!

ntcrnational Law and Armcd Conict:

xploring thc Faultlincs
International Humanitarian Iaw Series
\LUM 15
Editors-in-Chief
Prolcssor Christophcr Grccnwood
Prolcssor Timothy L.H. McCormack
Editorial d.isory Board
Prolcssor Gcorgcs AbiSaab
H.. Judgc Gcorgc H. Aldrich
Madamc Justicc Louisc Arbour
Prolcssor vc 8ring
Prolcssor Antonio Casscsc
Prolcssor John ugard
Prolcssor r. Horst Fischcr
r. HansPctcr Gasscr
Prolcssor Lcslic C. Grccn
H.. Judgc Gcza Hcrczcgh
Prolcssor Frits Kalshovcn
Prolcssor Ruth Lapidoth
Prolcssor Gabricllc Kirk Mconald
H.. Judgc Tcodor Mcron
Captain J. Ashlcy Roach
Prolcssor Michacl Schmitt
Prolcssor Jiri Toman
Tc !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Scrics is a scrics ol monographs and cditcd vol
umcs which aims to promotc scholarly analysis and discussion ol both thc thcory and
practicc ol thc intcrnational lcgal rcgulation ol armcd conict.
Tc scrics cxplorcs substantivc issucs ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law including,
protcction lor victims ol armcd conict and rcgulation ol thc mcans and mcthods
ol warlarc
qucstions ol application ol thc various lcgal rcgimcs lor thc conduct ol armcd con
ict
issucs rclating to thc implcmcntation ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law obliga
tions
national and intcrnational approachcs to thc cnlorccmcnt ol thc law and
thc intcractions bctwccn !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law and othcr rclatcd arcas
ol intcrnational law such as Human Rights, Rclugcc Law, Arms Control and
isarmamcnt Law, and !ntcrnational Criminal Law.
Te titles in this series are listed at the end of this .olume.
Professor Yoram Dinstein
!ntcrnational Law and Armcd
Conict: xploring thc Faultlincs
ssays in Honour ol Yoram instcin
edited by
Michacl N. Schmitt and Jclcna Pcjic
L!N 8STN
2007
isnx: , cc. a
acc, by Koninklijkc 8rill xv, Lcidcn, Tc Ncthcrlands.
Koninklijkc 8rill xv incorporatcs thc imprints 8rill, Hotci Publishcrs, ibc Publishcrs,
Martinus Nijho Publishcrs and vsv.
http://www.brill.nl
All rights rcscrvcd. No part ol this publication may bc rcproduccd, storcd in a rctricval systcm,
or transmittcd in any lorm or by any mcans, clcctronic, mcchanical, photocopying, microlm
ing, rccording or othcrwisc, without writtcn pcrmission lrom thc Publishcr.
Authorization to photocopy itcms lor intcrnal or pcrsonal usc is grantcd by 8rill providcd
that thc appropriatc lccs arc paid dircctly to Tc Copyright Clcarancc Ccntcr, aaa Roscwood
rivc, Suitc .c, anvcrs :~ c.a, us~.
Fccs arc subjcct to changc.
Covcr photo: Alghanistan, Khandahar. Altcr a road bomb has dcstroycd an US Army
vchiculc, troops arc patrolling thc arca to look lor clucs.
cicv/vov:vx, Tcun Anthony
Printcd and bound in Tc Ncthcrlands.
Printed on acid-free paper.
A c.:.v. record for this book is available from the Iibrary of Congress.
Tablc ol Contcnts
Preface xi
Professor Yoram instein, Curriculum Vitae xv
Professor Yoram instein, Iist of Academic Publications xix
About the Contributors xxxiii
+ A Revival of the ]ust War Teory? +
I.an Shearer
: Rethinking Collective Security :+
Tomas Franck
Topographies of Iorce :
Dino Kritsiotis
Claims to Pre-emptive Uses of Iorce: Some Trends and
Projections and Teir Implications for World Order y
!. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
Te Temporal imension of Self-efense: Anticipation, Pre-
emption, Prevention and Immediacy ++
Terry D. Gill
6 Responding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad
Bellum: A Normative Iramework +y
Michael N. Schmitt
y Is US Adherence to the Rule of Iaw in International Aairs
Ieasible? +y
John F. Murphy
8 Te Military Action in Iraq and International Iaw ::
Futh !edg.ood

viii Table of Contents
Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello Te Separation between the
Iegality of the Use of Iorce and Humanitarian Rules to Be
Respected in Warfare: Crucial or Outdated? :+
Marco Sassli
+o :+
st
Century Conict and International Humanitarian Iaw:
Status Quo or Change? :6
Kenneth !atkin
++ Te Iaw of Weaponry Is It Adequate? :y
Bill Boothby
+: Combatants Substance or Semantics? +y
Charles H.B. Garra.ay
+ Unlawful/Inemy Combatants: Interpretations and
Consequences
Jelena Pejic
+ Ghosts in the Machine: Some Iegal Issues Concerning US
Military Contractors in Iraq y
.ril McDonald
+ Ieaders, Courtiers and Command Responsibility in
Shakespeare o
Teodor Meron
+6 Civilian etentions in Iraq +
ndru E. !all
+y Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Iaws of
War and Human Rights
dam Foberts
+8 Te Adequacy of International Humanitarian Iaw Rules on
Belligerent Occupation: To What Ixtent May Security Council
Resolution +8 Be Considered a Model for Adjustment? y
Fudiger !olfrum
+ Te Separation Ience in the International Court of ]ustice and
the High Court of ]ustice: Commonalities, ierences and
Specics o
Fania Domb
ix Table of Contents
:o Benevolent Tird States in International Armed Conicts:
Te Myth of the Irrelevance of the Iaw of Neutrality
!ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
Index 6
Prclacc
n bchall ol thc contributors, wc ocr this \olumc in lricndship, rcspcct and
admiration lor Prolcssor Yoram instcin. Noonc lamiliar with his widcranging
work in thc cld can lccl anything but awc lor his contribution to thc clarica
tion and dcvclopmcnt ol intcrnational law. To us, Yoram has also bccn a sclcss,
albcit as anyonc who knows him wcll undcrstands dcmanding, mcntor, onc
who has sharpcncd our undcrstanding ol, and ability to think critically about, thc
law. Along with many othcrs, wc havc also bcnctcd ovcr thc ycars lrom his cru
dition on a rangc ol subjccts wcll bcyond intcrnational law.
Yoram instcins opus, whilc intcrnational in brcadth and ccct, is dccply
rootcd in his bclovcd !sracl. 8orn in TclAviv in .6, hc obtaincd his lcgal cdu
cation at thc Hcbrcw Univcrsity in Jcrusalcm (whcrc hc graduatcd summa cum
laude) and Ncw York Univcrsity. Prolcssor instcin bcgan his prolcssional carccr
in !sracls Forcign Scrvicc in which hc scrvcd as Consul ol !sracl in Ncw York
City and with !sracls Pcrmancnt Mission to thc Unitcd Nations. vcn subsc
qucnt to bccoming a lulltimc acadcmic, Prolcssor instcin rcprcscntcd his coun
try in various intcrnational fora, ranging lrom thc UN Commission on Human
Rights and thc !ntcrnational Conlcrcnccs ol thc Rcd Cross and Rcd Crcsccnt
to !ntcrpol. !n .6., hc also scrvcd as Counscl in thc Taba Arbitration with
gypt.
!t is as an cducator and acadcmic, howcvcr, that Prolcssor instcin has lclt
an indcliblc mark. !n !sracl, hc was Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law, can ol thc
Faculty ol Law, Rcctor and Prcsidcnt ol TclAviv Univcrsity. Vhilc Prcsidcnt,
hc also chaircd !sracls Committcc ol Hcads ol Univcrsitics (\RA). Today, hc
holds thc titlc ol Yanowicz Prolcssor ol Human Rights at TclAviv Univcrsity.
8ut Prolcssor instcins inucncc cxtcnds lar bcyond thc bordcrs ol !sracl.
!ndccd, his intcrnational acadcmic and tcaching cngagcmcnts arc too numcr
ous to bc cnumcratcd hcrc. Succ it to mcntion that hc was twicc appointcd
thc Charlcs H. Stockton Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law at thc Unitcd Statcs
Naval Var Collcgc, was a Humboldt Fcllow at thc Max Planck !nstitutc lor
Comparativc Public Law and !ntcrnational Law in Hcidclbcrg, and has bccn a
\isiting Prolcssor at thc cPaul Univcrsity in Chicago, thc Univcrsity ol Toronto
and Ncw York Univcrsity. Tc Univcrsity ol 8ucnos Aircs, thc Univcrsity ol
Chilc and thc Hcbrcw Union Collcgc havc conlcrrcd honorary doctoratcs on
xii Preface
him, whilc thc National Univcrsity ol Mcxico (UNAM) awardcd him thc titlc ol
istinguishcd Prolcssor.
His carccr is also markcd by scrvicc in thc dcvclopmcnt and disscmination ol
intcrnational law. Prolcssor instcin scrvcs as \iccPrcsidcnt ol !sracls national
branch ol thc !ntcrnational Law Association and ol thc !sracli Unitcd Nations
Association, as wcll as a mcmbcr ol thc Council ol thc !ntcrnational !nstitutc ol
Humanitarian Law in San Rcmo, !taly. Hc has also bccn activc in many intcrna
tional rcscarch projccts, including that which rcsultcd in thc San Femo Manual
on International La. pplicable to rmed Conicts at Sea. Prolcssor instcin prcs
cntly dirccts an intcrnational cxpcrts group dralting a similar manual on air and
missilc warlarc.
!n rccognition ol his contributions to thc cld ol intcrnational law, in .
Prolcssor instcin bccamc a Mcmbcr ol thc Institut de Droit International
(!nstitutc ol !ntcrnational Law), a group ol thc worlds lcading intcrnational law
ycrs clcctcd by cooptation lor lilc.
Vhilc Prolcssor instcin has cxplorcd many issucs ol intcrnational law in
his scholarly rcscarch and writing, it may bc said that thc local points ol his work
havc bccn thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in bello. Tc lormcr rcgulatcs whcn lorcc
may bc uscd in intcrnational rclations, whcrcas thc lattcr govcrns how such lorcc
may bc uscd and cxtcnds protcction to both pcrsons who arc not or no longcr
participating in hostilitics and to civilian objccts. Tcsc arcas ol public intcr
national law arc ccntral to thc way in which thc world is ordcrcd, lor thcy dcal
indircctly and dircctly with qucstions ol lilc and dcath.
Rcgrcttably, thc rcasons wars arc wagcd and thc way in which thcy arc con
ductcd arc so closcly linkcd to national intcrcsts, or skcwcd pcrccptions thcrcol,
that intcrnational law rulcs rcgulating lorcc havc too oltcn bccn obscrvcd only in
thc brcach. Partly as a rcsult, intcrnational law has bccn lamously condcmncd as
cxisting only at thc vanishing point ol law. Prolcssor instcins lasting contri
bution to thc cld is that his writings on both thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in bello
ccctivcly and dcnitivcly dispcl that claim.
!t is unimaginablc that anyonc addrcssing such mattcrs could do so without
rcsorting to !ar, ggression and Self-Defence, Prolcssor instcins classic work
on thc jus ad bellum (now in its lourth cdition), Te Conduct of Hostilities under
the La. of International rmed Conict, his rcccntly publishcd study ol thc jus in
bello, or thc Israel Yearbook on Human Fights, which hc has cditcd lor ovcr thrcc
dccadcs. !ndccd, it may bc lairly said that a scholarly work in thc arca which con
tains no instcin citc is, quitc simply, incomplctc. Tc logic, clarity and prac
tical groundcdncss ol his work, whcthcr onc acccpts cvcry tcnct or not, makc it
an unavoidablc and timclcss body ol rccction and analysis lor intcrnational law
scholars and practitioncrs alikc.
Tis \olumc honours Prolcssor instcin by addrcssing both thc jus ad
bellum and thc jus in bello. As a rcsult ol rcccnt cvcnts on thc intcrnational sccnc,
no arcas ol intcrnational law arc bcing dcbatcd today with grcatcr lcrvor. Ncw
xiii Preface
prcscriptivc dilcmmas, rcal or imagincd, as wcll as old controvcrsics rcpackagcd
as ncw oncs, havc burst onto ccntcr stagc in discoursc about whcthcr and how thc
norms govcrning rcsort to lorcc and armcd conict should bc (rc)ordcrcd. Tus,
our aim with this \olumc has bccn to cxplorc thc laultlincs that lic both bctwccn
and within thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in bello.
A distinguishcd group ol cxpcrts wholchcartcdly agrccd to cxprcss tributc
to Prolcssor instcin by contributing to thc \olumc. Vc sinccrcly thank cach ol
thcm lor thcir contribution. Tc authors includc scholars and practitioncrs, a par
ticularly appropriatc combination in light ol thc intcllcctual dcpth and practical
impact ol Yorams work. Tcy cut across gcncrations, lrom rccognizcd authoritics
in intcrnational law to cmcrging thinkcrs, thcrcby rcccting thc inucncc hc has
cxcrtcd on thc intcrnational law community lor dccadcs, and which hc will surcly
continuc to cxcrt in thc timc to comc. !t is a plcasurc and an honour to commcnd
this book to Prolcssor instcins, and othcrs, attcntion.
Jclcna Pcjic
Gcncva
Michacl N. Schmitt
Ncwport
Professor Yoram instein
Curriculum \itac
Place and Date of Birth: TclAviv (!sracl), a January .6
Degrees: M.Jur. (.) Hcbrcw Univcrsity, Jcrusalcm (summa
cum laude)
LL.M. (.6.) Ncw York Univcrsity
r.Jur. (.6) Hcbrcw Univcrsity, Jcrusalcm
.ards: Arlosoro Prizc (.66)
Andrci Sakharov Fcllowship (.c)
cademic cti.ities:
..6c Assistant, Faculty ol Law, Hcbrcw Univcrsity, Jcrusalcm
.6.66 Lccturcr in !ntcrnational Law, Faculty ol Law, Hcbrcw
Univcrsity, Jcrusalcm
.6.66 ircctor, Coursc in Lcgal Administration (lor Alrican
judgcs and lawycrs), Faculty ol Law, Hcbrcw Univcrsity,
Jcrusalcm
.,c.,. Scnior Lccturcr in !ntcrnational Law, Faculty ol Law,
TclAviv Univcrsity
.,.., Associatc Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law, Faculty ol
Law, TclAviv Univcrsity
.,acc (Full) Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law, Faculty ol Law,
TclAviv Univcrsity
.,6.,, \isiting Prolcssor, Faculty ol Law, Univcrsity ol
Toronto
.,.c can, Faculty ol Law, TclAviv Univcrsity
Sincc .c Yanowicz Prolcssor ol Human Rights, TclAviv
Univcrsity
.c. Rcctor, TclAviv Univcrsity
.., Mcltzcr \isiting Prolcssor, School ol Law, Ncw York
Univcrsity
xvi C! Professor Yoram Dinstein
..c ProRcctor, TclAviv Univcrsity
., istinguishcd Prolcssor, Univcrsidad Nacional
Autonoma dc Mcxico
... Prcsidcnt, TclAviv Univcrsity
., . Chairman, !sracls Committcc ol Hcads ol Univcrsitics
(\RA)
. Honorary octoratc, Univcrsity ol 8ucnos Aircs
. Honorary octoratc, Univcrsity ol Chilc
., Honorary octoratc, Hcbrcw Union Collcgc
.accc, accaacc Stockton Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law, US Naval Var
Collcgc (Ncwport, R!)
acc.acca Humboldt Fcllow, Max Planck !nstitutc lor
Comparativc Public Law and !ntcrnational Law,
Hcidclbcrg
acc Prolcssor mcritus, TclAviv Univcrsity
Sincc acc Projcct ircctor, !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law in
Air and Missilc Varlarc, Program on Humanitarian
Policy and Conict Rcscarch, Harvard Univcrsity
acc6 \isiting Prolcssor, Haguc Acadcmy ol !ntcrnational
Law
Non-cademic cti.ities:
.. Law Clcrk, Suprcmc Court ol !sracl, Jcrusalcm
..6c Cadct, !sracl Ministry ol Forcign Aairs, Jcrusalcm
.6..6a, .66.6 Adviscr, Pcrmancnt Mission ol !sracl to thc Unitcd
Nations, Ncw York
.6a.6 cputy Hcad, cc ol thc ircctor Gcncral, !sracl
Ministry ol Forcign Aairs, Jcrusalcm
.6a, .6.,., .,, Altcrnatc Rcprcscntativc and bscrvcr ol !sracl, UN
.,.,6, ., Commission on Human Rights, Ncw York and Gcncva
.6a, .6, Altcrnatc Mcmbcr and bscrvcr ol !sracl, UN Sub
Commission on Prcvcntion ol iscrimination and
Protcction ol Minoritics, Ncw York
.6, .6, bscrvcr ol !sracl, UN conomic and Social Council,
Gcncva and Ncw York
Sincc .6 Mcmbcr ol thc !sracl 8ar
.66.6 Altcrnatc Rcprcscntativc ol !sracl, Tird Committcc,
UN Gcncral Asscmbly, Ncw York
.66.,c Consul ol !sracl, Ncw York
xvii C! Professor Yoram Dinstein
Sincc .,a \iccPrcsidcnt, !sracl Unitcd Nations Association
.,., Chairman, !sracl National Scction, Amncsty
!ntcrnational
.. Associatc Mcmbcr, Institut de Droit International
.6. Counscl lor !sracl, Taba Arbitration with gypt
..a Mcmbcr, xccutivc Council, Amcrican Socicty ol
!ntcrnational Law
Sincc . Mcmbcr, Institut de Droit International
Sincc .. \iccPrcsidcnt, !sracl 8ranch, !ntcrnational Law
Association
Sincc . Mcmbcr, Council, San Rcmo !ntcrnational !nstitutc ol
Humanitarian Law
Professor Yoram instein
List ol Acadcmic Publications
I Books
.. Te Defence of Obedience to Superior Orders in International La.,
(a) In English
Lcydcn, Sijtho, xvi a, pp. (.6).
(b) In Hebre.
Jcrusalcm, Magncs Prcss, ac pp. (.6).
a. International La. and the State,
TclAviv, Schockcn, .6c pp. (.,.) (Hcbrcw).
. Te Internal Po.ers of the State,
TclAviv, Schockcn, ., pp. (.,a) (Hcbrcw).
. International Treaties,
TclAviv, Schockcn, a.6 pp. (.,) (Hcbrcw).
. International Claims,
TclAviv, Schockcn, ac pp. (.,,) (Hcbrcw).
6. Non-State International La.,
TclAviv, Schockcn, a pp. (.,) (Hcbrcw).
,. Te La.s of !ar,
TclAviv, Schockcn, .a pp. (.) (Hcbrcw).
. !ar, ggression and Self-Defence,
First dition Cambridgc, Grotius, xxx aa pp. (.).
Sccond dition Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, xxxi a pp. (.).
Tird dition Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, xxviii cc pp. (acc.).
Portugucsc translation, Manolc (8razil), xxxviii pp. (acc).
Fourth dition Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, xxv pp. (acc).
. Te Conduct of Hostilities under the La. of International rmed Conict,
Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, xx a, pp. (acc).
II Monographs
.. Consular Immunity from Judicial Process, .ith Particular Feference to Israel,
Jcrusalcm, !nstitutc lor Lcgislativc Rcscarch and Comparativc Law, xiv
pp. (.66).
xx List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
a. Te Fundamentals of La.,
Tcl Aviv, Univcrsity on thc Air Scrics, .. pp. (..) (Hcbrcw).
Translated into rabic by thc !nstitutc lor !sracli Arab Studics (.,).
III Chief Iditor
.. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights,
\ols. .6 (.,.).
a. Models of utonomy,
Ncw 8runswick/London, Transaction 8ooks (..).
. International La. at a Time of Perplexity (Essays in Honour of Shabtai
Fosenne),
ordrccht/8oston/London, Nijho (.).
. Te Protection of Minorities and Human Fights,
ordrccht/8oston/London, Nijho (.a).
. !ar Crimes in International La.,
Tc Haguc/8oston/London, Nijho (.6).
IV Articles and Notes
.. Tc Rcsponsibility ol Forcign Consuls in !sracl lor Scmicial Acts,
a. Hapraklit .,a (.6) (Hcbrcw).
a. iplomatic !mmunity in ngland and in !sracl,
aa Hapraklit .a (.66) (Hcbrcw).
. Consular !mmunity and NonConsular Acts,
aa Hapraklit .c., (.66) (Hcbrcw).
. iplomatic !mmunity lrom Jurisdiction Fatione Materiae,
. International and Comparati.e La. Quarterly ,6 (.66).
. Par in Parem Non Habet Imperium,
. Israel La. Fe.ie. c,ac (.66).
6. Lcgal Aid to cvcloping Countrics,
. Israel La. Fe.ie. 6a6 (.66).
,. Tc Hijacking ol thc l Al Planc: Piracy or Act ol Statc:,
a Hapraklit ,, (.6) (Hcbrcw).
. Tc Lcgal 8alancc ol Forcc and CountcrForcc in thc Middlc ast
Today,
. Hammarskjold Forum 6. (.6).
. Tc Arab!sracli Crisis: Lcgal !ssucs and Possiblc Solutions,
International La.yer ,, (.,c).
.c. Tc Lcgal !ssucs ol ParaVar and Pcacc in thc Middlc ast,
St. Johns La. Fe.ie. 66a (.,c).
Feprinted Ne. York La. Journal, . & . January .,c,
Also reprinted a Te rab-Israeli Conict .., ( J.N. Moorc cd., .,).
xxi List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
... !ntcrnational Law: Law or Fantasy:,
a6 Hapraklit c,. (.,c) (Hcbrcw).
.a. Zion Shall 8c Rcdccmcd in !ntcrnational Law,
a, Hapraklit .., aaa, .aa (.,.) (Hcbrcw).
.. n !ntcrnational Law in a Continuum,
. Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. (.,.) (Hcbrcw).
.. Criminal Jurisdiction: Limits and Limitations,
. Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. c.a (.,.) (Hcbrcw).
.. Tc omcstic Jurisdiction ol thc Statc undcr !ntcrnational Law,
a, Hapraklit .,. (.,.) (Hcbrcw).
.6. Unitcd Nations,
. Encyclopaedia Judaica ..6 (.,.).
Feprinted a Te rab-Israeli Conict .c ( J.N. Moorc cd., .,),
ncvolumc cd., 66 (.,,).
.,. Human Rights: Tc Qucst lor Concrctization,
. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .a (.,.).
.. il Pollution by Ships and Frccdom ol thc High Scas,
Journal of Maritime La. and Commerce 6, (.,a).
Feprinted . cta Scandina.ica Juris Gentium aacaa (.,.).
.. Criminal Jurisdiction ovcr Aircralt Hijacking,
, Israel La. Fe.ie. .ac6 (.,a).
ac. Vhat !s an !ntcrnational Trcaty:,
a Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. . (.,a) (Hcbrcw).
a.. Tc Lcgislativc Powcr in thc Administcrcd Tcrritorics,
a Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. c.a (.,a) (Hcbrcw).
aa. Tc Amcndmcnt to thc Forcign cnccs Act,
a Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. a (.,a) (Hcbrcw).
a. xtradition in !ntcrnational Law,
. Criminology, Criminal La. and Police a.aa (.,a) (Hcbrcw).
a. Tc !ntcrnational Human Rights ol Sovict Jcwry,
(a) In English
a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .a.c (.,a).
Feprinted ssays on Human Rights .a6. (. Sidorsky cd., .,).
(b) In Spanish
Los Derechos Humanos Internacionales de los Judios So.ieticos,
Coleccion Contemporanea, Mcxico (.,).
(c) In Hebre.
. Sh.ut .6 (.,).
a. Judicial Rcvicw ol thc Acts ol thc Military Govcrnmcnt in thc Administcrcd
Tcrritorics,
Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. c6 (.,) (Hcbrcw).
a6. Human Rights in !sracl,
Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. 6.6a (.,) (Hcbrcw).
xxii List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
a,. A Survcy ol Scllclcnsc in !ntcrnational Law,
. Treatise on International Criminal La. a,a6 (M.C. 8assiouni & \.P.
Nanda cds., .,).
a. Tcrrorism and Vars ol National Libcration Applicd to thc Arab!sracli
Conict: An !sracli Pcrspcctivc,
Israel Yearbook on Human Fights ,a (.,).
Feprinted International Terrorism and Political Crimes ..,a (M.C. 8assiouni
cd., .,).
a. Anothcr Stcp in Codilying thc Laws ol Var,
a Year Book of !orld airs a,aa (.,).
c. Frccdom ol migration and Sovict Jcwry,
(a) In English
Israel Yearbook on Human Fights a66a, (.,).
Feprinted So.iet Je.ish airs .,a (.,).
(b) In French
La Libcrt dmigration ct lcs Juils Sovitiqucs,
Conference Internationale de Juristes sur le Statut des Juifs So.ietiques et la
Primaute du Droit . (.,).
.. Tc Judgmcnt in thc Pithat Raah Casc,
Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. . (.,) (Hcbrcw).
a. Tc Spccialty Principlc in xtradition,
Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. 6a6. (.,) (Hcbrcw).
. Tc uropcan Convcntion on Human Rights lrom an !sracli Pcrspcctivc,
Human Fights Journal c (.,).
. !ntcrnational Criminal Law,
Israel Yearbook on Human Fights , (.,).
Fe.ised and Updated ac Israel La. Fe.ie. ac6aa (.).
. Collcctivc Human Rights ol Pcoplcs and Minoritics,
a International and Comparati.e La. Quarterly .ca.ac (.,6).
6. Tc !ntcrnational Law ol Civil Vars and Human Rights,
6 Israel Yearbook on Human Fights 6ac (.,6).
,. Tc !ntcrnational Law ol !ntcrStatc Vars and Human Rights,
, Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .. (.,,).
. crogation lrom !ntcrnational Human Rights,
Menschenrechte in Israel und Deutschland 6,c (G. Stcin cd., .,).
. Tc !ntcrnational Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation and Human Rights,
Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .c. (.,).
c. cmilitarization,
6 Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. aa6 (.,) (Hcbrcw).
.. Scttlcmcnts and cportations in thc Administcrcd Tcrritorics,
, Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. .. (.,) (Hcbrcw).
a. Scicncc, Tcchnology and Human Rights,
Dalhousie La. Journal ..6 (.,).
xxiii List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
. Tc Ncw Gcncva Protocols: A Stcp Forward or 8ackward:,
Year Book of !orld airs a6a (.,).
. Cultural Rights,
Israel Yearbook on Human Fights . (.,).
Feprinted Les Droits de l Homme, Droits Collectifs ou Droits Indi.iduels .
.6 (.c).
. Scllctcrmination and thc Middlc ast Conict,
Self-Determination: National, Fegional and Global Dimensions aa, (Y.
Alcxandcr & R.A. Fricdlandcr cds., .c).
6. !ntcrnational Guarantccs and thc Middlc ast Conict,
(a) In English
Te Middle East and the United States c (H. Shakcd & !.
Rabinovich cds., .c).
(b) In Hebre.
Translation ol this book, ,c, (.c).
,. Tc Laws ol Var at Sca,
.c Israel Yearbook on Human Fights 6 (.c).
. Tc xpulsion ol Mayors lrom Judca,
Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. ..,. (..) (Hcbrcw).
. Tcrrorism and Human Rights,
Festschrift in Honor of Dr. George S. !ise ,a. (..).
c. Autonomy,
Models of utonomy a.c (Y. instcin cd., ..).
.. Tc Right to Lilc, Physical !ntcgrity, and Libcrty,
Te International Bill of Human Fights: Te Co.enant on Ci.il and Political
Fights ...,, a (L. Hcnkin cd., ..).
a. Tc Laws ol Var in thc Air,
.. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .6 (..).
. Commcnt on !ntcrstatc Armcd Conict,
. merican Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. (.a).
. (a) Tc Parliamcntary Forcign Aairs Committcc in !sracl,
Parliamentary Foreign airs Committees: Te National Setting a6,a (A.
Casscsc cd., .a).
(b) iscussion
Te Impact of Foreign airs Committees on Foreign Policy .., ..6.. (A.
Casscsc cd., .a).
. !tcms in Encyclopedia of Public International La. (R. 8crnhardt cd., .a):
.ol.
(a) Armisticc, pp. ..
(b) 8ooty in Land Varlarc, pp. 666.
(c) Flag ol Trucc, pp. .,.,.
(d) Military Ncccssity, pp. a,a,6.
xxiv List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
.ol. ,
(c) Ncutrality in Sca Varlarc, pp. .a.
(l ) Prisoncrs ol Var, pp. .6.a.
(g) Sca Varlarc, pp. ac.a.a.
(h) Varlarc, Mcthods and Mcans, pp. .
6. Rclugccs and thc Law ol Armcd Conict,
.a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .c (.a).
,. Tc Laws ol Land Varlarc,
. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights a (.).
. Human Rights in Armcd Conict: !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law,
a Human Fights in International La.: Legal and Policy Issues 6 (T.
Mcron cd., .).
. Tc Rclcasc ol Prisoncrs ol Var,
Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian La. and Fed Cross
Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet , (C. Swinarski cd., .).
6c. Commcnts on Fourth !ntcrim Rcport ol thc !LA Committcc on
!ntcrnational Tcrrorism (.a),
, Terrorism .6.6 (.).
6.. A Rcalistic Approach to !ntcrnational Law,
Te Spirit of Uppsala accac (A. GrahlMadscn & J. Toman cds., .).
6a. Tc Laws ol Ncutrality,
(a) In English
. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights c..c (.).
(b) In Spanish
Las Leyes de la Neutralidad,
nuario Mexicano de Felaciones Internacionales .a,. (.a).
6. \aluc Addcd Tax in thc Administcrcd Tcrritorics,
.c Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. ..6 (.) (Hcbrcw).
6. Tc Maintcnancc ol Public rdcr and Lilc in thc Administcrcd
Tcrritorics,
.c Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. c.a (.) (Hcbrcw).
6. iscrimination and !ntcrnational Human Rights,
. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights ..a, (.).
66. Tc !ntcraction ol !ntcrnational Law and Justicc,
.6 Israel Yearbook on Human Fights a (.6).
6,. !ntcrnational Law as a Primitivc Lcgal Systcm,
. Ne. York Uni.ersity Journal of International La. and Politics .a (.6
.,).
6. Tc !ntcrnational Lcgal Rcsponsc to Tcrrorism,
a International La. at the Time of Its Codication ... (ssays in Honour
ol Robcrto Ago, .,).
6. AntiScmitism, AntiZionism and thc Unitcd Nations,
., Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .a (.,).
xxv List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
,c. Rcunion ol Familics in thc Administcrcd Tcrritorics,
. Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. aa.aa (.) (Hcbrcw).
,.. cportations lrom Administcrcd Tcrritorics,
. Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. c.6 (.) (Hcbrcw).
,a. Tc !sracl Suprcmc Court and thc Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation:
Rcunication ol Familics,
. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .,. (.).
,. Tc Taba Arbitration Award,
. Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. ,6 (.) (Hcbrcw).
,. Tc istinction bctwccn Unlawlul Combatants and Var Criminals,
International La. at a Time of Perplexity .c..6 (ssays in Honour ol
Shabtai Roscnnc, Y. instcin cd., .).
,. Taxation undcr 8clligcrcnt ccupation,
Das Menschen Fecht ..ischen Freiheit und !erant.ortung ...a (Fcstschrilt
lur Karl Joscl Partsch, .).
,6. Tcrrorism as an !ntcrnational Crimc,
. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights , (.).
,,. Frccdom ol Rcligion and thc Protcction ol Rcligious Minoritics,
ac Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .., (.c).
Feprinted Te Protection of Minorities and Human Fights ..6 (.a).
,. Sicgc Varlarc and thc Starvation ol Civilians,
Humanitarian La. of rmed Conict: Challenges head ..a (ssays in
Honour ol Frits Kalshovcn, A. clisscn & G. Tanja cds., ..).
,. Tc Erga Omnes Applicability ol Human Rights,
c rchi. des !olkerrechts .6a. (.a).
c. Multinational, Fcdcral and Conlcdcral Arrangcmcnts,
., Tel-.i. Uni.ersity La. Fe.ie. a.a (.a) (Hcbrcw).
Shorter !ersion Feprinted Gift for Isaac .a (ssays in Honour ol Justicc
!saac Shilo, A. 8arak & M. Shava cds., .) (Hcbrcw).
.. !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law,
International Human Fights La.: Teory and Practice acac (!. Cotlcr &
F.P. liadis cds., .a).
Feprinted Hacia un Nue.o Orden Internacional y Europeo aa6c (Etudios en
Homenaje al Profesor Don Manuel Die. de !elasco, .).
a. Tc cgrcc ol ScllRulc ol Minoritics in Unitarian and Fcdcral Statcs,
Peoples and Minorities in International La. aa.a (C. 8rolmann, R. Lclcbcr
& M. Zicck cds., .).
. !tcms in Tc xlord Companion to Politics ol thc Vorld ( J. Kricgcr cd., .
st

