Search results

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

  • "General Assembly Resolutions" x
  • Manchester International Relations x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All
Chen Kertcher

the Charter was written, and since then have become entrenched in UN work norms and international rhetoric. They are supported by a series of General Assembly resolutions, such as the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace from 1984 and the Declaration of the International Year of Peace from 1985.19 Historian Akira Iriye views these objectives as an additional stage in the development of the vision of a global community of nations with a unique ‘international culture’, with common economic, social, humanitarian, ethical and intellectual values. According to

in The United Nations and peacekeeping, 1988–95
Abstract only
Alanna O’Malley

External Relations Files, Memo on the outcome of the first meeting of the Congo Advisory Committee from the Indian Delegation in New York to Foreign, New Delhi, 26 August 1960. 24 Bring, ‘Dag Hammarskjöld and the issue of humanitarian intervention’, pp. 500–​501. 25 UNA, S-​0856–​0001–​05, United Nations Offices for Special Political Affairs, General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI) –​Committee on Implementation of Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Peoples 1961–​1969. 26 Hammarskjöld also had formal advisory groups for previous crises in Suez and

in The diplomacy of decolonisation
Abstract only
Christine Byron

international criminal court in the 1960s. P. Marquardt, ‘Law without borders: the constitutionality of an international criminal court’, Columbia J Transnat’l Law, 33 (1995), 73–148, p. 87, comments on the work of academics in the 1970s. B. Graefrath, ‘Universal criminal jurisdiction and an international criminal court’, EJIL, 1 (1990), 67–88, p. 71, comments on the work of NGOs in the 1970s. 7 General Assembly Resolution (GA Res.) 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974. 8 See the 1996 ILC Draft Code. 9 M

in War crimes and crimes against humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Alanna O’Malley

voted for a Security Council resolution on 9 June, calling for Portugal to end colonialism.94 This was highly significant. The US publicly supported Angolan independence, much to the annoyance of Portugal, Britain and France, who abstained. The resolution also drew on General Assembly Resolution 1514 and directly condemned the repressive measures of the Portuguese authorities in Angola. It employed the language and terminology of the Committee of 24 in pointing to Portugal’s responsibilities regarding non-​self-​governing territories. It was interpreted by the

in The diplomacy of decolonisation
Alanna O’Malley

unrealistic they might be’.79 The actions of newly independent nations on the Committee of 24 in implementing General Assembly Resolution 1514 from 1961 onwards increased the impression among British Foreign Office officials of the UN as an unwieldy and unpredictable organisation that had been converted into ‘an organ of the anti-​colonial movement, a kind of Holy Alliance in reverse’.80 The embittered rhetoric from imperial internationalists, such as one of the leading British scholars of International Relations in the 1960s, Martin Wight, about the dismantling of the

in The diplomacy of decolonisation
Abstract only
Thomas Hennessey

provided in Menon’s resolution’. Eden agreed that the British could not either, but he stressed the importance of not changing Menon’s resolution so much that Menon might be unable to vote for it himself. When Acheson warned Eden that he might have to choose between ‘our vote or the Indian vote’, the Foreign Secretary replied ‘that in that case he wanted ours’. This led Acheson to speculate to Truman: ‘I think we may be able to work this out.’ It was clear that a General Assembly resolution would have to be based on the Menon draft, ‘but I believe we shall be able to get

in Britain’s Korean War
Abstract only
Thomas Hennessey

the North Korean authorities, that the hostilities in Korea constituted a civil war and as such were domestic matters with which the United Nations should not interfere under Article 2 (7) of the Charter. In the view of His Majesty’s Government this was a misrepresentation of the true state of affairs. A full reply to these arguments was given by Attlee in the House of Commons debate of 5 July where he pointed out that, on the one hand the Government of South Korea had been recognised by the United Nations in the General Assembly Resolution of 12 December, 1948, as

in Britain’s Korean War
Christine Byron

más’: The Report of the Argentine National Commission on the Disappeared (CONADEP), 1984, Recommendations and Conclusions, available at: < http://www.nuncamas.org/index2.htm >, and see ‘Guatemala: memory of silence’, Commission for Historical Clarification, Conclusions and Recommendations, para. 89, available at: < http://hrdata.aaas.org/ceh/report/english/toc.html >. 358 General Assembly Resolution (GA Res.) 47/133, 18 December 1992, and see R. Brody and F. González, ‘ Nunca más: an analysis of international instruments on “disappearances”’, HRQ, 19 (1997), 365

in War crimes and crimes against humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Abstract only
Other offences in international armed conflicts
Christine Byron

This chapter discusses Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute. It covers the origins and development of Article 8(2)(b)(i) Attacking civilians; Article 8(2)(b)(ii) Attacking civilian objects; Article 8(2)(b)(iii) Attacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) Excessive incidental death, injury or damage; Article 8(2)(b)(v) Attacking undefended places; Article 8(2)(b)(vi) Killing or wounding a person hors de combat; Article 8(2)(b)(vii) Improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions; Article 8(2)(b)(viii) Deportation or transfer of population; Article 8(2)(b)(ix) Attacking protected objects; Article 8(2)(b)(x) Mutilation or medical or scientific experimentation; Article 8(2)(b)(xi) Treacherously killing or wounding; Article 8(2)(b)(xii) Denying quarter; Article 8(2)(b)(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property; Article 8(2)(b)(xiv) Depriving nationals of the hostile party of rights or actions; Article 8(2)(b)(xv) Compelling participation in enemy military operations; Article 8(2)(b)(xvi) Pillaging; Article 8(2)(b)(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons; Article 8(2)(b)(xviii) Employing prohibited gases, liquids, materials or devices; Article 8(2)(b)(xix) The use of expanding bullets; Article 8(2)(b)(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles or materials or methods of warfare to be listed in an annex to the Statute; Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity; Article 8(2)(b)(xxii) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation, or sexual violence; Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) Using protected persons as shields; Article 8(2)(b)(xxiv) Attacking objects or persons using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions; Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) Starvation as a method of warfare; and Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi) Using, conscripting or enlisting children.

in War crimes and crimes against humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Umberto Tulli

from twenty-one to thirty-two, it became an arena for North–South confrontation, with developing countries having the power to impose their agenda on the Commission. A similar development took place in the General Assembly, where Third World countries’ numerical superiority was indisputable. The adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965 inaugurated an era in which Third World countries set the UN agenda. By 1974, more than 10 per cent of all General Assembly resolutions attacked apartheid and other forms of racial

in A precarious equilibrium