MEDNARODNO-PRAVNA UREDITEV KOLATERALNE ŠKODE V OBOROŽENIH SPOPADIH

Pečnik, Aljaž

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	MEDNARODNO-PRAVNA UREDITEV KOLATERALNE ŠKODE V OBOROŽENIH SPOPADIH
Authors:	ID Pečnik, Aljaž (Author) ID Devetak, Silvo (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	UNI_Pecnik_Aljaz_2012.pdf (475,05 KB) MD5: 1FCAD506CB186E55597940BD1863F30A PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/33b6d7d5-199e-4113-98f2-9caa07881c9a
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Undergraduate thesis
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Do kolateralne ali naključne škode pride takrat, ko so vojaški napadi usmerjeni na vojaške cilje, pri tem pa povzročijo izgube civilistov in/ali škodo civilnim objektom. To se pogosto zgodi, če so vojaški cilji, kot je na primer vojaška oprema ali vojaki, locirani v mestih ali vaseh blizu civinemu prebivalstvu. Napadi, od katerih se pričakuje, da lahko povzročijo kolateralno škodo, niso prepovedani sami po sebi. Pravo oboroženih spopadov prepoveduje napade na civile brez izjem. Člen 57 Prvega Dodatnega protokola iz leta 1977 k Ženevskim konvencijam iz leta 1949 določa, da je v mednarodnem oboroženem spopadu “potrebna neprestana skrb za zaščito in izvzetost civilnega prebivalstva, civilistov in civilnih objektov iz oboroženih spopadov.” Prav tako člen 51 pravi, da je bombardiranje, ki bi zravnalo državo z zemljo, prepovedano, kot tudi napadi, pri katerih se uporabljajo metode in sredstva bojevanj, katerih učinke in posledice ne moremo kontrolirati. In končno, napadi so prepovedani, kadar kolateralna škoda, ki se pričakuje pri napadu, ni sorazmerna (proporcionalna) v zvezi s pričakovano vojaško prednostjo. Vojaški poveljniki se pri tem, ko odločajo o napadu, morajo zavedati vseh pravil o kolateralni škodi in odstopiti od napada, odpovedati napad, če bi prišlo do kršitve načela sorazmernosti ali ponovno načrtovati napad v skladu s pravili o oboroženih spopadih. V notranjih spopadih imajo civilisti manj pravne zaščite pred kolateralno ali naključno škodo, kot pa pri mednarodnih spopadih. Drugi Dodatni protokol iz leta 1977 k Ženevskim konvencijam iz leta 1949 določa, da dokler posamezen civilist oziroma civilno prebivalsvo ne sodeluje neposredno v sovražnostih, uživa “splošno zaščito proti nevarnostim, ki izvirajo iz vojaških operacij” in “ne sme biti predmet napada”. Drugi protokol tudi prepoveduje dejanja ali grožnje z nasiljem, katere imajo za primarni namen “širjenje nasilja med civilnim prebivalstvom”. Vojskujoče se strani v večjih oboroženih spopadih, kot je bila na primer Zalivska vojna in vojne v bivši Jugoslaviji, so uporabljale termin kolateralna škoda kot prizadevanja, s katerimi bi prikazale, da so bili njihovi napadi upravičeni in v skladu z zakoni. Trdili so, da nobena kolateralna škoda ni bila povzročena oziroma, da je bila škoda minimalna ali proporcionalna. Tisti, ki so nevtralno opazovali te konflikte, so lahko prišli do drugačnih zaključkov, kot pa vojskujoče se strani v oboroženem spopadu. Mnogo civilistov med Zalivsko vojno je pomrlo zaradi pomanjkanja električne energije v bolnišnicah, kar so povzročila bombardiranja zračnih napadov zaveznikov, ko so uničevali iraške elektrarne in izvore energije, a so bile s strani Iraka okvalificirane kot disproporcionalna kolateralna škoda. Na drugi strani se posredovanje NATO-vih letal nad Zvezno Republiko Jugoslavijo v mednarodnem pravu označuje kot pravilno in da je obstranska škoda ostala v mejah, ki so sprejemljive. Termin kolateralna škoda se uporablja v pravnem svetu tudi, da se pridobi politično podporo oziroma vsili političen pogled na specifično metodo vojskovanja ali, da se nasprotuje navedbam in trditvam krštev humanitarnega prava. Pomembno je, da štejemo kakršnekoli so že, zahteve in trditve vlad ali oboroženih sil, ko so napadi usmerjeni neposredno na civilno prebivalstvo in ko gre za izgovore, kot kršitev osnovnega načela razlikovanja med vojaškimi in civilnimi cilji in da v takih primerih vedno gre za kolateralno škodo.
Keywords:	oboroženi spopadi, civilno prebivalstvo, civilni objekti, kolateralna škoda, načelo sorazmernosti, načelo razlikovanja, predvidena vojaška prednost, vojaški cilji
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Publisher:	[A. Pečnik]
Year of publishing:	2012
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-38960
UDC:	341.3(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:	4481835
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:ALCWLQHU
Publication date in DKUM:	11.01.2013
Views:	3203
Downloads:	276
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN ARMED CONFLICTS
Abstract:	We talk about collateral damage or incidental damage when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian casualties and/or damage to civilian objects. It often occurs if military objectives such as military equipment or soldiers are situated in cities or villages or close to civilians. Attacks that are expected to cause collateral damage are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that, in an international conflict “constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.” In addition, under Article 51, carpet- bombing is prohibited, as are attacks that employ methods and means of combat whose effects cannot be controlled. Finally attacks are prohibited if the collateral damage expected from any attack is not proportional to military advantage anticipated. Military commanders in deciding about attacks have to be aware of these rules and either refrain from launching an attack, suspend an attack if the principle of proportionality is likely to be violated, or re-plan and attack so that it complies with the laws of armed conflict. Civilians have less legal protection from collateral or incidental damage in internal conflict. Additional Protocol II requires that, so long as they do not take in hostilities, the civilian population and individual civilians “shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations” and “shall not be the object fo an attack”. Protocol II also prohibits acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is “to spread terror among the civilian population.” In the recent major armed conflicts, such as Gulf war and the wars in the former Yugoslavia the parties have used the term collateral damage as part of an effort to demonstrate that their attacks were lawful. The claim is either that no collateral damage was caused or that the damage was minimal or proportional. Neutral observers might reach different conclusions than the parties to these conflicts. The death of many civilians in Iraq during the Gulf war due to the lack of electricity in hospitals, which was the result of the destruction of almost all Iraqi power plants by allied air attacks, has been asserted by Iraq as disproportionate collateral damage. On the other hand the NATO Air Force has not breached the proportionality rule when attacking the military objectives in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, as the legal view is. However, this term is often used to win political support for a specific method of warfare or to counter allegations of violation of humanitarian law. The observers see that whatever the claims of governments or armed forces, attacks directly targeted at the civilian population are in violation of the basic principle of distinction and cannot be referred to as having caused collateral damage.
Keywords:	armed conflicts, civilian population, civilian objects, collateral damage, principle of proportionality, principle of distinction, anticipated military advantage, military objectives

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back