cd., .):
(a) Nurcmbcrg Trials, pp. 666c.
(b) Var Crimcs, pp. 6,6.
(c) Var, Rulcs ol , pp. 666,.
xxvi List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
. Tc Rclorm ol thc Protcction ol Human Rights during Armcd Conicts
and Pcriods ol mcrgcncy and Crisis,
(a) In English
Te Feform of International Institutions for the Protection of Human
Fights , (La Laguna Univcrsity, .).
(b) In French
La Feforme de la Protection des Droits de l Homme pendant les Conits
rmes et les Periodes dUrgence et de Crise,
La Feforme des Institutions Internationales de Protection des Droits de
l Homme ,,, (Univcrsit dc La Laguna, .).
. Tc xtraTcrritorial Jurisdiction ol Statcs: Tc Protcctivc Principlc,
6 (!!) nnuaire de l Institut de Droit International c. (.).
6. Somc Rccctions on xtradition,
6 German Yearbook of International La. 6 (.).
,. Tc !sracl Suprcmc Court and thc Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation:
cportations,
a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .a6 (.).
. Tc Arab!sracli Conict lrom thc Pcrspcctivc ol !ntcrnational law,
Uni.ersity of Ne. Bruns.ick La. Journal c.. (.).
. Scllctcrmination Rcvisitcd,
. International La. in an E.ol.ing !orld a.a (Libcr Amicorum duardo
Jimncz dc Archaga, M. RamaMontaldo cd., .).
c. Tc istinctions bctwccn Var Crimcs and Crimcs against Pcacc,
a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .., (.).
Feprinted !ar Crimes in International La. .. (.6).
.. Tc !mplcmcntation ol !ntcrnational Human Rights
Fecht ..ischen Umbruch und Be.ahrung . (Fcstschrilt lur Rudoll
8crnhardt, U. 8cycrlin cd., .).
a. Autonomy and Lcgal Status: A Rcjoindcr,
a6 Security Dialogue .. (.).
. cmocracy and thc !ndividual,
. Federico Mayor micorum Liber c., (.).
. Tc Lcgal Lcssons ol thc Gull Var,
ustrian Journal of Public and International La. .., (.).
. Rcligious Frccdom in thc Mcditcrrancan 8asin,
Human Fights in the Mediterranean rea 6,cc (C. Zanghi, L. Panclla &
R. La Rosa cds., .).
Fe.ised 6(a) I Diritti dell Uomo (.).
6. Statc Sovcrcignty and thc Rights ol Minoritics,
Ne. Forms of Discrimination a.,aa, (L.A. Sicilianos cd., .).
xxvii List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
,. Ratication and Univcrsality,
Te Con.ention on the Prohibition and Elimination of Chemical !eapons:
Breakthrough in Multilateral Disarmament ...6 (Haguc Acadcmy ol
!ntcrnational Law, . 8ardonnct cd., .).
. !ntcrnational Law,
Encyclopaedia Hebraica, Addcnda volumc , 6a66 (M. Fcldman cd., .)
(Hcbrcw).
. Tc !sracl Suprcmc Court and thc Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation: Articlc
ol thc Haguc Rcgulations,
a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .ac (.).
.cc. Crimcs against Humanity,
Teory of International La. at the Treshold of the :zst Century .c (ssays
in Honour ol Krzysztol Skubiszcwski, J. Makarczyk cd., .6).
.c.. Tc ilcmmas ol cmocracy,
a6 Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .. (.6).
.ca. Commcnts on Protocol !,
, International Fe.ie. of the Fed Cross .. (.,).
.c. Tc Laws ol Air, Missilc and Nuclcar Varlarc,
a, Israel Yearbook on Human Fights ..6 (.,).
.c. iplomatic Protcction ol Companics undcr !ntcrnational Law,
International La.: Teory and Practice c., (ssays in Honour ol ric
Suy, K. Vcllcns cd., .).
.c. Tc Univcrsality Principlc and Var Crimcs,
,. U.S. Na.al !ar College International La. Studies .,, (Te La. of rmed
Conict: Into the Next Millennium, M.N. Schmitt & L.C. Grccn cds., .).
.c6. Tc !ntcrnational Lcgal imcnsions ol thc Arab!sracli Conict,
Israel among the Nations .,. (T.M.C. Asscr !nstituut, A. Kcllcrmann, K.
Sichr & T. inhorn cds., .).
.c,. Tc !ntcrnational Lcgal Status ol thc Vcst 8ank and thc Gaza Strip
.,
a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights , (.).
.c. Tc !sracl Suprcmc Court and thc Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation:
cmolitions and Scaling ol Houscs,
a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights ac (.).
.c. Tc Right to Humanitarian Assistancc,
Human Fights at the Da.n of the T.enty-First Century .. (Karcl \asak
Amicorum Libcr, F. Mayor cd., .).
Fe.ised Na.al !ar College Fe.ie. ,,. (accc).
..c. clcnccs,
. Substanti.e and Procedural spects of International Criminal La. (Te
Experience of International and National Courts) ,. (G.K. Mconald &
. SwaakGoldman cds., accc).
xxviii List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
.... Crimcs against Humanity altcr Tadic,
. Leiden Journal of International La. , (accc).
..a. Tc !nitiation, Suspcnsion, and Tcrmination ol Var,
, U.S. Na.al !ar College International La. Studies ... (International
La. cross the Spectrum of Conict: Essays in Honor of L.C. Green, M.N.
Schmitt cd., accc).
... Tc Collcctivc Human Rights ol Rcligious Groups: Gcnocidc and
Humanitarian !ntcrvcntion,
c Israel Yearbook on Human Fights aa,a. (accc).
... Tcchnological cvclopmcnt, quality and Noniscrimination,
Scientic and Technological De.elopments and Human Fights a.aaa (L.A.
Sicilianos & M. Gavouncli cds., acc.).
... !tcms in thc Oxford Companion to Politics of the !orld ( J. Kricgcr cd., a
nd
cd.,
acc.):
(a) Nurcmbcrg Trials, pp. 6.6..
(b) Var Crimcs, pp. , ,.
(c) Var Crimcs Tribunals, pp. ,.
(d) Varlarc, Rulcs ol , pp. cc.
..6. Protcction ol thc nvironmcnt in !ntcrnational Armcd Conict,
Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations La. a (acc.).
..,. Lcgitimatc Military bjcctivcs undcr thc Currcnt Jus in Bello,
. Israel Yearbook on Human Fights . (acc.).
Feprinted , U.S. Na.al !ar College International La. Studies ..,a (Lcgal
and thical Lcssons ol NATs Kosovo Campaign, A.. Vall cd., acca).
... Computcr Nctwork Attacks and Scllclcnsc,
,6 U.S. Na.al !ar College International La. Studies .. (Computer Net.ork
ttack and International La., M.N. Schmitt & 8.T. onncll cds., acca).
... cprivation ol Propcrty ol Forcigncrs undcr !ntcrnational Law,
a Liber micorum Judge Shigeru Oda 6 (N. Ando, . McVhinncy & R.
Vollrum cds., acca).
.ac. Tc volution ol Crimcs against Humanity,
International Criminal Court: Ne. Dimension in International Justice ,a (S.
Pcrrakis cd., acca).
.a.. Unlawlul Combatancy,
a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights a,a,c (acca).
Feprinted , U.S. Na.al !ar College International La. Studies ...,
(International La. and the !ar on Terrorism, F.L. 8orch and P.S. Vilson
cds., acc).
.aa. Ius ad Bellum Aspccts ol thc Var on Tcrrorism,
Terrorism and the Military: International Legal Implications .aa (V.P. Hccrc
cd., acc).
.a. Jus in Bello !ssucs Arising in thc Hostilitics in !raq in acc,
Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .. (acc).
xxix List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
.a. Tc Protcction ol Cultural Propcrty and Placcs ol Vorship in !ntcrnational
Armcd Conicts,
Studi di Diritto Interna.ionale in Onore di Gaetano rangio-Fui. .c,.aa
(acc).
.a. Commcnts on Var,
a, Har.ard Journal of La. . Public Policy ,,a (acc).
.a6. Collatcral amagc and thc Principlc ol Proportionality,
Ne. !ars, Ne. La.s? pplying the La.s of !ar in :z
st
Century Conicts a..
aa (. Vippman & M. vangclista cds., acc).
.a,. Rcstatcmcnts ol !ntcrnational Law by Tcchnical/!nlormal 8odics,
De.elopments of International La. in Treaty Making .cc (R. Vollrum &
\. Robcn, acc).
.a. Articlc , ol Additional Protocol !,
a ustralian Year Book of International La. (A Collcction ol ssays to
Honour Prolcssor !.A. Shcarcr) 6, (acc).
.a. Tc Gull Var, .cacc (and Still Counting),
Israel Yearbook on Human Fights .. (acc).
.c. Sovcrcignty, thc Sccurity Council and thc Usc ol Forcc,
Fedening So.ereignty: Te Use of Force after the Cold !ar ....aa (M. 8othc,
M.. Conncll & N. Ronzitti cds., acc).
V Published Iectures and Proceedings of Conferences
.. !ntcrnational Coopcration in thc Prcvcntion and Supprcssion ol
Tcrrorism,
c Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. cc, c
(.6).
a. Tc Jurisprudcncc ol thc Court in thc Nicaragua ccision,
. Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. a66a6, a,6a,,
(.,).
. xisting Lcgal Constraints on Nuclcar Prolilcration,
La.yers and the Nuclear Debate 6.6,, ,., ,, (M. Cohcn & M.. Gouin
cds., .).
. Symposium on Human Rights and !sracli Rulc in thc Tcrritorics: pcning
Rcmarks,
a. Ne. York Uni.ersity Journal of International La. and Politics .6
(..).
. Tc Right ol Scllclcncc against Armcd Attacks,
International Terrorism: Lund Seminar ,,. (M.. Sandbu & P. Nordbcck
cds., .).
6. cvclopmcnts in thc Law ol Naval Varlarc: Custom or Codication:,
Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. .. (.).
xxx List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
,. Lcgal Aspccts ol thc Sccurity ol !ntcrnational Aviation,
Terror in the Skies: .iation Security: Proceedings of the First International
Seminar on .iation Security ..,.a, (A. Lcwis & M. Kaplan cds., .c).
. National !mplcmcntation ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law,
Proceedings of an International Colloquium Held at Bad Homburg 66, ,.,
.a6.a, .6.,c, a.a.6 (M. 8othc cd., .c).
. Major Contcmporary !ssucs in xtradition Law,
Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. cc, (.c).
.c. Siracusa !ntcrnational Scminar on xtradition,
6a International Fe.ie. of Penal La. . (..).
... !mplcmcnting Limitations on thc Usc ol Forcc: Tc octrinc ol
Proportionality and Ncccssity,
6 Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. (.a).
.a. Human Rights: !mplcmcntation through thc UN Systcm,
Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. aaa,, aca.
(.).
.. !s Tcrc a Right to Scccdc:,
c Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. ac, .6.
(.6).
.. Tc Middlc ast Pcacc Proccss,
c Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. 6,c (.6).
.. Tc Tirtccnth Valdcmar A. Soll Lccturc in !ntcrnational Law,
.66 Military La. Fe.ie. .c (accc).
.6. Humanitarian Law on thc Conict in Alghanistan,
6 Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. aa (acca).
.,. Lcgal and thical Lcssons ol NATs Kosovo Campaign iscussion,
, U.S. Na.al !ar College International La. Studies a.a.6, a.a. (A..
Vall cd., acca).
.. Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello iscussion,
Terrorism and the Military: International Legal Implications ca, .c.c
(V.P. Hccrc cd., acc).
.. Scllclcnsc in an Agc ol Tcrrorism,
, Proceedings of the merican Society of International La. .,. (acc).
ac. !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law and Modcrn Varlarc,
Proceedings of the International Expert Conference on Computer Net.ork
ttacks and the pplicability of International Humanitarian La. .,ac (K.
8ystrom cd., acc).
a.. !ntcrnational Law and thc Var on Tcrrorism,
, International La. Studies .,, a,aa, .6., ., (F.L. 8orch &
P.S. Vilson cds., acc).
xxxi List of cademic Publications Professor Yoram Dinstein
See Also
.. International La. ssociation:
th Conlcrcncc (Ncw York, .,a) .c.a, 6a6.
6th Conlcrcncc (Ncw clhi, .,) .6.6, .acc.
6rd Conlcrcncc (Varsaw, .) .c.., .c6,.c6.
6th Conlcrcncc (8roadbcach, Quccnsland, .c) acac,.
6,th Conlcrcncc (Hclsinki, .6) aac, ccc, ,...
6
th
Conlcrcncc (Taipci, .) aca., ,,, ,, ..
a. Institut de Droit International:
\ol. 6. (!!) (Hclsinki, .) 6, a.a., a.6, a., a.
\ol. 6a (!!) (Cairo, .,) 6,, accac., a.a., a.,, aa., aa, aaac, a.
\ol. 6 (!) (Santiago dc Compostcla, .) .a., .
\ol. 6 (!!) (Santiago dc Compostcla, .) ,6,,, .c.c,, aa6, a,c
a,., a,aa,, a,6a,,, ac, a.aa, a, aca..
\ol. 6 (!!) (8ascl, ..) .ca, ..a.., .aa.
\ol. 6 (!!) (Milan, .) .c,, .a..aa, .a,, .6.,, ., |c.|.
\ol. 66 (!!) (Lisbon, .) ...ac, .a,, .., .6, .c.., ac6, aa, aa,,
ac.
\ol. 6, (!!) (Strasbourg, .,) ,,, ..., .a., .,, .,,, aa.
\ol. 6 (!) (8crlin, .) ,6,.
\ol. 6 (!!) (8crlin, .) 6, c., a.c, a., aa., aa, aa, a, c., cc,
c.c, .a, .6, , c, a.
\ol. 6 (\ancouvcr, acc.) ,, 6a6a.
\ol. ,c (!) (8rugcs, acc) cc.
\ol. ,c (!!) (8rugcs, acc) ,a, .., acc, a.., a., aa..
\ol. ,. (!) (Crakow, acc) a6,a6, c.
About thc Contributors
Andrea Armstrong is a J candidatc at Yalc Law School. Prior to rcturning to
school, shc workcd as a rcscarchcr at thc Ccntcr on !ntcrnational Coopcration
and thc !ntcrnational Ccntcr lor Transitional Justicc. Shc has rcscarchcd con
ictrclatcd issucs such as rclugcc protcction (!RC), !raqs oillorlood program
(CS!S) and conict prcvcntion (UNPA), and has publishcd articlcs on transi
tional justicc/rcparations and rcgional approachcs to postconict rcconstruction.
Bill Boothby is a Group Captain in thc Royal Air Forcc Lcgal 8ranch. Hc has
bccn in thc Scrvicc sincc .., with appointmcnts in Gcrmany, Hong Kong,
Cyprus, Croatia and thc UK. Until rcccntly, hc lcd a joint scrvicc lcgal occ
at thc Joint octrinc and Conccpts Ccntrc at Shrivcnham, conducting lcgal
rcvicws ol wcapons procurcmcnts and dcaling with gcncral intcrnational law is
sucs. Group Captain 8oothby was a mcmbcr ol thc UK dclcgations to thc slo
ncgotiations which gavc risc to thc ttawa Convcntion and to thc Convcntional
Vcapons Convcntion ncgotiations in Gcncva. Hc is on thc ditorial 8oard ol
thc UK Manual of the La. of rmed Conict.
Iania omb is a Scnior Lccturcr in Public !ntcrnational Law, Administrativc
Law and thc Law ol Human Rights at thc Law School ol thc Nctanya Acadcmic
Collcgc (!sracl). Shc is also Associatc ditor ol thc Israel Yearbook on Human
Fights, whosc ditor is Prolcssor Yoram instcin.
Tomas Iranck is Prolcssor mcritus ol !ntcrnational Law at thc Ncw York
Univcrsity School ol Law. Hc has scrvcd as ditorinChicl ol thc merican
Journal of International La. and Prcsidcnt ol thc Amcrican Socicty ol
!ntcrnational Law, and has scrvcd both as Judgc Ad Hoc and as Counscl in cascs
bclorc thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc and as Arbitrator undcr Anncx \!!
ol thc Law ol thc Sca Trcaty. A mcmbcr ol thc Institut de Droit International,
his most rcccnt book is Fecourse to Force: State ction against Treats and rmed
ttacks (acca). Prolcssor Franck was a mcmbcr ol thc doctoral committcc that
supcrviscd Yoram instcins disscrtation almost hall a ccntury ago.
Charles H.B. Garraway is \isiting Prolcssor ol Law at Kings Collcgc, Univcrsity
ol London, an Associatc Fcllow ol Chatham Housc and a \isiting Fcllow at thc
xxxiv bout the Contributors
Human Rights Ccntrc, Univcrsity ol sscx. Hc was thc Stockton Prolcssor at
thc US Naval Var Collcgc in acc/, lollowing c ycars scrvicc in thc 8ritish
Army as a lcgal occr. Hc saw scrvicc in pcration cscrt Storm and also
workcd lor thc Coalition Provisional Authority in 8aghdad in acc.
Terry . Gill is Associatc Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law at Utrccht Univcrsity
and Prolcssor ol Military Law at thc Univcrsity ol Amstcrdam and thc
Ncthcrlands clcncc Acadcmy. Hc is a mcmbcr ol thc cditorial board ol thc
Netherlands International La. Fe.ie., thc Journal of Conict and Security La.
and thc Militair Fechtelijk Tijdschrift (Netherlands Military La. Fe.ie.). Hc
tcachcs courscs in thc usc ol lorcc, humanitarian law and military opcrational
law at thc abovcmcntioncd institutions and has bccn a visiting rcscarch lcllow at,
inter alia, Columbia Univcrsity, Tc Lautcrpacht Ccntrc at Cambridgc Univcrsity
and thc !ntcrnational !nstitutc ol Humanitarian Law at San Rcmo.
Wol Heintschel von Heinegg is Prolcssor ol Public Law, cspccially Public
!ntcrnational Law, uropcan Law and Forcign Constitutional Law at thc uropa
Univcrsitat \iadrina in Franklurt (dcr). Sincc ctobcr acc hc has scrvcd as
can ol thc Law Faculty ol thc uropaUnivcrsitat. Prcviously, hc scrvcd as
Prolcssor ol Public !ntcrnational Law at thc Univcrsity ol Augsburg. !n thc aca
dcmic ycar acc/acc hc was thc Charlcs H. Stockton Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational
Law at thc US Naval Var Collcgc in Ncwport, R!, USA. Hc has bccn a \isiting
Prolcssor at thc Univcrsitics ol Kaliningrad (Russia), Almaty (Kazakhstan),
Santiago dc Cuba (Cuba) and Nicc (Francc). Hc was thc Rapportcur ol thc
!ntcrnational Law Association Committcc on Maritimc Ncutrality and was thc
\iccPrcsidcnt ol thc Gcrman Socicty ol Military Law and thc Law ol Var.
Prolcssor Hcintschcl von Hcincgg was among a group ol intcrnational lawycrs
and naval cxpcrts who produccd thc San Femo Manual on International La.
pplicable to rmed Conicts at Sea and in acca hc publishcd thc Gcrman Navys
Commandcrs Handbook on thc Law ol Naval pcrations.
ino Kritsiotis is Rcadcr in Public !ntcrnational Law at thc Univcrsity ol
Nottingham and \isiting Prolcssor ol Law at thc Univcrsity ol Michigan. His
tcaching and rcscarch intcrcsts locus on thc intcrnational lcgal rcgulation ol lorcc
and intcrnational humanitarian law, and hc scrvcs as a mcmbcr ol thc cdito
rial boards ol thc Journal of Conict and Security La., Human Fights . Human
!elfare, thc Human Fights La. Fe.ie. and thc frican Yearbook of International
Humanitarian La..
Avril Mconald is Hcad ol thc Scction ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law and
!ntcrnational Criminal Law at thc TMC Asscr !nstitutc lor !ntcrnational Law
in Tc Haguc. Shc tcachcs intcrnational humanitarian law at thc Univcrsity ol
Groningcn and intcrnational pcacc and sccurity at thc Univcrsity ol Amstcrdams
xxxv bout the Contributors
School ol !ntcrnational Rclations and is a rcgular gucst lccturcr at a numbcr ol
othcr acadcmic institutions in thc Ncthcrlands. Prcviously, shc workcd as a lcgal
assistant at thc !ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor thc Formcr Yugoslavia, and
prior to that, as a journalist and cditor in ublin, Sydncy and Ncw York.
Teodor Meron is a Judgc on thc Appcals Chambcrs ol thc !ntcrnational
Criminal Tribunal lor thc Formcr Yugoslavia (!CTY) and thc !ntcrnational
Criminal Tribunal lor Rwanda. Hc scrvcd as Prcsidcnt ol thc !CTY lrom acc
through acc. A lcading scholar ol intcrnational humanitarian law, human
rights, and intcrnational criminal law, Judgc Mcron is thc Charlcs L. cnison
Prolcssor Emeritus and Judicial Fcllow at Ncw York Univcrsity Law School. Hc
has also scrvcd as Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law at thc Graduatc !nstitutc ol
!ntcrnational Studics in Gcncva and a \isiting Prolcssor ol Law at Harvard
and at thc Univcrsity ol Calilornia (8crkclcy). Judgc Mcrons books and articlcs
havc hclpcd build thc lcgal loundations lor intcrnational criminal tribunals. A
Shakcspcarc cnthusiast, hc has also writtcn cxtcnsivcly on thc laws ol war and
chivalry in Shakcspcarcs historical plays. Judgc Mcron was thc acc6 rccipicnt ol
thc Amcrican Socicty ol !ntcrnational Laws Manlcy . Hudson Mcdal.
]ohn I. Murphy is a Prolcssor ol Law at \illanova Univcrsity School ol Law
in \illanova, Pcnnsylvania, USA. Prcviously, hc was an Attorncy/Adviscr in
thc cc ol thc Lcgal Adviscr, US cpartmcnt ol Statc, and practiccd law in
Ncw York and Vashington, C. From .6. hc was a prolcssor ol law at
thc Univcrsity ol Kansas School ol Law, and a visiting prolcssor at thc Corncll
and Gcorgctown Law Schools. From .c. hc was thc Charlcs H. Stockton
Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law at thc US Naval Var Collcgc. Hc is thc rccipicnt
ol a Ccrticatc ol Mcrit lrom thc Amcrican Socicty ol !ntcrnational Law lor his
cascbook (with Alan Swan), Te Fegulation of International Business and Economic
Felations, and scrvcs as thc Amcrican 8ar Associations Rcprcscntativc to thc US
Mission to thc Unitcd Nations.
]elena Pejic is a Lcgal Adviscr at thc Lcgal ivision ol thc !ntcrnational
Committcc ol thc Rcd Cross (!CRC) in Gcncva rcsponsiblc, among othcr things,
lor issucs rclatcd to tcrrorism and intcrnational humanitarian law. Shc also is Hcad
ol thc !CRCs Projcct on thc Rcarmation and cvclopmcnt ol !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law. Prior to thc !CRC, shc was Scnior Program Coordinator at
thc Lawycrs Committcc lor Human Rights in Ncw York (now Human Rights
First) and was a lccturcr in Public !ntcrnational Law and !ntcrnational Rclations
at 8clgradc Univcrsity Law School.
W. Michael Reisman is Myrcs S. Mcougal Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law at thc
Yalc Law School whcrc hc has bccn on thc Faculty sincc .6. Hc has bccn a visit
ing prolcssor in Tokyo, Hong Kong, 8crlin, 8ascl, Paris and Gcncva. Hc is a Fcllow
ol thc Vorld Acadcmy ol Art and Scicncc and a lormcr mcmbcr ol its xccutivc
Council. Hc is a mcmbcr ol thc ritrcathiopia 8oundary Commission, a
mcmbcr ol thc Advisory Committcc on !ntcrnational Law ol thc cpartmcnt ol
Statc, \iccChairman ol thc Policy Scicnccs Ccntcr, !nc., a mcmbcr ol thc 8oard
ol Tc Forcign Policy Association, and has bccn clcctcd to thc Institut de Droit
International. Hc was thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Arbitration Tribunal ol thc 8ank lor
!ntcrnational Scttlcmcnts and was Prcsidcnt ol thc !ntcrAmcrican Commission
on Human Rights ol thc rganization ol Amcrican Statcs, \iccPrcsidcnt and
Honorary \iccPrcsidcnt ol thc Amcrican Socicty ol !ntcrnational Law and
ditorinChicl ol thc merican Journal of International La..
Adam Roberts is thc Montaguc 8urton Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Rclations at
xlord Univcrsity, and a Fcllow ol 8alliol Collcgc. His main acadcmic intcr
csts arc in thc clds ol intcrnational sccurity, intcrnational organizations, and
intcrnational law (including thc laws ol war). Hc has also workcd cxtcnsivcly
on thc rolc ol civil rcsistancc against dictatorial rcgimcs and lorcign rulc, on thc
history ol thought about intcrnational rclations, and on thc rolc ol tcrrorism in
intcrnational politics. Hc is a Mcmbcr ol thc Council, !ntcrnational !nstitutc
lor Stratcgic Studics, London, and a Mcmbcr ol thc UK clcncc Acadcmy
Advisory 8oard.
Marco Sassli is Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law at thc Univcrsity ol Gcncva,
Switzcrland, and chairs thc boards ol thc Univcrsity Ccntrc lor !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law in Gcncva and ol Gcncva Call, a nongovcrnmcntal organi
zation cngaging armcd nonstatc actors to cncouragc adhcrcncc to humanitarian
norms. From acc. until acc, Prolcssor Sassli was Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law
at thc Univcrsity ol Qucbcc in Montrcal, Canada, whcrc hc rcmains Associatc
Prolcssor. Hc workcd lrom . to ., lor thc !ntcrnational Committcc ol thc
Rcd Cross at thc hcadquartcrs and in conict arcas. Hc was, inter alia, dcputy hcad
ol its lcgal division and workcd in thc Middlc ast and thc 8alkans. Prolcssor
Sassli has scrvcd as xccutivc Sccrctary ol thc !ntcrnational Commission ol
Jurists and as Rcgistrar at thc Swiss Suprcmc Court.
Ivan Shearer is mcritus Prolcssor ol Law, Univcrsity ol Sydncy, Australia. From
. to acc hc hcld thc Challis Chair ol !ntcrnational Law at that Univcrsity.
!n acccacc. hc hcld thc Stockton Chair ol !ntcrnational Law at thc Unitcd
Statcs Naval Var Collcgc, Ncwport, Rhodc !sland. Sincc acc. hc has scrvcd as
a mcmbcr ol thc Unitcd Nations Human Rights Committcc. Hc is an clcctcd
Mcmbcr ol thc !ntcrnational !nstitutc ol Humanitarian Law, San Rcmo. Hc is a
Captain on thc rctircd list ol thc Royal Australian Navy Rcscrvc.
Michael N. Schmitt is thc Charlcs H. Stockton Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law
at thc Unitcd Statcs Naval Var Collcgc in Ncwport, Rhodc !sland. Hc prcvi
bout the Contributors xxxvi
ously has bccn on thc lacultics ol thc Gcorgc C. Marshall uropcan Ccntcr lor
Sccurity Studics in GarmischPartcnkirchcn, Gcrmany, and thc Unitcd Statcs
Air Forcc Acadcmy. A rctircd Unitcd Statcs Air Forcc judgc advocatc, Prolcssor
Schmitt saw scrvicc during pcrations Providc Comlort and Northcrn Vatch.
Hc is an clcctcd mcmbcr ol thc !ntcrnational !nstitutc ol Humanitarian Law in
San Rcmo, !taly, and scrvcs on numcrous cditorial and advisory boards, including
thc !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Scrics ditorial Advisory 8oard.
Andru I. Wall is an intcrnational law attorncy in thc Unitcd Statcs Navy.
Licutcnant Commandcr Vall scrvcd in !raq in acc and acc. Hc has taught
intcrnational law and US national sccurity law at thc Unitcd Statcs Naval Var
Collcgc and Rogcr Villiams Univcrsity School ol Law. Commandcr Vall is an
clcctcd mcmbcr ol thc San Rcmo !ntcrnational !nstitutc ol Humanitarian Law
whcrc hc also scrvcs on thc tcaching sta.
Kenneth Watkin is thc Judgc Advocatc Gcncral lor thc Canadian lorccs and
is rcsponsiblc lor thc provision ol military law advicc to thc Govcrnmcnt ol
Canada and lor thc supcrintcndcncc ol thc military justicc systcm. 8rigadicr
Gcncral Vatkin has bccn a military lcgal occr lor a ycars including scrvicc as
thc cputy Judgc Advocatc Gcncral/pcrations whcrc hc providcd lcgal advicc
in rcspcct ol intcrnational and domcstic dcploymcnts ol thc Canadian Forccs.
Hc was a \isiting Fcllow at thc Harvard Law Schools Human Rights Program
during accaacc.
Ruth Wedgwood is thc dward 8urling Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law and
iplomacy, and ircctor ol thc !ntcrnational Law and rganizations Program,
School ol Advanccd !ntcrnational Studics, Johns Hopkins Univcrsity, in
Vashington, C. Shc scrvcs on thc US Sccrctary ol Statcs Advisory Committcc
on !ntcrnational Law, thc Pcntagons clcnsc Policy 8oard, and thc C!A
Historical Rcvicw Pancl. Shc was clcctcd by thc . statcs partics as US mcmbcr
ol thc Unitcd Nations Human Rights Committcc in Gcncva. Shc is an cditor
ol thc merican Journal of International La., viccprcsidcnt ol thc Amcrican
Socicty ol !ntcrnational Law, and lormcr codircctor ol studics at thc Haguc
Acadcmy ol !ntcrnational Law. arlicr in hcr carccr, shc was a lcdcral prosccutor
and Stockton Prolcssor ol !ntcrnational Law at thc US Naval Var Collcgc.
Rdiger Wolfrum is ircctor at thc Max Planck !nstitutc lor Comparativc Public
Law and !ntcrnational Law and Prolcssor at thc Law Faculty ol thc Univcrsity ol
Hcidclbcrg. Sincc .6 hc is Judgc and sincc acc Prcsidcnt ol thc !ntcrnational
Tribunal lor thc Law ol thc Sca. Hc tcachcs intcrnational law as wcll as national
public law. Hc has writtcn and cditcd books on intcrnational law, intcrnational
cnvironmcntal law and on human rights and scrvcs as advisor to scvcral intcrna
tional law journals.
bout the Contributors xxxvii
Chapter 1
A Rcvival ol thc Just Var Tcory:
I.an Shearer
I Introduction
A ncw intcrcst in just war thcory has bccn promptcd by prcssurcs to justily, in
lcgal tcrms, lorms ol armcd attack or lorciblc intcrvcntion lying outsidc, or at thc
margins ol, thc uscs ol armcd lorcc in intcrnational rclations allowcd by orthodox
intcrprctations ol thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr and customary intcrnational law.
+

Although wc arc conccrncd hcrc principally with thc jus ad bellum, thcrc is a con
ncction with thc jus in bello in that onc commonly acccptcd proposition ol just
war thcory is that a usc ol lorcc is not justicd whcrc thc ncccssary mcans to bc
cmploycd to achicvc thc objcct would bc inhcrcntly cxccssivc or indiscriminatc.
:

!t is thc position ol thc prcscnt writcr that thc orthodox intcrprctation ol
intcrnational law govcrning thc usc ol armcd lorcc in intcrnational rclations,
which admits ol no cxccptions to thc authorisations spccicd in chaptcr \!! ol
thc Chartcr, is by rcason ol that incxibility no longcr ablc to scrvc thc intcrcsts
ol world ordcr. As a rcsult, ccrtain statcs no longcr scck to justily thcir uscs ol
lorcc in tcrms ol intcrnational law. Tosc statcs look only to a political justica
tion, or asscrt a doctrinc ol thc suprcmacy ol national law that is not subjcct to
intcrnational law. Tis is a dangcrous trcnd, subvcrsivc ol thc most basic principlc
ol world ordcr govcrncd by law. !t is argucd hcrc that, rathcr than to rail against
such attitudcs impotcntly, or worsc still to acccpt thcm, it is bcttcr to scck prin
ciplcd guidancc lrom just war thcory and to accommodatc that thcory within
an intcrprctation ol thc Chartcr that takcs account ol currcnt rcalitics and chal
lcngcs. !n that way, thc idcal ol a world ordcr can bc rcimagincd lor thc a.
st
ccn
tury and not stuck in thc mould ol .. !t must bc strcsscd that this approach
. For orthodox intcrprctations ol thc UN Chartcr provisions on thc usc ol lorcc scc
!. 8rownlic, International La. and the Use of Force (Clarcndon Prcss, xlord, .6),
S. Chcstcrman, Just !ar or Just Peace? Humanitarian Inter.ention and International
La. (xlord Univcrsity Prcss, xlord, acc.).
a Te Fesponsibility to Protect: Fesearch, Bibliography, Background. Rcport ol thc
!ntcrnational Commission on !ntcrvcntion and Statc Sovcrcignty, Supplcmcntary
\olumc (!ntcrnational cvclopmcnt Rcscarch Ccntrc, ttawa, acc.) .c..
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. z-:c.
2 I.an Shearer
is intcndcd not to bring insidc thc tcnt thosc who wish dcantly to livc out
sidc it, but is dircctcd towards a morc cxiblc rcading ol thc Chartcr to allow
lor a principlcd and humanitarian usc ol lorcc in ccrtain gravc situations which
dcmand a lorciblc rcsponsc. !t is lurthcr argucd that this may bc achicvcd with
out amcndmcnt to thc Chartcr, that, likc othcr constitutional documcnts, thc
Chartcr is capablc ol dcvclopmcnt and rcsponsc to changing nccds and circum
stanccs within lcgitimatc margins ol intcrprctation ol thc cxisting tcxt.

Tc writcr was rst promptcd to thcsc thoughts by thc writings ol Julius

Stonc.

Tcy wcrc rcinlorccd by thc publication, in cccmbcr acc., ol thc Rcport

ol thc !ntcrnational Commission on !ntcrvcntion and Statc Sovcrcignty.

Tat
Rcport did not indccd proposc thc intcrprctation ol thc UN Chartcr and intcr
national law advanccd by Stonc, somc othcr writcrs, and hcrc, rathcr it urgcd thc
Sccurity Council, in vcry strong tcrms, to livc up to its rcsponsibility to protcct
thc victims ol gravc and systcmatic violcncc and injusticc, such as gcnocidc and
cthnic clcansing, putting asidc irrclcvant political considcrations, and cxcrcis
ing its powcrs undcr chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr. Howcvcr, thcrc arc implications
in thc Rcport that point in thc dircction ol imagining a justication lor thc usc
ol lorcc bcyond thc limits acccptcd by orthodox intcrprctation. Failurc ol thc
Sccurity Council, whcthcr its mcmbcrship is rcdcsigncd in thc luturc or not, to
hccd its rcsponsibility would, according to thc Commission scnd thc lollowing
mcssagcs:
Tc rst mcssagc is that, il thc Sccurity Council lails to dischargc its rcspon
sibility in conscicnccshocking situations crying out lor action, thcn it is unrc
alistic to cxpcct that conccrncd statcs will rulc out othcr mcans and lorms ol
action to mcct thc gravity and urgcncy ol thcsc situations. !l collcctivc organi
zations will not authorizc collcctivc intcrvcntion against rcgimcs that out thc
most clcmcntary norms ol lcgitimatc govcrnmcntal bchaviour, thcn thc prcs
surcs lor intcrvcntion by ad hoc coalitions or individual statcs will surcly intcn
sily. And thcrc is a risk thcn that such intcrvcntions, without thc disciplinc and
constraints ol UN authorization, will not bc conductcd lor thc right rcasons or
with thc right commitmcnt to thc ncccssary prccautionary principlcs.
Tc sccond mcssagc is that il, lollowing thc lailurc ol thc Sccurity Council to
act, a military intcrvcntion is undcrtakcn by an ad hoc coalition or individual
For a discussion ol thc UN Chartcr as a constitutional tcxt scc V. Fricdmann, Te
Changing Structure of International La. (Stcvcns, London, .6) ...
J. Stonc, Legal Controls of International Conict (Maitland, Sydncy, .) a; ggression
and !orld Order (Maitland, Sydncy, .) , , Of La. and Nations (Hcin, 8ualo
NY, .,) a.
Te Fesponsibility to Protect. Rcport ol thc !ntcrnational Commission on !ntcrvcntion
and Statc Sovcrcignty. (!ntcrnational cvclopmcnt Rcscarch Ccntrc, ttawa, acc.).
Tc Rcport is also acccssiblc on thc wcbsitc ol thc !ntcrnational Crisis Group: www.
icg.org.
3 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
statc which does lully obscrvc and rcspcct all thc critcria wc havc idcnticd,
and il that intcrvcntion is carricd through succcsslully and it is sccn by world
public opinion to havc bccn carricd through succcsslully thcn this may havc
cnduringly scrious conscqucnccs lor thc staturc and thc crcdibility ol thc UN
itscll.
6
Tc rclcrcnccs in thcsc paragraphs to prccautionary principlcs and critcria
arc to thc scctions ol thc Rcport that discuss at lcngth six critcria lor military
intcrvcntion: right authority, just causc, right intcntion, last rcsort, proportional
mcans, and rcasonablc prospccts ol succcss.

Tcsc six critcria arc but a modcrn

rcstatcmcnt ol just war thcory (or ol a vcrsion ol that thcory), cvcn though thc
Commission rclrains lrom so idcntilying thcir origin.
As this cssay was bcing writtcn thcrc was a rcmindcr too ol thc conncction
bctwccn just war thcory and conscicntious objcction to scrvicc in a particular war.
!t is rcportcd that an occr ol thc (8ritish) Royal Air Forcc will lacc a court
martial ovcr his rclusal to rcturn to duty in !raq. Hc will arguc that thc attack
on !raq in March acc has bccn shown to havc bccn illcgal altcr thc cvcnt and
that hc is justicd by lcgal opinions to that ccct to disobcy what, to him, havc
bccomc unlawlul commands. !t is said to bc thc rst such rccordcd casc.
8
II Te Origins of the ]ust War Teory
Yoram instcin has himscll givcn a typically clcar and concisc account ol thc just
war doctrinc in thc past.

!n thc wcstcrn lcgal tradition, thc doctrinc bcgan with

thc institution ol thc collegium fetiale, a collcgc ol pricsts who lrom carly timcs
until thc advcnt ol !mpcrial Romc administcrcd thc jus fetiale, thc lunction ol
which was to judgc whcthcr thcrc wcrc sucicnt grounds lor Romc to go to war
with an advcrsary.
+o
Vaging war without thc approval ol thc collcgc was unlaw
lul, but as instcin wryly commcnts, thc fetiales wcrc likcly to do thc bidding ol
thcir political mastcrs.
++
Tc carly Christians wcrc pacists, but altcr thc Roman mpcror
Constantinc madc Christianity thc ocial rcligion ol thc Roman mpirc in c,
6 Rcport, paras. 6., 6.c.
, Rcport, paras. ....
RAF occr laccs jail ovcr illcgal war , Te Sunday Times (London), ctobcr .6,
acc, pagc ..
Y. instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence (th cd., Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss,
Cambridgc, acc) 66,.
.c As an asidc it may bc notcd that lctial law, as a synonym lor thc law ol war, sur
vivcd into thc bcginnings ol thc modcrn pcriod ol intcrnational law, as in thc titlc ol
thc trcatisc by R. Zouchc, Juris et Judicii Fecialis, si.e Juris inter Gentes (.6c), Classics
ol !ntcrnational Law cdition, .6.
.. instcin, 6.
4 I.an Shearer
thc Church had to rcconsidcr its position. Tat position was articulatcd by Saint
Augustinc, 8ishop ol Hippo (c), in his book Te City of God (ca. .a). As
cxplaincd by livcr onovan,
+:
St. Augustinc loundcd his thcory ol just war
(bellum justum) on thc basis ol thc Christian command to lovc.
+
!n that hc was
lollowcd by St. Tomas Aquinas (.aa.a,) and Francisco Suarcz (..6.,),
both ol whom locatcd thcir discussion ol thc subjcct in scctions ol thcir writ
ings dcvotcd to charity. As onovan commcnts, !n thc contcxt ol war wc nd
in its sharpcst and most paradoxical lorm thc thought that lovc can somctimcs
smitc, and cvcn slay.
+
Tus war is a loving judgmcnt on cvil docrs. onovan
gocs on to tantalisc thc rcadcr with his intcrprctation ol Augustinc that survival
as such was not a lcgitimatc causc lor war:
To takc survival as thc bottom linc is to rcvcrt to thc antagonistic modcl ol
mortal combat, and so incvitably to rctrcat lrom thc Gospcl proclamation ol
thc univcrsal rulc ol Christ and lrom thc praxis ol loving judgmcnt. Vhcn
sclldclcncc, ol statc, community, or individual has thc last word, pagan
ism is rcstorcd. Prcciscly lor this rcason a Christian witncss to Gods pcacc
must always bc actcd out against thc horizon ol sucring and martyrdom .
Judgmcnt cannot possibly issuc a liccncc to avoid dclcat by all mcans.
+
Ncvcrthclcss, thc nuanccd doctrinc ol Augustinc was unlikcly to bc obscrvcd
diligcntly. As though to illustratc thc political subscrvicncc ol just war thcory
to political cxigcncics, carlicr notcd by instcin ol thc fetiales, thc lour crusadcs
lrom .c6 to .ac wcrc justicd as wars to rcstorc thc right ol pilgrimagc to thc
.a . onovan, Te Just !ar Fe.isited (Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, Cambridgc,
acc) . onovan is Rcgius Prolcssor ol Moral and Pastoral Tcology, and Canon
ol Christ Church, xlord.
. Augustincs lcttcr to 8onilacc trcats thc obligation ol military action as an obli
gation ol lovc towards oncs ncighbour. onovan, . Tc motivc ol lovc is also
strcsscd by thc Amcrican thcologian Paul Ramscy in his works !ar and the Christian
Conscience (ukc Univcrsity Prcss, urham, .6.) and Te Just !ar: Force and Political
Fesponsibility (Scribncrs, Ncw York, .6). n Augustinc and his just war thcory
scc also C. McKcough, Innocent Ci.ilians: the Morality of Killing in !ar (Palgravc,
8asingstokc, acca) .aa.
. !bid. For anothcr Christian rccction on thc tcnsion bctwccn pacism and just war
scc T. Framc, Li.ing by the S.ord: Te Ethics of rmed Inter.ention (Univcrsity ol
Ncw South Valcs Prcss, Sydncy, acc), .c.a,. r Framc is Anglican 8ishop to thc
Australian Armcd Forccs.
. onovan, .c. Vhat would Augustinc havc said about thc (barc) majority advi
sory opinion ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc in thc Legality of the Treat or Use
of Nuclear !eapons (.6) !CJ Rcp. aa6 at para. .c(a). whcrc thc Court said that it
cannot concludc dcnitivcly whcthcr thc thrcat or usc ol nuclcar wcapons would
bc lawlul or unlawlul in an cxtrcmc circumstancc ol sclldclcncc, in which thc vcry
survival ol a statc would bc at stakc:
5 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
Holy Lands, and protcction ol thc holy placcs, although in rcality lor political
and cconomic motivcs. Tc Fourth Crusadc (.aca.ac), howcvcr, wcnt badly
wrong altcr initially having bccn blcsscd as just by Popc !nnoccnt !!!. Tc cru
sadcrs, instcad ol adhcring to thcir mission, rst attackcd without any causc or
ocncc whatsocvcr thc city ol Zara in ordcr to amass loot to pay thc \cnctians
lor thc ships providcd lor thc voyagc. Tcn thcy divcrtcd lrom thc authoriscd
routc to Jcrusalcm via gypt to attack Constantinoplc in ordcr to takc sidcs in
a succcssion disputc and, not irrclcvantly, lor plundcr. Tc Popc placcd thc cru
sadcrs undcr scntcncc ol cxcommunication, but, lor thc sakc ol moralc, ncws
ol it was kcpt lrom thc troops. Tc bloody succcss ol thc crusadcrs in subduing
thc 8yzantinc mpirc and cstablishing a Latin Kingdom in thc cast undcr thc
\cnctians and thc Frcnch, thus tcmporarily undoing thc Grcat Schism bctwccn
Grcck and Roman Christianity ol .c, cvcntually rcstorcd thc crusadcrs to papal
gracc.
+6
St. Tomas Aquinas was thc rst to sct out in dctail thc rcquircmcnts ol a
just war. Hc proposcd thrcc conditions (cchocs ol which will bc apparcnt in thc
Rcport ol thc !ntcrnational Commission on !ntcrvcntion and Statc Sovcrcignty:
Tc Rcsponsibility to Protcct, to bc discusscd bclow). As summariscd by
instcin, lor war to bc just, in thc opinion ol Aquinas, thc lollowing thrcc condi
tions had to bc lulllcd: (i) thc war had to bc conductcd not privatcly but undcr
thc authority ol a princc, (ii) thcrc had to bc a just causc lor thc war, and (iii) it
was not cnough to havc a just causc lrom an objcctivc vicwpoint , but it was ncc
cssary to havc thc right intcntion to promotc good and to avoid cvil. (lscwhcrc,
Aquinas statcd that to promotc good and avoid cvil is thc rst principlc ol thc
natural law.)
+

As instcin notcs, thc approach ol Aquinas was lollowcd and cxpandcd
by othcr canonists, and latcr writcrs, into catalogucs ol what would qualily as a
just war. Tis constitutcs in a scnsc a pcrvcrsion ol thc doctrinc, sincc almost
anything could and did lorm grounds lor ocncc and thus lor a just rcsponsc
in war. For cxamplc, although at rst dclcnding thc rights ol thc indigcnous
inhabitants ol South Amcrica, thc Spanish ominican thcologian and lawycr
\ictoria camc to justily thc usc ol lorcc by Spain in subduing thcm by rcason ol
thcir rcsistancc to thc lrccdom ol travcl, tradc, and thc sprcad ol Christianity.
+8

(Shadcs hcrc, pcrhaps, ol thc crusadcs.) onovan makcs a similar point in
claiming that just war thcory was ncvcr intcndcd to bc a lcgal codc, but rathcr
a proposal.
+
Although just war thcory camc to bc part ol gcncral intcrnational
law, with thc sccularisation ol that law lrom thc timc ol thc Pcacc ol Vcstphalia
.6 J. Phillips, Te Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (\iking, Ncw York,
acc).
., A.P. dntrvcs, Natural La. (Hutchinson, London, ..) c..
. F. dc \ictoria, De Indis et jure belli relectiones (.,) , instcin, 6.
. onovan, ..
6 I.an Shearer
(.6), cmbraccd by Protcstant as wcll as Catholic scholars, including notably
Grotius,
:o
thc thcory gradually bccamc discrcditcd and was abandoncd. To thc
dismissivc judgmcnt ol T.J. Lawrcncc in thc .th ccntury, citcd by instcin,
:+
onc
could add that ol Hctcr, that discussions ol thc conditions undcr which a war
would bc just wcrc oiscuscs.
::
III ecline of the ]ust War Teory
Although it has bccn obscrvcd that thc cnd ol onc ccntury and thc prospcct ol
thc ncxt oltcn lcads to suddcn bursts ol cncrgy on thc part ol politicians and
statcsmcn in rcimagining thc luturc, thc Haguc Pcacc Conlcrcnccs ol . and
.c, did not attcmpt to dcnc thc circumstanccs in which rccoursc to armcd
lorcc would bc just, but rathcr sought, in thc casc ol thc First Conlcrcncc, to
cstablish altcrnativcs to war as a mcans ol scttlcmcnt ol disputcs, and in thc casc
ol thc sccond, to lay down dctailcd rulcs rcgarding thc conduct ol war (Haguc
Convcntions !X!!!, .c,). Tus, attcntion was dircctcd towards thc jus in bello
and away lrom thc jus ad bellum. Tc solc immcdiatc conscqucncc lor thc right
to wagc war ol thc First Vorld Var .... was thc provision ol articlc aa, ol
thc Trcaty ol \crsaillcs lor thc prosccution ol Kaiscr Vilhclm !!. 8ut that pro
vision did not chargc thc Kaiscr with authorising an unjust war, or thc crimc ol
aggrcssion in thc modcrn scnsc, but with a suprcmc ocncc against intcrnational
morality and thc sanctity ol trcatics.
:
Tc avoidancc ol thc languagc ol intcrna
tional law in this provision may bc takcn as a rccction ol thc gcncral sccpticism
ol thc timc rcgarding thc lcgal naturc ol intcrnational law.
Most scllscrving ol all dcclarations ol thc just causcs ol war at this timc was
that ol Lcnin. !n cxprcssing Sovict lcgal thcory, hc statcd that war was justicd il
ac De Jure Belli ac Pacis, 8ook a, Chaptcr ., Scction ., hcadcd Vhat causcs ol war may
bc callcd justiablc. Grotius avoidcd a dctailcd list, howcvcr. !n Scction a, justi
ablc causcs wcrc said to includc dclcncc, thc obtaining ol that which bclongs to us
or is our duc, and thc inicting ol punishmcnt. Classics ol !ntcrnational Law cdi
tion, xlord, .a, ol thc cdition ol .66. McKcough, abovc n..6, at .c, holds that
thc most important and lasting stcp takcn by Grotius was to scvcr nally thc link
bctwccn ad bellum and in bello justicc . !t was lclt to Grotius to makc thc dcci
sivc brcak and to rcjcct outright thc notion ol collcctivc guilt that was ccntral to thc
cstablishcd Augustinian justication ol war . To Grotius war was a mcthod ol sct
tling disputcs whcn all othcr mcthods lail.
a. instcin, 6,.
aa A. Hctcr, Le droit international public de l Europe ( rd cd., .), .., citcd by V..
Hall, Treatise on International La. (th cd, xlord, .a) a, na.
a Having bccn grantcd sanctuary by thc Ncthcrlands, which was not a party to thc
\crsaillcs Trcaty, thc Kaiscr was ncvcr brought to trial. Hc dicd in cxilc .., ironi
cally in a country thcn undcr Gcrman occupation altcr an cvcn morc cgrcgious act
ol aggrcssion.
7 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
it scrvcs thc intcrcsts ol thc prolctariat and sccurcs lor it libcration lrom thc
(capitalist) yokc and lrccdom lor strugglc and dcvclopmcnt.
:
Tc loundation ol thc Lcaguc ol Nations in .. markcd thc bcginnings ol
thc modcrn cra ol collcctivc sccurity through intcrnational institutions, thus in
thcory not only supplanting thc right ol unilatcral action to wagc war, but also
providing a mcans whcrcby an injury committcd by onc statc against anothcr
could bc judgcd and rcmcdicd by pcacclul mcans. !t could bc said to bc implicit
in thc provisions ol thc UN Chartcr that critcria similar to thosc uscd in thc just
war cra would bc likcly to bc uscd in judging circumstanccs dcscrving ol collcc
tivc action. Tc !raqi invasion ol Kuwait in . is an obvious cxamplc, whcrc thc
usc ol lorcc was authoriscd. Tc practicc ol aparthcid in South Alrica is an cxam
plc ol an aront to common humanity, whcrc mcasurcs short ol lorcc (sanctions)
wcrc authoriscd. Tc csscntial point is that thcrc is now, and has bccn sincc .,
an intcrnational institution ol practically univcrsal mcmbcrship capablc ol sitting
in judgmcnt on thrcats to, and brcachcs ol, intcrnational pcacc and sccurity.
For somc, that is thc cnd ol thc mattcr. !l thc Unitcd Nations and cspc
cially thc Sccurity Council lails to condcmn, or takc ccctivc action against,
gravc ocnccs against intcrnational pcacc and sccurity, thcn that has to bc
acccptcd as prcvcnting any statc, or coalition ol statcs, lrom taking thc law into
thcir own hands. 8y rcason ol thc pcculiar circumstanccs ol ., cach ol thc vic
torious powcrs ol Vorld Var !! was grantcd thc right ol vcto ovcr any cnlorcc
mcnt action proposcd by thc Council. Tc cxcrcisc ol thc vcto might bc bascd
on unmcritorious grounds, or in complctc disrcgard ol thc justicc ol thc mattcr
at hand. Tus, whilc in thcory thcrc is an institution constituting thc modcrn
cquivalcnt ol thc fetiales, it is a lar lrom pcrlcct instrumcnt ol justicc. Nor is it a
pcrlcct judgmcntal body, an act in violation ol thc Chartcr might bc thc subjcct
ol a condcmnatory rcsolution proposcd to thc Sccurity Council, but bc vctocd
by a pcrmancnt mcmbcr bccausc its own conduct, or that ol an allicd statc, is in
qucstion. Hcrcin lics thc dilcmma.
IV Te Use of Iorce under the UN Charter
Tc orthodox vicw among intcrnational lawycrs is that it is lawlul lor a statc to
rcsort to thc usc ol lorcc in intcrnational rclations only in two circumstanccs:
(a) in sclldclcncc against armcd attack, as rcarmcd in articlc . ol thc UN
Chartcr, and (b) whcn authoriscd by thc UN Sccurity Council as an cnlorccmcnt
mcasurc undcr Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr.
Tc orthodox vicw has bccn justicd and rcpcatcd on many occasions. A
rcccnt and compclling rcading ol thc tcxt ol thc Chartcr, cspccially articlc a(),
in thc light ol thc original intcntions ol thc draltcrs at San Francisco, is givcn by
a Citcd by A. Nussbaum, Concise History of the La. of Nations (Macmillan, Ncw
York, .) a,.
8 I.an Shearer
Tomas M. Franck.
:
Prolcssor Franck points out that thc original tcxt ol articlc
a() rcad simply:
All mcmbcrs ol thc rganization shall rclrain in thcir intcrnational rclations
lrom thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc in any manncr inconsistcnt with thc purposcs
ol thc rganization.
Howcvcr, lollowing an amcndmcnt proposcd by Australia, and unanimously
adoptcd, thc words against thc tcrritorial intcgrity or political indcpcndcncc ol
any mcmbcr statc wcrc inscrtcd altcr thc word lorcc.
:6
Franck commcnts that
thc draltcrs thcrcby unintcntionally crcatcd an opcning lor somc, latcr, to arguc
that thc prohibition against lorcc did not cxtcnd to minor or tcmporary inva
sions that stoppcd short ol actually thrcatcning thc tcrritorial intcgrity ol thc
victim statc or its indcpcndcncc. Such a rcading ol articlc a() is uttcrly incongru
cnt, howcvcr, with thc cvidcnt intcnt ol thc sponsors ol thc amcndmcnt.
:
Pcrhaps Franck had in mind such actions as thc rcscuc mission mountcd by
!sracl at ntcbbc Airport in .,6. Although in thc Sccurity Council thc US rcp
rcscntativc did makc rclcrcncc to a tcmporary brcach ol thc tcrritorial intcgrity
ol Uganda, thc main justication givcn by both !sracl and thc Unitcd Statcs was
thc cxcrcisc ol thc right ol sclldclcncc, which was argucd to includc thc right
to protcct nationals situatcd abroad lrom attack.
:8
Vith rcspcct, Francks com
mcnt rathcr trivialiscs thc issuc. !t is not a qucstion ol de minimis violations ol
tcrritorial intcgrity or political indcpcndcncc, but rathcr whcthcr thcrc is room in
thc tcxt to allow lor a usc ol lorcc motivatcd by objcctivcly nonaggrcssivc rca
sons, such as to savc livcs, that transccnds considcrations ol tcrritorial intcgrity or
political indcpcndcncc. Franck himscll rccognizcs that thcrc is a ccrtain tcnsion
in thc Chartcr bctwccn thc dcsidcrata ol pcrpctual pcacc and pcrlcct justicc.
:

Morc lundamcntally, hc likc many othcrs sccms to conccivc ol thc Chartcrs rcg
ulation ol thc usc ol lorcc in incxiblc tcrms, not opcn to intcrprctation in thc
light ol changing circumstanccs and nccds. !n thc analogous contcxt ol constitu
tional law, hc would bc accountcd an originalist, not a constructionist.
a T.M. Franck, Fecourse to Force: State ction against Treats and rmed ttacks, Tc
Hcrsch Lautcrpacht Mcmorial Lccturcs (Cambridgc, acca) ....
a6 Although not notcd by Franck, thcsc words wcrc takcn lrom Articlc .c ol thc
Covcnant ol thc Lcaguc ol Nations.
a, Franck, .a.
a Tc Sccurity Council dcbatcs arc collcctcd in . International Legal Materials .aa
(.,6). Scc commcnt by M. Akchurst, International Felations (.,,). For instcins
approval ol thc ntcbbc mission, and his conditional not opcncndcd acccptancc
ol thc rcscuc ol nationals abroad as a spccics ol sclldclcncc, scc !ar, ggression and
Self-Defence, aa.
a Franck, ...
9 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
!s thcrc a way out ol thc dilcmma poscd: Must law always triumph ovcr
justicc whcrc thcy nd thcmsclvcs in opposition, such as in thc lacc ol a thrcat
cncd gcnocidc whcrc thc pcrpctrator is a lricnd ol a pcrmancnt mcmbcr ol thc
Sccurity Council:
Vriting ol thc US and allicd invasion ol !raq in March acc, and rclcrring
back also to othcr intcrvcntions not authorizcd by thc Sccurity Council, such as
in Kosovo in ., Carstcn Stahn proposcs two mcthodologics lor rcsponding
to thc challcngcs poscd by lorciblc intcrvcntion. ption ., as hc tcrms it, is to
carvc out an cxccption to thc prohibition ol thc usc ol lorcc, as undcrstood in thc
orthodox intcrprctation ol thc Chartcr. Tis cxccption, prcsumably, would bc crc
atcd through strctching thc words ol articlc a(), or as thc prcscnt writcr prclcrs
by nding thc sccds ol thc cxccption alrcady thcrc. ption a is to hold all such
intcrvcntions illcgal, but whcrc thcrc arc cxtcnuating circumstanccs and altruistic
or humanitarian motivcs, to tolcratc thcm and not attach lcgal sanctions against
thc statcs conducting thcm.
o
!n othcr words, humanitarian or othcr actions lrom
disintcrcstcd motivcs may bc illcgal but justiablc.
Stahn is not alonc in this vicw. !t has many adhcrcnts. !t appcars to havc had
its origin in thc contribution ol !an 8rownlic to a study ol humanitarian intcr
vcntion in .,. His articlc, mcmorably cntitlcd Toughts on KindHcartcd
Gunmcn,
+
proposcd that ccrtain illcgal actions might bc mitigatcd by rcason
ol thc circumstanccs. An analogy was drawn by 8rownlic to thc casc ol mcrcy
killing undcr domcstic law whcrc, in ccrtain cascs, a prosccutor may cxcrcisc a
discrction not to prosccutc, or whcrc a pcrson, convictcd ol a mcrcy killing, might
rcccivc a nominal or light scntcncc. !t is, with rcspcct, an odd notion whcn applicd
to thc casc ol statcs and in a contcxt ol intcrnational pcacc and sccurity. nc is
rcmindcd, also in a contcxt ol domcstic law, ol thc casc ol thc ticking bomb scc
nario discusscd by thc Suprcmc Court ol !sracl, whcrc thc vicw was cxprcsscd by
Chicl Justicc 8arak that thc usc ol torturc, which rcmaincd at all timcs absolutcly
prohibitcd, might cxccptionally bc justicd il it was likcly to lcad to thc discov
cry ol thc bomb in sucicnt timc to savc livcs. 8ut in such a casc thc pcrson
committing torturc must bc chargcd and put on trial, only thcn could cxtrcmc
ncccssity bc considcrcd as a possiblc dclcncc.
:
Howcvcr, thc dicrcncc bctwccn
thc usc ol torturc in ordcr to locatc thc ticking bomb and humanitarian intcr
vcntion, lor cxamplc, is that, ultimatcly, in thc rst casc thcrc is thc possibility,
albcit vcry narrow, ol nding a legal justication. !n thc lattcr, il Stahn, 8rownlic,
c nlorccmcnt ol thc collcctivc will altcr !raq, , JIL c, .6 (acc). For Stahn,
!raq was not such a casc in acc bccausc thc motivcs lor thc intcrvcntion wcrc vis
ibly shapcd by cconomic intcrcsts.
. !n R.8. Lillich (cd), Humanitarian Inter.ention and the United Nations (Univcrsity
Prcss ol \irginia, Charlottcsvillc, .,) ..
a Judgment Concerning the Legality of the General Security Ser.ices Interrogation Methods,
Suprcmc Court, Scptcmbcr 6, ., pcr Prcsidcnt 8arak at para., rcproduccd in
ILM .,. (.).
10 I.an Shearer
Chcstcrman, Franck and othcrs arc right, thcrc is a glaring contradiction bctwccn
thc law and morality which can bc rcsolvcd only at thc political lcvcl.
Ncvcrthclcss, thc thcory ol mitigation has bccn cndorscd by so many writ
crs sincc thcn that Stahn may bc corrcct in dcclaring that it sccms salc to statc
that option a is dcvcloping into a morc widcly rccognizcd modcl ol dcaling
gcncrally with lorciblc intcrvcntions and particularly with opcrations to cnlorcc
thc collcctivc will.

Tc lcar obviously motivating thosc who adhcrc to a strict and unbcnding

rcading ol thc Chartcr is that to admit cxccptions to thc prohibition ol thc usc
ol lorcc is to cntcr upon a slippcry slopc ol intcrprctation and to compromisc
latally thc intcgrity ol thc Chartcrs primc purposc thc substitution ol collcc
tivc sccurity lor thc unilatcral rcsort to armcd lorcc.

Tis proposition dcmands

lurthcr considcration.
Articlc a() ol thc UN Chartcr rcads as lollows:
All Mcmbcrs shall rclrain in thcir intcrnational rclations lrom thc thrcat or
usc ol lorcc against thc tcrritorial intcgrity or political indcpcndcncc ol any
statc, or in any othcr manncr inconsistcnt with thc Principlcs ol thc Unitcd
Nations.
!t is a curiously wordcd paragraph. !t owcs much to thc dralting proposals ol
Australias lorcign ministcr, r. H.\. vatt, at thc San Francisco Conlcrcncc in
.. Vhy did it not say simply No Mcmbcr shall thrcatcn or usc lorcc against
any othcr statc cxccpt as cxprcssly allowcd by thc Chartcr: (Tis is indccd how
in substancc thc rst dralt was wordcd).

Most authoritics on thc Chartcr main

tain, on thc authority ol thc tra.aux preparatoires, that this was in lact thc intcn
tion ol thc dclcgatcs to thc Conlcrcncc. 8ut it has to bc conccdcd, at lcast on thc
lacc ol it, that thc words lollowing lorcc would thcn bc mcrc vcrbiagc. !l, how
cvcr, thosc words wcrc not sccn by thc draltcrs as mcrc vcrbiagc or surplusagc,
but wcrc intcndcd to clarily thc mcaning ol thc rst part ol thc scntcncc, thcn
thc additional words can at lcast as wcll bc rcad as words ol qualication. Tus
it can bc postulatcd as a purc mattcr ol tcxtual intcrprctation scparatcd lrom
intcntion that il a thrcat or usc ol lorcc wcrc aimcd not at tcrritorial intcgrity
or political indcpcndcncc (as would bc thc casc ol nakcd aggrcssion, invasion,
anncxation or occupation), but wcrc instcad intcndcd to right a manilcst illcgal
Stahn, .6, citing . Schachtcr, International La. in Teory and Practice (..) .a6,
and thc authoritics collcctcd by S. Chcstcrman, Just !ar or Just Peace? Humanitarian
Inter.ention and International La. (xlord Univcrsity Prcss, xlord, acc.) aa6aa.
Scc also Franck, .,...
Tis is thc lcar ol 8. Simma, NAT, thc UN and thc usc ol lorcc: lcgal aspccts, .c
EJIL .aa (.). Scc also thc rcvicw cssay by N. Krisch, Lcgality, morality and thc
dilcmma ol humanitarian intcrvcntion altcr Kosovo, . EJIL a (acca).
Franck, .a.
11 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
ity or injusticc, whcrc pcacclul mcthods had lailcd, it would not bc prohibitcd
by thc Chartcr. Tis morc clastic rcading ol articlc a() is lavourcd by a numbcr
ol scholars, albcit a minority, as allowing lor uscs ol lorcc othcrwisc than in scll
dclcncc, including lorciblc intcrvcntion in ordcr to prcvcnt gravc and widcsprcad
abuscs ol human rights, such as gcnocidc.
6
Tc scholars who support this posi
tion includc Julius Stonc,

crck 8owctt,
8
and Anthony Amato.

A justi
cation lor thc intcrvcntion by NAT in Kosovo in ., bascd on articlc a(),
was also advanccd by 8clgium in thc casc brought by Yugoslavia against NAT
mcmbcrs bclorc thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc.
o

V Te Attack on Iraq, aoo
Taking thc orthodox vicw, thc attack by thc US and its allics against Alghanistan
in acc. was lawlul, and thc attack against !raq in acc was unlawlul. Tc attack
on Alghanistan was a lawlul mcasurc ol sclldclcncc bccausc, lollowing thc
cvcnts ol .. Scptcmbcr acc., which wcrc quickly attributcd to AlQacda and not
dcnicd by that organisation, thc Taliban govcrnmcnt ol Alghanistan was callcd
on to hand thc groups lcadcrs ovcr to thc US. Tc Taliban rcluscd. Tcy not only
rcluscd, but madc statcmcnts supportivc ol sama bin Ladcn, thc lcadcr ol Al
Qacda, thcrcby cndorsing his actions. Tus thc attack by thc US and allicd lorccs
was madc altcr duc warning and an opportunity lor thc Taliban to avoid thc usc
ol lorcc against it.
!t is not ncccssary lor thc Sccurity Council to authorisc actions in scll
dclcncc. Tis is acknowlcdgcd by thc Chartcr to bc an inhcrcnt right ol statcs,
and onc, morcovcr, that may havc to bc cxcrciscd immcdiatcly and with no timc
to rclcr thc situation to thc Sccurity Council. 8ut actions in sclldclcncc must bc
rcportcd to thc Sccurity Council, which may thcn authorisc subscqucnt mcas
urcs, including, il applicablc, a nding that thc purportcd action in sclldclcncc
6 Tcsc vicws arc critically discusscd by Chcstcrman, abovc n.., at ,,.
, J. Stonc, ggression and !orld Order (Stcvcns, London, .) .
. 8owctt, Self-Defence in International La. (Manchcstcr Univcrsity Prcss,
Manchcstcr, .) .a.
A. Amato, International La.: Process and Prospects (Transnational, obbs Fcrry
NY, .,) ,,.
c onc cc ncst pas unc intcrvcntion dirigcc contrc lintcgrit tcrritorialc, lindpcn
dancc pour lcxRpubliquc dc Yougoslavic, ccst unc intcrvcntion pour sauvcr unc
population cn pril, cn dtrcssc prolondc. Ccst la raison pour laqucllc lc Royaumc
dc 8clgiquc cstimc quc ccst unc intcrvcntion humanitairc armc qui cst compatiblc
avcc larticlc a, paragraphc , dc la Chartc qui nc visc quc lcs intcrvcntions dirigcs
contrc lintcgrit tcrritorialc ct lindpcndancc politiquc dc ltat cn causc. Case
Concerning the Legality of the Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. 8clgium), \crbatim rccord,
.c May ., oral plcading ol Mr. Ruscn rgcc, counscl lor 8clgium, acccsscd at
http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/idockct/iybc/iybclramc.htm.
12 I.an Shearer
was not justicd in thc circumstanccs. !n thc casc ol Alghanistan, thc Sccurity
Council, through its subscqucnt rcsolutions, has in ccct validatcd thc US and
allicd actions.
!t is othcrwisc in rclation to !raq. Tc buildup to thc invasion ol March
acc was markcd by cxtrcmc rccalcitrancc on thc part ol Saddam Husscin in
his rclusal to coopcratc with thc wcapons inspcctions mandatcd by thc Sccurity
Council. !t is somctimcs lorgottcn in thc toldyouso condcmnations ol thc
invasion lollowing thc lailurc to nd thc suspcctcd wcapons ol mass dcstruc
tion (VMs), that !raq, lor a long pcriod bctwccn .. and carly acc, bchavcd
as though it had somcthing to hidc. !t was playing a vcry dangcrous gamc. Tat
alonc might not havc bccn sucicnt to warrant a conclusion that an armcd attack
by !raq on thc US and its allics was about to occur, warranting immcdiatc action
in sclldclcncc, although it was indccd ocrcd by Prcsidcnt 8ush in broad jus
tication.
Vhat is disappointing to an intcrnational lawycr is that thc Unitcd Statcs,
unlikc its allics thc Unitcd Kingdom and Australia, did not nd it ncccssary to
dcclarc thc lcgal grounds lor its actions in tcrms ol thc UN Chartcr. !t ocrcd
only thc political justication that thc rcgimc ol Saddam Husscin and his posscs
sion ol VMs constitutcd a thrcat to itscll and to thc rcst ol thc world.
Tc Unitcd Statcs Administrations attitudc towards intcrnational law in this
instancc was cxprcsscd by John 8olton, thcn UndcrSccrctary lor Arms Control
and !ntcrnational Sccurity at thc Statc cpartmcnt, and now US Ambassador
to thc UN. !n a spccch to thc National Lawycrs Convcntion, sponsorcd by thc
Fcdcralist Socicty, on . Novcmbcr acc, hc ccctivcly dismisscd intcrnational
law as a ncccssary clcmcnt in thc justication ol lorcign policy. Hc sccs thc basis
ol statc powcr as lying in thc conscnt ol thc pcoplc govcrncd, cxprcsscd through
national not intcrnational law:
!ndccd, thcrcs a lundamcntal problcm ol dcmocratic thcory lor thosc who
contcnd, implicitly or othcrwisc, that thc propcr opcration ol Amcricas insti
tutions ol rcprcscntativc govcrnmcnt arc not ablc to conlcr lcgitimacy lor thc
usc ol lorcc. Makc no mistakc: not asscrting that our constitutional procc
durcs thcmsclvcs conlcr lcgitimacy will rcsult ovcr timc in thc atrophying ol
our ability to act indcpcndcntly.Tis has bccn lundamcntally misundcrstood
in thc UN systcm. Many in thc UN Sccrctariat and many UN mcmbcr gov
crnmcnts in rcccnt Sccurity Council dcbatcs havc argucd dircctly to thc con
trary. !ncrcasingly, thcy placc thc authority ol intcrnational law, which docs
not dcrivc dircctly lrom thc conscnt ol thc govcrncd, abovc thc authority ol
national law and constitutions.
!t is dicult lor intcrnational lawycrs to cngagc with opinions ol this kind. !t has
to do with dccpscatcd rcscrvations in US govcrnmcnt circlcs, transccnding party
13 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
loyaltics, rcgarding thc rclcvancc ol intcrnational law.
+
8clatcdly, and in a law
journal, not an ocial govcrnmcnt pronounccmcnt, thc Lcgal Adviscr to thc US
Statc cpartmcnt gavc a lcgal opinion
:
csscntially bascd on thc tcxt ol Sccurity
Council Rcsolution .. which had thrcatcncd !raq with scrious conscqucnccs
il wcapons inspcctions continucd to bc lrustratcd. Ncarly all intcrnational law
ycrs havc lound this basis lor action scriously dccicnt, not lcast bccausc thc
Sccurity Council rcmaincd scizcd ol thc mattcr and intcndcd that a lurthcr rcso
lution was rcquircd bclorc cnlorccmcnt action was takcn. Tis was madc clcar
lrom statcmcnts madc in thc Council at thc timc.
Tc Unitcd Kingdom govcrnmcnt sought thc opinion ol its Attorncy
Gcncral as to thc lcgality ol thc attack prior to it.

