The Responsibility to Protect Populations from Natural
Disasters; an Extension of International Humanitarian law.
MICHAEL EBURN
Managing the response to natural disasters is, traditionally, a matter for the
government of an affected State though other States and Non-government
organisations have always been willing to assist. The accepted norm has been that
international assistance cannot be delivered to an affected State without the consent of
that State.1 To say that ‘Each State has … the primary role’ in responding to
emergencies does not mean, however, that the State is the only authority with an
interest in how the emergency is managed. This paper will consider whether or not
other States might have the authority, under international law, to intervene during a
disaster even without the consent of the affected State.
A International Disaster Response Law (IDRL)
International law has well established rules that apply during international and noninternational armed conflicts.2 The Fourth Geneva Convention and the first 2
additional protocols are particularly important as they set out the obligations of
1
2
Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United
Nations, GA Res 46/182, UN GAOR, 46th sess, 78th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/46/182
(1991), [3]; Peter Macalister-Smith, International Humanitarian Assistance: Disaster Relief
Actions in International Law and Organization (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1985);
Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United
Nations, GA Res 46/182, UN GAOR, 46th sess, 78th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/46/182
(1991), 55-56.
Generally contained in the 4 Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their three optional protocols.
'First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in
Armed Forces in the Field.' (1949) ; 'Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.' (1949) ;
'Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.' (1949) ; 'Fourth
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.' (1949) ;
'Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)' (1977) ; 'Protocol
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of
Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)' (1977) ; 'Protocol Additional to
the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional
Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III)' (2005)
1
warring parties to try to minimise the impact of conflict on non combatants. Included
in these obligations are obligations to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and to
allow humanitarian workers to go about their tasks of aiding the civilian community.
Natural disasters also impact upon civilian populations and are doing so with
increasing severity and frequency. There are however no similar, well defined
principles of international law, which govern the response of the international
community to natural disasters. 3 Notwithstanding developments in international
humanitarian law there is 'no similar body of law to help alleviate the effects of
natural and technological disasters'.4
There is no definitive, broadly accepted source of international law which spells out
legal standards, procedures, rights and duties pertaining to disaster response and
assistance. No systematic attempt has been made to pull together the disparate
threads of existing law, to formalize customary law or to expand and develop the law
in new ways.5
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) is
leading a project to develop International Disaster Response Law (IDRL)6 to deal
with a list of ‘common subjects’7 that experience has shown need to be addressed if
humanitarian aid is to be delivered when and where required. Some of these common
themes or issues are
3
4
5
6
7
Peter Macalister-Smith, International Humanitarian Assistance: Disaster Relief Actions in
International Law and Organization (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1985) 6.
Michael Hoffman, 'Towards an international disaster response law' World Disasters Report
2000 (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2000) 145.
Ibid
Jiri Toman, 'Towards a Disaster Relief Law' in Frits Kalshoven (ed) Assisting the Victims of
Armed Conflicts and other Disasters: Papers delivered at the International Conference on
Humanitarian Assistance in Armed Conflict, the Hague 22-24 June 1988 (Martinus Nijhoff,
Dordrecht, 1988) 181; Victoria Bannon (ed) International Disaster Response Laws, principles
and practice: reflections, prospects & challenges (2004 ed, International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2003).
Vitit Muntarbhorn, 'International disaster response law and displaced persons' in Victoria
Bannon (ed) International Disaster Response Laws, principles and practice: reflections,
prospects & challenges (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
Geneva, 2003) 6171.
2

When and how requests for international disaster assistance should be
made;

The recognition of professional qualifications;

The recognition of aid organisations – and this requires some process
to try and ensure only bona fide and competent NGOs enter disaster
areas to provide relief;

The identification, and importation, of relief supplies;

Tax relief for relief supplies and workers;

Legal liability and protection of relief workers;

Accountability of humanitarian organisations;

Ensuring the quality and appropriateness of relief goods and programs;
and

Command, control and coordination.
The IFRC project is trying to identify current international law and develop principles
that can be applied by national legislatures to facilitate the delivery of aid in times of
disaster. The project is not attempting to develop new law in this area nor to explore
complex doctrinal issues. One issue that should be addressed is whether or not aid
can be delivered without the consent of the affected state. This has parallels with
humanitarian law and the debate on whether or not the international community can
intervene, in the absence of international armed conflict, to put a stop to human rights
abuses and in particular violence to civilian communities.
