Search: Syria Insta-Symposium
18 Feb Guest Post: Bartels–Temporal Scope of Application of IHL: When do Non-International Armed Conflicts End? Part 1
...of recognition of belligerency would be considered to still be in place [which is doubtful after the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Convention, which extended (part of) the laws of war to fighting between a State and an armed opposition group - as did recognition of belligerency do prior to that time, although such recognition obviously served more purposes], and be considered applicable for Syria, it would only apply to the part of the Syrian opposition that has in fact been recognised (SNC). However, in the diffuse Syrian conflict there...15 Jun Israel’s Idea of an “Independent” Inquiry into the Attack on the Flotilla
...on their behalves that Israel broke the law. Was Israel? Was Israel wrong? Frankly, if I was Israel, given the hypocrisy of countries like Turkey and the UN calling for an independent investigation into violations of the law and the manner in which this country typically is treated, I wouldn't care one whit. Really, if the world thinks countries like Libya, Syria or Iran belong on an international organ like the Human Rights Commission, where is the even semblance of respect for international laws??? Kevin Jon Heller Elliot, Hmm, last...07 Aug Does it Matter if a Ceasefire Violates International Legal Principles?
...no claims to it before 2000, and those claims are not taken seriously by anyone; the U.N. in 2000 even stated that some of Lebanon's proffered "evidence" was forged. The only real ownership dispute is between Israel and Syria. (The land lies at the intersection of Israel, Lebanon and Syria.) Peggy McGuinness EK-- My comments were meant to capture the historical realities of peace agreements. I am not sure it is any more a "defeat" of international law when parties agree to settle wars than it is a defeat for...30 Jul Guest Post: Israel’s Use of Law and Warnings in Gaza
...think your analysis misses a substantive element of the balance between the ability to conduct military operations and the duty to minimize civilian casualties. Mostly, I am having a difficult time with your argument that civilians have no duty to leave a mixed use civilian-combatant target even after they have been warned that it will be targeted in the near future for attack. In instances where the civilians have no free will (held at gun-point by Hamas) you may have a point (though then we have a host of other...