澳大利亚国防军阿富汗调查监察长报告和《第二附加议定书》对干预外国部队的适用性

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
C. McDougall
{"title":"澳大利亚国防军阿富汗调查监察长报告和《第二附加议定书》对干预外国部队的适用性","authors":"C. McDougall","doi":"10.1017/S1816383123000140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article critiques the articulation of the legal framework applicable to Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan found in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report (Brereton Report). In particular, using the Australian experience in Afghanistan as a case study, the article argues, on the basis of the rules of treaty interpretation, that where a foreign State party to Additional Protocol II (AP II) intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which AP II applies, that foreign State is bound by AP II, in addition to the host State and non-State armed actors that are parties to the NIAC. The article concludes by outlining the reasons why the Brereton Report's silence in relation to AP II matters.","PeriodicalId":46925,"journal":{"name":"International Review of the Red Cross","volume":"17 1","pages":"992 - 1016"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report and the applicability of Additional Protocol II to intervening foreign forces\",\"authors\":\"C. McDougall\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1816383123000140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article critiques the articulation of the legal framework applicable to Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan found in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report (Brereton Report). In particular, using the Australian experience in Afghanistan as a case study, the article argues, on the basis of the rules of treaty interpretation, that where a foreign State party to Additional Protocol II (AP II) intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which AP II applies, that foreign State is bound by AP II, in addition to the host State and non-State armed actors that are parties to the NIAC. The article concludes by outlining the reasons why the Brereton Report's silence in relation to AP II matters.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of the Red Cross\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"992 - 1016\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of the Red Cross\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383123000140\",\"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":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383123000140","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: 2

摘要

摘要本文对澳大利亚国防军阿富汗调查报告(布里尔顿报告)总检察长中适用于澳大利亚国防军在阿富汗行动的法律框架的表述进行了批评。特别是,本文以澳大利亚在阿富汗的经验作为案例研究,在条约解释规则的基础上认为,如果《第二附加议定书》的外国缔约国干预了《第二附加议定书》适用的非国际性武装冲突(NIAC),除了东道国和作为NIAC当事方的非国家武装行为者外,该外国还受《第二附加议定书》的约束。文章最后概述了为什么布里列顿报告对AP II保持沉默的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report and the applicability of Additional Protocol II to intervening foreign forces
Abstract This article critiques the articulation of the legal framework applicable to Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan found in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report (Brereton Report). In particular, using the Australian experience in Afghanistan as a case study, the article argues, on the basis of the rules of treaty interpretation, that where a foreign State party to Additional Protocol II (AP II) intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which AP II applies, that foreign State is bound by AP II, in addition to the host State and non-State armed actors that are parties to the NIAC. The article concludes by outlining the reasons why the Brereton Report's silence in relation to AP II matters.
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