Acting as a Sovereign versus Acting as a Belligerent
In many legal disputes, the selection of one body of law rather than another is outcome-determinative. The situation with targeted killings is no different. Although there are contrary impulses at the margins, in the main a human rights paradigm is more likely to restrict such operations while a law of war paradigm is more likely to sanction it. But the question is when each body of law applies, a question that is not explicitly addressed by either body. By looking at the underlying object and purpose of each body of law, however, an account of their respective spheres becomes apparent. This essay defends the claim that the dividing line is represented by a state acting as a sovereign as opposed to acting as a belligerent. In the former situation, the state acts as a ruler over its subjects and its activities are constrained by human rights law. In contrast, when the state acts as a belligerent during armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law regulates its actions. This essay provides a framework to determine when the state is acting in one mode rather than another: acting as a sovereign involves an unequal relationship (ruler-to-ruled), while belligerency is characterized by two, formally co-equal collectives facing each other in battle. At the closing stage of an armed conflict, the relationship of belligerency may give way to sovereignty, a transition point that is often characterized by the law of occupation. The argument is both normative and descriptive in the sense that the two bodies of law already embody these normative distinctions; therefore their respective application is currently delimited by these existing principles.
Prosecuting Dr Strangelove, Goldfinger, and the Joker at the International Criminal Court: Closing the Loopholes
Abstract In this commentary to Matt Halling's paper, the author takes issue with Halling's proposal to amend Article 7(2) of the Rome Statute with regard to the ‘policy element’. Halling's view of plugging ‘loopholes’ in the Rome Statute in abstracto is met with a voice of realism. The author's realism is expressed on different levels and can be summarized in the following questions. As to the need for an amendment of Article 7(2), how realistic are the scenarios presented by Halling? Do they really call for an amendment? As to the function and role of the court, why expand the Court's mandate when it can only prosecute a handful of cases at any one time? As to the Court prosecutorial policy, does the Court need a fine net when it has limited resources and a mandate that requires it to focus on those who bear the greatest responsibility?
La inseguridad jurídica en normas de contratación estatal
It is established by different studies that the issue of government procurement has been marred by several factors, the test objective to publicize these factors, we take as starting point the constant conflict between the branches of government to try and organize this subject; will collect and analyze diverse regulatory and case material in order to achieve evidence and demonstrate the different concepts of constant change that produces excessive regulation of the subject procurement and is in turn causing rapid changes that result in legal uncertainty for our law on the Contract Status.