7战争-敌对行为

Clapham Andrew
{"title":"7战争-敌对行为","authors":"Clapham Andrew","doi":"10.1093/law/9780198810469.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter recounts how the law of armed conflict is seen as broken into what was known as Hague law and Geneva law. The Hague law covered the means and methods of warfare or the conduct of hostilities, while the Geneva law was said to be for the protection of the victims of war. It reviews claims that the laws of war entitle an individual to kill members of the enemy's armed forces as an exercise of the law of war authority or justified as a lawful act of war. The chapter challenges the assumption that international law or the 'law of war' authorizes in broad terms lethal force as a matter of first resort against an identified enemy. It highlights how the battlefield killing of a state’s soldiers in international armed conflict war by the armed forces of another state cannot be tried as murder as those who engage in such killings enjoy combatant immunity before the courts of the other state. Captured soldiers are interned as prisoners of war. In non-international armed conflict the situation is more complex as it is not always clear who can be targeted and who loses their protection as a civilian by directly partipating in hostilities. The chapter considers that the principle of necessity operates as a further restraint on violence. The Chapter ends with a description of which weapons are prohibited in times of armed conflict and explains that shortening a war can not justify massive aeriel bombardment of civilian areas or the use weapons of mass destruction.","PeriodicalId":77260,"journal":{"name":"Medicine and war","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"7 Warfare – the Conduct of Hostilities\",\"authors\":\"Clapham Andrew\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/law/9780198810469.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter recounts how the law of armed conflict is seen as broken into what was known as Hague law and Geneva law. The Hague law covered the means and methods of warfare or the conduct of hostilities, while the Geneva law was said to be for the protection of the victims of war. It reviews claims that the laws of war entitle an individual to kill members of the enemy's armed forces as an exercise of the law of war authority or justified as a lawful act of war. The chapter challenges the assumption that international law or the 'law of war' authorizes in broad terms lethal force as a matter of first resort against an identified enemy. It highlights how the battlefield killing of a state’s soldiers in international armed conflict war by the armed forces of another state cannot be tried as murder as those who engage in such killings enjoy combatant immunity before the courts of the other state. Captured soldiers are interned as prisoners of war. In non-international armed conflict the situation is more complex as it is not always clear who can be targeted and who loses their protection as a civilian by directly partipating in hostilities. The chapter considers that the principle of necessity operates as a further restraint on violence. The Chapter ends with a description of which weapons are prohibited in times of armed conflict and explains that shortening a war can not justify massive aeriel bombardment of civilian areas or the use weapons of mass destruction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":77260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine and war\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine and war\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198810469.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine and war","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198810469.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章叙述了武装冲突法是如何被分成海牙法和日内瓦法的。海牙法涉及战争或敌对行为的手段和方法,而日内瓦法据说是为了保护战争的受害者。它审查了战争法赋予个人杀死敌人武装部队成员的权利,作为行使战争法权力或作为合法战争行为的理由。这一章挑战了一种假设,即国际法或“战争法”在广义上授权将致命武力作为针对已确定敌人的第一手段。它突出表明,在国际武装冲突战争中,另一国武装部队在战场上杀害一国士兵的行为不能作为谋杀加以审判,因为参与这种杀戮的人在另一国法院享有战斗人员豁免。被俘的士兵被当作战俘关押起来。在非国际性武装冲突中,情况更为复杂,因为并不总是清楚谁会成为攻击目标,谁会因直接参与敌对行动而失去作为平民的保护。本章认为必要性原则是对暴力的进一步约束。本章最后描述了在武装冲突期间禁止使用哪些武器,并解释说,缩短战争时间不能成为对平民区进行大规模空中轰炸或使用大规模杀伤性武器的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
7 Warfare – the Conduct of Hostilities
This chapter recounts how the law of armed conflict is seen as broken into what was known as Hague law and Geneva law. The Hague law covered the means and methods of warfare or the conduct of hostilities, while the Geneva law was said to be for the protection of the victims of war. It reviews claims that the laws of war entitle an individual to kill members of the enemy's armed forces as an exercise of the law of war authority or justified as a lawful act of war. The chapter challenges the assumption that international law or the 'law of war' authorizes in broad terms lethal force as a matter of first resort against an identified enemy. It highlights how the battlefield killing of a state’s soldiers in international armed conflict war by the armed forces of another state cannot be tried as murder as those who engage in such killings enjoy combatant immunity before the courts of the other state. Captured soldiers are interned as prisoners of war. In non-international armed conflict the situation is more complex as it is not always clear who can be targeted and who loses their protection as a civilian by directly partipating in hostilities. The chapter considers that the principle of necessity operates as a further restraint on violence. The Chapter ends with a description of which weapons are prohibited in times of armed conflict and explains that shortening a war can not justify massive aeriel bombardment of civilian areas or the use weapons of mass destruction.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信