To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article analyzes whether and to what extent energy resources fulfil the definition of military objective within the meaning of international humanitarian law (IHL) and customary IHL. In order to bring conceptual clarity to the duty to protect the natural environment in armed conflict, the article explores the legal limits to the destruction of energy resources (that are part of the natural environment) controlled by armed non-State actors during non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). It examines the practice of the United States, which characterizes the destruction of the natural environment during hostilities as being related to targets that contribute to the “war-sustaining capability” of enemies. Conceptual light is shed on the legality of attacks on oil refineries and installations during NIACs as a matter for IHL.
The use of force in foreign territories has been contained in the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, with the authorisation of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, in ‘cases deemed legitimate by international law’ and where required by international treaties to which Turkey is a party. Yet Turkey's extraterritorial use of force against armed non-state actors lead to the most important question of identifying the circumstances under which the Turkish authorities have long justified military intervention in foreign territories. This article aims to assess whether Turkey's use of force and alleged extraterritorial self-defence contravenes international law. In order to address how Turkey interprets the right to use armed force and the right of self-defence, and to bring clarity to the state's approach to international law on the use of force (jus ad bellum), the article explores Turkey's practice based on the assessment of the Turkish military intervention in Syria, in line with both bilateral security or defence treaties to which Turkey is a party and the use of force in self-defence. The aim is to determine whether Turkey's justifications are compatible with the jus ad bellum criteria.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is host to approximately three million Afghan refugees who fled their homes after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1989. In order to avoid returning home, the Afghan refugee children, who have lived in tough conditions and have been deprived of their basic human rights, including the right to education and safe learning spaces, have resigned themselves to the Iranian government's refugee policies and procedures. After all, as Human Rights Watch have previously reported, the Iranian government has pledged to issue residence permits to the children of Afghan refugees on condition that they join the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as soldiers in the Syrian civil war.
By tackling the legal implications of the recruitment and use of refugee children by the armed forces of their country of refuge and returning them to war, this contribution challenges the direct interplay between human rights law, humanitarian law and refugee law. By doing so, this contribution presents the most straightforward legal explanation of states’ obligations to protect the rights of refugees and to enhance the rights of the child in their country of refuge. The contribution also develops the argument that one legal regime would be more useful than another in protecting the rights of the child. To prove the validity of this argument, the contribution will list the general principles that remain common in human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law. This serves as the basis for structuring competency-based responses to the questions of whether and to what extent the Iranian government's approach to child soldiering is compatible with the rights set out in the current international legal framework, which is supposed to protect children from violence and abuse.
This contribution addresses how the Iranian government is contributing to the declining protection of the refugee and human rights of Afghan children who are recruited as child soldiers and are wounded or even killed in the Syrian civil war. It then draws attention to the Iranian government's responsibility for human rights, humanitarian law and refugee law abuses – in particular, for the breach of the general obligation to protect refugees in the country of refuge.
The recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts by states and armed non-state actors is a direct violation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in a variety of aspects.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.