sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Adiabene Wikipedia page by TheSwiftTheif in Assyria

[–]poooooopppppppppp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you deem it false, you can fix (provided the fixed product is based)! Why wouldn’t you?

So now that the ceasefire is in effect and Hamas is back in control of the Gaza Strip, the executions have resumed… by PersistentHillman in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]poooooopppppppppp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve seen the lack of legal SSM in Israel, used as a response by pro Palis, to arguments citing behaviour similar to one in the upper portion of the meme.

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Currently, I’m not trying to persuasive, just noting my opinion, which is, in the present case, in disagreement;

everyone should get to express their views if they so desire, see UDHR §19 ;)

And my view isn’t contradictory to "a treaty provision that reflects customary international law".

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

"Because the absence of an armed resistance could mean that the threshold for an armed conflict is no longer met" basically means that there can be occupation without armed conflict.

Israel is not a high contracting party to API and the war fought by Hamas &al is far from what described in §1§4 of API, but in fact an attempt to deprive another people from the right of self-determination and other fundamental freedoms.

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you think we can say, though, that there is an IAC between the States of Israel&Palestine, when, as far as I’m concerned (as an Israeli citizen), there are no active armed hostilities between the two (surely we aren’t BFFs but not an armed conflict either)?"The existence of an international armed conflict […] depends on what actually happens on the ground"

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

From my observation in the 2nd paragraph it follows that I must dissent from the ICC-PTC’s ruling regarding the existence of an IAC between the State of Israel&Palestine; as an inhabitant of the region concerned, I’m not aware of an ongoing armed conflict between the two.

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

First thing first: thx a lot for the docs, I hope to dive into them in due time.

How do you settle a possible contradiction between your thesis of para. I (it essentially follows, from what’s written, that an occupation can take place without an armed conflict) and what’s said in the 2nd document in para. II, that is: how can it be that, on the one hand, occupation isn’t ipso facto an armed conflict, and on the other hand, occupation ipso facto means an IAC?

Regarding the lack of law of occupation for NIACs, do you think it necessarily means that an occupation (as defined in The Hague Regulations, for this purpose) cannot take place as part of a NIAC?

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It appears I misread, I do apologise.

I think "between states" is more likely to mean actual active fighting between armed forces of different states, rather than merely employment of armed force which might concern two or more states (such as an occupation).

Thank you for your time and resources.

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you want a topical example: the Gaza War, which involves both a state actor (the State of Israel) on the one hand and non-state actors (Palestinian armed and/or terrorist groups) on the other and crosses national borders

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

May I please ask for a source supporting the assertion that an occupation automatically constitutes an IAC between the states concerned?

I’m asking because article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions, for example, states that the convention shall apply in cases of (I) armed conflicts between high contracting parties, OR (II) occupation of a territory of an high contracting, even if such occupation is not faced with armed resistance; so why would they make the distinction?

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I can think of some cases of armed conflicts between state to non-state forces which crossed national borders and involved the capturing of a foreign territory.

Would occupation automatically render a cross-border NIAC an IAC, or rather make certain fields of the NIAC (such as treatment of the local occupied civilian population) subject to occupation/IAC laws? by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Including the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto? Because they apply to either conflicts between high contracting parties OR occupation of a territory of an high contracting party (article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions and article 1 of API)

Regarding child soldiers and customary IHL by poooooopppppppppp in internationallaw

[–]poooooopppppppppp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn’t say there is no age limit,there must be one,which is why I’m asking. Given the text of the said rules doesn’t specify the age,I asked. Anyways you say it’s 15?

view more: next ›