Ryan Goodman recently wrote a post in Just Security titled “Why the Laws of War Apply to Drone Strikes Outside ‘Areas of Active Hostilities’ (A Memo to the Human Rights Community).” Its main point is that to be taken seriously, human rights organizations and activists should stop characterizing military attacks in territories outside areas of active hostilities as unlawful and, instead, should focus on interpretations and implementation of the law of armed co
Latest in Non-International Armed Conflict
Joint Series on International Law and Armed Conflict: Hakimi on Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict
[I am happy to report that Lawfare once again is partnering with InterCross and EJILTalk! to present posts stemming from a summer roundtable at Oxford concerning international law and armed conflict.
In the midst of armed conflict, accurate and comprehensive information is notoriously difficult to come by.
Ben Wittes’ commentary about hybrid conflict asks “what is really new in this idea of hybrid conflict”?, and answers by giving a cyber example that falls at the seams of existing international law. He points out that when government officials do not know how to apply existing law or what laws do apply, they don’t apply anything at all.
The Lawfare Podcast: A Band-Aid for a Bomber: Is Medical Assistance to Terrorists Protected Under IHL?
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).
The Guantanamo detainee, as readers likely know, argued in a February motion that the end of the United States' war in Afghanistan, as recognized by President Obama, requires his release from Guantanamo. On Wednesday, Al-Warafi filed his reply brief on that issue. It opens as follows:
Interested in the ongoing debate over the relationship between LOAC and Human Rights Law in general, or the intersection of those bodies of law in relation to non-criminal detention in particular? You won't want to miss this.
In 2012, the UN Human Rights Council asked the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to produce a document spelling out just what it means to say there is a prohibition on arbitrary detention--including in the context of armed conflict.
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.