Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)最新文献

{"title":"Asymmetric Warfare - How to Respond?","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117320089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Other National Cases","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"48 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133391380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Special Supplement: Autonomy Regimes and International Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124361459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cyber Operations and the Jus in Bello: Key Issues","authors":"M. Schmitt","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_006","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the jus in bello (international humanitarian law) governing cyber operations during an armed conflict.","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114165980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Who May be Held? Military Detention Through the Habeas Lens","authors":"Robert M. Chesney","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_008","url":null,"abstract":"We lack consensus regarding who lawfully may be held in military custody in the contexts that matter most to U.S. national security today - i.e., counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency. More to the point, federal judges lack consensus on this question. They have grappled with it periodically since 2002, and for the past three years have dealt with it continually in connection with the flood of habeas corpus litigation arising out of Guantanamo in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush. Unfortunately, the resulting detention jurisprudence is shot through with disagreement on points large and small, leaving the precise boundaries of the government's detention authority unclear. Part I opens with an abstract typology of criteria and constraints that might be used to define a detention standard at the individual level. Part II then provides further context with a thumbnail sketch of two overarching disagreements that greatly complicate the detention debate: we do not agree as to which bodies of law govern this question, nor do we agree as to what each particular body of law actually has to say, if anything, regarding individualized detention criteria even if that body is applicable. Part III follows with a survey of about two dozen habeas decisions between 2002 and 2010 in which courts grapple with the individualized-scope issue, using the typology from Part I as a device to facilitate comparison of the decisions. With respect to affirmative predicates for detention, the survey concludes that something close to consensus has emerged regarding the use of group membership as a sufficient condition for detention, but that there may yet be considerable disagreement as to what counts as membership in this context. The survey also notes that the jury remains out with respect to whether non-member support for certain groups may also function as a sufficient condition for detention. With respect to variables that can function as constraints on detention authority, the survey shows that the courts have developed consensus against employing certain constraints (such as forbidding the use of detention as to citizens, or in circumstances where the government might have a criminal prosecution alternative). On the other hand, the question of geographic constraints on the scope of detention authority remains unsettled. Part IV considers the ramifications of this descriptive account. I open by arguing that the lingering uncertainty matters a great deal both in terms of the remaining Guantanamo cases and in terms of other military activities that take place in the shadow of the habeas caselaw. I then consider the arguments for and against legislation to reduce the uncertainty, finding that the case for legislation is difficult but ultimately persuasive in the abstract (note that this paper is not a pitch for adopting some particular legislative proposal). Finally, I explain that the detention litigation illustrates three larger phen","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116488273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Low-Intensity Computer Network Attack and Self-Defense","authors":"S. Watts","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_005","url":null,"abstract":"Newly created State cyber security agencies, the reality of cyber attacks, and evolutions in cyber attack strategy will have important effects on the UN Charter's security regime, specifically the law governing States' resort to self-defense. In particular, low-intensity computer network attacks (CNA) confound efforts at correlation, frustrate attribution, and often manage to remain below States' response thresholds, both technical and legal. This paper identifies effects that an emerging emphasis on low-intensity CNA will have on legal conceptions of self-defense, focusing on the doctrine's relevance to attacks by non-state actors and the threshold of \"armed attack.\" Showcasing the 2007 Estonian and 2008 Georgian attacks, this paper suggests that emerging low-intensity CNA doctrine casts new light on cyber disruptions previously thought to be below the threshold of self-defense. More significantly, it forecasts that proliferation of low-intensity CNA will produce a complex, multipolar security environment likely to produce grim effects on what little coherence and efficacy the existing UN Charter-based doctrine of self-defense enjoys.","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116660664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Israeli Legislation","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004422919_022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004422919_022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1991-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128710198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mission Impossible? International Law and the Changing Character of War","authors":"J. Murphy","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_002","url":null,"abstract":"A a participant in the conference “International Law and the Changing Character of War,” in this article I hope to present and support the thesis reflected in the title to this essay, i.e., that the use and abuse of international law and the changing character of war have combined to place major obstacles in the way of the successful prosecution of armed conflict by US forces and their allies. In support of this thesis, I shall be drawing extensively on examples arising out of “the changing character of weapon systems” panel, but I shall also be exploring other dimensions of “the changing character of war” to buttress this support.","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124504310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Warning Civilians Prior to Attack under International Law - Theory and Practice","authors":"Pnina Sharvit Baruch, N. Neuman","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_007","url":null,"abstract":"A primary goal of the modern law of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) is to protect civilians as much as possible from the violent consequences of hostilities. Accordingly, the law of armed conflict requires that the parties to a conflict apply certain precautionary measures in order to minimize incidental injury to civilians resulting from military attacks. One of these precautionary measures is the provision of warnings to civilians prior to an attack. This article will deal with this measure, and examine both theoretical and practical aspects of providing advance warnings of attacks. During World War II there were instances when civilians were warned prior to an attack. Advance warnings were also provided during other armed conflicts throughout the second half of the twentieth century; however, the amount, scope and specificity of warnings issued to civilians have dramatically increased in the conflicts fought since the beginning of this century. Probably the most elaborate and systematic warnings were issued by Israel in its conflict in Lebanon in 2006 and","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127725026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Age of Lawfare","authors":"Dale Stephens","doi":"10.1163/9789004226449_004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004226449_004","url":null,"abstract":"W are currently living in the age of lawfare; perhaps we always have been. The term, in its relationship to armed conflict, was most recently popularized by Major General Charles Dunlap of the US Air Force in 20011 and has generated an exponential and diffuse trajectory of meaning and critique since that time. The term “lawfare” has no real fixed definition, but has come to be generally understood as the “use or misuse of law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve military objectives.”2 It has been examined in the context of domestic US legal practices,3 in transnational legal incidents4 and, of course, within the realm of public international law, particularly in the context of the law of armed conflict (LOAC).5 All accounts do share a conception that recognizes that lawfare is concerned with the instrumentalization or politicization of the law to achieve a tactical, operational or strategic effect. The reference to the “use or misuse” of law in the Dunlap definition reveals an essentially neutral perspective. The fact is that modern State military forces do legitimately use the law to achieve military outcomes. This is done as a substitute for the application of force and hence represents a form of lawfare so defined. This may be manifested with, for example, a UN Charter, Chapter VII, “all necessary","PeriodicalId":295682,"journal":{"name":"Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 41 (2011)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125596955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}