The book also notes, however, that some of the obligations in the law of armed conflict arise with the end of active hostilities and therefore before the official end to the conflict. In pure technical terms it can therefore be said that the two states remain at war with each other. North and South Korea have only signed a cease-fire agreement and never a peace treaty that brought an official end to the armed conflict between the two states.
It also notes that hostilities may be terminated either on a temporary or a permanent basis and the conflict cannot generally be considered to have ended unless there is evidence that neither of the parties intend to resume the hostilities. The book notes that international armed conflicts traditionally ended with the conclusion of a peace treaty-or at least an express declaration-but that such treaties are now rare. The question encourages the students to engage in the issue of when an international armed conflict ends. Has the international armed conflict between North and South Korea been brought to an end? The accommodation of military necessity is one of the things that distinguish the law of armed conflict from international human rights law. The content of the law therefore represents a long list of compromises that only seek to limit human suffering to the extent possible without seeking to negate the right of the warring parties to pursue their military objectives. Instead of trying to prohibit war it is less ambitious in the sense that it merely seeks to find a way to balance military necessity and humanitarian sentiments. The book notes that the law of armed conflict is pragmatic because it is based on the premise that war is a recurring feature of human existence. The question asks the students to consider the reasons for the inherent pragmatic character of the law of armed conflict.
Why may one reasonably consider the law of armed conflict as a pragmatic discipline?
0 kommentar(er)
