Selection of International Humanitarian Law (2004)

Author: Zhu Wenqi, Editor-in-Chief
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-08-01
Features: Like other disciplines of international law, international humanitarian law is a continuously evolving field (living law) that constantly introduces new developments. The present volume, Selected Works on International Humanitarian Law (hereinafter referred to as The Collection), includes 17 articles. Most of these articles are selected from the 2004 volume of International Review of the Red Cross. The issues discussed in these articles cover a broad range, but all are new challenges emerging in the fields of international law and international humanitarian law under the current international context. They are all practical issues in international law worth understanding or researching. In March 2003, the United States, the United Kingdom, and several other countries launched a military attack on Iraq. From a purely military perspective, the United States and the United Kingdom can be said to have achieved victory. They achieved a swift victory with minimal casualties and quickly occupied Iraq. Three years have passed since the Iraq War, but U.S. forces still occupy Iraq. So, how should this occupation be viewed from an international law perspective? Military occupation rules fall under the domain of international humanitarian law. When a foreign military force exercises effective control over another country's territory without the consent of the original sovereign authorities of the occupied state, it constitutes occupation in the sense of international law. Basic documents of international humanitarian law already contain provisions on military occupation. For example: the Fourth Protocol to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, the 1949 Geneva Convention IV on the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, and the 1977 Additional Protocol on the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, among others. However, like other issues in international humanitarian law, military occupation is also subject to development and change. In this Collection, the articles by Sylvain Vité, "The Application of International Law on Military Occupation in the Activities of International Organizations," and by Matten Zwaveling, "The Situation in Iraq: Security Council Resolution 1483 and Occupation Law," provide a detailed study of military occupation within the scope of international humanitarian law.
With the development of international and international criminal law, several international criminal legal institutions have been established worldwide. The determination of guilt or innocence in the trial of any criminal court hinges on evidence—the ability of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In terms of evidence, human rights organizations, which frequently visit people detained in camps, possess detailed knowledge of the specific details of atrocities committed against civilians. Thus, the question arises: Should they testify before international criminal judicial institutions and provide relevant evidence?
Like other disciplines of international law, international humanitarian law is a continuously evolving field (living law) that constantly introduces new developments. The present volume, Selected Works on International Humanitarian Law (hereinafter referred to as The Collection), includes 17 articles. Most of these articles are selected from the 2004 volume of International Review of the Red Cross. The issues discussed in these articles cover a broad range, but all are new challenges emerging in the fields of international law and international humanitarian law under the current international context. They are all practical issues in international law worth understanding or researching. In March 2003, the United States, the United Kingdom, and several other countries launched a military attack on Iraq. From a purely military perspective, the United States and the United Kingdom can be said to have achieved victory. They achieved a swift victory with minimal casualties and quickly occupied Iraq. Three years have passed since the Iraq War, but U.S. forces still occupy Iraq. So, how should this occupation be viewed from an international law perspective? Military occupation rules fall under the domain of international humanitarian law. When a foreign military force exercises effective control over another country's territory without the consent of the original sovereign authorities of the occupied state, it constitutes occupation in the sense of international law. Basic documents of international humanitarian law already contain provisions on military occupation. For example: the Fourth Protocol to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, the 1949 Geneva Convention IV on the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, and the 1977 Additional Protocol on the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, among others. However, like other issues in international humanitarian law, military occupation is also subject to development and change. In this Collection, the articles by Sylvain Vité, "The Application of International Law on Military Occupation in the Activities of International Organizations," and by Matten Zwaveling, "The Situation in Iraq: Security Council Resolution 1483 and Occupation Law," provide a detailed study of military occupation within the scope of international humanitarian law.
With the development of international and international criminal law, several international criminal legal institutions have been established worldwide. The determination of guilt or innocence in the trial of any criminal court hinges on evidence—the ability of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In terms of evidence, human rights organizations, which frequently visit people detained in camps, possess detailed knowledge of the specific details of atrocities committed against civilians. Thus, the question arises: Should they testify before international criminal judicial institutions and provide relevant evidence?