!t will bc rcmcmbcrcd that

thc UK had urgcd thc US bclorc thc invasion to attcmpt to gain spccic Sccurity
Council cndorscmcnt. Vhcn, howcvcr, it had bccomc clcar that China, Francc
and Russia would vcto any such rcsolution, and thc mattcr was as a conscqucncc
not put to thc votc, a lcgal opinion bccamc ol crucial importancc. Tc Unitcd
Statcs did not appcar to rcquirc a lcgal opinion, at lcast lor public consump
tion. !n a similar opinion to that ol thc UK AttorncyGcncral, thc Australian
Govcrnmcnt was adviscd (Campbcll QC and Moraitis)

that a basis lor thc

invasion lay in thc prccxisting Sccurity Council Rcsolution .., which thrcat
cncd !raq with scrious conscqucnccs il it lailcd to allow UN wcapons inspcctors
to complctc thcir work without hindrancc.
Tc prcscnt writcr has argucd clscwhcrc

that thcsc arc not convincing lcgal

opinions. As will appcar, hc prclcrs to locatc lcgal authority lor thc usc ol lorcc in
circumstanccs othcr than sclldclcncc, such as law cnlorccmcnt (as in thc casc ol
!raq) or humanitarian intcrvcntion (as in Kosovo), in articlc a() ol thc Chartcr,
which imposcs, in his vicw, only a qualicd prohibition ol thc usc ol lorcc. To this
. For a balanccd rcvicw ol thcsc attitudcs scc J.F. Murphy, Te United States and the
Fule of La. in International airs (Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, Cambridgc, acc).
For a morc polcmical rcvicw scc P. Sands, La.less !orld: merica and the Making and
Breaking of Global Fules (Allcn Lanc, London, acc). Scc also M. 8ycrs and G. Noltc
(cds), United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International La. (Cambridgc
Univcrsity Prcss, Cambridgc, acc).
a V.H. Talt !\ and T.F. 8uchwald, Prcmption, !raq and !ntcrnational Law, ,
JIL ,6 (acc).
Lcgal 8asis lor thc Usc ol Forcc against !raq: Statcmcnt lrom .c owning Strcct,
March acc, bascd on thc pinion ol Lord Goldsmith, AttorncyGcncral ol thc
Unitcd Kingdom. http://www.labour.org.uk/lcgalbasis. Tc lull pinion, originally
classicd Sccrct and dcclassicd only on a April acc, is to bc lound at http://www.
comw.org/warrcport/lulltcxt/ccgoldsmith.html (acccsscd , cccmbcr acc).
Joint pinion, .a March acc, a ustralian Yearbook of International La. (acc) .
..
!n Fcar ol !ntcrnational Law, .a Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies ,
(acc).
14 I.an Shearer
will bc addcd that in cxcrcising such a limitcd discrction to act, thosc using lorcc
must bc guidcd by modcrn just war principlcs.
6
VI Pre-Imptive Self-efence
Much has bccn madc ol thc allcgcd promotion by thc US govcrnmcnt ol a novcl
doctrinc ol prccmptivc attack. !t is ncccssary to cxaminc cxactly what has
bccn said in rclcvant documcnts. Vhat thc US has announccd which might bc
rcgardcd as ncw doctrinc is that it may takc prccmptivc action against terror-
ists. !t is not cxprcsscd as an cxtcnsion ol thc right ol sclldclcncc against states.
!n Te National Security Strategy of the United States of merica (acca), publishcd
by thc Vhitc Housc altcr thc /.. attacks, it is statcd thus:
Vc will disrupt and dcstroy tcrrorist organizations by dclcnding thc US,
thc Amcrican pcoplc, and our intcrcsts at homc and abroad by idcntilying
and dcstroying thc thrcat bclorc it rcachcs our bordcrs. Vhilc thc US will
constantly strivc to cnlist thc support ol thc intcrnational community, wc will
not hcsitatc to act alonc, il ncccssary, to cxcrcisc our right ol sclldclcnsc by
acting prccmptivcly against such tcrrorists, to prcvcnt thcm lrom doing harm
against our pcoplc and our country .Tc US will not usc lorcc in all cascs to
prccmpt cmcrging thrcats, nor should nations usc prccmption as a prctcxt lor
aggrcssion . Vc will always procccd dclibcratcly, wcighing thc conscqucnccs
ol our actions .
Tis statcmcnt was claricd in January acc by thc Lcgal Adviscr to thc Statc
cpartmcnt:
Tc US, or any othcr nation, should not usc lorcc to prccmpt cvcry cmcrging
thrcat or as a prctcxt lor aggrcssion. Vc arc lully awarc ol thc dclicacy ol this
situation wc havc gottcn into. Altcr thc cxhaustion ol pcacclul rcmcdics, and
altcr carclul considcration ol thc conscqucnccs, in lacc ol ovcrwhclming cvi
dcncc ol an immincnt thrcat, though, a nation may takc prccmptivc action to
dclcnd its nationals lrom catastrophic harm.

6 C. ncmark and C. Michaclscn considcr thc invasion ol !raq against thcsc princi
plcs: Just war doctrinc and thc invasion ol !raq, . ustralian Journal of Politics and
History 6 (acc). Vhilc willing to givc thc US and its coalition thc bcnct ol
doubt on right intcntion, and conccding thc critcria ol rcasonablc prospcct ol suc
ccss and proportionatc causc might just arguably bc satiscd, thcy concludc that it
was clcarly unjust against thc critcrion ol last rcsort.
, Spccch to thc Forcign Policy Association, Prccmptivc Forcc: Vhcn Can it bc
Uscd:, acccsscd at www.lpa.org.
15 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
Notc thc prudcntial charactcr ol thc words ovcrwhclming, immincnt and
catastrophic. Although not statcd to bc in accordancc with intcrnational law,
thc proposition is consistcnt with a conscrvativc rcading ol thc right ol scll
dclcncc in an cra ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction, whcthcr wc arc spcaking ol
actions against tcrrorists as such, or against hostilc statcs.
!n thc casc ol actions against tcrrorists opcrating lrom bascs (as thcy must)
within sovcrcign statcs, in thc rst placc onc should rcly on thc adhcrcncc ol thosc
statcs to thc intcrnational convcntions prohibiting various lorms ol tcrrorism,
8

including thc obligation to cxtraditc or prosccutc ocndcrs against intcrnational
criminal law, and thc rulc ol customary law that lorbids a statc lrom allowing its
tcrritory to bc uscd in ordcr to launch attacks on othcr statcs. Vhcrc that rcli
ancc provcs inccctivc, thcrc is highly pcrsuasivc lorcc in thc proposition that
victim statcs may rcsort to a spccics ol sclldclcncc dcscribcd by Yoram instcin
as cxtratcrritorial law cnlorccmcnt.

(instcin locatcs this notion within scll

dclcncc, and thus articlc . ol thc Chartcr. Tc prcscnt writcr prclcrs to nd it
in articlc a() ol thc Chartcr, lor thc rcasons statcd abovc.) instcin considcrs
that whcrc a tcrrorist, has committcd criminal acts in onc statc and is lound in
anothcr, thc authoritics ol thc lattcr statc arc to bc callcd on by thc victim statc
to surrcndcr, or itscll prosccutc, thc tcrrorist in accordancc with intcrnational law.
!l that statc is unwilling, or through wcakncss is unablc, to takc thcsc mcasurcs
ol law cnlorccmcnt, thcn thc victim statc may itscll undcrtakc thc task ol captur
ing thc tcrrorist, or dcstroying thc tcrrorist basc, as thc casc may bc. Clcarly, thc
doctrinc cannot bc applicd unlcss thc statc lrom which thc tcrrorist attack has
bccn launchcd or dircctcd has bccn givcn sucicnt opportunity to cnlorcc thc
law itscll. And it must bc cxcrciscd only with thc utmost carc lor obscrvancc ol
thc rulcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law, cspccially lor thc protcction ol inno
ccnt civilian livcs and propcrty.
Much was madc, at thc timc, ol this doctrinc ol prccmption as a novclty.
Tc prcscnt writcr docs not rcgard it as such. !t has bccn cxprcsscd in highly
prudcntial tcrms. Australia, morcovcr, was linkcd to this doctrinc through somc
rcmarks attributcd to Australias Primc Ministcr, John Howard, that Australia
could bc rcgardcd as thc cputy Shcri in thc rcgion ol South ast Asia
and thc Pacic. Tis causcd unncccssary alarm in countrics likc !ndoncsia and
Malaysia. Tc badgc ol cputy Shcri has bccn disavowcd by thc Australian
Govcrnmcnt. And it is inconccivablc that Australia would launch prccmptivc
strikcs against tcrrorists, or any othcr thrcats, in thc rcgion without warning. Any
cspitc thc lack ol progrcss madc in thc UN on a comprchcnsivc dcnition ol tcr
rorism, thcrc is a sucicnt rangc ol instrumcnts availablc to makc criminal, and
mandatc intcrnational coopcration, most acts ol tcrrorism. Vhat is holding up a
comprchcnsivc dcnition ol tcrrorism is thc insistcncc ol a numbcr ol Arab statcs
on cxcluding lrom thc dcnition acts dircctcd against lorcign occupation.
instcin, aa,.
16 I.an Shearer
cnlorccmcnt action would ncccssarily bc carricd out in lull coopcration with thc
govcrnmcnts conccrncd.
Tc prudcntial charactcr ol thc doctrinc ol prccmption, and its lack ol
novclty, arc cmphasizcd by a lormcr Lcgal Adviscr to thc US Statc cpartmcnt,
Abraham . Solacr. !n tcrms rcminisccnt ol thc just war thcory, applicd to thc
spccic qucstion ol thc prccmptivc usc ol lorcc, Solacr proposcs lour critcria lor
dctcrmining thc ncccssity ol such a usc ol lorcc: (.) thc naturc and magnitudc
ol thc thrcat involvcd, (a) thc likclihood that thc thrcat will bc rcalizcd unlcss
prccmptivc action is takcn, () thc availability and cxhaustion ol altcrnativcs to
using lorcc, and () whcthcr using prccmptivc lorcc is consistcnt with thc tcrms
and purposcs ol thc UN Chartcr and othcr applicablc intcrnational agrccmcnts.
o

Although applying thc rst thrcc ol thcsc critcria to an intcrprctation ol articlc
. ol thc UN Chartcr, Solacr also rclcrs to thc margin ol apprcciation inhcrcnt
in articlc a() in his cxposition ol thc lourth critcrion. !n thc particular casc ol
!raq, thc cntirc history ol intcrnational corts to disarm !raq ol wcapons ol mass
dcstruction and ccasc its cgrcgious violations ol human rights must bc takcn into
account.
VII Humanitarian Intervention
A grcat disappointmcnt at thc UN Summit hcld in Scptcmbcr acc was thc lail
urc to adopt a sct ol principlcs bascd on thc notion ol thc rcsponsibility to protcct.
Tc origins ol this idca camc out ol thc nccd to protcct thc Kurds in thc north
ol !raq altcr thc First Gull Var in .., thc cxpcricncc ol gcnocidc in Rwanda,
a lailcd statc in Somalia, and cthnic clcansing in Kosovo. All ol thcsc, and many
othcr cxamplcs, arc cascs whcrc intcrnational law has bccn struggling to rcimag
inc thc Chartcr in lacc ol thc rcality that most humanitarian disastcrs, and gravc
abuscs ol human rights, occur within thc bordcrs ol sovcrcign statcs, tradition
ally protcctcd by thc doctrinc ol statc sovcrcignty against intcrvcntion by othcr
statcs. Tis doctrinc is rccctcd in articlc a(,) ol thc UN Chartcr. Although that
doctrinc bccamc subjcct to thc intcrprctation that what is inhcrcntly a mattcr
ol domcstic jurisdiction dcpcnds on thc dcvclopmcnt ol human rights law as
thc actions by thc UN against aparthcid in South Alrica showcd thcrc was no
agrccmcnt on whcn lorciblc intcrvcntion to stop gravc harm should bc rcgardcd
as lawlul. Tc US and its NAT allics intcrvcncd in Kosovo in . to stop
cthnic clcansing by Scrbia. No authorisation was givcn by thc Sccurity Council
bccausc ol a thrcatcncd vcto by Russia (which would probably havc bccn sup
portcd by China also). Vhat was thc lcgal justication:
At thc timc thc UK ocrcd a lcgal justication in tcrms ol prccxisting UN
rcsolutions which, it statcd, gavc thc ncccssary, il only implicd, authority (rathcr
as in thc latcr casc ol !raq). Primc Ministcr Tony 8lair was morc lorthright. Hc
c n thc ncccssity ol prccmption, . EJIL ac, aacaa (acc).
17 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
statcd that wc intcrvcncd in Kosovo bccausc it was right to do so. Tat is, mor
ally right. Tc US ocrcd no spccic lcgal justication.
Humanitarian intcrvcntion was not a ground ol justication lor thc intcr
vcntion in !raq, although it has bccn procrcd on scvcral occasions by Prcsidcnt
8ush as a sccondary ground or dcsirablc byproduct. Noonc dclcnds thc rcgimc
ol Saddam Husscin or lails to acknowlcdgc thc horric abuscs ol human rights
inictcd by his rcgimc on thc pcoplc ol !raq. Vhcthcr thc invasion could havc
bccn justicd on that ground alonc involvcs wcighing up a numbcr ol lactors,
including thc prudcntial considcrations outlincd abovc. Almost ccrtainly thc
intcrvcntion would not havc mct thosc tcsts. 8ut lor thc luturc it is cnough to say
that humanitarian intcrvcntion as an cxccption to thc prohibition ol thc usc ol
lorcc undcr thc Chartcr has incvitably dcmandcd rcncwcd considcration, lollow
ing cvcnts in Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Sicrra Lconc, thc cmocratic Rcpublic
ol thc Congo, and ast Timor, among othcrs.
Many lcgal commcntators criticiscd thc intcrvcntion in Kosovo, though in
tcrms lcss stridcnt than latcr in rclation to !raq. !n his study Just !ar or Just Peace?
Humanitarian Inter.ention and International La.,
+
Simon Chcstcrman argucs
that lorciblc intcrvcntion, no mattcr how humanitarian thc motivcs, is illcgal in
thc abscncc ol authorisation by thc Sccurity Council. Hc is ablc to citc many
authoritics in support ol his vicw. 8ut what il thc Sccurity Council considcrs
thc situation, as it did in rclation to Kosovo, but onc or morc ol thc Pcrmancnt
Mcmbcrs casts, or thrcatcns to cast, a vcto: r what il thc Council acts too littlc
and too latc, as it did in rclation to Rwanda: Must thc rcst ol thc intcrnational
community stand by and do nothing: Chcstcrman admits thc moral problcm, and
answcrs it by saying that in cxccptional circumstanccs such intcrvcntion would bc
illcgal but cxcusablc. Tis point ol vicw has alrcady bccn discusscd abovc.
:
Tis gap was sought to bc llcd by thc Rcport ol thc !ntcrnational
Commission on !ntcrvcntion and Statc Sovcrcignty, cochaircd by lormcr
Australian lorcign ministcr Garcth vans and Ambassador Mohamcd Sahnoun
ol Algcria. Tat Rcport, sponsorcd and publishcd by thc Canadian Govcrnmcnt
in acc., makcs a powcrlul casc lor humanitarian intcrvcntion, but as a rcsponsi
bility, not a right. Tc Rcport strcsscs thc nccd to basc humanitarian cnlorccmcnt
actions on Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr, and calls upon thc Sccurity Council to
cxcrcisc its powcrs and dutics rcsponsibly and on an objcctivc vicw ol thc lacts
ol cach casc. Ncvcrthclcss, thc Rcport docs cnvisagc, cvcn whilc dcploring thc
prospcct ol, actions by statcs or coalitions ol statcs intcrvcning whcrc thc Sccurity
Council lails to act owing to a vcto cast lor unmcritorious rcasons.

. xlord Univcrsity Prcss, xlord, acc..

a For a considcration ol thc subjcct mcasurcd against just war thcory scc C.A.J. Coady,
Te Ethics of rmed Humanitarian Inter.ention, Pcaccworks No. (Unitcd Statcs
!nstitutc ol Pcacc, Vashington .C., acca).
Rcport, abovc, n., paras. 6.a6.c.
18 I.an Shearer
Vhcthcr dircctcd only at thc Sccurity Councils rcsponsibility to protcct,
or applicd also to a libcral vicw ol thc scopc ol articlc a() ol thc Chartcr, thc
!ntcrnational Commissions spccication ol thc prccautionary conditions lor
taking action to intcrvcnc givcs valuablc guidancc. Tcsc arc principally: right
intcntion, last rcsort, proportional mcans, and rcasonablc prospccts ol succcss.
VIII Te Responsibility to Protect and the ]ust War Teory
Tc Rcport ol thc !ntcrnational Commission on !ntcrvcntion and Statc
Sovcrcignty idcntics six critcria lor military intcrvcntion lor human protcction
purposcs.

Tcsc arc:
right authority,
just causc,
right intcntion,
last rcsort,
proportional mcans,
rcasonablc prospccts.
To thc rst ol thcsc critcria thc Rcport dcvotcs an cntirc chaptcr,

sincc it is ncc
cssary to discuss at lcngth thc rolc ol thc Sccurity Council as thc suprcmc body
to authorizc thc usc ol lorcc (othcrwisc than in immcdiatc sclldclcncc). !n that
chaptcr, thc rcsponsibility ol thc Sccurity Council to act in a principlcd manncr,
objcctivcly wcighing thc cvidcncc, is strcsscd, as mcntioncd abovc.
Just causc is sct lorth as a thrcshold critcrion. !n thc Commissions vicw,
military intcrvcntion lor human protcction purposcs is justicd in two broad scts
ol circumstanccs, namcly in ordcr to halt or avcrt largc scalc loss ol lilc which
is thc product cithcr ol dclibcratc statc action, or statc ncglcct or inability to act,
or a lailcd statc situation, or largc scalc cthnic clcansing, actual or apprchcndcd,
whcthcr carricd out by killing, lorccd cxpulsion, acts ol tcrror or rapc.
6
Right intcntion is discusscd as bcing satiscd whcrc thc primary purposc ol
thc intcrvcntion is to halt or avcrt human sucring. vcrthrow ol rcgimcs is not,
as such, a lcgitimatc objcctivc, although disabling that rcgimcs capacity to harm
its own pcoplc may bc csscntial to discharging thc mandatc ol protcction .
Tc Rcport sccs grcatcr cvidcncc ol right intcntion whcrc thc intcrvcntion takcs
placc on a collcctivc or multilatcral basis. Tc intcrvcntion must also bc supportcd
by thc pcoplc lor whosc bcnct thc intcrvcntion is intcndcd.

Rcport, para ..6.

Rcport, paras. 6..6.c.
6 Rcport, para. ...
, Rcport, paras. ...
19 1 Fe.i.al of the Just !ar Teory?
Last rcsort mcans that cvcry diplomatic and nonmilitary avcnuc lor thc
prcvcntion or pcacclul rcsolution ol thc humanitarian crisis must havc bccn
cxplorcd.
8
Proportional mcans is dcncd in tcrms ol thc scalc, duration, and intcnsity
ol thc intcrvcntion as bcing thc minimum ncccssary to sccurc thc humanitarian
objcctivc. !ntcrnational humanitarian law will apply to thc opcration, but sincc
such opcrations arc morc narrowly locuscd and targctcd than all out warght
ing, an argumcnt can bc madc that cvcn highcr standards should apply in thcsc
cascs.

Rcasonablc prospccts rclcrs to rcasonablc prospccts ol succcss. Tcrc is no

point in cngaging in a humanitarian intcrvcntion opcration il thc likclihood is
that thc situation will bccomc worsc, or might provokc a widcr conict.
6o
Tc Rcport is rclrcshingly candid and practical in its analysis and rccom
mcndations. For cxamplc, in rclation to thc last critcrion rcasonablc prospccts
thc Rcport dcals dircctly with thc problcm ol thc practical impossibility ol
intcrvcntions against powcrlul statcs, or statcs with powcrlul lricnds. !s thcrc a
dangcr ol doublc standards: Tc answcr is ycs, but thc rcality that intcrvcntions
may not bc ablc to bc mountcd in cvcry casc whcrc thcrc is justication lor doing
so, is no rcason lor thcm not to bc mountcd in any casc.
6+
Tcrc is also thc prob
lcm ol nding coalitions ol thc willing rcady to undcrtakc such intcrvcntions at
a timc ol compassion latiguc and ovcrstrctch ol capabilitics.
Although nowhcrc in thc Rcport is thcrc rclcrcncc to just war thcory or
similar doctrincs ol thc past, thcrc is no doubt that thc conccpts, and thc tcrmi
nology uscd, arc strikingly similar. !t is a documcnt that dcscrvcs grcatcr attcn
tion than it has rcccivcd. !t is not irrclcvant in that conncction to notc that thc
Rcport was publishcd only thrcc months altcr thc tcrrorist attacks on thc Unitcd
Statcs ol Scptcmbcr .., acc., and was ovcrshadowcd by thosc cvcnts.
IX Conclusion
Although thc morc clastic intcrprctation ol articlc a() ol thc UN Chartcr
cndorscd by thc prcscnt writcr has bccn criticiscd as unsupportcd by acadcmic
opinion and past statc practisc, thc qucstion now is whcthcr such an intcrprcta
tion should bc admittcd in ordcr to givc to individual statcs (prclcrably acting in
coalition with othcr statcs) thc ncccssary lcgal basis undcr thc Chartcr to do what
is morally right, whcrc thc Sccurity Council has lailcd in its duty to asscss a situ
ation objcctivcly and dispassionatcly. !t is a gcncral lcgal principlc that a docu
mcnt, bc it a contract, a statutc, or a trcaty (as hcrc thc UN Chartcr), is opcn to
Rcport, para. .,.
Rcport, paras. ..c.
6c Rcport, paras. ...a.
6. Rcport, para. .a.
20 I.an Shearer
purposivc intcrprctation in ordcr to rcspond to ncw circumstanccs or nccds, so
long as that intcrprctation can lairly bc rcgardcd as within thc mcaning ol thc
words ol thc documcnt. Tc lact that a morc rcstrictivc intcrprctation may havc
bccn givcn in thc past is not an insupcrablc obstaclc. Morcovcr, thc UN Chartcr
should bc vicwcd similarly to a constitution. To adhcrc to rigid intcrprctations or
to bc unwilling to allow growth and dcvclopmcnt in undcrstanding is to rcndcr
thc instrumcnt brittlc and may lcad to rupturc, dcancc and disillusion. !n thc
prcscnt writcrs vicw a widcr intcrprctation must bc givcn to articlc a() in ordcr
to makc thc Chartcr rclcvant to thc prcscnt and lorcsccablc luturc nccds ol thc
intcrnational community.
!n adopting that vicw it is ncccssary to apply to it thc prccautionary condi
tions sct out in thc Rcport ol thc !ntcrnational Commission on !ntcrvcntion and
Statc Sovcrcignty as giving valid guidancc as to thc occasions on which lorciblc
intcrvcntions arc justicd, not only in rclation to thc Sccurity Councils rcspon
sibility to protcct, but also to thosc statcs willing to act lor thc common good
whcrc thc Sccurity Council is prcvcntcd lrom acting. Tcsc conditions arc prin
cipally: right intcntion, last rcsort, proportional mcans, and rcasonablc prospccts
ol succcss. !ntcrvcntion should not bc cmbarkcd upon lor scllsccking rcasons, or
whcrc thc rcmcdy would likcly bc worsc than thc discasc. Tc just war approach,
or proposal, inhcrcnt in thcsc conditions, has rcgaincd a worthy placc in intcr
national rclations.
Chapter 2
Rcthinking Collcctivc Sccurity
Tomas Franck
I Why Rethink Collective Security?
nc ol thc many scminal insights Prolcssor Yoram instcin has brought to thc
cld ol intcrnational law is his linking ol thc law pcrtaining to war with thc law
ol human rights. !n csscncc, thc cntcrprisc cstablishcd in thc opcning linc ol thc
Unitcd Nations Chartcr to savc succccding gcncrations lrom thc scourgc ol
war has its looting not only in thc jus ad bellum, but also in thc thcn barcly nas
ccnt law ol human rights.
!n Vorld Var !, tcn million pcoplc dicd. !n Vorld Var !!, with advanccs
in both lanaticism and tcchnology, sixty million dicd.
+
Sincc thcn, human rights
havc dcvclopcd cxponcntially and, in thc growing corpus ol human rights, thc
right to lilc surcly takcs pridc ol placc. !t lollows that, sincc thc grcatcst thrcat to
lilc, cvcrywhcrc, comcs lrom war whcthcr lrom civil wars, wars bctwccn statcs
or thc rcligiouscultural wars wagcd by tcrrorists thc law limiting rccoursc to
military lorcc has bccomc thc corncrstonc ol thc law ol human rights and .ice-
.ersa. !n an agc ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction, thc thrcat ol war can now bc
sccn in tcrms ol latal casualtics potcntially mcasurablc in thc hundrcds ol mil
lions. Tc prospcct ol such massivc dcprivation ol thc right to lilc lorccs all ol us
to cxaminc thc jus ad bellum in human rights tcrms.
!n an cort to lulll its ccntral mission, thc UN Chartcr cstablishcs as thc
organizations rst Purposc (Art. .(.)) To maintain intcrnational pcacc and sccu
rity, and to that cnd: to takc ccctivc collcctivc mcasurcs.... Tc dcsign ol this
ncw systcm lor thc prcvcntion ol war is ncw and also clcar: nations wcrc to
rcnouncc thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc (Art. a()) cxccpt whcn actually attackcd
(Art. .). !n rcturn, thc mcmbcrs ol thc UN, upon a dctcrmination ol thc cxis
tcncc ol a thrcat to thc pcacc, brcach ol thc pcacc, or act ol aggrcssion, shall takc
thc collcctivc mcasurcs ncccssary to maintain or rcstorc intcrnational pcacc and
. Paul Hcinbcckcr, Tc Vay Forward, in Irrele.ant or Indispensable? Te United
Nations in the :z
st
Century, Hcinbcckcr and Go cds., . (C!G! Publications,
Vatcrloo, acc).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. :z-:,.
22 Tomas Franck
sccurity (Art. ). Tcsc mcasurcs may includc action by air, sca, or land lorccs
il lcss draconian mcasurcs lail to maintain or rcstorc pcacc (Art. a).
Tis, thcn, was thc dcsign ol a rcgimc lor collcctivc mcasurcs that would
makc unilatcral statc rccoursc to lorcc unncccssary. Right lrom its inccption,
howcvcr, thc dcsign cvinccd scrious aws. Tcsc havc bccn cxaggcratcd by crit
ics, and thc succcsscs havc bccn cxccssivcly discountcd. !n thc words ol Canadas
longtimc Ambassador to thc UN:
Tc UN gavc birth to a body ol intcrnational law that stigmatizcd aggrcs
sion and crcatcd a strong norm against it. Although thc Cold Var saw intcr
national law brcachcd by both sidcs, thc norm against aggrcssion was much
morc rcspcctcd than not, as was thc lcgal lorcc ol thc Chartcr. Tcrc wcrc
lcwcr intcrstatc wars in thc sccond hall ol thc twcnticth ccntury than in thc
rst hall, dcspitc a ncarly lourlold incrcasc in thc numbcr ol statcs. Vhilc thc
Cold Var dcstroycd thc postwar conscnsus, hobbling thc sccurity vocation ol
thc UN lor many ycars, and thc prcvcntion ol Vorld Var !!! owcd at lcast as
much to nuclcar dctcrrcncc and collcctivc dclcncc through NAT, thcrc is no
doubt that thc world would havc bccn a much bloodicr placc in thc last lty
ycars without thc world body.
:
Ncvcrthclcss, thc aws can no longcr bc ignorcd. Collcctivc sccurity undcr UN
auspiccs is a wcak rccd upon which to rcly in rcturn lor statcs rcnunciation ol thc
right to usc lorcc unilatcrally to protcct thcir sccurity and advancc thcir national
intcrcst.
II Weaknesses of UN Collective Security
Tc rst aw to appcar in thc Chartcrs dcsign was thc lailurc ol mcmbcr statcs
to givc ccct to Articlc , by which thcy had undcrtakcn to makc availablc to
thc Sccurity Council, on its call and in accordancc with a spccial agrccmcnt or
agrccmcnts, armcd lorccs... ncccssary lor thc purposc ol maintaining intcrna
tional pcacc and sccurity.
Tat thc mcmbcrs lailcd in thcir obligation to givc thc Sccurity Council
standby military lorccs was partly obscurcd by thc Cold Var, which, anyway,
would havc madc it virtually impossiblc to dcploy any such lorccs by rcason ol thc
lrcqucnt rccoursc to thc vcto by thc Sovict Union. Howcvcr, such rccurrcnt usc
ol thc vcto, thcn and now, by onc or morc ol thc vc pcrmancnt mcmbcrs ol thc
Council cntitlcd in this way to halt any proposcd collcctivc action (Art. a,(), has
constitutcd a sccond aw in thc Chartcrs dcsign which, undcrstandably, makcs
nations vcry cautious about abjuring rccoursc to lorcc to protcct thcir sccurity
and national intcrcst.
a !d. p. ..
23 2 Fethinking Collecti.e Security
Tcsc considcrablc aws in thc original dcsign havc bccn somcwhat miti
gatcd but not curcd by various ingcnious improvisations. Pcacckccping opcrations
wcrc invcntcd to kccp partics to a conict lrom rcsuming it altcr cstablishmcnt
ol a ccascrc.

Tcsc contingcnts havc scrvcd, with varying dcgrccs ol succcss,

on thc !sracliSyrian, Lcbancsc, !ndoPakistani and gyptian bordcrs, in thc
Congo, Cyprus, Namibia, Cambodia, Mozambiquc, Haiti, Libcria, Sicrra Lconc,
thc !vory Coast, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, and in thc Formcr Yugoslavia. Vhilc
thc lorccs thus dcploycd wcrc, in cach instancc, madc up ol troops voluntccrcd
ad hoc by mcmbcr statcs, thcy opcratcd undcr Unitcd Nations mandatcs and, in
somc instanccs, undcr UN command. Ncvcrthclcss, thcy wcrc lorccs which took
considcrablc pcriods ol timc to put togcthcr and thcy opcratcd mostly with thc
conscnt ol thc statcs in which thcy wcrc dcploycd. nly in thc instancc ol thc
invasions ol South Korca

and Kuwait

has thc Council actually uscd its powcrs

to authorizc collcctivc military action to rcscuc a statc lrom invasion. vcn in
thosc two instanccs, thc lorcc had to bc constitutcd ad hoc lrom contingcnts vol
untccrcd by mcmbcr statcs.
Vhilc thc lailurc ol thc Chartcr systcm to cstablish a standing lorcc rcady
to act at short noticc has undoubtcdly wcakcncd statcs willingncss to cntrust
thcir sccurity to thc collcctivc proccsscs ol thc UN, a morc scrious lactor in this
rcluctancc is thc looming omniprcscncc ol thc vcto. vcry govcrnmcnt is awarc
that thc UNs capacity to comc to its dclcnsc is limitcd not only by actual vcto ol
collcctivc mcasurcs but by thc mcrc thrcat that such a vcto would bc uscd to prc
vcnt action cvcn whcn a coalition ol thc willing is availablc to undcrtakc it. Tis
has lcd such willing statcs usually ncighboring statcs in thc rcgion to undcr
takc action without sccking prior Sccurity Council authorization as rcquircd by
Scc, lor cxamplc: UNTS cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. c ol a May ., UNF cstab
lishcd by G.A. Rcs. .ccc and .cc. ol and , Nov. .6, UNF!CYP cstablishcd by
S.C. Rcs. .6 ol March .6, UNTAG cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. ol a Scpt.
.,, UNTAC cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. , ol a Fcb. .., NUMZ cstablishcd
by S.C. ,, ol .6 cc. .a, UNM!H cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. 6, ol a cc. .,
UNSM!H, cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. .c6 ol a Junc .6, UNTM!H cstablishcd by
S.C. Rcs. ..a ol c July .,, M!PNUH cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. ... ol a Nov.
.,, M!NUSTAH cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. .a ol c April acc, UNM!L cstab
lishcd by S.C. Rcs. 66 ol aa Scpt. ., UNMS!L cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. ... ol .
July ., M!NUC! cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. ., ol . May acc, UNC! cstab
lishcd by S.C., Rcs. .a ol a, Fcb. acc, UNM!K cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. .a ol
.c Junc ., UNSM ! cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. ,. ol a April .a, UN!TAF
authorizcd by S.C. Rcs. , ol cc. .a, UNSM !! authorizcd by S.C. Rcs.
. ol a6 March ., UMMUR cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. 6 ol aa Junc .,
UNAM!R cstablishcd by S.C. Rcs. ,a ol ct. ., UNPRFR cstablishcd by
S.C. Rcs. , ol a. Fcb. .a.
S.C. Rcs. a ol a Junc .c.
S.C. Rcs. 6, ol a Nov. .c.
24 Tomas Franck
Articlc ol thc Chartcr. Action by CMG statcs in Libcria and Sicrra
Lconc, as wcll as NAT action with rcspcct to Kosovo, illustratc thc problcm.
III Overcoming the Weakness of Collective Security
!t is apparcnt that thc dcsign conccpt ol collcctivc sccurity cmbodicd in thc U.N.
Chartcr is most dccply awcd by thc actuality and thrcat ol thc vcto. Unlcss this
problcm is addrcsscd, thc aw will causc thc principal purposc ol thc systcm to
lail. Collcctivc sccurity is impossiblc without addrcssing thc problcm ol thc vcto.
Unlcss thc systcm can providc a sustainablc laith in collcctivc sccurity, statcs
cannot bc cxpcctcd to surrcndcr thcir right to usc lorcc at thcir own discrction.
Vhilc this is most rcadily dcmonstrablc in thc contcxt ol thrcats cmanating lrom
wcapons ol mass dcstruction, it is by no mcans limitcd to that cxtrcmc contin
gcncy.
!t is not dicult to illustratc thc problcm hypothctically. Tus, lct us sup
posc that thc Sccurity Council is convcncd in rcsponsc to a complaint by statc A
that statc 8 is training dissidcnt clcmcnts to cngagc in tcrrorist attacks against As
tcrritory and civilians. !n rcsponsc, thc Sccurity Council invokcs its powcr to takc
collcctivc mcasurcs. !t dcmands that statc 8 stop thcsc subvcrsivc crossbordcr
activitics. !t also appoints a commission to invcstigatc and rcport on 8s compli
ancc, thrcatcning additional cnlorccmcnt mcasurcs il such compliancc is not
lorthcoming. Altcr a pcriod during which thc Councils inspcctors scck to carry
out thcir mandatc whilc cncountcring obduratc obstruction, thcy rcport back to
thc Council that thcrc has bccn no compliancc and that thcrc is littlc prospcct
ol any changc in this rcspcct. At this point, ncgotiations bcgin among Council
mcmbcrs to dralt a rcsolution that would initiatc thc usc ol lorcc against 8. !t
soon bccomcs apparcnt, howcvcr, that, whilc thcrc is virtual unanimity among
Council mcmbcrs, onc pcrmancnt mcmbcr has dccidcd to block any rccoursc to
collcctivc lorcc.
Tis sccnario illustratcs thc aw in thc dcsign. Vhilc it prohibits statc A
lrom using lorcc bccausc thcrc has bccn no armcd attack on it by statc 8, thc
Chartcr systcm cannot providc thc altcrnativc ol collcctivc sccurity bccausc ol
thc vcto.
Tis sccnario suggcsts thrcc possiblc altcrnativc rcmcdics lor such institu
tional stasis. nc is to rcdcnc armcd attack within thc mcaning ol Articlc .,
so as to includc thc sort ol thrcat poscd by tcrrorists in Statc 8. Tus, thc thrcat
poscd by tcrrorists in statc 8 could bc attributcd to that statc, thcrcby pcrmitting
action by A and its allics against 8 undcr thc acgis ol sclldclcncc as pcrmit
tcd by Articlc . cvcn without prior Council authorization. Tc Sccurity Council
movcd in thc dircction ol cncouraging this intcrprctativc movc whcn, altcr thc
attacks on Ncw York on Scptcmbcr .., acc., it rccognizcd thc inhcrcnt right
ol individual and collcctivc sclldclcncc ol thc victim and strcsscd that thosc
rcsponsiblc lor aiding, supporting or harbouring thc pcrpctrators, organizcrs and
25 2 Fethinking Collecti.e Security
sponsors ol thcsc acts will bc hcld accountablc... .
6
8y rccognizing harbour
ing as crcating a lorm ol constructivc agcncy, thc UN has acknowlcdgcd that,
lor purposcs ol a statcs sclldclcsc, thc armcd attacks ol thc harborcd tcrrorists
bccomc thosc ol thc statc lrom which thcy arc allowcd to opcratc.
Anothcr important rcccnt rcdcnition ol Articlc .s right ol sclldclcnsc
has comc lrom thc High Lcvcl Pancl appointcd by thc Sccrctary Gcncral, which
has statcd that prcvalcnt practicc undcr thc Chartcr now pcrmits a thrcatcncd
Statc to takc military action as long as thc thrcatcncd attack is imminent, no
othcr mcans would dccct it and thc action is proportionatc.

