A-1

The definition of the international humanitarian law and its place in the international legal order I. Definition of IHL
1) Key concepts to acquire According to Hans-Peter Gasser, international humanitarian law (IHL) can be defined as the whole of the international conventional or customary rules, which are specifically intended to regulate humanitarian problems arising directly from both international or noninternational armed conflicts, and which restrict, for humanitarian reasons, the right of parties to the conflict to use means and methods of warfare of their choice and to protect people and objects affected by the conflict. (See Gasser, Hans-Peter, International Humanitarian Law An introduction, in: HAUG (Hans), Humanity for all, Henry Dunant Institute, 1993.) This theoretical definition specifies the situations covered by IHL. It also describes, albeit superficially, the contents of this body of norms by examining the traditional distinction between the Geneva law, namely the rules which tend to ensure the safeguard of people under the power of the enemy, and the Hague law which regulates the rights and duties of the belligerents with respect to the control of military operations and limits the choice of means for harming the enemy. Since the adoption of the two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1977, and a partial fusion of Geneva law and The Hague law, one often states that this practical distinction has now been surpassed. For the purposes of the Competition, it is not essential to know in detail the historical evolution of IHL as herein defined. Nonetheless, at a minimum, a general knowledge of this evolution can be extremely useful, in order to comprehend the context in which the various instruments make up this corpus iuris. 2) Do I know? Do I know the dates and the exact titles of the principal instruments of IHL (St. Petersburg Declaration, the Hague Convention, Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions)? Can I identify the historical context which governed the adoption of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, and determine their impact regarding the implementation of the rules embodied in those instruments?

3) Bibliographical references a) For the definition of IHL, see: SASSLI/BOUVIER, 2nd edition, pp. 81-88. Fact sheet, What is International Humanitarian Law?, available at http://www.cicr.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/humanitarian-law-factsheet b) Concerning the historical evolution of IHL, teams can consult, from a large pool of literature:

A-2 In French : COURSIER (Henri), Lvolution du droit international humanitaire, R.C.A.D.I., 1960 (I), pp. 361-465; PICTET (Jean), La formation du droit international humanitaire, I.C.R.C., n846, 2002, pp. 331-344, available at <http://www.icrc.org/Web/fre/sitefre0.nsf/html/5FZJHD>.

and in English: Significant dates in the history of international humanitarian law and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, see <http://www.cicr.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/mouvement-date-011006>. BEST (Geoffrey), The Restraint of War in Historical and Philosophical Perspective, in: DELISSEN, Astrid J.M., TANJA, Gerard J. (eds.), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict. Challenge Ahead - Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991, pp. 3-26. SCHINDLER (Dietrich), International Humanitarian Law: Its Remarkable Development and its Persistent Violation, Journal of the History of International Law, Vol. 5 (2), 2003, pp. 165-188.

4) Collection of documents We suggest that you begin by including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the three additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005. These texts are available in on the Internet site of the ICRC (see the references in the introductory document). Made up of more than 600 articles, these instruments constitute the Basic Code of IHL and, therefore, your principal subject of study.

II. The place of IHL in the international legal order

1) Key concepts to acquire IHL cannot be conceived in a completely autonomous way: it is after all a branch of public international law, and the principal characteristics of public international law are evident in its study. Consequently, certain parts of public international law will be useful in comprehending IHL. It should also be noted that knowledge of public international law is a criteria for evaluating the teams during the Competition. We have identified several important subjects of public international law that are of particular interest when studying IHL: Public international law subjects. The first texts codifying IHL were initially focused on the primarily subject that is the State. The multiplication and the intensity of conflict situations in non-international matters, however, made it, around the middle of XXth century, necessary to widen the application of this field of law so that the law could remain current and applicable. States had to concede that although sovereign they remained nonetheless subject to certain obligations with respect to opposing armed groups acting on their territory, with these aforementioned groups reciprocally bound to the same requirements rising from the law of armed conflict. In other words, the law of armed conflict gradually left an exclusively inter-State paradigm so as to

