Moreover, Sassòli argued that the perceived disrespect for IHL is worse than its actual disrespect. But in his view, this is not due to the substance of IHL, which remains highly adequate for contemporary armed conflicts, but because States have rejected the development of efficient enforcement mechanisms and do not accept credible fact-finding missions. Marco Sassòli began his presentation by recognizing that respect for IHL is indeed too often insufficient.
So what is happening? Is the "erosion of respect for IHL" real or perceived? How can we better bridge the gap between the development of IHL and the situation on the ground? Beyond the law, what is the role of the international community in addressing the causes and consequences of armed conflicts? These were some of the key questions the panelists tried to address and discuss during the conference. A range of new international treaties have been ratified by States, international courts and tribunals produce judgments on the basis of IHL, States and non-State armed actors have been trained in this body of law, and IHL is integrated into States' domestic legal orders more than ever before. Yet, in substance, IHL has grown stronger, not weaker, over the past years. Against this background, it is tempting to conclude that IHL is less relevant or no longer relevant at all. Indeed, we are often made aware of violations of IHL and tremendous human suffering. It is often alleged today that widespread violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) contribute to the "erosion of its respect". Schmitt, Professor at the US Naval War College and the University of Exeter Adama Dieng, UN Secretary-General's Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide
0 kommentar(er)
