Constraints on the Waging of War

Kalshoven, Frits; Zegveld, Liesbeth

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511995231

Cited by 109 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the dichotomy between combatant and non-combatant or civilian status, and collateral damage in relation to proportionality exemplify several IHL restrictions which inform the lawfulness of targeting (Cryer, Friman, Robinsin, & Wilmshurst, 2007). In addition, restrictions on launching missiles extend from civilian protection of humans to protection of civilian objects as well, such as churches or cultural buildings (Kalshoven & Zegveld, 2011).…”

Section: Jus In Bello and Ihlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drones under International Law

Alberstadt¹

2014

OJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a notable absence of legal approaches to the discourse evaluating use of drones. Even when drones are discussed in a legal context, arguments assert that drones require a new legal regime to adapt to modern qualities and circumstances. In the alternative, this paper argues that drones compatibly fit into existing legal regimes, particularly international criminal law (ICL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in accordance with general principles of international law. This paper argues that use of drones in armed conflict fits within existing laws governing use of force as the frameworks in use today. It demonstrates that ICL and IHL provide flexible guidelines appropriately suitable to particulars of drones, such as types and capabilities, but more importantly, they continue to provide legal governance applicable to drones as weapons. Legal uncertainty as to the use of drones is thus evaluated within the hypothetical exploration of drone usage culminating in a war crime before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

show abstract

Section: Jus In Bello and Ihlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drones under International Law

Alberstadt¹

2014

OJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above summaries suggest that the distinction between combatant and non-combatant is narrow [17,[19][20][21]. It is reasonable to suggest therefore, that combat immunity could be considered for both combatant and non-combatant.…”

Section: Combatants and Non-combatantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Any person including a civilian, who contributes to the nations' war effort such as a civilian driver transporting military equipment used in war or food to fighting troops to and from a military establishment [19,20]. • Any military person who may be attacked at any time.…”

Section: Military Healthcare Battlefield Immunitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Military Healthcare Battlefield Immunity

Kelly

2012

J R Army Med Corps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The combatant soldier on the battlefield remains protected from any claim in negligence by the doctrine of combat immunity for any negligent act or omission they may make when fighting. In other words, the combatant soldier does not owe a fellow soldier a duty of care on the battlefield, as the duty of care is non-justiciable. However, the non-combatant Military Healthcare Professional, although sometimes operating in the same hostile circumstances as the fighting soldier, is unlikely to benefit from combat immunity for any clinical negligence on the battlefield. This is because they continue to owe their patient a duty of care, although this has not been tested in the courts. This paper considers if any military healthcare professional could ever benefit from combat immunity, which is unlikely due to their non-combatant status. Instead, this paper suggests that a modified form of immunity; namely, Military Healthcare Battlefield Immunity could be a new, unique and viable doctrine, however, this could only be granted in rare circumstances and to a much lesser degree than combat immunity.

show abstract

“…The wars frequently affected the civil population as well, but since the turn of the 18 th and 19 th century the international contracts have been aiming at the isolation of the armed forces from the civil population. The international military law states that distinction should be made between the activities of armies, militias, volunteer fighting corps and the management of civil citizens in the countries at war (Kalshoven and Zegveld, 2001). After World War I the bi-and multilateral agreements restrained the use of weapons of mass destruction, above all the biological, chemical and nuclear agents.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical and economic aspects of bioterrorism

Ózsvári¹,

Kasza²,

Lakner³

2017

Management, Organizations and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe use of living organisms as weapon has been seen throughout the history of mankind. In our age the growing global tension, the several malfunctional nations and the multitudinous occurrence of low-intensity conflicts increase the risk of biological terror attacks even in Europe. In case of a contingent biological terror attack the veterinarians will become key figures fighting in the forefront, because 60% of the human contagious diseases are zoonotic and the food-chain is an easily vulnerable target which is fundamentally supervised by them. Malicious, deliberate contamination of food and water supplies with different biological agents, including bacteria, viruses, parasites and bacterial toxins for terrorist purposes is a real threat to the civilian populations worldwide. Hence, in the paper the authors review the concepts, history and future trends of bio, agro and food terrorism, and the possible impacts of bioterrorism on food-chain, public health, economy and the whole society.

show abstract

Constraints on the Waging of War

Cited by 109 publications

References 0 publications

Drones under International Law

Drones under International Law

Military Healthcare Battlefield Immunity

Historical and economic aspects of bioterrorism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About