The need for unified understanding of 'military object' in the context of human shields and passive precautions concepts

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15220%2F16%3A33162481" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15220/16:33162481 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iclr-2016-0014" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iclr-2016-0014</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iclr-2016-0014" target="_blank" >10.1515/iclr-2016-0014</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The need for unified understanding of 'military object' in the context of human shields and passive precautions concepts

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Belligerent party being the target of military operations is under obligation to protect civilian population under its control by taking passive precautions and avoid using human shields. Prima facie such obligation is bound to the concept of "military objective", since non-military objectives are already "immune" from targeting. However, such approach does not take into account the fact that the states have not been able to agree upon unified interpretation of the military objective. It seems counterproductive to limit the obligations to protect civilians only to military objectives. Furthermore, the law does not necessarily support such approach. While the Additional Protocol I speaks of military objectives in the passive precautions, it also includes an overall clause to protect civilians, and the specific references to military objectives should be taken as examples instead of limiting the overall obligations to protect civilians. There is no real reason to tie the obligations to protect civilians to military objectives and allow targeted party into neglecting its duties to protect civilians.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The need for unified understanding of 'military object' in the context of human shields and passive precautions concepts

Popis výsledku anglicky

Belligerent party being the target of military operations is under obligation to protect civilian population under its control by taking passive precautions and avoid using human shields. Prima facie such obligation is bound to the concept of "military objective", since non-military objectives are already "immune" from targeting. However, such approach does not take into account the fact that the states have not been able to agree upon unified interpretation of the military objective. It seems counterproductive to limit the obligations to protect civilians only to military objectives. Furthermore, the law does not necessarily support such approach. While the Additional Protocol I speaks of military objectives in the passive precautions, it also includes an overall clause to protect civilians, and the specific references to military objectives should be taken as examples instead of limiting the overall obligations to protect civilians. There is no real reason to tie the obligations to protect civilians to military objectives and allow targeted party into neglecting its duties to protect civilians.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

AG - Právní vědy

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2016

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International and Comparative Law Review

ISSN

1213-8770

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

16

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

18

Strana od-do

49-66

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—