Certain obligations imposed by the law of armed conflict are of greater relevance to defenders than to attackers. But are those obligations adequate?
Aurel Sari is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom and the director of the Exeter Centre for International Law. His scholarship focuses primarily on international conflict and security law and the law relating to military operations. He has published widely in leading academic journals on the law of armed conflict, status of forces agreements, peace support operations, international human rights law and the legal framework of European security and defense policy. He writes for Lawfare in a personal capacity.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The European international human-rights organization has adopted a new resolution exploring legal challenges presented by hybrid warfare.
The UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report on the British Government's policy on the use of drones for targeted killing. The report is the result of attention on the legal and political justifications for a drone strike in Syria which killed two British citizens.
Advance warnings issued to drivers of ISIL oil trucks may have been responding to the law of armed conflict and not merely a policy judgment.