A-3 conform - according to the terms of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions - to the Parties to the conflict that are not States. The difficulty consists of specifying the exact meaning of this expression, Parties to the conflict. Theory of sources of public international law. The procedures to create norms of IHL are identical to those creating public international law norms which are essentially listed in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). They are initially the international treaties. As IHL is actually composed of a chain of conventional instruments, teams must have a command of the essential rules of treaty law as they appear particularly in the Vienna Convention of May 23, 1969. Teams will also have to be familiar with the rules governing the formation of customary international law; as such, the extensive 2005 ICRC study on customary international law is especially important, as are recent decisions of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals that have created an in depth renewal of the debate on this source of IHL. In the same way, participants will have to know more broadly the various theories relating to the concept of general principles of law and to be able to connect this concept to those of humanitarian principles which we will clarify later on. Lastly, the participants will have to familiarize themselves with the sources of public international law which are not mentioned in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, in particular the unilateral acts of States and those of international organizations. International responsibility. In particular, the teams must know the principles applicable to international responsibility for States for internationally wrongful acts, as they result from the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The question of the criminal responsibility for individuals in public international law will also be of great importance; the creation of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and their jurisprudence as well as the adoption of the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court are major events for the development and the implementation of IHL. Recourse to force and peaceful settlement of disputes. These rules are crucial in the context of this type of Competition, where the case study will evoke a situation of war. Consequently, these rules deserve to be further developed (see item III, infra). 2) Do I know? Do I know the requisite conditions for the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols to enter into force? Do I know the rules governing the validity and the opposability of the reservations to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols? Do I know the two elements required for the formation of a customary norm? I am able to explain the persistent objector rule and the controversy that it causes in public international law? Do I know the rules governing the attribution of an internationally wrongful act to a State? Can I cite the list of circumstances precluding wrongfulness circumstances as well as the requirements to invoke each of them? Do I know the different modes of reparation for internationally wrongful acts?

A-4 3) Bibliographical references As indicated in the introductory document, a public international law textbook is a must read, especially if you do not have sufficient international law training. In this respect, it is recommended to read, from the outset, all chapters on the subjects and sources of international law, the right of recourse to force and the protection of individuals in international law. a) Among other readings that we advise you to consult, pay special attention to those that concern the sources of IHL: SASSLI/BOUVIER, pp. 89-102. DOSWALD-BECK (Louise), HENCKAERTS (Jean-Marie), Customary International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2006; at this stage, it is recommended to read just the Introduction to Volume 1 (Rules) [pp. XXXV-LI]. To go further in this subject, see also HENCKAERTS (Jean-Marie), Study on customary international humanitarian law: A contribution to the understanding and respect for the rule of law in armed conflict, I.R.R.C., n 857, 2005, pp. 187-175, available at, <http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/review-857-p175 >. It might also be interesting to consult the Questions and Answers document on customary IHL on the ICRC website at http://www.cicr.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/6BPK3X On the relationship between treaties and custom, see: ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), available at : http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inusframe.htm ABI-SAAB (Rosemary), Les "principes gnraux" du droit humanitaire selon la Cour internationale de Justice, I.R.R.C., n766, vol. 69, July-August 1987, pp. 381-389 (in French) On unilateral acts of States, see the ICJ Judgment in the Nuclear Tests Case, Australia v. France, New Zealand v. France, available at : http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/icases/inzfr/iNZFRframe.htm

b) For an interesting discussion on the subject of international responsibility, see the following articles: DOMINIC (Christian), The International Responsibility of States for Breach of Multilateral Obligations, E.J.I.L., Vol. 10, 1999, n2, pp. 353-363, available at, <http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol10/No2/ab5.html>. SASSLI (Marco), State Responsibility for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, I.R.R.C, n846, 2002, pp. 401-434, available at, < http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5C6B83> 4) Collection of documents It is useful to include with your collection of documents the instruments of public international law that will probably be used in your legal analysis of the situations suggested within the framework of the case study. In this respect, you should include: The Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the law of treaties, available at http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

A-5 UN General Assembly Resolution of 12 December 2001, A/RES/56/83 entitled Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts; available at http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r56.htm

