پایان نامه military، see، Article

نوامبر 16, 2019 By vZbR33JZrQ

[۱۵۸]- – ICRC Commentary, Article 35 AP I, § ۱۴۵۱.


[۱۵۹]- Id., Article 55 AP I, § ۲۱۲۶.
[۱۶۰]- Nuclear Weapones case, § ۲۹.
[۱۶۱]- M. Bourbonniere, p. 65.
[162]- “Ecological warfare refers to the serious disruption of the natural equilibrium permiting life and the development of man all living organisms, a disruption of which the effects may be felt for one more decades.” ICRC Commenary, Article 35 AP I, § ۱۴۶۲.
[۱۶۳]ENMOD.
[164] – 1977 Convention on The Prohibition of Military or Any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 U. N. T. S. 151, entered into force Oct. 5, 19781108 U.N.T.S. 151, entered into force Oct. 5, 19781108 U.N.T.S. 151, entered into forceon 5 Oct. 1978, Article I.
[165]- Id, Article II.
[166]- – M. Benko, p. 167.
[167]- Article 52(2) AP I reads: “Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or particle destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”. In reflects customary law, see CIHLS, Rules 40-45. See also Rule 40 of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea of 12 June 1994, http://www.icre.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?Open Document (last accessed 24 February 2011).
[168]- M. Bourbonniere, ‘National Security Law in Outer Space: The Interface of Exploration and Security’, Vol. 70 J. Air L. & Com. 2005, pp. 59-60.
[169]- – “Although the psychological import of a certain attack may be a legitimate consideration in choosing between targets which are for other reasons of a military character, that impact alone is not sufficient to establish the qualification of a certain target as a military objective”: M. Bothe, ‘Legal Restraints on Targeting: Protecting Of Civilian Population And The Changing Face Of Modern Conflicts’, Vol. 31 Israel Yearbook Of Human Rights 2002, p. 43.
[170]- – Generally on lawful military use of satellites, see R.A. Morgan. On the International Space, see C. Petras, ”’Space Force Alpha”, Military Use of the International Space Station and the Concept of “Peaceful Purposes”‘, Vol. 53 A.F. L. Rev. 2002, pp. 135-181. The answer to question pertains equally to multi-owner space assets, see R.A. Ramey,pp. 144-150.

[171]- – these communication means included the installations of broadcasting and television stations, telephone and telegraph exchanges of fundamental military importance.
[172]- CIHL . S, Rule 14.
[173]- M.N. Schmitt, pp. 118-120.  

[۱۷۴]- For an excellent work on neutrality issues in the context of targeting, see M. Bourbonniere, ‘The Ambit of the Law of Neutrality and Space Security’, Vol. 36 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 2006, pp. 205-229.
[175]- See article 57 AP I. For examples of state practice , see H. Shuet &D. wippman , “Limiting Attacks on Dual –Use facilities performing indispensable civilian functions’Vol.35 cornell I.L.J.2002,pp.565-566.
[176]- M. sassoli, ‘Legitimate targets of Attacks under international Humanitarian law, background paper prepared for the informal high-level expert meeting on the reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law, Cambridge ,June 27-29,2003’june 2004,p.7,http ://www.hpcr .org /publication /papers .php(Last accessed on 24 february 2011).
[177]-See also CIHL ,S ,Rules 22-24.