Interpreting International Humanitarian Law to Guarantee Abortion and Other Sexual and Reproductive Health Services in Armed Conflict.

The provision of basic sexual and reproductive health services in humanitarian settings, including armed conflict, is extremely limited, causing preventable mortalities and morbidities and violating human rights. Over 50% of all maternal deaths occur in humanitarian and fragile settings. International humanitarian law falls short in guaranteeing access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health information and services for all persons. Guaranteeing access to sexual and reproductive health services under international humanitarian law can increase access to services, improving the health and well-being of civilians in conflict zones. This paper sets forth ways in which international human rights law on sexual and reproductive health and rights should be incorporated into the forthcoming International Committee of the Red Cross Commentary on Geneva Convention IV, regarding the protection of civilians, to ensure services in the context of armed conflict.

Wars in Gaza and Beyond: Why Protecting the Sacredness of Health Matters.

This Viewpoint discusses the importance of safeguarding health access in times armed conflict worldwide and the need to bolster compliance with international humanitarian law.

The Morality of War: A Review and Research Agenda.

What is judged as morally right and wrong in war? I argue that despite many decades of research on moral psychology and the psychology of intergroup conflict, social psychology does not yet have a good answer to this question. However, it is a question of great importance because its answer has implications for decision-making in war, public policy, and international law. I therefore suggest a new way for psychology researchers to study the morality of war that combines the strengths of philosophical just-war theory with experimental techniques and theories developed for the psychological study of morality more generally. This novel approach has already begun to elucidate the moral judgments third-party observers make in war, and I demonstrate that these early findings have important implications for moral psychology, just-war theory, and the understanding of the morality of war.

Navegación e historia de la ciencia: el incidente Laconia y la guerra total en la mar (Derecho de la Guerra) / Navigation and history of science: the Laconia incident and the total war at sea (The Laws of War)

El 12 de septiembre de 1942 el barco británico Laconia fue hundido en la costa de África occidental por el submarino U Boat 156 al mando del Korvettenkapitän Werner Hartenstein. El Laconia transportaba 1.800 prisioneros de guerra italianos, 80 civiles y 428 soldados británicos y polacos. Tras el desastre, viendo la situación, Hartenstein inició su trabajo cumpliendo con el deber de socorro y desplegando una bandera de la Cruz Roja. A pesar de ello, un bombardero americano B-24 atacó ampliando el desastre. La propaganda británica desplegó la idea de que los submarinos alemanes atacaban sin contemplaciones. La "Orden Laconia" tampoco se cumplió del todo pues los alemanes siguieron socorriendo a pesar de la "letra" de dicha orden. El Jefe de Submarinos, Karl Dönitz, fue procesado en Nüremberg, el testimonio del Almirante Nimitz aclaró muchas cosas. Los muertos quedaron en el Atlántico. Descansen en paz

On September 12, 1942, the British ship Laconia was sunk off the coast of West Africa by the submarine U Boat 156 commanded by Korvettenkapitän Werner Hartenstein. The Laconia carried 1,800 Italian war prisoners, 80 civilians and 428 British and Polish soldiers. After the disaster, seeing the situation, Hartenstein began his work fulfilling the duty of relief and displaying a Red Cross flag. Despite this, an American B-24 bomber attacked thus expanding the disaster. British propaganda displayed the idea that German submarines mercilessly attacked convoys. The "Laconia Order" was not completely fulfilled because the Germans continued their help despite the "letter" of that order. The U-Boat Commander, Karl Dönitz, was prosecuted in Nuremberg, and the testimony of Admiral Nimitz clarified many things. Those who died remain in the Atlantic Ocean. Rest in peace

More legislation, more violence? The impact of Dodd-Frank in the DRC.

The Dodd Frank Act was passed by the US Congress in July 2010 and included a provision-Section 1502-that aimed to break the link between conflict and minerals in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. To date there is only one rigorous quantitative analysis that investigates the impact of Dodd-Frank on local conflict events. Looking at the short-term impact (2011-2012), it finds that the policy backfired. This study builds on a larger, more representative, dataset of mining sites and extends the time horizon by three years (2013-2015). The results indicate that the policy also backfired in the longer run, especially in areas home to gold mines. For territories with the average number of gold mines, the introduction of Dodd-Frank increased the incidence of battles with 44%; looting with 51% and violence against civilians with 28%, compared to pre-Dodd Frank averages. Delving deeper into the impact of the conflict minerals legislation is important, as President Trump suspended the legislation in February 2017 for a two-year period, ordering his administration to replace it with another policy.

To Do No Harm: Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Demands Political Engagement.

Humanitarian aid in settings of conflict has always been fraught with challenges. In the absence of political engagement, however, manipulation by state authorities, however, have the potential to pervert aid intervention to inflict harm. South Sudan exemplifies how states may abuse the humanitarian response to retreat from public responsibility, divert funds to further violence and conflict and dictate the distribution of aid. Recent trends toward nationalist policies in the West that favor disengagement and limited military strikes have the very effect of allowing this abuse to transform humanitarian aid into a tool for harm. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:567-568).

International Humanitarian Law: The legal framework for humanitarian forensic action.

In armed conflicts, death is not an exceptional occurrence, but becomes the rule and occurs on a daily basis. Dead bodies are sometimes despoiled, mutilated, abandoned without any funeral rite and without a decent burial. Unidentified remains may be counted by hundreds or thousands. As a result, families look for years for missing relatives, ignorant of the fate of their loved ones. International Humanitarian Law, also called the laws of war or the law of armed conflict, is an international law branch, which has been developed to regulate and, as far as possible, to humanize armed conflicts. It contains a number of clear and concrete obligations incumbent to belligerent parties on the management of dead bodies, which provide the legal framework for humanitarian forensic action. The purpose of this article is to present, in a simple and concise manner, these rules with a view to extrapolate some key legal principles, such as the obligation to respect the dignity of the dead or the right to know the fate of relatives, which shall guide anyone dealing with human remains.

UK parliamentary debate analysis: bombing ISIL in Syria.

This paper examines the arguments presented for and against the UK government's motion for the UK to intervene militarily in Syria in the House of Commons debate on ISIL in Syria that took place on 2 December 2015. It considers what the most common arguments were in favour of and in opposition to the motion as well as which arguments were given the most emphasis, in order to understand the prime justifications given that led to the decision to approve the motion. It suggests that due to the shadow of the 2003 Iraq war, politicians in the debate placed a considerable emphasis on the legal justification for military intervention. It argues that the focus on the national security of the UK and its allies in this particular debate seems to contrast with previous military interventions where humanitarian motives were more widely stated. This paper calls for further comparative research of parliamentary debates in order to track such changes in the rhetoric used by UK politicians to defend their support for military intervention.