Matching Items (7)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: International Law
- All Subjects: Human Rights Law
- Creators: Rothenberg, Daniel
- Creators: Peskin, Victor
Description
On December 27, 2008, Israel began a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead with an aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip. On January 3, 2009, Israel expanded its aerial assault with a ground invasion. Military operations continued until January 18, 2009, when Israel implemented a unilateral cease fire and withdrew its forces. When the hostilities had ended, between 1,166 and 1,440 Palestinians had been killed as a result of Israeli attacks, two-thirds of whom are estimated to be civilians. Ensuing allegations of international human rights (IHR) and international humanitarian law (IHL) violations were widespread. Amidst these claims, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) commissioned a fact-finding team, headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, to investigate whether the laws of war were infringed upon. Their findings, published in a document known colloquially as the Goldstone Report, allege a number of breaches of the laws of occupation, yet give a cursory treatment to the preliminary question of the applicability of this legal regime. This paper seeks to more comprehensively assess whether Gaza could be considered occupied territory for the purposes of international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead. In doing so, this paper focuses on exactly what triggers and terminates the laws of occupation`s application, rather than the rights and duties derived from the laws of occupation. This paper proceeds with a brief discussion of the history of the Gaza occupation, including Israel`s unilateral evacuation of ground troops and settlements from within Gaza in 2005, a historic event that sparked renewed debate over Israel`s status as an Occupying Power vis-à-vis Gaza. The following section traces the development of the laws of occupation in instruments of IHL. The next section considers the relevant international case law on occupation. The following section synthesizes the various criteria from the IHL treaty and case law for determining the existence of a situation of occupation, and considers their application to the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead. The concluding section argues that Israel maintained the status of Occupying Power during Operation Cast Lead, and discusses the legal implications of such a determination.
ContributorsNaser, Sam (Author) / Simmons, William (Thesis advisor) / Sylvester, Douglas (Committee member) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
The civil war in Syria has caused over one million Syrians to flee to bordering countries seeking protection. One of the major causes of this exodus is the reality and fear of sexual violence. Sexual violence against Syrian women is life altering because of the high value the culture places on virtue and modesty; a woman who is known to have been raped faces shame, possible disenfranchisement by her family, and is at high risk for suicide and in some extreme, but few cases, being murdered by a family member in an honor killing. However, once these refugees arrive they are still threatened not only with sexual violence, but also with sexual exploitation. Sexual violence is devastating to women and families. The international community must work to combat it by helping host countries to prevent the violence, assist victims, prosecute perpetrators, and create safe environments for female refugees. Human rights advocates should look within the philosophy of Islam to encourage gender equality ethics already present therein.
ContributorsJohnson, Michelle Anne (Author) / Larson, Elizabeth (Thesis director) / Wheeler, Jacqueline (Committee member) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor)
Created2013-05
Description
In the aftermath of the Second World War and global atrocities that occurred during the Nazi Holocaust, the international community established the United Nations and developed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN legally defined the term genocide with the development of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in an attempt to deter future genocides from occurring. These are now the governing documents for international human rights law and genocide prevention. Since the development of these documents, however, human rights violations and genocides have continued to occur around the world. In 1994, Rwandan Hutus murdered more than one million Tutsis in the span of one hundred days. Following the genocide, the United Nations developed the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in which the conviction of Jean-Paul Akayesu established the first trial where an international tribunal was called upon to interpret the definition of genocide as defined in the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Although the human rights movement has created greater deterrence for human rights crimes, punished perpetrators for their crimes, and established norms for the treatment of human beings, global human rights violations and genocides continue to occur. This project attempts to explore the presence of possible factors in pre-genocidal nations that may predict whether a nation could spiral into genocide and what mechanisms could counter their presence.
ContributorsBabos, Kristina Rose (Author) / Haglund, LaDawn (Thesis director) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
In 2021, Palestine will have been under official Israeli occupation for 54 years. As conflict persists between the two populations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a peaceful resolution. As international legal bodies have failed to bring an end to the occupation, the Israeli government continues to carry out extensive violations of human rights against the Palestinians. One significant consequence of the occupation has been the Palestinians’ lack of access to safe and reliable water, a problem that is continuing to worsen as a result of climate change and years of over-utilization of shared, regional water resources. Since the occupation started, international organizations have not only affirmed the general human right to water but have overseen several peace agreements between Israel and Palestine that have included stipulations on water. Despite these measures, neither water access nor quality has improved and, over time, has worsened. This paper will look at why international law has failed to improve conditions for Palestinians and will outline the implications of the water crisis on a potential solution between Israel and Palestine.
