The legal issues surrounding military operations against non-State armed groups abroad are continuing to generate policy and legal debates. In an article just published in International Law Studies, I examined several questions arising, looking at the ius ad bellum (when a State may lawfully resort to military force), ius in bello (the rules that apply once hostilities exist), and the interplay with human rights.…   continue »

A Russian air force Su-30 fighter jet in Syria.

The United States and Russia have entered a new and dangerous moment. On Sunday, a U.S. fighter jet shot down a Syrian warplane. This morning, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has terminated its “de-confliction line” with the United States and will consider U.S.…   continue »

The United States engages in a one-off attack on a Syrian airbase and within a matter of days predictions of an end to international legal order as we know it are flying left and right. Every Jus Ad Bellum (JAB) scholar is immediately asked to weigh in with yet another legal analysis of the attack for various news outlets.…   continue »

In an article at Just Security last week, Michael Adams expressed surprise at the lack of attention on these and other pages to the possibility that the U.S. Tomahawk strikes on the al-Shayrat airbase in Syria were not just illegal, but also criminal.…   continue »

On Thursday, the New York Times reported that Yemen had withdrawn its consent from US Special Operations ground missions in the country, following a commando raid Jan. 29, which resulted in the death of a number of civilians, including an 8-year-old girl, and a Navy SEAL.…   continue »

On Wednesday, Jeremy Wright QC MP, the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, delivered an important speech laying out his government’s view of the international law governing the use of armed force in national self-defense. In two previous posts, I raised two concerns with what the Attorney General said.…   continue »

In a previous post, I argued that a recent speech by Jeremy Wright QC MP, the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, left quite unclear whether the lawfulness of anticipatory self-defense is supposed to turn on the imminence of an armed attack, the immediate necessity of defensive action, or some combination of the two.…   continue »

On Wednesday, Jeremy Wright QC MP, the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, gave a speech intended to clarify his government’s understanding of the international law framework governing the use of armed force. The United Nations Charter recognizes the inherent right of States to use force in self-defense “if an armed attack occurs.” Importantly, the UK takes the view that States may use force in anticipatory self-defense to prevent imminent armed attacks before they occur.…   continue »

In an important speech today (available here), the UK Attorney General, Jeremy Wright, MP, lays out the UK’s views on the use of force against non-state actors, the grounds for acting in self-defense against such groups, and the abiding importance of international law.  …   continue »

From South Asia to Europe and beyond, government lawyers have to inquire as to when a State is legally justified in resorting to military force against a non-State actor. What body of law do they apply in answering these queries? Unfortunately some discussions in this legal space risk applying inapplicable bodies of law due to conflation with the more familiar legal regime governing resort to force between States, and we hope in the following analysis to provide some clarity.…   continue »