Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

fhs.se
Endre søk
Begrens søket
1 - 12 of 12
RefereraExporteraLink til resultatlisten
Permanent link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Treff pr side
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Forfatter A-Ø
  • Forfatter Ø-A
  • Tittel A-Ø
  • Tittel Ø-A
  • Type publikasjon A-Ø
  • Type publikasjon Ø-A
  • Eldste først
  • Nyeste først
  • Skapad (Eldste først)
  • Skapad (Nyeste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Eldste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyeste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidligste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (siste først)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Forfatter A-Ø
  • Forfatter Ø-A
  • Tittel A-Ø
  • Tittel Ø-A
  • Type publikasjon A-Ø
  • Type publikasjon Ø-A
  • Eldste først
  • Nyeste først
  • Skapad (Eldste først)
  • Skapad (Nyeste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Eldste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyeste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidligste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (siste først)
Merk
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 1.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    International Law and Policy Institute (ILPI), NOR..
    Do the Good Intentions of European Human Rights Law Really Pave the Road to IHL Hell for Civilian Detainees in Occupied Territory?2015Inngår i: Journal of Conflict and Security Law, ISSN 1467-7954, E-ISSN 1467-7962, Vol. 20, nr 1, s. 133-163Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    This article cautions against the notion that the good intentions of European human rights law necessarily undermine international humanitarian law. In Al-Jedda, despite some suggestions to the contrary, the European Court did not misconstrue the law of belligerent occupation. The court erred, however, in assuming that the duty of non-detention under Article 5(1) of the European Convention can only be ‘displaced’ by a counter-duty of security detention. Whereas the law of belligerent occupation does not impose such a counter-duty, it does empower the occupation authorities to detain on security grounds, and exercising this power would frustrate observing Article 5(1) and vice versa. The norm conflict was soluble, but the would-be need to modify the scope and/or content of Article 5(1) or the law of belligerent occupation, rendered the European Court ill suited for the task. Nevertheless, the court’s ruling against the UK need not mean that European occupying powers suddenly have no choice but to kill rather than detain without charge (and risk lawsuits later) when countering security threats. On the contrary, the law of belligerent occupation helps the occupiers devise Al-Jedda-compliant detention regimes. The judgment’s repercussions are direr for the internment of prisoners of war.

  • 2.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
    Eliminating v. Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons? Debunking a False Dilemma2015Annet (Annet (populærvitenskap, debatt, mm))
  • 3.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    Försvarshögskolan, Institutionen för säkerhet, strategi och ledarskap (ISSL), Centrum för operativ juridik och folkrätt.
    General Principles of International Humanitarian Law2021Inngår i: The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law / [ed] Dieter Fleck, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, 4, s. 81-92Kapittel i bok, del av antologi (Fagfellevurdert)
  • 4.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    Oslo, Norway.
    Is the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Accessible to Umbrella States?2019Inngår i: Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume IV: Human Perspectives on the Development and Use of Nuclear Energy / [ed] Jonathan L. Black-Branch and Dieter Fleck, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2019, s. 377-394Kapittel i bok, del av antologi (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    This chapter asserts that States placing themselves under the umbrella of nuclear-weapon States may not join the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons without being in breach with one of its core provisions. The author considers four questions: How did the Treaty come to include a prohibition on threatened use? What does the prohibition mean for threatened self-defensive use of nuclear weapons under jus ad bellum? Does the prohibition cover nuclear deterrence? Does threatening to use nuclear weapons include threatening to have these weapons used on one’s behalf by its nuclear-armed ally? Whilst promoting universal adherence clearly coheres with the Treaty’s object and purpose, it is doubtful whether such considerations warrant a narrow construal in the hope that umbrella States would accede to the treaty without having to abandon their dependence onextended nuclear deterrence.

