Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

Unpacking Jus Ad Bellum Proportionality And Examining Its Relationship With The Jus In Bello In Light Of The Equal Application Principle, Jared Dass

International Law Studies

The jus ad bellum is one of the most important areas of international law, with the prohibition on the use of force forming the cornerstone of the UN Charter. However, a lack of doctrinal clarity, especially regarding the jus ad bellum proportionality principle, undermines its ability to meaningfully regulate the use of force by States in self-defense. There is further lack of understanding as to how the jus ad bellum interacts with the jus in bello, in particular as between the two proportionality principles found in both bodies of law. The orthodox view rejects any such interaction, for fear …

Assessing The Role Of Ai In Determining The Necessity And Proportionality Of The Exercise Of Self-Defense Against An Armed Attack, Marco Roscini

International Law Studies

This article explores whether artificial intelligence (AI) constitutes an asset or rather a challenge in assessing the necessity and proportionality of a State’s response to an armed attack in the context of self-defense. Two central arguments are advanced. First, while AI may assist in detecting incoming threats of armed attacks, abstract and highly context-driven notions like necessity and proportionality would be very difficult to encode into algorithms. Second, even assuming that this were possible, relying on AI to determine the necessity and proportionality of a self-defense response would present as many challenges as it does advantages and, therefore, should be …

Artificial Intelligence And The Prohibition On The Use Of Force: Intention And Causation, Russell Buchan

International Law Studies

This article explores the application of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter to AI-enabled systems that carry out unintended engagements involving the use of force. First, it analyzes whether State responsibility for a breach of the prohibition on the use of force is defined in subjective or objective terms. Most commentators maintain that a State must intend to use force against the victim State in order for the prohibition to apply. However, through an examination of State practice, this article demonstrates that the prohibition is based on objective responsibility. Second, this article assesses whether a State must cause the …

Artificial Intelligence And The “Armed Attack” Threshold In International Law, Katie A. Johnston

International Law Studies

This article argues that the deployment of artificial intelligence, even in its strong fully autonomous form, does not have significant consequences for the application of the jus ad bellum framework, and in particular the armed attack threshold. As with all new weapons technologies, the deployment of artificial intelligence in the resort to force requires consideration of what “imminence” means in this context. However, artificial intelligence is fundamentally a means of making decisions to resort to force or contributing to the reasons for which such decisions are made by humans. Unlike the jus in bello, the jus ad bellum is …

Cosmic Force: A Framework For Applying The Prohibition Of The Use Of Force In Outer Space, Erin Pobjie

International Law Studies

Outer space is becoming increasingly contested and existing approaches to identifying prohibited force in outer space lack a systematic foundation, hindering their application to novel challenges such as temporary interference with critical satellites or threats involving commercial space actors. This article addresses this gap by developing the first comprehensive, multifactorial legal framework for identifying a prohibited use of force in outer space. This framework provides a structured method for analyzing non-kinetic actions, temporary effects, and persistent hazards like space debris. It fundamentally advances existing legal approaches in three ways. First, it establishes when States can be implicated in a violation …

The Abuse Of Neutrality, Rebecca Ingber

Articles

Neutrality law is a musty and obsolete body of international law that nevertheless rears its creaky head now and again in dangerous ways, most recently in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The law of neutrality is a study in contradictions. It is obsolete yet remains on the books in treaties and military manuals. It purports to keep the peace and protect non-warring states yet today is invoked to expand conflict and protect aggressors. The legal benefits of neutrality have been entirely overtaken by other regimes. And yet neutrality law has not lost its luster despite losing its value. Instead of letting it …

Maritime Incidents In The South China Sea: Measures Of Law Enforcement Or Use Of Force?, Aurel Sari

International Law Studies

China has sought to extend its control over the South China Sea at the expense of neighboring countries. In pursuing its goals, Beijing adopts a “power and law” approach, claiming extensive territorial and maritime rights in contravention of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and asserting these rights through coercive action in disputed waters. A key element of China’s strategy involves the use of coast guard and maritime militia vessels in an effort to portray its operations as measures of law enforcement, rather than displays of coercive power.

