ACE

Author: Cate Longo

  • An Introduction to Human Rights and Armed Conflict

    An Introduction to Human Rights and Armed Conflict

    There are two bodies of law that guarantee the protection of human rights for individuals and groups on a universal scale, international human right laws and international humanitarian law.

    Defining Laws that Protect Human Rights

    International human rights law (IHRL) is a set of international standards, enforced via treaty and customary law, that ensure that certain rights must be respected and protected by their states and state actors. Customary law are the legal norms that have been established via a historical pattern of behavior and expectations of states, and many expectations under IHRL fall under the category of being “customary”.  International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of humanitarian protections put in place to help protect civilians in times of armed conflict. The ultimate goal of IHL is to limit the effects of armed conflict and protect individual human rights during war time. IHL is binding to all parties in an armed conflict and holds them to a standard of equality of rights and obligations to states involved in the conflict. IHL is integrated with jus in bello (law governing the conduct of war) and jus ad bellum (law allowing the use of armed force). These latin terms have been around since Medieval times when thinkers such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas began propagating theories surrounding “just war”. Some of these requirements for “just war” created the foundation for the modern laws governing when war and use of force is permitted. 

    According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the UN, it was historically held that the difference between international human rights law and international humanitarian law was that the former applied only in times of peace and the latter in situations of armed conflict. Contemporary international law now recognizes that this distinction is less clear than originally believed to be. It is widely recognized by the international community that since human rights obligations derive from the recognition of the inherent rights of all human beings under IHRL that these rights should come into play during both times of peace and war because of the fact that nothing in human rights treaties indicates that they should not be applicable in times of armed conflict. These two bodies of law are thus complementary in nature and at their core establish the same goal of securing the dignity and safety of all individuals.

    International Humanitarian Law

    IHL is also known as the Law of Armed Conflict (LAOC) and operates under two primary principles, which are defining legitimate means and legitimate targets during wartime. IHL, through international agreements such as The Geneva Conventions and the Hague Commissions, lays out ground rules that define what practices of war are acceptable to use during wartime. “Legitimate means” refers to the fact that certain types of weapons or military tactics are prohibited if they violate the principle of  unnecessary suffering and all acts of perfidy, defined as deceitful tactics or acts of deception,  are generally prohibited. When it comes to defining what a legitimate target is, protecting civilians and non-combatants is the priority. Any non-military objective should be protected, such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Customary law within the international community also implies that certain universal standards of armed conflict should be respected and not militarily targeted such as Prisoners of War (POWs), wounded soldiers, the white flag indicating surrender and anything marked with a red cross or a red crescent symbol indicating humanitarian aid. 

    It is widely accepted that war will inevitably take place and although the use of force is prohibited under the Charter of the United Nations, Article 51 allows for use of force in specific cases of self-defense when the threat is imminent, and Chapter VII spells out instances when use of force can be authorized via approval by the UN Security Council. These two exceptions are both cases in which IHL would come into full force and govern the conduct of the states engaging in armed conflict. 

    The laws of armed conflict have human rights standards at their core; the problems arise when enforceability is brought up. Because IHRL and IHL reside at the international level and there is no true international governing body, these laws of war rely on the fact that it is in each nation’s best interest to abide by these standards.

  • Russia’s Commitments Under New START in the Context of the NPT and the TPNW

    Russia’s Commitments Under New START in the Context of the NPT and the TPNW

    The creation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 marked the first major shift towards nuclear disarmament that occurred on a global scale. The NPT is a landmark international treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and achieving international disarmament. The treaty itself has culminated in a “grand bargain” between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers to ensure that no new nuclear weapons can be acquired, that nuclear energy use remains peaceful, and that nuclear materials stay secure. The creation and enforcement of the NPT by the United Nations prompted talks between the United States and Russia to create mutual arms control agreements and reduce nuclear stockpiles. Beginning in November of 1969 with the presentation of SALT I, which limited each countries’ strategic missile defenses, the two nations went on to engage in more than half a dozen other nuclear-focused disarmament treaties with one another.

    The New START Treaty between Russia and the United States was renewed in 2021. The renewal was significant because it assured both countries’ continued commitment to regulating and limiting nuclear weapons and weapons technology, and because of the upcoming review of the NPT that occurred later this year. However, there is a growing concern that existing agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, are unraveling. Experts hope that because of the transparency in U.S.-Russian strategic relations that New START has provided, the rest of the world will follow suit and the NPT review conference will be a space to promote stability and strengthen commitments by signatories of the NPT. The New START treaty, which was signed in 2010, by the U.S. and Russia, legally binds each state to limit their strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 on 700 strategic delivery systems, and limits each side to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This limit is 30% lower than the previously allowed 2,200 nuclear warhead amount agreed upon in the 2002 SORT Treaty and 50% lower than the 1,600 vehicle delivery limit established under the 1991 START 1 agreement. In addition to major limits on each country’s physical nuclear stockpiles, the treaty also commits each state to mandatory on-site inspections of nuclear storage and production facilities, data exchanges, and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by this treaty. 

