Latest in International Law: LOAC: Military Necessity
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.
Earlier this year, I published an article called "Folk International Law," in which I argued that there were many unappreciated and little understood costs to the convergence of LOAC and international human rights law.
The newest installment in the Transatlantic Dialogue series (see here) has gone live at EJIL:Talk!. It is from Sarah Cleveland, and it explains the Project on Harmonizing Standards for Armed Conflict. A taste:
The next installment in the series of posts derived from this summer's Transatlantic Dialogue on International Law and Armed Conflict is now live at the ICRC's Intercross blog. It is from Ken Watkin, and it concerns the overlap of IHL and IHRL. A taste:
The Stimson Center released today the report of its Task Force on US Drone Policy. The ten-member task force, of which I was a member, was chaired by General John Abizaid and Rosa Brooks. The report makes eight recommendations for overhauling US drone strategy; improving oversight, accountability, transparency and clarifying the international legal framework applicable to lethal drones; and improving export controls for drone technology.
The following guest post is from Professor Geoffrey Corn (South Texas College of Law), in response to a post in which I raised the possibility that, in light of the non-battlefield targeting standards articulated by the President in his NDU address and other considerations, it is no longer obvious that the armed-conflict model is serving a function beyond the battlefield (excepting the legacy GTMO detention cases), in the sense that the same authorities could be invoked on self-defense grounds. Geoff writes in to express
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 hand, and an array of posts from Professors Kevin Heller, Jens Ohlin, Geoff Corn, Laurie Blank, Chris Jenks, and Eric Jensen (the last four writing collectively). Here are the earlier entries:
1. Goodman’s full-length EJIL Article
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 hand, and both Professor Kevin Heller and a group consisting of Professors Geoff Corn, Laurie Blank, Chris Jenks, and Eric Jensen writing collectively. I have also linked to several relevant contributions from Professor Jens Ohlin. Here are the earlier entries:
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 Geoff Corn, Laurie Blank, Chris Jenks, Eric Jensen, and Kevin Heller. The relevant posts to this point include:
1. Goodman’s full-length EJIL Article
2. Goodman’s short essay on the same topic in Slate
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 hand, and Professors Geoff Corn, Laurie Blank, Chris Jenks, and Eric Jensen writing collectively on the other. Here are the earlier entries:
1. Goodman’s full-length EJIL Article