  • 5.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    Pluricourts, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, NOR..
    Legality under jus ad bellum of the threat of use of nuclear weapons2014Inngår i: Nuclear Weapons under International Law / [ed] Gro Nystuen, Stuart Casey-Maslen and Annie Golden Bersagel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, s. 31-58Kapittel i bok, del av antologi (Fagfellevurdert)
  • 6.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
    Military Necessity: The Art, Morality and Law of War2020Bok (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    What does it mean to say that international humanitarian law (IHL) strikes a realistic and meaningful balance between military necessity and humanity, and that the law therefore 'accounts for' military necessity? To what consequences does the law 'accounting for' military necessity give rise? Through real-life examples and careful analysis, this book challenges received wisdom on the subject by devising a new theory that not only reaffirms Kriegsräson's fallacy but also explains why IHL has no reason to restrict or prohibit militarily unnecessary conduct on that ground alone. Additionally, the theory hypothesises greater normative significance for humanitarian and chivalrous imperatives when they conflict with IHL rules. By combining international law, jurisprudence, military history, strategic studies, and moral philosophy, this book reveals how rational fighting relates to ethical fighting, how IHL incorporates contrasting values that shape its rules, and how law and theory adapt themselves to war's evolutions.

  • 7.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    International Law and Policy Institute, Oslo, Norway.
    The Role and Importance of the Hague Conferences: A Historical Perspective2017Rapport (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    A period of sustained efforts to codify and develop the rules of war, which began in the mid-nineteenth century, peaked with the 1899 and 1907 Hague Peace Conferences. Participating delegates adopted numerous binding instruments covering various aspects of peaceful dispute settlement and war-fighting. This paper places the two Hague Peace Conferences within the context of humanity’s attempts to regulate warfare. It identifies the main factors that made them successful at the time; shows how these factors have changed over time; and assesses the conferences’ contemporary relevance in view of such changes.

  • 8.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    Försvarshögskolan, Institutionen för statsvetenskap och juridik, Centrum för operativ juridik och folkrätt.
    Weapons of Mass Destruction2022Inngår i: Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights / [ed] Christina Binder, Manfred Nowak, Jane A. Hofbauer, Philipp Janig, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022, s. 556-566Kapittel i bok, del av antologi (Fagfellevurdert)
  • 9.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    et al.
    University of Oslo.
    Bailliet, Cecilia M.PluriCourts; University of Oslo, Norge.
    The Legitimacy of International Criminal Tribunals2017Collection/Antologi (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    With the ad hoc tribunals completing their mandates and the International Criminal Court under significant pressure, today's international criminal jurisdictions are at a critical juncture. Their legitimacy cannot be taken for granted. This multidisciplinary volume investigates key issues pertaining to legitimacy: criminal accountability, normative development, truth-discovery, complementarity, regionalism, and judicial cooperation. The volume sheds new light on previously unexplored areas, including the significance of redacted judgements, prosecutors' opening statements, rehabilitative processes of international convicts, victim expectations, court financing, and NGO activism. The book's original contributions will appeal to researchers, practitioners, advocates, and students of international criminal justice, accountability for war crimes and the rule of law.

  • 10.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    et al.
    Försvarshögskolan, Institutionen för statsvetenskap och juridik, Centrum för operativ juridik och folkrätt.
    Lingaas, Carola
    VID Specialized University (NOR).
    Conclusion: The Hostage Case, Present Day Knowledge, and Future Implications2023Inngår i: Honest Errors? Combat Decision-Making 75 Years After the Hostage Case / [ed] Nobuo Hayashi; Carola Lingaas, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2023, s. 289-300Kapittel i bok, del av antologi (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    Seventy-five years after a US tribunal in Nuremberg acquitted Lothar Rendulic of devastating and forcibly evacuating Northern Norway, the Rendulic Rule stands firmly in international law. This concluding chapter summarises the anthology’s main historical, legal, and military-ethical findings. It provides an overview of the historical developments that culminated in the scorched earth tactics applied by the retreating German 20th Mountain Army under Rendulic’s command. It then discusses the preparations and legal peculiarities of the trial, as well as reactions to the judgment. The chapter shows that the case against Rendulic is arguably the wrong foundation for the no second-guessing rule, since he did not consider the complete devastation of Northern Norway and the forcible evacuation of its entire civilian population militarily necessary. Although the Rendulic Rule rests on meagre legal forensics, it has acquired legal significance in primary rules of conduct in the shape of the reasonable commander test in international humanitarian law and the mistake of fact defence in international criminal law. Numerous domestic, regional, and international courts and tribunals have applied the rule that nowadays has a strong legal standing. Yet, despite rapidly evolving military and information technology, reasonableness, empathy, and (institutional) bias in combat remain challenging issues

