Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

Detention Under The Law Of Armed Conflict, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Despite recent hard-earned experience during international and non-international armed conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and in peacekeeping missions around the world, the international community continues to struggle practically and conceptually with detention of belligerents. The struggle includes questions ranging from when individuals may be detained and for how long, to determining the applicable legal regime. While this myriad of issues is vexing, they are neither as new, nor the applicable law as lacking, as has been argued.

This chapter takes a pragmatic approach to detention and suggests that the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols, outmoded …

A Military Justice Solution In Search Of A Problem: A Response To Vladeck, Geoffrey S. Corn, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In “Military Courts and Article III,” law professor Steve Vladeck proposes a wholesale replacement of the foundation upon which court-martial jurisdiction has stood since the inception of the United States. In an effort to provide a unifying theory grounded in international law, Professor Vladeck fails to properly distinguish the jurisdiction established by Congress to regulate the armed forces from the jurisdiction established to punish violations of the laws of war. This conflation yields confusion about military jurisdiction which ripples throughout the theory. Our response, which centers on courts-martial, argues that Professor Vladeck has offered a solution in search of a …

Civil Liberties And The Indefinite Detention Of U.S. Citizens, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act provides for the indefinite detention of individuals deemed to be part of or substantially supportive of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces in hostilities against the United States or its coalition allies. Yet the Congress which drafted Section 1021 doesn’t know what its operative terms mean and the Executive Branch simultaneously claims the provisions are problematic yet meaningless and signs them into law. The result is uncertainty over the Executive Branch’s armed conflict detention authority, not on distant battlefields, but here in the United States. This article focuses on three …

The Janus Moon Rising - Why 2014 Heralds United States' Detention Policy On A Collision Course...With Itself, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

2014 will serve as a test of the United States’ claims that its detention policy is consistent with the law of armed conflict (LOAC). If, as President Obama has repeatedly stated, U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year, then any LOAC based detention of belligerents linked solely to that conflict ends as well. That should mean the release or transfer of members of the Taliban currently detained at Guantanamo. It won’t.

Correspondents' Reports United States Of America, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This correspondent report compiles examples of where and how in 2013 the United States demonstrated its compliance with international humanitarian law by prosecuting its service members in military courts-martial and captured enemy belligerents in military commissions and by US federal courts hearing detainee habeas challenges.

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 …

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 …

Correspondents' Reports: A Guide To State Practice In The Field Of International Humanitarian Law, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This correspondent report compiles examples of where and how the United States demonstrated its compliance with international humanitarian law by prosecuting its service members in 2010.

Law From Above: Unmanned Aerial Systems, Use Of Force, And The Law Of Armed Conflict, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The United States employing armed unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or “drones” against al qaeda and Taliban targets in northwest Pakistan continues to spur discussion and disagreement. Some label UAS “armed robotic killers,” while others describe them as providing a much greater degree of distinction between intended targets and the surrounding population and infrastructure, thus limiting civilian casualties and property damage. The overt disagreement as to whether the strikes are legal masks that the discussants are utilizing wholesale different methodologies, talking past each other in the process. The origin of this divergence is to what extent the law of armed conflict …