Debate
Should the obligations of states and armed groups under international humanitarian law really be equal
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12853262 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Marco Sassòli (corresponding author), Yuval Shany (0000-0002-5966-0375) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 93 |
| Issue | 882 |
| Pages | 425-442 |
| Publication date | 2011-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Review of the Red Cross (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1607-5889 • E-ISSN: 1816-3831 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1816383111000403 |
| OpenAlex | W2100915227 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 2 |
By introducing a new ‘debate’ section, the Review hopes to contribute to the reflection on current ethical, legal, or practical controversies around humanitarian issues. This section will expose readers to the key arguments concerning a particular contemporary question of humanitarian law or humanitarian action. For this first debate, the Review asked two members of its Editorial Board, Professor Marco Sassòli and Professor Yuval Shany , to debate on the topic of equality of states and armed groups under international humanitarian law. Professor René Provost comments on this debate, adding a third dimension to the discussion. The crucial question is whether it is realistic to apply the current legal regime to non-state armed groups. How can armed groups, with sometimes very limited means and low levels of organization, meet the same obligations as states? What are the incentives for armed groups to respect rules that their opponents have enacted? Why should they respect any rules when the very fact of taking arms against the state already makes them ‘outlaws’? All participants in this discussion share an aspiration to ensure better legal protection for all those affected by armed conflicts. Professors Sassòli and Shany have agreed to present two ‘radically’ opposed stances, Professor Sassòli maintaining that equality should be reconsidered and replaced by a sliding scale of obligations, and Professor Shany rebutting this assertion. Professor Provost then reflects on the stances put forward by the two debaters and invites us to revisit the very notion of equality of belligerents. The debaters have simplified their complex legal reasoning for the sake of clarity and brevity. Readers of the Review should bear in mind that the debaters actual legal positions are more nuanced than they may appear in this debate
Assertion · International humanitarian law · International law · Law and economics · Political science · Sass · Sociology · State (computer science · Computer Science · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Torture, Ethics, and Law
Violence and repair
Extraterritorial targeting by means of armed drones
The unilateralization of international humanitarian law
Counterterrorism and the risk of over-classification of situations of violence
Pro patria mori
Non-State Armed Groups, Detention Authority in Non-International Armed Conflict, and the Coherence of International Law
International Law and Governance by Armed Groups
Reparation for victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law
| Unique citing works | 8 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,67 |
| Citation span | 2014 - 2024 (11) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |