武装冲突中的环境保护:评估美国的视角

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
W. Casey Biggerstaff, Michael N. Schmitt
{"title":"武装冲突中的环境保护:评估美国的视角","authors":"W. Casey Biggerstaff, Michael N. Schmitt","doi":"10.1017/s1816383123000516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article outlines and evaluates the US perspective on how treaty and customary international law protect the natural environment during international armed conflict. It surveys the relevant treaties to which the United States is a party and examines US views on their pertinent provisions. It then assesses claims that the environmental obligations residing in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have attained customary status, outlines the United States’ rejection of those claims, and evaluates the reasonableness thereof. Finally, it highlights ambiguities in certain US environmental positions, the resolution of which would bring much-needed clarity to the law.","PeriodicalId":46925,"journal":{"name":"International Review of the Red Cross","volume":"40 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protecting the environment in armed conflict: Evaluating the US perspective\",\"authors\":\"W. Casey Biggerstaff, Michael N. Schmitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1816383123000516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article outlines and evaluates the US perspective on how treaty and customary international law protect the natural environment during international armed conflict. It surveys the relevant treaties to which the United States is a party and examines US views on their pertinent provisions. It then assesses claims that the environmental obligations residing in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have attained customary status, outlines the United States’ rejection of those claims, and evaluates the reasonableness thereof. Finally, it highlights ambiguities in certain US environmental positions, the resolution of which would bring much-needed clarity to the law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of the Red Cross\",\"volume\":\"40 2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of the Red Cross\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383123000516\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of the Red Cross","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383123000516","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文概述并评价了美国在国际武装冲突中条约和习惯国际法如何保护自然环境方面的观点。它调查了美国作为缔约国的有关条约,并审查了美国对其有关条款的看法。然后,它评估了关于1949年《日内瓦公约》1977年《第一附加议定书》中规定的环境义务已达到习惯地位的主张,概述了美国对这些主张的拒绝,并评估了其合理性。最后,它凸显了美国某些环境立场的模糊性,解决这些问题将为法律带来亟需的明确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Protecting the environment in armed conflict: Evaluating the US perspective
Abstract This article outlines and evaluates the US perspective on how treaty and customary international law protect the natural environment during international armed conflict. It surveys the relevant treaties to which the United States is a party and examines US views on their pertinent provisions. It then assesses claims that the environmental obligations residing in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have attained customary status, outlines the United States’ rejection of those claims, and evaluates the reasonableness thereof. Finally, it highlights ambiguities in certain US environmental positions, the resolution of which would bring much-needed clarity to the law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
28.60%
发文量
92
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信