scholarly journals No End in Sight? US Policy on Targeted Killing by Aerial Drone Strikes: a Legal-Political Assessment

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-85
Author(s):  
Matthias Maass
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
President Obama ◽  
Terrorist Organizations ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Systematic Effort ◽  
The Us ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
Rules Set

Recently, President Obama stated: “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end.” I investigate America’s legal basis, its claim to self-defense in response to 9/11, and conclude that this claim is weakening rapidly due to the passage of time and military successes. Similarly, the case for drone strikes as pre-emption is fading due to the damage drone strikes have done to Al Qaeda’s capabi-lities. I conclude that overall US drone strikes follow the rules set by International Humanitarian Law (IHL). How-ever, today America’s rationale for these missions is shi-fting away from defeating Al Qaeda towards deterring its members and sympathizers. In this case, the US would most likely be in breach of IHL. I complete the analysis by claiming that the recent recognition of Obama that “this war... must end” still lacks the need for a new legal framework for America’s counterterrorism efforts.

The Counterterrorism War Paradigm versus International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Contradictions and Global Consequences of the US “War on Terror”

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (04) ◽  
pp. 922-956
Author(s):  
Lisa Hajjar
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Strategic Objectives ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government

Since 2001, we have witnessed the development of a counterterrorism war paradigm built to advance claims about the post-9/11 scope and discretion of US executive power and to articulate specific interpretations of national security interests and strategic objectives in the “war on terror.” What makes this a paradigm rather than merely a conglomeration of evolving policies is the cohesiveness and mutual reinforcement of its underlying rationales about the rights of the US government to prosecute a territorially unbounded war against an evolving cast of enemies. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of a juridical field, the article focuses on how officials who constructed a legal framework for this paradigm, rather than disregarding international law wholesale, have engaged in interpretations and crafted rationales to evade some international humanitarian law (IHL) rules and norms while rejecting the underlying logic or applicability of others. This article traces the counterterrorism war paradigm’s development and explains how it now competes with and threatens to supersede the customary law principles enshrined in IHL.

A Legal Assessment of the US Drone Strikes in Pakistan

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 917-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shakeel Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Economic Factors ◽  
Collaborative Effort ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Suicide Bombing ◽  
The Us ◽  
Tacit Consent ◽  
Drone Strikes

While assessing the legality of the US drone strikes in Pakistan, this article takes into account the nature of armed conflict which has potential to be converted into an international armed conflict (IAC) from a non-international armed conflict (NIAC). The growing trust-deficit between Pakistan and the US is catalyst for determination of nature of armed conflict. The arguments based on tacit consent of Pakistan no longer stands valid after a clear protest by Pakistani officials at national, bilateral and international level. It also examines the observance of the rules of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in comparison with official US statements. Continued drone strikes are now being considered as counter-productive and resulting in increased suicide bombing in various cities of Pakistan. The author suggests a collaborative effort by considering other social, political and economic factors to minimize the violation of IHL for desired results.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
General Introduction ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
International Legal Personality

The general introduction sets the scene for the legal issues addressed in this book by presenting their relevance in most recent conflicts and other situations of violence, including in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, the Central African Republic, and Kenya. It also introduces the legal framework the book sets out to examine, notably international humanitarian law, human rights law, and international criminal law. The introductory chapter further presents the book’s methodology, introduces its structure, and explains key terms and concepts. These include, in particular, the terms ‘non-state armed group’, ‘international legal personality’, and ‘degree of organization’, which are especially relevant throughout the book.

scholarly journals Caught in the Crossfire: Challenges to Migrant Protection in the Yemeni and Libyan Conflicts

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 318-331
Author(s):  
Danielle Flanagan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Migration Routes ◽  
Conflict Zones ◽  
Conflict Situations ◽  
Stable Conditions ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Migration Pathways

In spite of the prevailing security dynamics in Yemen and Libya, both states continue to serve as areas of transit along some of the world’s largest mixed migration routes, leaving migrants caught in the crossfire of the two conflicts. This article examines the legal framework governing the protection of migrants in armed conflict under international humanitarian and human rights law. It also identifies two adverse incentives produced by the conflict situations that impede the exercise of these legal protections: (1) profits derived from migrant smuggling and trafficking, and (2) the use of migrants to support armed groups. In the absence of stable conditions in Yemen and Libya, individuals have little reason to respect international legal protections and discontinue migrant abuse connected with the lucrative businesses of smuggling and trafficking. The intractable nature of the two conflicts has also led to the strategic use of migrants as armed support, and more specifically as combatants, weapons transports, and human shields. Given these realities, the article outlines several recommendations to address the issue of migrant abuse in conflict. It recommends that states, particularly those neighboring Yemen and Libya, strengthen regular migration pathways to help reduce the number of migrants transiting through active conflict zones. It further advises that the international community increase the cost of noncompliance to international humanitarian law through the use of accountability mechanisms and through strategic measures, including grants of reciprocal respect to armed groups that observe protections accorded to migrants in conflict situations.

scholarly journals ‘Not dead but sleeping’: Expanding international law to better regulate the diverse effects of ceasefire agreements

