Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Lawful Targets In Cyber Operations: Does The Principle Of Distinction Apply?, Noam Lubell
Lawful Targets In Cyber Operations: Does The Principle Of Distinction Apply?, Noam Lubell
International Law Studies
No abstract provided.
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
International Law Studies
No abstract provided.
Law-Of-War Perfidy, Sean Watts
Law-Of-War Perfidy, Sean Watts
Sean Watts
More than a prohibition of underhanded or dishonorable conduct, the prohibition of perfidy is an essential buttress to the law of war as a medium of exchange between combatants – a guarantee of minimum respect and trust between belligerents even in the turmoil of war. Indeed, it may be difficult to conceive of an operative or effective war convention at all without guarantees against and protections from perfidy. Yet most existing conceptions of perfidy, whether drawn from treaty, military legal doctrine, or legal scholarship, merely restate imprecise codifications or offer little more than a vague sensibility. This article offers detailed …
Lawfulness Of And The Case For Combat Drone Against Terrorism, Heeyong D. Jang
Lawfulness Of And The Case For Combat Drone Against Terrorism, Heeyong D. Jang
Heeyong D Jang
The proliferation and use of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) since the September 11 attack triggered lively academic debates. The discussion thus far, often tainted by illegitimate ad bellum-in bello conflation, falls short of justifying the lawfulness and effectiveness of combat drones. Combat drones can successfully discharge its obligation under the four-pronged jus in bello test – distinction, proportionality, necessity, and humanity. Furthermore, this state-of-the-art technology helps to achieve five important policy objectives of fighting asymmetric warfare, combating insurgents who disregard the existing law, deterring further acts of terrorism, dodging improvised explosive devices, and avoiding more costly military actions.
Combatant Immunity In Non-International Armed Conflict, Past And Future, Rymn J. Parsons
Combatant Immunity In Non-International Armed Conflict, Past And Future, Rymn J. Parsons
Rymn J Parsons, Esq.
No abstract provided.
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 …