Investigations into Military Operations: What Impact on Transitional Justice?

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie R Blank

The recent proliferation of external investigations into military operations raises important questions for the conduct of military operations and the interpretation and implementation of international law. The impact of such investigations and their reports, however, extends beyond how they influence the military and the implementation of the law of armed conflict. As countries and societies embroiled in lengthy conflicts begin to explore the value and effectiveness of undertaking transitional justice efforts during conflict, rather than only after conflict, investigations into military operations and specific incidents can play an important – and perhaps unexpected – role. This article focuses specifically on the inter-relationship between investigations and transitional justice efforts. As investigations into military operations become a common tool in the international and national arsenal, understanding how they interact with and affect broader transitional justice efforts and goals becomes important, both for the conceptualisation of investigations and the development of transitional justice mechanisms. This article addresses the relationship between investigations and the truth-telling aspect of transitional justice mechanisms, as well as the impact of the use of law and legal analysis on the legitimacy of the investigations and on potential transitional justice mechanisms.

2019 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted—jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7. deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted — jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies. Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 deals with the issue of regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.7 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


2021 ◽  
pp. 273-295
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7 deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.


2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-201
Author(s):  
Vladan Joncic ◽  
Milos Petrovic

The fundamental question of international law of armed conflict is the question of military necessity principle in international law of armed conflict, ie. in international humanitarian law. Hearings on this issue is necessary because it is still the danger that the principle of recognition of the needs of military regulations and deceive the application of international law of armed conflict. That?s why the military needs to be seen as a permitted deviation from compliance with rules of war. Extreme, this concept has led to the emergence of the theory of the military. Its radical variant of the proceeds from the Maxims of German classical scholars of international law. The result of theoretical assumptions had the effect of limiting the acceptance of military necessity of the first codification of the day. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949. The heavily consider the military. In all the texts of international conventions is determined by military necessity, as a circumstance or set of circumstances which affect the duty of obeying the regulations of international law. In international law there is no general rule of military necessity as a basis or reason for justified violations of rules of international law of armed conflict. The rules of international law represent a compromise between the desire for a decoration rules of warfare and the need to ensure all the necessary tools that can lead to victory. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949. the military need to provide in terms of the principles of humanity. Set rules on military necessity in the Geneva Conventions give the right correction factor in the role of the law of armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions there is a degree of confusion in terminology, where the concept of military necessity needlessly allocated a number of synonyms. This is because the international law of armed conflict and emerged as a normative regulation of proportionality between the military needs) and general principles and humane principles.


Author(s):  
Michael Newton

The chapter considers some of the pragmatic aspects of engaging in multinational military operations in relation to cooperation among the various participating states. These aspects include differing treaty obligations, diverging interpretations of shared norms, or different command structures. Coalition partners deployed to pursue such larger goals must manage operational friction in order to achieve the necessary cohesion. State practice demonstrates discrepancies between partners over what international law obligations apply to forces in the field, which in turn produces disagreements about the conditions those duties entail. At the same time, the modern law of armed conflict provides a sort of centripetal force providing essential cohesion to modern multinational coalitions. It provides normative regularity constraining the class of persons against whom violence may be lawfully applied.


Author(s):  
Henckaerts Jean-Marie

This introductory chapter provides an overview of international humanitarian law (IHL), which is also known as the international law of armed conflict, or simply law of armed conflict (LOAC) or law of war. The rules and principles of IHL seek to limit the effects of armed conflict and at its core, IHL aims to preserve a sense of humanity in time of war. At the same time, IHL has been developed to regulate the social reality that is armed conflict. As such, in order to provide a realistic, and hence useful, legal framework, IHL must also take into account the military needs of parties to an armed conflict in their pursuit of defeating the adversary. The development of particular treaties and specific rules of IHL over time reflects the exercise of finding the correct balance between these humanitarian and military considerations. As a branch of international law, IHL is subject to the general rules of international law, such as those related to sources, treaty interpretation, and state responsibility. The sources of international law are set out in article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. This provision lists international conventions, international custom, and general principles of law as the main sources of international law in accordance with which the Court is to decide disputes submitted to it.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIOS TZANAKOPOULOS ◽  
CHRISTIAN J. TAMS