8oth ol thcsc
cxpansivc rcintcrprctations ol Articlc .s right ol sclldclcnsc a right cxcrcis
ablc unilatcrally by thc thrcatcncd statc and its allics constitutc a laudablc cort
to kccp thc Chartcr lrom bccoming obsolctc by making it rcsponsivc to statcs
nccd to rctain thcir lrccdom ol action whcn, as has happcncd too lrcqucntly, col
lcctivc mcasurcs havc not bccn takcn, or havc bccn takcn too latc, to dctcr a crcdi
blc thrcat to thcir sccurity or to thc sccurity ol a largc part ol thcir populations.
8
A sccond altcrnativc lor ovcrcoming institutional stasis is to rccognizc thc
right ol rcgional organizations and coalitions ol thc willing to takc collcctivc
mcasurcs lor thc protcction ol an immincntly thrcatcncd statc, cvcn without thc
rcquisitc prior authorization ol thc Sccurity Council

il its approval by thc major

ity is blockcd by thc thrcatcncd or actual vcto ol onc pcrmancnt mcmbcr. !n such
situations, ccctivcly rctroactivc Council approval has bccn sccurcd subscqucntly,
on a showing ol ovcrwhclming ncccssity. Such rctrospcctivc validation may bc
rcad into thc Councils actions visavis thc CMG actions in Sicrra Lconc
+o

and Libcria
++
as wcll as thc NAT action in Kosovo.
+:
Tat a rcgional organiza
tion should act in extremis, il ncccssary cvcn without prior Council authorization,
is also rccognizcd by thc ncw Constitutivc Act ol thc Alrican Union.
+

A third altcrnativc, as yct littlc canvasscd, is lor thc pcrmancnt mcmbcrs ol
thc Sccurity Council to attcmpt to placc somc voluntary rcstraints on thc thrcat
6 S.C. Rcs. .6 ol .a Scpt.acc..
, More Secure !orld: Our Shared Fesponsibility, Rcport ol thc Sccrctary Gcncrals
High lcvcl Pancl on Trcats, Challcngcs and Changc, para. . (acc).
Tc problcm docs not arisc only in situations ol a thrcat ol cxtcrnal armcd attack,
but also in situations likc that in Rwanda during thc gcnocidal massacrc ol cc,ccc
Tutsis.
Such approval is rcquircd by a strict rcading ol Chartcr Art. .
.c Prcsidcntial Statcmcnt, SC/6., a6 Fcb. .. Tis commcnds CVAS rolc.
.. S.C. Rcs. , ol . Nov. .a. Tis commcnds CVAS lor its unauthorizcd
actions.
.a Tc possiblc rctroactivc validation in this instancc camc in thc lorm ol thc ovcr
whclming dclcat ol thc proposcd Russian rcsolution ccnsuring NAT. SCR
(L!\),
th
Mccting, a6 March . at 6. nly Russia, China and Namibia votcd
in lavor ol thc ccnsurc.
. Constitutivc Act ol thc Alrican Union, .. July accc, art. (h).
26 Tomas Franck
or usc ol thc vcto. Admittcdly, this will not bc casy to accomplish. Ccrtainly it
cannot bc cxpcctcd to happcn through Chartcr amcndmcnt, sincc this cannot
bc accomplishcd without thc conscnt ol thc pcrmancnt mcmbcrs. !n any cvcnt,
it would bc countcrproductivc to propcl thc Council into collcctivc military
mcasurcs ovcr thc obduratc opposition ol its most powcrlul mcmbcrs. Tc objcc
tivc should bc to modulatc, not to ovcrridc, such opposition in thc most urgcnt
instanccs in which thc Council is callcd upon to dclcnd thc sccurity ol a mcmbcr
statc.
Tc modality lor accomplishing this objcctivc might bc a sidcbar agrcc
mcnt among thc pcrmancnt mcmbcrs. For cxamplc, all pcrmancnt mcmbcrs or,
initially, as many as wcrc willing might agrcc among thcmsclvcs not to invokc
thc vcto, or thrcat ol a vcto, to bar rccoursc to collcctivc military mcasurcs in a sit
uation such as that illustratcd by thc prcccding hypothctical, that is, whcn a statc
has dcmonstrably lailcd to rcspond to a mandatory ordcr ol thc Sccurity Council,
madc undcr Articlc , and that lailurc has bccn ccrticd by thosc authorizcd to
rcport to thc Council on compliancc.
Such an agrccmcnt would not dcprivc pcrmancnt mcmbcrs ol thcir right to
prcvcnt action by thc Sccurity Council. Rathcr, it would rcquirc thcm to signal
thcir rcal intcntion bclorc, not altcr, thc Council has dctcrmincd that a thrcat
to thc pcacc has ariscn and that thosc rcsponsiblc must takc rcmcdial action.
At worst, this would discouragc thc hypocrisy ol pcrmancnt mcmbcrs agrcc
ing to ordcr compliancc with rcmcdial mcasurc but thcn blocking all attcmpts
to cnlorcc thcm. At bcst, it would discouragc noncompliancc by thc statc lrom
which thc thrcat cmanatcs, a dcancc now too oltcn lacilitatcd by thc mallcasors
condcnt rcliancc on thc vcto ol a patron ablc to block any gcnuinc cort to
cnlorcc thc Councils ordcrs.
Tcrc is a prcccdcnt lor such a sidcbar agrccmcnt altcring thc way pcr
mancnt mcmbcrs cxcrcisc thcir Chartcr powcrs. Tc San Francisco Four Powcr
Agrccmcnt, latcr adhcrcd to by Francc, cstablishcd a practicc that camc to bc
known as thc doublc vcto.
+
!t is a rcciprocal agrccmcnt among somc mcmbcrs,
binding only inter se, obliging thcm not to cxcrcisc an cxplicit powcr undcr ccr
tain dcncd circumstanccs. Tc samc proccdural dcvicc could bc uscd to sct out
agrccd circumstanccs in which thc vcto would not bc uscd to block cnlorccmcnt
against a scoaw statc in circumstanccs prcviously dcsignatcd by thc Council
as a thrcat to thc pcacc. !t is dicult to scc how a pcrmancnt mcmbcr could
justily an insistcncc upon an absolutc right to block any implcmcntation ol thc
Chartcrs promisc ol collcctivc sccurity, no mattcr how urgcnt thc circumstanccs,
how pcrsuasivc thc cvidcncc, and how willing all othcr statcs might bc to takc thc
action promiscd by thc Chartcr to rcmcdy thc situation.
. Tc FivcPowcrs San Francisco cclaration on thc vcto powcr. San Francisco, , Junc
.. UNC! oc. a, !!!/./a,(.), vol. !! UNC!, pp. ,....
27 2 Fethinking Collecti.e Security
IV Is Reform Possible?
Howcvcr long thc road to Chartcr rclorm, it is incvitablc that thc Sccurity
Council will cvcntually bc cnlargcd. Tis will makc thc situation hcrcin dcscribcd
cithcr much bcttcr or much worsc, dcpcnding, rst, upon whcthcr thcrc will bc
ncw pcrmancnt mcmbcrs and, sccond, upon whcthcr thcsc will bc accordcd thc
powcr ol thc vcto. Tat suggcsts that thc timc may now bc ripc to ncgotiatc thc
sort ol sidcbar agrccmcnt hcrc cnvisagcd as an induccmcnt to ncw mcmbcrs
cithcr to lorgo thc vcto altogcthcr or to acccpt it only in accordancc with thc
sidcbar agrccmcnts limitations. Ncw pcrmancnt mcmbcrs might bc induccd not
to insist on vcto rights in thc contcxt ol progrcss bcing madc towards rcducing
abuscs ol thc vcto by thc vc original pcrmancnt mcmbcrs.
Tc systcm conccivcd at San Francisco in . has had a good run undcr
cxtrcmcly dicult circumstanccs. !t is not rcalistic to cxpcct it to survivc anothcr
sixty ycars without lurthcr adaption. At its hcart is a bargain bctwccn sovcrcign
statcs and thc community thcy cstablishcd, a bargain that calls lor ccctivc col
lcctivc mcasurcs. Tat compact limits statcs discrction to protcct thcir national
intcrcst in rcturn lor an undcrtaking by thc community to protcct cach statcs
national sccurity. vidcntly, thc bargain is no longcr pcrccivcd by statcs and not
only thc most powcrlul oncs bcst ablc to look altcr thcir own intcrcst as provid
ing, rcliably, thc promiscd bcnct.
Failurc would not bc thc lault ol thc bargain, itscll, which is a sound onc
and an incvitablc part ol any rcgimc intcndcd to protcct succccding gcncrations
lrom thc scourgc ol war. Rathcr, lailurc would bc thc conscqucncc ol an irrcspon
siblc unwillingncss to adapt to cvidcnt ncw rcalitics. !l thcrc arc to bc succccding
gcncrations, and il thcir most lundamcntal human right to lilc is to bc protcctcd,
such lailurc cannot bc contcmplatcd.
Chapter 3
Topographics ol Forcc
Dino Kritsiotis
I Introduction
!t is a spccial plcasurc to havc bccn invitcd to participatc in this volumc that
honors Yoram instcin lor thc scminal contributions hc has madc to intcrna
tional law in thc clds ol thc jus ad bellum, thc jus in bello and human rights and
whosc scholarship is known to us lrom (amongst othcr works) !ar, ggression
and Self-Defence, rst publishcd in . and now in its lourth cdition,
+
and Te
Conduct of Hostilities under the La. of International rmed Conict, publishcd in
acc.
:
8oth ol thcsc works havc bccomc lcading authoritics in thcir rcspcctivc
clds and scrvc as tting tcstamcnts to Prolcssor instcins acadcmic cralt, his
intcllcctual skill and, ol coursc, his passionatc commitmcnt to thcsc aspccts ol
thc intcrnational law canon. !n truth, ncithcr ol thcsc volumcs cvcr sccm ablc
to rcmain long cnough on thc shcll cithcr bccausc thcy arc in activc scrvicc
instructing or clarilying on particular points ol law or bccausc thcy will oncc
again inspirc and inlorm thc classroom dclibcrations lor thc day.
Vhilc it is thc task ol cach ol thcsc volumcs to comb through thc vast tcr
rain ol history and dctail that constitutc thc modcrn corpuscs ol thc jus ad bellum
(!ar, ggression and Self-Defence) and thc jus in bello (Te Conduct of Hostilities
under the La. of International rmed Conict), it is rarcly thc casc that lull con
sidcration is givcn to how thcsc corpuscs actually rclatc to onc anothcr, or how
conccpts .ithin cach ol thcsc corpuscs intcract with cach othcr.

!n a prcvious
agc, wc would havc rclicd on thc conccpt ol war as thc unilying lramc ol rclcr
. Yoram instcin, V~v, Accvvssiox ~xb Svivvvvxcv (th cd., acc). Tc sccond
cdition ol this work appcarcd in ., thc third in acc. but all rclcrcnccs which
lollow shall bc to thc lourth cdition.
a Yoram instcin, Tnv Coxbuc: ov Hos:iii:ivs uxbvv :nv L~w ov !x:vvx~:iox~i
Av:vb Coxviic: (acc).
See Rosalyn Higgins, Legal Limits to the Use of Force by So.ereign States United Nations
Practice, , 8vi:isn Yvnx. !x:i L~w a6 (.6.).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. :,-,,.
30 Dino Kritsiotis
cncc lor both thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in bello, cvidcnccd by such rclrains as
rccoursc to war, or mcasurcs short ol war or thc laws (and customs) ol war.
For intcrnational law, thc conccpt ol war that is, an ocial statc ol war or
war as a lcgal condition bccamc thc ccntral prism through which wc vicwcd
and govcrncd thc physical might or violcncc ol statcs.

Yct, as is wcll known,

this common conccptual dcnominator was lound to bc ailing and lailing to thc
point whcrc, in thc immcdiatc wakc ol thc Sccond Vorld Var, a ncw normativc
dispcnsation was issucd lor thc jus ad bellum (thc conccpt ol lorcc) by thc .
Unitcd Nations Chartcr and lor thc jus in bello (thc conccpt ol armcd conict) by
thc . Gcncva Convcntions.
Taking thc conccpt ol lorcc as thc lramc ol rclcrcncc ol this cssay, wc shall
thcrclorc bcgin a provisional cnquiry into thc congurations which cxist bctwccn
thc conccpts that comprisc this dispcnsation that is to say, in Part !!, wc shall
rccct upon thc rclationship bctwccn thc conccpts ol lorcc and war, or, as Philip
Allott has pointcdly writtcn, its hypocritical pcriphrasis ol armcd conict.

ur
intcntion will bc to cxaminc thc cxtcnt to which thcsc conccpts (or conccptual
vocabularics) sharc common substantivc ground csscntially to givc somc scnsc
ol thc possiblc dclincations bctwccn thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in bello. Vc
shall thcn procccd, in Part !!!, to cxplorc thc conccptual vocabularics ol thc jus
ad bellum, whcthcr thcy havc lormcd part ol its traditional corpus (such as thc
conccpt ol aggrcssion)
6
or much likc thc conccpt ol lorcc itscll arc morc
rcccnt invcntions or innovations (such as thc conccpt ol armcd attack). How arc
thcsc conccpts mcant to rclatc to onc anothcr: Vhat arc thcir intcndcd lunc
tions within thc jus ad bellum: o thcy rcprcscnt dicrcnt lcgal coda lor idcntical
phcnomcna or arc thcy intcndcd to dcpict dierent phcnomcna within intcrna
tional law:
Troughout our navigation ol thc ncr contours ol this dispcnsation, wc will
locus on what might bc callcd thc topographies of force, or thc broadcr normativc
landscapc that constitutcs lorcc within intcrnational law. To this cnd, Part !\ ol
thc cssay cngagcs thc conccpt ol intcrvcntion a conccpt ol much longcr stand
n this dcsignation, scc, spccically, Nccati Polat, International La., the Inherent
Instability of the International System and International !iolence, . x. J. Lvc~i
S:ubivs ., (.) (rclcrring to institutionalizcd violcncc within thc intcrna
tional systcm: see H. 8ull, Te States Positi.e Fole in !orld airs, .c ~vb~ius ...,
.. (.,)).
Philip Allott, uxo:i~: Nvw vbvv vov A Nvw Vovib (rcv. cd., acc.), a66
(...6).
6 Art. 6 (a) ol thc Nurcmbcrg Chartcr idcnticd crimcs against thc pcacc as onc ol
thc crimcs within thc jurisdiction ol thc !ntcrnational Military Tribunal, which it
dcncd as planning, prcparation, initiation or waging ol a war ol aggrcssion, or a
war in violation ol intcrnational trcatics, agrccmcnts or assuranccs, or participation
in a common plan or conspiracy lor thc accomplishmcnt ol any ol thc lorcgoing. See,
also, infra notc .c.
31 l Topographies of Force
ing within thc disciplinc but onc that has bccn so lrcqucntly ncglcctcd in ordcr
to dctcrminc points ol coordination and comparison within thc law conccrn
ing lorcc. 8y rcgular rccoursc to a burgconing jurisprudcncc principally ol thc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc in thc Nicaragua Case (.6),

thc Case Concerning

Oil Platforms (acc)
8
and thc Case Concerning rmed cti.ities in the Territory of
the Congo (acc)

but also to statc and institutional practicc and thc insights

ol intcrnational law litcraturc, our purposc will bc to gain a grcatcr scnsc ol how
intcrnational law vicws lorcc in its lormidablc totality. ur conccrn will bc to
undcrstand how thcsc topographics might bcgin to takc shapc, and, in thc nal
analysis, to apprcciatc what mcasurc ol juxtaposition and cohcrcncc thcy bring
in thcir wakc.
II Te Concept of War (or: War as a Iegal Condition)
For all ol thc insights shcd on lorcc, armcd attack, aggrcssion and intcrvcntion
in thc jurisprudcncc ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, thc conccpt ol war
carrics somcthing ol a striking and, lct it bc said, pcrsistcnt abscncc in thc Courts
conccptualizations, rcasoning and conclusions. To bc surc, thcrc arc occasional
rhctorical invocations ol thc conccpt ol war that wc can obscrvc in thc Courts
jurisprudcncc,
+o
but thc conccpt is nowhcrc awardcd thc samc systcmatic or con
scqucntial trcatmcnt that wc nd rcscrvcd lor lorcc, aggrcssion, armcd attack
or intcrvcntion.
++
, Military and Paramilitary cti.ities in and gainst Nicaragua: Nicaragua v. Unitcd
Statcs ol Amcrica (.6) !.C.J. Rcp. ..
Case Concerning Oil Platforms: !slamic Rcpublic ol !ran v. Unitcd Statcs ol Amcrica
(acc) !.C.J. Rcp. .6..
Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo: cmocratic Rcpublic
ol thc Congo v. Uganda ( Judgmcnt ol cc. ., acc). Givcn thc rcccnt issuc ol this
judgmcnt, it has not as yct appcarcd in thc !.C.J. Rcports, so that all subscqucnt rcl
crcnccs arc to thc vcrsion containcd on thc wcbsitc ol thc Court (www.icjcij.org/
icjwww/idockct/ico/icolramc.htm).
.c And, cvcn thcn, it was oltcn in thc contcxt ol thc citations ol othcrs, such as Fathcr
Migucl dscoto 8rockmann, thc Nicaraguan Forcign Ministcr in thc Nicaragua Case
(.6), supra notc ,, at , (.) (matcrials ol war) or thc position ol thc Govcrnmcnt
ol l Salvador at ,, (.) (waging war) and anicl rtcga Saavcdra, Prcsidcnt ol
thc Junta ol Nicaragua at , (.) (divcrt cnormous human and cconomic rcsourccs
into war). See, also, thc Case Concerning rmed cti.ities in the Territory of the Congo
(acc) (whcrc civil war had brokcn out in thc RC on Aug. a, .), supra notc , at
(.a) and at 6 (a.a).
.. Tough wc arc ol coursc awarc ol thc dicring dcgrccs ol analytical commitmcnt by
thc Court to thcsc conccpts as discusscd in Parts !!! and !\ ol this cssay.
32 Dino Kritsiotis
Tis approach ol thc Court stands to rcason, lor it lollows thc lcad that
statcs havc thcmsclvcs takcn in thcir argumcntation bclorc thc Court.
+:
!n plcad
ings bclorc thc Court, wc nd that thc lcgal stratcgics adoptcd by statcs havc
tcndcd to rcscmblc onc anothcr in a sort ol mirroring ccct, whcrc conccntra
tions havc turncd away lrom thc obscssion ol dcning war or placing it at thc
ccntcrpiccc ol lcgal argumcntation. Tis practicc scrvcs as an important contrast
to thc prcoccupations ol an carlicr pcriod in thc history ol intcrnational law.
+

8y way ol cxamplc, whcn Nicaragua instigatcd procccdings against thc Unitcd
Statcs in April . in thc Nicaragua Case (.6), it did so without rccoursc to
thc conccpt ol war in either its tcchnical or its matcrial scnsc.
+
Nicaragua instcad
callcd upon thc Court to dctcrminc (inter alia) that thc Unitcd Statcs in brcach
ol its obligation undcr gcncral and customary intcrnational law, has uscd and is
using lorcc and thc thrcat ol lorcc against Nicaragua and that thc Unitcd Statcs,
in brcach ol its obligation undcr gcncral and customary intcrnational law, has
intcrvcncd and is intcrvcning in thc intcrnal aairs ol Nicaragua.
+
To similar
ccct, in its Application to thc Court instituting procccdings against Uganda in
Junc ., thc cmocratic Rcpublic ol Congo allcgcd that Uganda had commit
tcd acts ol armcd aggrcssion,
+6
and, in its mcmorial to thc Court, argucd that,
amongst othcr inlractions, Uganda had violatcd thc principlc ol nonusc ol lorcc
in intcrnational rclations, including thc prohibition ol aggrcssion and thc princi
plc ol nonintcrlcrcncc in mattcrs within thc domcstic jurisdiction ol Statcs.
+
.a Although in thc Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary bet.een Cameroon
and Nigeria (acca) !.C.J. Rcp., thc Court avoidcd any pronounccmcnt on thc law
on thc usc ol lorcc, although it was callcd on by Camcroon to dcclarc that Nigcria
was rcsponsiblc lor violation ol Articlc a () ol thc UN Chartcr and ol thc prin
ciplc ol nonintcrvcntion, and although Nigcria argucd that it was acting in scll
dclcnsc: see Christinc Gray, Te Use and buse of the International Court of Justice:
Cases Concerning the Use of Force fter Nicaragua, . uvovv~x J. !x:i L~w 6,, a
(acc).
. See, lor cxamplc, A.. McNair, Te Legal Meaning of !ar, .. Tv~xs. G. Soc. a (.a6)
and J.L. 8ricrly, International La. and Fesort to rmed Force, C~:nvibcv L~w J.
c (.a).
. As lormulatcd by instcin, supra notc ., at .c.
. Nicaragua Case (.6), supra notc ,, at .ac (.). Nicaragua had also argucd, ibid.,
that thc Unitcd Statcs, in brcach ol its obligation undcr gcncral and customary
intcrnational law, has violatcd and is violating thc sovcrcignty ol Nicaragua and that
at thc hcad ol its itincrary ol accusations against thc Unitcd Statcs thc Unitcd
Statcs has violatcd and is violating its cxprcss Chartcr and trcaty obligations to
Nicaragua, among which was mcntioncd Articlc a () ol thc Chartcr (or thc prohi
bition ol lorcc).
.6 Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo, supra notc , at .c
(.).
., Ibid., at .6 (a).
33 l Topographies of Force
Vith this cmphasis on lorcc and intcrvcntion, it is clcar that wc arc wit
ncssing thc ccctivc diminution ol thc lcgal signicancc ol war in thc provcnancc
and argumcntation ol thc jus ad bellum
+8
a phcnomcnon that is not conncd
to thc litigation stratcgics or jurisprudcntial structurc ol thc cascs mcntioncd.
+

!ndccd, in thc partial award madc by thc ritrcathiopia Claims Commission
in cccmbcr acc, no lcgal prcmium was attachcd to thc occurrcncc or cxistcncc
ol a war in any lcgal scnsc, cvcn though both ol thc contcsting statcs utilizcd
thc tcrminology ol jus ad bellum to dcscribc thc law govcrning thc initial rcsort to
lorcc bctwccn thcm.
:o
Mcntion was madc in thc Commissions asscssmcnts ol an
allcgcd dcclaration ol war by thc thiopian Council ol Ministcrs and Parliamcnt
on May ., .,
:+
but this was only in thc contcxt ol thc dclcnsivc asscrtions ol
. See, lurthcr, Christophcr Grccnwood, Te Concept of !ar in Modern International
La., 6 !x:i a Co:v. L.Q. a, c.c (.,) (though noting, in qualication (at
ca), that |s|incc a dcclaration ol war implics a thrcat ol lorcc, it will gcncrally bc a
violation ol thc prohibition in Art. a () |ol thc Chartcr| cvcn unaccompanicd by any
actual violcncc |and that| |t|hc only possiblc cxccption would bc il thc dcclaration ol
war could bc rcgardcd as a lcgitimatc mcasurc ol sclldclcnsc).
. n this scorc, onc should think cspccially ol thc Legality of Use of Force Cases (Scrbia
and Montcncgro v. 8clgium, Canada, Francc, Gcrmany, !taly, thc Ncthcrlands,
Portugal and thc Unitcd Kingdom). Vhilc thc Court concludcd that it had no juris
diction to cntcrtain thcsc cascs so that nonc ol thcsc procccdings progrcsscd to
adjudication upon thcir mcrits it is cqually instructivc that thc allcgations lcvclcd
against thcsc countrics (and against Spain and thc Unitcd Statcs ol Amcrica) by thc
Govcrnmcnt ol Scrbia and Montcncgro conccrncd (inter alia) thc violation ol thc
intcrnational obligation banning thc usc ol lorcc against anothcr Statc, thc obliga
tion not to intcrvcnc in thc intcrnal aairs ol anothcr Statc |and| thc obligation not
to violatc thc sovcrcignty ol anothcr Statc. Again, wc scc no promincncc awardcd to
thc conccpt ol war in this argumcntation, nor did it makc a signicant showing in
thc analyscs ol thosc who rccctcd at lcngth on thc lawlulncss ol pcration Allicd
Forcc: see !an 8rownlic and C.J. Appcrlcy, Koso.o Crisis Inquiry: Memorandum on
the International La. spects, !x:i a Co:v. L.Q. , (accc) and Koso.o Crisis
Inquiry: Further Memordandum on the International La. spects, !x:i a Co:v.
L.Q. c (accc), Christinc Chinkin, Te Legality of NTOs ction in the Former
Fepublic of Yugosla.ia (FFY) under International La., !x:i a Co:v. L.Q. .c
(accc), Christophcr Grccnwood, International La. and the NTO Inter.ention in
Koso.o, !x:i a Co:v. L.Q. a6 (accc) and \aughan Lowc, International Legal
Issues rising in the Koso.o Crisis, !x:i a Co:v. L.Q. (accc). See, lurthcr,
8runo Simma, NTO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal spects, .c uvovv~x J.
!x:i L~w . (.).
ac As announccd by thc Commission itscll at thc outsct ol its award: see ritrca
thiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Jus d Bellum, thiopias Claims .
bctwccn thc Fcdcral Rcpublic ol thiopia and thc Statc ol ritrca (cc. ., acc),
. (.) (www.pcacpa.org/NGL!SH/RPC/CC/F!NALacTacJA8.pdl ) (or,
as thc Commission put it at ibid., |t|hc Rcspondcnt |i.c. ritrca| asscrts that it lully
complicd with intcrnational law in its rcsort to military opcrations (a)).
a. Ibid., at 6 (.,). instcin rcports that bclorc thc .c, Haguc Convcntion (!!!)
Rclativc to thc pcning ol Hostilitics, most wars wcrc prccipitatcd without a prc
34 Dino Kritsiotis
ritrca
::
and thc Commission hcld that thc csscncc ol a dcclaration ol war is
an cxplicit armation ol thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol war bctwccn bclligcrcnts.
:

!ts trcatmcnt ol thc issuc, howcvcr, had no impact on thc Commissions ultimatc
nding that ritrca violatcd Articlc a, paragraph , ol thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd
Nations by rcsorting to armcd lorcc on May .a, . and thc immcdiatcly lollow
ing days to attack and occupy thc town ol 8admc as wcll as othcr tcrritory in
|thiopias| Tahtay Adiabo and Laclay Adiabo Vcrcdas.
:
Tcsc marginalizations ol thc conccpt ol war within thc argumcntativc
practiccs ol thc jus ad bellum bccomc lcss problcmatic whcn wc considcr that thc
opcration ol thc prohibition ol lorcc, as wcll as that ol intcrvcntion, wcrc ncvcr
madc contingcnt upon thc cxistcncc ol any lcgal statc ol war.
:
!n lact, thc dis
ccrnablc turn in statc and institutional practicc might bc rcgardcd as thc ncc
cssary and incvitablc acknowlcdgcmcnt ol thc conccptual shilt which occurrcd
in ctobcr . with rcspcct to thc jus ad bellum and thc cntry into lorcc ol thc
Unitcd Nations Chartcr. As thc scminal tcxtual sourcc ol thc postwar paradigm
ol intcrnational ordcr,
:6
thc Chartcrs rclcrcnccs to war wcrc kcpt limitcd and
wcrc madc lor stylistic rathcr than substantivc purposcs.
:
Tcy dclcr, instcad,
ludc in thc lorm ol a dcclaration ol war but that, lollowing thc conclusion ol thc
Convcntion, |t|hc practicc ol Statcs has not changcd substantially: see instcin,
supra notc ., at a. Although thc Commission lound that thc rcsolution ol May .,
., was not, as ritrca has asscrtcd, a dcclaration ol war (ibid., at 6 (.,)), dcclara
tions ol war do occur in practicc: see Panamas dcclaration ol a statc ol war with thc
Unitcd Statcs on cc. ., . (cc ol thc Prcss Sccrctary ol thc Vhitc Housc,
Statcmcnt by Prcsidcnt Gcorgc H.V. 8ush (cc. ac, .)) and Chads dcclaration
ol a statc ol war with thc Sudan in cccmbcr acc (Stcphanic Hancock, Chad in
State of !ar .ith Sudan, 88C nlinc: cc. a, acc (www.ncws.bbc.co.uk/a/hi/
alrica/6,6.stm)). See, lurthcr, Conor Gcarty, Ho. !e Declare !ar, a Loxbox
Rvv. 8xs. a (acca).
aa Ibid., at ().
a Ibid., at 6 (.,).
a Ibid., at ,.
a See, lurthcr, thc ., Unitcd Nations Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution . (XX!X) on
thc cnition ol Aggrcssion, which, in Art. , idcntics a scrics ol acts which shall
qualily as an act ol aggrcssion rcgardlcss ol a dcclaration ol war: G.A. Rcsn. .,
a U.N. G.A..R., Supp. (No. .) .a, U.N. oc. A/6. (.,).
a6 Tom J. Farcr, Panama: Beyond the Charter Paradigm, A:. J. !x:i L~w c, c
(.).
a, Tc Chartcrs prcamblc lamously announccs thc dctcrmination ol thc Unitcd
Nations to savc succccding gcncrations lrom thc scourgc ol war (an oratorical rcl
crcncc according to thc Rcport ol thc Committcc on Study ol Lcgal Problcms ol thc
Unitcd Nations, 6 Pvocvvbixcs A:. Soc. !x:i L~w a.6, a., (.a)) and Art. .c,
providcs that |n|othing in thc prcscnt Chartcr shall invalidatc or prccludc action, in
rclation to any statc which during thc Sccond Vorld Var has bccn an cncmy ol any
signatory to thc prcscnt Chartcr, takcn or authorizcd as a rcsult ol that war by thc
35 l Topographies of Force
to thc conccpt ol lorcc.
:8
Ncvcrthclcss, wc nd that in Yoram instcins study
ol !ar, ggression and Self-Defence, considcrablc attcntion has bccn paid to thc
conccpt ol war in thc intcllcctual dcsign ol thc work bccausc, instcin argucs,
a gcncral rclcrcncc to intcrnational armcd conicts ignorcs thc important thco
rctical as wcll as practical distinctions cxisting bctwccn wars and othcr uscs ol
intcrStatc lorcc short ol war.
:
Tis rclcrcncc to and dctailcd rcgard lor
intcrnational armcd conicts in a work that is csscntially dcdicatcd to thc prcdi
catcs ol thc jus ad bellum might, howcvcr, strikc thc rcadcr as curious, sincc thc
vocabulary ol intcrnational armcd conict has comc to rcplacc thc vocabulary ol
war not so much lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol thc jus ad bellum but lrom thc pcrspcc
tivc ol thc jus in bello.
o
To bc surc, thc apparcnt conccntrations ol practicc rcgarding thc gcncral
rclcrcncc to intcrnational armcd conicts
+
do makc scnsc at onc lcvcl ol analy
sis givcn that all lour ol thc Gcncva Convcntions ol August . providc (in
Common Articlc a) that thcir provisions shall apply to all cascs ol dcclarcd war
or ol any othcr armcd conict which may arisc bctwccn two or morc ol thc High
Contracting Partics, cvcn il thc statc ol war is not rccognizcd by onc ol thcm.
Tis lormulation was a dclibcratc and cxplicit attcmpt to circumvcnt thc hand
lul ol dcnitional problcms
:
that had accompanicd thc dcnition ol war, and,
with it, thc activation mcchanism that had traditionally cxistcd lor thc laws ol
war. Tc ncw lramcwork ol thc Convcntions was thcrclorc dcsigncd to lacili
tatc thc application ol thc jus in bello by dcpriv|ing| bclligcrcnts, in advancc,
ol thc prctcxts thcy might in thcory put lorward lor cvading thcir obligations,
as thcrc would now bc no nccd lor a lormal dcclaration ol war, or lor thc rcc
ognition ol thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol war, as prcliminarics to thc application
ol thc Convcntion.

Tc Convcntions positcd a thrcshold that was altogcthcr

lcss rcliant on tcchnical rituals and morc objcctivc in tcrms ol its opcrational
prcmisc sincc |t|hc occurrcncc ol dc lacto hostilitics is sucicnt.

Tis dcvclop
Govcrnmcnts having rcsponsibility lor such action. All rcmaining rclcrcnccs arc to
thc Sccond Vorld Var: Art. (a), Art. ,, (.) (b) and Art. .c,.
a See ino Kritsiotis, !hen State Use rmed Force, in Tnv Poii:ics ov !x:vvx~:iox~i
L~w , a6. (acc) (Chris RcusSmit, cd.).
a !ntroduction to thc rst cdition ol V~v, Accvvssiox ~xb Svivvvvxcv. See, also,
supra notc ., at xii.
c And, as such, dcncs thc tcrrain ol Prolcssor instcins companion volumc ol Tnv
Coxbuc: ov Hos:iii:ivs uxbvv :nv L~w ov !x:vvx~:iox~i Av:vb Coxviic:,
supra notc a.
. Supra notc a.
a See instcin, supra notc ., at ..
Co::vx:~vv :o Gvxvv~ Coxvvx:iox !!! Rvi~:ivv :o :nv Tvv~::vx: ov
Pvisoxvvs ov V~v aa (.6c) ( Jcan S. Pictct cd.).
Ibid., at a (which instcin attcmpts to achicvc by his bilurcation bctwccn war in its
tcchnical and matcrial scnscs: |t|hc jus in bello is brought into opcration as soon
36 Dino Kritsiotis
mcnt suggcsts that it is not only incumbcnt upon us to dicrcntiatc (as instcin
argucs) bctwccn war as a gurc ol spccch and as a lcgal tcrm ol art,

but also to
undcrstand thc import ol this tcrm ol art whcn comparcd with a chaptcr ol thc
history ol intcrnational law that is scparatc lrom our own (i.c. thc pcriod bclorc
thc . Gcncva Convcntions).
vcn though it is conccdcd that thc rclcvant norms ol thc jus in bello must
bc implcmcntcd in thc coursc ol intcrnational armcd conicts ol whatcvcr typc,
and not only whcn a statc ol war is in ccct,
6
it is tclling that, in !ar, ggression
and Self-Defence, thc promincnt linc that is takcn lor dclcnding thc lcgal mcan
ing ol war occurs on thc lront ol thc constraints ol warlarc,

it is in thc contcxt ol
thc jus in bello that thc thcorctical as wcll as practical distinctions ol this mcan
ing arc csscntially lorctold.
8
Vc nd, lor cxamplc, that considcrablc cmphasis is
awardcd to thc taxonomics ol armcd conict

(whcthcr in thc lorm ol !sracls

Var ol !ndcpcndcncc (.)
o
or in rclation to thc disintcgration ol thc Socialist
Fcdcral Rcpublic ol Yugoslavia
+
or Alghanistan altcr Scptcmbcr .., acc.),
:
but
thcrc arc othcr rcprcscntations ol thc jus in bello in this quintcsscntial tcxt on thc
jus ad bellum: mcntion is madc ol thc intcrnmcnt ol nationals ol thc cncmy Statc
and thc scqucstration ol thcir propcrty, irrcspcctivc ol thc total abscncc ol hostili
as war in thc matcrial scnsc is cmbarkcd upon, dcspitc thc abscncc ol a tcchnical
statc ol war. See instcin, supra notc ., at .c). Tis is not to suggcst that wc arc any
thc wiscr rcgarding thc dcgrcc ol dc lacto hostilitics rclcvant lor common Articlc
a. n this, scc lurthcr Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo,
supra notc , at ,c,. (a.a.). See, also, instcin, supra notc ., at ..:
!n largc mcasurc, thc classication ol a military action as cithcr war or a closcd
incidcnt (short ol war) dcpcnds on thc way in which thc two antagonists
appraisc thc situation. As long as both partics choosc to considcr what has
transpircd as a mcrc incidcnt, and providcd that thc incidcnt is rapidly closcd,
it is hard to gainsay that vicw. ncc, howcvcr, onc ol thc partics clccts to cngagc
in war, thc othcr sidc is incapablc ol prcvcnting that dcvclopmcnt. Tc country
opting lor war may simply issuc a dcclaration ol war, thcrcby initiating war in
thc tcchnical scnsc. Additionally, thc Statc dcsirous ol war may cscalatc thc usc
ol lorcc, so that war in thc matcrial scnsc will takc shapc.
Ibid., at .
6 Ibid., at .,. See, lurthcr, instcin, supra notc a, at . (|law ol intcrnational armcd
conict| is brought to bcar upon thc conduct ol hostilitics bctwccn sovcrcign Statcs,
cvcn il thcsc hostilitics lall short ol war). See, also, Grccnwood, supra notc ., at
a.
, See instcin, supra notc ., at .
Supra notc a.
See instcin, supra notc ., at 6, (whcrc thc disparitics bctwccn intcrnational and
nonintcrnational armcd conict arc cxplorcd).
c Ibid., at ,.
. Ibid., at ,.
a Ibid., at ,, . and a6a,.
37 l Topographies of Force
tics,

thc mcans ol waging warlarc,

thc suspcnsion ol thc application ol thc jus

in bello

and thc rcalization ol ncutral rclations.

