Part VI Conclusions for the Planning of Military Deployments, 47 Visiting Forces in an Operational Context

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fleck Dieter ◽  
Klappe Ben F
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Military Deployments ◽  
Military Forces ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter summarizes key issues for Visiting Forces as relevant for judge advocates, government civilian attorneys, and military legal advisors. The presence of one State’s military forces in another State’s territory raises significant issues about the relationship between those states. Sending States will desire to assert their control over their armed forces during the deployment, while Receiving States will desire to assert their sovereign control over their territory. It is the combined effort of states to balance such interests for mutual security benefits that forms the object and purpose of the law of Visiting Forces. The law of Visiting Forces focuses on aspects of the peacetime presence of a Sending State’s armed forces within the territory of a Receiving State. Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2011, states have increasingly conducted military activities in complex circumstances that may also implicate the law of armed conflict.

scholarly journals The redirection of attacks by defending forces

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Tsvetelina van Benthem
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This article examines the redirection of incoming missiles when employed by defending forces to whom obligations to take precautions against the effects of attacks apply. The analysis proceeds in four steps. In the first step, the possibility of redirection is examined from an empirical standpoint. Step two defines the contours of the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Step three considers one variant of redirection, where a missile is redirected back towards the adversary. It is argued that such acts of redirection would fulfil the definition of attack under the law of armed conflict, and that prima facie conflicts of obligations could be avoided through interpretation of the feasibility standard embedded in the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Finally, step four analyzes acts of redirection against persons under the control of the redirecting State. Analyzing this scenario calls for an inquiry into the relationship between the relevant obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Attack Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
pp. 325-374
Author(s):  
Geoffrey S. Corn
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Collateral Consequences ◽  
Civilian Protection ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Proportionality Rule

Proportionality is one of the most important civilian protection rules in the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). In an era when combat almost always occurs in areas with substantial civilian populations, the proportionality rule is critical to protecting civilians and civilian property from the incidental and collateral consequences of attacks directed at otherwise lawful targets. The proportionality rule, however, prohibits attacks against otherwise lawful military objectives only when the attacker anticipates that civilian casualties or destruction to civilian property will be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack. Application of the proportionality rule has triggered ongoing debates over the meaning of its constituent terms: What is a military advantage? How is military advantage to be valued? What qualifies as a concrete and direct advantage? When does the knowing infliction of civilian harm qualify as excessive? Considering criminal accountability adds another layer of complexity: What is the proper standard of assessing criminal responsibility based on a violation of this obligation? This chapter explores the relationship between the duty of obedience and the implementation of the proportionality obligation at the tactical level. Given that deliberate attack planning and dynamic targeting arise in different operational contexts, each requires a different implementation focus.

The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and the Fundamental Distinction Between the Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 613-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Gill
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Potential Use

The 1996 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court has been both hailed and criticized on various grounds. However, one area, namely the Court's treatment of the distinction between the law regulating the use of force and the humanitarian law of armed conflict, has received relatively little attention. This author is convinced and concerned that the Court's treatment of this issue misconstrued the relationship between these two branches of the law, and in doing so potentially weakened any restraining influence the law of armed conflict might have on the potential use of nuclear weapons.

scholarly journals Lest We Forget the Realm of Armed Conflicts: A Guided Discussion on the Law of Armed Conflict/International Humanitarian Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-50
Author(s):  
Yugichha Sangroula
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Law Students ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Initial Attempt ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Law

The paper is a doctrinal and a dialectic endeavour to comment on LOAC/IHL from a bird’s-eye view. It is the author’s initial attempt to contribute to an ongoing discussion on the theory and practice of LOAC/IHL, reflecting on the key issues relevant to Nepal. The question-answer approach is based on the author’s interactions with law students, colleagues, members from the police, military, victims, bureaucrats and politicians in the Nepali diaspora. The paper will benefit from the readers’ critique.

High-Tech Civilians, Participation in Hostilities, and Criminal Liability

2019 ◽  
pp. 175-208
Author(s):  
Matthew T. King
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Direct Participation ◽  
Military Forces ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law

The challenge presented by civilians on, near, and affecting the battlefield is an enduring issue in the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). At its core, the LOAC seeks to protect civilians from the dangers of hostilities. The challenge, then, involves adhering to this general respect and protection standard, while balancing the need to send forces (which may include civilian members) to prosecute armed conflicts (which may involve enemy civilian participants). As advancements in technology and a growing dependence on civilian expertise in armed conflict begin to blur the distinction between civilian activity and direct participation in hostilities, how will military forces ensure civilians are properly protected on the battlefield? At what point does civilian involvement in military operations become direct participation in the conflict?

The Developing Law of Weapons

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Haines
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Current State ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Future ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses seven key issues. First, it discusses and defines the term ‘weapon’. Secondly, it explores the weapons law element of the law of armed conflict (LOAC), including how it relates to other existing bodies of law dealing with weapons. Thirdly, it gives an account of the development of the conventional law of weapons, because the bulk of current weapons law is contained in treaties that contain important principles underpinning weapons law and define its nature. Fourthly, it identifies these principles and comments on their importance. Fifthly, since conventional law has a vital relationship with customary law, the chapter offers some comment on the current state of the customary law of weapons. Sixthly, it returns to the issue of technology, in particular new technologies that represent significant challenges to existing law. Finally, some attempt is made to assess where the law might go in the future and what issues are likely to be on the agenda in the immediate term.

Mixing Apples and Hand Grenades The Logical Limit of Applying Human Rights Norms to Armed Conflict

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Corn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Conflict Regulation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractOne of the most complex contemporary debates related to the regulation of armed conflict is the relationship between international humanitarian law (or the law of armed conflict) and international human rights law. Since human rights experts first began advocating for the complementary application of these two bodies of law, there has been a steady march of human rights application into an area formerly subject to the exclusive regulation of the law of armed conflict (LOAC). While the legal aspects of this debate are both complex and fascinating, like all areas of conflict regulation the outcome must ultimately produce guidelines that can be translated into an effective operational framework for war-fighters. In an era of an already complex and often confused battle space, there can be little tolerance for adding complexity and confusion to the rules that war-fighters must apply in the execution of their missions. Instead, clarity is essential to aid them in navigating this complexity. This article will explore this debate from a military operational perspective. It asserts the invalidity of extreme views in this complementarity debate, and that the inevitable invocation of human rights obligations in the context of armed conflict necessitates a careful assessment of where symmetry between these two sources of law is operationally logical and where that logic dissipates.

Lessons for human rights and humanitarian law in the war on terror: comparing Hamdan and the Israeli Targeted Killings case

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (866) ◽  
pp. 373-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Milanovic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document