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 731-743
Author(s):  
Marika Sosnowski
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Development Studies ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Economic Networks ◽  
Citizenship Rights ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
New Research

AbstractCeasefire agreements are legally governed by international humanitarian law because they have generally been considered in relation to how they affect levels of violence. However, new research in the fields of anthropology, security, and development studies suggests that ceasefires can have many more ramifications. These range from their ability to influence governance institutions, property and citizenship rights, economic networks, and security mechanisms. Consequently, this article suggests that a broader legal framework is needed through which to consider ceasefires and their consequences. While canvassing the option of ceasefires being types of contractual documents or as special agreements under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the article concludes that the best way to regulate ceasefire agreements is through an expanded version of lex pacificatoria. Rather than being governed by hard international law, such a move would allow for the implementation of more flexible programmatic standards to influence the myriad ways ceasefires are negotiated, the conduct of belligerents, and their diverse effects on the ground during wartime.

scholarly journals Instytucjonalizacja współpracy w zakresie grobownictwa wojennego

2015 ◽  
pp. 88-103
Author(s):  
Joanna Szymoniczek
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Social Organizations ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Us ◽  
Special Protection

Resting places of fallen soldiers – war cemeteries – are monuments to soldiers’ heroism, and thus are of special significance not only for those who have lost their loved ones, but also for entire nations, countries and communities. Therefore, such cemeteries are created under the provisions of relevant authorities, and then put under the special protection of the public. These issues are closely regulated by international law established throughout the twentieth century. Cemeteries are protected by the state on whose territory individual objects are placed. However, the problem of cemeteries is more and more often the responsibility of social organizations. According to the international humanitarian law of armed conflict, specific tasks in this respect are assigned to the tracing services of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, who deal with the registry of exhumation, inhumation and body transfer, hold deposits, establish the fate of victims of war and issue death certificates. Institutions that deal with exploration, keeping records, exhumation of remains and the construction or revaluation of the graves of fallen citizens buried outside the borders of their own countries include the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites, the German People’s Union for the Care of War Graves, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Austrian Red Cross (Österreichisches Schwarzes Kreuz), the American Battle Monuments Commission, the US Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad and the Italian Commissariat General for the Memory of Killed in War (Commissariato Generale per le Onoranze Caduti in Guerra). For political reasons, tasks related to war cemeteries are assigned to social organizations, because their actions are believed to be more effective and less bureaucratic than those of states.

scholarly journals Liar's war: Protecting civilians from disinformation during armed conflict

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Eian Katz
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Traditional Classification

Abstract Disinformation in armed conflict may pose several distinctive forms of harm to civilians: exposure to retaliatory violence, distortion of information vital to securing human needs, and severe mental suffering. The gravity of these harms, along with the modern nature of wartime disinformation, is out of keeping with the traditional classification of disinformation in international humanitarian law (IHL) as a permissible ruse of war. A patchwork set of protections drawn from IHL, international human rights law and international criminal law may be used to limit disinformation operations during armed conflict, but numerous gaps and ambiguities undermine the force of this legal framework, calling for further scholarly attention and clarification.

scholarly journals TANGGUNG JAWAB NEGARA ATAS DIGUNAKANNYA SENJATA SPACE-BASED MISSILE INTERCEPTOR SEBAGAI BENTUK UPAYA SELF-DEFENSE DARI NEGARA PENYERANG TERHADAP NEGARA PIHAK KETIGA DITINJAU DARI HUKUM INTERNASIONAL

2022 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-126
Author(s):  
Virajati Adhazar ◽  
Suhaidi Suhaidi ◽  
Sutiarnoto Sutiarnoto ◽  
Jelly Leviza
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
State Accountability ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Compensation Process ◽  
Outer Space Treaty

Self-defense as an inherent right owned by a country is regulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter and due to the use of Space-Based Missile Interceptor (SBMI) weapons in space, the 1967 outer space treaty must also be guided. Because Article 4 of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits the use of weapons in space, the legality of using SBMI weapons is questionable. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the legal provisions, forms of state accountability and the process of prosecuting compensation for countries using these weapons according to international law. The results of the study indicate that the use of SBMI weapons does not conflict with international law, because it is based on Article 103 of the UN Charter which states that if there are provisions in other legal rules that are contrary to the UN Charter, the UN Charter must be guided. So that self-defense actions based on Article 51 of the UN Charter do not violate the law. The party that must be absolutely responsible is the country that started the conflict, because it has violated the rules of international law in Article 2 paragraph (4) of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. The compensation process is carried out according to the rules of the space liability convention 1972 and if in practice the party who is responsible does not show good faith in providing compensation, then it can be continued by referring to the dispute resolution process in the UN Charter.

III. ASSASSINATION AND TARGETED KILLING—THE KILLING OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 778-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
APV Rogers ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Us ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Domestic Law

Osama Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011 in the course of an operation by US special forces (Navy Seals) in Abbottabad, Pakistan.1 The US forces were flown by helicopter from neighbouring Afghanistan. The death of Bin Laden renewed questions about the legality of such operations during armed conflicts and during peacetime.2 The potentially applicable law includes international humanitarian law, international human rights law, jus ad bellum and the domestic law of the US and Pakistan.3

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document