Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Splendid Isolation: International Humanitarian Law, Legal Theory and the International Legal Order

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2011 - Volume 14

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ((YIHL,volume 14))

Abstract

International humanitarian law (IHL) is one of the oldest and most distinctive sectors of the international legal order. IHL’s historical development has been unique; from one of the original focal points of international law it has since become a highly specialised area, isolated from the broader international legal academic debate. The most obvious example of this isolation is the lack of discussion of the place of IHL in contemporary debates on the future of international law such as fragmentation and constitutionalisation. The reasons for this isolation are manifold, however, given IHL’s position as a prime example of fragmentation and the issues it raises for constitutionalisation it is questionable whether these debates can be conclusive until they tackle the issues presented by this particular body of law. This ‘splendid isolation’ is detrimental to both the contemporary international legal debate and IHL.

I would like to thank Colin Murray and the reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this piece. All errors are my own.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    International humanitarian law and jus in bello are used interchangeably and are intended to mean the law of armed conflict, though some argue there are differences between them. Greenwood 2008, p. 11.

  2. 2.

    Neff 2005.

  3. 3.

    Koskenniemi and Leino 2002, Hafner 2003–2004, Simma 2003–2004, Buffard et al. 2008, Dupuy 1999, Benvenisti and Downs (2007–2008), ILC Fragmentation Report.

  4. 4.

    Wheatley 2010, Wheatley and Berman 2007, Kirsch 2010.

  5. 5.

    Domingo 2011, Kumm 2009, Pierik and Werner 2010, Feldman 2006, Benhabib 2006.

  6. 6.

    Klabbers et al. 2009, Walker 2008, Macdonald and Johnston 2005, Dunoff and Trachtman 2009, Fassbender 2009.

  7. 7.

    Positivism and the New Haven School are two such examples. McDougal 1953, McDougal et al. 1967–1968, 1987–1988, Hart 1965.

  8. 8.

    Koskenniemi and Leino 2002, Hafner 2003–2004, Simma 2003–2004, Buffard et al. 2008, Dupuy 1999, Benvenisti and Downs 2007–2008, ILC Fragmentation Report.

  9. 9.

    Klabbers et al. 2009, Walker 2008, Macdonald and Johnston 2005, Dunoff and Trachtman 2009, Fassbender 2009.

  10. 10.

    Fassbender 2009, pp. 124–125, 145–146, Tzanakópoulos 2011, pp. 56–58.

  11. 11.

    Cass 2005, Petersmann 2008.

  12. 12.

    Dunoff 2000, p. 86.

  13. 13.

    Pictet 1985, pp. 5–25, see particularly, pp. 15–16 on chivalry and its influence on the development of international law, see also Grotius 1646, Gentili 1612, Blackstone 1758 Book IV Chapter V.

  14. 14.

    Berman 2004–2005, pp. 15–16, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion (1996) ICJ Rep 226, para 82, Neff 2005.

  15. 15.

    MacMahon 2010, pp. 496–497, International Committee of the Red Cross 2011.

  16. 16.

    Lindroos 2005, p. 30.

  17. 17.

    See as an example the relationship between human rights and IHL Provost 2002, pp. 2–3.

  18. 18.

    Schachter 1995.

  19. 19.

    Sloane 2009.

  20. 20.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2009.

  21. 21.

    Dinstein 2005, p. 57, Berman 2004–2005.

  22. 22.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra n. 14.

  23. 23.

    The ICC will doubtless also contribute, though at this point at least, its case law is limited.

  24. 24.

    Danner 2006, Kaul 2008.

  25. 25.

    Simma and Pulkowski 2006, pp. 484–485, 529.

  26. 26.

    Cassese 1990.

  27. 27.

    Dunoff 2000, pp. 87–88.

  28. 28.

    Moreno-Ocampo 2010, Cassese 1998 and on the quality of Court's analysis Kretzmer 2005.

  29. 29.

    Orakhelashvili 2008, p. 162 discusses the role of pre-conceived attitudes in the debate between human rights and IHL as does Cassimatis 2007, pp. 628–629, Draper 1979, Stephens 2001, pp. 9–14.

  30. 30.

    Though this isolation is not related to IHL as a form of law.

  31. 31.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, p. 14.

  32. 32.

    Greenwood 2008, pp. 105–124.

  33. 33.

    Greenwood 2008, p. 72.

  34. 34.

