and liabilities. Similarly, the scholarly discourse around business and human rights (BHR) tends to overlook the relevance of IHL. The absence of IHL from the scope of the draft BHR treaty currently being negotiated at the United Nations is indicative of this. While some businesses operate with greater conflict sensitivity than others, in most cases they do not use an IHL lens to do so. The article outlines the significance of IHL for business and provides an affirmative case for greater integration of IHL into the BHR project, including its governance instruments and practical tools, to help realise the goal of responsible business conduct in conflict-affected areas.

Social Rights in Refugee Law and Human Rights Law: The Non-discrimination Principle as a Harmonization Tool

Notwithstanding the unique conditions of its deployment, KFOR does not act in a legal vacuum. As an entity deployed under UN auspices and by virtue of its exercise of public authority in Kosovo, it is bound by provisions of international human rights and humanitarian law to the extent of its control over individuals there. There are at least three different modalities through which international human rights law may apply to the conduct of KFOR soldiers in Kosovo: the mandate of Resolution 1244; the human rights obligations of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and the human rights obligations of the governments of the national contingents of KFOR. All of the national governments of the various KFOR contingents are bound by the Geneva Conventions, which form the core of modern humanitarian law. As Kosovo may be considered occupied territory, the humanitarian law of occupation is applicable. Further, the failure of KFOR troops to meet international standards for the treatment of individuals may give rise to individual state accountability. Finally, should KFOR or its participating states choose to declare a derogation, they would remain bound by the minimum standards provided by humanitarian law.

One of the cornerstones of the law of armed conflicts, known under the term of “international humanitarian law”, is the so-called “Geneva Law”. Bearing in mind the experiences of the Second World War, Geneva Law was an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) initiative to focus codification on the protection of the individual from the ravages of war. Today it mainly consists of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977. However, since the end of the 1970s, further development of the codified body of international humanitarian law has slowed, not least because the international community, given the number of armed conflicts taking place, has become reluctant to accept further obligations.

This chapter examines the extent to which international humanitarian law (IHL) may be applicable to peacekeeping forces, and the extent to which this encompasses positive obligations that would require troops to protect the local population from serious abuses of certain of their human rights. Common to the four Geneva Conventions, Article 1 is the most significant provision of IHL that could be construed as obliging troops to take action to prevent serious abuses of human rights being committed by third parties. Article 1 provides that the High Contracting Parties undertake to ‘respect and ensure respect’ for the provisions of the Conventions ‘in all circumstances’. It is now largely accepted that Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions carries third party obligations for State parties at a general level; but it is not clear what this implies for States that contribute to peacekeeping operations or for the peacekeepers themselves.

Health humanitarian aid organizations and the protection thereof☆

Tales by Moonlight; International Humanitarian Law and the Realities of War (The Protection of Civilians I)

This article aims at analysing whether rules of international humanitarian law are applicable to business and if yes, to what extent. Additionally, the consequences for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) violations by companies are analysed. We highlight that enterprises, their personnel and property which are not directly linked to a conflict enjoy the protection under Geneva Conventions from deliberate or indiscriminate attacks, as well as from pillaging and violations of private property. However, keeping neutrality in armed conflicts is a difficult task for companies and there are different ways in which they can contribute to human rights violations and abuses as well as commit international crimes. In order to prevent such violations, companies should conduct hHRDD and comply with IHL rules. Non-compliance with them may lead to reputational and organisational risks for companies as well as bring companies to criminal and/or civil responsibility.

I shall confine my brief thoughts on the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) to the Court’s treatment of international humanitarian law (IHL) in general, and to the law of belligerent occupation in particular. To that end, I will focus on the following four areas: the Court’s consideration of the applicable law as regards IHL; the Court’s interpretation of Article 6 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; the Court’s consideration of the concept of military necessity in the context of foreign military occupation; and the Court’s consideration of the responsibility of third states, particularly the high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, for violations of relevant principles of IHL by an occupying power.