The Laws of War in the War on Terror
The laws of war - the parts of international law explicitly applicable in armed conflict - have a major bearing on the "war on terror" proclaimed and initiated by the US following the attacks of 11 September 2001. They address a range of critical issues that perennially arise in campaigns against terrorist movements, including discrimination in targeting, protection of civilians, and status and treatment of prisoners. The laws of war have a scope of application that is not limited to wars between recognized States. The nature of the opposition, point to potential problems in the application of the laws of war in counter-terrorist operations. Although the great majority of prisoners taken in war viewed as qualifying for prisoner-of-war (PoW) status, in a counter-terrorist war, as in other armed conflicts, there are likely individuals and even whole classes of prisoner who do not meet the treaty-defined criteria for such status. Keywords:armed conflicts; laws of war; prisoner-of-war (PoW); terrorist; war on terror
Acts of terror, “terrorism” and international humanitarian law
Résumé Le droit international humanitaire interdit sans exception tout acte terroriste commis lors des conflits armés internationaux et non internationaux. Il demande aussi aux États de prévenir et punir les violations de ce droit. Les actes de terrorisme peuvent être des crimes de guerre soumis à la juridiction universelle et la Cour pénale internationale peut être compétente en la matière. Inversement, le combat contre le terrorisme et la poursuite des personnes suspectées d'avoir commis des actes terroristes sont régis par le droit humanitaire s'ils ont lieu lors d'un conflit armé. Ce droit n'est pas un obstacle pour combattre le terrorisme et les terroristes suspectés peuvent être poursuivis pour leurs actes de terreur. Mais même les membres de forces armés ou les «combattants illégaux» suspectés d'avir commis des actes de terreur sont des personnes protégées par les Conventions de Genève et ont droit à des garanties judiciaires s'ils se trouvent devant un tribunal.
Study on essential drug use status and its influencing factors among cerebral infarction inpatients in county level hospitals of Anhui Province, China
Background and purpose Drug costs is one of the main components of hospitalization expenditure for cerebral infarction inpatients. In China, the National Essential Medicine System (NEMS) was created to relieve the heavy drug-cost burden for patients. The objective of this study was to investigate essential drug-use status and its influencing factors among cerebral infarction inpatients in county-level hospitals of Anhui province, China. Methods Three county-level hospitals were selected through a multi-stage cluster random sampling method. The hospitalization cost data of cerebral infarction inpatients in the three hospitals were extracted from the Anhui provincial information platform of the New Rural Cooperative Insurance System (NCMS), and whether the proportion of essential drug cost in the total drug cost reached the median value of 33.05% which was set as the evaluation index for essential drug-use status. Questionnaires for hospitals and physicians were designed and given to them to assess influencing factors. Results We retrieved the cost data of 2,189 inpatients from the NCMS platform and investigated 51 corresponding physicians in total. The drug costs accounted for 52.6% of the total hospitalization cost, and essential drug costs alone accounted for 37.0% of the total drug costs. The essential drug-cost proportion was high among physicians with a higher recognition degree on NEMS, older age, lower final academic degree, longer work experience and lower professional title. Married physicians and those with tight organizational affiliation also prescribed more essential drugs. Conclusions Increasing the proportion of essential drugs was an effective way to reduce the disease burden for cerebral infarction patients. Perfecting the NEMS, increasing government investment, reinforcing education and propaganda, and formulating relevant incentive and restrictive mechanisms were all effective ways to promote and increase the number of essential drug prescriptions written by physicians.