MARTIN u s

NITHOFF
PUBLISHERS International Humanitarian Legal Studies 3 {2012) 1-2 briii.tom/ihis

Editorial
while armed conflicts, such as in Syria and natural disasters, including 'silent disasters' such asfloodsand landslides in Peru, are affecting the lives of so many, there is also cause for optimism as the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently celebrated its 10"' anniversary in 2012. A lot remains to be done, yet the international community has made it clear that certain crimes cannot go unpunished. The Rome Statute, as the Statute of the ICC is commonly referred to, is a treaty that owes a great deal to the involvement of civil society and other organizations. Helen Durham contributes to this issue ofJIHLS, with a forv^^ard by Bill Pace, convenor of the Coalition for the International.Criminal Court, with her analysis of the role of civil society in creating the Rome Statute. She highlights the challenges and strengths of civil society in contributing to the coming into existence of the Rome Statute and concludes that civil society continues to play an important role in the ICC fulfilling its mandate. Emily Crawford examines the future of the fundamental standards of humanity once proposed to offer protection in all situations of violence. According to Crawford, although the fundamental standards have been addressed by the UN on numerous occasions, the process of adopting a declarative document has stalled. Crawford analyses the reasons for this and the uncertain future of a declaration on fundamental standards of humanity. Yet, she concludes that there is still hope and that opportunity is there to revitalise the project. Another important contribution comes from Ben Clarke. His call for a guidance document on the principle of proportionality as used in IHL is based on a significant number of practical and conceptual arguirents that underscore the necessity for clarification. An authoritative interpretation of the principle of proportionality could fill the gap left by both treaty and customary law on its nature and scope. The author is in favour of a broad approach to interpreting the principle of proportionality in order to minimise the subjectivity that now seems to be inherent. Clarke concludes that the ICRC could take an important role in bringing about such a guidance document.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI 10.1163/18781^7-00301007

. Editorial / International Humanitarian Legal Studies 3 {2012) 1-2

During the military operations in Libya in 2011 the responsibility to protect appeared to play an important role in the decision of the Security Council to authorise military intervention. The stalemate over the situation in Syria, however, seems to indicate the limits of the responsibility to protect. Graham Croiiogue argues that the interplay of law and other strategic concerns such as politics and economics do not detract from the legitimacy of the R2P doctrine despite the apparent inability or unwillingness of the Security Council to authorise intervention in Syria. Thefinaltwo articles deal in their own way with non-state armed groups. Nelleke van Amstel's article "In Search of Legal Grounds To Detain for Armed Groups" looks at potential legal bases for non-state armed actors to detain in a non-international armed conflict. While there is an inherent power to intern without a legal basis detention risks being arbitrary. Standard setting through special agreements with non-state armed actors, without altering existing obligations, have been successful as regards compliance and should be encouraged, according to the author. Niaz Shah outlines the rules found in the Layeha, the rules and regulations of jihad for mujahidin, and compares them with existing rules under intemational humanitarian law. Shah confirms that some rules do not live up to the norms of IHL, but others do. As a third version of the Laheya has been issued, there seems to be a process in which gradually the rules are brought more and more in line with existing rules under IHL. One of the mainfiawsremains nevertheless the very limited codification of the principle of distinction as is fundamental to IHL. However, Shahfindsit encouraging that a self-imposed code by non-state actors helps to achieve the goals of IHL and this development should be welcomed. I hope the readerfindsthis issue of interest. Editor-in-Chief jihls.editor(S)gmail.com

Copyright of Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.