Resultaat 13–24 van de 137 resultaten wordt getoond
C.M.J. Ryngaert
In deze bijdrage reageert Cedric Ryngaert op het artikel ‘De humanitaire grenzen aan het volkenrechtelijk mandaat’. Hij argumenteert in deze bijdrage met name dat Nederland, in het belang van de menselijke waardigheid die ook ten grondslag ligt aan het Responsibility to Protect-discours, zijn verzet dient op te geven tegen een liberale interpretatie van het recht op zelfverdediging jegens niet-statelijke actoren zoals IS.
Opinie | Tweeluikjuni 2015AA20150470
P.D. Duyx
May NATO interfere in internal armed conflicts of its own members or partners? This is the question that is examined in this essay. Although an interference by NATO against member states is (conceivably) contrary to NATO's funding principles, such a role for NATO might be possible when essential human rights are at stake. Interference by NATO on NATO territory could, if well balanced and approved of by all NATO members, in fact be in the interest of the NATO citizen. Moreover, this may strengthen a general rule of humanitarian intervention and this may (to some extent) deter parties or members from participating in internal armed conflicts on NATO territory. Furthermore, allowing NATO to internally interfere would facilitate the expansion of the number of members and partners. Then, although NATO would change and expand, it would still be able to firmly retain to the basis of a democratic rule of law.
Verdieping | Studentartikelfebruari 2008AA20080108
september 2006
I.F. Dekker, N.J. Schrijver
december 2006
maart 2007
september 2007
december 2007
maart 2008
juni 2008
september 2008
maart 2009
juni 2009
In deze bijdrage reageert Cedric Ryngaert op het artikel ‘De humanitaire grenzen aan het volkenrechtelijk mandaat’. Hij argumenteert in deze bijdrage met name dat Nederland, in het belang van de menselijke waardigheid die ook ten grondslag ligt aan het Responsibility to Protect-discours, zijn verzet dient op te geven tegen een liberale interpretatie van het recht op zelfverdediging jegens niet-statelijke actoren zoals IS. 
May NATO interfere in internal armed conflicts of its own members or partners? This is the question that is examined in this essay. Although an interference by NATO against member states is (conceivably) contrary to NATO's funding principles, such a role for NATO might be possible when essential human rights are at stake. Interference by NATO on NATO territory could, if well balanced and approved of by all NATO members, in fact be in the interest of the NATO citizen. Moreover, this may strengthen a general rule of humanitarian intervention and this may (to some extent) deter parties or members from participating in internal armed conflicts on NATO territory. Furthermore, allowing NATO to internally interfere would facilitate the expansion of the number of members and partners. Then, although NATO would change and expand, it would still be able to firmly retain to the basis of a democratic rule of law. 
