Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (13)
- Postprint (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (14) (remove)
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (8)
- Strafrecht (5)
- Juristische Fakultät (1)
This chapter examines the extent of the 1951 Convention's Article 44 and the 1967 Protocol's Article IX. It starts with identifying the standard denunciation clause in Article 44 and Article IX. Multilateral treaties of unlimited duration allow States parties an unconditional right to withdraw. A denunciation releases the denouncing party from any obligation further to perform the treaty in relation to the other parties of the 1967 Protocol. The chapter clarifies that denunciation or withdrawal expresses the same legal concept since it is a procedure initiated unilaterally by a State that wants to terminate its legal engagements under a treaty.
This chapter tackles the analysis and function of Article 43 of the 1951 Convention and Article VIII of the 1967 Protocol. It explains that a multilateral treaty can be enforced when met with necessary conditions, such as the Article 24 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The provision also regulates the 1951 Convention's entry into force of States' ratification or accession. The chapter notes that the 1967 Protocol entered into force after Sweden deposited its instrument of accession. It elaborates on the specific details needed for the ratification or accession prior to the entry into force.
This chapter focuses on Article 46 of the 1951 Convention and Article X of the 1967 Protocol. It explains the depository of a treaty playing an essential procedural role in ensuring the smooth operation of a multilateral treaty. Article 46 enumerates the Secretary-General's function as a depositary performed by the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs in the United Nations Secretariat. Similarly, Article X confirms and details the Secretary-General's designation and role as depositary of the 1967 Protocol. The chapter mentions that the enumeration of Article X's depositary notification is exemplary instead of conclusive. It examines the depositoary notifications of declarations, signatures, and researvations under Article 46 and Article X.
This chapter covers the function of Testimonium to the 1951 Convention and Article XI of the 1967 Protocol. It looks into the relevance of the 1951 Convetion's testimonium. The testimonium primarily focuses on the Convetion's authentic languages, regulation of deposition, and certified true copies being delivered to all members of the UN and non-member States. On the other hand, Article XI contains the standard procedures for regulating the deposition of a copy of the 1967 Protocol in the Secretariat of the United Nations and foreseeing the transmission of certified copies thereof by the Secretary general. The chapter mentions how both elements are not commonly explicitly indicated in modern treaties.
This chapter looks into the 1951 Convention's Article 39 and the 1967 Protocol's Article V. In 2000, the Secretary-General identified the 1951 Convention as belonging to a core group of 25 multilateral treaties representative of the key objectives of the UN and the spirit of its Charter. Additionally, the rules found in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) apply to the 1951 Convention as a matter of customary international law. On the other hand, the 1967 Protocol does not amend the 1951 Convention but binds its parties to observe the substantive provisions. The chapter cites that the 1967 Protocol constitutes an independent and complete international instrument that is open not only to the States parties to the 1951 Convention.
The armed conflict in Afghanistan since 2001 has raised manifold questions pertaining to the humanitarian rules relative to the conduct of hostilities. In Afghanistan, as is often the case in so-called asymmetric conflicts, the geographical and temporal boundaries of the battlefield, and the distinction between civilians and fighters, are increasingly blurred. As a result, the risks for both civilians and soldiers operating in Afghanistan are high. The objective of this article is to assess whether - and if so how much - the armed conflict in Afghanistan has affected the application and interpretation of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution - principles that form the core of legal rules pertaining to the conduct of hostilities.