Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
From The Spectacular To The Everyday: International Law, Violence And The Agenda For Women, Peace And Security, Christine M. Chinkin
From The Spectacular To The Everyday: International Law, Violence And The Agenda For Women, Peace And Security, Christine M. Chinkin
Book Chapters
This article looks at the conceptions of violence within WPS and thus within these diverse international legal regimes as they relate to women and girls. It first examines the regulation of inter-state violence, both legal recourse to the use of force and constraints upon the means and methods of warfare. It then outlines how state obligations to prevent and punish violence against women were brought into human rights law in the early 1990s, primarily by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee). The WPS resolutions are then summarised, focusing on provisions for the prevention of …
Of Drones And Justice: A Just War Theory Analysis Of The United States' Drone Campaigns, Ethan A. Wright
Of Drones And Justice: A Just War Theory Analysis Of The United States' Drone Campaigns, Ethan A. Wright
Richard T. Schellhase Essay Prize in Ethics
No abstract provided.
Puzzles Of Proportion And The Reasonable Military Commander: Reflections On The Law, Ethics, And Geopolitics Of Proportionality, Robert D. Sloane
Puzzles Of Proportion And The Reasonable Military Commander: Reflections On The Law, Ethics, And Geopolitics Of Proportionality, Robert D. Sloane
Faculty Scholarship
This article offers modest reflections on jus in bello proportionality. It suggests that the law of armed conflict (LOAC) build on the only consensus legal standard that exists: that of the good-faith reasonable military commander. The difficulty — here, as with any reasonableness standard — is to identify factors that realistically can, and legally should, guide adherence to it and to consider the objective and subjective dimensions of judgments under the standard. Part II scrutinizes the content and status of Additional Protocol I’s (API) canonical definition of proportionality. It analyzes its text and context to bring out the extent to …
Cyber Espionage Or Cyber War?: International Law, Domestic Law, And Self-Protective Measures, Christopher S. Yoo
Cyber Espionage Or Cyber War?: International Law, Domestic Law, And Self-Protective Measures, Christopher S. Yoo
All Faculty Scholarship
Scholars have spent considerable effort determining how the law of war (particularly jus ad bellum and jus in bello) applies to cyber conflicts, epitomized by the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Many prominent cyber operations fall outside the law of war, including the surveillance programs that Edward Snowden has alleged were conducted by the National Security Agency, the distributed denial of service attacks launched against Estonia and Georgia in 2007 and 2008, the 2008 Stuxnet virus designed to hinder the Iranian nuclear program, and the unrestricted cyber warfare described in the 1999 book by …
Is Jus In Bello In Crisis?, Jens David Ohlin
Is Jus In Bello In Crisis?, Jens David Ohlin
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
It is a truism that new technologies are remaking the tactical and legal landscape of armed conflict. While such statements are undoubtedly true, it is important to separate genuine trends from scholarly exaggeration. The following essay, an introduction to the Drone Wars symposium of the Journal, catalogues today’s most pressing disputes regarding international humanitarian law (IHL) and their consequences for criminal responsibility. These include: (i) the triggering and classification of armed conflicts with non-state actors; (ii) the relative scope of IHL and international human rights law in asymmetrical conflicts; (iii) the targeting of suspected terrorists under concept- or status-based classifications …
Belligerent Targeting And The Invalidity Of A Least Harmful Means Rule, Geoffrey S. Corn, Laurie R. Blank, Chris Jenks, Eric Talbot Jensen
Belligerent Targeting And The Invalidity Of A Least Harmful Means Rule, Geoffrey S. Corn, Laurie R. Blank, Chris Jenks, Eric Talbot Jensen
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The law of armed conflict provides the authority to use lethal force as a first resort against identified enemy belligerent operatives. There is virtually no disagreement with the rule that once an enemy belligerent becomes hors de combat — what a soldier would recognizes as “combat ineffective” — this authority to employ deadly force terminates. Recently, however, some have forcefully asserted that the LOAC includes an obligation to capture in lieu of employing deadly force whenever doing so presents no meaningful risk to attacking forces, even when the enemy belligerent is neither physically disabled or manifesting surrender. Proponents of this …
Sow What You Reap? Using Predator And Reaper Drones To Carry Out Assassinations Or Targeted Killings Of Suspected Islamic Terrorists, Thomas M. Mcdonnell
Sow What You Reap? Using Predator And Reaper Drones To Carry Out Assassinations Or Targeted Killings Of Suspected Islamic Terrorists, Thomas M. Mcdonnell
