Анали Правног факултета у Београду

489

ОРУЖАНЕ ФОРМАЦИЈЕ У ОПШТЕНАРОДНОЈ ОДБРАНИ

именно организованность была бы лишней гарантией, что условия, предъявляемые к участником восстания —■ „открытое ношение оружия" и „соблюдение законов и обычаев войны" будут лучше выполняться. Отсюда можно сделать вывод, что различные правовые источники не могут означать дискриминацию в отношении объема прав и обязанностей воюющих сторон в зависимости от того, какой из источников в конкретном случае принимается во внимание для оценки легальности лиц, входящих в состав данных частей. Любое из юридических положений, применяемое к указанным частям, даст им одинаковую правовую защиту.

SUMMARY The Armed Forces in the All-National Defence from the Standpoint of the International Law The Yugoslav legislator has envisaged in the new Law Governing the All-National Defence, different armed forces within the structure of the Yugoslav Army, and consequently besides the Yugoslav People’s Army, the units of the territorial defence are included in the armed forces of Yugoslavia. These units may be considered as the part of the »army« according to the formulation of the 1907 Hague Convention and Regulation, to wit: »in the countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or belong to it, they are included in the concept of the army«. Article 1 of the Hague Convention and Regulation is also applicable to militia and volunteer corps, because they are treated as special forces within the army, their »peculiar features« being their composition, fighting purpose, recruitment method, command, range of their combat actions, etc. The international law provides an objective possibility for applying to the units of territorial defence the norms of the international law regulating the legal position of the participants of the resistence movement (Art. 4, 111, Geneva Convention of 1949). Although according to the positive international law it is irrelevant whether the participants in the resistence movement are operating in the occupied or unoccupied territory, and since the Yugoslav legislator has prohibited occupation of the country, or »its part«, it follows that in the concrete case it is not the question of resistence movement in the However, the other side is offered possibility to decide, on its own judgement, if the“»territory is occupied temporarily« and to find analogously that the resistence movement is within the occupied territory. Finally, the norms of Article 2 of the Hague Convention and Regulation and the 1949 Geneve Convention, governing the status of fighters of the mass uprising (levée en masse), may be taken into consideration even if the uprising is taking place behind the enemy line who has not yet occupied the territory. As to the attribute »spontaneously« in such an uprising it is impossible to exclude a beforehand organization of the uprising, for the organization would be a guaranty that the provisioned conditions affecting those fighters »bearing openly arms« and »observing law and customs of war« would be better safeguarded. It follows that it is erroneous to take that diferent legal sources cannot mean discrimination as to the scope, rights and duties of the belligerent sides, depending which source has been used in a given case for assessing the legality of these units, but any legal form taken to legalize the participants in these units provides equaly legal protection.