Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The legal status of civil defence organisation during armed conflict and belligerent occupation

100%
Marcinko M.
Bezpieczeństwo. Teoria i Praktyka
|
2022
|
vol. XLVIII
|
issue 3
323-335
EN
Civil defence, whose main objective is the protection of the civilian population, is a component of the concept of society’s resilience, but in the provisions of international humanitarian law (regulating the conduct of parties fighting in an armed conflict), it is limited to the protection of civil defence organisations (such as a fire brigade) performing strictly defined humanitarian tasks, requiring thorough preparation and securing of appropriate resources. The state-parties to the conflict shall respect and protect civil defence organisations and personnel and military units designated to serve as civil defence on a permanent basis. Also, in the case of belligerent occupation, the occupying state is obliged to enable the implementation of these tasks by civil defence organisations of the occupied territory; in addition, the cases where it is permissible to seize buildings and equipment belonging to these organisations have been seriously limited. Thus, well-organised, efficient, and effective civil defence formations are an important element of the state’s defence system, which serves the population in danger, and its efficient and effective functioning can contribute significantly to building and strengthening the resilience of society in the conditions of armed conflict and belligerent occupation.
2

Agresja czy samoobrona? Prawo Gruzji do użycia siły w sierpniu 2008 roku

100%
Marcinko M.
Międzynarodowe Prawo Humanitarne
|
2011
|
vol. 2
85-104
EN
According to the commonly shared opinion and experts’ views contained in various reports prepared by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations (inter alia OSCE, EU and Amnesty International) an incident that triggered the so-called five-day war in August 2008 was the artillery fire aimed at Tskhinvali, the capital city of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, launched by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August, 2008 in an attempt to “restore constitutional order” in South Ossetia by Georgia. It was, doubtless, the climax of the tensions that escalated in the region over the years, caused by mutual instigations and incidents often involving the use of military force. However, taking into consideration the stipulations of international law, we must ask a question whether Georgia was right to launch a military action in order to solve the Ossetic problem. The launch of the military action in South Ossetia is recognized by some politicians and lawyers preoccupied with international law as an act of aggression, whereas according to others it was an intervention aimed at the protection of Georgian civilians inhabiting the region of South Ossetia. Moreover, questions are being asked concerning the legitimacy of the Georgian army’s hostilities against the Russian troops that stationed in the aforementioned republic. Finally, actions in Abkhazia, in particular, in view of the legitimacy of the right to self-defence as quoted by Georgia, deserve a separate analysis.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Znaczenie międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego w zwalczaniu powstania w świetle wybranych populacjocentrycznych doktryn przeciwpowstańczych

100%
Marcinko M.
Studia Prawnicze KUL
|
2016
|
issue 4
71-102
EN
The accomplishment of so-called population-centric counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy, accepted by Western States, is significantly aided by International Humanitarian Law (IHL); one of the guarantees of successful populationcentric COIN operations is respecting and applying IHL, in order to win the trust and support of the civilian population, which allows to alienate insurgents and deny them shelter and other forms of support offered by the local population and eventually to subdue and defeat the insurgency. Therefore, in counterinsurgency doctrines adopted by such countries as Great Britain and the United States, also in COIN doctrine adopted by NATO, the obligation to respect and obey the humanitarian law is perceived as a factor necessary in every action in which this law is to be applied (e.g. during combat missions against insurgents or in case of their capture). Each such doctrine contains provisions relating to IHL principles and norms although doctrines tend to differ when compared with one another in terms of the degree of detail in IHL references; furthermore, not all issues covered and regulated by the said law have been adequately addressed in their content.
PL
W realizacji przyjętej przez państwa zachodnie tzw. populacjocentrycznej strategii zwalczania powstania (counterinsurgency, COIN) niezwykle istotną rolę odgrywa międzynarodowe prawo humanitarne (MPH), przestrzeganie i stosowanie tego prawa jest bowiem jednym z gwarantów osiągnięcia sukcesu w populacjocentrycznych operacjach przeciwpowstańczych – zdobyciu poparcia ludności, co pozwala na odcięcie powstańców od pomocy udzielanej przez tę ludność i ostateczne stłumienie powstania. Dlatego w doktrynach przeciwpowstańczych takich państw, jak Wielka Brytania i Stany Zjednoczone, a także w doktrynie COIN przyjętej przez NATO, obowiązek poszanowania i przestrzegania prawa humanitarnego stanowi czynnik niezbędny w każdym działaniu, w którym prawo to może znaleźć zastosowanie (np. podczas akcji zbrojnej przeciw powstańcom czy w przypadku ich schwytania). Każda z tych doktryn zawiera więc postanowienia dotyczące zasad i norm MPH, choć doktryny te różnią się między sobą szczegółowością odniesień do MPH, nie wszystkie też zagadnienia wchodzące w zakres regulacji tego prawa zostały w doktrynach poruszone.
4
Content available remote

Zasady podejmowania działań przy użyciu siły wobec statków powietrznych na przykładzie incydentu z USS “Vincennes”

100%
Marcinko M.
Międzynarodowe Prawo Humanitarne
|
2012
|
vol. 3
113-148
EN
The use of armed force against civilian airliners, especially when the action takes place outside the zone of military operations or when such force is employed by the state that is not a party to an armed conflict, is perceived as highly controversial. Therefore, in each such case, while evaluating an incident, it is advisable to consider circumstances, the course of events as well as corresponding legal standards and detailed instructions addressing the armed forces, referred to as rules of engagement. The most typical known example is that of Iran’s civilian jet airliner shot down by U.S. missile cruiser USS “Vincennes” over the Strait of Hormuz in July, 1988. Although an incident took place during the Iran-Iraq War, the Unites States was not a party to this conflict. The United States expanded protection of the U.S. Navy to secure the convoys of tankers and the rules of engagement elaborated for that purpose permitted the so-called anticipatory self-defense, that is resorting to armed force before an attack occurs which was considered unavoidable. The incident itself was described as having occurred due to misidentification of the Iranian airliner, however, it gave rise to heated discussions on the legality and legitimacy of taking military action against civilian aircraft. Article 3 of Chicago Convention of 1944, generally forbids the use of force aiming at civilian aircraft, however, it provides for one exemption justifying the right to self-defense similarly to the rules of engagement as outlined above. Thus, at the core of both legality and legitimacy of above-mentioned actions stands the question whether circumstances requiring self-defense as defined in art. 51 of the United Nations Charter as well as customary international law have been fulfilled.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Izabela Leraczyk, Ius belli et pacis w republikańskim Rzymie, Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin 2018, ss. 255

75%
Marcinko M.
Studia Prawnicze KUL
|
2019
|
issue 3
303-308
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.