United States of America Holder Humanitarian Law Project Case Study
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
United States of America Holder Humanitarian Law Project Case Study
1. What consequences could the Supreme Court decision have on the provision of humanitarian aid by humanitarian organizations for the people in a territory that is controlled by an armed group defined as terrorist? Can a State refuse access to humanitarian aid on the pretext that it can provide material support for a terrorist organization? In its own territory? In the territory of another State? (P II, Art. 18(2); CIHL, Rule 55)
2.
a. Can the dissemination of the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) be included in the category of training, expert advice or assistance in question in the present case? Are the parties to an armed conflict under an obligation to disseminate the rules of IHL? Can a State not respect that obligation on the grounds that it might provide material support for terrorist activities? Can a State invoke its national legislation to avoid compliance with IHL? (P II, Art. 19; CIHL, Rules 142-143)b. Can a third State abstain from disseminating the rules of IHL to the parties to a non-international armed conflict outside its territory if that is likely to cause tensions in inter-State relations?
3.
a. Do you agree with the Supreme Court that teaching and sensitization activities among armed terrorist groups can legitimize such groups? Can that encourage the groups to continue to fight? To make use of knowledge gained to promote terrorism or to abuse the international system? If such risks exist, does that justify refraining from teaching them the rules of IHL?b. If an armed group that is recognized as being a party to an armed conflict is defined by one or more States as terrorist or if it has committed terrorist acts, does that justify not urging it to comply with IHL?
c. Does IHL recognize the concept of a terrorist group? In IHL, is there a difference between armed groups that comply with IHL and those that do not comply with it? What consequences are planned for conflict parties that do not show respect for IHL? Is a ban on asking for humanitarian aid, training or expert advice on IHL part of those consequences?
d. Under section 2339B(a)(1), and according to the Supreme Court, do groups taking part in armed conflicts but not defined as terrorists by the United States have the right to receive material assistance? Doesnt the a priori exclusion of certain groups, often on the basis of their political claims, derive from jus ad bellum?
4. Doesnt refusing an armed terrorist group access to IHL training while the States that are fighting those groups are able to be given that training and expert advice in the field violate the principle of the equality of belligerents enshrined in IHL?
5. By virtue of Article 3(3) common to the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC, as well as other humanitarian organizations, can offer its services to the parties to non-international armed conflict. In the light of the Supreme Court decision, could its activities among armed groups be considered criminal?
6. Do you agree with the Supreme Court, in its example of the Kurdish refugee camp established by the High Commissioner for Refugees (HCR), that training the PKK to cooperate with the United Nations would have helped it in its terrorist activities? Conversely, might one not think that better knowledge of the HCRs role could have encouraged the PKK to show respect for the neutral, humanitarian nature of the camp? Why?
7. Why is it necessary to disseminate the rules of IHL, particularly to non-State armed groups? Shouldnt the United States consider making an exception to paragraph 2339B of the law for IHL dissemination activities? Make a list of arguments that you could present to the Supreme Court in favour of that.
United States of America Holder Humanitarian Law Project Case Study
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow United States of America Holder Humanitarian Law Project Case Study
United States of America Holder Humanitarian Law Project Case Study