Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

International Law and International Organizations
Reference:

Zverev P.G. On the distinction between international and domestic armed conflicts within the context of UN international peacekeeping

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the research of international and domestic armed conflicts in order to distinguish the two from the positions of international peacekeeping. The doctrinal positions on this issue are subjected to a critical analysis. The goal of this research is to determine the significant difference between the international and domestic armed conflicts for the subject of applicability of norms of the international humanitarian law towards the peacekeepers participating in such conflicts. A special attention is given to the rulings of international judicial institutions on the questions of qualification of armed conflicts as domestic. The international legal and comparative analysis of international and domestic armed conflicts within the context of international peacekeeping is being conducted for the first time within the Russian juridical doctrine. Based on the analysis of international legal acts and documents, as well as opinions of reputable international jurists the author determines the main criteria, which in his opinion should serve as the basis for the distinction.

Keywords:

International Court of Justice, human rights law, international humanitarian law, distinction, UN, peacekeeping, armed conflict, ICTY, former Yugoslavia, Geneva conventions

This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article


References
1. Byulleten' General'nogo sekretarya OON «Soblyudenie silami Organizatsii Ob''edinennykh Natsii norm mezhdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava», ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 avgusta 1999 g.
2. Venskaya Konventsiya o prave mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov (Vena, 23 maya 1969 g.) // Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR. – 1986. – ¹ 37. – St. 772.
3. Zverev P.G. Definitsii vooruzhennogo konflikta v mezhdunarodnom prave // Yuridicheskie issledovaniya. – 2015. – ¹ 3.
4. Zverev P.G. Zakony okkupatsii i mirotvorchestvo OON // Sbornik statei Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii «Dostizheniya i perspektivy pravovoi nauki», 10 oktyabrya 2014 g. – Ufa: Aeterna, 2014. – S. 10-12.
5. Zverev P.G. Kongolezskii krizis 1960-1966 gg. i Operatsiya OON v Kongo (ONUK, 1960-1964): istoriya konflikta i protsessa ego uregulirovaniya // Vestnik gumanitarnogo nauchnogo obrazovaniya. – 2014. – ¹ 2 (40). – S. 12-17.
6. Zverev P.G. Mirnoe uregulirovanie v epokhu dekolonizatsii na primerakh Namibii i Zapadnoi Sakhary // Sbornik statei Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii «Problemy rossiiskogo zakonodatel'stva i mezhdunarodnogo prava», 1 dekabrya 2014 g. – Ufa: Aeterna, 2014. – S. 17-18.
7. Zverev P.G. Monitoring prav cheloveka na primerakh mirotvorcheskikh missii v Sal'vadore i Kambodzhe // Sbornik statei Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii «Novye zadachi pravovoi nauki i puti ikh resheniya», 20 noyabrya 2014 g. – Ufa: Aeterna, 2014. – S. 37-39.
8. Zverev P.G., Klimenko A.A. Teoriya mirotvorchestva s pozitsii OON: «Povestka dnya dlya mira» // Vestnik Kaliningradskogo filiala Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. – 2015. – ¹ 1 (39).
9. Bowett D.W. United Nations Forces: A Legal Study of United Nations Practice. – London: Stevens and Sons, 1964. – 576 p.
10. Byron C. Armed Conflicts: International or Non-International? // Journal of Conflict and Security Law. – 2001. – Vol. 6, ¹ 1. – P. 63-90.
11. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Merits), Nicaragua v United States, ICJ Reports, 1986.
12. Dorn A.W., Bell D.J. Intelligence and Peacekeeping: The UN Operation in the Congo 1960-64 // International Peacekeeping. – Spring 1995. – Vol. 2, ¹ 1. – P. 11-33.
13. Greenwood C. International Humanitarian Law and United Nations Military Operations // Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. – 1998. – Vol. 1. – P. 3-34.
14. ICRC. http://www.icrc.org/eng/ihl (Ofitsial'nyi sait MKKK).
15. ICRC “Occupation and International Humanitarian Law: Questions and Answers” [URL] https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies
16. Jennings R., Watts A. (Eds.). Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed. – Longman, 1996.
17. Kelly M. Restoring and Maintaining Order in Complex Peace Operations: The Search for a Legal Framework. – Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 1999. – 311 p.
18. Kelly M., McCormack T., Muggleton P., Oswald B. The Legal Aspects of Australia’s Involvement in the International Force for East Timor // International Review of the Red Cross. – 2001. – ¹ 841. – P. 101-139.
19. McCoubrey H., White N. The Blue Helmets: Legal Regulation of United Nations Military Operations. – Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1996.
20. Palwankar U. Applicability of International Humanitarian Law to United Nations Peacekeeping Forces // International Review of the Red Cross. – 1993. – ¹ 294. – P. 227-240.
21. Pictet J. (Ed.). Commentary on the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. – ICRC, 1952.
22. Reparation of injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations. Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep, 11 April 1949.
23. Roberts A. – In: Provost R. International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. – Cambridge University Press, 2002.
24. Roberts A. What is a Military Occupation // British Yearbook of International Law. – 1984. – ¹ 55. – P. 249-306.
25. Roberts A., Guelff R. (Eds.). Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd ed. – Oxford University Press, 2001.
26. Secretary-General’s Bulletin on Observance by United Nations forces of International Humanitarian Law. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999.
27. Stephens D. The Use of Force by Peacekeeping Forces: The Tactical Imperative // International Peacekeeping. – Summer 2005. – Vol. 12, ¹ 2. – P. 157-172.
28. The Prosecutor v Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo (Celebici), Trial Chamber Judgement, 16 November 1998, Case ¹ IT-96-21-T.
29. The Prosecutor v Tadic, Appeal Chamber Judgement, 15 July 1999, Case ¹ IT-94-1.
30. The Prosecutor v Rajic, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61, 13 September 1996, Case ¹ IT-95-12-R61.
31. The Wall Advisory Opinion [2004], ICJ, 9 July 2004.
32. Zwanenburg M. The Secretary-General’s Bulletin on Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law: Some Preliminary Observations // International Peacekeeping. – July-October 1999. – P. 133-139.
33. Galiev R.S. K voprosu o yuridicheskoi prirode obyazannosti gosudarstv sotrudnichat' v bor'be s morskim piratstvom // Vestnik Altaiskoi akademii ekonomiki i prava. – 2014. – ¹ 6. – S. 18-20.
34. Tishkov S.A. Iz opyta organizatsii protivodeistviya prestupnosti na stadii razvertyvaniya missii OON v Kosovo // Prava i svobody cheloveka i grazhdanina: aktual'nye problemy nauki i praktiki: Sb. materialov I mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. – Orel: Izd-vo ORAGS, 2009. – S. 255-257
35. Zverev P.G. Definitsii vooruzhennogo konflikta v mezhdunarodnom prave // Yuridicheskie issledovaniya. - 2015. - 5. - C. 69 - 103. DOI: 10.7256/2409-7136.2015.5.14356. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_14356.html
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.