‘WARS ON TERROR’ AND VICARIOUS HEGEMONS: THE UK, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND THE NORTHERN IRELAND CONFLICT

Author:

Campbell Colm

Abstract

The hegemonic position of the United States, and its implication for international law, are rapidly emerging as sites of intense scholarly interest.1It is a truism that the fall of the Berlin wall has been followed by a period of unprecedented American predominance in the military, economic, and political spheres. Replacing the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War is a world in flux, dominated, to a significant extent, by one remaining superpower, or, in the words of the former French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, by a ‘hyperpower’.2Some though, have emphasised the continuing importance of other loci of (lesser) power in a ‘uni-multipolar’ world.3That this domination posed critical questions for international law was obvious well before the 9/11 atrocities, as the debate over NATO's use of force in Kosovo illustrated. Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and with the global ‘war on terror’ reaching into ever-increasing spheres, the debate has intensified significantly.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Law,Political Science and International Relations

Reference210 articles.

1. A Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards

2. The documents drawn upon by the European Court in Jordan and the other cases of May 2001 included the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, and the Minnesota Protocol (Model Protocol for a legal investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions, contained in the UN Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions). The Court also made reference to the work of the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture in relation to the need for independent investigation of police wrong-doing in the UK

3. Magee v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 35.

4. See Fox , Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990)13 EHRR 157.

5. Two Steps Backwards: The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998;Campbell;Criminal Law Review,1999

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3