Earlier today, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh gave a talk at the Oxford Union, entitled “How to End the Forever War?” His remarks begin as follows:
Thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Union, for inviting me
In recent weeks, a coalition of NGOs launched a global campaign to ban “killer robots,” or fully autonomous weapon systems (see reporting here). Its statement calls “for urgent action to preemptively ban lethal robot weapons that would be able … Read more »
On the Sunday talk shows, various members of Congress exhorted the United States to increase its assistance to the Syrian rebels, whether by providing them with additional (lethal) equipment, or by establishing a no-fly zone, or by entering Syria to … Read more »
Ken Anderson and I have just published a new policy paper through the Hoover Institution: Law and Ethics for Autonomous Weapon Systems: Why a Ban Won’t Work and How the Laws of War Can.
Our paper begins:
Public debate
Jens David Ohlin (Cornell) has an interesting post up at LieberCode in which he discusses a range of LOAC issues raised by CIA involvement in drone strikes. Jens raises the question whether CIA personnel involved in drone strikes can qualify … Read more »
The following guest post is the latest in a series comprising a debate as to whether LOAC requires an attempt to capture rather than a first-resort to lethal force in some circumstances. The debate involves Professor Ryan Goodman, on one … Read more »
Ben writes that it is the “political reality” that “any president is going to feel obliged to maintain counterterrorism on offense,” i.e., counterterrorism through military means, “and Congress—whining, carping, complaining all the way both that the president is being … Read more »
It’s quickly becoming apparent that we and Jack appear to be talking past each other on the merits of the Chesney/Goldsmith/Waxman/Wittes (CGWW) proposal for a new framework statute for “extra-AUMF threats.” In Jack’s final response, for example, he frames … Read more »
We appreciate Jack’s quick and comprehensive clarification of his views—and of what the CGWW proposal we critiqued last night seeks to achieve. Like Jack, we want to start by emphasizing the many areas of agreement between us and CGWW … Read more »
In the very first days after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration asked Congress for broad statutory authorization to use military force to “deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United … Read more »
The following guest post is the latest in a series comprising a debate as to whether LOAC requires an attempt to capture rather than a first-resort to lethal force in some circumstances. The debate involves Professor Ryan Goodman, on one … Read more »
I have been curating a running debate about whether LOAC requires an attempt to capture rather than a first-resort to lethal force in some circumstances, sparked by a paper from Professor Ryan Goodman and including responses and more from Professors … Read more »
The New York Times recently carried two reports by Declan Walsh about alleged drone strikes that took place in Pakistan’s tribal areas in February. The first report noted that the strikes may have been conducted not by the United States, … Read more »
Over at the Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog, Robert Farley has an interesting post taking me to task for ignoring the siege of Harfleur in my discussion of Henry V and the law of armed conflict. Farley quotes the lengthy … Read more »
The following guest post is the latest in a series comprising a debate as to whether LOAC requires an attempt to capture rather than a first-resort to lethal force in some circumstances. The debate involves Professor Ryan Goodman, on one … Read more »
I went to see a wonderful performance of Henry V this afternoon at the Folger Shakespeare Library—and I came away thinking about the law of armed conflict. I have wondered about early literary invocations of the laws of war before … Read more »
The following guest post is the latest in a series comprising a debate as to whether LOAC requires an attempt to capture rather than a first-resort to lethal force in some circumstances. The debate involves Professor Ryan Goodman, on one … Read more »
The following is a guest post from Ryan Goodman, continuing a conversation begun yesterday in this post from Geoff Corn, Laurie Blank, Chris Jenks, and Eric Jensen.
What the Critics of the “Lesser Evil” Rule (Still) Get Wrong: A Rejoinder … Read more »
Several years ago, in a prescient op-ed in the Washington Post, our colleague John Bellinger argued that the September 2001 AUMF was an increasingly poor fit for the evolving threats facing the United States. It is a theme to which … Read more »
The following is a guest-post from Geoff Corn, Laurie Blank, Christopher Jenks, and Eric Talbot Jensen, responding to Ryan Goodman’s recent Slate article (building on his new European Journal of International Law article, which Jack noted here) in … Read more »
Amid the flurry of writing about the White Paper’s approach to “imminence” – an important conversation, to be sure – little attention has been paid to a paragraph in the White Paper that seems to establish new parameters for the … Read more »
[Update - I've clarified some points below, at the bottom, in response to reader feedback]
Ben Emmerson QC is a British human rights law specialist who currently serves as the UN Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human … Read more »
The American Society of International Law has released a new “ASIL Insight” on law applicable to autonomous weapon systems. (ASIL Insights are short, descriptive pieces on topical issues meant as non-technical “backgrounders” for journalists, the general public, and anyone looking … Read more »
What is the United States actually doing so far, and what else reportedly is on the table?
1. So far we have agreed to provide airlift support to the French, on their dime. That is, France is going to pay … Read more »
Peter Margulies of Roger Williams School of Law writes in from The Hague with the following account of the Boundaries of the Battlefield symposium he has been attending there:
Although some members of Congress speak of criminal justice as a
Last week in DC, the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security put on its annual “review of the field” conference. It was a great event, as always. One of the highlights was a very interesting speech delivered by … Read more »
John C. Dehn of the United States Military Academy West Point writes in with the following comments on the exchange between Human Rights Watch, Matt and Ken, Tom Malinowski, and me:
Lawfare’s discussion of the
After responding yesterday to Matt and Ken on lethal autonomous robots, Human Rights Watch’s Tom Malinowski now takes aim at my critique of his group’s report on robots with autonomous lethal capability. I post his response along with some thoughts … Read more »
The ICRC, on its blog Intercross, has responded to a pair of recent articles in Slate on weapons. It’s an interesting exchange—well worth a look.
First, Slate ran this piece by Brad Allenby and Carolyn Mattick entitled, “Why We Need … Read more »
Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch has responded to our critique of their recent report on autonomous lethal systems. We will post some more detailed thoughts on this later, but in the meantime we’d like to share Tom’s response, which … Read more »
Last week, Human Rights Watch (along with the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic) published a report titled “Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots.” It argues for a preemptive prohibition by multilateral treaty on the development and use … Read more »
Anyone following these issues closely or interested in Harold Koh’s address last month on international law and cyberattacks should read Adam Segal’s commentary on China’s view of the issues. Adam discusses how China’s concern about information flows and their politically … Read more »
My law partner (and former CIA General Counsel) Jeff Smith and I have an op-ed in today’s Washington Post (entitled “Is It Legal to Hit Iran?” in the print edition) discussing the U.S. and international law applicable to a possible … Read more »
I had to restrain myself this morning at the D.C. Circuit from interrupting proceedings with an emergency request for an on-the-spot ruling in Wittes v. FAA—a case which has admittedly does not exist—that the agency’s action with respect to … Read more »
I’d like to expand on Ben’s post below in relation to Hedges and the First Amendment, focusing on the “material support”/”substantial support” issue. (I’m having to write quickly, so please excuse any typos in what follows.)
Specifically, I’d like to … Read more »
Based on the voluminous media and blog coverage of last week’s decision in Hedges v. Obama, in which Judge Forrest permanently enjoined at least part of the detention provision of the FY2012 NDAA [section 1021(b)(2)], one of two things … Read more »
On September 7, the Justice Department filed a Suggestion of Immunity on behalf of former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo in a suit against Zedillo under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim Protection Act by families of Mexican civilians killed … Read more »
Those who recall my earlier, premature, sharing of the Tallin Manual will be pleased to learn that an authorized version is now available online and I am happy to provide this link to it with the permission of the authors. … Read more »
I’m happy to report that I’ve recently completed drafting an article that has been much on my mind for the past few years. Beyond the Battlefield, Beyond al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal Architecture of Counterterrorism (Michigan Law Review, forthcoming 2013) … Read more »
Just back from vacation I get to catch up on fun stuff that I missed while I was away. At the top of my list is the Tallinn Manual recently released by a distinguished group of NATO experts. The Manual … Read more »
This weekend, I both posted an excellent guest post from Geoffrey Corn on civilian harm mitigation and wrote a musing post myself about martial arts and LOAC—which offered an excellent excuse to publish my badass taekwondo sparring video. While … Read more »
Geoffrey S. Corn of the South Texas College of Law writes in with the following comments on our recent exchange concerning the Army’s new manual on minimizing civilian casualties.
I feel compelled to offer my thoughts on the exchange
The other day, I posted an email from Major John Harwood of the U.S. Air Force in connection with the coming Lawfare Drone Smackdown. It reads in relevant part:
. . . you’ve established your own LOAC.
“No drone
Over at Forbes.com, Pepperdine law professor Gregory McNeal has this response to the critique I linked to the other day by Jonathan Horowitz of the Army’s new manual on preventing harm to civilians. It opens:
Last week I wrote
I just received a very interesting email from Major John Harwood, USAF, whom I met recently at the MILOPS Conference in Singapore, in response to my post this morning about the coming Drone Smackdown:
I love the Drone Smackdown,
In response to my post contending that the United States is party to an armed conflict in Yemen pitting AQAP and the government of Yemen against one another, Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First writes in to advance the argument … Read more »
Given the track record of the Law of War revision project, smart money probably has to be on the ICRC, even with a 2015 estimate for the first volume in their new series (see here). Of course, both projects might … Read more »
As Ben says, there is a lot to talk about with respect to al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, a civil suit filed today by the ACLU and CCR in an attempt to obtain money damages for airstrikes conducted by the United … Read more »
Daniel Cahen, the Legal Advisor to the ICRC’s Regional Delegation for the United States and Canada, responds to my original post on Syria/LOAC with the following guest post:
The publication of an interview about Syria given by my colleague Hicham
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
William P. Barr (former Attorney General), Jamie S. Gorelick (former Deputy AG), and Kenneth L. Wainstein (former Assistant AG for National Security) have this Times op-ed on the AP subpoena controversy. They write:
While neither we nor the critics know the circumstances behind the prosecutors’ decision to issue this subpoena, we do know from the government’s public disclosures that the prosecutors were right to investigate this leak
