Skip to main content

New answers tagged

1 vote

Why didn’t the ICC issue an arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad?

I believe this has to do with the situation in Syria being different. The UN has spent quite some effort into putting an end to the civil war in Syria. They've sent plenty of delegations to Damascus, ...
Abdel Aleem's user avatar
11 votes

Does Egypt have an obligation under international law to reopen the Rafah crossing, even if they don't like who's controlling the Gaza side of it?

N.B. reading that ICRC page more carefully: Additional Protocol I requires unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, not only by the parties to the conflict but by each State party to the Protocol. ...
against very long user names's user avatar
5 votes

Why didn’t the ICC issue an arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is not investigating crimes committed in Syria because Syria is not a member state of the ICC and because Russia and China vetoed a United Nations Security ...
Sayaman's user avatar
  • 42.5k
15 votes

Why didn’t the ICC issue an arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad?

AFAICT none of the Syrian rebels that tried to form governments of their own have tried to apply to join the ICC, unlike the PA. On 1 January 2015, the Government of Palestine ("Palestine") ...
against very long user names's user avatar
6 votes

Why didn’t the ICC issue an arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad?

The ICC declined to pursue things against ISIS (which held territory in eastern Syria for a while) because of a lack of jurisdiction and little chance any indictments would results in arrests or ...
Machavity's user avatar
  • 49.6k
40 votes

Why didn’t the ICC issue an arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad?

As you note, the ICC does not have territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed in Syria because Syria is not a state party to the Rome statute. A Security Council resolution which would have ...
CDJB's user avatar
  • 108k
1 vote

Is a tactical nuclear strike against a military target different on a legal standpoint than a tactical nuclear strike against a civilian target?

Most definitely. One is a military operation, the other is first against geneva conventions and more aligned with genocide.
Peter's user avatar
  • 11
0 votes

Confusion about recognition and where the concept comes from

To add to the existing answers, the modern concept traces back to the age of revolutions that started out with the American revolution and ended with WW1, a period in which most modern countries we ...
Ccm's user avatar
  • 432
1 vote

Confusion about recognition and where the concept comes from

Let's be clear… International politics is effectively anarchic: there is no overriding structure or rule of law, aside from what has been established (and is currently accepted) by treaty. Even that ...
Ted Wrigley's user avatar
  • 70.4k
8 votes

Is a tactical nuclear strike against a military target different on a legal standpoint than a tactical nuclear strike against a civilian target?

Nuclear weapons are not specifically prohibited by international law. However, the laws of war contain quite a few general rules which are hard to reconcile with the use of nuclear weapons. ...
meriton's user avatar
  • 5,118
11 votes
Accepted

Is a tactical nuclear strike against a military target different on a legal standpoint than a tactical nuclear strike against a civilian target?

They are definitely different. Deliberately striking a civilian target, with any kind of weapon, is always a war crime. Striking a military target is not, unless some other rules are broken. As for ...
Tadeusz Kopec's user avatar
4 votes

Is a tactical nuclear strike against a military target different on a legal standpoint than a tactical nuclear strike against a civilian target?

Striking obviously civilian target is a war crime while striking clearly military target may not be. Using nuclear weapons, however, is a separate issue, even is they are used against the valid ...
Stančikas's user avatar
  • 22.5k
11 votes

Confusion about recognition and where the concept comes from

can someone with a proper knowledge of the topic explain what the term means formally? And what it doesn't mean? The substance of the term recognition in international relations is that if a country ...
ohwilleke's user avatar
  • 81.8k
3 votes

Confusion about recognition and where the concept comes from

Not the only aspect, nor necessarily the main aspect, but if a particular entity is recognised as a "state", that makes a difference to what other states, and the UN, are or are not allowed ...
Daniel Hatton's user avatar
3 votes
Accepted

What are the consequences for Iraq if it chooses to not repay the amount of war reparation owed?

Q: What are the consequences for Iraq if it chooses to not repay the amount of war reparation owed? Unknown, since all claims have been satisfied and the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) ...
Rick Smith's user avatar
  • 35.9k

Top 50 recent answers are included