The international law of self-defense as it applies to a potential strike on North Korea explained.
Shane R. Reeves is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. He is an Associate Professor and the Deputy Head of the Department of Law at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York ([email protected]). The views expressed here are his personal views and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense, the United States Army, the United States Military Academy, or any other department or agency of the United States Government. The analysis presented here stems from his academic research of publicly available sources, not from protected operational information.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry erred in its legal analysis of a U.S. airstrike in Syria.
The 2016 Military Justice Act will streamline the court-martial and post-trial phases of the military justice system.
The United States and Russia are quietly discussing establishing a so-called “safe zone” in southern Syria. But if recent events are an indicator, safe zones may not actually protect civilians.
To those frustrated with the Syrian atrocities, the inability to legally justify an intervention under the traditional use of force construct is an unconscionable result. But we ignore the wisdom underlying the UN Charter at our own peril.
Non-state actors are the emerging power in vast, geographic areas left ungoverned in these failing states and, with unique ambitions and particular belief systems, these groups often enter into sustained competition with one another resulting in violence and drawn-out hostilities.
To be effective and relevant, the law of armed conflict must adapt to the age of hybrid warfare.