This article argues that the Chinese narrative of law …

The Humanization Of War Reparations: Combatant Deaths And Compensation In Unlawful Wars, Hannes Jöbstl, Dean Rosenberg

Michigan Journal of International Law

Recent events have sparked a renewed interest in the law and practice of war reparations. While today it is uncontroversial that unlawful uses of force, including acts of aggression, entail the obligation of the wrongdoing state to make reparations, including by way of compensation, the precise extent of this obligation remains subject to debate. One particularly contentious aspect is whether, and to what extent, states that violate the prohibition on the use of force are obligated to pay compensation not only for harm caused to civilians and civilian objects, but also for damage caused to the armed forces of the …

Cyberspace And The Jus Ad Bellum: The State Of Play, Michael N. Schmitt, Anusha S. Pakkam

International Law Studies

This article examines how States are interpreting one aspect of the international law governing cyber activities, the jus ad bellum. The article focuses on two issues: (1) the prohibition on the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and (2) the right of self-defense in Article 51. The critical unsettled question regarding the first issue is the threshold at which a hostile cyber operation can be characterized as a “use of force” subject to the prohibition of Article 2(4). Concerning the second issue, a number of unresolved questions plague the application of the right of …

Aid And Assistance As A “Use Of Force” Under The Jus Ad Bellum, Michael N. Schmitt, W. Casey Biggerstaff

International Law Studies

Although the prohibition of the use of force is a cornerstone of international law, our understanding of what constitutes a “use of force” under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter nonetheless continues to evolve. While the term was traditionally understood to mean armed force, emerging interpretations are expanding our understanding of the prohibition’s breadth. The Charter’s text, travaux préparatoires, and subsequent interpretations and practice by States, reinforced by the persuasive reasoning of the International Court of Justice, all confirm that the notion of force extends to indirect force, which includes military support provided to parties to a conflict. Yet, to …

After Action: The U.S. Drone Program's Expansion Of International Law Justification For Use Of Force Against Imminent Threats, Elodie O. Currier

Vanderbilt Law Review

Until the 2000s, the United States' attempts to shift international legal norms on imminence to allow for greater use of armed force abroad were largely unsuccessful. In the past two decades, however, drone use and careful legal gamesmanship by U.S. officials have opened an unprecedentedly broad allowance for use of force in imminent self-defense. As drones become increasingly available to state and non-state actors, this permissive regime poses a threat to national and international security. This Note analyzes two decades of international customary law formation around drone use outside of armed conflict through a new lens post U.S.-withdrawal of Afghanistan. …

Russia, Ukraine, And The Future World Order, Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk, Monica Hakimi

Faculty Scholarship

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, initiated on February 24, 2022, is among the most — if not the most — significant shocks to the global order since World War II. This piece assesses the stakes of the invasion for the core principles that lie at the heart of contemporary international law and the world order that it has helped to create. We argue, relying in part on the other contributions to the October 2022 agora on Ukraine in the American Journal of International Law, that however this war ends, it will reshape, in ways large and small, the world we …

Arguing About The Jus Ad Bellum, Monica Hakimi

Book Chapters

In January 2020, the United States conducted a targeted airstrike against Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, who at the time was on official business in Iraq. Soleimani had commanded an Iranian military unit that supported armed groups throughout the region, including in Iraq. He likely was involved, directly or indirectly, in countless incidents of low-level violence against the United States and its allies. Nevertheless, the US attack on him was especially brazen and seemed to up the ante. It raised the possibility, or at least created some chatter, that the two countries were heading toward all-out war.

Most analysts who assessed …

Booty, Bounty, Blockade, And Prize: Time To Reevaluate The Law, Andrew Clapham

International Law Studies

This article considers the so-called belligerent rights of States in times of war. In particular it focuses on booty of war, blockade, and the capture of merchant ships and their cargo. It is suggested that, while the rules may not often be applied today, they nevertheless continue to exert a certain influence, contributing to confusion about the boundaries of the legitimate use of force and a blurring of the distinction between military objectives and civilian objects.

Considering that the UN Charter has outlawed the use of force, the article also questions why such rules concerning capture should continue to have …

Armed Conflicts In Outer Space: Which Law Applies?, Frans G. Von Der Dunk

International Law Studies

So far, outer space has merely become involved in terrestrial armed conflicts as part of the supportive infrastructure for military activities. Unfortunately, the risk that this changes is considerably growing, and it can no longer be excluded that (armed) force will become used in outer space, either directed towards Earth or within outer space itself.