The starting point for
International Humanitarian Law is the Geneva Conventions but there is no similar
starting point for IDRL.
What is required is a discussion of general principles of
international law and how they may be applied to justify this sort of intervention.
What follows are some possible arguments that may justify intervention, without
consent, following a significant natural disaster.
B Intervention without consent is prima facie illegal
3
Intervention in the affairs of another State is a serious and prima facie illegal action
under international law.8 The Charter of the United Nations provides that
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.9
Further, article 2(7) provides that ‘Nothing contained in the present Charter shall
authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state …’
C Intervention without consent – possible justifications
1 Humanitarian intervention, human rights and the Responsibility to
Protect
Notwithstanding these provisions, a State may want to step in and provide relief to an
affected community where the affected State refuses to acknowledge the scope of the
disaster or that it is unable to cope with the impact of the disaster. Here the
motivation may be a commitment to internationally recognised human rights.10 Key
rights that can be affected by disasters include the right to ‘life’,11 ‘economic, social
and cultural rights’12 and the ‘right to a standard of living adequate for … health and
well-being … including food, clothing, housing and medical care …’.13 In this case
it could be argued, as it has been with respect to interventions to stop violence, that
intervention for humanitarian purposes does not infringe the international
prohibitions14 as such an action is not directed ‘against the territorial integrity or
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Charter of the United Nations Arts 2(4) and 2(7).
Charter of the United Nations Art 2(4).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217(III), 3rd sess, 183rd plen mtg, UN
Doc A/RES/217(III) (1948)
Ibid UN , Article 3.
Ibid UN ,Article 22.
Ibid UN , Article 25.
Alexander Ruck Keene, 'Humanitarian Intervention' (2001) 151 New Law Journal 1096; Gary
Klintworth, "The Right to Intervene" in the Domestic Affairs of States (Strategic and Defence
Studies Centre, Canberra, 1991); contra Thomas M Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action
Against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002), 12;
4
political independence of’ the target State and is in fact consistent with ‘the Purposes
of the United Nations’15 which includes advancing human rights. These sorts of
arguments are controversial and are clearly not (at least not yet) an accepted part of
international law, at least when it comes to intervention to protect communities
against violence. It may, however, be easier to advance this sort of argument in
disaster response where, in the absence of armed conflict, a State may chose to
‘intervene’ with unarmed forces, which may be possible in the event of a natural
disaster without armed conflict. It can be argued that where the ‘intervention’ is by
unarmed emergency relief personnel, eg civil defence organisations, then the
intervention is not a use of ‘force’ (if the concept of force is limited to ‘armed
force’.16)
A significant development in this area of international law occurred in 2005 when the
United Nations adopted the notion that countries have a ‘responsibility to protect’
their own citizens from ‘genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity’17 and if they will not, or cannot, offer this protection then the international
community has an obligation to step in to provide it.18 This responsibility may, in
extreme circumstances, be exercised without the consent of the affected State. The
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (‘ICISS’) argued that
international intervention could be justified where there were
15
16
17
18
Simon Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian intervention and international law
(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001), 48-52; Mohammad Taghi Karoubi, Just or unjust
war?: international law and unilateral use of armed force by states at the turn of the 20th
century (Ashgate Aldershot, 2004), 230.
Charter of the United Nations Art 2(4).
Charter of the United Nations Preamble and Art 51.
United Nations General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome, GA Res 1/60, UN GAOR,
60th sess, UN Doc A/RES/60/1 (2005) ¶138.
Ibid UN 24th October 2005.
5
… overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, where the State concerned is
either unwilling or unable to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is
occurring or threatened.19
The UN General Assembly did not go so far. It limited its endorsement of the
responsibility to protect to cases where the affected population was subject to
‘genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’20 but the
pressure remains on the international community to uphold the principle that affected
populations have a right to relief following a disaster21 and the international
community has a right to provide that protection if the affected State will not, or
cannot.