6
Tat said, wc should now givc somc considcration to thc possibilitics which
thc lcgal mcaning ol war might hold out lor thc jus ad bellum in !ar, ggression
and Self-Defence. Vhat signicanccs arc prolcsscd lor thc lcgal mcaning ol war
lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol thc jus ad bellum, notwithstanding thc admission that
|t|hc usc ol lorcc in intcrnational rclations, proscribcd in |Articlc a () ol thc
Chartcr|, includcs war, but also covcrs lorciblc mcasurcs short ol war:

Such
as thcy arc, thcsc signicanccs might bc rcgardcd as morc subtlc rcvclations lrom
thc tcxt ol !ar, ggression and Self-Defence. Tcy arc not as obvious or as cxplicit
as thc thcorctical as wcll as practical distinctions urgcd lor thc waging ol war
larc in thc opcning chaptcrs ol that volumc, but, rathcr, cmcrgc as thc work takcs
shapc and as its ovcrall argumcnt progrcsscs.
8
Vc shall idcntily and cxaminc
two hcrc.
Tc rst can bc asscrtcd in tcrms ol a choicc ol law impcrativc, whcrc thc
dcnitional bcrth awardcd to war in intcrnational law is sucicntly broad that
it will occasionally cclipsc thc importancc ol thc jus ad bellum. According to this
pcrspcctivc, wc arc invitcd to considcr !sracls strikc on thc nuclcar rcactor in !raq
on Junc ,, .. as part ol thc war bctwccn !raq and !sracl which startcd in .,

or as an act which rcprcscntcd anothcr round ol hostilitics in an ongoing con
Ibid., at .
As in thc . Unitcd Nations Convcntion on thc Prohibition ol thc cvclopmcnt,
Production, Stockpiling and Usc ol Chcmical Vcapons and on thcir cstruction,
which covcr|s| all armcd conicts ol whatcvcr scopc (not cvcn ncccssarily intcr
Statc): See ibid., at .,.
Ibid., at ...
6 Ibid., at aa.
, Ibid., at .
Tc lcgal naturc ol war would appcar to bc prcparatory to thc sccond part ol thc
volumc, on |t|hc illcgality ol war although thc third part considcrs |c|xccptions to
thc prohibition ol thc usc ol inter-State force (cmphasis supplicd). See ibid., at vix.
Ibid., at . See, lurthcr, ibid. at 6: A numbcr ol rounds ol hostilitics bctwccn !sracl
and gypt or Syria (most conspicuously, thc socallcd Yom Kippur Var ol ctobcr
.,) arc incorrcctly advcrtcd to as wars. Far lrom qualilying as scparatc wars, thcsc
wcrc mcrcly nonconsccutivc timclramcs ol combat, punctuatcd by cxtcndcd ccasc
rcs, in thc coursc ol a singlc ongoing war that had commcnccd in Junc .6,. Tis
raiscs thc qucstion ol thc cxtcnt to which a statc ol armed conict as opposcd to
a .ar in thc lcgal scnsc might bc tcrminatcd, cspccially givcn thc lact that its
dcnition rcsts on thc occurrcncc ol de facto hostilitics: supra notc . See, lurthcr,
instcin, supra notc ., at , (implicd mutual conscnt) and c (suspcnsion ol
hostilitics).
38 Dino Kritsiotis
ict.
o
!l this pcrspcctivc wcrc adoptcd, thc action would stand to bc adjudicatcd
according to thc jus in bello and not thc jus ad bellum:
+
Had !sracl bccn at pcacc with !raq |in Junc ..|, thc bombing ol thc sitc |at
siraq| would havc bccn prohibitcd, sincc (whcn cxamincd in itscll and out
ol thc contcxt ol an ongoing war) it did not qualily as a lcgitimatc act ol scll
dclcnsc consonant with Articlc . |ol thc Chartcr|. Tis is thc position de lege
lata, dcspitc thc undcrstandablc apprchcnsion cxisting at thc timc that nuclcar
dcviccs, il produccd by !raq, might ultimatcly bc dclivcrcd against !sracli tar
gcts.
:
Tc qucstion ol thc choicc ol law has a lundamcntal bcaring on how wc vicw thc
lawlulncss ol !sracls action bccausc, undcr thc rulcs ol thc jus in bello, a contrary
conclusion would havc to bc rcachcd. Tat is bccausc, undcr thc rclcvant rulcs ol
targcting during a war or armcd conict, thcrc would bc no qucstion conccrning
thc pcrmissibility ol thc action undcr intcrnational law. Articlc a (a) ol thc First
Additional Protocol ol .,, limits attacks strictly to military objcctivcs, which it
dcncs as thosc objccts which by thcir naturc, location, purposc or usc makc an
ccctivc contribution to military action and whosc total or partial dcstruction,
capturc ol ncutralization, in thc circumstanccs ruling at thc timc, ocrs a dcnitc
military advantagc. Against this standard, !sracls action ol Junc .. would bc a
comlortablc t.

Tis has not bccn, howcvcr, !sracls lcgal intcrprctation ol cvcnts. As a

mattcr ol lact, !sracls lcgal asscssmcnt ol thc statc ol war could bc charactcrizcd
as onc ol somc cquivocation,

sincc it rst claimcd that thc war that had comc

c See instcin, supra notc ., at .
. Vhich, according to instcin, rcmains thc only plausiblc justication lor thc bomb
ing ol thc rcactor: ibid. Tc diculty with this justication rcsts morc with thc plau
sibility ol its premise than its tcchnical componcnts or astutcncss. As it happcns, thc
vicw is sharcd by Primc Ministcr Aricl Sharon though notably on thc basis that
hc did not bclicvc in pcacc agrccmcnts and not on thc basis that thcy cxistcd with
ccrtain countrics but not othcrs: Ari Shavit, Te General, Nvw Yovxvv, Jan. a & c,
acc6, a at .
a See instcin, supra notc ., at .6.
See Yoram instcin, Tnv Coxbuc: ov Hos:iii:ivs uxbvv :nv L~w ov
!x:vvx~:iox~i Av:vb Coxviic: ,a (acc) and, lurthcr, Stcphcn J. Solarz,
Israel Had No Other !ay to End Nuclear Treat, V~sn. S:~v, Junc .., ... Although
ncithcr !sracl nor !raq arc partics to thc Protocol, this lormulation has bccn rcgardcd
as a rccction ol custom: Tcodor Mcron, Hu:~x Ricn:s ~xb Hu:~xi:~vi~x
Nov:s ~s Cus:o:~vv L~w 66 (.).
See Grccnwood, supra notc ., at aa (thc govcrnmcnt ol !sracl appcars to havc mod
icd its position).
39 l Topographies of Force
into cxistcncc in . had bccn tcrminatcd by armisticc agrccmcnts in .,

and, thcn, it concludcd pcacc trcatics with gypt (March .,),
6
Lcbanon (May
.)

and Jordan (ctobcr .),

8
thc contcnts ol which would tcnd to sug
gcst othcrwisc.

Ncvcrthclcss, as lar as its rclationship with !raq was conccrncd

and to thc cxtcnt that onc can makc lcgal inlcrcnccs lrom statc actions as onc
docs lrom thc lormulations ol pcacc trcatics, in Junc .. !sracl procccdcd lrom
thc assumption that a statc ol pcacc cxistcd with !raq and that it was lrom this
statc ol pcacc that circumstanccs arosc which ncccssitatcd rccoursc to its right ol
sclldclcnsc undcr intcrnational law. Vc know this bccausc, bclorc thc Sccurity
Council, !sracl argucd that |a| thrcat ol nuclcar oblitcration was bcing dcvclopcd
against !sracl by !raq
6o
and that:
|i|n dcstroying siraq, !sracl pcrlormcd an clcmcntary act ol scllprcscrvation,
both morally and lcgally. !n so doing, !sracl was cxcrcising its inhcrcnt right
Vith gypt (a U.N.T.S. a.), Jordan (a U.N.T.S. c), Lcbanon (a U.N.T.S.a,)
and Syria (a U.N.T.S. a,). See, lurthcr, !sracls position with rcspcct to gypt in thc
Sccurity Council in July ..: S.C..R. th Mtg. ( July a6, ..).
6 onc at Vashington .C., March a6, .,. Trcaty ol Pcacc bctwccn thc Arab
Rcpublic ol gypt and thc Statc ol !sracl: . !.L.M. 6a (.,) (Art. . (.): Tc statc
ol war bctwccn thc partics will bc tcrminatcd and pcacc will bc cstablishcd bctwccn
thcm upon thc cxchangc ol instrumcnts ol ratication ol this trcaty).
, onc at Kiryat Shmona and Kaldch, May .,, .. Agrccmcnt bctwccn thc
Govcrnmcnt ol thc Statc ol !sracl and thc Govcrnmcnt ol thc Rcpublic ol Lcbanon:
aa !.L.M. ,c (.) (Art. . (a): Tc Partics conrm that thc statc ol war bctwccn
!sracl and Lcbanon has bccn tcrminatcd and no longcr cxists). Tis trcaty ncvcr
cntcrcd into lorcc bccausc ol Lcbanons dccision not to ratily it.
onc at thc Arava/Araba Crossing Point: ct. a6, .. Trcaty ol Pcacc bctwccn thc
Statc ol !sracl and thc Hashcmitc Kingdom ol Jordan: !.L.M. (.) (Art. .:
Pcacc is hcrcby cstablishcd bctwccn thc Statc ol !sracl and thc Hashcmitc Kingdom
ol Jordan ccctivc lrom thc cxchangc ol thc instrumcnts ol ratication lrom this
trcaty). Howcvcr, thc prcamblc ol thc trcaty makcs rclcrcncc to thc Vashington
cclaration ol July a, ., in which !sracl and Jordan dcclarcd that |t|hc long con
ict bctwccn thc two statcs is now coming to an cnd. !n this spirit, thc statc ol bcl
ligcrcncy bctwccn !sracl and Jordan has bccn tcrminatcd.
Although |n|o mcntion is madc ol whcn or how this cvcnt |ol thc tcrmination ol
a statc ol war| occurrcd (see Grccnwood, supra notc ., at aa), thc lormulation in
thc agrccmcnt bctwccn !sracl and Lcbanon is pcrhaps morc consistcnt with !sracls
carlicr position a lact not disturbcd by thc trcatys abortivc status: at Khaldch and
Qiryat Shcmona, Lcbanon and !sracl did not tcrminatc thc war bctwccn thcm at
thc momcnt ol signaturc (using thc prcscnt tcnsc) or undcrtook to cnd it upon rati
cation (in thc luturc): thcy conrmcd that thc statc ol war had alrcady cndcd at
somc indctcrminatc stagc (in thc past), and that it thcrclorc no longcr cxistcd. See
ixs:vix, supra notc ., at ,.
6c U.N. oc. S/P\. aac ( Junc .a, ..), at . See, also, U.N. oc. S/P\. aa ( Junc .,
..), at 6 (thc conccpt |ol sclldclcnsc| took on ncw and lar widcr application with
thc advcnt ol thc nuclcar cra).
40 Dino Kritsiotis
ol sclldclcnsc as undcrstood in gcncral intcrnational law and as prcscrvcd in
Articlc . ol thc |Unitcd Nations| Chartcr. A thrcat ol nuclcar oblitcration was
bcing dcvclopcd against !sracl by !raq, onc ol !sracls most implacablc cncmics.
!sracl tricd to havc that thrcat haltcd by diplomatic mcans. ur corts borc no
lruits. Ultimatcly|,| wc wcrc lclt with no choicc. Vc wcrc obligcd to rcmovc
that mortal dangcr. Vc did it clcanly and ccctivcly.
6+
!n othcr words, !sracl invokcd rcasoning undcr thc jus ad bellum as thc basis lor its
ocial justication ol thc strikc, which it would havc had no lcgal nccd to do il
it had considcrcd itscll to bc at war that is, a lcgal statc ol war with !raq. Tis
lact is tclling givcn that !sracl stood to bcnct lrom adopting thc jus in bello as its
choicc ol law or, as instcin has put it, as thc rclcvant lramcwork ol hostilitics.
6:

!mportantly, !sracl was not alonc in this intcrprctation. !n thc cnsuing Sccurity
Council dclibcrations, statcs took issuc with !sracls position on account ol its
apprcciation ol thc scope ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc and not on account ol its
lailurc to adopt thc jus in bello as thc applicablc law.
6
Morcovcr, whcn !raq rcd
o Scud missilcs in thc dircction ol !sracli citics in January .., thc rcsponsc ol
statcs was to criticizc !raq primarily lor its violation ol thc prohibition ol lorcc
undcr thc jus ad bellum a mattcr quitc apart lrom thc humanitarian dimcnsion
ol thcsc actions
6
against which !sracl had cvcry right to cxcrcisc its inhcrcnt
right ol sclldclcnsc.
6
!t was this undcrstanding ol thc jus ad bellum as thc rcl
cvant lramcwork which inlormcd thc widcly sharcd pcrccption ol thc lcgal posi
tion and not only in !sracl.
66
A sccond point ol signicancc lor war that is dcvclopcd lor thc jus ad
bellum in !ar, ggression and Self-Defence stcms lrom thc cardinal division that
is madc bctwccn sclldclcnsc mcasurcs short ol war and socallcd wars ol scll
6. Ibid., at , and U.N. oc. S/..c ( Junc , ..). See, lurthcr, Govvvx:vx: ov
!sv~vi, Tnv !v~gi Nuciv~v Tnvv~:: Vnv !sv~vi H~b :o Ac: (..).
6a instcin, supra notc ., at .
6 See U.N. oc. S/P\. aac ( Junc .a, ..), U.N. oc. S/P\. aa. ( Junc ., ..), U.N.
oc. S/P\. aaa ( Junc ., ..), U.N. oc. S/P\. aa ( Junc ., ..), U.N. oc. S/
P\. aa ( Junc .6, ..), U.N. oc. S/P\. aa ( Junc .6, ..), U.N. oc. S/P\. aa6
( Junc .6, ..), U.N. oc. S/P\. aa, ( Junc .,, ..) and U.N. oc. S/P\. aa ( Junc
., ..). Sccurity Council Rcsolution , (..) was adoptcd on Junc ., .., and
strongly condcmn|cd| thc military attack by !sracl as a clcar violation ol thc Chartcr
ol thc Unitcd Nations and thc norms ol intcrnational conduct.
6 n which, see instcin, supra notc a, at ...
6 See Christophcr Grccnwood, Ne. !orld Order or Old? Te In.asion of Ku.ait and
the Fule of La., Mob. L~w Rvv. ., .6 (.a) (claiming that !sracl could havc
invokcd thc right ol sclldclcnsc in rcsponsc to thc !raqi missilc attacks upon it).
66 A tcchniquc which instcin himscll adopts in his intcrprctation ol thc Six ays
Var ol Junc .6,, although thc obscrvation is actually qualicd by thc statcmcnt that
it was bascd on sound judgcmcnt ol cvcnts: see instcin, supra notc ., at .a.
41 l Topographies of Force
dclcnsc.
6
Vc might doubt thc valuc ol this dichotomy givcn instcins latcr
claim that thc conditions lrom thc Caroline corrcspondcncc that is thosc ol
ncccssity and proportionality
68
arc now rcgardcd as pcrtincnt to all catcgorics
ol sclldclcnsc,
6
and that thc languagc ol thc corrcspondcncc has both comc to
bc lookcd upon as transccnding thc spccic lcgal contours ol cxtratcrritorial law
cnlorccmcnt, and has markcdly inucnccd thc general matcria of self-defense.
o

A cardinal division is, howcvcr, clcarly intcndcd,
+
sincc discrctc modalitics arc
dcvclopcd lor thc right ol sclldclcnsc dcpcnding on whcthcr it is cxcrciscd
against onthcspot rcactions, dclcnsivc armcd rcprisals and thc protcction ol
nationals
:
as opposcd to war as an act ol sclldclcnsc (which, instcin rcasons,
dcnotcs comprchcnsivc usc ol countcrlorcc in rcsponsc to an armcd attack).

According to this lramcwork, thcn, |w|hcn a war ol sclldclcnsc is triggcrcd by
an allout invasion, thc issuc ol ncccssity usually bccomcs moot.

!n morc dra
matic languagc, it is said ol thc principlc ol proportionality:
Tc condition ol proportionality has a spccial mcaning in thc contcxt ol a
war ol sclldclcnsc. Vhcn onthcspot rcaction or dclcnsivc armcd rcpris
als arc involvcd, proportionality points at a symmctry or an approximation in
scalc and cccts bctwccn thc unlawlul lorcc and thc lawlul countcrlorcc.
Proportionality in this scnsc, albcit appropriatc lor thc purposcs ol onthcspot
rcaction and dclcnsivc armcd rcprisals, is unsuitcd lor an invcstigation ol thc
lcgitimacy ol a war ol sclldclcnsc. Tcrc is no support in thc practicc ol Statcs
lor thc notion that proportionality rcmains rclcvant and has to bc constantly
asscsscd throughout thc hostilitics in thc coursc ol war. ncc war is raging,
thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc may bring about thc dcstruction ol thc cncmys
6, Ibid., at a..
6 a 8.F.S.P. ..a, c 8.F.S.P. .. Although instcin considcrs that immcdiacy lorms
thc nal clcmcnt ol thc thrcc conditions spccicd in thc Caroline lormula: ibid., at
a (and at ac: |i|mmcdiacy signics that thcrc must not bc an unduc timclag
bctwccn thc armcd attack and thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc). Howcvcr, a closc rcad
ing ol thc Caroline corrcspondcncc would suggcst that an immcdiacy rcquircmcnt
lormcd part ol thc undcrstanding ol thc principlc ol ncccssity, and, in any cvcnt, was
not dcviscd in thc contcxt ol any rcquircmcnt ol an armcd attack. See, lurthcr, R.Y.
Jcnnings, Te Carolinc and McLeod Cases, a A:. J. !x:i L~w a (.).
6 See instcin, supra notc ., at a (cmphasis supplicd). Furthcr, ibid., at a: !t is
somctimcs put lorward that thc rulc cmcrging lrom thc Caroline incidcnt is no
longcr valid undcr thc UN Chartcr. 8ut thcrc is no corroboration ol this vicw in thc
tcxt ol thc Chartcr.
,c Ibid., at a (cmphasis supplicd).
,. Ibid., at a.c.
,a Ibid., at a.a.
, Ibid., at a.
, Ibid., at a,.
42 Dino Kritsiotis
army, rcgardlcss ol thc condition ol proportionality. 8y its naturc, war (as
a comprchcnsivc usc ol lorcc) is virtually bound to bc disproportionatc to any
mcasurc short ol war.

Tc ccct ol thcsc positions would appcar to cmpty thc Caroline principlcs ol any
lcgal valuc in asscssmcnts ol thc mcrits ol a war ol sclldclcnsc.
6
Tcy strongly
suggcst that thc dicrcncc in thc application ol thc principlcs to mcasurcs short
ol war is actually onc ol kind rathcr than ol dcgrcc a pcrccption that is casily
rcinlorccd by thc structural signicancc which this distinction assumcs in thc
composition ol !ar, ggression and Self-Defence.

Vhy clsc would thc issuc ol

ncccssity bc dcscribcd as moot lor wars ol sclldclcnsc: And usually or, prc
sumably, systcmatically so: And what othcr conclusion could possibly bc drawn
lrom thc contcntion that wars ol sclldclcnsc may bc undcrtakcn regardless of
the condition of proportionality, that |o|ncc a war ol sclldclcnsc is justicd by thc
mcrits ol thc casc, only thc Sccurity Council can contain thc hostilitics:
8
!n vicw
ol thcsc vcry postulations, what should thcn bc madc ol thc pcrtincnt naturc
ol thc Caroline principlcs which instcin had himscll carlicr positcd in !ar,
ggression and Self-Defence:

Vc nd it dicult to lorm any imprcssion othcr

than that, in this analysis, thc principlc ol proportionality is ccctivcly sidclincd
or displaccd lrom any juridical rcckoning ol wars ol sclldclcnsc, its control
ling lunction subsumcd within thc powcrs and rcsponsibilitics ol thc Sccurity
Council.
8o
Tcsc would appcar to bc thc conscqucnccs thc lcgal conscqucnccs
whcn an armcd attack brings about a war ol sclldclcnsc, lor thcrc, instcin
argucs, thc stakcs arc mortal.
8+
Problcmatically, howcvcr, this cort to attributc lcgal signicancc (or signil
icanccs) to war is lraught with thc risk that wc rccognizc thc traditional insti
tution |ol war|, unlimitcd as to aims (cvcn il rcgulatcd as to mcans), whcrcas il
what is rccognizcd is thc validity ol war in self-defense, this immcdiatcly imparts
, Ibid., at a,a. Tc quotcd portion is lootnotcd as . Alland, International
Fesponsibility and Sanctions: Self-Defense and Counter-measures in the I.L.C.
Codication of Fules Go.erning International Fesponsibility, in Uxi:vb N~:ioxs
Cobivic~:iox ov S:~:v Rvsvoxsiniii:v ., . (.,) (M. Spincdi and 8. Simma
cds.).
,6 See instcin, supra notc ., at ac.
,, Ibid., at viii. See, also, ibid. at a.a.
, Ibid., at ac.
, Supra notc 6.
c Prcsumably acting pursuant to thc until clausc in Articlc . ol thc Chartcr, thc
clausc that providcs lor Sccurity Council intcrvcntion in thc cvcnt ol thc cxcrcisc
ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc: see, lurthcr, .V. Gricg, Self-Defense and the Security
Council: !hat Does rticle z Fequire?, c !x:i a Co:v. L.Q. 66 (..).
. See instcin, supra notc ., at a. and supra notc ,.
43 l Topographies of Force
rcstrictions on thc aims that arc lcgitimatc.
8:
Tc scnsc ol thosc rcstrictions
should bc apparcnt lrom any rcading ol Articlc . ol thc Chartcr, which nowhcrc
cultivatcs such prccious dichotomics lor thc right ol sclldclcnsc. !nstcad, Articlc
. trcats thc inhcrcnt right ol sclldclcnsc in gcncric (cvcn il not in complctc)
8

tcrms and, crucially, in thc Nicaragua Case, thc Court spccically hcld to thc rclc
vancc ol thc principlc ol proportionality in thc cvcnt ol an armcd attack
8
which
it undcrstood to includc action by rcgular armcd lorccs across an intcrnational
bordcr
8
(or, wc could say pace instcins synopsis, an allout invasion).
86
Tc
Court madc no distinction bctwccn armcd attacks which yicld to sclldclcnsc
mcasurcs short ol war and thosc that would prccipitatc a socallcd war ol scll
dclcnsc.
8
Tc samc thinking prcvailcd in thc Case Concerning Oil Platforms.
88
Furthcrmorc, whcn thc Court issucd its opinion in thc Legality of the Treat
or Use of Nuclear !eapons in July .6, it did not circumscribc or rcmovc thc
principlc ol proportionality lrom its considcrations ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc,
a .V. 8owctt, in his rcvicw ol thc rst cdition ol V~v, Accvvssiox ~xb Sviv
vvvxcv in 8vi:isn Yvnx. !x:i L~w. a6, a6 (.). !t is instructivc to notc
that it is only in thc sccond part ol his volumc on disputcs, war and ncutrality that
ppcnhcim providcs his dcnition ol war immcdiatcly altcr his considcration ol
thc rcnunciation ol war undcr thc jus ad bellum: see L. ppcnhcim, !x:vvx~:iox~i
L~w: A Tvv~:isv (\ol. !!: isputcs, Var and Ncutrality) (,th cd., .a), aca ()
(and ibid., at .,. (ag), clcmcntary principlcs ol intcrprctation prccludc a con
struction which givcs to a Statc rcsorting to an allcgcd war in sclldclcnsc thc right
to ultimatc dctcrmination, with a lcgally conclusivc ccct, ol thc lcgality ol such
action).
As thc Court said in thc Nicaragua Case: thc Chartcr, having itscll rccognizcd thc
cxistcncc ol this right, docs not go on to rcgulatc dircctly all aspccts ol its contcnt. For
cxamplc, it docs not contain any spccic rulc whcrcby sclldclcnsc would warrant
only mcasurcs which arc proportional to thc armcd attack and ncccssary to rcspond
to it, a rulc wcll cstablishcd in customary intcrnational law. See Nicaragua Case
(.6), supra notc ,, at (.,6). To this, onc could add thc issuc ol thc right ol
anticipatory sclldclcnsc: see scar Schachtcr, Te Fight of States to Use rmed Force,
a Micn. L~w Rvv. .6ac, .6 (.).
As it did lor thc principlc ol ncccssity: see Nicaragua Case (.6), supra notc ,, at .aa
.a (a,).
Ibid., at .c (.).
6 Tc triggcr lor a war ol sclldclcnsc: supra notc ,.
, Givcn instcins undcrstanding ol this conccpt (supra notc .), pcrhaps morc poi
gnantly dcmonstratcd in thc war bctwccn thc cmocratic Rcpublic ol Congo and
Uganda, whcrc no such bilurcation was madc in thc argumcntation ol cithcr Party
to thc casc (nor, lor that mattcr, was it urgcd by thc Court): Case Concerning rmed
cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo, supra notc , at ac (a) (in a situation ol
sclldclcnsc (lor thc cmocratic Rcpublic ol thc Congo)) and at a () (thc
lawlul cxcrcisc ol its sovcrcign right ol sclldclcnsc (lor Uganda)). See, also, thc war
bctwccn thiopia and ritrca whcrc, again, no lcgal storc was put on any war ol scll
dclcnsc: supra nn. aca.
See Case Concerning Oil Platforms (acc), supra notc , at .6., (,,).
44 Dino Kritsiotis
its dclibcrations sct within thc particular contcxt ol thc lundamcntal right ol
cvcry Statc to survival or, as thc Court additionally intimatcd, thc right ol cvcry
Statc to rcsort to sclldclcnsc, in accordance .ith rticle z of the Charter, whcn its
survival is at stakc.
8
Vhilc thc stakcs may wcll bc mortal lor statcs on ccrtain
occasions,
o
thc Court thcrclorc appcars to havc bccn saying that that lact should
not bc uscd to dcny thc application or thc importancc ol thc principlc ol pro
portionality lor thc jus ad bellum.
+
For, alongsidc thc principlc ol ncccssity, it will
instruct thc Courts asscssmcnt ol thc lawlulncss ol any and cvcry sclldclcnsc
action that is brought bclorc it: |t|his dual condition |ol ncccssity and propor
tionality| applics cqually to Articlc . ol thc Chartcr, said thc Court, .hate.er
the means of force employed .
:
Finally, it should bc said that thc distinction bctwccn mcasurcs takcn in scll
dclcnsc that amount to war and thosc lalling short ol war attributcs a much
grcatcr dcgrcc ol sophistication to thc right ol sclldclcnsc than wc arc ablc to
disccrn in practicc. Vith thc launch ol pcration nduring Frccdom in ctobcr
acc., thc Unitcd Statcs claimcd that it had initiatcd actions against Alghanistan
in thc cxcrcisc ol its inhcrcnt right ol individual and collcctivc sclldclcnsc.

Tc samc position was takcn by thc Unitcd Kingdom,

with no particular play

madc lor any war ol sclldclcnsc against thc targct Statc,

cvcn though thcsc

actions occurrcd in circumstanccs that would havc casily qualicd as an archc
typal war ol sclldclcnsc lrom !ar, ggression and Self-Defence
6
(and which
would havc stood to bcnct, wc can prcsumc,

lrom this assignation as proposcd

by instcin). !l anything, thc communication dispatchcd by thc Unitcd Statcs to
thc Sccurity Council in ctobcr acc. struck a chord ol modcration as much as it
Legality of the Treat or Use of Nuclear !eapons (Advisory pinion) (.6) !.C.J. Rcp.
aa6, a66 (6) (cmphasis supplicd).
c Supra notc ..
. According to thc Court on a prcvious occasion thc Nicaragua Case Articlc . ol
thc Chartcr is only mcaninglul on thc basis that thcrc is a natural or inhcrcnt
right ol sclldclcnsc, and it is hard to scc how this can bc othcr than ol a customary
naturc: see Nicaragua Case (.6), supra notc ,, at (.,6).
a Legality of the Treat or Use of Nuclear !eapons (Advisory pinion), supra notc , at
a (.) (cmphasis supplicd) (though also concluding (ibid. (a)) that |t|hc pro
portionality principlc may not in itscll cxcludc thc usc ol nuclcar wcapons in scll
dclcnsc).
U.N. oc. S/acc./6 (ct. ,, acc.).
U.N. oc. S/acc./, (ct. ,, acc.).
Although thc Unitcd Statcs did inlorm thc Sccurity Council that |w|c may nd
that our sclldclcnsc rcquircs lurthcr actions with rcspcct to othcr organizations and
othcr Statcs: supra notc .
6 See instcin, supra notc ., at a6.
, Supra nn. , and ,.
45 l Topographies of Force
did conviction,
8
suggcsting that lactors other than the inter.ention of the Security
Council would bc at work lor thc cntircty ol that opcration. Vc could idcntily
onc ol thcsc lactors as thc principlc ol proportionality. Tus idcnticd, wc could
say that thc principlc docs not in and ol itscll cxcludc thc unconditional surrcn
dcr ol thc cncmy,

