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.
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:
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.
Marty Lederman has a thoughtful response over at Just Security to my post from yesterday.
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:
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 “
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.
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.
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 sco
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.
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).
A number of friends and colleagues have asked me recently for recommended readings on the law of armed conflict and Gaza. I’ve decided, therefore, to post some of my suggestions and some explanation as to why I chose them. I hope to update this compilation as I improve it and perhaps as more is written.
That is the claim put forward, with gusto, by Jonathan Eyal of the Royal United Services Institute in this Guardian article. Eyal correctly notes the importance of the principle of distinction, and more specifically the obligation of combatants to distinguish themselves from civilians. And if it were true that Russian forces in the Crimea were ditching their uniforms for civilian garb, then we would indeed have cause to object. But my understanding is that this is no
CENTCOM’s report on the airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan will surely attract the attention of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor (OTP).
In episode 175, IT procurement, the federal de-listing of Kaspersky Labs, and an interview with Eric Hysen take center stage.
Amid a bad news week for the Trump team, a new lawsuit highlight an under-explored theory of possible criminal liability: violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
French President-elect Emmanuel Macron has a lot on his mind as he prepares to assume office. One topic we can be sure he’s thinking about: what to do about the dumping of various of his campaign documents and emails online just hours before the election.
This week, the Chinese navy and air force carried out extensive operations—some of them unprecedented—in and around Japanese, Taiwanese, and American territorial waters.
The results of a quick Google Surveys poll on whom the public believes is telling the truth about their interactions, President Trump or former FBI Director James Comey, show a remarkable degree of public confusion and uncertainty as to what or whom to believe