ContributorsTimpany, Grace Louise (Author) / Haglund, LaDawn (Thesis director) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
Turkish Safe Zones, as areas to push migrants into for protection, have always been contentious but the recent push to expel Syrians into The Northern Syria Buffer Zone (also known as the Safe Zone, Peace Corridor, or Security Mechanism) has added to the concern of international human rights violations in Turkey. In addition this paper considers the arguments made for the geographical limitation, of the The 1951 Refugee Convention, for refugees in Turkey as it pertains to the welfare of Syrian migrants. As justified under the geographic limitation in Turkey, sending Syrian migrants to Safe Zones is extremely dangerous because it not only puts peoples lives at risk, but it also sets the stage to accept that international law is not truly international and can be broken to avoid the responsibility of migrants. International law quite clearly shows how the forcible return of any migrant to an area where they are put in harm’s way is a direct violation of international law regardless of geographical limitations.Because the development of Turkish Safe Zones in Northern Syria is a recent development, much of the current political science literature fails to see the problem with the Turkish StateFs deportation. Instead, current literature (Abdelaaty, 2019, p. 1) (United Nations, 2011) (Blake, 2020) (Mann, 2021) focuses on how Syrian migrants are termed guests instead of refugees. The guest status makes it so migrants with refugee level concerns do not receive refugee level benefits. This paper argues that the Turkish state deportation of Syrian migrants to Safe Zones is morally wrong, but not surprising. Based on historical events, the expulsion of Syrians to Turkish safe zones in Syria is the logical next step for the Turkish state to legally displace the responsibility of taking care of minorities and migrants.
ContributorsRosenthal, Emily (Author) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Thesis director) / Niebuhr, Robert (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Watts College of Public Service & Community Solut (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2022-05
Description
What explains why governments and militaries pursue accountability against some human rights violations committed by members of their armed forces during ongoing conflicts, but not other violations? Further, what are the consequences of such prosecutions for their military and governmental objectives? The theory put forth by this study suggests that rather than only the natural outcome of strong rule of law, domestic prosecutions within a state’s security apparatus represents a strategic choice made by political and military actors. I employ a strategic actor approach to the pursuit of accountability, suggesting that the likelihood of accountability increases when elites perceive they will gain politically or militarily from such actions. I investigate these claims using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a comparative study across the United States and the United Kingdom. This project contributes to interdisciplinary scholarly research relevant to human rights studies, human rights law, political science, democratic state-building, democratic governance, elite decision making, counter-insurgency, protests, international sanctions, and conflict resolution. Particularly, this dissertation speaks to the intersection of strategy and law, or “lawfare” a method of warfare where law is used as means of realizing a military objective (Dunlap 2001). It provides generalizable results extending well beyond the cases analyzed. Thus, the results of this project will interest those dealing with questions relating to legitimacy, human rights, and elite decision making throughout the democratic world.
ContributorsSimmons, Alan James (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis advisor) / Peskin, Victor (Thesis advisor) / Lake, Milli (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Despite popular belief, war is a highly regulated endeavor. Military operations cannot be permitted to take place in a regulatory vacuum. According to the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law, there are currently 110 armed conflicts, most of which are non-international. (Today’s Armed Conflicts, 2024) The law of war exists to protect those who are involved and those who are not involved in the conflict. The first step in the regulatory process is understanding what situations trigger different types of law. Understanding conflict characterization and the law's applicability is necessary for prosecution and operations planning. Two primary documents regulate armed conflicts: the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions. The Hague Conventions set out rules for conducting war, and the Geneva Conventions protect the victims of war. In this paper, the Geneva Conventions (GC) will be the primary research focus as I am specifically interested in protecting victims. We apply different Geneva Convention rules based on the characterization of a given conflict.
Geneva Conventions give vague regulations applicable to conflicts. The main reason for such vagueness was to make this document universal enough for many states to ratify it. However, such vagueness has political ramifications, as state leaders utilize the gray areas of international law in their interests. (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2023)
One such gray area is the fact that the current international documents do not provide a precise characterization of war. The problem of this uncertainty is that there has been the need to address the legal issues on a case-by-case basis. While I acknowledge that every case should have special attention, it is also essential to bring as much universality to them as possible to make the prosecution process more accessible and make international law more just and predictable. Therefore, this paper answers the following question: How can the text of the Geneva Conventions be strengthened to prevent political biases and increase humanitarian protections?
This topic has a well-developed research foundation. I am relying on some previous works in the area, including the ones written by Corn and Gal. Corn’s “Legal Classifications of Military Operations” focuses on the issue of characterizing non-international armed conflicts and their application to the conflict between the U.S. and al-Queda. Gal’s “Unexplored Outcomes of Tadić” introduces the conflict between the ICC and ICJ in dealing with Tadić precedent. I utilize these scholars’ work as the foundation of the issue I am researching, and I propose solutions to the problems presented by the scholars.
This paper addresses some of the major problems in defining armed conflict in international law, particularly defining non-international armed conflict and defining conflicts between a state and a non-state actor. My two main issues discuss concern (1) establishing the existence of an armed conflict for legal purposes and (2) differentiating between two types of conflict. I look into two sides of a coin: international armed conflict (IAC) and non-international armed conflict (NIAC). The primary debate in characterizing NIAC arises from a disagreement over what constitutes mere violence and what constitutes NIAC. The discussion on IAC arises from arguments aiming at expanding the definition of IAC to the conflicts traditionally classified as NIACs. This second question is essential as the rules governing IAC provide more protection to civilians and POWs compared to the ones governing NIACs.
I started by exploring how international law is applied to conflicts and discussing how different characterizations trigger other parts of the law. I later delved into defining a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), as there is no numeric threshold for what makes mere violence a NIAC. There is a need for a more specific threshold, and some challenges are associated with implementing it.
I later discuss a second major issue: international conflicts that involve a state and a non-state actor. International tribunals should treat such cases as an international armed conflict rather than NIAC and present challenges to applying the law to non-state actors.
ContributorsDzon, Alona (Author) / Hanson, Margaret (Thesis director) / Peskin, Victor (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2024-05