Law Commons^™

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 …

The Resonance Of Christian Political Conceptions Within International Humanitarian Law, David B. Dennison

David Brian Dennison

This paper presents conceptions from the Christian tradition that have special resonance modern International Humanitarian Law. The object of this paper supplies a lens that enables readers to detect the formative influence of unique Christian concepts. The conceptions from the Christian tradition presented include the Augustinian perspective on mortal and eternal life, the conception of a fallen world contrasted with a utopian vision, love as a motivation for peace, an expansive view of human community, the concept of role appropriate morality and the significance of outward signs and symbolism in the context of armed conflict.

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 …

Plucky Little Russia: Misreading The Georgian War Through The Distorting Lens Of Aggression, Timothy W. Waters

Articles by Maurer Faculty

One might expect massed armor crossing an international frontier to constitute the paradigmatic example of aggression — a case perfectly fit to analyze with the rules of jus ad bellum — and in the first flush and shock of the Georgian War in 2008, this is exactly how Western leaders described Russia’s actions. Yet that August, a constellation of circumstances combined to produce an anomalous outcome: an international war without any aggressor or any wrongful violation of territorial integrity. In theory — in doctrine — this is not supposed to happen.

The key to this puzzle is the special regime …

Law And Ethics For Autonomous Weapon Systems: Why A Ban Won't Work And How The Laws Of War Can, Kenneth Anderson, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

Public debate is heating up over the future development of autonomous weapon systems. Some concerned critics portray that future, often invoking science-fiction imagery, as a plain choice between a world in which those systems are banned outright and a world of legal void and ethical collapse on the battlefield. Yet an outright ban on autonomous weapon systems, even if it could be made effective, trades whatever risks autonomous weapon systems might pose in war for the real, if less visible, risk of failing to develop forms of automation that might make the use of force more precise and less harmful …