III. The right of recourse to force and peaceful settlement of disputes 1) Key concepts to acquire a) Ius ad bellum versus ius in bello IHL is also described as the law of armed conflict or the law of war and these expressions will be used interchangeably in the training documents. This body of law is also referred to by its Latin expression, ius in bello. Traditionally, the concept of ius in bello is countered with that of ius ad bellum - or ius contra bellum - which encompasses the whole of the rules of international law governing the admissibility of recourse to force between States. In other words, ius ad bellum governs the right to engage (or not) in war whereas the term ius in bello regulates law during war. This distinction is fundamental. Indeed, the first objective of IHL consists of protecting the victims in war, regardless of the party to the conflict with which they are affiliated. The rules of ius in bello thus apply independently of any preliminary violation of the principles and rules of ius ad bellum: it is what one calls the principle of equality of the belligerents. The logic which underlies this principle is clear: to make the application of IHL dependent on the designation of a guilty party would likely paralyse its implementation; the Parties to the conflict would mutually reject responsibility for recourse to force. The Jean-Pictet Competition is an IHL competition; as such, the case study will essentially be centred around problems of ius in bello. It is however crucial that the participants also understand the principal rules of ius ad bellum and are able to use them; they must also be familiar with the recent problems that call into question the dichotomy between ius ad bellum and ius in bello. b) The United Nations Security Council: principal organ charged with maintaining international peace and security The Charter of the UN grants the UN Security Council (UNSC) the principal responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security (Article 24, paragraph 1). It is thus useful to briefly describe this body and its principal attributes. The UNSC is organized so as to be able to exert its functions in a permanent way. It is composed of 15 Member States of the UN, among which 5 sit on a permanent basis - China, the United States, the Russian Federation, France and the United Kingdom. The permanent members have a veto right. The other 10 members of the UNSC are elected by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for a two-year non-renewable period. The President of the UNSC rotates every month, according to the alphabetical order of the Member States of the UNSC. In its capacity to maintain international peace and security, the UNSC exerts three principal functions. First function: It assists the States with the peaceful settlement of disputes, where prolongation may affect international peace and security. The UNSC usually starts by inviting

A-6 the parties to solve their dispute by using the peaceful means at their disposal (listed in Article 33 of the Charter). These means can be diplomatic (negotiation, mediation, conciliation) or jurisdictional (like the recourse to arbitration or an international court). The UNSC can also name special representatives, or request that the Secretary-General do so or propose the use of his good offices. It can also make recommendations with the parties for a peaceful settlement (Article 38 of the Charter). At times, the members of the UNSC find themselves involved in conflict zones in order to negotiate directly with the Parties or to ensure mediation (as was the case in East Timor in September 1999). In these situations, the UNSC acts under Chapter VI of the Charter. Second function: the UNSC establishes and supervises the peacekeeping forces of the UN. Despite the fact that the very first peacekeeping operation of the UN was established by the UNGA, the subsequent forces have been established by the UNSC. These peacekeeping operations have evolved since the end of the Cold War. They are more numerous and their nature has changed; they are no longer solely responsible with peacekeeping, but contribute in other areas such as the establishment and restoration of a sustainable peace in the form of peace-enforcement and peace-building operations. Third function: We will have the occasion to develop this point under (c), infra - the UNSC can take coercive measures. As such, the UNSC acts pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter and the Resolutions adopted under the terms of this Chapter are binding on all Member States of the UN. The UNSC created subsidiary organs to fulfil its functions. Participants might find it useful to know these various bodies, their composition and their mandate, in particular: Sanctions Committees: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/INTRO.htm Counter-Terrorism Committee: http://www.un.org/sc/ctc/ UN Compensation Commission: http://www2.unog.ch/uncc/ International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: www.un.org/icty International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda : www.ictr.org UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission: http://www.unmovic.org/

Last, it should be noted that the UNGA has also played a residual role in the maintenance of international peace and security. For example, the military intervention in Korea (1950) had been authorized by the UNSC in the absence of a Soviet representative. On its return, the USSR made use of its veto power, blocking any decision-making processes within the UNSC. It is under these conditions that the UNGA adopted Resolution 377 known as Uniting for Peace , which empowers the UNGA to take collective action, as needed, when the UNSC is blocked. The legality of this Resolution, however, was heavily criticized. c) The right of recourse to force within the framework of the UN Charter Certain rules of IHL (for example those arising from the Declaration of SaintPetersburg or the Hague Conventions of 1899 or 1907) were adopted at a time when war was seen as a simple attribute of sovereignty. Between the two World Wars, the right of recourse to force was limited by the League of Nations Pact, and then prohibited by the BriandKellogg Pact. This prohibition of the recourse to force appears today among the principles of the Charter of the UN, specifically in article 2, paragraph 4 where it is stated: All Members

