This chapter assesses due diligence in international humanitarian law. It identifies international humanitarian law rules governed by due diligence in the fields of the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, the conduct of hostilities, the protection of civilians and persons hors de combat, and the administration of occupied territory. It is argued that international humanitarian law embodies both obligations of result (for instance, negative obligations) and obligations of diligent conduct. In order to identify the obligations of diligent conduct, the chapter relies on state practice and relevant case law, as well as on textual indications embodied in the relevant international humanitarian law provisions. Finally, the chapter argues that the inclusion of some due diligence obligations in international humanitarian law strengthens states’ implementation of this branch of international law.
The chapter examines the connection between some recent robust mandates and jus post bellum, based on missions operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, and South Sudan. In the framework of robust mandates, peacekeepers’ main responsibilities are to protect civilians and support the local central government in regaining full control over its territory. The author discusses the pros and cons of robust mandates to reach a just and stable post-conflict arrangement. He argues that some recent robust mandates can have some immediate positive effects, but also may make respect for post bellum principles more problematic in the long term. Their contribution to just peace is questionable and requires further study.
This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 case of Georgia v Russia (II) in relation to the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights to the conduct of hostilities. The article describes the arguments advanced by the Court to support the idea that the Convention does not apply to extraterritorial hostilities in an international armed conflict. In the light of past decisions, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and the law of the treaties, it is argued that the Court's conclusion is unconvincing and the arguments seem to be based on extralegal considerations, rather than on a sound interpretation of the notion of state jurisdiction under the Convention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.