INTERNAL ARMED CONFLICTS: PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS UNDER PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Preceeding work is analysing a highly problematic field of public international law, where in one actual state several principles of international law, humanitarian legal rules, international political interests and humanitarian conscience are coliding intensely. This is the case of civil wars where...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Bachelor Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
A. Povh
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=43807 https://dk.um.si/Dokument.php?id=62557&dn= https://plus.si.cobiss.net/opac7/bib/4686123?lang=sl |
| Summary: | Preceeding work is analysing a highly problematic field of public international law, where in one actual state several principles of international law, humanitarian legal rules, international political interests and humanitarian conscience are coliding intensely. This is the case of civil wars where human rights of civilians are violated on a massive scale. Since they do not include a foreign element by the nature, possibilities of international protection are very lessened. Apathy of the international community and the failure to enforce international law are both permitting for human suffering of unimaginable extensions taking place in immediate vicinity of the 'developed world'. Rules of conduct in the international community are being set by the international public law, which serves in interests of States. Until inclusion of international organisations with supranational authorities legal order was therefore designed only by their will. Later development has made it possible that rules were created by global consensus which suggested creation of norms with humanitarian nature. This leads to conclusion that there is no centralised legislator present in the international sphere and that obligatory norms are hard to find. Nevertheless humanitarian norms with cogent nature are still present, their uncovery is linked to the source from which they derive. Determining the source therefore leads to determination of those humanitarian rules that subjects need to respect in all circumstances. Such enforcement inside State's territorial integrity sadly still represents a meeting point for two contradictoring but hierarchally ecvivalent principles of international order, resulting in unsanctionising of mass breaches of international humanitarian rules. These two principles are the principle of State's sovereignty and the principle for respect of human rights and they result in such international policy which places the primal responsibilty for ensuring the respect of human rights in the hands of a State. Any external intervention is almost impossible.Consequences of such international understanding are vividly seen in civil or internal conflicts where protection of civilian population is in sole discretion of the warring parties. Still, universally applicable international law which can not be violated even in the times of war exists. Determination of humanitarian rules which have to be performed on the field, is dependant on the qualification of the sources from which they derive. International treaties, by their nature being obligatory for their signatories, comprise the first group of sources. Second group is producing rules which are waiting for bestowment of this quality and their possible cogency is dependant on State practice and on the so-called common legal sense of obligation. Most important of them is international customary law which produces rules, essential for filling those legal holes, left behind by international treaties. Moreover they are obligatory for every Party involved, even though they have not expressed their commitment. Together with universal human rights, provided by international human rights law, they represent a cornerstone of international legal order for the field of internal armed conflicts. Their enforcement is in the most benefit of civilian population. Pričujoče diplomsko delo obravnava visoko problematično področje mednarodnega javnega prava, kjer v enem dejanskem stanju kolizira med seboj več mednarodnopravnih načel, humanitarnih pravnih pravil, mednarodnih političnih interesov ter humanitarna zavest. Gre za primere masovnega kršenja človekovih pravic civilnega prebivalstva v državljanjskih vojnah, ki izključuje mednarodni element že po sami naravi in tako zmanjšuje možnost mednarodnega varovanja. Brezvoljnost mednarodne skupnosti in neuveljavljanje mednarodnega prava sta in še vedno dopuščata, da se v neposredni bližini ‘razvitega sveta’ odvija človeško trpljenje nepredstavljivih razsežnosti. Pravila obnašanja znotraj mednarodne skupnosti narekuje sistem mednarodnega javnega prava, ki v prvi vrsti služi doseganju ciljev držav. Do vključitve mednarodnih organizacij z supranacionalnimi pooblastili so se pravna pravila tako ustvarjala izključno po volji le-teh, kasneje pa se je mednarodno pravo pričelo ustvarjati z globalnim konsenzom, ki je države spodbudil k sklepanju pogodb z humanitarno vsebino. To dejstvo privede do spoznanja, da v sferi mednarodnega prava ni prisotnega centraliziranega telesa z zakonodajnimi pooblastili in je zato določitev obvezujočih pravil težja, vendar pa je humanitarna pravila z kogentno naravo kljub temu mogoče odkriti in sicer glede na vir, iz katerega izhaja. Določitev narave vira tako omogoča določitev tistih humanitarnih pravnih pravil, ki jih morajo mednarodni subjekti spoštovati v vseh okoliščinah. Uveljavljanje takšnega ravnanja znotraj ozemeljske celovitosti države še dandanes žal predstavlja točko, kjer se dve medsebojno nasprotujoči, a hierarhično ekvivalentni načeli mednarodnega prava srečujeta, kar v mnogih primerih privede do situacije, kjer masovne kršitve mednarodnih humanitarnih pravil znotraj ene suverene države ostajajo nesankcionirane . To sta načeli državne suverenosti in načelo spoštovanja človekovih pravic, ki skupno tvorita politiko prioritetne odgovornosti za skrb človekovih pravic s strani države. Posledice rezultata tega mednarodnega kompromisa je v največji meri moč opaziti v primerih državljanske vojne oziroma notranjedržavnega konflikta, ko zaščita civilnega prebivalstva pred nehumanitarnim obravnavanjem ostaja v celoti odvisna od diskrecije skupin vpletenih v oboroženi konflikt. Za določitev obvezujočih humanitarnih pravil, ki so jih stranke v oboroženem notranjedržavnem konfliktu prisilne izvajati, je potrebno torej najprej določiti pravne vire. V prvo skupino sodijo viri, katerih že sama narava povzroča obvezujočo naravo izhajajočih pravil in to so mednarodne pogodbe. V drugo skupino sodijo viri, katerih izhajajoča pravila še čakajo na podelitev te lastnosti in je njihova morebitna kogentnost rezultat prakse ali tako imenovane skupne splošne pravne zavesti o obligatornosti. Ti viri so, po statutu Mednarodnega kazenska sodišča, mednarodno običajno pravo, splošna pravna načela, skupna vsem civiliziranim narodom, sodna praksa ter objave pravnih publicistov. Ta skupina virov, kljub svojim nekaterim pomanjkljivostim, omogoča nujno zapolnitev pravnih praznin, ki jih puščajo mednarodne pogodbe. Predvsem mednarodno običajno pravo je tisti vir mednarodnega javnega prava, iz katerega izhajajo norme, ki akterje prisilijo k določenemu obnašanju kljub temu, da se k temu niso predhodno zavezali. Skupaj z univerzalnimi človekovimi pravicami mednarodnega prava človekovih pravic ustvarjajo temelj mednarodnega pravnega reda za reguliranje obnašanja v notranjedržavnih oboroženih spopadih. Njihovo uveljavljanje v največji meri koristi civilini populaciji. |
|---|