Officials with the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve (the coalition task force organized to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq) have now confirmed that U.S.-led forces hit a convoy carrying pro-Syrian government forces advancing inside a deconfliction zone inside Syria.… continue »
The Massive Ordnance Air Blast Weapon (MOAB, known informally as the “Mother of All Bombs” and formally as the Guided Bomb Unit, or GBU, 43/B) has attracted a great deal of attention since it was dropped on ISIS fighters in eastern Afghanistan on 13 April. … continue »
International Humanitarian Law (IHL, aka the Law of Armed Conflict) is not intended to outlaw conflict. It is meant to regulate conflict in order to reduce its impact on civilians and to return to a state of peace as rapidly as possible. … continue »
We have covered on these pages the legal and moral issues surrounding the use of human shields in contemporary armed conflict situations. The American Society of International Law, in a new partnership with Cambridge Press, released yesterday its first symposium edition of the American Journal of International Law Unbound, which provides stereoscopic perspectives on this phenomenon, which has become “endemic” in modern warfare.… continue »
In his final address on issues of war and peace, President Obama reminds us all that “[w]e are a nation that stands for the rule of law, and strengthen[s] the laws of war.” But what is the nature of the laws of war, and what moral function do they serve?… continue »
To assist our readers interested in the phenomenon of human shields, I’ve produced a compilation of the relevant legal framework (additions/suggestions welcome!)
These rules derive primarily from Additional Protocol I (API) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which governs international armed conflicts (IACs). … continue »
In my previous post, I took seriously Jonathan Horowitz’s concern that some States believe that the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) may displace or reduce the protections of international human rights law (IHRL). Rejecting this view, I argued that IHL and IHRL apply in parallel during armed conflict, each offering important protections from violence and abuse.… continue »
When powerful States adopt a mistaken view of international law, should we—scholars, practitioners, and activists—resist their view and insist on our own? Or should we regard their mistake as a fait accompli and try to contain its adverse consequences? With Donald Trump poised to become the next President of the United States, I fear that we will all face such questions in the years to come.… continue »
Reuters recently reported that “armed militia groups are preparing for the possibility of a stolen election on Nov. 8 and civil unrest in the days following a victory by Democrat Hillary Clinton.” According to the article, one of these groups, the Three Percent Security Force, has “mobilized for rifle practice [and] hand-to-hand combat training.”
With that unsettling image in mind, I wanted to express concern over Professor Adil Haque’s proposal for lowering the threshold for when States can (or should) apply the laws of war (or international humanitarian law, IHL) when engaged in hostilities with non-state armed groups.… continue »
There has been an interesting and robust debate on Just Security over the past several weeks regarding the issue of the use of force on the territory of another state, but not directed against that state (here, here, here, and here). … continue »
