Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:14:04.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sovereignty and the Promotion of Peace in Non-International Armed Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Anna Spain
Anna Spain*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Law School, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
New Voices I: Humanizing Conflict
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 106 , 2012 , pp. 78 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Ruti G. Teitel, Humanity’s Law (2011); Philip Alston, Non-State Actors and Human Rights (2005); the Changing Face of Conflict and the Efficacy of International Humanitarian Law (Helen Durham & Timothy McCormack eds., 1999); Jus Post Bellum: Towards A Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace (C. Stahn & J.K. Kleffner eds., 2008); Sloane, R., The Cost of Conflation: Preserving the Dualism of Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello in the Contemporary Law of War, 34 Yale J. Int’l L. 88 (2009)Google Scholar; Goodman, Ryan, Controlling the Recourse to War by Modifying Jus in Bello, Y.B. Int’l Law (2010)Google Scholar; and Benvenisti, Eyal, Rethinking the Divide Between Jus in in Bello and Jus ad Bellum in Warfare Against Nonstate Actors, 34 Yale J. Int’l Law 541 (2009)Google Scholar.

2 See Meredith Reíd Sarkees & Frank Whelon Wayman, Resort to War 1816-2007, at 562 (2010) (reporting the rise of intrastate wars since the mid-1960s); Hewitt, J. Joseph, Trends in Global Conflict, 1946-2007, in Peace and Conflict 2010, at 27 (Hewitt, J. Joseph et al. eds., 2010 Google Scholar); Gleditsch, N.P. et al., Armed Conflict 1946-2001: A New Dataset, 39 J. Peace Research 615 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Redefining Sovereignty: the use of Force After the Cold War, (Michael Bothe, Mary Ellen O’Connell, Natalino Ronzitti eds.) (defining non-international armed conflict).

3 See Recueil Des Cours, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 2008, at 199 (2011); Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in A Global Era (1999).

4 See, e.g., Int’l L. Comm’n, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, para. 24, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (Apr. 13, 2006) (describing variations of incompatibility in norm conflicts); Vranes, Erich, The Definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in International Law and Legal Theory, 17 Eur. J. Int’l L. 395 (2006)Google Scholar (describing why norm conflicts also exist between competing obligations and rights); Milanovic, Marko, Norm Conflict in International Law: Whither Human Rights 20 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 69, 72-74 (2009)Google Scholar (describing norm conflicts in human rights law and presenting practical approaches for addressing them); Jenks, C. Wilfred, Conflict of Law-Making Treaties, 30 BRIT. Y.B. Int’l L. 401 (1953)Google Scholar; & Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How Wto Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law 184-88 (2003) (identifying categories of norm conflict).

5 See Croxton, Derek, The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty, 21 Int’l Hist. Rev. 569, 570 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; SirHinsley, Francis H., The Concept of Sovereignty and the Relations Between States, in in Defense of Sovereignty 275 (Stankiewicz, W. ed., 1969)Google Scholar; Kal Raustiala, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? 11-12 (2009) (“The animating vision behind the shift to territorial division was stability and peace.”).

6 Article 1 of the UN Charter defines this obligation as:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

7 Lauterpacht, Hersch, Function of Law in the International Community 2 (1933)Google Scholar.

8 See Lori Fisler Damrosch, Enforcing Restraint: Collective Intervention Into Internal Conflicts 316-19 (1993); Ann Van Wynen Thomas & A.J. Thomas, Nonintervention 67-74 (1965).

9 U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 4 (“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”)

10 U.N. Charter arts. 39-47; U.N. Charter art. 51 (“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member State of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”).

11 See Anna Spain, The Duty to Decide (unpublished manuscript on file with author).