This raises serious issues in the legal context, where space law so far has been premised on the hope that armed conflicts in outer space could be avoided whereas the law of armed conflict was not required so far to deal with the use of …

Responding To Hostile Cyber Operations: The “In-Kind” Option, Michael N. Schmitt, Durward E. Johnson

International Law Studies

Facing hostile cyber operations, States are crafting responsive strategies, tactics and rules of engagement. One of the major challenges in doing so is that key aspects of the international law governing cyber responses are vague, unsettled or complex. Not surprisingly, therefore, international law is markedly absent from strategies and operational concepts. Rather, they tend to take on a practical “tit-for-tat” feel as policymakers logically view “in-kind” responses as “fair play.” For them, responding in-kind surely must be lawful notwithstanding any challenges in discerning the precise legal character of the initial hostile cyber operation.

Testing that sense, this article examines the …

Autonomous Cyber Capabilities Below And Above The Use Of Force Threshold: Balancing Proportionality And The Need For Speed, Peter Margulies

International Law Studies

Protecting the cyber domain requires speedy responses. Mustering that speed will be a task reserved for autonomous cyber agents—software that chooses particular actions without prior human approval. Unfortunately, autonomous agents also suffer from marked deficits, including bias, unintelligibility, and a lack of contextual judgment. Those deficits pose serious challenges for compliance with international law principles such as proportionality.

In the jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and the law of countermeasures, compliance with proportionality reduces harm and the risk of escalation. Autonomous agent flaws will impair their ability to make the fine-grained decisions that proportionality entails. However, a …

Strategic Proportionality: Limitations On The Use Of Force In Modern Armed Conflicts, Noam Lubell, Amichai Cohen

International Law Studies

The nature of modern armed conflicts, combined with traditional interpretations of proportionality, poses serious challenges to the jus ad bellum goal of limiting and controlling wars. In between the jus ad bellum focus on decisions to use force, and the international humanitarian law (IHL) regulation of specific attacks, there is a far-reaching space in which the regulatory role of international law is bereft of much needed clarity. Perhaps the most striking example is in relation to overall casualties of war. If the jus ad bellum is understood as applying to the opening moments of the conflict, then it cannot provide …

Presidential Use Of Force In East Asia: American Constitutional Law And The U.S.-Japan Alliance, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Constitution’s allocation of military authority has adapted over time to major shifts in American power and grand strategy. This paper explains, with a focus on U.S. military actions in East Asia and possible scenarios of special joint concern to the United States and Japan, that the president in practice wields tremendous power and discretion in using military force. Although formal, legal checks on the president’s use of force rarely come into play, Congress nevertheless retains some political power to influence presidential decision-making. The president’s powers are also constrained by interagency processes within the executive branch, and alliance relations …

Strengthening The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Pathways For Bridging Law And Policy, Columbia Law School, 2020, Nobuhisa Ishizuka, Masahiro Kurosaki, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

During the three years leading up to this year ’s 60th anniversary of the signing of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, a series of workshops were held under the joint sponsorship of Columbia Law School’s Center for Japanese Legal Studies and the National Defense Academy of Japan’s Center for Global Security. Bringing together experts in international law and political science primarily from the United States and Japan, the workshops examined how differing approaches to use of force and understandings of individual and collective self-defense in the two countries might adversely affect their alliance.

The workshop participants explored the underlying causes …

Techniques For Regulating Military Force, Monica Hakimi

Book Chapters

This chapter draws on the five chapters that follow—each of which describes the war powers in a single country—to identify and analyze some of the techniques for regulating this area of foreign affairs and then to reflect on the value of comparative research on it. Three basic techniques are: (1) to establish substantive standards on when the government may or may not use force, (2) to divide among different branches of government the authority to deploy the country’s armed forces, and (3) to subject such decisions to oversight or review. There is considerable variation, both across countries and over time …

Use Of Force In Humanitarian Crises: Addressing The Limitations Of U.N. Security Council Authorization, Paul Williams, Sophie Pearlman

