THE YEAR IN REVIEW

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 195-232
Author(s):  
Susan C. Breau
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
The World ◽  
The Many

AbstractThis year in review will first discuss the major developments that contributed towards the formation or enforcement of international humanitarian law. Despite the many positive developments in the elucidation of international humanitarian law, 2009 witnessed the continuation of violent armed conflict around the world, not least in Sri Lanka where the long standing armed conflict came to a bloody conclusion amidst allegations of summary executions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Two other conflicts involving Israel/Gaza and Russia/Georgia which took place in 2008 and early 2009, resulted in the release of two influential international investigative reports, each of which alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law and called for the enforcement of criminal accountability. The election of Barack Obama marked a significant shift in the attitude of the United States to terrorism and detention with the new President immediately announcing on taking office, the closure of Guantánamo Bay.

Mr. Gallopin meets American Secretary of State

1975 ◽  
Vol 15 (168) ◽  
pp. 135-135
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Executive Board ◽  
Henry Kissinger ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The World ◽  
Humanitarian Work

On 17 February 1975, the President of the ICRC Executive Board, Mr. Roger Gallopin, met the American Secretary of State, Mr. Henry Kissinger, while the latter was on a visit to Geneva. The talks centred on the ICRC's humanitarian work throughout the world. The Secretary of State expressed the United States Government's appreciation of the tasks accomplished by the ICRC and, in particular, its efforts to promote international humanitarian law.

Joint and Combined Targeting

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schmitt ◽  
Jeffrey Biller ◽  
Sean C Fahey ◽  
David S Goddard ◽  
Chad Highfill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Practical Effect ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses how the law is implemented by armed forces during “targeting,” the process by which individuals and objects are systematically analyzed and prioritized for potential engagement. Centered on an examination of the United States’ “Joint Targeting Cycle,” a construct broadly shared by many other states and organizations, such as NATO, it explains how international humanitarian law concepts are given practical effect during armed conflict. The analysis then proceeds to explore the nuances of targeting in different operational domains: air, land, sea, and cyber. While achieving broadly the same set of legal functions, practice has developed to reflect the different means and methods of warfare in each particular environment. The chapter concludes by extending the discussion to targeting in a coalition context, in which processes and procedures are required to account for legal differences between partners, while minimizing the detrimental effect on operations in order to achieve “legal interoperability.”

Operation Neptune's Spear: The Lawful Killing of Osama Bin Laden

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A Wallace
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Intense Debate

The reactions to the reports of Osama bin Laden's death were many: shock, relief, joy, wariness, elation, reservation. Not surprisingly, an intense debate soon emerged over the legality of killing Osama bin Laden. Critics – including the authors of the article, ‘Has “Justice Been Done”? The Legality of Bin Laden's Killing under International Law’, Kai Ambos and Josef Alkatout – raise many interesting and thought-provoking questions. The purpose of this submission is to respond to the arguments of Ambos and Alkatout. This response article argues that the killing of Osama bin Laden was lawful under international humanitarian law. More specifically, a careful legal analysis demonstrates that a non-international armed conflict exists between the United States and Al Qaeda. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Al Qaeda is an organised armed group under international humanitarian law. Osama bin Laden most accurately could be thought of as a strategic level commander of Al Qaeda. He has been actively involved in planning and co-ordinating armed attacks against military and civilian targets for years, including the most recent planning of attacks commemorating the tenth anniversary of September 11. As such, he is clearly targetable under international law. Finally, the United States was well within its rights under international law to launch an attack into Pakistan against bin Laden.

The Abuse of Ambiguity: The Uncertain Status of Omar Khadr under International Law

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 95-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Liss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Child Soldier ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Unresolved Question ◽  
Guantanamo Bay

SummaryThis article addresses the unresolved question of the international legal status, and resulting rights, of Omar Khadr — a Canadian national detained by the United States on the battlefield in Afghanistan at the age of fifteen and subsequently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. The article focuses primarily on Khadr’s potential status as an “unlawful combatant” and as a child soldier. Acknowledging that there has been a great deal of scholarly debate surrounding these issues, it provides an overview of this debate through the lens of Khadr’s particular case. As the author observes, international law surrounding each aspect of Khadr’s status is far from clear. However, even accepting the existence of controversy and ambiguity surrounding Khadr’s status, the author argues that the United States and Canada have, seemingly, sought to exploit this ambiguity in order to justify disregard for his rights. The article concludes by observing that this approach is, in itself, contrary to the foundational principles of international humanitarian law.

scholarly journals The end of application of international humanitarian law

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Milanovic
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
General Rule ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict

AbstractThis article provides an overview of the rules governing the end of application of international humanitarian law (IHL), or the law of armed conflict. It articulates the general principle that, unless there is a good reason of text, principle or policy that warrants an exception, the application of IHL will cease once the conditions that triggered its application in the first place are no longer met. For IHL to apply, its distinct thresholds of application – international armed conflict, belligerent occupation and non-international armed conflict – must continue to be satisfied at any given point in time. The article also examines situations in which a departure from the general rule is warranted, as well as the factors that need to be taken into account in determining the end of each type of armed conflict. In doing so, the article analyzes terminating processes and events, which generally end the application of IHL (but not necessarily all of it), and transformative processes and events, which end the application of one IHL sub-regime but immediately engage another. Finally, the article briefly looks at the (putative) armed conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda and its seemingly imminent end.