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This article explores whether targeted killing of suspected Islamist terrorists comports with international law generally, whether any special rules apply in so-called “failed states,” and whether deploying attack drones poses special risks for the civilian population, for humanitarian and human rights law, and for the struggle against terrorism. Part I of this article discusses the Predator Drone and its upgraded version Predator B, the Reaper, and analyzes their technological capabilities and innovations. Part II discusses international humanitarian law and international human rights law as applied to a state’s targeting and killing an individual inside or outside armed conflict or in …
A Legal Framework For Targeted Killing, Monica Hakimi, A. Guiora
A Legal Framework For Targeted Killing, Monica Hakimi, A. Guiora
Book Chapters
I agree with much of what Professor Amos Guiora says, but I disagree with the method he uses to get there. And I believe the method matters. Guiora assesses targeting operations under an "active self-defense" paradigm, with elements from both the jus ad bellum (the law governing the use of force) and the jus in bello (the law governing the conduct of hostilities). Under Guiora's paradigm. a state may target terrorism suspects in anticipatory self-defense if: (I) targeting is proportional to their threat; (2) collateral damage is minimized; (3) alternatives to targeting are infeasible; and (4) military necessity justifies the …
Untangling Belligerency From Neutrality In The Conflict With Al-Qaeda, Rebecca Ingber
Untangling Belligerency From Neutrality In The Conflict With Al-Qaeda, Rebecca Ingber
Faculty Scholarship
The legal architecture for the conflict with al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been the subject of extensive scrutiny through two presidential administrations, a decade of litigation, and multiple acts of Congress. All three branches of the federal government have to date defined the framework as one of armed conflict, and have looked to the laws of war as support for expansive authorities concerning the use of force, including detention. Yet the laws of war do not merely contemplate broad state authority; they also provide critical and non-derogable constraints on that authority. Nevertheless considerable debate rages on with respect to whether …
Reconsidering Reprisals, Michael A. Newton
Reconsidering Reprisals, Michael A. Newton
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
The prohibition on the use of reprisals is widely regarded as one of the most sacrosanct statements of the jus in bello applicable to the conduct of modern hostilities. The textual formulations are stark and subject to no derogations. Supporters of the bright line ban describe it as a vital bulwark against barbarity. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the prohibition is absolute, despite the fact that the declarations of key states indicate residual ambiguity over the scope of permissible reprisals, particularly in the context of non-international armed conflicts. Reprisals are a recurring feature of …
The Cost Of Conflation: Preserving The Dualism Of Jus Ad Bellum And Jus In Bello In The Contemporary Law Of War, Robert D. Sloane
The Cost Of Conflation: Preserving The Dualism Of Jus Ad Bellum And Jus In Bello In The Contemporary Law Of War, Robert D. Sloane
Faculty Scholarship
Much post-9/11 scholarship asks whether modern transnational terrorist networks, the increasing availability of catastrophic weapons to nonstate actors, and other novel threats require changes to either or both of the two traditional branches of the law of war: (i) the jus ad bellum, which governs resort to war, and (ii) the jus in bello, which governs the conduct of hostilities. Scant recent work focuses on the equally vital question whether the relationship between those branches-and, in particular, the traditional axiom that insists on their analytic independence-can and should be preserved in contemporary international law. The issue has been largely neglected …
On War As Hell, Roger P. Alford
On War As Hell, Roger P. Alford
Journal Articles
This article addresses the question of the proper international standard for war reparations. War reparations are especially hard on the credibility and efficacy of international law. Wars are hard because the suffering is so great and reparations so onerous that often there is no mutuality of interest between the victorious governments and their own constituent victims. Wars force victorious States to make hard choices between looking backward to repair the harm caused to constituent victims and looking forward to a relationship with a potential strong and strategic ally. Just as the conduct of war, in its great features, is...policy itself, …
The Incident At Cavalese And Strategic Compensation, Robert D. Sloane
The Incident At Cavalese And Strategic Compensation, Robert D. Sloane
Faculty Scholarship
In 1953, the United States ratified the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. The drafters foresaw that the presence and training of foreign military forces within and between their territories would probably, if not inevitably, cause injury to civilians, giving rise to claims that, if not settled quickly and satisfactorily, could spark incidents disruptive to their cooperation in mutual defense. To this end, the SOFA established a jurisdictional regime designed to minimize the political friction these incidents threatened to generate, by providing prompt and manifestly fair settlement procedures. This result was vital to NATO's operations, for, in democratic host states, popular …