rathcr, thc burdcn ol argumcnt and cvidcncc rcmains with

thc dclcnding statc to rationalizc its actions as thc cxigcncics ol circumstancc
rcquirc, sincc thc sclldclcndcr cannot ncccssarily scck thc annihilation or com
plctc submission ol thc aggrcssor simply bccausc it is thc victim Statc.
+oo
Lcst
wc lorgct, pcration nduring Frccdom actually cndcd with thc oustcr ol thc
Taliban rcgimc lrom powcr,
+o+
but with littlc (il indccd any) sympathics shcd lor
its cvcntual dcmisc. Takcn togcthcr, thcn, thc principlcs ol ncccssity and propor
tionality scrvc as rcquircmcnt|s| lor thc right ol sclldclcnsc,
+o:
and wc nd that
it is to that cnd that statcs havc committcd thcmsclvcs in thcir rcspcctivc prac
ticcs.
+o
III Te Concept of Iorce and the Jus ad Bellum
As wc obscrvcd in thc introduction, at onc pcriod ol timc, both ol thc corpuscs
ol thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in bello took as thcir csscntial lramc ol rclcrcncc
thc cxistcncc ol war as a condition rccognizcd and dcncd by intcrnational law.
Vc arc ablc to apprcciatc this position morc lully lrom a casual pcrusal ol somc
According to thc Unitcd Statcs, |i|n carrying out thcsc actions, thc Unitcd Statcs is
committcd to minimizing civilian casualtics and damagc to civilian propcrty: supra
notc .
See instcin, supra notc ., at a..
.cc apo Akandc, Nuclear !eapons, Unclear La.? Deciphering the Nuclcar Vcapons
d.isory Opinion of the International Court, 6 8vi:isn Yvnx. !x:i L~w .6, ..
(.).
.c. Cl. thc \ictnamcsc intcrvcntion ol sclldclcnsc against Kampuchca in cccmbcr
.,: Gary Klintworth, \iv:x~:s !x:vvvvx:iox ix C~:nobi~ ix !x:vvx~:iox~i
L~w a (.).
.ca As pcr thc isscnting pinion ol Judgc Higgins in thc Nuclear !eapons Advisory
pinion (supra notc , at ()) as docs instcin himscll: see instcin, supra
notc ., at a.c. Furthcrmorc, as 8owctt argucs: onc ccct ol construing thc 8ritish
military opcrations as sclldclcnsc |in thc Falklands conict| was to limit thosc
opcrations to what was strictly ncccssary to sclldclcnsc and thus avoid cxtcnd
ing thc conict to thc Argcntincan mainland. See 8owctt, supra notc a, at a6.
Grccnwood mcntions that Portugal did not rcact to !ndias scizurc ol Goa in .6. by
scizing !ndian shipping in uropcan watcrs whcrc Portugal cnjoycd naval supcrior
ity: see Christophcr Grccnwood, Self-Defense and the Conduct of International rmed
Conict, in !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w A: A Ti:v ov Pvvvivxi:v: ss~vs ix Hoxov ov
Sn~n:~i Rosvxxv a,, a,, (.) (Yoram instcin and Mala Tabory cds.).
.c See Christinc Grav, !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w ~xb :nv Usv ov Fovcv .a.a6 (and cd.,
acc) and Judith Gardam, Nvcvssi:v, Pvovov:iox~ii:v ~xb :nv Usv ov Fovcv
nv S:~:vs .. (acc).
46 Dino Kritsiotis
ol thc dcning tcxts ol both thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in bello. For thc jus ad
bellum, High Contracting Partics ol thc .a Kcllogg8riand Pact (or thc Pact
ol Paris) undcrtook to condcmn rccoursc to war lor thc solution ol intcrnational
controvcrsics, and to rcnouncc it as an instrumcnt ol national policy in thcir rcla
tions with onc anothcr,
+o
and, as lar as thc jus in bello was conccrncd, thc laws ol
war bccamc applicablc in timc ol war: considcr, lor cxamplc, thc spccications
ol thc .6 Paris cclaration Rcspccting Maritimc Law,
+o
thc .6 St. Pctcrsburg
cclaration Rcnouncing thc Usc, in Timc ol Var, ol xplosivc Projcctilcs Undcr
cc Grammcs Vcight
+o6
and thc .c6 Gcncva Convcntion lor thc Amclioration
ol thc Condition ol thc Voundcd and Sick in Armics in thc Ficld.
+o
Tc ubiquitous prcscncc ol war in both ol thcsc spccializations was not,
howcvcr, sucicnt to guarantcc or lurnish thc conccpt with an acccptablc dcgrcc
ol dctcrminacy
+o8
and it did not provc possiblc to harncss a singlc dcnition ol
war that was scrviccablc lor all purposcs.
+o
!t was thcrclorc a mattcr ol timc
bclorc a systcmatic dismantling bcgan ol thc conccpt ol war and, thus, ol thc
signicancc ol war as a lcgal condition lor both thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in
bello. For thc jus ad bellum, thc ncw organizing principlc was sct out in thc lorm
ol thc prohibition containcd in Articlc a () ol thc . Unitcd Nations Chartcr,
which lorbids all mcmbcr statcs ol thc Unitcd Nations lrom thc thrcat or usc ol
lorcc against thc tcrritorial intcgrity or political indcpcndcncc ol any statc, or in
any othcr manncr inconsistcnt with thc purposcs ol thc Unitcd Nations.
++o
Vith
thc proscription ol thc threat as wcll as thc use ol force,
+++
it was thc lcgal condition
ol lorcc as opposcd to war that thcrclorc bccamc thc dcning critcrion ol thc
jus ad bellum (or, as somc havc suggcstcd, thc jus contra bellum).
++:
Tis contrastcd
with thc inauguration in August . ol thc conccpt ol armcd conict lor thc
jus in bello, which was lramcd in ovcrarching tcrms so that it bccamc thc organ
.c L.N.T.S. , (.a).
.c .. C.T.S. . (.6).
.c6 . C.T.S. a, (.6.6).
.c, Feproduced in Tnv L~ws ov Av:vb Coxviic:s c. (.) (ictrich Schindlcr and
Jiri Toman cds.)
.c !n thc scnsc uscd by Tomas M. Franck, F~ivxvss ix !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w ~xb
!xs:i:u:ioxs c (.).
.c See instcin, supra notc ., at ..
..c Stat. .c..
... Vhich constitutcd an important innovation in thc law: see Nicaragua Case, supra
notc ,, at c (pcr Judgc Sir Robcrt Jcnnings (citing Sir Humphrcy Valdock, .c6
H~cuv Rvcuvii a. (.6a!!): Tc illcgality ol rccoursc to armcd rcprisals or othcr
lorms ol armcd intcrvcntion not amounting to war was not cstablishcd bcyond all
doubt by thc law ol thc Lcaguc, or by thc Nurcmbcrg and Tokyo Trials. Tat was
brought about by thc law ol thc Chartcr).
..a As cnunciatcd by instcin, supra notc ., at .
47 l Topographies of Force
izing principlc ol that subjcct, onc that cncompasscd but also cxtcndcd bcyond
thc lcgal condition ol war.
++
Vith this markcd diminution ol thc conccpt ol war in lormal tcrms, it
bccamc lcss possiblc to makc dircct disciplinary cquations bctwccn thc jus ad
bellum and jus in bello. Vc could, ol coursc, still rclcr to thc scparatc lunctions,
mcthodologics and rcsponsibilitics ol cach ol thcsc spccializations with intcrna
tional law,
++
but it could no longcr bc said (as had lor somc timc bccn thc casc)
that thcsc spccializations sharcd thc samc normativc bond or basc (i.c. that ol
war). Forcc and armcd conict crcatcd thcir own lcgal mcanings, and, as part
ol that proccss, camc to rcdcnc thc sphcrcs ol substantivc opcration ol (rcspcc
tivcly) thc jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Tcy did so not by specic relation or appeal
to one another but, rathcr, by paying particular hccd to thcir rcspcctivc cxpcricnccs
with thc conccpt ol war and, importantly, to thcir particular tasks and discipli
nary objcctivcs.
++
!t could not thcrclorc bc assumcd that any application ol lorcc
cntailcd a lcgal condition ol armcd conict,
++6
lor wc noticc how tcntativcly thc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc has positioncd itscll on this vcry qucstion. Vhilc
thc Court has not bccn supplicd with a concrctc opportunity to dcnc thc scope
ol an (intcrnational) armcd conict in intcrnational law, it would appcar to havc
stoppcd short ol drawing an cxact coincidcncc bctwccn thc conccpts ol lorcc and
(intcrnational) armcd conict. !n thc Nicaragua Case, it concludcd that thc usc
ol lorcc may in some circumstances raisc qucstions ol |intcrnational humanitarian|
law |or thc law applicablc in thc cvcnt ol an intcrnational armcd conict|,
++
and
.. ictrich Schindlcr, State of !ar, Belligerency, rmed Conict, in Tnv Nvw
Hu:~xi:~vi~x L~w ov Av:vb Coxviic: (.,) (Antonio Casscsc cd.). See, lur
thcr, infra notc ...
.. See Myrcs S. Mcougal and Florcntino P. Fcliciano, Tnv !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w ov
V~v: Tv~xsx~:iox~i Covvciox ~xb Vovib Puniic vbvv . & . (.) and
Christophcr Grccnwood, Te Felationship Bet.een ius ad bcllum and ius in bcllo,
Rvv. !x:i S:ubivs aa. (.).
.. Michacl Valzcr, Jus: ~xb Ux,us: V~vs: A Mov~i Avcu:vx: wi:n His:ovic~i
!iius:v~:ioxs . (rd cd., accc). So that it has bccn argucd that thc scopc ol
prohibition ol lorcc in Articlc a () is considcrablc in its rcach: most uscs ol lorcc,
no mattcr how bricl, limitcd, or transitory, do violatc a statcs tcrritorial intcgrity. A
simplc acrial intcrvcntion will do so. See Rosalyn Higgins, Pvoniv:s ~xb Pvocvss:
!x:vvx~:iox~i L~w ~xb How Vv Usv !: ac (.).
..6 See Howard S. Lcvic, Te Status of Belligerent Personnel Splashed and Fescued by
Neutral in the Persian Gulf rea, a Pvocvvbixcs A:. Soc. !x:i L~w , ,
(.). Cl. instcin, supra notc a, at .6 (armcd conict to includc a mcrc incidcnt).
.., Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at ..a (a.6) (cmphasis supplicd). Although wc should
ol coursc spcculatc as to why thc Court said what it said hcrc: was it bccausc thc jus
ad bellum (lorcc) and thc jus in bello (armcd conict) cngagc dicrcnt clds ol cov
cragc or bccausc thc Court was ol thc vicw that questions ol thc law applicablc in thc
cvcnt ol an intcrnational armcd conict do not ncccssarily arisc with cach and cvcry
instancc ol lorcc:
48 Dino Kritsiotis
wc arc ablc to disccrn ccrtain discrcpancics in thc way statcs havc trcatcd this
mattcr in thcir own, individual practiccs.
++8
Tc Courts position on thc conccpt ol lorcc is morc dcvclopcd in vicw ol
thc lact that, on morc than onc occasion, it has bccn callcd upon to cxaminc thc
scopc and mcaning ol thc prohibition ol lorcc. !n thc Corfu Channel Case bctwccn
Albania and thc Unitcd Kingdom, thc Court hcard argumcntation to thc ccct
that pcration Rctail, thc mincswccping intcrvcntion ol thc Unitcd Kingdom
in Albanian tcrritorial watcrs, thrcatcncd ncithcr thc tcrritorial intcgrity nor thc
political indcpcndcncc ol Albania. Albania sucrcd thcrcby ncithcr tcrritorial
loss nor any part ol its political indcpcndcncc.
++
Vhilc thc argumcnt was not
spccically considcrcd in thc judgmcnt, thc Courts condcmnation ol pcration
Rctail |was| not in sympathy with it.
+:o
Tcn, in thc Nicaragua Case, thc Court
concludcd that thc prohibition ol lorcc may thus bc rcgardcd as a principlc ol
customary intcrnational law, not as such conditioncd by thc provisions rclating to
collcctivc sccurity, or to thc lacilitics or armcd contingcnts to bc providcd undcr
Articlc ol thc Chartcr.
+:+
Tc Court lound conrmation lor this position in
rcgular citations ol thc prohibition ol lorcc as bcing not only a principlc ol cus
.. See, principally, Lcvic, supra notc ..6. Notc, also, thc apparcnt intcrchangcability
bctwccn lorcc and armcd conict (or, hcrc, war) in thc lollowing lormulation:
Vhat dcgrcc ol intcrvcntion brings about a statc ol war in a matcrial scnsc: !t
appcars that thc mcrc supply ol arms to thc rcbcls (cpitomizcd by Amcrican
support ol Moslcm insurgcnts against thc Sovictbackcd Govcrnmcnt in
Alghanistan in thc .cs) docs not qualily as an actual usc ol armcd lorcc.
8ut thcrc comcs a point lor instancc, whcn thc wcapons arc accompanicd by
instructors training thc rcbcls at which thc lorcign country is dccmcd to bc
waging warlarc.
See instcin, supra notc ., at .c. Notc, also, thc position ol thc !CRC Commcntary
on thc mcaning ol armcd conict in common Articlc a ol thc . Convcntions:
Any dicrcncc arising bctwccn two Statcs and lcading to thc intcrvcntion ol mcm
bcrs ol thc armcd lorccs is an armcd conict within thc mcaning ol Articlc a, cvcn il
onc ol thc Partics dcnics thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol war. !t makcs no dicrcncc how
long thc conict lasts, how much slaughtcr takcs placc, or how numcrous arc thc
participating lorccs, it succs lor thc armcd lorccs ol onc Powcr to havc capturcd
advcrsarics lalling within thc scopc ol Articlc . vcn il thcrc has bccn no ght
ing, thc lact that pcrsons covcrcd by thc Convcntion arc dctaincd is sucicnt lor
its application. Tc numbcr ol pcrsons capturcd in such circumstanccs is, ol coursc,
immatcrial: see Co::vx:~vv, supra notc , at a.
.. Statcmcnt by Sir ric 8cckctt (Unitcd Kingdom), ral Procccdings ol thc Corfu
Channel Case (First Part) !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, Nov. .a, .: !.C.J. Plcadings,
\ol. !!!, aa6.
.ac .J. Harris, C~svs ~xb M~:vvi~is ox !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w a (6th cd., acc).
.a. See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .cc (.). Tc Court continucd: !t would thcrc
lorc sccm apparcnt that thc attitudc rclcrrcd to cxprcsscs an opinio juris rcspccting
such rulc (or sct ol rulcs), to bc thcncclorth trcatcd scparatcly lrom thc provisions,
especially those of an institutional kind, to which it is subjcct on thc trcatylaw planc
ol thc Chartcr (cmphasis supplicd). For thc Court, at ibid., thc principlcs as to thc
49 l Topographies of Force
tomary intcrnational law but also a lundamcntal or cardinal principlc ol such
law,
+::
that is to say a pcrcmptory norm ol intcrnational law or jus cogens.
+:
Vith this principlc in hand, thc Court procccdcd in thc Nicaragua Case to
disscct instanccs ol thc usc ol lorcc into what it callcd thc most gravc lorms ol
thc usc ol lorcc and thosc which it dcscribcd as othcr lcss gravc lorms ol lorcc.
+:

!t gavc an immcdiatc indication ol what it mcant by cach ol thcsc catcgorics.
Tc Court considcrcd that thc most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc wcrc thosc
usc ol lorcc incorporatcd in thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr corrcspond, in csscntials, to
thosc lound in customary intcrnational law.
.aa Ibid.
.a See, lurthcr, instcin, supra notc ., at .c. Although, in thc discussion ol |t|hc
prohibition ol thc usc ol intcrStatc lorcc as jus cogens, rclcrcncc is madc (ibid.,
at .cc) to thc position ol thc !ntcrnational Law Commission in thc contcxt ol its
work on statc rcsponsibility, whcrc it concludcd that it is gcncrally agrccd that thc
prohibition ol aggrcssion is to bc rcgardcd as pcrcmptory. See Rvvov: ov :nv
!x:vvx~:iox~i L~w Co::issiox, v~v: Av:icivs ox Rvsvoxsiniii:v ov
S:~:vs vov !x:vvx~:iox~iiv Vvoxcvui Ac:s , a (acc.). Vc should, how
cvcr, qucstion whcthcr thc prohibition ol lorcc and aggrcssion arc intcrchangcablc. !l
it is truc that |t|hc spccial standing ol jus cogens is manilcstcd lcss in cnjoining Statcs
lrom contrary bchavior (violations), and morc in aborting attcmptcd dcrogations
lrom gcncral norms (ibid., at .cc), thcn it is surcly curious why cxccptions pcrtain to
thc prohibition ol thc usc ol intcrStatc lorcc (ibid., at vii), whcn no such thing can
bc said lor thc prohibition ol aggrcssion (dcscribcd ibid., at a, as thc paradigmatic
illustration ol a pcrcmptory norm).
.a Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c. (..). ! havc cmphasizcd uscs bccausc thc Court
sits silcnt on thc qucstion ol thc thrcat ol lorcc in this part ol thc analysis, cvcn
though Articlc a () (and, prcsumably, customary intcrnational law) prohibits thc
thrcat as wcll as thc usc ol lorcc. !n its Advisory pinion in thc Legality of the Treat
or Use of Nuclear !eapons, thc Court obscrvcd that |t|hc notions ol thrcat and usc
ol lorcc undcr Articlc a, paragraph , ol thc Chartcr stand togcthcr in thc scnsc that
il thc usc ol lorcc itscll in a givcn casc is illcgal lor whatcvcr rcason thc thrcat
to usc such lorcc will likcwisc bc illcgal: supra notc ,, at a6 (,). Tc outstanding
qucstion, howcvcr, is whcrc onc placcs thc thrcshold lor a thrcat ol lorcc, as rcvcalcd
in thc Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .. (aa,):
Tc Court has also lound thc cxistcncc ol military manocuvrcs hcld by thc
Unitcd Statcs ncar thc Nicaraguan bordcrs, and Nicaragua has madc somc
suggcstion that this constitutcd a thrcat ol lorcc, which is cqually lorbiddcn
by thc principlc ol nonusc ol lorcc. Tc Court is howcvcr not satiscd that
thc manocuvrcs complaincd ol, in thc circumstanccs in which thcy wcrc hcld,
constitutcd on thc part ol thc Unitcd Statcs a brcach, as against Nicaragua, ol
thc principlc lorbidding rccoursc to thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc.
Tc military mancuvcrs wcrc undcrtakcn jointly with Honduras on Honduras tcr
ritory ncar thc Honduras/Nicaragua lronticr and wcrc carricd out in thc autumn ol
.a, Fcbruary and August ., Novcmbcr ., and in Fcbruary, March and Junc ol
.: supra notc ,, at (a). See, Romana Sadurska, Treats of Force, a A:. J. !x:i
L~w a (.) and, lurthcr, N.. Vhitc and Robcrt Crycr, Unilateral Enforcement
of Fesolution o8,: Treat Too Far?, a C~iiv. V. !x:i L~w J. a (.).
50 Dino Kritsiotis
constituting an armcd attack.
+:
As lar as othcr lcss gravc lorms ol thc usc ol
lorcc wcrc conccrncd, thc Court rclicd on Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a
(XX\), thc cclaration on Principlcs ol !ntcrnational Law Conccrning Fricndly
Rclations and Coopcration Among Statcs in Accordancc with thc Chartcr ol
thc Unitcd Nations ol ctobcr .,c,
+:6
lor cxplication. According to thc Court,
othcr lcss gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc includcd thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc lor:
thc violation ol cxisting intcrnational boundarics lor thc rcsolution ol intcr
national disputcs,
acts ol rcprisal,
thc dcprivation ol thc right ol pcoplcs to sclldctcrmination,
thc organizing or cncouraging thc organization ol irrcgular lorccs ol armcd
bands, including mcrccnarics, lor incursion into thc tcrritory ol anothcr
statc, and
thc organization, instigation, assistancc or participation in acts ol civil strilc
or tcrrorist acts in anothcr Statc or acquicscing in organizcd activitics within
its tcrritory dircctcd towards thc commissions ol such acts, whcn thc acts
rclcrrcd to in thc prcscnt paragraph involvc a thrcat or usc ol lorcc.
+:
!t is to this dichotomy that thc Court rcturncd and which it rcarmcd in
Novcmbcr acc, on thc occasion ol its judgmcnt in thc Case Concerning Oil
Platforms bctwccn !ran and thc Unitcd Statcs.
+:8
Vhat was thc Courts purposc in making this distinction: Plainly, thc Court
was not sccking to suggcst that thcrc would bc a dicrcncc in thc substantivc out
comc in rclation to thc prohibition ol lorcc bctwccn most gravc lorms ol thc usc
ol lorcc and othcr lcss gravc lorms lor, par denitionem, both ol thcsc lorms ol
lorcc would constitutc lorcc within thc mcaning ol that tcrm undcr intcrnational
law and would thus lall loul ol thc prohibition in qucstion. Rathcr, at issuc hcrc
was an attcmpt by thc Court to lashion a grcatcr cohcrcncc or undcrstanding
bctwccn thc conccptual picccs that comprisc thc Chartcr puzzlc lorcc, armcd
attack, collcctivc sclldclcnsc, aggrcssion as thcy play out within customary
intcrnational law, in a way that is not altogcthcr cvidcnt lrom thc Chartcr itscll
and in a manncr that would not compromisc thc intcndcd mcanings or rcspcc
tivc autonomics ol thcsc tcrms. Vc arc ablc to morc lully apprcciatc this mission
ol thc Court whcn wc rccct upon thc considcrablc rcach ol thc Chartcrs pro
.a Ibid. And, prcsumably, thc most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc wcrc only thosc con
stituting an armcd attack sincc thc Court did not makc allowancc lor most gravc
lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc othcr than thosc constituting an armcd attack.
.a6 a U.N. G.A..R., Supp. (No. a), U.N. cc. A/a., (.,c), at .a.. See, lurthcr, Robcrt
Roscnstock, Te Declaration of Principles of International La. Concerning Friendly
Felations: Sur.ey, 6 A:. J. !x:i L~w ,. (.,.).
.a, See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c. (..).
.a See Case Concerning Oil Platforms, supra notc , at .6., (.).
51 l Topographies of Force
hibition ol lorcc,
+:
so that thc Courts purposc was to makc grcatcr scnsc ol how
this broad proposition rclatcd to or coincidcd with othcr Chartcr propositions as
conccivcd and undcrstood in customary intcrnational law.
+o
!l this rationalization ol thc Courts approach, cvidcnt in thc Nicaragua Case
and thcn in thc Case Concerning Oil Platforms, providcs thc rst point ol sig
nicancc ol thc distinction bctwccn lorms ol lorcc, thcn it providcs thc stcpping
stonc to thc sccond point ol signicancc ol thc Courts distinction, namcly, thc
attcmpt to chart thc lawlul conscqucnccs that would or, to bc surc, could rcsult
lor thc statc that is on thc rccciving cnd ol such contravcntions ol thc prohibition
ol lorcc. Vc can apprcciatc this lactor most lrom thc gravitational importancc
which thc Court awardcd to thc most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc or, to usc
thc Courts rcphrasing ol that tcrm, to an armcd attack
++
in its construction ol
thc right ol sclldclcnsc.
+:
!t is also rccctcd by thc spcculativc manncr in which
thc Court addrcsscd lorms ol lorcc lalling short ol an armcd attack. Tc Court
was kccn to cstablish that cvcn whcn lorcc uscd against a statc docs not amount
to an armcd attack,
+
thcn it is still opcn lor that statc to takc action against a
lcss gravc lorm ol lorcc (or what thc Court callcd intcrvcntion).
+
According to
thc Court, intcrnational law would not lcavc that statc cmptyhandcd or hclplcss
against thc intcrvcntion, cvcn though thc Court could not prcscribc, with cxact
or pcnctrating prccision, what options wcrc lawlully availablc to that statc:
Vhilc an armcd attack would givc risc to an cntitlcmcnt to collcctivc scll
dclcnsc, a usc ol lorcc ol a lcsscr dcgrcc ol gravity cannot producc any cnti
tlcmcnt to takc collcctivc countcrmcasurcs involving thc usc ol lorcc. Tc acts
ol which Nicaragua is accuscd, cvcn assuming thcm to havc bccn cstablishcd
and imputablc to that Statc, could only havc justicd proportionatc countcr
mcasurcs on thc part ol thc Statc which had bccn thc victim ol thcsc acts,
namcly l Salvador, Honduras or Costa Rica. Tcy could not justily countcr
mcasurcs takcn by a third Statc, thc Unitcd Statcs, and particularly could not
justily intcrvcntion involving thc usc ol lorcc.
+
.a Supra notc ...
.c See Gray, supra notc .c, at 66.
.. Supra notc .a.
.a See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c.c (..) and at .aa (a,).
. As in assistancc to rcbcls in thc lorm ol thc provision ol wcapons or logistical or
othcr support, which, thc Court said, may bc rcgardcd as a thrcat or usc ol lorcc,
or amount to intcrvcntion in thc intcrnal or cxtcrnal aairs ol othcr Statcs: see
Nicaragua Case (.6), supra notc ,, at .c (.).
. Hcncc thc locus ol Part !\ ol this cssay.
. See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .a, (a), dcnotcd by Judgc Simma as onc ol
thc lcss lortunatc statcmcnts in thc Courts Nicaragua Judgmcnt ol .6 in his
isscnting pinion in thc Case Concerning Oil Platforms, supra notc , at .a
(.a) (by such proportionatc countcrmcasurcs thc Court cannot havc undcrstood
52 Dino Kritsiotis
From thc Courts schcmata, thcn, it should bc apparcnt that not all uscs ol lorcc
amount to an armcd attack in intcrnational law. Concomitantly, not all uscs ol
lorcc will givc risc to thc right ol sclldclcnsc sincc that right dcpcnds on thc
occurrcncc ol an armcd attack as thc condition sine qua non lor its activation.
+6

Tosc uscs ol lorcc which do not qualily as an armcd attack may constitutc an
intcrvcntion lor thc purposcs ol intcrnational law and might, in turn, cntitlc
thc victim but not a third Statc to takc proportionatc countcrmcasurcs.
+

Tc distinct scnsc impartcd by thcsc aspccts ol thc Courts rcasoning is that,
cvcn though thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion commands an oldcr normativc pcdi
grcc,
+8
thc rulcs rcgulating lorcc and thc right ol sclldclcnsc somchow comc
to ovcrtakc thosc ol intcrvcntion in tcrms ol lcgal importancc as and whcn an
armcd attack occurs. Vc would bc ablc to tabulatc thc Courts thinking thus
(gure .):
FRC
!NTR\NT!N lcss gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc
(Nicaragua Case (.6), ..)
most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc
(Nicaragua Case (.6), ..)

!NTR\NT!N
(Nicaragua Case (.6), ..)

proportionatc countcrmcasurcs
(Nicaragua Case (.6), a)

ARM ATTACK
(Nicaragua Case (.6), .)

right ol individual/collcctivc scll

dclcnsc
(gure z)
Howcvcr, cvcn il onc is amcnablc to this commitmcnt ol thc Court ol con
structing a tcmplatc ol scamlcss conccptual juxtapositions, ol imposing disci
plinc and cohcrcncc whcrc nonc had prcviously bccn lound to cxist it is not at
mcrc pacic rcprisals thc Court can only havc mcant dclcnsivc military action
short ol lullscalc sclldclcnsc: ibid.).
.6 Supra notc .a although thc Court actually withhcld its position on thc lawlulncss
ol a rcsponsc to thc immincnt thrcat ol armcd attack: ibid., at .c (.)). Tis nd
ing is without prcjudicc to thc application ol thc principlcs ol ncccssity and propor
tionality: supra nn. 6,c.
., See supra notc . and, lurthcr, infra nn. aaa.
. Comparc thc cntry lor intcrvcntion to that ol thc prohibition ol lorcc in Lassa
ppcnhcim, !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w: A Tvv~:isv .... (\oi. !: Pv~cv) (.c).
Notc that, in thc Nicaragua Case, Sir Robcrt Jcnnings rcmarkcd that thc principlc ol
nonintcrvcntion is vcry much oldcr than any ol thc multilatcral trcaty rcgimcs in
qucstion i.c. thc Chartcr rcgimc on lorcc: Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .
53 l Topographies of Force
all transparcnt how or why somc ol thc Gcncral Asscmblys itcmizations lrom
Rcsolution a6a (XX\) havc bccn uscd as illustrations lor thc Courts conccption
ol lcss gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc. Vc say this bccausc dicrcnt inspirations
wcrc at work bchind cach assignmcnt: in ctobcr .,c, thc Gcncral Asscmbly
was committcd in thc main to marking out thc scope ol thc Chartcrs prohibition
of force,
+
whcrcas, in Junc .6, thc Court was attcmpting to congurc thc scope
ol thc right of self-defense by cxamining thc rclationship bctwccn thc conccpts
ol lorcc and armcd attack.
+o
Vith its invcntory ol actions in Rcsolution a6a
(XX\), thc Gcncral Asscmbly was thcrclorc conccrncd with actions which
though at onc timc might havc bccn considcrcd pcrmissiblc undcr intcrnational
law now, by virtuc ol thc prohibition ol lorcc, would bc considcrcd unlawlul per
se.
++
Tc Gcncral Asscmbly was clcarly not dcdicating itscll to thc uncnviablc
cntcrprisc ol dcning an armcd attack whcn it adoptcd Rcsolution a6a (XX\)
in ctobcr .,c.
+:
. So that thc Committcc rcsponsiblc lor dralting thc Rcsolution rcgardcd thc con
cluding phrasc ol Art.a, paragraph , as a limitation on statc action and not an cscapc
clausc: see Roscnstock, supra notc .a6, at ,.. Tc inclusion ol thc cighth and ninth
paragraphs on thc prohibition ol lorcc that |c|vcry statc has thc duty to rclrain
lrom organizing and cncouraging thc organization ol irrcgular lorccs or armcd
bands including mcrccnarics, lor incursion into thc tcrritory ol anothcr statc and
that |c|vcry Statc has thc duty to rclrain lrom organizing, instigating, assisting or
participating in acts ol civil strilc or tcrrorist acts in anothcr Statc or acquicscing
in organizcd activitics within its tcrritory dircctcd towards thc commission ol such
acts, whcn thc acts rclcrrcd to in thc prcscnt paragraph involvc a thrcat or usc ol
lorcc was dcsigncd to rcspond to thc vicw somctimcs asscrtcd that anything that
violatcs Art. a, paragraph |ol thc Chartcr|, givcs risc to rights undcr Art. .. See
Roscnstock, supra notc .a6, at ,ac. Howcvcr, this aspcct ol thc Rcsolution has bccn
challcngcd on thc lollowing ground:
Vhcthcr thc addition adds anything but a dcgrcc ol circularity to thc tcxt and
what thc lunction ol thc word thrcat was in thc minds ol thc proponcnts ol
thc addition arc pcrhaps opcn to qucstion. !ndccd, oncc thc notion ol thrcat
is includcd, it is dicult to pcrccivc any limitations on what was prcviously sct
lorth. vcn cncouraging is a thrcat.
See Roscnstock, supra notc .a6, at ,ac (and at ,a).
.c Vithin (ol coursc) thc rcalm ol custom, although it should ol coursc bc obscrvcd
that thc cclaration was in largc mcasurc inspircd by thc ambition ol codication:
see ibid., at ,.6 (and, at ,.,: thc rulcs ol thc Chartcr can now bc said to bc binding
on all statcs, which arc by dcnition subjccts ol intcrnational law and dcrivc thcir
sovcrcign cxistcncc lrom that body ol rulcs). Tc cclaration addrcsscs thc prohibi
tion ol lorcc to cvcry Statc rathcr than, as in Art. a () ol thc Chartcr, to all mcmbcr
statcs ol thc Unitcd Nations.
.. r, as Roscnstock wrotc at thc timc: thc individual paragraphs, whilc incapablc ol
providing a complctc systcm, providc vital guidclincs in a numbcr ol kcy situations.
See ibid., at ,a.
.a As wc disccrn lrom thc principlcs adumbratcd thcrcin: supra notc .a6. See, lurthcr,
supra notc .. Vc may makc thc samc point in conncction with Rcsolution .
54 Dino Kritsiotis
!n conscqucncc, wc arc nonc thc wiscr as to why thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc
to violatc thc cxisting intcrnational boundarics ol anothcr Statc or as a mcans ol
solving intcrnational disputcs, including tcrritorial disputcs and problcms con
ccrning lronticrs ol Statcs constitutcs an cxamplc ol lcss gravc lorms ol thc usc
ol lorcc.
+
Vc arc nonc thc wiscr bccausc, at basc, this proposition is not con
ccrncd with thc scale ol lorcc but, rathcr, with thc lormal justication advanccd
lor it. Tis wc can disccrn lrom other instanccs ol lcss gravc lorms ol thc usc
ol lorcc procrcd by thc Court courtcsy ol Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a
(XX\): acts ol rcprisal involving thc usc ol lorcc and any lorciblc action which
dcprivcs pcoplc rclcrrcd to in thc claboration ol thc principlc ol cqual rights and
sclldctcrmination ol that right to sclldctcrmination and lrccdom and indc
pcndcncc.
+
Sincc nonc ol thcsc manilcstations ol lorcc spcak to thc scalc ol
lorcc thc Courts apparcnt conccrn in thc Nicaragua Case it is hard to ration
alizc why, ol ncccssity, thcy lcaturc undcr thc Courts rubric ol lcss gravc lorms ol
thc usc ol lorcc rathcr than thc most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc (or armcd
attack). !ndccd, Argcntinas invasion ol thc Falklands in April .a and !raqs
invasion ol Kuwait in August .c both involvcd thc usc ol lorcc to violatc thc
cxisting intcrnational boundarics ol anothcr Statc or as a mcans ol solving intcr
national disputcs, including tcrritorial disputcs and problcms conccrning lron
ticrs ol Statcs,
+
and, yct, wc would bc hardpushcd to rcgard cithcr ol thcsc
actions as lcss gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc undcr intcrnational law.
Ncithcr ol thcsc actions would bc rcgardcd in thcsc tcrms bccausc both ol
thcsc actions involvcd action by rcgular armcd lorccs across an intcrnational
bordcr tcrminology which thc Court actually uscd a short whilc latcr in its
jurisprudcncc lor dcpicting thc most gra.e forms ol thc usc ol lorcc, or, as it
uttcrcd in thc samc brcath, an armcd attack.
+6
Vhat would havc mattcrcd morc
to thc Court in analyzing cithcr thc .a or thc .c invasion would havc bccn
(XX!X) (infra notc .,c): see Albrccht Randclzholcr, rticle z, in Tnv Cn~v:vv ov
:nv Uxi:vb N~:ioxs: A Co::vx:~vv ,, ,6 (\ol. !) (and cd., acca) (8runo
Simma ct al. cds.).
. Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c. (..).
. Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c. (..). !ndccd, thc dcning lcaturc ol acts ol
rcprisal involving thc usc ol lorcc has ncvcr bccn thc scalc ol lorcc but, rathcr, thcir
purposc which is always punitivc rathcr than dclcnsivc: see instcin, supra notc .,
at aa6. See, lurthcr, .V. 8owctt, Feprisals In.ol.ing Fecourse to rmed Force, 66 A:.
J. !x:i L~w . (.,a).
. For thcir rcspcctivc claims, scc Allrcd P. Rubin, Historical and Legal Background of
the FalklandsMal.inas Dispute, in Tnv F~ixi~xbs V~v: Lvssoxs vov S:v~:vcv,
ivio:~cv ~xb !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w .c (.) (A. Coll and A. Arcndt cds.)
(Argcntina) and Richard Schocld, Kuw~i: ~xb !v~g: His:ovic~i Ci~i:s ~xb
Tvvvi:ovi~i isvu:vs (..) (!raq).
.6 Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c (.) (cmphasis supplicd). Vc should notc that
this aspcct ol Rcsolution a6a (XX\) conccrns tcrritorial disputcs in addition to
problcms conccrning lronticrs ol Statcs: see supra notc .a6 and infra notc ..
55 l Topographies of Force
thc scalc ol lorcc involvcd although, to bc surc, at rst blush ol thc Courts
analysis in thc Nicaragua Case, it would appcar that thc considcration ol thc scalc
ol lorcc was rcscrvcd lor irrcgular lorcc, or thc scnding by or on bchall ol a Statc
ol armcd bands, groups, irrcgulars or mcrccnarics, which carry out acts ol armcd
lorcc against anothcr Statc. For it is in this contcxt that thc Court mcntions thc
issuc ol gravity,
+
and ol thc scalc and cccts ol an opcration.
+8
!t is only as
a rcsult ol rcading thc Nicaragua Case lurthcr or, bcttcr, dccpcr that wc can
apprcciatc that thc Court actually applicd its notion ol thc scalc and cccts ol
lorcc to thc actions ol rcgular lorcc as wcll, sincc it draws (and maintains) a dis
tinction bctwccn an armcd attack and a mcrc lronticr incidcnt.
+
For thc Court, thcn, not cvcry action ol rcgular (or Statc) armcd lorccs auto
matically qualics as an armcd attack. Tc qucstion to bc askcd is thc dcgrcc ol
lorcc applicd in a givcn situation whcthcr that lorcc occurs at thc hands ol rcg
ular or irrcgular lorccs. As wc rcad lurthcr into thc jurisprudcncc ol thc Nicaragua
Case, wc lcarn that it is also a mattcr ol thc circumstanccs ol |transbordcr| incur
sions |and| thcir possiblc motivations, sincc thcsc considcrations will havc somc
bcaring on thc dccision ol whcthcr actions ol this sort may bc trcatcd lor lcgal
purposcs as amounting, singly or collcctivcly, to an armcd attack.
+o
Tc Courts
position in this rcspcct sccms countcrintuitivc, howcvcr, bccausc it allows littlc,
., As in ol such gravity as to amount to (inter alia) an actual armcd attack conductcd
by rcgular lorccs: Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c (.). Tc Court is hcrc draw
ing on thc lormulations ol thc ., Gcncral Asscmbly cnition ol Aggrcssion lor
its inspiration: see supra notc a.
. Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c (.).
. For that is how thc Court rcprcscnts itscll in thc Nicaragua Case: Tc Court sccs no
rcason to dcny that, in customary law, thc prohibition ol armcd attacks may apply
to thc scnding by a Statc ol armcd bands to thc tcrritory ol anothcr Statc, il such
an opcration, bccausc ol its scalc and cccts, would havc bccn classicd as an armcd
attack rather than as a mere frontier incident had it been carried out by regular armed
forces. See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c (.) (cmphasis supplicd).
.c iscusscd in thc contcxt ol ccrtain transbordcr incursions into thc tcrritory ol
Honduras and Costa Rica which wcrc imputablc to thc Govcrnmcnt ol Nicaragua:
Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at ...ac (a.). Tc Court appcarcd to havc dcvclopcd
this notion lurthcr in thc Case Concerning Oil Platforms, whcrc it said:
Tcrc is no cvidcncc that thc minclaying allcgcd to havc bccn carricd out by
thc Iran jr, at a timc whcn !ran was at war with !raq, was aimcd spccically
at thc Unitcd Statcs, and similarly it has not bccn cstablishcd that thc minc
struck by thc Bridgeton was laid .ith the specic intention of harming that ship,
or othcr Unitcd Statcs vcsscls.
See Case Concerning Oil Platforms (acc), supra notc , at ...a (6) and Villiam
H. Talt, !\, Self Defense and the il Platlorms Decision, a Y~iv J. !x:i L~w a,
cac (acc). Tough, see Norman Mcnachcm Fcdcr, Feading the U.N. Charter
Connotati.ely: To.ard a Ne. Denition of rmed ttack, . N.Y.U. J. !x:i L. a Poi.
, .a (.6.,) (Unlikc most domcstic criminal laws, thcrc is no mens rea com
poncnt to an armcd attack).
56 Dino Kritsiotis
il any, scopc lor thc proportionatc cxcrcisc ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc in situa
tions ol this ordcr,
++
lor statcs conlrontcd with such a challcngc to havc carly and
ccctivc rccoursc to countcrlorcc in sclldclcnsc in ordcr to obviatc thc nccd lor
an cvcn grcatcr quoticnt ol lorcc latcr. Taking account ol thc lact that thc Court
was rcccting on thcsc mattcrs lrom thc comlort and convcnicncc ol its own
hindsight, it may not bc lully apparcnt to thc targct Statc that at a givcn point
in rcal or actual timc a particular action is rcally no morc than a mcrc lronticr
incidcnt as opposcd to thc initial manilcstations ol an armcd attack,
+:
and, to
this cxtcnt, thc Courts position has attractcd thc critiquc ol bcing opcrationally
unworkablc:
Vhcn a statc has to dccidc whcthcr it can rcpcl inccssant lowlcvcl irrcgu
lar military activity, docs it rcally havc to dccidc whcthcr that activity is thc
cquivalcnt ol an armcd attack by a lorcign army and, anyway, is it not any usc
ol lorcc by a lorcign army cntitlcd to bc mct by sucicnt lorcc to rcquirc it to
withdraw: r is that now in doubt also: !s thc qucstion ol le.el ol violcncc by
rcgular armcd lorccs not rcally an issuc ol proportionality, rathcr than a qucs
tion ol dctcrmining what is an armcd attack:
+
Ncvcrthclcss, as things stand, it is clcar that thc Court invokcd somc thrcshold
lor lorcc across thc board, so that it applics cqually to Statc actions as it docs thc
scnding by or on bchall ol a Statc ol armcd bands, groups, irrcgulars or mcr
ccnarics, which carry out acts ol armcd lorcc against anothcr Statc.
+
n this
point, thc Court took its lcad lrom thc ., Gcncral Asscmbly cnition ol
.. See Gray, supra notc .c, at ....
.a !t has bccn said that thc Court was rathcr noncommittal on thc qucstion ol whcthcr
Nicaragua had committcd an armcd attack against Honduras and Costa Rica (see
Gray, ibid., at .) bccausc, as it said, it had vcry littlc inlormation as to thc cir
cumstanccs or possiblc motivations ol thc incursions and this rcndcrcd it dicult to
dccidc whcthcr thcy could bc trcatcd lor lcgal purposcs as amounting cithcr singly
or collcctivcly to an armcd attack by Nicaragua on cithcr or both ol thcsc statcs. See
Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at ...ac (a.). Howcvcr, onc wondcrs whcthcr, givcn
an idcntical paucity ol inlormation, thc targct Statc could aord to bc or, indccd,
bc cxpcctcd to bc similarly noncommittal.
. See Higgins, supra notc .., at aca..
. Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c (.). Although thcrc arc signs that thc Gcncral
Asscmbly invokcd thc notion ol gravity in thc contcxt ol irrcgular lorcc and con
ncd it to that contcxt: Art. (a) ol thc cnition ol Aggrcssion mcntions |t|hc
invasion or attack by thc armcd lorccs ol a Statc ol thc tcrritory ol anothcr Statc, or
any military occupation, ho.e.er temporary, rcsulting lrom such invasion or attack, or
any anncxation by thc usc ol lorcc ol thc tcrritory ol anothcr Statc or part thcrcol
and Art. (b): |b|ombardmcnt by thc armcd lorccs ol a Statc against thc tcrritory ol
anothcr Statc or the use of any .eapons by a State against the territory of another State:
supra notc a (cmphascs supplicd).
57 l Topographies of Force
Aggrcssion,
+
although, as wc havc alrcady mcntioncd,
+6
it had prcviously dcs
ignatcd thc organizing or cncouraging thc organization ol irrcgular lorccs or
armcd bands, including mcrccnarics, lor incursion into thc tcrritory ol anothcr
Statc |lrom Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\)| as an instancc ol lcss
gravc lorms ol lorcc,
+
and not, as it was now doing, as onc ol thc most gravc
lorms ol lorcc.
+8
Vhilc thc Court was thcrclorc crisscrossing lrom its initial
dcsignation ol irrcgular lorcc as a lcss gravc lorm ol lorcc (paragraph .. ol its
Nicaragua judgmcnt) to a most gravc lorm ol lorcc (paragraph . ol thc samc
judgmcnt),
+
thc mutation can bc cxplaincd on thc basis ol thc gravity or scalc
and cccts ol such an opcration
+6o
as dcrivcd lrom thc Gcncral Asscmblys
dcnition ol aggression lrom cccmbcr .,.
+6+
Tc Court thus rcachcd lor thc dcnition ol aggrcssion to anchor its dc
nition ol an armcd attack. Tis much is clcar lrom thc Nicaragua Case, but, truc
to thc carlicr rcasoning ol thc Court and givcn its conccptual discrctions in that
jurisprudcncc, wc should bc clcar in qucstioning thc cxtcnt to which corrclations
ol this sort arc advisablc and, indccd, cmpirically sustainablc. Vc arc agrccd on
. Supra nn. a and .,. See, lurthcr, Julius Stonc, Accvvssiox ~xb Vovib vbvv
(.), A.J. Tomas & A.\.V. Tomas, Tnv Coxcvv: ov Accvvssiox ix
!x:vvx~:iox~i L~w (.,a) and 8cnjamin J. Fcrcncz, vvixixc !x:vvx~:iox~i
Accvvssiox (.,). See, lurthcr, 8crt 8roms, Te Denition of ggression, . H~cuv
Rvcuvii a (.,,) and Jack !. Garvcy, Te U.N. Denition of ggression: La. and
Illusion in the Context of Collecti.e Security, ., \~. J. !x:i L~w .,, (.,,). See, also,
Julius Stonc, Hopes and Loopholes in the z,,, Denition of ggression, ,. A:. J. !x:i
L~w aa (.,,) and \crnon Cassin, Vhitncy cbcvoisc, Howard Kailcs and Tcrcncc
V. Tompson, Te Denition of ggression, .6 H~vv~vb !x:i L~w J. (.,).
.6 Supra notc .a,.
., Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c. (..).
. Ibid., at .c (.).
. Vhcrcas instcin appcars to rcgard this lormulation in Gcncral Asscmbly
Rcsolutions . (XX!X) and a6a (XX\) as part ol thc samc strcam ol argumcnt:
see instcin, supra notc ., at ac.aca.
.6c Hcncc thc Courts statcmcnt that it sccs no rcason to dcny that, in customary law,
thc prohibition ol armcd attacks may apply to thc scnding by a Statc ol armcd bands
to thc tcrritory ol anothcr statc, if such an operation, because of its scale and eects, .ould
ha.e been classied as an armed attack rather than as a mere frontier incident had it been
carried out by regular armed forces: Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c (.) (cmpha
sis supplicd).
.6. Art. (g). See, also, Art. a ol thc cnition: Tc rst usc ol armcd lorcc by a Statc
in contravcntion ol thc Chartcr shall constitutc prima facie cvidcncc ol an act ol
aggrcssion although thc Sccurity Council may, in conlormity with thc Chartcr, con
cludc that a dctcrmination that an act ol aggrcssion has bccn committcd would not
bc justicd in thc light ol othcr rclcvant circumstanccs, including the fact that the acts
concerned or their consequences are not of sucient gra.ity (cmphasis supplicd). Furthcr,
in thc prcambular paragraphs to thc cnition, thc Gcncral Asscmbly notcd that
aggrcssion is thc most scrious and dangcrous lorm ol thc illcgal usc ol lorcc: supra
notc a.
58 Dino Kritsiotis
thc Courts mission ol cohcrcncc, and on thc lact that, cvcn though thc Chartcr
uscs various tcrminologics to inauguratc its systcm ol collcctivc sccurity, thcrc
arc doubtlcss prospccts lor coincidcncc ol thc phenomena covcrcd by thcsc tcrms.
Yct, it is thc naturc and cxtcnt ol this ovcrlap that is thc sourcc ol somc diculty,
bccausc wc arc not only constructing topographics ol lorcc lrom thc pcrspcc
tivc ol thc Chartcr and intcrnational law morc broadly, wc arc at thc samc timc
addrcssing qucstions ol compctcncc that is to say that wc arc dcciding which
statc and institutional actors may or must do what and whcn and lor how long
and with whom.
+6:
Tat pcrhaps cxplains why thc Court was so particular with its dcnition ol
an armcd attack in thc Nicaragua Case, but this may havc comc at thc cost ol sug
gcsting that an armcd attack and an aggrcssion arc onc and thc samc thing.
+6
Vc
rcalizc this lrom an carly part ol thc Courts analysis bccausc, in silting through
thc .,c cclaration on Fricndly Rclations lor cxamplcs ol lcss gravc lorms ol
thc usc ol lorcc,
+6
thc Court mcntioncd that, in addition to this calcndar ol scc
narios, thc Rcsolution contains ccrtain dcscriptions which may rclcr to aggrcs
sion.
+6
Tc inlcrcncc is that thcsc outstanding dcscriptions await considcration
as part ol thc Courts catcgory ol thc most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc,
+66
or,
as thc Court immcdiatcly thcn put it, thosc constituting armcd attack.
+6
Tc
scnsc ol an cxact conccptual match bctwccn armcd attack and aggrcssion could
thcrclorc bc rcgardcd as strong lrom thcsc lormulations, and might bc dcpictcd
in thc lollowing tcrms:
.6a !t is indccd humbling to rcrcad that scction ol ppcnhcims tcxt which providcs that
it is ol thc csscncc ol thc conccption ol sclldclcnsc that rccoursc to it must, in thc
rst instancc, bc lclt to thc unlcttcrcd judg|c|mcnt ol thc party which dccms itscll
to bc in dangcr: see ppcnhcim, supra notc a, at ., (ag).
.6 As would appcar to havc happcncd with thc cmocratic Rcpublic ol Congo in its
casc against Uganda whcrc an armcd aggrcssion was allcgcd and thc right ol scll
dclcnsc proclaimcd: see Case Concerning rmed cti.ities in the Territory of the Congo,
supra notc , at ac (a). !t is possiblc, ol coursc, that thc Court considcrcd thc rcla
tionship as onc ol partial (rathcr than complctc) synonymy, but, il this is so, it is not
ncccssarily bctraycd by thc Courts ovcrall rcprcscntations (scc cspccially infra nn.
.6.6, (and accompanying tcxt)). Gray considcrs that thc Court had limitcd rcli
ancc on thc cnition ol Aggrcssion, stopping short ol a complctc idcntication ol
thc two conccpts |ol armcd attack and aggrcssion|: see Gray, supra notc .c, at .c.
.6 Supra notc .a,.
.6 Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c. (..).
.66 Ibid.
.6, Ibid.
59 l Topographies of Force
FRC
lcss gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc
(Nicaragua Case (.6), ..)
most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc
(Nicaragua Case (.6), ..)

