The deployment of drones for targeted killings in recent years has sparked intense debates regarding the ethical and legal implications of their deployment in contemporary conflicts. Through an examination of the complexities surrounding the application of fundamental international humanitarian law (IHL) principles - such as differentiating targets and ensuring a proportionate response – and their deployment, the article aims to illuminate the potential legal ramifications of using drones in targeted killing. It also highlights challenges arising from the ambiguous distinction between combatants and non-combatants, compounded by the remote nature of drone missions. The inclusion of a few relevant case studies enhances the analysis, providing practical insights into the nuanced legal landscape and emphasising the pressing need for a comprehensive legal framework tailored to regulate drone usage. This paper stresses the immediate requirement for an effective regulatory structure to ensure adherence to IHL, thereby upholding humanistic principles and reducing the human toll of conflicts.

Since the beginning of the seventh century, Islamic law has played an essential role in protecting the personal, economic, judicial, and political rights of civilians during armed conflict. Fourteen centuries before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948, it had already initiated a human revolution consisting of a set of human principles. In addition, Islamic law has made a significant contribution to international humanitarian law (IHL). This paper focuses on two specific legal constructs in warfare: the definition of the combatant and the principle of distinction. This article comparatively examines how these two laws deal with different aspects of war that fall under jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. A comparative analysis of the various elements and aspects of just war theory in Islamic and contemporary international law provides a much deeper understanding of its limitations. We can safely conclude that there is a unique relationship between the Islamic law of war and IHL.

본고는 「상불경보살품」에 나타난 인간존중사상의 논리적 특징을 불성론의 입장에서 분석하고자 한다. 그렇지만 이 품에는 현대사회의 핵심 용어 중의 하나인 평등, 인격존중, 사랑 등에 관한 용어는 사용되고 있지 않다. 다만 상불경이란 용어는 ‘언제나 모든 사람을 존중한다’는 의미를 지니고 있으며, 모든 인간은 존귀하고 존엄하다는 의미에서 항상 존경하고 존중해야 한다는 스토리의 주인공이란 점이다. 인간존중, 평등 등에 관한 전문적인 용어는 사용되고 있지 않지만, 평범한 이야기와 메타포를 통해 독자에게 전하고자 하는 내용을 충분히 밝히고 있다. 인간은 누구나, 어떠한 형태의 모습이나 삶을 영위하고 있더라도, 그 내면에 불성을 지니고 있기 때문에 존경해야만 한다고 주장한다. 이 품에서는 그런 내용을 ‘인간은 누구나 깨달아 부처가 될 존재’로 표현하고 있다. 이러한 경전의 내용에 대해 중국을 대표하는 법화사상가들은 불성론에 입각해 이해하고자 했다. 천태는 삼인불성론에 입각해 상불경보살의 보살행을 이해하고 있다. 정인, 연인, 요인불성에 의거한 설명이다. 길장은 수기를 주는 행태는 불성이 있다는 전제 속에서 가능하다는 점에 주목한다. 그 역시 불성론에 입각해 이 품을 이해하고 있다. 규기 역시 불성론에 의거해 이 품을 이해하고 있지만, 요인불성에 의거해 개개인의 수행과 노력을 중시한다. 이 품에서 나타난 상불경보살의 활동은 인간의 존엄성을 극대화하고 있다는 점에서 현대적인 의의가 크다고 본다. 특히 세계인권선언문의 내용과 대비해 보면, 양자에 상통하는 사상이 대략 2천여 년 이전에 이미 선언되고 있었다는 점에 주목하지 않을 수 없다. 다만 이러한 사상을 현실 속에서 구체화시키지 못한 것은 불교사의 왜곡 현상이며, 중국불교사의 한계로 이해할 수밖에 없다. 그렇지만 여전히 이러한 사상을 어떻게 현실 속에 구현할 것인가에 대해서는 불교계의 관심과 노력이 필요하다고 볼 수 있다.

The unification mission of the Korean church is carried out with more Diakonia than Kerygma. It has the positive effects on the national product as well as on the food-and nutrition status in North Korea, besides on the personal relations between South and North Korea. It has also the positive mission effect in North Korea, although that is not confirmed exactly with number. But because of the exclusionism of the North Korean regime transparency and efficiency of the aid become hot issues and induced the ‘South-South conflict’. Not only that, the humanitarian aid is under the strong influence of the political situation. Moreover in the year 2010 because of the attacking Chunan-Ham and the bombardment Yunpyung-Do the diaconal activity of the Korean church must be closed. In order to exceed these limitations an another diaconal method can be proposed. That ist the commercial aid with return beside the contributive aid without return. The commercial aid with return has not few advantage: ⑴ It ist a international business, that is political neutral furthermore protected by government. ⑵ The commercial aid produces value-added, that can be the self-supporting ground for the partner. ⑶ Therefore the commercial aid does not induce the partner to fall in the ‘Samaritan’s dilemma’. ⑷ The commercial aid is self-sustaining and can be enlarged, if it makes a profit. ⑸ The material resource of aid is invested in business and in production system, not concentrated on a place. ⑹ The commercial aid does not make ‘agent problem’, nor the problem of low transparency and low efficiency on the level of the contributive aid. But what ist more important, is the harmony of Korean churches to make a unified organization, that takes care of the commercial aid. This organization can concentrate the unification power of the Korean churches, because it could treat the problem of the internal competition between Korean churches themselves, the overlapping of aids, the monitoring etc. In the end the harmony of Korean churches determines the time of the Unification in the korean peninsula.

The creation of the Iraqi Special Tribunal in December 2003 by Iraqi authorities who were at the time under the legal occupation of the Coalition Provisional Authority marked the emergence of a new form of internationalized domestic tribunals. The Iraqis succeeded in incorporating the full range of modern crimes into their domestic codes alongside some carefully selected domestic offenses, while amending domestic procedural law in some key ways to align the process with established international law related to the provision of full and fair trials. The subsequent investigations and the beginning of trial proceedings generated major debates about the legitimacy of such a domestic forum within the context of human rights norms and the law of occupation. In particular, there was a major strand of thought from outside Iraq that the most legitimate and appropriate forum would have been an international process under the authority of the United Nations. This article examines the arguments made by the Iraqis who demanded a domestic process based on their inquisitorial model, setting them in the broader context of the emerging trends in international criminal law. Through a detailed and unique analysis of the provisions of human rights law and underlying Iraqi procedural law, it criticizes the arguments made by some that assume the illegitimacy of the tribunal under established international norms. The article provides the most detailed explanation of the law of occupation as it emerged following World War II to conclude that the establishment of the Tribunal as an independent court, and its subsequent validation by sovereign Iraqi domestic authorities, was completely valid and proper. The overarching theme of the article is that the imposition of artificial standards and the complete revocation of the preexisting Iraqi judicial structures would have created a process deemed wholly illegitimate by the Iraqi people and judiciary that would have undermined the establishment of the rule of law in Iraq. The author’s personal interactions with the judges serve to support the conclusion that the Tribunal is capable of serving as the doorway through which the detailed body of international criminal law is introduced to the broader Arabic speaking world.