AbstractThis introductory paper to the symposium hosted by the Leiden Journal of International Law, and edited by the authors, deals with the function of domestic courts as agents for the development of international law. The paper ‘sets the scene’ for the contributions to the symposium, which seek to trace the impact of domestic courts in the development of canonical areas of international law, such as jurisdiction, immunity, state responsibility, the law of international organizations/human rights, and the law of armed conflict/conduct of hostilities. It discusses the formal quality and actual influence of domestic-court decisions on the development of international-law, and introduces the concept of ‘agents’ of international-law development. This is the analytical perspective that the contributions to the symposium adopt.


2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (866) ◽  
pp. 373-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Milanovic

AbstractThe article examines and compares two recent judgments which provide some of the most valuable examples of the difficulties surrounding the application of international humanitarian law to the phenomenon of terrorism: the Hamdan judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Targeted Killings judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel. Both judgments deal with the thresholds of applicability of the law of armed conflict, as well as with the concept of unlawful combatancy and the relationship between human rights law and humanitarian law. Both judgments are at times inconsistent and lacking in analysis, with the Hamdan judgment in particular misinterpreting the relevant international authorities, including the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions. Despite these flaws, or because of them, both of these judgments remain instructive. The purpose of this article is to present the lessons for the future that these two decisions might bring to ongoing debates on the impact of global terrorism on the law of armed conflict.


2020 ◽  
pp. 155-162
Author(s):  
Courtney A. Short

The wartime occupation of Okinawa demonstrates the crucial role that considerations of race and ethnicity have on the conduct of military government. American military government planners recognized both the possible threat a population of 463,000 civilians might pose and the complexities of the relationship between Okinawa and Japan. Without losing sight of the impact that the civilians would have on military operations, planners from all services, including the Marines, analyzed the ethnicity of the Okinawans and how their cultural distinctiveness might inform their behavior. While the Marines’ policy prohibited further assessment of the population upon landing on the island, preliminary analyses provided the military leadership of all services with a more robust understanding of the battlefield that they faced and thus better prepared them to preserve military lives, safeguard American secrets, and win the battle. Acknowledgment of ethnic differences, done in a manner that seeks educative understanding, should hopefully foster cognizant policy that still supports military goals. An examination of the wartime occupation of Okinawa provides an example for effective military government programs now and in the future.


2018 ◽  
pp. 223-258
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Ayres ◽  
Jeffrey S. Thurnher

Legitimacy is a critical factor in operations. States strive to maintain legitimacy of their operations for a variety of reasons. The essence of legitimacy on the battlefield is conducting operations in a manner that enables the fighting force to gain and maintain moral and legal authority. Whenever fighting takes place on a cluttered or complex battlespace, legitimacy is brought to the forefront as the potential for civilian harm is often increased. The desire for legitimacy is perhaps the main reason States voluntarily cede sovereignty to comply with international law. Adherence to the law of armed conflict is a necessary and key component of legitimacy. States, as the primary developers and adherents of international law, created the current law of armed conflict construct and are responsible for ensuring its continued viability. States understand that legitimacy and compliance with the law help shape ultimate victory in complex battlespaces. States further recognize that the law of armed conflict only functions properly when there is a delicate balance between the fundamental principles of humanity and military necessity. In recent years, however, States have been subject to attempts from external entities to tilt this balance in favor of humanitarian considerations and to reshape what are considered legitimate actions on complex battlefields. Simultaneously, States have confronted non-State actors that intentionally seek to flout international law and use it to undermine States’ abilities to respond. This chapter examines the importance of legitimacy to States and the reasons States seek to garner it through their military operations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document