    Lex Specialis appears in Article 55 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility and is defined as, ‘These articles do not apply where and to the extent that the conditions for the existence of an internationally wrongful act or the content or implementation of the international responsibility of a State are governed by special rules of international law’—Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third session Supplement No 10 a/56/10. These articles operate in a residual fashion, Commentary on Draft Articles pp. 140, 136. See also European Union Guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law at para 12—European Union Guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian IHL law [2005] OJC327/04, UN Report Situation of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay E/CN.4/2006/120, p. 10.

  35. 35.

    Akehurst 1974–1975 ‘lex specialis is nothing more than a rule of interpretation' p. 273.

  36. 36.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, pp. 33–39.

  37. 37.

    Pauwelyn 2003, pp. 386–399.

  38. 38.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra n. 14, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion [2004] ICJ Reports 136, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda [2005] ICJ Reports 168.

  39. 39.

    Greenwood 2008.

  40. 40.

    The Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen and United States of America Award, Case No ARB (AF/98/3, 26 June 2003, 42 ILM 2003 811, p. 837.

  41. 41.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, p 29.

  42. 42.

    Cassimatis 2007, p 631, Lindroos 2005, p. 31.

  43. 43.

    Sandoz 2003, pp. 11–12.

  44. 44.

    S.S. Wimbledon, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 1, p. 23.

  45. 45.

    Akehurst1974–1975, p. 273.

  46. 46.

    Simma and Pulkowski 2006, p. 496.

  47. 47.

    Paulus 2005.

  48. 48.

    Meron 2000, case law discussing jus cogens include, ICTY, Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalić, Zdravko Mucić, Hazim Delić, and Esad Landžo (‘Čelebići’), Judgment of the Trial Chamber (IT-96-21-T) 16th November 1998, para 454, and Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 November 2001, no.35763/97 ECHR 2001. The ICJ's approach to jus cogens has been somewhat tortuous see, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra n. 14 at para 79, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) Jurisdiction and Admissibility [2006] ICJ Rep 1, paras 64 and 125. For a good overview of the development of jus cogens see Nieto-Navia 2003.

  49. 49.

    Hannikainen 1988, p. 606.

  50. 50.

    Gill and Fleck 2010, pp. 75–77, Linderfalk 2007, p. 866.

  51. 51.

    For a discussion on the relationship between international criminal law and IHL law see Kaul 2008.

  52. 52.

    Gill and Fleck 2010, p. 281, The Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 29 on the ICCPR, recognises the right to life as a jus cogens norm—see UN Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No.29: State of Emergency (Article 4)’, 31 August 2001, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11.

  53. 53.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, pp. 13–14.

  54. 54.

    Simma 1985, p. 112.

  55. 55.

    Mégret 2011, p 226.

  56. 56.

    ILC Fragmentation Report.

  57. 57.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, pp. 9 and 11.

  58. 58.

    Koskenniemi and Leino 2002, Hafner 2003–2004, Simma 2003–2004, Buffard et al. 2008, Dupuy 1999, Benvenisti and Downs 2007–2008, ILC Fragmentation Report.

  59. 59.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, p. 8, Jenks 1953, p. 403, Klager 2011, p. 91, Simma and Pulkowski 2006, pp. 485–486, Tzanakópoulos 2011, p. 57.

  60. 60.

    Jenks 1953, p. 403, Simma and Pulkowski 2006, pp. 485–486, ILC Fragmentation Report, p. 8.

  61. 61.

    For a discussion of the role of fragmentation in investment law see, Klager 2011, pp. 89–112 and the interactions between trade, environment and human rights see Hafner 2003–2004, pp. 851–854.

  62. 62.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, p. 11.

  63. 63.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, p. 44.

  64. 64.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, p. 44.

  65. 65.

    ILC Fragmentation Report, pp. 47–48.

  66. 66.

    For a discussion of some of the complementary elements of human rights and IHL law see Zimmerman 2008, pp. 764–766, Orakhelashvili 2008, Cassimatis 2007 and on the case Lindroos, 2005, pp. 42–44.

  67. 67.

    Petrasek 1998, p. 560, Draper 1979, Stephens 2001, pp. 9–14, Cassimatis 2007, p. 629.

  68. 68.

    Klabbers et al. 2009, p. 11.

  69. 69.

    As an example of contrast see single sector constitutionalisation Cass 2005, Petersmann 1999 and world order constitutionalisation Peters 2005, De Wet 2006.

  70. 70.

    Fassbender 2009.

  71. 71.

    Walker 2008.

  72. 72.

    Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, p. 17.

  73. 73.

    Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, pp. 17–26.

  74. 74.

    Watkins 1940.

  75. 75.

    Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, pp. 30–35.

  76. 76.

    Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, pp. 26–30.

  77. 77.

    Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, pp. 17–26.

  78. 78.

