| Abstract | Nakon detaljne analize odredbi međunarodnog humanitarnog prava koje uređuju zaštitu osoba u oružanim sukobima, bilo da se radi o međunarodnim ili nemeđunarodnim oružanim sukobima dolazimo do zaključka da se ne može definirati značajan napredak u tom području.
Sukobi koji su obilježili posljednjih pedesetak godina, a i trenutno aktivni sukobi u svijetu ukazuju na činjenicu da unatoč opsežnim odredbama Ženevskih konvencija i Dodatnih protokola, predmetna materija „vapi“ za promjenama, revidiranjem i ispravljanjem uočenih nedostataka i praznina.
Kao najveći problem svakako se nameće problem mehanizma provedbe i nadzora provedbe odredbi, a djelovanje međunarodne zajednice s pravom se stavlja pod veliku upitnik. Činjenica je da je svijet svaki danom napredniji, razvijeniji i moderniji te da navedeni napredak i razvoj nije zaobišao ni područje ratovanja i sukobljavanja pa se relativno zastarjele odredbe susreću s novim metodama ratovanja i novim opasnim, nuklearnim i biološkim oružjem.
Osobito primjećujemo da razlikovanje regulacije između međunarodnih i nemeđunarodnih oružanih sukoba predstavlja dodatan problem i izazov, jer civilu koji je pogođen takvim sukobom irelevantna je pravna determinacija, njemu treba zaštita.
Kako će se sve navedeno u konačnici razvijati ovisi o brojnim akterima, nacionalnim vladama, financijskim moćnicima, Ujedinjenim narodima i njihovoj međusobnoj suradnji no umjesto izjavne rečenice, rad ćemo završiti s jednim pitanjem, a odgovor na koje, ostavljamo štovanom čitatelju. Možemo li reći da je međunarodno humanitarno pravo zapravo arhaično, jer u konačnici stvarali su ga oni koji sebe možda nisu htjeli opteretiti strogim pravilima i ograničenjima? Možda se upravo u odgovoru na ovo pitanje i rješavanju te problematike krije jedno od ključnih sredstava buduće, nadamo se kvalitetnije regulacije, |
| Abstract (english) | After a detailed analysis of the provisions of international humanitarian law that regulate the protection of persons in armed conflicts, whether it is international or non-international armed conflicts, we come to the conclusion that no significant progress can be defined in this area.
The conflicts that have marked the last fifty years, as well as the currently active conflicts in the world, point to the fact that despite the extensive provisions of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, the matter in question "cries out" for changes, revision and correction of perceived deficiencies and gaps.
The problem of the mechanism of implementation and supervision of the implementation of the provisions certainly arises as the biggest problem, and the action of the international community is rightly put under a big question mark. The fact is that the world is more advanced, more developed and more modern every day, and that said progress and development has not bypassed the area of warfare and conflict, so relatively outdated provisions meet with new methods of warfare and new dangerous, nuclear and biological weapons. We particularly note that the distinction between regulation between international and non-international armed conflicts represents an additional problem and challenge, because a civilian affected by such a conflict is irrelevant to legal determination, he needs protection.
Future development depends on numerous actors, national governments, financial powers, the United Nations and their mutual cooperation, but instead of a declarative sentence, we will end the paper with one question, the answer to which we leave to the esteemed reader. Can we say that international humanitarian law is actually archaic, because ultimately it was created by those who perhaps did not want to burden themselves with strict rules and restrictions? Perhaps one of the key means of future, hopefully better regulation, is hidden precisely in the answer to this question and the solution to this problem. |
