VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:45:58 09/18/01 Tue
Author: Международное право
Subject: Дополнение Поста
In reply to: Международное право 's message, "Американское общество международного права о терактах" on 10:50:41 09/14/01 Fri

Суть дополнения, сделанного профессором Хьюстонского университета Джорданом Постом: США не могут находиться в состоянии войны с частным лицом и, вообще, субъектом, обладающим статусом меньшим, чем "восставшая сторона". При этом США де-факто воюют с независимым государством - Ираком, хотя и без формального объявления войны.

Отмечается, что убийства во время вооруженного конфликта, равно как и назначение награды "за голову" или за "живого или мертвого врага" - суть военные преступления, хотя убийство вражеских солат и офицеров (приемлемых военных целей) преступлением не является.

Заканчивается выводом, что убивать, захватывать и арестовывать государственных либо негосударственных лидеров, организовавших или участвовавших в нападении на США - допустимо в соответствии с Уставом ООН.


Оригинальный текст:

ADDENDUM: WAR AND RESPONSES TO TERRORISM
By Jordan Paust
September 2001

Under international law, we could not be at "war" with an
entity that has a status less than that of an insurgent
(which status pertains during an insurgency or armed
conflict not of an international character within the
meaning of common article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions), unless that entity is directly involved with others engaged in a "war". If we are fighting insurgents, we would be at "war" in at least one sense-regarding application of certain laws of war. We would clearly be at "war" if we are fighting a "belligerent" (which must have outside recognition as an entity with such a status, as in the case of the U.S. Civil War upon recognition of the Confederate States of America as a "belligerent" by Great Britain), and all of the laws of war would apply to such an armed conflict. We could also be at war with a state (e.g., Iraq) or nation (e.g., a group of people recognizably having such a status even though they have no territorial base and there is no recognition of relevant statehood status, as in the case of certain U.S.-Indian wars in the 18th or 19th centuries). We could not be at "war" with Osama bin Laden, since he and his entourage are in no way representatives or leaders, et al., of an "insurgency" within the meaning of international law. He is also not a recognized leader of a "nation," "belligerent," or "state". We are in fact engaged in an armed conflict of an international character with Iraq, a continual use of force during which all laws of war apply even though there is no formal U.S. declaration or recognition of "war".

Assassination during an armed conflict is a war crime,
subject to universal jurisdiction and nonimmunity from
criminal or civil sanctions. However, the U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10, para. 31, recognizes that selective targeting
of individual soldiers or officers (proper military targets)
is not assassination, although "putting a price upon an
enemy's head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy
'dead or alive'" is a war crime. In times of armed conflict
or relative peace, assassination is also impermissible extra-
judicial killing that constitutes a serious violation of
customary and treaty-based human rights law, also
implicating universal jurisdiction and nonimmunity.

In case of an armed attack or process of armed attacks on
the United States, whether or not a war or armed conflict
exists, the targeting of nonstate or state leaders and
entities in charge of or directly engaged in the attack is a permissible measure of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, a treaty of the United Sates. A self-defense military mission to capture and arrest those
ordering and directly engaged in ongoing processes of attack would also be permissible under the Charter.

Jordan Paust is Law Foundation Professor and the Law Center
of the University of Houston.

__________________________
Международное право
<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://europa.ehu.unibel.by/grotius/">http://europa.ehu.unibel.by/grotius/</a>

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+2
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.