    Dicey 1915, p. 280.

  79. 79.

    Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, pp. 26–30.

  80. 80.

    Martial law is, of the two, closest to the use of military law, though not necessarily IHL law, Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, pp. 30–35, see also for a historical overview Fairman 1943 and the work of Dicey, particularly the final 8th edition which was the last volume which Dicey edited.

  81. 81.

    Gross and Ní Aolain refer to Japan, US and Belgium as three examples of constitutions which are silent on explicit powers during emergencies, Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, pp. 37, 41–43.

  82. 82.

    McGoldrick 2004, p. 380 Gross and Ní Aolain.

  83. 83.

    Gross and Ní Aolain 2006, p. 326, Hamdi v Rumsfield 542 US 507 (2004), p. 579.

  84. 84.

    Walker 2008.

  85. 85.

    Dinstein 2005, pp. 175–216, 278–290.

  86. 86.

    Nollkaemper 2009, Wheatley 2010.

  87. 87.

    Walker 2008, pp. 526, 537.

  88. 88.

    De Wet 2006, Fassbender 2009, Peters 2006.

  89. 89.

    Greenwood 2008, p. 39.

  90. 90.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra n.14, para 79.

References

  • Akehurst M (1974–1975) The hierarchy of the sources of international law. British Yearb Int Law 47:273

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib S (2006) Another cosmopolitanism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti E, Downs GW (2007–2008) The Empire’s new clothes: political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Rev 60:595

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman N (2004–2005) Privileging combat—contemporary conflict and the legal construction of war. Columbia J Transnatl Law 43:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone W (1758) Commentaries on the laws of England. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffard I, Crawford J, Hafner G, Pellet A (2008) International law between universalism and fragmentation: Festschrift in honour of Gerhard Hafner. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cass DZ (2005) The constitutionalization of the World Trade Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (1998) On the current trends towards criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law. European J Int Law 9:2–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (1990) Remarks on Scelle’s theory of ‘role splitting’ (dédoublement fonctionnel) in international law. European J Int Law 2:210

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassimatis AE (2007) International humanitarian law, international human rights law, and fragmentation of international law. Int Comp Law Q 56:623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danner AM (2006) When courts make law: how the international criminal tribunals recast the laws of war. Vanderbilt Law Rev 59:2

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wet E (2006) The international constitutional order. Int Comp Law Q 55:51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dicey AV (1915) Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution. MacMillian, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2005) War, aggression and self-defence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Domingo R (2011) Gaius, Vattel, and the new global law paradigm. European J Int Law 22:627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper G (1979) Humanitarian law and human rights. Acta Juridica 193:205

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunoff JL (2000) International legal scholarship at the millennium. Chic J Int Law 1:85

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunoff JL, Trachtman JP (eds) (2009) Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P (1999) The danger of fragmentation or unification in the international legal system and the international court of justice. N Y J Law Policy 31:791

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairman C (1943) The law of martial rule. Callaghan, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender B (2009) The United Nations Charter as the constitution of the international community. Brill, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman N (2006) Cosmopolitan law? Yale Law J 116:101

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentili A (1612) De iure belli libri tres. (Rolfe JC Translator). Clarendon Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD, Fleck D (2010) The handbook of the international law of military operations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C (2008) Scope of application of humanitarian law. In: Fleck D (ed) International law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross O, Ní Aolain F (2006) Law in times of crisis emergency powers in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grotius H (1646) De jure belli ac pacis libri tres. (Kelsey, FW Translator). Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner G (2003–2004) Pros and cons ensuing from fragmentation of international law. Mich J Int Law 225:849

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannikainen L (1988) Peremptory norms in international humanitarian law. Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1965) The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J, Doswald-Beck L (2009) Customary international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC Fragmentation Report, International Law Commission (2006) Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Yearbook of the international law commission, vol II, Part 2

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (2011) Customary International Humanitarian Law Database. http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home. Accessed 22 Nov 2011

  • Jenks W (1953) The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties. British Yearb Int Law 30:401

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul H (2008) International criminal court—international humanitarian law at work. In: Buffard I, Crawford J, Hafner G, Pellet A (eds) International law between universalism and fragmentation: festschrift in honour of Gerhard Hafner. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch N (2010) Beyond constitutionalism: the pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J, Peters A, Ulfstein G (2009) The constitutionalisation of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klager R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M, Leino P (2002) Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden J Int Law 15:553

