Latest in Non-International Armed Conflict

International Law

Transatlantic Dialogue on IHL and IHRL

Hot on the heels of the transatlantic dialogue event in Germany on surveillance law and policy, about which Russ has a fascinating post here, I'm happy to report that there is a similar event taking place at Oxford this week concerning the interplay of IHL and IHRL.  The event (now in its second year) 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 Fu

Non-International Armed Conflict

Readings: Civilian Intelligence Agencies and the Use of Armed Drones by Ian Henderson

Footnote 44 of the recently released and much-discussed OLC Awlaki memorandum is heavily redacted, but what's left reads, in part:

Nor would the fact that CIA personnel would be involved in the operation itself cause the operation to violate the laws of war.

Targeted Killing

Report of the Stimson Center Task Force on Drone Policy

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.

International Law

Targeting Non-Al Qaeda Members in Yemen (?): The Role of Consent

The other day both Bobby here and Ryan Goodman at Just Security here picked up on news reports that DOD may be willing to provide additional military cooperation (including logistics and direct fire capabilities) to the Yemeni government.

Ryan then takes the opportunity to ask: what type of force is the U.S. government undertaking in Yemen already?

Relationship between LOAC and IHRL

A Reply to Wittes on the United States and Extraterritoriality

I’m usually a big fan of Ben’s cogent observations on Washington’s folkways.  Unfortunately, I can’t be as enthusiastic about Ben’s reply to my earlier post on Harold Koh’s memos regarding extraterritoriality of human rights treaties.  Ben overstates the duration of the United States’ position against extraterritoriality.  He also includes some pokes at Koh’s service as “L” that cry out for additional context.

First, the US position lacks the pedigree that Ben claims.  T

Non-International Armed Conflict

A Dissenting Word on the Harold Koh Memoranda

I want to take issue with Peter Margulies’s laudatory remarks this weekend about the Harold Koh memos on extraterritorial application of the ICCPR and the CAT---you know, those memos that mysteriously showed up in the New York Times just as the United States was preparing to present its views on the ICCPR to the UN panel that oversees the treaty.

My concern is not substantive.

Relationship between LOAC and IHRL

Extraterritoriality and Human Rights: Time for a Change in the U.S. View?

As Jack has frequently observed, legitimacy and effectiveness often go hand-in-hand.  The two comprehensive State Department memoranda by former Legal Adviser (and Yale Law School dean) Harold Koh released Friday on extraterritoriality under the ICCPR and Convention Against Torture mak


NYT on the United States' Position on Human Rights Treaties

Well worth a read: Charlie Savage's story, for the New York Times, regarding Obama Administration debate over whether the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture, impose legal obligations on the United States in places beyond its borders.

The piece cites, among other things, two memos written by then-State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh; the 2010 and 2013 documents can be found

Subscribe to Lawfare