scholarly journals EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF «ARMED CONFLICT»: HISTORICAL, LEGAL AND THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-26
Author(s):  
Oleksandra Severinova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Modern World ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Methodological Aspects

The article analyzes the theoretical and methodological aspects of the formation and development of doctrinal ideas about the meaning of the concept of «armed conflict» in the history of world political and legal thought. The question of the name of the branch of law that regulates armed conflict, by analyzing its historical names such as «law of war», «laws and customs of war», «law of armed conflict», «international humanitarian law» and «international humanitarian law, used in armed conflicts». As a result of this analysis, it can be concluded that it would be most appropriate to use the terms «international humanitarian law» only in a narrow sense or «international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts», which is more cumbersome but most accurately describes the field. It is emphasized that due to the availability of new powerful weapons (economic, political, informational, cultural and weapons of mass destruction), which are dangerous both for the aggressor and for the whole world; the aggressor's desire to downplay its role in resolving conflicts in order to avoid sanctions from other countries and international organizations, as well as to prevent the loss of its authority and position on the world stage; the attempts of the aggressor countries to establish their control over the objects of aggression (including integrating them into their political, economic and security systems) without excessive damage to them is the transformation of methods and means of warfare. It is determined that the long history of the formation of the law of armed conflict has led to the adoption at the level of international law of the provision prohibiting any armed aggression in the world, which is reflected in such a principle as non-use of force or threat of force. At the same time, the UN Charter became the first international act in the history of mankind, which completely prohibited armed aggression and enshrined this principle at the international level, which is binding on all states of the modern world.

scholarly journals First Report of Peanut mottle virus in Forage Peanut (Arachis pintoi) in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
K. K. Dey ◽  
L. Hassell ◽  
C. Li ◽  
M. Elliott ◽  
X. Sun
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mottle Virus ◽  
Arachis Glabrata ◽  
First Report ◽  
Arachis Pintoi ◽  
Reverse Transcription Pcr ◽  
The World ◽  
Pcr Products ◽  
The Many

Arachis pintoi is one of the many perennial peanuts grown in many tropical and subtropical countries around the world. Although Peanut mottle virus (PeMoV) was reported in Arachis glabrata from Georgia in 2007, there are no reports of PeMoV infecting A. pintoi in the United States. In June 2017, samples of A. pintoi that originated from Hardee County, FL, plants showed a variety of symptoms ranging from yellowing to dark islands, green vein banding, and mild mottling. They tested positive initially with broad-spectrum lateral flow antibody immunoassay and later were confirmed by sequencing the reverse-transcription PCR products. Detection of PeMoV in A. pintoi is significant because it is transmitted by aphids in a nonpersistent manner and is seed-borne in A. hypogea. It is not known if PeMoV is seed-borne in A. pintoi. However, A. pintoi is commonly vegetatively propagated using stolon cuttings. It is possible that PeMoV can spread to A. pintoi in Florida by all these means, making maintenance of virus-free propagation stock plants important. To our knowledge, this is the first report of PeMoV in A. pintoi the United States.

A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 1140-1164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. Chu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Experimental Control ◽  
Lack Of Control ◽  
Survey Experiments

Reciprocity is one of the oldest principles of warfare, but humanitarian norms embedded in international humanitarian law (IHL) prohibit reciprocity over various wartime acts. When it comes to the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), how do these conflicting norms shape public opinion? One perspective is that citizens who learn about IHL acquire an unconditional aversion to abusing POWs. Alternatively, people may understand IHL as a conditional commitment that instead strengthens their approval for reciprocal conduct. Survey experiments fielded in the United States support the latter view: people’s preferences depend on the enemy’s behavior, and this “reciprocity effect” is largest among those who believe that the United States is legally committed to treating POWs humanely. Puzzlingly, prior studies do not find a reciprocity effect, but this is due to their use of a no-information experimental control group, which led to a lack of control over the subjects’ assumptions about the survey.

What nanotech inventors need to know about trade secrets and the prior user rights defense

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chinh H. Pham ◽  
Ross Spencer Garsson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
The World ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
The Many

AbstractThe America Invents Act (AIA) presents new challenges and strategy considerations for nanotechnology inventors and companies that seek to protect their intellectual property in the United States. Among the many notable changes, the AIA expands the “prior user rights” defense to infringement and broadens the classes of patents that are eligible for the new limited prior user rights defense. While this defense is limited in some instances, such as against universities, it could be invaluable in others, such as when a competitor independently discovers and patents the trade secret. In the world of nanotechnology, where inventions and products are increasingly complex, this protection can prove to be vitally important.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document