The principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) have evoked considerable debate in the practice of humanitarian support, particularly in terms of emerging tensions with sovereign (national) law. Drawing on organization studies, we examine the emergent strategies aimed at resolving the ambiguous legal context in which humanitarian support operations in a conflict context are embedded. Our analysis of two missions revealed two types of emergent strategies, namely network and negotiation strategies, differentiated by particular contextual dimensions. We extend the humanitarian law debate by showing the strategic interplay between the operational humanitarian context and international humanitarian principles, thereby connecting the fields of international law and organization science.
DOCUMENT
Refugees and internally displaced people who flee their homes due to environmental threats and far-going degradation which destroys their living conditions are not well-protected under international law. Refugee law focusses on political refugees. Establishing principals similar to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) regime, (which is limited to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing), could offer a solution for the lack of protection of environmental refugees. The obligation to establish this system could be based on the same obligation that forms the basis of the establishment of the R2P regime itself: the international obligation to prevent large scale suffering. This obligation corresponds with changed notions regarding state sovereignty and with the moral and legal obligations emanating from various human rights treaties. In first instance, according to R2P, the primary responsibility to take protective measures lies with the state itself. Secondly, the international community has a responsibility to assist. Lastly, the international community has a responsibility to respond duly and in a decisive manner when a state is unable or unwilling to provide protection for its citizens. The international community is equipped with a broad range of instruments under R2P that can be employed to protect environmental refugees. These instruments allow for custom-made solutions, which are absent in most traditional legal instruments
DOCUMENT
Hoofdstuk 15 15.1 Introduction 15.2 An international law perspective 15.3 The American position 15.4 International human rights developments 15.5 Effective remedy and reparations 15.6 Reflections References In the international arena there are some encouraging developments in relation to accountability and transparency for the use of armed drones. It is increasingly recognized that remote pilotless aircraft have become part of modern warfare, and that sometimes they are also used outside the context of armed conflict. Subsequently, both international humanitarian and human rights law can apply. The issue of access to justice, however, receives less explicit socio-political attention. Victims of armed remote pilotless aircraft strikes meet countless challenges in effectuating their right to an effective remedy. Often even a formal recognition that a strike has taken place is lacking. Furthermore, the states involved fail to publicly release information about their own investigations. This makes it difficult for those affected to substantiate their status as a victim and seek justice, including reparations. The international community should, in addition to urging involved states to independently and impartially investigate all armed drone strikes, ensure that access to an effective remedy for civilian victims, whether on an international, transnational or national level, becomes a reality.
LINK