2 Intervention to protect one’s own nationals
Another basis for intervention may be to protect one’s own nationals, again drawing
parallels with interventions that have occurred during armed conflict.22 Franck, after
an analysis of cases where such a right has been claimed, concludes that the doctrine
does survive in international law (even if, in most cases where it is used as a
justification the specific facts do not justify the intervention). He says
Military action is more likely to be condoned if the threat to citizens is demonstrably
real and grave, if the motive of the intervening state is perceived as genuinely
protective, and if the intervention is proportionate and of short duration and likely to
achieve it purpose with minimal collateral damage.23
19
20
21
22
23
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to
Protect (International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2001), [4.20]).
United Nations General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome, GA Res 1/60, UN GAOR,
60th sess, UN Doc A/RES/60/1 (2005) ¶138.
The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response
(2004 ed, The Sphere Project, Geneva, 2004), 16-18; The Code of Conduct for the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs) in Disaster Relief (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
Geneva, 1995), [1]; Rohan J. Hardcastle and Adrian T. Chua, 'Humanitarian assistance:
towards a right of access to victims of natural disasters' (1998) 325 International Review of the
Red Cross 589.
Thomas M Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002) pp 76-96.
Ibid p 96.
6
Applying those principles a State may well be justified in dispatching the navy to
evacuate their citizens from a disaster affected state, even without the consent of the
government of that State. In such a case the intervention is likely to be both
proportionate, short and cause little or no collateral damage.
3 Self-defence
Self-defence may be another reason to justify intervention in another State during a
natural disaster. The UN Charter retains the right of countries to act in self-defence.
The Charter however talks about the ‘inherent right of individual or collective self
defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.’24
Clearly a natural disaster occurring in one State is not an ‘armed attack’ against
another State but the reference to the ‘inherent right’ of self defence also suggests that
the right pre-existed and may be wider than that described in the charter.
A State may want to defend itself against the effects of or the spread of a disaster. For
example a fire may be burning on one side of a national boundary that threatens to
cross the national border and threaten assets and communities in the neighbouring
country. Whilst it is not an armed attack countries may well be able to mount an
argument to the effect that they may cross over the national boundary to fight that fire
rather than wait for it to spread across their border. Under multi-lateral conventions
dealing with issues of pollution and nuclear accidents there are provisions to ensure
countries cooperate in managing the effects of the disaster and share information
about the nature and likely consequences of the disaster but they do not go so far as to
give a right to step in and deal with the disaster if the affected country will not.25
24
25
Charter of the United Nations Art 51.
Maria Gavouneli, 'Responsibility for Catastrophes: New Concepts in Their Conventional
Application' in David D. Caron and Charles Leben (eds), The International Aspects of Natural
and Industrial Catastrophes (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 2001) 637; Nina Nordstrom,
7
Notwithstanding this if it is clear that a disaster is likely to spread across a national
boundary but could be better dealt with in the source country, then a potentially
affected State must have the right to protect itself by taking steps to control the
disaster particularly if the affected State is otherwise under an international obligation
to avoid the spread of the disaster and is unable or unwilling to meet that obligation.26
Even if such an action may not be justified as an example of self-defence it could be
justified as an application of the doctrine of necessity, discussed below.
4 Necessity
Another scenario warranting international intervention is where the affected State is
so affected by the disaster that there is simply no recognisable government to ask for
assistance or communication is lost so that the government cannot be contacted. In
terms of the South Pacific that scenario is perhaps not unlikely. Tuvalu is only 5m
high at its highest point27 so it is conceivable a significant tsunami, cyclone or similar
event could well devastate its infrastructure and effectively wash away the
government. In 2002 a cyclone in the Solomon Islands left the island of Tikopia
without external contact.28 A Royal Australian Air Force plane was dispatched to fly
over the island to determine whether or not there were survivors29 whilst the
26
27
28
29
'Managing Transboundary Environmental Accidents: The State Duty to Inform' in David D.
Caron and Charles Leben (eds), The International Aspects of Natural and Industrial
Catastrophes (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 2001) 291.
Maria Gavouneli, 'Responsibility for Catastrophes: New Concepts in Their Conventional
Application' in David D. Caron and Charles Leben (eds), The International Aspects of Natural
and Industrial Catastrophes (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 2001) 637.
