" However, the UN Charter upholds States' right to individual or collective self-defence in response to aggression by another State (or group of States). The adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945 confirmed the trend: "The members of the Organization shall abstain, in their international relations, from resorting to the threat or use of force. In 1919, the Covenant of the League of Nations and, in 1928, the Treaty of Paris (the Briand-Kellogg Pact) sought to outlaw war. Until the end of the First World War, resorting to the use of armed force was regarded not as an illegal act but as an acceptable way of settling disputes. That is why jus in bello must remain independent of jus ad bellum.
Moreover, IHL is intended to protect victims of armed conflicts regardless of party affiliation. Would claim to be a victim of aggression. If it were otherwise, implementing the law would be impossible, since every party IHL applies to the belligerent parties irrespective of the reasons for the conflict or the justness of the causes for which they are fighting. IHL is synonymous with jus in bello it seeks to minimize suffering in armed conflicts, notably by protecting and assisting all victims of armed conflict to the greatest extent possible. Jus in bello regulates the conduct of parties engaged in an armed conflict.
The prohibition against the use of force amongst States and the exceptions to it (self-defence and UNĪuthorization for the use of force), set out in the United Nations Charter of 1945, are the core ingredients of jus ad bellum (see the box titled "On the Prohibition against War"). Jus ad bellum refers to the conditions under which States may resort to war or to the use of armed force in general. Extract from ICRC publication " International humanitarian law: answers to your questions"
0 kommentar(er)
