Home  About us  Contact
 

Humanitarian Laws (humanitarian + law)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences75%

Selected Abstracts

Skeletal Estimation and Identification in American and East European Populations,

JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES, Issue 3 2008
Erin H. Kimmerle Ph.D.
Abstract:, Forensic science is a fundamental transitional justice issue as it is imperative for providing physical evidence of crimes committed and a framework for interpreting evidence and prosecuting violations to International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The evaluation of evidence presented in IHL trials and the outcomes various rulings by such courts have in regard to the accuracy or validity of methods applied in future investigations is necessary to ensure scientific quality. Accounting for biological and statistical variation in the methods applied across populations and the ways in which such evidence is used in varying judicial systems is important because of the increasing amount of international forensic casework being done globally. Population variation or the perceived effect of such variation on the accuracy and reliability of methods is important as it may alter trial outcomes, and debates about the scientific basis for human variation are now making their way into international courtrooms. Anthropological data on population size (i.e., the minimum number of individuals in a grave), demographic structure (i.e., the age and sex distribution of victims), individual methods applied for identification, and general methods of excavation and trauma analysis have provided key evidence in cases of IHL. More generally, the question of population variation and the applicability of demographic methods for estimating individual and population variables is important for American and International casework in the face of regional population variation, immigrant populations, ethnic diversity, and secular changes. The reliability of various skeletal aging methods has been questioned in trials prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Prosecutor of the Tribunal against Radislav Krsti, (Case No. IT-98-33, Trial Judgment) and again in the currently ongoing trial of The Prosecutor of the Tribunal against Zdravko Tolimir, Radivolje Mileti,, Milan Gvero, Vinko Pandurevi,, Ljubisa Beara, Vujadin Popovi,, Drago Nikoli,, Milorad Trbi,, Ljubomir Borovcanin (IT-05-88-PT, Second Amended Indictment). Following the trial of General Krsti,, a collaborative research project was developed between the Forensic Anthropology Center at The University of Tennessee (UT) and the United Nations, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Office of the Prosecutor (ICTY). The purpose of that collaboration was to investigate methods used for the demographic analysis of forensic evidence and where appropriate to recalibrate methods for individual estimation of age, sex, and stature for specific use in the regions of the former Yugoslavia. The question of "local standards" and challenges to the reliability of current anthropological methods for biological profiling in international trials of IHL, as well as the performance of such methods to meet the evidentiary standards used by international tribunals is investigated. Anthropological methods for estimating demographic parameters are reviewed. An overview of the ICTY-UT collaboration for research aimed at addressing specific legal issues is discussed and sample reliability for Balkan aging research is tested. The methods currently used throughout the Balkans are discussed and estimated demographic parameters obtained through medico-legal death investigations are compared with identified cases. Based on this investigation, recommendations for improving international protocols for evidence collection, presentation, and research are outlined. [source]

The New Law of War: Legitimizing Hi,Tech and Infrastructural Violence

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES QUARTERLY, Issue 3 2002
Thomas W. Smith
This article examines how humanitarian laws of war have been recast in light of a new generation of hi,tech weapons and innovations in strategic theory. Far from falling into disuse, humanitarian law is invoked more frequently than ever to confer legitimacy on military action. New legal interpretations, diminished ad bellum rules, and an expansive view of military necessity are coalescing in a regime of legal warfare that licenses hi,tech states to launch wars as long as their conduct is deemed just. The ascendance of technical legalism has undercut customary restraints on the use of armed force and has opened a legal chasm between technological haves and have,nots. Most striking is the use of legal language to justify the erosion of distinctions between soldiers and civilians and to legitimize collateral damage. Hi,tech warfare has dramatically curbed immediate civilian casualties, yet the law sanctions infrastructural campaigns that harm long,term public health and human rights in ways that are now clear. [source]

Human Rights Guarantees, Constitutional Law, and The Military Commissions Act of 2006

PEACE & CHANGE, Issue 1 2008
Leonard Cutler
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government in conjunction with NATO allies conducted a military campaign in Afghanistan that deposed the Taliban, destroyed Al-Qaida camps, and took 700 suspected terrorists into custody for internment and trial by military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six years later about 355 detainees remained in Guantanamo amid reports of persecution, ill treatment, mental and physical health breaches, rape, and torture. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recommended closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility, as have many foreign governments and prominent current and former U.S. officials. For its part, the Bush administration has denied committing any acts of torture against the detainees and has insisted that its approach to the trial and punishment of the alleged terrorists is legal and consistent with the principles of international humanitarian laws. This article focuses on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the extent to which the President, Congress, and the United States Supreme Court have addressed human rights guarantees consistent with the rule of law and principles of justice. [source]