This article examines how the principle of reciprocity operates within the international law of war. Tracing the historical development and application of the law, the Article demonstrates that the existing law of war derives from a set of rules that are highly contingent on reciprocity. Contrary to common understanding, reciprocity strongly influences states' interpretation and application of the law of war. The Article first identifies an obligational component of reciprocity that restricts operation of the law to contests between parties with parallel legal commitments. Second, the Article identifies an observational component of the principle that permits parties to suspend or terminate observance when confronted with breach. Although the principle of reciprocity was softened by late twentieth century legal instruments, it continues to form a critical component of the law of war and guides both pragmatic and theoretical discourse. Regardless of normative conclusions about reciprocity as a precondition to application of the law, the Article's reciprocity-cognizant framework for understanding the law of war provides a useful platform for reform efforts.

Reciprocity and the Law of War

書評－Buddhist Warfare

Reducing Violence: Applying the Human Needs Theory to the Conflict in Chechnya

Le processus d’Oslo a echoue. La solution classique a deux Etats n’est plus envisageable en raison du morcellement de la Cisjordanie et de l’absorption de Jerusalem-Est par Israel. Pour sortir de l’orniere, une nouvelle solution doit etre envisagee, celle d’une confederation de deux Etats aux frontieres poreuses. Une telle solution n’a de chance de conduire a la paix que si la partie forte, Israel, accepte de considerer que le statu quo conduira a l’echec du projet sioniste.

Palestine : l'histoire avance plus vite que les idées

For decades, it has been established that a resistance movement operating in an occupied territory that complies with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) may be accorded lawful combatant status, rather than branded war criminals. The justification for protecting these resistance movements emanates principally from two rationales. First, that granting them combatant status will incite their increased compliance with IHL. Second, that a resistance movement's compliance with IHL will better enable an occupying force to distinguish them from the peaceful civilian populace during military operations. The underlying goal or justification uniting the two rationalizations is the safeguarding of the peaceful civilian populace from the tragedies of armed conflict. This article explains how these rationalizations inform the juridical constructs, institutional elements and doctrinal precepts that comprise IHL when evaluated against the conditions imposed by insurgents in present day Iraq. In so doing, the article broadly explores the degree to which these jurisprudential modules produce coherency between the juridical constructs governing hostile conduct and the desired outcome of safeguarding innocent civilians. By examining the empirical dimensions of civilian immunity, the military necessity doctrine and the socio-contractarian aspects of armed conflict, this article demonstrates the reformative value of coherency theory and its empirical impact on civilian safety. The need for this analysis regarding civilian protectionism is crucial to IHL and the values imbued in its justification. The reported number of innocent Iraqi civilian deaths lies between 24,000 and approximately 100,000, at least ten times the amount of deaths suffered by the U.S. led coalition force reportedly on Iraqi soil to protect civilians from an obviously vibrant and ever evasive insurgency. Simply stated, the statistic represents a gapping indictment against the effectiveness of those juridical constructs designed to protect civilians.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1106283_code828658.pdf?abstractid=1106283

Has Conduct in Iraq Confirmed the Moral Inadequacy of International Humanitarian Law? Examining the Confluence between Contract Theory and the Scope of Civilian Immunity

Le droit international humanitaire fait partie de ses rares branches du droit international qui beneficient d’une tres large adhesion de la part de la Communaute Internationale et de la societe civile. Les juridictions internationales, Cour Internationale de Justice et Tribunal Penal International, ainsi que la doctrine se sont accordes pour voir dans les regles du droit des conflits armes des normes dotees d’une valeur superieure aux normes ordinaires. Elles ont ainsi ete qualifiees d’obligations erga omnes, de principes intransgressibles du droit international et enfin de jus cogens ou normes imperatives. Il ne saurait y avoir de plus grande reconnaissance juridique au sein de l’ordre public international a ce jour. 	En sus, le droit international humanitaire apparait comme un des elements fondamentaux d’une morale internationale dans un monde globalise. Aux cotes des Etats et du CICR, la societe civile s’est emparee de la question de son respect et meme de son developpement et nombre d’organisations internationales travaillent en ce sens.	On ne pourrait ainsi envisager une situation plus propice a son respect que cette unanime consecration juridique et sociale. Pourtant le droit international humanitaire est viole a chaque seconde qui passe. L’objet de cette these est de tenter de reflechir aux facteurs qui expliquent la recurrence de ces violations, qu’ils soient juridiques, anthropologiques ou sociologiques

/pdf/contribution-a-l-etude-des-facteurs-de-non-respect-du-droit-2iqm7vxota.pdf

Alexandra Bui

Papers

Contribution à l'étude des facteurs de non-respect du droit international humanitaire