A-7 shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The system set up by the Charter envisages, however, two exceptions to this prohibition of recourse to force. In addition to the right of self-defence, which is granted to any State to defend its territorial integrity against armed aggression, a system of collective security is added centred around the UNSC. The two exceptions are as follows: First exception. The natural right of a legitimate individual or collective defence is mentioned in Article 51 of the Charter. Strict conditions are placed on the exercise of this right. Initially, the text of Article 51 specifies that self-defence is open only to States that are victims of an armed aggression. However, the definition of this concept raises some difficulties. Admittedly, Resolution 3314 - adopted by the UNGA, on December 14, 1974 mitigates the silence of the Charter in this field but does not solve the problems associated with its application: in particular this Resolution omits to specify the level of attack that is necessary to justify its qualification as aggression. The difficulties of characterizing this concept were fully illustrated at the time of the negotiation of the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court, as the Statute specifies that a provision may be adopted at a later date defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the ICC shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. The teams must be familiar with the principal elements of the controversy caused by the definition of the concept of aggression. In practice, the concept of self-defence was not used solely to justify the response to an armed aggression. Certain States resort to this justification where there is clear evidence that an armed attack, having not yet occurred, is nevertheless imminent and would be overwhelming, and would make awaiting the armed attack disastrous for the State, thus raising the problems of a policy of pre-emptive self-defence. Other than an armed aggression, the right to self-defence is subordinated to other conditions arising from conventional or customary law. According to the ICJ in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, self-defence is justified only in proportional measures in response to armed aggression, and necessary to put an end to it. Lastly, a State can act in self-defence only for the length of time necessary for the UNSC to take essential measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. As a consequence of this last condition, the right to self-defence remains integrated in the system of collective security, under the control of the UNSC. Second exception: The Charter of the United Nations sets up a collective security system focused on the UNSC acting in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter. Article 43 and the following articles aimed to establish a coercive force peculiar to the organization. However these provisions were never implemented as the special agreements to set up the troops were never signed and the organs in charge of ensuring their operation (in particular the Military Staff Committee) were never created. In the absence of these armed forces at its disposal to ensure execution of its actions, the UNSC has to call on the Member States and offload the supervision of the coercive action onto them. The practise thus succeeded in finding alternative measures.

A-8 In case of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression (Article 39 of the Charter), the UNSC can impose measures on the States, such as economic sanctions (such as embargos) or the UNSC can authorize States to conduct a collective military action. In the latter situation, the States keep the national command of the action. The majority of the economic and/or military sanctions imposed by the UNSC date back to the period after the Cold War. The UNSC imposed general economic sanctions against Iraq in 1990, but now prefers to impose more targeted sanctions, such as weapons embargos, travels bans or restrictions as regards diplomatic relations. A Member State can temporarily be deprived of exercising its rights and privileges as a Member State if the UNSC takes preventive or coercive measure against this State. Such a decision is taken by the UNGA on the UNSCs recommendation. d) The right to use force outside the purview of the Charter The subsequent practice of the UN has created another exception from the fundamental principle of prohibition of the use of force set out in Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. Indeed, the liberation struggles carried on by national liberation movements were gradually the subject of special treatment. Thus, Resolution 2625 (XXV) passed by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970 mentions in its annex the obligation on States to abstain from any armed actions that are likely to deprive a population under colonial domination of its self-determination right. The first Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions takes into account the peculiarity of these wars of national liberation, qualifying them as situations of international armed conflict. Their assimilation to simple internal uprisings should then be dismissed; the result of all this is that foreign armed support to these national liberation movements could not be forbidden on the only basis that it would amount to an interference in internal affairs. The self-help interventions, where the official goal is to ensure the protection of nationals and goods of the intervening State, are far more controversial. Examples of such armed operations are numerous and the debate that arose in the UN demonstrates a hesitation to condemn this kind of intervention as soon as the victim State is unable to actually ensure the protection of its foreign nationals. If self-help interventions are not explicitly authorized in Public International Law, some scholars support that its condemnation is not subject to a sufficient consensus to draw an opinio iuris supporting the illegality of self-help interventions. The matter is even more complex since a new category appeared humanitarian interventions in addition to these actions based on a personal jurisdiction of the intervening State trying to protect its nationals. The humanitarian interventions aim to militarily protect the population of a foreign State against the exactions made by its own government. This argument was used to try to legally justify the military intervention of NATO against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, when the government was accused of grave breaches of IHL in Kosovo. Recently, this doctrine of humanitarian intervention was combined with the responsibility to protect; the latter gained some importance during the world summit in 2005 that recognized a responsibility for the international community to protect the populations against genocide and crimes against humanity in very precisely defined circumstances. Teams should be able to legally grasp the terms of this controversy.

