文章基本信息

标题：The Scope of the Obligation to Respect and to Ensure Respect for International Humanitarian Law
其他标题：The Scope of the Obligation to Respect and to Ensure Respect for International Humanitarian Law
本地全文：下载
作者：Tomasz Zych
期刊名称：Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice
印刷版ISSN：0710-0841
出版年度：2009
卷号：27
期号：2
页码：251-270
DOI：10.22329/wyaj.v27i2.4528
出版社：University of Windsor
摘要：This article disputes what seems to have become the dominant interpretation of the obligation to respect and to ensure respect for International Humanitarian Law, as codified in common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and in Article 1(1) of Additional Protocol I. According to this dominant interpretation, States are required to take all appropriate measures to ensure that IHL is observed universally, including by other States and by non-State actors operating in other States. It is argued that the intention of the High Contracting Parties, coupled with their subsequent practice, calls for a much more narrow interpretation of that obligation.Cet article conteste ce qui semble être devenue l’interprétation dominante de l’obligation de respecter et de faire respecter le Droit International Humanitaire, tel que codifiée à l’article 1 commun aux Conventions de Genève et à l’article 1(1) du Protocole additionnel I. Selon cette interprétation dominante, les États doivent prendre toutes les mesures appropriées pour assurer que le DIH soit observé de façon universelle, y compris par d’autres États ainsi que par des acteurs non étatiques qui opèrent à l’intérieur d’autres États. On soutient que l’intention des Hautes Parties contractantes, en conjonction avec leur pratique subséquentes, laisse entendre une interprétation beaucoup plus étroite de cette obligation.
其他摘要：This article disputes what seems to have become the dominant interpretation of the obligation to respect and to ensure respect for International Humanitarian Law, as codified in common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and in Article 1(1) of Additional Protocol I. According to this dominant interpretation, States are required to take all appropriate measures to ensure that IHL is observed universally, including by other States and by non-State actors operating in other States. It is argued that the intention of the High Contracting Parties, coupled with their subsequent practice, calls for a much more narrow interpretation of that obligation.