Personal Self-Defense and the Standing Rules of Engagement

2018 ◽  
pp. 109-124
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Ford
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Aerial Vehicle ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. military Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) restrict the use of force in armed conflict to either self-defense or “mission-specific” rules of engagement, which refer to the use of force against members of enemy armed forces or organized armed groups that have been “declared hostile.” This bifurcation of authority works well in an international armed conflict, where the enemy force is uniformed and easily distinguished. In these circumstances, the overwhelming number of engagements are against identified hostile forces. In many non-international armed conflicts, however, combatants actively attempt to camouflage their status, and U.S. forces find themselves engaging enemy forces under a self-defense framework. This creates problems. Consider, for example, a situation where three individuals of unknown affiliation launch an attack against a U.S. military convoy in Afghanistan. After a short engagement, the attackers get in a van and speed away from the attack site. The U.S. convoy is disabled, but an unmanned aerial vehicle tracks the van as it retreats into the desert. Thirty minutes later an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter arrives on scene above the still-retreating van. Can the Apache attack the vehicle? The van is retreating and poses no threat, thus self-defense principles would not allow for the use of force, despite the fact that the occupants are clearly directly participating in hostilities. This chapter addresses three questions: Why are the SROE drafted in this manner? What is the basis in the law for the SROE’s approach to self-defense? What are the problems presented by this approach?

Complex Conflict Situations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kubo Mačák
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Conflict Situations ◽  
Single Use ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mutually Independent

This chapter analyses the legal qualification of complex conflict situations that feature more than two conflict parties. It examines whether such situations qualify as a single internationalized armed conflict or a number of independent international and non-international armed conflicts. With this in mind, this chapter puts forward a model based on the retention of autonomy of the allied conflict parties. It argues that once the autonomy is foregone and replaced with a single use of force by the parties, the law of international armed conflict applies ‘globally’ to the situation at hand. However, until that moment, the situation should be seen as ‘mixed’; in other words, as a set of mutually independent conflict pairs.

Exploring the “continuous combat function” concept in armed conflicts: Time for an extended application?

2018 ◽  
Vol 100 (907-909) ◽  
pp. 267-285
Author(s):  
Sabrina Henry
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Function Concept ◽  
Extended Application

AbstractThis paper focuses on the “continuous combat function” concept and proposes to extend its application. First, the article will demonstrate that the continuous combat function concept should be extended to certain members of organized armed groups in cases where those groups do not belong to any of the parties to an international armed conflict and whose actions do not reach the level of intensity required for a separate non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to exist. Secondly, the paper will look at the extension of this concept in order to determine individual membership in State armed forces in the context of a NIAC, while arguing that the notion of “armed forces” should be interpreted differently depending of the nature of the conflict, be it international or non-international.

scholarly journals Lessons for the law of armed conflict from commitments of armed groups: identification of legitimate targets and prisoners of war

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (882) ◽  
pp. 463-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandesh Sivakumaran
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Rules Set

AbstractArmed groups frequently issue ad hoc commitments that contain a law of armed conflict component. These commitments detail the obligation of the relevant armed group to abide by international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions, or particular rules set out in the commitment. They commit the group to abide by international standards, sometimes exceed international standards, or in certain respects violate international standards. Although these commitments are often overlooked, they offer certain lessons for the law of armed conflict. This article considers the commitments of armed groups with respect to two specific areas of the law that are either of contested interpretation or seemingly inapplicable to non-international armed conflicts, namely the identification of legitimate targets and the prisoners of war regime.

Part IV The Right to Reparation/Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, B Guarantees of Non-Recurrence of Violations, Principle 37 Disbandment of Parastatal Armed Forces/Demobilization and Social Reintegration of Children

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duthie Roger ◽  
Mayer-Rieckh Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Social Reintegration ◽  
Criminal Violence ◽  
The Right

Principle 37 focuses on the disbandment of parastatal armed forces and the demobilization and social reintegration of children involved in armed conflicts. It articulates measures designed to prevent the transformation of conflict violence to criminal violence through the dismantling and reintegration of all armed groups engaged in abuses, and outlines comprehensive responses to the injustices experienced by children during armed conflict. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 37 before discussing its theoretical framework and practice. It then examines the importance of reintegration processes and how they can be affected by transitional justice measures, along with their implications for former child combatants. It also highlights the relevance of measures for dealing with unofficial armed groups from an impunity standpoint, as well as the efforts of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs to address them.

1 Introduction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boothby William H
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Arms Trade ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law

This relatively brief chapter introduces the book as a whole. It positions weapons law within the framework of international law in general, and of the law of armed conflict in particular, noting the important distinctions between international and non-international armed conflicts, and between the law on the resort to the use of force and that which regulates the conduct of hostilities. The logical flow of the book is presented, and certain terms that are vital to the ensuing discussion, namely weapons, means of warfare and methods of warfare are explained. The all-important distinction between weapons law and the legal rules that regulate targeting is noted. A concluding section addresses the recently-adopted Arms Trade Treaty.

