scholarly journals Application of Armed Conflict Law in Non-war Military Operations

Author(s):  
Ke Liu ◽  
Yunxia Song
Author(s):  
Jacques Hartmann

The chapter zooms in on the specific issue of detention in the context of multinational military operations. The Serdar Mohammed case (UK), the Hassan case (ECtHR), as well as the ICRC’s ongoing project to strengthen the legal protections in relation to detention in times of non-international armed conflict, have unearthed various loopholes and legal challenges in the contemporary humanitarian legal framework. What is more, even when multinational military operations operate outside the context of an armed conflict, the legal basis and applicable legal constraints with regard to detention are often unclear. The ECtHR’s Medvedyev case as well as discussions in the context of the Copenhagen process on the handling of detainees in international military operations are relevant cases in point. It is against this background that the chapter analyses applicable legal bases, procedures and constraints with regard to detention in the context of multinational military operations.


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):  
Ismail Onat ◽  
Serdar San

U.S.-led coalition forces liberated all of the territory ISIS held in Syria and Iraq in the first quarter of 2019. Although the defeat was a significant achievement, ISIS continues its activities outside the Syria and Iraq region. Turkey matters to ISIS because the group carries out attacks and uses the country to move fighters and supplies. However, Turkey relies heavily on police crackdowns to deter terrorism. Drawing on data from the Armed Conflict Event and Location Database, the Turkish Ministry of Interior, and an online news source, the current study first analyzed trends in ISIS attacks around the world. Then, it explored the extent to which police arrests prevent ISIS from further deadly attacks in Turkey. Results from the study suggest that ISIS activities are likely to decrease in Syria and Iraq after the U.S.-led military operations but increase in other countries. Also, mass arrests were ineffective in preventing subsequent deadly attacks in Turkey. Policy implications are discussed.


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.


Author(s):  
Payne Cymie R

This chapter focuses on international humanitarian law’s (IHL) limitations on warfare to protect the natural environment from extremely serious damage and to prevent unnecessary or wanton harm. IHL protection of the environment developed from the principle of protection of civilians, and it has similar motives and goals. The chapter then describes a legal regime that is undergoing development. The International Law Commission (ILC) termed the overall topic ‘Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflict’ (PERAC). The central rules of IHL that are well accepted as customary law provide protection to aspects of the environment that can be considered public or private property, or that are essential to human survival. These aspects of PERAC are firmly rooted in the earliest law of war protections for drinking water, crops, and cultural elements, and in modern domestic environmental law and social norms. Yet protection of the environment during armed conflict as a specific legal obligation is a sufficiently recent international norm that its status as binding law has been more contested than early humanitarian commitments like neutrality of medical personnel. This reflects the tension between recognition of the importance of ecological integrity to peace and the interests of states in retaining freedom in their conduct of military operations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (910) ◽  
pp. 333-355
Author(s):  
Michael N. Schmitt

AbstractAs a general matter, international humanitarian law is up to the task of providing the legal framework for cyber operations during an armed conflict. However, two debates persist in this regard, the resolution of which will determine the precise degree of protection the civilian population will enjoy during cyber operations. The first revolves around the meaning of the term “attack” in various conduct of hostilities rules, while the second addresses the issue of whether data may be considered an object such that operations destroying or altering it are subject to the prohibition on attacking civilian objects and that their effects need be considered when considering proportionality and the taking of precautions in attack. Even if these debates were to be resolved, the civilian population would still face risks from the unique capabilities of cyber operations. This article proposes two policies that parties to a conflict should consider adopting in order to ameliorate such risks. They are both based on the premise that military operations must reflect a balance between military concerns and the interest of States in prevailing in the conflict.


Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat

Normally, states parties to an armed conflict settle the financial consequences of that conflict in the traditional way, if ever they reach agreement, by concluding comprehensive treaties that embrace also all the claims that their nationals may have acquired on account of the conflict. The most common form of reparation consists of lump sum payments that do not differentiate between the different groups of victims. Remedies for individuals are not available within the framework of international humanitarian law (IHL) at the international level. This chapter explores state responsibility and the individual right to compensation before national courts, in particular violations of IHL. It looks at compensation claims before the courts of the alleged wrongdoing state, as well as those claims outside the alleged wrongdoing state. It considers national reparation programmes, tort claims arising from military operations during non-international armed conflict, tort claims arising from international armed conflict, the territorial clause,jus cogensversus jurisdictional immunity, implications for public policy, and universal jurisdiction for reparation claims.


Author(s):  
Cathal Nolan

Modern war is often defined as armed conflict within, between, or among states, although other political communities partake of war: ethnic and religious groups, ideological movements, terrorist organizations, large drug gangs, and other “non-state actors.” The narrowest meaning used by historians is war as the art and science and record of military operations. More general discourse sub-classifies war according to an ascending scale of participation—rebellion, insurrection, insurgency, guerrilla war, civil war, and regional war—culminating in three synonyms for armed conflict at the largest scale: systemic war, global war, and world war. War is also categorized by the types of weapons used to conduct it, as in the terms “conventional war” and “unconventional war.” A controversial distinction is made between limited war and total war, in which wars are typed by scope, the declared or discerned objectives of participants, and the degree to which militaries target civilians, enemy morale, or economic infrastructure. Social science literature defines a minimal threshold of mass political violence as war, as opposed to riot or other communal use of force, if deaths reach one thousand. That is an arbitrary definition, not universally accepted or normally employed by historians.


1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (322) ◽  
pp. 75-80
Author(s):  
Giorgio Filibeck

We should start by noting that, even today, not all post-conflict situations are marked by a return to true peace. A situation of latent conflict often persists, ranging from isolated hostile acts, sometimes terrorist in nature, to sporadic military operations which maintain a climate of aggressivity. In such situations, it may be hard to ensure the security conditions which are so vital to the proper functioning of justice. Effective justice is thus conditioned by an essentially political factor: without a real consensus on ending armed conflict, it is impossible to restore an order in which justice can be seen as a realistic goal. However, if there is no political will to punish those responsible for behaviour that is morally unacceptable, quite apart from being legally criminal, it will be impossible to pave the way for authentic peace.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document