September 27, 2022

Current international law is in a state of change based on changes within the geopolitical order. This chapter deals with the normative evolution of the concept of international peace law, from peaceful coexistence to the current identification of a right to peace, and examines the interface with the doctrine of responsibility for protection. It examines a wide range of dilemmas presented by peace treaties, jus post bellum and the interface between the general terms of human security, security and peace. The chapter suggests that these normative iterations represent a turning point in human rights and international law as non-Western approaches to conflict prevention gain ground. California (1971), the court further established that offensive or vulgar statements that were not directed against a person or that did not provoke a violent reaction (such as wearing a jacket in a courthouse with the words “Fuck the Draft”) could not be interpreted as undermining the peace. In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), controversial speakers could not be accused of violating the peace simply because they had fueled a dispute. The court ruled that the Chicago order was used to regulate protected speech in this case and not just to “fight words.” In the 1960s, civil rights activists were often arrested in violation of peace laws, which were considered in contested cases before the Supreme Court. In Garner v.

In Louisiana (1961), African-American protesters were arrested and charged with disturbing the peace for sitting quietly at a “white-only” lunch table. Wolokh, Eugen. “Speech as behavior: generally applicable laws, illegal behavior, `situational changing statements` and unknown areas.” Cornell Law Review 90 (2005): 1277-1348. In the controversial decision R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority (1989), the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the Home Secretary could exercise privileges to preserve the peace of the Empire. The court therefore ruled that the Minister of the Interior had the power to purchase crowd control equipment such as plastic bullets and CS gas, even without the legal permission or authorization of the local police department. [22] IFIT`s Law and Peace Practice Group is the world`s first dedicated advisory service on the challenge of reconciling legal certainty and judicial issues related to negotiated transitions from war or authoritarianism. In such contexts, it is necessary to adopt non-formal and non-ideological approaches, as decisions on legal certainty (in the sense of legal incentives for the negotiating parties) and justice (in the sense of criminal responsibility) cannot simply be explained or imposed, but must be agreed between the opposing parties – or at least are acceptable to them.