A-9

2) Do I know? Can IHL violations amount to a threat to peace and international security? What means can the UNSC use in order to implement International Humanitarian Law? Do I know the difference between preventive and pre-emptive self-defence? Can a State act in self-defence against an armed non-state group located on a foreign territory? Can extreme self-defence circumstances justify a non application of ius in bello? Since the 1996 ICJ advisory opinion, can we say that ius ad bellum exceeds ius in bello? Can I distinguish peacekeeping, peace-enforcement and peace-building operations? Is the prosecution of war crimes part of the mandate of peacekeeping operations? Can I precisely define the wars of national liberations? The national liberation movements? Do I know the conditions set out in order to invoke the responsibility to protect? 3) Bibliographical references a) For a discussion of the relationship between ius ad bellum / ius in bello see: SASSLI/BOUVIER, pp. 102-108. NABULSI (Karma), War Crimes, Jus ad Bellum/Jus in Bello available at : <http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jus-ad-bellum.html>. BUGNION (Franois), Guerre juste, guerre dagression et droit international humanitaire, I.C.R.C., n 847, September 2002, pp. 523-546 <http://www.icrc.org/Web/Fre/sitefre0.nsf/htmlall/5FZJSH/$File/irrc_847_Bugnio n.pdf> (in French) KOLB (Robert), Sur lorigine du couple terminologique ius ad bellum et ius in n 827, September-October 1997, pp. 593-602. bello, I.C.R.C., <http://www.icrc.org/web/fre/sitefre0.nsf/iwpList163/E2C4735864F5689DC1256 C750041CB6C (in French).

b) With respect to the right to recourse of force, the participants must know the relevant provisions of the Charter of the UN, in particular Chapters I, VI, VII and VIII. On the matter, a priority reference is: ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), available at : http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inusframe.htm.

To go further, teams should consult: Charter of the Organization of American States, in particular Articles 18, 19, 20 and 21. PARKS (Hays), Lessons from the 1986 Libya Airstrike, (2002) New England School of Law, No. 4, Vol. 36, available at : <http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol36/4/parks.pdf>. PELLET (Alain), Brief Remarks on the Unilateral Use of Force (2000) 11 E.J.I.L. No. 2, pp. 385, available at

A-10 <http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol11/No2/ab9.html. GRAY (Christine), From Unity to Polarization: International Law and the Use of No.1, available at: Force against Iraq (2002) 13 E.J.I.L. <http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol13/No1/art1.html. ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgement of 6 November 2003, available at: http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/idocket/iop/iopframe.htm. ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, available at : http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ico/icoframe.htm TANNER (Fred), Prvention et rglement de conflits : les limites du multilatralisme, R.I.C.R, 2000, n839, pp. 541-559, available at : <http://www.icrc.org/web/fre/sitefre0.nsf/iwpList179/E26BFB8570DE45FDC125 6C750042B25C (in French). AREND (Anthony Clark), International Law and Rogue States: The Failure of the Charter Framework, (2002) New England School of Law, No. 4, Vol. 36, available at: http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol36/4/arend.pdf.

