Shuichi Furuya – författare

Are victims of armed conflict entitled to reparation, which legal rules govern the question, and how can reparation be implemented? These key questions of transitional justice are examined by three scholars whose professional, theoretical, and methodological backgrounds and outlooks differ greatly. They discuss how regional human rights case law, international criminal law, the practice of ad hoc international bodies, and domestic practice give rise to a right to reparation. This right emerges out of the interplay between international and domestic law. The problems of mass claims, fragile statehood, and the high risk of marginalisation of particular groups of victims are addressed. The analysis is alert to the current backlash against international legal institutions, and to the practical constraints in making post-conflict law work. The multiperspectivism of the trialogical setting exposes the divergence and complementarity of the authors' approaches and leads to a richer understanding of the law of reparation.

Are victims of armed conflict entitled to reparation, which legal rules govern the question, and how can reparation be implemented? These key questions of transitional justice are examined by three scholars whose professional, theoretical, and methodological backgrounds and outlooks differ greatly. They discuss how regional human rights case law, international criminal law, the practice of ad hoc international bodies, and domestic practice give rise to a right to reparation. This right emerges out of the interplay between international and domestic law. The problems of mass claims, fragile statehood, and the high risk of marginalisation of particular groups of victims are addressed. The analysis is alert to the current backlash against international legal institutions, and to the practical constraints in making post-conflict law work. The multiperspectivism of the trialogical setting exposes the divergence and complementarity of the authors'' approaches and leads to a richer understanding of the law of reparation.

Are victims of armed conflict entitled to reparation, which legal rules govern the question, and how can reparation be implemented? These key questions of transitional justice are examined by three scholars whose professional, theoretical, and methodological backgrounds and outlooks differ greatly. They discuss how regional human rights case law, international criminal law, the practice of ad hoc international bodies, and domestic practice give rise to a right to reparation. This right emerges out of the interplay between international and domestic law. The problems of mass claims, fragile statehood, and the high risk of marginalisation of particular groups of victims are addressed. The analysis is alert to the current backlash against international legal institutions, and to the practical constraints in making post-conflict law work. The multiperspectivism of the trialogical setting exposes the divergence and complementarity of the authors'' approaches and leads to a richer understanding of the law of reparation.

Are victims of armed conflict entitled to reparation, which legal rules govern the question, and how can reparation be implemented? These key questions of transitional justice are examined by three scholars whose professional, theoretical, and methodological backgrounds and outlooks differ greatly. They discuss how regional human rights case law, international criminal law, the practice of ad hoc international bodies, and domestic practice give rise to a right to reparation. This right emerges out of the interplay between international and domestic law. The problems of mass claims, fragile statehood, and the high risk of marginalisation of particular groups of victims are addressed. The analysis is alert to the current backlash against international legal institutions, and to the practical constraints in making post-conflict law work. The multiperspectivism of the trialogical setting exposes the divergence and complementarity of the authors' approaches and leads to a richer understanding of the law of reparation.

The invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation and the subsequent military campaigns entail several classical aspects of armed conflict. First, it is a type of international armed conflict between two sovereign states that had been prevalent until the middle of the twentieth century but not in the last several decades. It is also a direct intervention by a superpower into a neighboring state with the former’s aspiration of territorial expansion. This action evokes a scheme of war reminiscent of the nineteenth or early twentieth century. At the same time, however, the invasion is generating in the international community a sense of new phenomena, leading to a new era that may be different from the past three decades following the end of the Cold War. In fact, the hostilities between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as well as reactions by other states and international organizations, have raised legal and political issues that require scholars to reexamine existing frameworks of the international community and individual rules of international law. The process of applying international law to states is a dynamic one. Rules of international law may and should regulate the behavior of states and provide standards to decide whether a particular act by a state is permissible. At the same time, however, states may change or replace existing rules, and a significant event or series of such events may be a strong motivator to create a new legal framework. In this regard, rules of international law and the conduct of states are in a dialectical relationship. International law can both shape a mode of conduct and be shaped by that conduct—being its creator as well as its creation. The Ukraine conflict is not an exception. We can discuss the conduct of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, other states and international organizations and evaluate their legality and legitimacy from the viewpoint of existing rules. However, we may also reevaluate the current rules of international law through the lens of the Ukraine conflict and discuss possible changes to those rules in the future.  Inspired by the latter aspect of the international legal process, the present book aims to examine the impact of the Ukraine conflict, whether salient or potential, on various rules of international law. Most of the authors are from Japan and other Asian countries that are geographically remote from the site of the conflict. It is often true, however — and particularly in this case — that those keeping an appropriate distance can look at relevant issues in a broader view and from a more objective perspective. To what extent and in what manner may the Ukraine conflict have an impact on the legal framework of the international community and the rules of international law? This book is the first to answer those questions in a comprehensive manner.

The invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation and the subsequent military campaigns entail several classical aspects of armed conflict. First, it is a type of international armed conflict between two sovereign states that had been prevalent until the middle of the twentieth century but not in the last several decades. It is also a direct intervention by a superpower into a neighboring state with the former’s aspiration of territorial expansion. This action evokes a scheme of war reminiscent of the nineteenth or early twentieth century. At the same time, however, the invasion is generating in the international community a sense of new phenomena, leading to a new era that may be different from the past three decades following the end of the Cold War. In fact, the hostilities between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as well as reactions by other states and international organizations, have raised legal and political issues that require scholars to reexamine existing frameworks of the international community and individual rules of international law. 

The process of applying international law to states is a dynamic one. Rules of international law may and should regulate the behavior of states and provide standards to decide whether a particular act by a state is permissible. At the same time, however, states may change or replace existing rules, and a significant event or series of such events may be a strong motivator to create a new legal framework. In this regard, rules of international law and the conduct of states are in a dialectical relationship. International law can both shape a mode of conduct and be shaped by that conduct—being its creator as well as its creation. The Ukraine conflict is not an exception. We can discuss the conduct of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, other states and international organizations and evaluate their legality and legitimacy from the viewpoint of existing rules. However, we may also reevaluate the current rules of international law through the lens of the Ukraine conflict and discuss possible changes to those rules in the future.  

Inspired by the latter aspect of the international legal process, the present book aims to examine the impact of the Ukraine conflict, whether salient or potential, on various rules of international law. Most of the authors are from Japan and other Asian countries that are geographically remote from the site of the conflict. It is often true, however — and particularly in this case — that those keeping an appropriate distance can look at relevant issues in a broader view and from a more objective perspective. To what extent and in what manner may the Ukraine conflict have an impact on the legal framework of the international community and the rules of international law? This book is the first to answer those questions in a comprehensive manner.