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The original 2001 United Nations (UN) codification of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) granted the UN Security Council exclusive control over authorizing use of force in sovereign states. Unfortunately, as demonstrated over the past 20 years, the need for humanitarian intervention has not changed and the use of force in the name of humanitarian intervention has not always occurred even when the need for such intervention was dire. When the UN Security Council is deadlocked, and a humanitarian crisis is at hand, it is necessary to have a means of using low-intensity military force to prevent mass atrocity crimes. In …

The Theory And Practice At The Intersection Between Human Rights And Humanitarian Law, Monica Hakimi

Reviews

The United States is more than fifteen years into a fight against terrorism that shows no sign of abating and, with the change in administration, appears to be intensifying. Other Western democracies that have historically been uneasy about U.S. counterterrorism policies have, in recent years, shifted toward those policies. And armed nonstate groups continue to commit large-scale acts of violence in multiple distinct theaters. The legal issues that these situations present are not entirely new, but neither are they going away. Recent publications, like the three works under review, thus provide useful opportunities to reflect on and refine our thinking …

Individual, Not Collective: Justifying The Resort To Force Against Members Of Non-State Armed Groups, Anthony Dworkin

International Law Studies

This article proposes an alternative to the conventional way of deciding when a State may target or detain members of an armed group. Instead of asking whether there is an armed conflict between the State and the group, this article argues that we should look at the State’s justification for the use of force against the group or its members. In a non-international context, this justification is rooted in human rights law. For this reason, the authorization for the resort to force operates on an individual basis, and the State is only justified in using force against individual members of …

Joint Civil Society Statement On Armed Drones, Sophia Wistenhube

Human Rights Institute

I am presenting a statement that has been endorsed by 46 civil society organisations, from 17 countries. We are committed to preventing and mitigating harm, including violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, from the use of drones in domestic and international deployments of force.

Possible Changes To U.S. Policies On The Use Of Force In Counterterrorism Operations, American Civil Liberties Union (Aclu), Amnesty International, Center For Civilians In Conflict (Civic), Center For Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Clinic, Coalition For Peace Action, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Network On Drone Warfare, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Open Society Foundations, Openthegovernment

Human Rights Institute

We write today to express our deep concern regarding reports that the administration is considering weakening current policy standards for the use of force in counterterrorism operations.

Out Of The Shadows: Recommendations To Advance Transparency In The Use Of Lethal Force, Human Rights Clinic, Sana'a Center For Strategic Studies

Human Rights Institute

The U.S. government’s secretive and expanding use of “targeted killings” and drone strikes since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 is highly controversial. For many years, such killings were carried out as part of counter-terrorism operations and in near-complete secrecy by the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), including in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, far from any traditional and recognized battlefield. The government did not meaningfully explain their legal basis. The U.S. government has admitted that it killed between 2,867–3,138 people between 2009–2016, in an estimated 526 strikes in areas the …

Some Remarks On Self-Defense And Intervention: A Reaction To Reading Law And Civil War In The Modern World, Josef Rohlik

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Contemporary Practice Of The United States Relating To International Law, October 2016, Kristina Daugirdas, Julian Davis Mortenson

Articles

In this section: • Iran and United States Continue to Implement Nuclear Deal, Although Disputes Persist • United States Continues to Challenge Chinese Claims in South China Sea; Law of the Sea Tribunal Issues Award Against China in Philippines-China Arbitration • U.S. Navy Report Concludes That Iran’s 2015 Capture of U.S. Sailors Violated International Law • United States Justifies Its Use of Force in Libya Under International and National Law • U.S. Drone Strike Kills Taliban Leader in Pakistan • U.S. Government Releases Casualty Report, Executive Order, and Presidential Policy Guidance Related to Its Counterterrorism Strike Practices • The Department …

Lost In Translation? The Relevancy Of Kobe Bryant And Aristotle To The Legality Of Modern Warfare, Rachel E. Vanlandingham

Pepperdine Law Review

What do Kobe Bryant, Aristotle, and the continuing U.S. response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, have in common? President Barack Obama told the New Yorker in early 2014, in response to a question regarding the seeming resurgence of al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, that “[t]he analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” As this example demonstrates, the Obama Administration and others, in reference to the legality of the use of armed force against al Qaeda and similar …