19 The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fleck Dieter
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law

This chapter provides an overview of the law of non-international armed conflicts and its progressive development. The law of armed conflict, as it has developed in the last part of the nineteenth and the first part of the twentieth century, deals predominantly with wars between states. Its basic principles and rules are, however, likewise relevant for non-international armed conflicts: in all armed conflicts, elementary considerations of humanity must be respected under all circumstances, in order to protect victims, to reduce human sufferings, and to minimize damages to objects vital for survival. Therefore, the parties to the conflict do not have an unlimited choice of the means and methods of conducting hostilities, nor of selecting the targets to be attacked, and they must protect the victims from the effects and consequences of war. This concept is reflected in the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, to be respected by all and, while taking military necessity into account, limiting the use of force for humanitarian reasons. Parties to the conflict respecting these principles and rules are considered as respecting the international order, while those seriously violating them will commit internationally wrongful acts and perpetrators are liable to punishment.

Authorizing Attacks in Response to Terrorist Attacks

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-39
Author(s):  
Patrycja Grzebyk
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Constraints

Some states (mainly the United States and Israel) intermingle the terms/principles of the law of armed conflicts/international humanitarian law regime and the regime of the law on the use of force in order to avoid legal constraints and to justify attacks against non-state armed groups in violation of the sovereignty of other states and the rights of particular persons. The counterterrorism strategy is created under the influence of legal arguments, and thus the recent trend of abusive interpretation of the regimes could encourage decision-makers to resort to military measures instead of using less intrusive instruments such as criminal cooperation. This tendency is more visible in times of crisis. States are then still interested in having legal justification for their actions, but they tend to see the role of law differently: the law is expected to serve the authorities, rather than to guide them, when the state’s fundamental interest—its security—is under threat.

Proportionality and Force in International Law

1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Gail Gardam
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost

Proportionality is a fundamental component of the law on the use of force and the law of armed conflict—the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello. In the former, it refers to a belligerent’s response to a grievance and, in the latter, to the balance to be struck between the achievement of a military goal and the cost in terms of lives. The legitimate resort to force under the United Nations system is regarded by most commentators as restricted to the use of force in self-defense under Article 51 and collective security action under chapter VII of the UN Charter. The resort to force in both these situations is limited by the customary law requirement that it be proportionate to the unlawful aggression that gave rise to the right. In the law of armed conflict, the notion of proportionality is based on the fundamental principle that belligerents do not enjoy an unlimited choice of means to inflict damage on the enemy. Since the entry into force of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, proportionality has been both a conventional and a customary principle of the law of armed conflict.

The right to life in armed conflict: does international humanitarian law provide all the answers?

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (864) ◽  
pp. 881-904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Doswald-Beck
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article describes the relevant interpretation of the right to life by human rights treaty bodies and analyses how this might influence the law relating to the use of force in armed conflicts and occupations where international humanitarian law is unclear. The concurrent applicability of international humanitarian law and human rights law to hostilities in armed conflict does not mean that the right to life must, in all situations, be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law. The author submits that the human rights law relating to the right to life is suitable to supplement the rules of international humanitarian law relating to the use of force for non-international conflicts and occupation, as well as the law relating to civilians taking a “direct part in hostilities”. Finally, by making reference to the traditional prohibition of assassination, the author concludes that the application of human rights law in these situations would not undermine the spirit of international humanitarian law.

The Use of Force in Armed Conflicts Conduct of Hostilities, Law Enforcement, and Self-Defense

2018 ◽  
pp. 61-108
Author(s):  
Gloria Gaggioli
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
Modern Warfare

In modern warfare, military forces are expected to use lethal or potentially lethal force in a variety of contexts ranging from combat operations against the adversary to maintaining law and order or responding to imminent threats to life or limb. In practice, it may not be easy to distinguish between these various situations, which may overlap, as for instance when fighters hide among rioting civilians or demonstrators. Situations of violence may also be volatile and quickly evolve from mere civilian unrest to armed clashes. This factual or operational complexity is accompanied by a legal complexity. Different legal regimes and “paradigms” govern the use of force. From an international law perspective, the use of force by armed forces and law enforcement officials is governed by two different paradigms: the conduct of hostilities paradigm, derived from international humanitarian law (IHL), and the law enforcement paradigm, mainly derived from international human rights law (IHRL). Additionally, armed forces frequently refer to the concept of self-defense at various levels (State, unit, personal) as encompassed in numerous rules of engagement. The legal sources of these concepts and interplay with IHL and HRL remain often unsettled and deserve being clarified. This chapter aims at addressing the legal complexities in identifying governing use of force rules through the analysis of various situations/scenarios that are typical of contemporary military operations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document