The role of the Russian Federation in the Pridnestrovian conflict: an international humanitarian law perspective

Pridnestrovie, a de facto state within the territory of the Republic of Moldova, declared itself independent in September 1990, a declaration that was followed by an armed conflict between Moldova and Pridnestrovie in 1992. To date no settlement has been achieved between the conflicting parties. The situation is complicated by the fact that the Soviet Union and subsequently the Russian Federation has been involved in the conflict in various ways. This article seeks to analyse the conflict from an international humanitarian law perspective. The involvement of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation in the conflict is of great significance because third-party involvement, depending on the level of involvement, has the potential to change the categorisation of a conflict from a non-international armed conflict to an international armed conflict. This in turn impacts on the number and nature of international humanitarian law provisions applicable to the conflict situation. As international humanitarian law provides protection to those fighting in and those caught up in a conflict, it is important to investigate which international humanitarian law provisions could be applicable. The article offers an assessment of the categorisation of the Pridnestrovian conflict, focusing on the role of the Soviet Union and Russian Federation, and the consequent implications for the application of international humanitarian law

The Lost Legal System: Pre-Common Law Ireland and the Brehon Law

Prior to the adoption of common law in Ireland, a native legal system, known as Brehon law, had applied throughout the country. This legal system dated from Celtic times and was passed down orally from generation to generation. It was written down for the first time in the seventh century and survived until the seventeenth century when it was finally replaced by the common law. The Brehon law system was highly complex and sophisticated. Rights were accrued based on societal status and punishment / restitution was based on the status of the person against whom an offence was committed. The legal system was administered by judges but the legal system was essentially self-enforcing with no prisons or police force. This paper will describe the roots of the Brehon legal system and its primary actors and will compare it to the common law system. It will analyse its main facets and subjects and will trace its development through Irish history up until it was finally supplanted as the legal system of Ireland by the common law in the seventeenth century

Indigenous Expertise as Cultural Expertise in the World Heritage Protective Framework

This paper focuses on the engagement of Indigenous peoples with the international legal framework which seeks to protect world heritage. Significant concerns have been raised as to the role which Indigenous expertise can play in this framework.There have been numerous criticisms regarding the Eurocentric nature of the framework, and concerns over its the decision-making processes, e.g. in respect of inscription of sites on the World Heritage List. All 3 of the UN mechanisms specific to Indigenous peoples (UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) have called on the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO and heritage advisory bodies to take remedial measures and to expand the role of Indigenous peoples in the protective framework. There have also been recommendations made as to how the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO and States can align the implementation of the World Heritage Convention with the principles and requirements of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As part of the move to be more inclusive of Indigenous voices, an Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on World Heritage was established in 2017, however an Indigenous expertise deficit still remains within the world heritage framework. As cultural expertise is necessary to appreciate the context and background of cultural sites, and their status as ‘culture’, deserving of recognition under the world heritage framework, this paper addresses the role of Indigenous expertise as cultural expertise in the world heritage framework and underlines why Indigenous expertise is necessary in order to ensure that the framework is representative and valid

The Regulation of Armed Non-State Actors: Promoting the Application of the Laws of War to Conflicts Involving National Liberation Movements

The regulation of armed non-state actors is a challenge to the state-centric international law paradigm. The vast majority of international legal instruments which impact the regulation of armed actors are open to ratification by states only. This leads to the unfortunate situation in which armed nonstate actors often fall outside the remit of international law and their use of force and, indeed, the use of force against them, is left unregulated, which can only be to the detriment of combatants and civilians alike. However, there is an emerging trend, led by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Geneva Call, to accommodate non-state actors under the international humanitarian law (IHL) framework. This article seeks to investigate how non-state actors, specifically national liberation movements, are and could be regulated by IHL. It seeks to give an overview of the relevant legal provisions and illustrates the difficulties faced by national liberation movements if they do wish to accede to IHL instruments and apply IHL in their conflicts. As it is the aim of IHL to protect both combatants and civilians in armed conflicts, it is important that this body of law is practically applied and implemented in all conflict situations to the greatest extent possible. However, in the past, national liberation movements have encountered difficulties when seeking to apply IHL to their conflicts due to the nature of the legal framework and, indeed, the nature of international law itself. International law, the body of law that governs states in their relationships with one another, generally struggles to accommodate non-state actors. The international legal instruments dealing with the laws of war, namely the Geneva Conventions of 1949,1 the Hague Regulations of 1907,2 and more modern international conventions seeking to regulate weapons such as the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 banning landmines,3 were all drafted by states with the regulation of states in mind. These instruments almost exclusively limit ratification to states and do not allow for the accession of non-states. This means that non-state actors, including national liberation movements, face many difficulties when seeking to be bound by and apply IHL provisions in their conflicts, thus limiting the protection available to those fighting and caught up in these conflicts. However, non-state actors are active in various theatres of war and it is therefore vital that a realistic IHL framework that accommodates non-state actors be formulated

EU mediation activities outside Europe: The Case of Aceh

Abstract included in text

The Regulation of Armed Non-State Actors: Promoting the Application of the Laws of War to Conflicts Involving National Liberation Movements

The regulation of armed non-state actors is a challenge to the state-centric international law paradigm. The vast majority of international legal instruments which impact the regulation of armed actors are open to ratification by states only. This leads to the unfortunate situation in which armed nonstate actors often fall outside the remit of international law and their use of force and, indeed, the use of force against them, is left unregulated, which can only be to the detriment of combatants and civilians alike. However, there is an emerging trend, led by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Geneva Call, to accommodate non-state actors under the international humanitarian law (IHL) framework. This article seeks to investigate how non-state actors, specifically national liberation movements, are and could be regulated by IHL. It seeks to give an overview of the relevant legal provisions and illustrates the difficulties faced by national liberation movements if they do wish to accede to IHL instruments and apply IHL in their conflicts. As it is the aim of IHL to protect both combatants and civilians in armed conflicts, it is important that this body of law is practically applied and implemented in all conflict situations to the greatest extent possible. However, in the past, national liberation movements have encountered difficulties when seeking to apply IHL to their conflicts due to the nature of the legal framework and, indeed, the nature of international law itself. International law, the body of law that governs states in their relationships with one another, generally struggles to accommodate non-state actors. The international legal instruments dealing with the laws of war, namely the Geneva Conventions of 1949,1 the Hague Regulations of 1907,2 and more modern international conventions seeking to regulate weapons such as the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 banning landmines,3 were all drafted by states with the regulation of states in mind. These instruments almost exclusively limit ratification to states and do not allow for the accession of non-states. This means that non-state actors, including national liberation movements, face many difficulties when seeking to be bound by and apply IHL provisions in their conflicts, thus limiting the protection available to those fighting and caught up in these conflicts. However, non-state actors are active in various theatres of war and it is therefore vital that a realistic IHL framework that accommodates non-state actors be formulated

Developing a dialogue on the theory and practice of international peace mediation

This note describes a workshop on International Peace Mediation hosted by Dublin City University in 2010. The workshop was an output of the project “Mediating Peace Agreements: The Capacity of the European Union as Multi-track Mediator”, funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences and the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was intended to deepen understanding of the conceptual framework of international peace mediation and facilitate lesson learning from past practice of mediation initiatives. It provided participants with an insight into how international peace mediation can be used effectively and successfully as a conflict resolution tool