The World Factbook <https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/> at 16 January 2006.
No word from Pacific island hit by cyclone (2002) ABC News Online
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200212/s755052.htm> at 16 January 2007
Solomons to ask Australia to survey cyclone-hit island (2002) ABC News Online
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200212/s755252.htm> at 16 January 2007.
8
Government of the Solomon Islands was subject to criticism for the delay in sending
relief to the affected island.30
In Anglo/Australian domestic law necessity can be a defence to both crimes and torts.
In this context the concept of necessity can be used to justify the provision of
assistance to a person who cannot communicate where that assistance is reasonable in
the circumstance and in their best interest.31 Also, under domestic law, necessity can
be used to justify interference with property in order to save lives, protect property
and control the spread of fire.32 The principle of necessity can be extended to
international law33 and could justify the delivery of aid to a community where the
relevant government cannot be contacted or where it cannot for whatever reason,
whether logistical or political, either make or accept a request for assistance and the
assistance delivered to the affected community is reasonable and in the community’s
best interests. It could also justify taking action on a neighbour’s territory to contain a
disaster where such action was reasonable and proportionate to the risk posed.
5 Threats to international peace and security
Significant disasters can pose a threat to international peace and security. There is a
clear link between development and vulnerability to disaster so that natural events
impact most severely on poorer, underdeveloped nations, perhaps where there is civil
conflict, so that the onset of a natural disaster may well fuel armed conflict with flow
on effects for neighbouring countries and regional stability. 34 If that were the case
and the UN Security Council were to find that there was a threat to international peace
30
31
32
33
34
Solomons criticised for 'slow response' to cyclone (2003) ABC News Online
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200301/s758733.htm> at 16 January 2007.
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374; In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1
Michael Eburn Emergency Law (2nd ed, 2001).
Judith Gardam, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
Stephen Green, International Disaster Relief: Toward a Responsive System (McGraw-Hill
Book Company for the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 1977), 27.
9
and security then non-consensual intervention could be authorised by the Security
Council of the UN acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
D Criteria
If any of these arguments can be used to justify intervention following a natural
disaster, then criteria must be developed as to when such intervention may be
justified. The criteria would vary depending on the justification being relied upon.
The ICISS criteria for armed intervention were
1. Right authority;
2. Just cause;
3. Right intention;
4. Last resort;
5. Proportional means; and
6. Reasonable prospects of success.35
Similar criteria should apply where the intervention is designed to ameliorate the
effect of a natural disaster upon a neighbouring population but is too restrictive if the
objective is to control the disaster or rescue one’s own nationals. As a minimum,
regardless of the justification, intervention cannot be justified unless the affected State
is clearly unable or unwilling to deal with the disaster and that the disaster is having
significant long term adverse consequences for the population of the affected State or
poses a significant long term risk to the intervening State. Such intervention must be
proportionate to that risk, be short term and where possible would not use military (or
at least not armed military) forces.
35
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to
Protect (International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2001), [4.16].
10
E Is there an obligation to intervene?
If there can be a right to intervene, is there an obligation to do so?
Is there an
international duty to come to the aid of one’s neighbour? The short answer is ‘no’,
there is no obligation under international law on one country to offer aid to another in
the event of a disaster.36
It would not, however, be contrary to the principles of international law to have duties
to render assistance in times of emergency. In bi-lateral and regional treaties
countries have entered into agreements to provide assistance. At a global level such
conventions are rarer but not unheard of. Under the conventions relating to the law of
the sea, States have agreed to create domestic law obligations that impose a duty on
the master of ships to go to the aid of people in distress. States have also agreed to
cooperate in maritime search and rescue.37 Interestingly this means that there is an
internationally recognised obligation to assist the passengers on a cruise ship who are
placed at risk by a cyclone, but not the population of the island they are sailing to or
from.
36
37
Stephen C Neff, 'Rescue Across State Boundaries: International Legal Aspects of Rescue' in
Michael A Menlowe and Alexander McCall-Smith (eds), The Duty to Rescue: The
Jurisprudence of Aid (Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, 1993) 159; David
P Fidler, 'Disaster Relief and Governance After the Indian Ocean Tsunami: What Role for
International Law' (2005) 6 Disaster Relief and Governance 458; Yves Beigbeder, The Role
and Status of International Humanitarian Volunteers and Organizations: The Right and Duty
to Humanitarian Assistance (Marinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1991).