  • 11.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    et al.
    Försvarshögskolan, Institutionen för statsvetenskap och juridik, Centrum för operativ juridik och folkrätt.
    Lingaas, CarolaVID Specialized University (NOR).
    Honest Errors? Combat Decision-Making 75 Years After the Hostage Case2023Collection/Antologi (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    This book marks the 75th anniversary of the 1948 Hostage Case in which a US military tribunal in Nuremberg acquitted General Lothar Rendulic of devastating Northern Norway on account of his honest factual error. The volume critically reappraises the law and facts underlying his trial, the no second-guessing rule in customary international humanitarian law (IHL) that is named after the general himself, and the assessment of modern battlefield decisions.

    Using recently discovered documents, this volume casts major doubts on Rendulic’s claim that he considered the region’s total devastation and the forcible evacuation of all of its inhabitants imperatively demanded by military necessity at the time. This book’s analysis of archival and court records reveals how the tribunal failed to examine relevant facts or explain the Rendulic Rule’s legal origin. This anthology shows that, despite the Hostage Case’s ambiguity and occasional suggestions to the contrary, objective reasonableness forms part of the reasonable commander test under IHL and the mistake of fact defence under international criminal law (ICL) to which the rule has given rise. This collection also identifies modern warfare’s characteristics—human judgment, de-empathetic battlespace, and institutional bias—that may make it problematic to deem some errors both honest and reasonable. The Rendulic Rule embodies an otherwise firmly established admonition against judging contentious battlefield decisions with hindsight. Nevertheless, it was born of a factually ill-suited case and continues to raise significant legal as well as ethical challenges today.

    The most comprehensive study of the Rendulic Rule ever to appear in English, this multi-disciplinary anthology will appeal to researchers and practitioners of IHL and ICL, as well as military historians and military ethicists and offers ground-breaking new research.

  • 12.
    Hayashi, Nobuo
    et al.
    Försvarshögskolan, Institutionen för statsvetenskap och juridik, Centrum för operativ juridik och folkrätt.
    Lingaas, Carola
    VID Specialized University (NOR).
    Honest Errors in Combat Decision-Making: State of Our Knowledge 75 Years after the Hostage Case2023Inngår i: Honest Errors? Combat Decision-Making 75 Years After the Hostage Case / [ed] Nobuo Hayashi; Carola Lingaas, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2023, s. 3-21Kapittel i bok, del av antologi (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    Seventy-five years have passed since Hostage, a post-World War II case in which Lothar Rendulic was acquitted of Northern Norway’s devastation and forcible evacuation on account of his faulty yet honest judgment. This introductory chapter surveys the current state of our knowledge about honest errors in modern combat decision-making by synthesising the findings of the anthology’s contributing authors. First, contemporaneous sources suggest that Rendulic did not consider it militarily necessary to devastate the region in its entirety or to evacuate all of its residents by force. Second, even though Rendulic’s acquittal was factually contentious, it was arguably on firmer legal ground. His case has led to the emergence of an eponymous rule against second-guessing difficult combat decisions, the reasonable commander test in international humanitarian law and the mistake of fact defence in international criminal law. Third, assessing the reasonableness of battlefield errors remains challenging because of the limitations of modern information technology, the diminishing room for empathy in the soldierly profession, and the salience of institutional bias.

1 - 12 of 12
RefereraExporteraLink til resultatlisten
Permanent link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf