Latest in LOAC
United Nations norms related to nation-state cyberspace operations clearly apply during peacetime, but recent events in Ukraine and Russia raise challenges regarding those norms’ applicability in armed conflict.
The interdependence of global submarine communication systems means that a break in the vast network of seabed cables during armed conflict could have cascading effects on internet access. Yet the law of naval warfare is underdeveloped in this area.
On June 20, the United Nations Security Council passed a unanimous resolution to protect people with disabilities in armed conflict and ensure they have equal access to humanitarian assistance. The groundbreaking text follows extensive advocacy from civil society and disability rights groups, and marks the first time the council has dedicated an entire resolution to the unique challenges people with disabilities face during situations of armed conflict.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a John Doe habeas petition on behalf of the still-not-identified American citizen the U.S. military is holding as an enemy combatant in Iraq (for background, see here). The case is Doe v. Mattis, No. 17-cv-02069, and it was filed in federal district court in D.C. Here is my preliminary assessment.
This past summer, the Strauss Center at UT was proud to co-host the Fifth Annual Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict, in partnership with the Oxford Institute for Eth
Are we about to see a significant shift in U.S. government policy relating to the use of targeted lethal force for counterterrorism purposes?
Maybe, according to an important article by Charlie Savage and Eric Schmitt in the New York Times. Here’s what you need to know:
DOD has confirmed that an (as-yet-unidentified) American citizen is being held in U.S. military custody in Syria or Iraq as an enemy combatant. More specifically, the available information asserts that he was a fighter for the Islamic State who was captured in Syria by U.S.-friendly forces (or at least surrendered to those forces), and was then turned over to the U.S.
How significant is this development from a legal perspective?
In a scathing New York Times op-ed today, Micah Zenko lays into the Trump administration both for maintaining the “counterproductive” and “immoral” counterterrorism policies of its predecessors (particularly those involving the use of military force), and for making the situation worse for noncombatants.
In the midst of all the U.S. domestic and Trump coverage, it’s worth noting a front-page Wall Street Journal story from ten days ago on the French government targeting French citizens fighting for ISIS in Iraq.
Yesterday U.S. News ran an article titled “‘Areas of Active Hostilities’: Trump’s Troubling Increases to Obama’s Wars.” As the title suggests, the thrust of the article is that there is something wrong with the Obama administration’s “areas of active hostilities” concept—or at least there’s something wrong with it now that it is in the hands of a different president.