Jessica E Tauman, 'Rescued at sea, but nowhere to go: The cloudy legal waters of the Tampa
Crisis' (2002) 11 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 461; Richard Barnes, 'Refugee Law at
Sea' (2004) 53(1) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47; Craig H Allen, 'The
Maritime Law Forum: Australia's Tampa Incident: the Convergence of International and
Domestic Refugee and Maritime Law in the Pacific Rim: The Tampa Incident: IMO
Perspectives and Responses on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea.' (2003) 12 Pacific
Rim Law and Policy Journal 143 and Martin Davies, 'Obligations and Implications for Ships
Encountering Persons in Need of Assistance at Sea' (2003) 12 Pacific Rim Law and Policy
Journal 109.
11
Notwithstanding this anomaly, the concept of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’38 as well
as other claims to justify intervention, do not go so far as to suggest an obligation
upon States to intervene where required. At best States may be called upon to
voluntarily step in to assist when it is apparent that the affected State cannot, or will
not, take necessary steps to protect its own citizens.
F Intervention by Non Government organisations (NGOs)
Another area worthy of study, which I only flag here, is whether Non Government
organisations (NGOs) have a right to intervene without consent. Such a claim is
inherent in the title of ‘Doctors without borders’ who claim the right to provide
humanitarian aid where is required, regardless of national borders. NGOs are,
increasingly, arguing that they have a right to access populations affected by natural
disasters39 and that affected countries have a corresponding obligation ‘… not to
withhold or frustrate the provision of life-saving assistance’.40
The result of these trends, says Field, is that ‘… in the face of a disaster, State
officials are pressured to relax controls that ordinarily function to buffer State control
over the national territory.’41 As soon as the disaster becomes ‘international’ national
sovereignty is diminished. Affected States are under pressure to allow foreign aid
organisations into their country and those organisations may well want to provide aid
38
39
40
41
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to
Protect (International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2001)
The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response
(2004 ed, The Sphere Project, Geneva, 2004), 16-18; The Code of Conduct for the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs) in Disaster Relief (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
Geneva, 1995), [1]; Rohan J. Hardcastle and Adrian T. Chua, 'Humanitarian assistance:
towards a right of access to victims of natural disasters' (1998) 325 International Review of the
Red Cross 589.
The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response
(2004 ed, The Sphere Project, Geneva, 2004), [1.1].
Tracy-Lynn Field, 'International disaster response law in a southern African context' in
Victoria Bannon (ed) International Disaster Response Laws, principles and practice:
reflections, prospects & challenges. (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, Geneva, 2003) 81, 86.
12
in accordance with their own terms and conditions and without regard to domestic
policy or priorities.
The role and status of NGOs and their claim to a right of access under international
law is however, a subject matter for another paper.
G Conclusion
In this paper I have suggested some arguments that may be used to justify an
international disaster response even without the express consent of the affected State.
Determining whether or not these arguments have the strength to support such
intervention will be the subject of ongoing study.
H References
Charter of the United Nations.
The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief
(International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva,
1995).
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374.
'First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.' (1949).
'Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War.' (1949).
In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1.
No word from Pacific island hit by cyclone (2002) ABC News Online
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200212/s755052.htm> at 16 January
2007.
13
'Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to
the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III)' (2005).
'Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to
the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)'
(1977).
'Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to
the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)'
(1977).
'Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick
and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.' (1949).
Solomons criticised for 'slow response' to cyclone (2003) ABC News Online
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200301/s758733.htm> at 16 January
2007.
Solomons to ask Australia to survey cyclone-hit island (2002) ABC News Online
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200212/s755252.htm> at 16 January
2007.
The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster
Response (2004 ed, The Sphere Project, Geneva, 2004).
Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the
United Nations, GA Res 46/182, UN GAOR, 46th sess, 78th plen mtg, UN
Doc A/RES/46/182 (1991).
'Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.' (1949).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217(III), 3rd sess, 183rd plen mtg,
UN Doc A/RES/217(III) (1948).
