Search results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 13 items for :

  • "Terrorism" x
  • Manchester Political Studies x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All
Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin

, transitional justice processes and as special envoys and representatives of the UN Secretary-General. The WPS agenda has recognised sexual violence as a tactic of war that can ‘significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict’ 118 and as a tactic of terrorism. 119 It has emphasised the need to end impunity for sexual violence. Institutionally WPS has introduced an array of new positions: women

in The boundaries of international law
Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin

action in response to allegations of international terrorism; 34 support for the provision of humanitarian relief; 35 the maintenance of no-fly zones; 36 the establishment of two international criminal tribunals; 37 and the restoration of democracy. 38 While the Charter’s objective of the maintenance of international peace and security supports collective action

in The boundaries of international law
Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin

Ibid. at 84. 32 E.g. the UN Secretary-General has described the dangers of a world of ‘increasingly porous boundaries’ with threats from drug trafficking, crime, terrorism and money laundering. Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, UN Doc. A/52/1, 3 September 1997 at para

in The boundaries of international law
Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin

Women in 1995 noted that: ‘While entire communities suffer the consequences of armed conflict and terrorism, women and girls are particularly affected because of their status in society and sex.’ Fourth World Conference on Women, Declaration and Platform for Action, 15 September 1995, UN Doc. A/CONF. 177/20, reprinted in 35 International Legal Materials (1996) 401 (Beijing

in The boundaries of international law
Leslie C. Green

of national liberation, and Protocol II 16 additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Moreover, Article 3 common to those Conventions 17 already sought to impose minimal humanitarian considerations even in such conflicts. However, acts of violence committed by private individuals or groups which are regarded as acts of terrorism, 18 brigandage, or riots which

in The contemporary law of armed conflict
Leslie C. Green

eventually became involved, was involved in any international or non-international conflict. Rather they were there as part of the ‘war against terrorism’, and then to maintain the new administration until it was able to do this on its own. Similarly, in 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq, alleging that the government there was building weapons of mass destruction and had to be stopped

in The contemporary law of armed conflict
Leslie C. Green

or preventive reasons may be seen from the contention of President George W. Bush of the United States in calling for international support during the ‘war’ on terrorism in 2001 and, especially, for his operations against Iraq based on the assertion that Iraq had or was about to develop nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. A number of primarily Western states, particularly the United Kingdom

in The contemporary law of armed conflict
Leslie C. Green

Territories , 125, 127–8. This volume contains a number of papers relating to the Israeli-occupied territories. In December 1992 Israel expelled some 400 Palestinians, accusing them of being members of Hamas and supporters of terrorism. Lebanon refused to admit them and they remained camped out in ‘no man’s land’ between Israel and Lebanon. It was only after protests by the Security

in The contemporary law of armed conflict
Abstract only
Their commencement, effects and termination
Leslie C. Green

regarded themselves as neutrals or not, must comply with the sanctions being imposed against Iraq. When President George W. Bush of the United States declared ‘war’ against terrorism after the aerial attacks against New York and Washington, he asserted that those who were not supporting the United States in this activity were in fact against the United States, although no punitive action was taken against states

in The contemporary law of armed conflict
Leslie C. Green

combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’. 70 Any such act, particularly by the authorities, will remove the immunity enjoyed by the zone but an individual act of terrorism or assassination by a civilian inhabitant will not have that effect

in The contemporary law of armed conflict