Humanitarian access as a jurisdictional contest
Résumé
It argues that the doctrinal architecture of international humanitarian law, built on the complementary principles of impartial relief and state sovereignty, produces a structural indeterminacy that states and humanitarian organisations resolve through competing claims to interpretive authority. Drawing on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the practice of United Nations treaty bodies, and the operational doctrine of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the analysis identifies the mechanism through which sovereignty claims displace impartiality claims in the absence of an authoritative interpretive forum. A sensitivity analysis examines how variation in the recognition of belligerency, the presence of consent, and the characterisation of internal disturbance alters the jurisdictional balance. The article concludes that the doctrinal tension is not a defect to be corrected but a constitutive feature of a decentralised legal order, and that proposals for humanitarian access reform must engage with this jurisdictional structure rather than treat access as a technical question of negotiation.
Citer ce document
Accès au document
Texte intégral en lecture en ligne, réservé aux abonnés SPHAERO et aux membres de l'institution. Se connecter
Voir l'article sur le site de la revueStatistiques
Consultations : 1
Téléchargements : 0