    New START gives the U.S invaluable national security information by providing insights on the Russian nuclear arsenal, and maintains the international standard for nuclear non-proliferation by the world’s two largest nuclear powers. In a larger sense, the treaty creates a stable base on which to uphold the major international arms control treaties such as the NPT, Treaty on The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The renewal of New START by the U.S. and Russia is particularly important for the continued support and upholding of the NPT because although its global support is strong, statements by members of civil society confirm that its long-term viability needs to be continually addressed.

  • Intro to Nuclear Treaties with Russia

    Intro to Nuclear Treaties with Russia

    1968 marked the first major shift towards nuclear disarmament on a global scale with the creation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose primary objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and to achieve international disarmament. The treaty itself has culminated in a “grand bargain” between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers to ensure that no new nuclear weapons can be acquired, nuclear energy use remains peaceful, and nuclear materials stay secure. The creation and enforcement of the NPT by the United Nations prompted talks between the United States and Russia, formerly known as the Soviet Union, in regards to the creation of mutual arms control agreements and the reduction of nuclear stockpiles. The two nations would go on to engage in more than half-a-dozen nuclear-focused disarmament treaties, beginning in November of 1969 with SALT I which limited each countries’ strategic missile defenses.

    The New START Treaty between Russia and the United States was renewed in 2021. This is significant because it assures continued commitment to the regulation and limitation of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, but it is also important in light of the upcoming review of the NPT that is anticipated to occur in August of 2021. Despite the success of the NPT over the past 50 years, there is a growing concern that existing agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, are unraveling. Experts hope that because of the transparency in U.S.-Russian strategic relations that New START has provided, the rest of the world will follow suit and the NPT review conference will be a space to promote stability and strengthen commitments by signatories of the NPT. 

    The New START treaty, which was signed on April 8, 2010 by the U.S. and Russia, legally binds each state to limit their strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 on 700 strategic delivery systems as well as limits each side to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This limit is 30% lower than the previously allowed 2,200 nuclear warhead amount agreed upon in the 2002 SORT Treaty and 50% lower than the 1,600 vehicle delivery limit established under the 1991 START 1 agreement. In addition to major limits on each country’s physical nuclear stockpiles, the treaty also commits each state to mandatory, on-site inspections of nuclear storage and production facilities, data exchanges, and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by this treaty. New START entered into force on February 5, 2011, after both parties had signed and gained Senate and parliamentary approval in their respective governments, and both parties recently agreed to extend the treaty by five years in January of 2021. 

    New START provides invaluable national security information to the U.S. by providing insights on the Russian nuclear arsenal, as well as maintains an international standard for nuclear non-proliferation by the world’s two largest nuclear powers. In a larger sense, the treaty creates a stable base on which to uphold the major international arms control treaties such as the NPT, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The renewal of New START by the U.S. and Russia is particularly important for the continued support and upholding of the NPT because although its global support is strong, statements by members of civil society confirm that its long-term viability needs to be continually addressed. The U.S. and Russia have had contentious relations dating back to Soviet-era politics, and the constant imbalance between competition and cooperation perpetuates their struggle to coexist. START is significant for what it aims to achieve in terms of international arms control measures, but also because it is one issue that the U.S. and Russia have been able to work together and agree upon. Although bilateral relations have sharply deteriorated when it comes to other international security issues such as offensive cybersecurity, counter-space, and hypersonic weapons, nuclear non-proliferation remains an issue that the U.S. and Russia actively cooperate with.

  • Cate Longo, College of the Holy Cross

    Cate Longo, College of the Holy Cross

    Linkedin

    Cate Longo (she/her/hers) is originally from Omaha, NE and is currently a rising senior at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA. She is majoring in International Studies with a geographic focus on Latin America and a thematic focus on conflict and conflict resolution with a minor in Environmental Studies. She is interested in research surrounding international human rights, peace and conflict, and nuclear-non proliferation. She hopes to attain a JD after completing her undergraduate studies and would like to do work involving the intersection of human rights and international security. In her free time, she enjoys traveling, catching up on the news, listening to music, and exploring art museums.