Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
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 …
Law As Shield, Law As Sword: The Icc's Lubanga Decision, Child Soldiers And The Perverse Mutualism Of Direct Participation In Hostilities, Chris Jenks
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The International Criminal Court’s Lubanga decision has been hailed as a landmark ruling heralding an end to impunity for those who recruit and employ children in armed conflict and a pivotal victory for the protection of children. Overlooked amidst this self-congratulation is that the ICC incorrectly applied the law governing civilian participation in hostilities which perversely places child soldiers at greater risk of being attacked. The Court created a false distinction between active and direct participation in hostilities. Expanding the kinds and types of behaviors that constitute children actively participating in hostilities expanded Lubanga's liability. But under the law of …