The World Factbook <https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/> at 16 January
2006.
Allen, Craig H, 'The Maritime Law Forum: Australia's Tampa Incident: the
Convergence of International and Domestic Refugee and Maritime Law in the
Pacific Rim: The Tampa Incident: IMO Perspectives and Responses on the
14
Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea.' (2003) 12 Pacific Rim Law and Policy
Journal 143.
Bannon, Victoria (ed) International Disaster Response Laws, principles and practice:
reflections, prospects & challenges (2004 ed, International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2003).
Barnes, Richard, 'Refugee Law at Sea' (2004) 53(1) International and Comparative
Law Quarterly 47.
Beigbeder, Yves, The Role and Status of International Humanitarian Volunteers and
Organizations: The Right and Duty to Humanitarian Assistance (Marinus
Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1991).
Chesterman, Simon, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian intervention and
international law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001).
Davies, Martin, 'Obligations and Implications for Ships Encountering Persons in Need
of Assistance at Sea' (2003) 12 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 109.
Fidler, David P, 'Disaster Relief and Governance After the Indian Ocean Tsunami:
What Role for International Law' (2005) 6 Disaster Relief and Governance
458.
Field, Tracy-Lynn, 'International disaster response law in a southern African context'
in Bannon, V (ed) International Disaster Response Laws, principles and
practice: reflections, prospects & challenges. (International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2003) 81.
Franck, Thomas M, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed
Attacks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002).
Gardam, Judith, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
Gavouneli, Maria, 'Responsibility for Catastrophes: New Concepts in Their
Conventional Application' in Caron, D D and Leben, C (eds), The
International Aspects of Natural and Industrial Catastrophes (Martinus
Nijhoff, The Hague, 2001) 637.
15
Green, Stephen, International Disaster Relief: Toward a Responsive System
(McGraw-Hill Book Company for the Council on Foreign Relations, New
York, 1977).
Hardcastle, Rohan J. and Chua, Adrian T., 'Humanitarian assistance: towards a right
of access to victims of natural disasters' (1998) 325 International Review of
the Red Cross 589.
Hoffman, Michael, 'Towards an international disaster response law' World Disasters
Report 2000 (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, 2000) 145.
Karoubi, Mohammad Taghi, Just or unjust war?: international law and unilateral use
of armed force by states at the turn of the 20th century (Ashgate Aldershot,
2004).
Keene, Alexander Ruck, 'Humanitarian Intervention' (2001) 151 New Law Journal
1096.
Klintworth, Gary, "The Right to Intervene" in the Domestic Affairs of States (Strategic
and Defence Studies Centre, Canberra, 1991).
Macalister-Smith, Peter, International Humanitarian Assistance: Disaster Relief
Actions in International Law and Organization (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht,
1985).
Muntarbhorn, Vitit, 'International disaster response law and displaced persons' in
Bannon, V (ed) International Disaster Response Laws, principles and
practice: reflections, prospects & challenges (International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2003) 61.
Neff, Stephen C, 'Rescue Across State Boundaries: International Legal Aspects of
Rescue' in Menlowe, M A and McCall-Smith, A (eds), The Duty to Rescue:
The Jurisprudence of Aid (Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,
Aldershot, 1993) 159.
Nordstrom, Nina, 'Managing Transboundary Environmental Accidents: The State
Duty to Inform' in Caron, D D and Leben, C (eds), The International Aspects
of Natural and Industrial Catastrophes (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 2001)
291.
16
Tauman, Jessica E, 'Rescued at sea, but nowhere to go: The cloudy legal waters of the
Tampa Crisis' (2002) 11 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 461.
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The
Responsibility to Protect (International Development Research Centre,
Ottawa, 2001).
Toman, Jiri, 'Towards a Disaster Relief Law' in Kalshoven, F (ed) Assisting the
Victims of Armed Conflicts and other Disasters: Papers delivered at the
International Conference on Humanitarian Assistance in Armed Conflict, the
Hague 22-24 June 1988 (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1988) 181.
United Nations General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome, GA Res 1/60, UN
GAOR, 60th sess, UN Doc A/RES/60/1 (2005).
17