c) More specifically on the subject of self-defence, see: With respect to the extreme circumstances of self-defence when the survival of a State is concerned: ICJ, Advisory Opinion, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996, available at: http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/icases/iunan/iunanframe.htm. CORTEN (Olivier), DUBUISSON (Franois), Opration libert immuable: une extension abusive du concept de lgitime dfense, Revue Gnrale de Droit International Public, Tome 106, 2002, n1, pp. 51 on (in French). On the theory of preventative self-defence, see OCONNELL (Mary Ellen), ASIL Task Force on Terrorism, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense, available at: <http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf>. See also, A More Secure World : Our Shared Responsibility, The Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, 2004, Doc. A/59/565, pp. 58-59, 188-192, available at: http://www.un.org/secureworld/report.pdf Concerning terrorism and self-defence, see in particular FRANCK (Thomas M.), Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense, (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law, pp. 839 on; as well as BYERS (Michael), Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September 2001, Int. & Comp Law Quaterly, 2002 (51), pp. 401-414, available at : <http://ire.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/2/155>.

d) Concerning sanctions and humanitarian concerns, see the discussion available at: <http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol13/No1/ab4.html>. e) With respect to peacekeeping operations, see in particular Report on the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, available at: <http://www.un.org/peace/reports/peace_operations/>. For a broader discussion of the issues surrounding IHL and peacekeeping, the following are must read documents:

A-11 Secretary-Generals Bulletin: Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law (1999), available at: http://www.un.org/peace/st_sgb_1999_13.pdf. Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, New York, 9 December 1994, available at: http://www.un.org/law/cod/safety.htm To go further, see SHRAGA (Daphna), UN Peacekeeping Operations: Applicability of International Humanitarian Law and Responsibility for Operations-Related Damage, AJIL, 2000 (94) pp. 406 on.

f) With respect to the right to self-determination and intervention to assist within the framework of a war of liberation, see above all: East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995, available at: http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/icases/ipa/ipaframe.htm Resolution 36/103 adopted by the UNGA on 9 December 1981: Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r103.htm Resolution 2625 adopted by the UNGA on 24 October 1970, Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, available at : http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/25/ares25.htm

g) For an analysis of issues surrounding humanitarian intervention, see: MOMTAZ (Djamchid), L'intervention d'humanit de l'OTAN au Kosovo et la rgle du non-recours la force, I.R.R.C., n837, 2000, pp. 89-101, available at: <http://www.icrc.org/web/fre/sitefre0.nsf/iwpList177/A81A19468D3D637CC125 6C75003EE334> (in French). RYNIKER (Anne), The ICRCs position on humanitarian intervention, I.R.R.C., n482, 2001, pp. 527-532, available at: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/57JR5Y Responsibility to Protect, Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001, available at: http://www.iciss.ca/reporten.asp.

h) Finally, concerning the process of reform of the UN, see: Strengthening the United Nations - An Agenda for Further Change - Report of the Secretary-General, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/583/26/PDF/N0258326.pdf?OpenEle ment A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility: <http://www.un.org/secureworld/>. In Larger Freedon : <http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/>. 4) Collection of documents Charter of the United Nations, < http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html />. Definition of Aggression, UNGA Resolution 3314, available http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/29/ares29.htm.

at

A-12 Uniting for Peace, UNGA Resolution 377, Fifth Session http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/landmark/pdf/ares377e.pdf. Manila Declaration, Peaceful settlement of disputes between States, Annex to UNGA Resolution 37/10, 15 November 1982, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r010.htm. 5) Exercise You are the Legal Advisers to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Rurethania. Your Minister rightly considers that the civil war in Gouthania is degenerating into acts of genocide perpetrated by an ethnic group, the Krams, towards another ethnic group, the Ptis. The Minister would like to obtain the intervention of the UNSC to help this conflict come to an end. Advise him on the different options available. Preparation time required: 20 minutes Time of the interview with the Minister: 7 minutes 6) Link with current affairs: exercise The knowledge acquired from the training materials and the suggested readings should allow you to better understand contemporary as well as the controversies that they highlight. In this respect, we are proposing a practical exercise for you to apply your knowledge. Choose three current conflicts, each of them occurring on a different continent. For each of these conflicts, ask yourself the following questions: When did the conflict start and what were the main causes? Who are the main parties to the conflict and what are their claims? What are the ius ad bellum rules governing this situation? What did the Security Council do in this context?