Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

International humanitarian law in non-international armed conflicts

100%

Bieszke K.

Międzynarodowe Prawo Humanitarne

2011

vol. 2

203-210

This paper depicts significant events, as well as important doctrines, which affected the traditional comprehension of the terms “international armed conflict” and “non-international armed conflict”, thus showing the process of adapting this distinction from the realm of facts to the realm of law. Although the division between international and non-international armed conflicts is quite old, it was not until the mid-20th century when it was first incorporated in international law. Before the Article 3 common to four Geneva Conventions was established, international law had been dealing only with rights and duties of parts to the international conflicts, regarding non-international conflicts as internal affairs of particular states. Because for many years it had been pointless to seek for norms of international law which generally and abstractly would determine humanitarian standards in case of an outbreak of internal conflict, regulations incorporated in Geneva Conventions of 1949 were first regarded as huge success. Nevertheless, currently they are commonly considered to be too vague and not precise enough. Moreover, they seem to be inadequate to modern armed conflicts – so called “transnational conflicts” or “new wars”, which do not fit in legal frames of “international armed conflict” or “non-international armed conflict”, created over 60 years ago.

Użycie siły w stosunkach międzynarodowych według koncepcji Johna Rawlsa

100%

Bieszke K.

Międzynarodowe Prawo Humanitarne

2012

vol. 3

199-209

John Rawls is considered to be one of the most important political thinkers of the 20th century. In his last original work, The Law of Peoples, he included his comprehensive theory of international relations. Following the idea outlined in his former work, A Theory of the State, author divides participants of international affairs into five types of domestic societies: “reasonable liberal peoples”, “decent peoples” (to liberal and decent peoples Rawls refers together as “well-organized peoples”), “outlaw states”, “societies burdened by unfavourable conditions” and “benevolent absolutisms”. The Author intentionally uses the term “peoples”, in order to clearly distinguish “the law of nations” from “the law of peoples”. He claims that in international politics traditionally conceived “nations” or “states” are moved mainly by their own particular interests — reason of state. Unlike states, well-organized peoples are just, or decent; they have a certain moral character, and in international relations reasons for their conduct accord with corresponding principles. Furthermore, governments of states consider their right to go to war to be undeniable, and derive this right from positive international law. Yet Rawls claims that ius ad bellum is not an innate right of every actor of international relations: only well-organized peoples are entitled to it, provided the reason for the use of force is the necessity to defend themselves from the aggression of an outlaw state. The distinction between non-aggressive well-ordered peoples and aggressive outlaw states is a basic assumption for Rawls’ further reflections on possible ways of coexistence of well-ordered peoples with peoples that fail to meet the criteria of “liberalism” or “decency”, leading to the main question: how to bring eventually all societies to honour the law of peoples and to become full members of the society of well-ordered peoples.

Refine search results

2 Międzynarodowe Prawo Humanitarne

2 Bieszke K.

1 2012

1 2011

Search results

International humanitarian law in non-international armed conflicts

Użycie siły w stosunkach międzynarodowych według koncepcji Johna Rawlsa