Although the humanitarian effects of armed conflict are vast and transcend national boundaries, international law does not yet provide an adequate or comprehensive response to the suffering of victims of war. This article argues considerations of State sovereignty have shaped the development of international law on post-war redress, hindering the emergence of individual rights to reparations under international humanitarian law. Meanwhile, alternative models such as victim assistance, which largely preserve sovereignty, are emerging in pockets of international humanitarian law, such as weapons treaties. This article suggests that victim assistance offers a potential model for addressing the harm to victims of armed conflict more broadly.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 612 | 126 | 17 |
Full Text Views | 269 | 16 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 496 | 38 | 1 |
Although the humanitarian effects of armed conflict are vast and transcend national boundaries, international law does not yet provide an adequate or comprehensive response to the suffering of victims of war. This article argues considerations of State sovereignty have shaped the development of international law on post-war redress, hindering the emergence of individual rights to reparations under international humanitarian law. Meanwhile, alternative models such as victim assistance, which largely preserve sovereignty, are emerging in pockets of international humanitarian law, such as weapons treaties. This article suggests that victim assistance offers a potential model for addressing the harm to victims of armed conflict more broadly.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 612 | 126 | 17 |
Full Text Views | 269 | 16 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 496 | 38 | 1 |