Search results
manipulation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) In UK reportage, any criticism of Israel, either from politicians or NGOs, tends to be couched in the rhetoric of ‘disproportionate response’, a language of condemnation that derives from a branch of international law known as International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or the ‘laws of war’. IHL places restraints on warfare methods to
, at the international level, the OIC was a defender of state sovereignty and international law – embracing the principles of the states system as defensive barriers against Western hegemony (Murden 2002: 197–204). But the OIC could hardly be said to constitute an effective Muslim bloc in world politics. In Murden’s judgement, it is in the battle for culture in the homes and streets of the Islamic world that Islam is most potent: ‘In a world rapidly being swallowed by an all-pervasive global system, Islam [is] a diffuse grassroots counter-hegemony’ (Murden 2002: 204
large Palestinian population in violation of international law (Peleg 1988: 60; Peri 1988). The settlement drive decisively obstructed the potential to trade the occupied lands for peace. In essence, the 1967 war did not result in the compromise settlement outlined in UN Resolution 242 because the power asymmetry gave the Israelis no incentives to concede it and the Arab states no capacity to extract it. As a result, 1967 set the stage for three more wars in the space of about a decade, the Egyptian–Israeli War of Attrition (1969–70), the 1973 Arab–Israeli war and the
over justice: developing a framework for UN peacekeeping operations in internal conflicts’, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations , 5:1 (Jan–Mar 1999 ), 63; and A. C. Arend and R. J. Beck, ‘International law and the recourse to force: a shift in paradigms’, in C. Ku and P. F. Diehl, International Law: Classic and Contemporary
norm exists, which member states codified in the United Nations Charter, which obligates states to resolve all disputes peacefully. While wars do occur, states are usually hesitant to challenge this principle of international law. In addition, waging war is a complicated prospect. If an upstream state builds a disputed dam, then a more powerful downstream state has a tactical target. Capturing a source
, 17 July 2000, 3). 41 Shuval, 2000 : 44–5. 42 See also Elmusa, 1994 for a discussion of applying international law to the negotiation of equitable sharing of water. 43 Ha
, Limor. ( 2000 ), ‘ No Security, No Peace ’, New York Times , 12 July, A21 . Lustick , Ian S. ( 1997a ), ‘ Ending Protracted Conflicts: The Oslo Peace Process Between Political Partnership and Legality ’, Cornell International Law Journal , 30 : 3 . Lustick , Ian S. ( 1997b
tradition of international ethics: see D. V. Jones, ‘The declaratory tradition in modern international law’, in T. Nardin and D. R. Mapel (eds), Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 ), pp. 42–61. 28 So far, there have been three amendments to the
, conscience, religion or belief; 8. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples; 9. Cooperation among States; 10. Fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law. 71 His following statement is a case in point: ‘We have reaffirmed America’s commitment to human rights as a fundamental tenet