On the legal grounds, the act of humanitarian intervention is still debatable, On the one hand, there was a responsibility to limit the use of force to self-defense according to the UN Charter. On the other hand, there was strong international pressure to abide by commitments to human rights and the right to life. This has constitute tensions in an international law system, Humanitarian intervention as the justifiable act to intervene while it is contrary to the principle of sovereignty and nonintervention in the UN system and international law. An evolving international norms related to human rights and the use of force. The authorized intervention was granted by UN Security Council.
The first principle is focused on the protection of civilian; states must not use civilians as the object of attack and must not use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. In application of that second principle, States have limited freedom of choice of means in the weapons they use in order to avoid causing unnecessary suffering. The court states that the rule and principle of humanitarian were invented before nuclear weapons were created. However, the court does not deny that the establish the rule and law of humanitarian in armed conflict does not apply to nuclear weapon, but it seems significant that it does not apply to new weaponry and upload in the present proceeding. The principle of neutrality It is similar to the fundamental character of humanitarian principle that any type of weapons might be used to all international armed conflict.
Basic principles of IHL is that it attempt to control the wars as much as possible to minimize the suffering of the civilian population. International humanitarian Law reflects this constant balance between the military necessity from the state of war and the needs for humanitarian protection. According to Additional protocol-I of Geneva Convention, Humanitarian Law protects persons and property affected or liable to be affected by the conflict and Restrict the right of the parties to a conflict to use the means -in particular weapons- and methods of warfare – such as military tactics- of their choice,the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, the principle of proportionality, the principle of precaution in attack, military necessity, prohibition of means and methods. ( Articles,48, 51(5),52, 57 of Additional protocol-I) International Humanitarian Law stands on three jurisprudential principles which are the foundation of IHL, i.e namely the principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality. The Dilemma of IHL
What should be understood under the notion of “rights of others” as a ground for the limitation of freedom of expression? Or what rights deserve protection under this notion? Analyzing the case law of the ECtHR, it can be concluded that mainly religious freedom is envisaged under this notion. In the case of Otto Preminger Institute v. Austria, the applicant claimed that, the Austrian authorities violated the Article 10 of the Convention by prohibiting of a film, because they considered that it constitutes a criminal offence of “disparaging religious doctrines” under Article 188 of the Austrian Penal Code. In response to claim, Austrian government argued that the seizure and forfeiture of the film were aimed at "the protection of the rights of others", particularly the right to respect for one’s religious feelings, and at "the prevention of disorder".
Besides, the International Committee of the Red Cross is regarded as the “guardian” of the conventions and various other treaties that constitute international humanitarian law. It cannot act as either policeman or judge as the act only belongs to governments, the parties involved in the international treaties, who are required to prevent and end the violation of the International Humanitarian Law. It further provides that civilians under the enemy forces must be given treatment that is humanely in whatever situations they faced in order to serve justice and equality. These civilians must be protected at all times against all forms of violence and cruel treatment, such as killing or torturing. Moreover, in cases of prosecution, these people
The government’s policy to construct factories is discriminatory to the indigenous groups of people who are already in a disadvantaged position. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965 prohibits any kind of discrimination on the basis of race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which encompasses indigenous people right not to be discriminated. Indonesia as a signatory to the Convention has the obligation not to discriminate against indigenous peoples for the development project. More importantly, the General Recommendation No.23 on Indigenous Peoples (18/08/97) affirms that the discrimination against the indigenous peoples falls under the scope of the ICERD Convention and state should take effective measures to combat all forms of such
While deciding about the legality of the principle of responsibility to protect the Preamble of the UN Charter can help us. The Preamble states its objective create a world where human rights are respected, injustice is done away with and there is peace and social progress in the world and to meet these ends the Preamble provides for the measures to be taken : • to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and • to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,
treatment of slaves; not giving them the same food that you eat is also a social evil. 10. Disrespect of prophet Disrespect of the prophet is a sin. Not following his Hadis and his way of life means derailing from the right path of the path which affects the people close to you and also yourself. It is also a social evil.
Freedom of speech is sometimes in conflict with the rights and freedoms with right other persons. Legal rules states generally regulate restrictions on freedom of expression in its territory. Under international law, restrictions on freedom of expression are required to respond to three conditions: they must strictly comply with the law, pursue a legitimate aim and must be necessary and appropriate to achieve this goal. Laws imposing limitations should strive to be unambiguous and does not allow for different interpretations. Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation prohibits propaganda inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity, as well as dissemination of information constituting a state secret.
Here Art 3 and Protocol II impose obligations on such non-State contenders. Thus member forces are under an international obligation to heed ban on terrorist acts and commanders of dissident forces should enforce compliance with the international rules, all necessary steps must be taken by them to enforce the prohibition of terrorist acts, including appropriate measures if that prohibition is violated. Prohibition of recourse to terrorist acts is as strictly implied to be followed in the law applicable in non-international armed conflicts as it is in the rules governing international armed conflict. There is absolute ban on terrorism without any exception. Thus no discrepancy is tolerated in spite of the fact that non-international armed conflicts are particularly prone to wanton