| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
080725
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is a widely held perception among members of the armed forces and
others that the military is 'legally encircled'; in other words, that regulation
and litigation by civilian actors, both domestic and international, are
preventing the military from doing its job. By contrast, this paper suggests
that the legal encirclement metaphor is misleading. The metaphor
obscures what is more accurately described as interaction between the military
and civilian legal actors, and a balancing process which occurs between
the need for distinct operational norms and the need to operate within
evolving international and domestic norms. Furthermore, the 'legal encirclement'
view ignores the fact that courts and lawmakers have been largely
deferential to - perhaps overly so - the military's core function of combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
084583
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In February 2006, the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) 'nationalized' the Kosovo ombudsperson's institution. This entailed making the ombudsperson a Kosovar and removing oversight of UNMIK from his/her jurisdiction. Based on legal and political analysis, and fresh survey results on the views of Kosovars themselves, this article considers the prospects of the ombudsperson as a human rights accountability mechanism. It also considers the implications of the nationalization experience for peace operations generally, arguing that UNMIK has established a poor precedent in isolating itself from the ombudsperson's jurisdiction and in failing to put anything comparable in its place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|