International Law purports to regulate military force in two key ways. The first we refer to as the jus ad bellum - the legal regulation of the circumstances in which resort to military force is justified. The heated public debate about whether or not Australia was legally justified in joining the US and the UK in invading Iraq in 2003 is a classic example of the interpretation and application of this area of International Law. The key treaty here is the UN Charter with its general prohibition on resort to military force and its principal exceptions in Chapter VII - UN Security Council authorisation of resort to force and the right of self-defence.
The second area of International Law we refer to as the jus in bello, International Humanitarian Law, the Law of War or the Law of Armed Conflict (all basically synonymous terms). Here International Law purports to regulate the actual conduct of military hostilities insisting upon a distinction between combatants and civilians, imposing limits on the targeting of military objectives, prohibiting the use of particular weapons and establishing minimum standards of treatment for prisoners of war and civilians affected by armed conflict.
The focus of this course is the second area involving International Law and the regulation of military force. Some would argue that war, of all human activity, is no place for law - or that any notion that law might regulate military conduct is naive and deluded. The International Committee of the Red Cross, with its multilateral treaty mandate as the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, profoundly disagrees with such scepticism arguing that law can indeed moderate the conduct of military hostilities. If there were no rules in war, military hospitals would be bombed all the time instead of only some of the time! There is no question that the relatively recent sharp increase in war crimes trials around the world has led inexorably to a surge in awareness of International Humanitarian Law and, some would argue, increased respect for this body of law. Allegations of Israeli war crimes in Gaza or Sri Lankan Government war crimes on the Jaffna Peninsula are but some of the recent high-profile examples of media fascination with International Humanitarian Law.
|Unit name||International Humanitarian Law|
|Faculty/School||Faculty of Law|
|Available as student elective?||No|
|Location||Study period||Attendance options||Available to|
- International students
- Domestic students
Units are offered in attending mode unless otherwise indicated (that is attendance is required at the campus identified). A unit identified as offered by distance, that is there is no requirement for attendance, is identified with a nominal enrolment campus. A unit offered to both attending students and by distance from the same campus is identified as having both modes of study.
Special approval is required for enrolment into TNE Program units.
|Study Period||Start date||Census date||WW date||End date|
* The Final WW Date is the final date from which you can withdraw from the unit without academic penalty, however you will still incur a financial liability (see Withdrawal dates explained for more information).
Unit census dates currently displaying for 2016 are indicative and subject to change. Finalised census dates for 2016 will be available from the 1st October 2016.
|Band||CSP Student Contribution||Full Fee Paying (domestic)||Field of Education|
|3||2015: $1,283.00||2015: $1,486.00||090999|
Fees for next year will be published in October. The fees above only apply for the year shown.
Please note: international students should refer to this page to get an indicative course cost.
- Pre-requisites: Either LAW631 AND LAW221, LAW222, LAW223, LAW224, LAW225, LAW226, LAW204, LAW205 OR LAW631 AND LAW250, LAW251 LAW252, LAW253, LAW254, LAW255, LAW256, LAW204.
2000 word written assignment (30%); two hour open book examination (70%).
|Timetable||View the lecture timetable | View the full unit timetable|