Latest in International Law: LOAC: Distinction
The growing involvement of civilians in activities on the digital battlefield puts individuals at risk of harm and contributes to the erosion of the principle of distinction, an edifice on which the rest of the law applicable in armed conflicts is built.
This morning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) released its formal report of investigation into the airstrike on a Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) trauma center in Kunduz, Afghanistan. Of note in the report is a finding that the “aircrew’s failure to exercise judgement . . .
On this week’s Lawfare Podcast, Ben sits down with Professor Gabriella Blum, professor at Harvard Law School, and Dustin Lewis, a senior researcher at Harvard Law Schools’ Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, to discuss their new report written with Naz Modirzadeh entitled Medical Care in Armed Conflict: IHL and State Responses to Terrorism. The conversation takes a look at whether we should consider medical care a form of illegitimate support to terrorists. Their argument?
I'm very happy to report that the 3rd annual Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict will occur at Oxford next week. As I explained last summer, this event is co-sponsored by the ICRC's DC and London delegations, the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict, the Oxford Martin Programme on Human Rights for Future Generations, South Texas College of Law (through the good offices of my friend Geoff Corn), and the Strauss Center at UT (which I direct).
Here it is. Here's the press release that accompanies it:
GENEVA (22 June 2015): The United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict has gathered substantial information pointing to the possible commission of war crimes by both Israel and Palestinian armed groups.
This weekend the New York Times ran a lengthy piece about SEAL Team 6, with the dramatic subtitle “A Secret History of Quiet Killings and Blurred Lines: The unit best known for killing Osama bin Laden has been converted into a global manhunting machine with limited outside oversight.” With that framing, I anticipated the story might reveal operations involving the use of lethal force against groups or individuals not obviously within the scope of the 2001 AUMF or at least
The use of lethal force (whether via armed drone, manned aircraft, cruise missile, helicopter assault, etc.) has been a cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism policy for many years, both in places where we have ground combat deployments and places where we do not. Throughout this period, the legality, efficacy, wisdom, and morality of this practice has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate. Nonetheless, the kinetic option has proven remarkably durable over time (especially as compared to its sibling, the use of non-criminal detention).
Judicial imperialism is defeating the British armed forces. At least this is what the authors of a report recently published by the Policy Exchange---an influential British think tank---claim.
Naz Modirzadeh’s fascinating series of Lawfare posts (here, here, and here) discussing her article, Folk International Law, provides an excellent primer on the potential consequences and confusion that result from amalgamating distinct legal doctrines, regardless of whether such creative tinkering is couched under the rubric of “
Marty Lederman and I have been engaged in a debate over the past few weeks, and last Monday he wrote a lengthy and thoughtful “Monday Reflection” over at Just Security concerning some of my arguments here at Lawfare and in my article, Folk International Law. I would like to use this post, my last in this exchange, to raise four of the bigger stakes that I think arise out of our discussion.