Human Rights Obligations of Armed Groups

One of the asymmetries faced by military missions in areas of limited statehood are diverging legal obligations of state and non-state actors, in particular in relation to human rights duties. From a perspective of states bound by human rights treaties, there is a certain danger that armed groups opposing them might abuse the obligations incumbent upon state actors. Against this perception, the potential application of human rights law to armed groups is not only relevant as a tool for protecting civilians but also from a reciprocity perspective in view of the fluidity of armed conflicts and with a view to convergence of standards. The chapter assesses how international law and international legal practice in relation to armed groups have evolved over the past decade. It takes stock of recent developments and analyses the degree to which human rights obligations apply to armed groups.

Protecting the Environment during Multinational Military Operations

The chapter examines issues concerning the protection of the environment during multinational military operations. Taking into consideration the International Law Commission’s (ILC) recent work regarding the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts, this contribution devotes particular attention to the preventive and remedial measures suggested in the Special Rapporteur’s reports. The chapter does, however, go beyond the ILC’s ongoing work on environmental protection in the context of armed conflict by extending its focus on exploring how multinational military operations generally—that is whether within or outside of armed conflicts—are influenced by other bodies of international law, namely international criminal law, international environmental law, and international human rights law.

An Exercise in Defragmentation

The chapter deals with the Grand Chamber judgment in Hassan v UK. With this judgment, which focused on the multinational forces operating in Iraq under unified command in 2003, the European Court of Human Rights has presented a landmark decision with flaws. While eventually unconvincing in its approach to derogations from Convention obligations under Article 15 ECHR, the Court has boldly freed itself of the constraints of the overly abstract and largely unworkable lex specialis standard and—as far as Europe is concerned—has paved the way to consolidate its role as the main driver of further substantive convergence. The author presents a rigorous analysis of the Hassan case and on this basis shows whether and how the Grand Chamber’s findings will influence the global debate regarding the interplay of IHRL and LOAC in the future.

Detention in the Context of Multinational Military Operations

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.

The Legal Interoperability of the Laws of Armed Conflict

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.

Multinational Military Operations at Sea

Multinational military operations have extended to the sea. These operations mirror the changing maritime security landscape wherein transnational crime has become one of the most prominent security threats. With this, the traditional war-related role of navies has slowly but steadily been supplanted by a new function: policing the sea. This new role is more often than not carried out by navies working together, either as naval coalitions or as highly integrated naval forces of regional organizations. This chapter describes the ‘legal pluriverse’ in which such multinational military operations at sea take place. It first asserts that such operations are not ‘warfare lite’, but rather determined by peace time law. It then proceeds to take stock of the rules authorizing multinational forces and contributing states to enforce the law at sea. In a last step, the legal bases imposing strictures on the exercise of these enforcement powers are carved out. The chapter concludes that the legal framework governing enforcement jurisdiction at sea is arguably the epitome of a ‘legal pluriverse’, yet the powers are more clearly defined than the strictures attaching to their exercise.

The Involvement of Private Security Companies in Multinational Military Operations

The chapter examines the involvement of private security companies in multinational military operations. It is quite common that various tasks that are relevant to a mission’s mandate are ‘outsourced’ to private military companies and security providers. This involvement of private security providers further adds to the (legal) complexity of the mission because it brings in the legal dimension of the contracting state, the home state, and the territorial state, as well as an additional private actor. The specific focus of this chapter is on the question of how rules (and soft-law standards) applicable to private security providers interact with the legal framework and rules applicable to the mission as a whole.

Legal Challenges in Multinational Military Operations

In multinational military operations, diverging domestic law and political issues are often dealt with by national caveats by the troop-contributing nations. The chapter analyses the pertinent NATO doctrine and practice concerning caveats and the legal challenges caused by conflicting legal cultures and constitutional arrangements. The authors explain the legal framework for such caveats, show how important they are for securing compliance with troop-contributing states’ domestic law, analyse recent court practice, explain how such caveats have impeded multinational military operations by limiting the flexibility of the multinational commander in deploying the forces, and argue for more harmonization in regard to the applicable legal regimes of such operations.

UN Security Council Resolutions as a Legal Framework for Multinational Military Operations

The chapter examines UN Security Council resolutions as a legal framework for multinational military operations. The author argues that obligations that derive from Security Council mandates may put constraints on how force is used. However, she also underlines that the Security Council sometimes even takes decisions that deviate from IHL rules. Whereas in very few instances concerns were raised that the Security Council authorized military enforcement action that allowed going beyond what is permitted under IHL, most Council resolutions deviating from IHL have a narrowing rather than a broadening effect. Against the background that the national transformation acts that implement Security Council enforcement measures could be challenged before domestic courts, questions arise whether the safeguards included in relation to these concrete provisions are adequate to accommodate potential infringements of rights of individuals affected by the implementation act.

Multinational Military Operations and the Geographical Scope of the Laws of Armed Conflict in Non-International Armed Conflict

The chapter delivers a detailed analysis of the geographical scope of application of the laws of armed conflict in non-international armed conflict. Particular attention is devoted to the challenges raised by multinational military operations. It addresses both the internal geographical scope (i.e. the applicability of IHL within a country to which multinational military operations may be deployed) and the external geographical scope (i.e. the applicability of IHL outside the territory of a state involved in armed conflict). The chapter thus discusses, for example, whether the laws of armed conflict are also applicable within the territories of (troop) contributing states and of states serving as an operational basis.