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretzmer D (2005) The advisory opinion: the light treatment of international humanitarian law. Am J Int Law 99:88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2009) The Cosmopolitan turn in constitutionalism: on the relationship between constitutionalism in and beyond the state. In: Dunoff JL, Trachtman JP (eds) Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2007) The effect of Jus Cogens norms: whoever opened Pandora’s Box, did you ever think about the consequences? European J Int Law 18:853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroos A (2005) Addressing norm conflicts in a fragmented legal system: the doctrine of lex specialis. Nordic J Int Law 74:27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald R, Johnston DM (eds) (2005) Towards world constitutionalism, issues in the legal ordering of the world community. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS (1953) International law, power and policy: a contemporary conception. Recueil des Cours 82:137

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS, Lasswell HD, Reisman WM (1967–1968) Theories about international law: prologue to a configurative jurisprudence. Vanderbilt J Int Law 8:188

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS, Reissman WM, Willard AR (1987–1988) The world community: a planetary social process. UC Davis Law Rev 21:807

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMahon J (2010) Laws of war. In: Besson S, Tasioulas J (eds) The philosophy of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoldrick D (2004) The Interface between public emergency powers and international law. Int J Const Law 2:380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2011) International human rights law theory. In: Orakhelashvili A (ed) Research handbook on theory and history of international law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (2000) The humanization of humanitarian law. Am J Int Law 94:239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Ocampo L (2010) The international criminal court—some reflections. Yearb Int Humanit Law 12:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff SC (2005) War and the law of nations: a general history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto-Navia R (2003) International pre-emptory norms and international humanitarian law. In: Cassese A, Vohrah L (eds) Man’s inhumanity to man: essays on international law in honour of Antonio Cassese. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper A (2009) The internationalized rule of law. Hague J Rule Law 1:74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2008) The interaction between human rights and humanitarian law, fragmentation, conflict, parallelism or convergence? Eur J Int Law 19:161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus A (2005) Jus Cogens in a time of hegemony and fragmentation. Nordic J Int Law 74:297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2003) Conflict of norms in public international law: how WTO law relates to other rules of international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pierik R, Werner WG (eds) (2010) Cosmopolitanism in context: perspectives from international law and political theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2005) Global constitutionalism revisited. Int Legal Theory 11:39

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2006) Compensatory constitutionalism: the function and potential of fundamental international norms and structures. Leiden J Int Law 19:579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann E (1999) Constitutionalism and international adjudication: how to constitutionalize the UN dispute settlement system? N Y University J Int Law Policy 31:75

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann E (2008) Human rights, international economic law and ‘constitutional justice’. European J Int Law 19:769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrasek D (1998) Current developments—moving forward on the development of minimum humanitarian standards. Am J Int Law 92:557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (1985) Development and principles of international humanitarian law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordect

    Google Scholar 

  • Provost R (2002) International human rights and humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz Y (2003) International humanitarian law in the twenty-first century. Yearb Int Humani Law 6:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1995) International law in theory and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1985) Self contained regimes. Neth Yearb Int Law 16:112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2003–2004) Fragmentation in a positive light. Michigan J Int Law 25:845

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Pulkowski D (2006) Of planets and the universe: self-contained regimes in international law. European J Int Law 17:483–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloane RD (2009) The cost of conflation: preserving the dualism of jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the contemporary law of war. Yale J Int Law 34:47

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens D (2001) Human rights and armed conflict—the advisory opinion of the international court of justice in the nuclear weapons case. Yale Human Rights Dev Law J 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzanakópoulos A (2011) Disobeying the Security Council: countermeasures against wrongful sanctions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker N (2008) Taking constitutionalism beyond the state. Political Studies 56:519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins FM (1940) The problem of constitutional dictatorship. Public Policy 1:324

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley S (2010) The democratic legitimacy of international law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley S, Berman PS (2007) A pluralist approach to international law. Yale J Int Law 32:301

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman A (2008) Extraterritorial application of human rights. In: Buffard I, Crawford J, Hafner G, Pellet A (eds) International law between universalism and fragmentation: Festschrift in honour of Gerhard Hafner. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Durham Law School, Durham, UK

    Aoife O’Donoghue

Authors
  1. Aoife O’Donoghue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aoife O’Donoghue .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , CNWS-ILD, United States Naval War College, 686 Cushing Road, Newport, 02841-1207, Rhode Island, USA

    Michael N. Schmitt

  2. , Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Aff, St. James´s Square 10, London, SW1Y 4LE, United Kingdom

    Louise Arimatsu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Donoghue, A. (2012). Splendid Isolation: International Humanitarian Law, Legal Theory and the International Legal Order. In: Schmitt, M., Arimatsu, L. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2011 - Volume 14. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol 14. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-855-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation