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

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Geneva Convention
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 Historical Background as Factor Favoring the Occurrence of Mercenaries and the Contemporary Role of Mercenarism in the Context of International Law

100%
Ledwoń P.
Security Dimensions: International & National Studies
|
2013
|
vol. 9(9)
100-111
EN
The article analyses the phenomenon of mercenalism, it focuses on the historical background and the origin of mercenaries from ancient times, throughout medieval period to modern times in the context of usage of mercenaries, the forms of military conficts as well as factors favoring their occurrence as warriors. The article describes the most signifcant international legal acts concerning mercenaries and examine the elements of the present legal defnition of mercenary found in Additional Protocol I to Geneva Convention presenting weaknesses of the regulation and proves that in fact mercenary is able to avoid responsibility for his illegal actions.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Historical Background as Factor Favoring the Occurrence of Mercenaries and the Contemporary Role of Mercenarism in the Context of International Law

100%
Ledwoń P.
Security Dimensions: International & National Studies
|
2018
|
vol. 9(9)
100-111
EN
The article analyses the phenomenon of mercenalism, it focuses on the historical background and the origin of mercenaries from ancient times, throughout medieval period to modern times in the context of usage of mercenaries, the forms of military conficts as well as factors favoring their occurrence as warriors. The article describes the most signifcant international legal acts concerning mercenaries and examine the elements of the present legal defnition of mercenary found in Additional Protocol I to Geneva Convention presenting weaknesses of the regulation and proves that in fact mercenary is able to avoid responsibility for his illegal actions.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Security Council and the Obligation to Prevent Genocide and War Crimes

88%
Zimmermann A.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2012
|
vol. 32
307-314
EN
This article addresses the question of the obligations of both the Security Council as such, as well of its individual members (including the five permanent members), when faced with genocide or in situations where violations of the Geneva Conventions are being committed, given that the contracting parties of the Genocide Convention are under a positive obligation to prevent genocide and are under an obligation to secure respect for the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Children of State Police Offi cers and Soldiers of the Polish Army in NKVD Special Camps

75%
Fałdowska M.
Internal Security
|
2018
|
vol. 10(2)
197-213
EN
The article presents issues concerning juvenile prisoners of three special camps in Kozielsk, Starobielsk and Ostashkov. The author draws attention to the lack of definition of the legal status of minors after 1918, and thus — the lack of provisions on ensuring the safety of children in the international standards governing the treatment of prisoners of war in force during World War II and internal legal acts of the Soviet Union. The article emphasizes that the participation of children in armed conflicts was regulated as late as ten years after the outbreak of World War II in international humanitarian law, adopting on 12 August 1949 “The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” (Fourth Geneva Convention), under which children are entitled to special treatment or protection measures. The provisions of conventions protecting children during the war included, among others, regulations concerning the creation of special zones and sanitary facilities, evacuation from the besieged zone, provision of necessary food and clothing, provision of medical and hospital care, education or transfer to a neutral country. The author notes that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not contain a provision on special protection and care for juveniles, and that children during warfare are classified exclusively as civilian population. The circumstances of the Soviet captivity of minors after September 17, 1939, their stay in and leaving the camps, the reasons for selection, after which they were left alive and not included in the “death transports”, described in the article, make it possible to determine the number of rescued and murdered.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Abiding by and Enforcing International Humanitarian Law in Asymmetric Warfare: the Case of “Operation Cast Lead”

63%
Zimmermann A.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2011
|
vol. 31
47-78
EN
“Operation Cast Lead” undertaken by the Israeli armed forces against Hamas forces in the Gaza strip in 2008/2009 raises a significant number of international legal issues. These issues relate to the nature of the military conflict, the legal status of the Gaza strip under international humanitarian law, but also, more generally, to the applicability and suitability of international humanitarian law in such kinds of asymmetric warfare taking place in densely populated areas. Besides, the article also questions at least some of the findings made by the “Goldstone Report” tasked by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law during the armed conflict.
6

Współczesny kryzys migracyjny a uwarunkowania międzynarodowoprawne

55%
Saganek P.
Studia Prawnicze
|
2016
|
issue 3 (207)
67-98
EN
The text of Przemysław Saganek is a part of a wider discussion on the Mediterranean migration crisis. The author underlines the multi-aspect character of the crisis and the fact that several branches of international law which are at stake in it. They cover: the law on refugees, human rights, the law of the sea, the maritime law, the rules on territorial sovereignty and on the crossing of borders. What is of importance are customary norms, treaties and norms of the EU law. The idea of the author is to look at the instruments of international law which may act as incentive for hundreds of thousands of newcomers or as main obstacles for the states to put an end to uncontrolled inflow of people through their borders. His idea is to identify such instruments and start discussion on their possible suspension or termination if the crisis persists. The author comes to the conclusion that the definition of a refugee from the 1951 Geneva Conventionis not by itself a source of problems. The same concerns the subsidiary protection as introduced by the EU qualification directive. The same can be said about the scope of rights of persons covered by the international protection. The only element which requires discussion is the possible redefinition of the right to national treatment as regards the social aid. On the other hand, the scope of powers of states to defend their borders depends on the interpretation of the EU instruments on the protection of borders and the rights of applicants for international protection. The author comes to the conclusion that neither the procedural directive, nor the 2016 Schengen Border Code can be interpreted as a source of the right of an applicant to enter the territory of a Member State. On the other hand, the geographical conditions and the law of the sea make Greece and Italy the most vulnerable for the inflow of persons. The necessity of important changes to the law and its interpretation are referred to in a general way.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Legalność i skuteczność muru granicznego jako instrumentu służącego ograniczeniu napływu uchodźców z punktu widzenia Konwencji genewskiej z 1951 r.

51%
Zaręba S.
Border and Regional Studies
|
2018
|
vol. 6
|
issue 1
31-49
PL
Z punktu widzenia Konwencji genewskiej z 1951 r. legalność muru granicznego może być kwestionowana tylko wtedy, gdy konsekwencje jego istnienia są sprzeczne z wyrażoną w art. 33 tej konwencji zasadą non-refoulement. Taka sytuacja może mieć miejsce, gdy dojdzie do jednoczesnego spełnienia kilku warunków. Po pierwsze, przyjmie się liberalną interpretację zasady non-refoulement, zgodnie z którą wynikający z niej zakaz zawracania na granicę obejmuje także osoby próbujące wkroczyć na terytorium danego państwa po to, by skorzystać w nim z ochrony. Po drugie, wzniesiony mur stanie na granicy z państwem, w którym takim osobom grozi niebezpieczeństwo z jednego z powodów wskazanych w art. 33. Po trzecie, państwo, które zbudowało mur, będzie go wykorzystywać nie do regulacji ruchu granicznego, lecz jako środek mający w połączeniu z innymi praktykami służyć odstraszeniu potencjalnych uchodźców. Ocena skuteczności muru jako instrumentu służącego ograniczeniu napływu uchodźców wypada niezbyt korzystnie. Z jednej strony umożliwia on dużo bardziej skuteczną kontrolę ruchu granicznego i generalnie zapobiega przedostawaniu się osób szukających ochrony na terytorium państwa, umożliwiając temu państwu uniknięcie ciążących na nim zobowiązań, przynajmniej zgodnie z tradycyjnym rozumieniem zasady non-refoulement. Z drugiej strony nie może jednak zdjąć z państwa obowiązku rozpatrzenia wniosków o ochronę składanych przez osoby, które wkraczają na przejścia graniczne lub w inny sposób przedostają się na jego terytorium, przynajmniej na krótko.
EN
As a rule, international law does not prohibit building border walls. However, the consequences of construction or existence of a wall, when assessed from the point of view of some customary norms or a treaty, may indirectly affect its legality. One of such treaties is the 1951 Refugee Convention (the Convention). The analysis demonstrates that it is not possible to call a wall illegal in the light of Articles 26 (freedom of movement) and 31 para. 2 (refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge) of the Convention, since, inter alia, both apply to the people already present in the territory of a given State. The only provision of the Convention which under certain conditions may allow to question the legality of existence of a border wall is Article 33 of the Convention, which establishes the principle of non-refoulement. To make it possible, however, several conditions need to be fulfilled simultaneously. First, a broad interpretation of Article 33 para. 1 must be adopted, which covers also the people who come at the border but have not crossed it yet. Second, the wall must be placed on the border with a State where the life or freedom of at least some of the people seeking refuge in the State building the wall may be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Third, the policy of the State which has built it must indicate that the State does not use the wall simply as a means of regulation of the mass influx of people seeking refuge but as a preventive measure combined with other measures aimed at deterring the would-be refugees. The assessment of the effectiveness of the wall as an instrument designed to curb the mass influx of refugees is not very favourable. Undoubtedly, as a manifestation of sovereign power of a State over its territory, the border fence allows the State to control its border traffic much more effectively. It also helps to keep a large number of people seeking refugee protection “from the procedural door”, by not allowing them to enter the territory of the State building the wall and preventing the rise of any obligations towards them on behalf of said State – at least according to a more traditional interpretation of the principle of non-refoulement. Still, the wall does not relieve the building State from the obligation to at least process the claims for refugee protection submitted by the people who enter border crossings or get to the other side of the border at least for a short time in another way. Thus, as such, it is not a fully effective measure which would completely absolve the State from any obligations towards the people coming at the border and trying to cross it.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ochrona przed okaleczaniem narządów płciowych kobiet (FGM) w prawie uchodźczym : specyfika i główne problemy systemowe

51%
Gruszka M.
Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego
|
2017
|
vol. 15
143-167
EN
The main issue discussed in this paper is the question of characteristic features and main problems of the universal refugee law system based on the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugee from 1951 with its 1967 Protocol applied in cases of fear of Female Genital Mutilation. Referring to the concept of positive obligations of states and its horizontal effect developed by European Court of Human Rights, the paper points out the difficulties of protection from FGM caused by its different socio-cultural and legal aspects. It examines theoretical and practical issues that raises during the process of interpretation and application of the Convention, it takes into consideration states' jurisprudence as well as influential work of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that helped to develop the good practice.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Asymmetric Warfare – Not every war has to end?

51%
Petener Z.
Security and Defence Quarterly
|
2016
|
vol. 11
|
issue 2
30-44
EN
The study of warfare, throughout its history, as well as efforts to legally regulate the resort to war and the conduct of war, were concentrated exclusively on one form of warfare - interstate conflict. Only since the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York in 2001 and the following ‘Global War on Terrorism’ has a discussion on a potentially new kind of warfare - asymmetric warfare - moved into the spotlight. Despite all the scientific attention, the concept of asymmetric warfare remains undefined or ill-defined until today, resulting in a proliferation of its use and limiting its value. Hence, restraint in the use of the term is necessary, in order to reinforce its analytical value and applicability. Defining asymmetric warfare as a conflict among opponents who are so different in their basic features that comparison of their military power is rendered impossible, is such an attempt to limit the term to a substantially new form of warfare, witnessed in a conflict that is often commonly called the Global War on Terrorism. The past two years, since the upsurge of the so-called Islamic State to the forefront of the salafi jihadi movement, have witnessed a significant change in this war. Superficial analysis could lead to the conclusion that the proclamation of the Islamic Caliphate on the territories of Iraq and Syria (for now) seems to have recalibrated this conflict into traditional inter- state war again, making the concept of asymmetric warfare obsolete and diminishing it into just a short-term aberration in the history of warfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. The enemy in the Global War on Terrorism was and remains a global and territorially unrestricted ideological movement whose numbers cannot even be estimated, which fights its battles wherever it chooses to, and whose ultimate goal is the annihilation of the international system of sovereign states, not the creation of a new state within this system. The Islamic Caliphate in its current boundaries is nothing more than the “model Islamic state”, as envisioned by Osama bin Laden in his 1996 fatwa as part of Al Qaeda’s 200 year plan for the establishment of God’s Islamic World Order. This grand strategy is the guiding blueprint of the salafi jihad that is waged against the Westphalian state system in a war that is truly asymmetric. We have to adjust to this strategic asymmetry if we are to prevail in this struggle, fighting a long war against an indefinable enemy on battlefields that are still unknown.
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.