The UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry erred in its legal analysis of a U.S. airstrike in Syria.
Latest in International Law: LOAC
Our collective expectations of how the law of armed conflict intersects with military operations must be aligned with a genuine understanding of the true nature of those operations.
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.
Can the acts of armed forces in the framework of an armed conflict governed by International Humanitarian Law constitute terrorist acts? According to a new judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the answer is yes, at least for the purposes of the EU counterterrorism sanctions regime.
In Indefinite War: Unsettled International Law on the End of Armed Conflict, a new report for the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, we argue that international law, as it now stands, provides insufficient guidance to ascertain the end of many armed conflicts on factual, normative, and legal grounds.
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.
Despite the benefits of the Tallinn Manual, the manual presents two dangers that we should hope Tallinn 2.0 avoids.
To be effective and relevant, the law of armed conflict must adapt to the age of hybrid warfare.
A review of Kenneth Watkin's Fighting at the Legal Boundaries: Controlling the Use of Force in Contemporary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2016).