![]() ![]() ![]() This Article concludes that if the moral commitment to victims justifies a strict liability rule, considerations of utility require a fine-tuning of the obligation and its implementing mechanisms. A final question is how to ensure that the liability of the injuring party translates to an effective mechanism for securing compensation. Following an exploration of the conceptual basis for such an obligation, the Article examines the effect of a strict liability rule on the conduct of parties to a conflict, inter alia through economic analysis. ![]() Scholars and rational individuals might question. The Law of Armed Conflict are rules established by civilized nations to prevent unnecessary suffering and destruction while not impeding the effective waging of war. This Article explores the notion of such a quasi-strict liability rule, which is likely to disrupt the existing balance of powers and interests under the laws of armed conflict. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) or Law of War, is international law established to regulate the conduct of armed hostilities. In recent years there have been calls for a change in policy that would entitle victims of military attacks to compensation, even if their losses are incidental and non-fault-based. Under international law, civilians suffering injuries that are incidental to a lawful attack on a military objective are left to bear the cost of their losses. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |