| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
071106
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
061046
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
053896
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
140948
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Considerable scholarly effort has been invested in interpreting the existing international legal instruments and diplomatic conventions that apply to kinetic warfare in relation to the field of cyber-warfare. The Tallinn Manual and other documents argue that current humanitarian laws are applicable in cyber-conflict. This includes the concept that particular religious and medical entities should be granted special, protected status along with sites of cultural and religious significance and those containing ‘dangerous forces’. In a kinetic-warfare environment, these sites and non-combatants are identifiable by the use of international symbols such as the Red Cross, Red Crystal and Red Crescent emblems, or other specific signs. Here, Sutherland, Xynos, Jones and Blyth suggest that a simple digital marker could ensure that systems and traffic can be identified as protected in cyber-conflict under the Geneva Conventions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
073839
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
RENÉE DE NEVERS explores how ''new'' wars-ranging from civil wars to asymmetric war-and new warriors, including warlords, private security companies, and children, fit within the Geneva Conventions. Although the nature of warfare and warriors has changed from the time the Conventions were adopted in 1949, she challenges the view that the Conventions should be abandoned. Rather, she argues, the Conventions should be revitalized to address a broader spectrum of war, because this will generate greater international support for U.S. efforts to combat terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
028107
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Dehra Dun, Natraj Publishers, 1984.
|
| Description |
xii, xx, 267p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 025118 | 341.65026/GEN. 025118 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
113106
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The spate of attacks against humanitarian NGOs since 2003 has raised a series of fundamental questions for humanitarian operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflict and post-conflict situations. This article reflects on the 'new humanitarianism' and how increasingly, this humanitarianism is under attack in violation of the Geneva Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War. It argues that humanitarian action is under attack because of efforts by Western governments (particularly the United States) to make humanitarian NGOs an extension of their military and political agendas. In circumstances of the politicization of humanitarian aid, it becomes difficult for combatants to distinguish between Western governments' agendas and those of NGOs. The article concludes by calling for the insulation of humanitarian aid from politics. This separation of politics and humanitarianism can only be realized by returning to traditional principles that have guided humanitarian action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
109095
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
068912
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
187971
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The US government has shifted strategic focus from war on terror to great power contest with China and Russia. But there has not been corresponding thinking about the role of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the law of war (LOW) in the United States or China. Both IHL and human rights law (HRL) originated from Western legal traditions and advantage the United States and the West. China had to adapt and is now challenging the West-dominated international order, a major source of its tension with the United States. Both China and the United States invoked the Geneva Conventions against each other during the Korean War. The war took place seven decades ago, and much has changed since then. But it is the only precedent between the two great powers. LOW provides a structure for managing conflict between the great powers. In turn, a rivalry between the two greatest powers would make IHL narrowly based on national interests and weaken its linkage to human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
111922
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The ongoing War on Terror and the rise of nonstate actors in armed conflicts around the world have led both critics and proponents of international law to argue the Geneva Conventions currently governing warfare are no longer relevant. Yet what are the prospects for a new Geneva Convention to take hold in the international community? In order to begin to address this issue, I examine the factors influencing the decision of states to commit to the existing laws of war. Using an event history analysis of the ratification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and 1977 Additional Protocols I and II, I find formative events involving past experience with war, as well as several other domestic and external factors, shape the incentives to commit to international law. In particular, far from pushing war-torn states to join international agreements in the hopes of mitigating the costs of armed conflict, the legacy of war makes states less willing to be constrained by international humanitarian law. The findings have implications for the role of formative events on incentives for international cooperation and foreshadow that the path toward widespread acceptance of any new Geneva Convention, should one ever be negotiated, would likely be formidable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|