ARM ATTACK
(Nicaragua Case (.6), .)

AGGRSS!N
(., GA Rcsolution . (XX!X))
(gure :)
To bc surc, thcrc would bc somc mcrit to thc Court taking this position il it is
indccd taking this position
+68
bccausc, in thc Frcnch tcxt ol thc Chartcr, Articlc
. providcs lor thc right ol individual and collcctivc sclldclcnsc whcrc a statc is
thc objcct ol unc agrcssion armc or, litcrally, an armed aggression.
+6
Howcvcr,
il wc takc thc cnition ol Aggrcssion lor what it is, wc rcalizc that thc inci
dcnccs ol aggrcssion outlincd in Articlc arc intcndcd to bc just that illustrativc
ol what constitutcs aggression in intcrnational law. 8y all accounts, thc Gcncral
Asscmbly was not intcnding to csh out thc mcaning ol an armcd attack whcn it
sct out to adopt Rcsolution . (XX!X) in cccmbcr .,.
+o
Vc also nd that cach ol thcsc illustrations appcars undcr thc gcncral rubric
ol thc conccpt ol aggrcssion, dcncd by thc Gcncral Asscmbly in Rcsolution
. (XX!X) as thc usc ol armcd lorcc by a Statc against thc sovcrcignty, tcrrito
rial intcgrity or political indcpcndcncc ol anothcr Statc, or in any othcr manncr
inconsistcnt with thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations.
++
n account ol this
lormulation, it might bc thought that thc closcr parallcl lor thc Court to havc
madc in Junc .6 would havc bccn bctwccn the use of armed force and an armed
attack,
+:
but thc Court contcntcd itscll in scqucstcring onc ol thcsc manifesta-
tions ol aggrcssion thc scnding by or on bchall ol a Statc ol armcd bands,
.6 See Gray, supra notc .c, at .c.
.6 Tough thcsc arc not thcmsclvcs ncccssarily idcntical: see Randclzholcr, supra notc
.a, at ,.
.,c Tomas 8ruha, iv vvixi:iox bvv Accvvssiox ..c... (.c) (by way ol illus
trations that wcrc not intcndcd to bc cxhaustivc: Art. ol thc cnition stipulatcs
that |t|hc acts cnumcratcd |in Art. | arc not cxhaustivc and thc Sccurity Council
may dctcrminc that othcr acts constitutc aggrcssion undcr thc provisions ol thc
Chartcr).
.,. Supra notc a.
.,a See, lurthcr, Higgins, supra notc .. Although this would havc put thc Court on
collision coursc with its trcatmcnt ol Rcsolution a6a (XX\) givcn that rcsolutions
60 Dino Kritsiotis
groups, irrcgulars or mcrccnarics, which carry out acts ol armcd lorcc against
anothcr Statc ol such gravity as to amount to (inter alia) an actual armcd attack
conductcd by rcgular lorccs, or its substantial involvcmcnt thcrcin and dcclar
ing, without morc, that this activity may bc takcn to rccct customary intcrna
tional law.
+
!ts conclusion has lclt us with lood lor thought namcly, whcthcr
this aspcct ol thc cnition ol Aggrcssion is uniquc in its contribution to thc
customary dcnition ol an armcd attack undcr intcrnational law or whcthcr thc
samc conclusions can bc hcld out lor thc othcr dcscriptions ol aggrcssion con
taincd in Articlc ol Rcsolution . (XX!X).
+
Caution has also bccn adviscd in thc rcccption ol thc cnition on account
ol thc lact that it is not a trcaty tcxt,
+
nor a rcsolution ol thc Gcncral Asscmbly
which purports to dcclarc principlcs ol customary intcrnational law not rcgu
latcd by thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr.
+6
To thcsc considcrations, it would rcpay
us to rccall that thc Chartcr addrcsscs armcd attack and aggrcssion dicrcntly
thc lormcr as an aspcct ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc, thc lattcr appcars alongsidc
thrcats to thc pcacc
+
and brcachcs ol thc pcacc
+8
as part ol thc plcnitudc ol
undcrstanding ol thc rclationship bctwccn thc conccpts ol lorcc and armcd attack:
see Roscnstock, supra notc ..
., Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c (.) (a nding which, according to Gray, sccms
justicd in thc light ol statc practicc: see Gray, supra notc .c, at .c). 8y this statc
mcnt, howcvcr, thc Court docs not appcar to havc convcycd what it apparcntly
wantcd to convcy. Vhat is actually mcant by saying that thc activity in qucstion
may bc takcn to rccct customary intcrnational law: Givcn thc contcxt in which
this statcmcnt appcars, it pcrhaps would havc bccn bcttcr lor thc Court to havc said
that thc activity in qucstion thc scnding by or on bchall ol a Statc ol armcd bands,
groups, irrcgulars or mcrccnarics, which carry out acts ol armcd lorcc against anothcr
Statc ol such gravity may bc takcn to rccct an armcd attack as dcncd in custom
ary intcrnational law. See infra notc ., (and accompanying tcxt).
., !n which casc, it would bc dicult to squarc thc Courts latcr jurisprudcncc ol thc
Case Concerning Oil Platforms with its Nicaragua position, sincc, thcrc, thc Court
rccctcd that it did not cxcludc thc possibility that thc mining ol a single military
.essel might bc sucicnt to bring into play thc inhcrcnt right ol sclldclcnsc. See
Case Concerning Oil Platforms, supra notc , at ..6 (,a) (cmphasis supplicd). Tis
should bc sct against Art. (d) ol thc cnition ol Aggrcssion, supra notc a, which
incorporatcs in its cxamplcs ol aggrcssion |a|n attack by thc armcd lorccs ol a Statc
on thc land, sca or air lorccs, or marinc and air eets ol anothcr Statc (cmphasis sup
plicd).
., Not lcast ol all by onc ol thc Courts own mcmbcrs: scc thc isscnting pinion ol
Judgc Schwcbcl, supra notc ,, at (.6).
.,6 Ibid. (in thc manncr ol Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\)).
.,, Notc that thc thrcat ol lorcc is cxcludcd lrom thc cnition ol Aggrcssion: see
instcin, supra notc ., at .a,.
., See Higgins, supra notc , at a,. Amongst othcr lactors, this brcadth ol cxccutivc
powcrs might go somc way in cxplaining why thc Sccurity Council has not lound a
lcgal nccd to makc dctcrminations ol aggrcssion in its practiccs: see infra nn. . and
.6 (and accompanying tcxt).
61 l Topographies of Force
.ires bcstowcd upon thc Sccurity Council.
+
Morcovcr, thc conccpt ol aggrcs
sion cnjoins a protractcd history which prcccdcs that ol armcd attack,
+8o
whosc
function has changcd with thc coursc ol timc. Tc original lcgal problcm was to
spccily and rcndcr illcgal aggrcssivc acts which prccipitatcd wars, whcrcas, with
thc advcnt ol thc Unitcd Nations, thc conccpt ol aggrcssion bccamc aligncd with
thc conccrn to aord thc Council maximum cxibility in tcrms ol its cxccutivc
powcrs undcr thc Chartcr.
+8+
!t is lor this rcason that Articlc is rccitcd in thc
prcambular paragraphs to thc Rcsolution . (XX!X),
+8:
as wcll as thc notation
ol thc Gcncral Asscmbly that nothing in this cnition shall bc intcrprctcd as
in any way accting thc scopc ol thc provisions ol thc Chartcr .ith respect to the
functions and po.ers of the organs of the United Nations.
+8
., Scc .V. 8owctt, Svivvvvxsv ix !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w a6a (.) and Garvcy,
supra notc ., at .. and .6.,.
.c See Higgins, supra notc , at a,.a,a and Schwcbcl, infra notc .a, at . (noting that
|t|hc problcm ol thc dcnition ol aggrcssion gocs back at lcast to .a). Tc history
continucs: see Art. (.) (d) ol thc . Romc Statutc ol thc !ntcrnational Criminal
Court and thc dclcrral ol thc dccision on dcnition: Art. (a). See, lurthcr, Phani
ascalopoulouLivada, Te Crime of ggression: Making Operati.e the Jurisdiction
of the ICC: Tendencies in the PrepCom, 6 Pvocvvbixcs A:. Soc. !x:i L~w .
(acca).
.. See Cassin, cbcvoisc, Kailcs and Tompson, supra notc ., at c. See, lurthcr, 6
U.N.C.!.. ocs. a (.). !t is Garvcys contcntion that thc spccication ol both
a corc conccpt ol aggrcssion and a list ol acts that may qualily as aggrcssion is
intcndcd to lramc and guidc Statc bchavior and thc dclibcrations ol thc Sccurity
Council: supra notc ., at .c. !ndccd, thc lailurc to dcnc thc tcrm in thc Chartcr
is cxplaincd on thc basis that a dcnition would intcrlcrc with Sccurity Council
pacication corts (ibid., at .).
.a Vhich rccalls that thc Sccurity Council, in accordancc with Art. ol thc Chartcr
ol thc Unitcd Nations, shall dctcrminc thc cxistcncc ol any thrcat to thc pcacc,
brcach ol thc pcacc or act ol aggrcssion and shall makc rccommcndations, or dccidc
what mcasurcs shall bc takcn in accordancc with Arts. . and a, to maintain or
rcstorc intcrnational pcacc and sccurity: supra notc a.
. Supra notc a (cmphasis supplicd). See, lurthcr, supra notc .,c. !ndccd, upon thc adop
tion ol thc Rcsolution on cc. ., .,, thc Gcncral Asscmbly |c|allcd thc attcntion
ol thc Sccurity Council to thc cnition ol Aggrcssion and rccommcnd|cd| that
it should, as appropriatc, takc account ol that cnition as guidancc in dctcrmina
tion, in accordancc with thc Chartcr, thc cxistcncc ol an act ol aggrcssion. See supra
notc a. Garvcys position is that |t|hc tcrm aggrcssion is a primc cxamplc ol lan
guagc uniqucly charactcrizcd by thc institutional contcxt ol collcctivc sccurity. See
supra notc ., at .,, and (at .c): Tc |Sccurity| Council rcndcrs judgmcnt about
aggrcssion in ordcr to sct thc stagc lor action undcr Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr.
Tis, ol coursc, is not to dcny, howcvcr, othcr purposcs ol thc cnition, as outlincd
by thc Ncthcrlands:
Tc Asscmblys objcct had bccn, rst, to contributc to thc maintcnancc ol
intcrnational pcacc and sccurity by lormulating a dcnition lor thc guidancc
ol thc compctcnt organs ol thc Unitcd Nations and sccondly, to promotc
thc dcvclopmcnt ol intcrnational law by providing dircctions lor thc judgcs
62 Dino Kritsiotis
Notwithstanding thc signicancc givcn to thc Sccurity Council in rclation
to dctcrminations ol aggrcssion in Rcsolution . (XX!X),
+8
wc should ncvcr
thclcss bc awarc ol thc glaring paucity ol practicc whcrc thc Council has madc
such dctcrminations. nc can think ol Rcsolution (.,) (whcrc thc Council
dctcrmincd that thcrc cxists a brcach ol thc pcacc as rcgards thc conict bctwccn
!ran and !raq) and Rcsolution 66c (.c) (which labclcd thc !raqi invasion ol
Kuwait in August .c as a brcach ol intcrnational pcacc and sccurity). Tcsc
wcrc instanccs whcrc an act ol aggrcssion was dcmonstrably clcarcut,
+8
or so
onc would havc thought. Yct, thc Council rcspondcd in a manncr and with a
ccrtain consistcncy ol action, it has to bc said that suggcsts thc possiblc onsct
ol an institutional allcrgy toward making any dctcrmination ol aggrcssion.
+86
Tc
samc cannot bc said lor statc practicc on armcd attack,
+8
howcvcr, whcrc wc nd
a vcritablc cmbarrassmcnt ol cmpirical richcs, that arc oltcn, it is truc, accompa
nicd with accusations and asscrtions ol aggrcssion.
+88
Tis contrast docs providc
us with an appropriatc and ncccssary platlorm to ask what or how thc conccpt ol
aggrcssion adds to our undcrstanding ol thc conccpt ol lorcc and spccically
whcthcr thc purposc and conscqucnccs ol thcsc dcsignations in state practicc arc
ol a political or lcgal oricntation.
+8
o thcy articulatc in any way a lcgal function
callcd upon to try pcrsons guilty ol intcrnational crimcs. Quitc clcarly, a guidc
intcndcd lor politicians dicrcd lundamcntally lrom onc intcndcd lor jurists.
, U.N. G.A..R. C.6 (th Mtg.), .,a, U.N. oc. A/C.6/SR. (.a).
. See, in particular, Art. a and Art. : supra notc a.
. According to thc tcrms ol thc Gcncral Asscmblys own cnition ol Aggrcssion:
supra notc a.
.6 !n this, thc Council would not appcar to bc alonc: in thc Case Concerning rmed
cti.ities in the Territory of the Congo, Judgc 8runo Simma (in his scparatc opinion)
chidcd thc Court lor thc way in which |it| has avoidcd dcaling with thc cxplicit
rcqucst ol thc |cmocratic Rcpublic ol Congo| to nd that Uganda, by its massivc
usc ol lorcc against thc |cmocratic Rcpublic ol Congo| has committcd an act ol
aggrcssion: supra notc , at . (a). Judgc Simma notcd that thc situation in thc Grcat
Lakcs rcgion must appcar as a tcxtbook cxamplc ol thc rst onc ol thc dcnitions
ol this most scrious and dangcrous lorm ol thc illcgal usc ol lorcc laid down in
Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution . (XX!X) and that |t|hc Council will havc its own
political rcasons lor rclraining lrom such a dctcrmination |ol aggrcssion|: ibid.,
at . ().
., See Gray, supra notc .c, at .c.ac.
. \isiblc par excellence in thc ocial rcsponscs to !sracls action against !raq on Junc ,,
... supra nn. 6c, 6. and 6.
. Cl. ibid. and thc Case Concerning rmed cti.ities in the Territory of the Congo, whcrc
Judgc Simma was ol thc vicw (see, lurthcr, supra notc .6) that thc Court should
havc cngagcd thc qucstion ol aggrcssion on thc grounds that this had bccn thc
cxplicit rcqucst ol thc RC (supra notc , at . ()) and not ncccssarily bccausc
it would havc any substantivc implications lor thc Courts rcasoning or analysis.
Tc cmocratic Rcpublic ol Congo had askcd thc Court to adjudgc and dcclarc
that Uganda was guilty inter alia ol an act ol aggrcssion within thc mcaning ol
63 l Topographies of Force
or signicance lor thc conccpt ol aggrcssion that is scparatc to that which cxists
lor it in thc cnlorccmcnt powcrs ol thc Council or in thc substantivc rmamcnt
wc now know as intcrnational criminal law:
+o
IV Iorce and Intervention
Although intcrvcntion lorms no part ol instcins ovcrarching triptych ol war,
aggrcssion and sclldclcnsc,
++
its rclationship with thc lcgal lramcwork lor
lorcc is an important onc and should ncithcr go unmcntioncd nor uncxamincd.
+:

Vc makc this obscrvation rcgarding thc intcrlacc bctwccn lorcc and intcrvcn
tion in vicw ol thcir rclatcd materia and givcn thc rclationship that has dcvclopcd
bctwccn lorcc and intcrvcntion in thc jurisprudcncc ol thc !ntcrnational Court
ol Justicc. Vc havc alrcady advcrtcd to this qucstion in rcspcct ol our discussion
ol lorcc lalling short ol an armcd attack,
+
but wc arc also mindlul ol thc Courts
announccmcnt also drawn lrom thc Nicaragua Case that acts which brcach
thc principlc ol nonintcrvcntion will also, il thcy dircctly or indircctly involvc
thc usc ol lorcc, constitutc a brcach ol thc principlc ol thc nonusc ol lorcc in
intcrnational rclations.
+
From thc structurc ol thc Courts ruling in thc Case
Articlc . ol Rcsolution . ol thc Gcncral Asscmbly ol thc Unitcd Nations ol .
cccmbcr ., and ol thc jurisprudcncc ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, con
trary to Articlc a, paragraph , ol thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr: Case Concerning
rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo, supra notc , at . (a) (and, at .6 (a),
that thc Rcpublic ol Uganda has violatcd thc principlc ol nonusc ol lorcc in
intcrnational rclations, including thc prohibition ol aggrcssion). See, also, ibid., at aa
(a) and at a6 (a).
.c Cl. supra notc .. Possibly as a mcans ol lcgally quantilying thosc uscs ol lorcc or,
wc could also say, thosc intcrvcntions that arc not ablc to avail thcmsclvcs ol any
ol thc admittcd exceptions to thcsc prohibitions undcr intcrnational law: Quaere,
though, whcthcr this approach would cohcrc with thc Courts distinction bctwccn
most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc and othcr lcss gravc lorms (supra notc .a) and
thc rclationship bctwccn most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc and aggrcssion (supra
nn. .a and .6.6,).
.. Tough not cntircly abscnt lrom thc substancc ol his work cvcn il not rcprcscntcd
in tcrms ol intcrvcntion: conscnt by Statcs to thc usc lorcc is a ncw supplcmcntary
scction in V~v, Accvvssiox ~xb Svivvvvxcv, supra notc ., at xi and ..a..6, see,
also, infra nn. aac (and accompanying tcxt).
.a !n contrast, considcr thc structural approachcs ol Gray, supra notc .c, at
and Stcphcn M. Schwcbcl, ggression, Inter.ention and Self-Defense in Modern
International La., .6 H~cuv Rvcuvii .. (.,a). See, lurthcr, J..S. Fawcctt,
Inter.ention in International La.: Study of Some Fecent Cases, .c H~cuv Rvcuvii
a (.6.).
. See supra nn. .. (and accompanying tcxt). See, also, gurc . (supra).
. Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c..c (ac).
64 Dino Kritsiotis
Concerning rmed cti.ities in the Territory of the Congo almost two dccadcs latcr,
it is clcar that thc Court has not dcmurrcd lrom this position.
+
According to thc Court, lorms ol action stand to bc asscsscd in thc light
ol both thc principlc ol nonusc ol lorcc, and that ol nonintcrvcntion,
+6
so that
thcsc principlcs (or prohibitions) ol intcrnational law arc rcsponsiblc lor crcating
thcir own sphcrcs lor analysis which, in turn, instruct our lcgal understanding ol
a singlc complcmcnt ol lacts or sct ol rcalitics. To dcsignatc thcsc sphcrcs thus,
howcvcr, might suggcst that thcsc principlcs cxist as rival lramcworks. !t would
bc closcr to thc mark to say that statcs and thc Court havc rcgardcd thcm
as complcmcntary to onc anothcr, cach with thcir own historics, contcnt and
lunction.
+
Vc lcarn this lrom thc Nicaragua Case whcn thc Court, altcr giving
dctailcd trcatmcnt to thc lramcwork conccrning lorcc (which includcs thc right
ol sclldclcnsc) in its cxamination ol thc bchavior ol thc Unitcd Statcs,
+8
turncd
to thc lramcwork conccrning intcrvcntion to cnquirc whcthcr customary intcr
national law, applicablc to thc prcscnt disputc, may contain othcr rulcs which
may cxcludc thc unlawlulncss ol such activitics |ol thc Unitcd Statcs|.
+
Tc Court madc this conccptual stridc lrom lorcc to intcrvcntion on thc
basis ol a ccrtain impcrativc namcly that such was thc structurc ol claims madc
by Nicaragua against thc Unitcd Statcs bclorc thc Court and that rcgard had to
bc paid to thc nonparticipation ol thc Unitcd Statcs in thc mcrits phasc ol thc
casc.
:oo
Tis impcrativc rcquircd thc Court to cnquirc whcthcr thcrc |was| any
. Case Concerning rmed cti.ities in the Territory of the Congo, supra notc , at 6 (.6).
Tc Court was ol thc vicw that |t|hc unlawlul military intcrvcntion by Uganda was
ol such a magnitudc and duration that thc Court considcrs it to bc a gravc viola
tion ol thc prohibition on thc usc ol lorcc cxprcsscd in Articlc a, paragraph , ol thc
Chartcr (ibid., at , (.6)).
.6 Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c,.c (ac).
., Supra notc .. Cl. Hiccixs, supra notc .. (prohibition ol lorcc) and Lowc, infra
notc a.. (prohibition ol intcrvcntion).
. Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c.. (.acc).
. Ibid., at .c6 (ac.). Tis rcprcscntation by thc Court would tcnd to lcnd crcdcncc to
thc thcory, positcd carlicr, ol thc prioritization ol thc lramcwork ol lorcc ovcr that ol
intcrvcntion whcrc and whcn an armcd attack occurs: see supra notc . (and accom
panying tcxt).
acc Ibid. Furthcr to thc allcgation in its Application to thc Court ol April ., |t|hat
thc Unitcd Statcs, in brcach ol its obligation undcr gcncral and customary intcr
national law, has uscd and is using lorcc and thc thrcat ol lorcc against Nicaragua,
Nicaragua had also contcndcd that thc Unitcd Statcs in brcach ol its obligation
undcr gcncral and customary intcrnational law, has intcrvcncd and is intcrvcning in
thc intcrnal aairs ol Nicaragua: ibid., at .. (.) and at aa (a).
As a mattcr ol law, Nicaragua claims, intcr alia, that thc Unitcd Statcs has actcd
in violation ol Articlc a, paragraph , ol thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr, and ol a
customary intcrnational law obligation to rclrain lrom thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc,
that its actions amount to intcrvcntion in thc intcrnal aairs ol Nicaragua, in
brcach ol thc Chartcr ol thc rganization ol Amcrican Statcs and ol rulcs
65 l Topographies of Force
justication lor thc activitics in qucstion, to bc lound not in thc right ol collcctivc
sclldclcnsc against an armcd attack, but in thc right to takc countcrmcasurcs
in rcsponsc to conduct ol Nicaragua which is not allcgcd to constitutc an armcd
attack.
:o+
!n rcspcct ol thc actual rclationship bctwccn lorcc and intcrvcntion, it
bccamc apparcnt to thc Court in thc Nicaragua Case that somc scnsc would rst
nccd to bc givcn as to thc mcaning ol cach ol thcsc prohibitions in intcrnational
law. Having dcncd thc prohibition ol lorcc in Chartcr and in custom,
:o:
thc
Court procccdcd to cxaminc thc naturc ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion. For
rcasons idcntical to thosc rclating to thc law on lorcc in thc Unitcd Nations
Chartcr,
:o
thc Court could not acccss thc provisions ol thc Chartcr in ordcr to
lramc its undcrstanding ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion. Howcvcr, in total
contrast to thc prohibition ol lorcc, it must bc said that cvcn il it had bccn possi
blc lor thc Court to havc rccoursc to thc Chartcr in thc Nicaragua Case, it would
ol customary intcrnational law lorbidding intcrvcntion, and that thc Unitcd
Statcs has actcd in violation ol thc sovcrcignty ol Nicaragua, and in violation
ol a numbcr ol othcr obligations cstablishcd in gcncral customary intcrnational
law and in thc intcrAmcrican systcm. Tc actions ol thc Unitcd Statcs arc also
claimcd by Nicaragua to bc such as to dclcat thc objcct and purposc ol a Trcaty
ol Fricndship, Commcrcc and Navigation concludcd bctwccn thc Partics in
.6, and to bc in brcach ol provisions ol that Trcaty.
!n thc Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo, thc cmocratic
Rcpublic ol thc Congo lramcd its allcgations against Uganda in similar tcrms: supra
notc , at .6 (a).
ac. Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c6 (ac.). Comparc this position with thc Courts
latcr pronounccmcnt that it docs not havc thc authority to ascribc to Statcs lcgal
vicws which thcy do not thcmsclvcs advancc. See ibid., at .c.c (ac,). See, lurthcr,
ino Kritsiotis, rguments of Mass Confusion, . uvovv~x J. !x:i L~w a, aa.
(acc). To bc surc, though, thc signicancc ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion in thc
casc docs not dcrivc lrom thc Courts own volition (ibid.) and thc Court justicd
its handling ol thc mattcr by thc nonparticipation ol thc Unitcd Statcs: supra notc
acc. See, also:
thc Court is not solcly dcpcndcnt lor its dccision on thc argumcnt ol thc
Partics bclorc it with rcspcct to thc applicablc law, it is rcquircd to considcr
on its own initiativc all rulcs ol intcrnational law which may bc rclcvant to thc
scttlcmcnt ol thc disputc cvcn il thcsc rulcs havc not bccn invokcd by a party.
Tc Court is howcvcr not cntitlcd to ascribc to Statcs lcgal vicws which thcy
do not thcmsclvcs lormulatc.
Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at . (a66).
aca Supra nn. ...a, (and accompanying tcxt).
ac According to thc \andcnbcrg Rcscrvation, all disputcs involving multilatcral trcatics
concludcd by thc Unitcd Statcs would bc cxcmptcd lrom thc compulsory jurisdic
tion ol thc Court unlcss (.) all partics to thc trcaty acctcd by thc dccision arc also
partics to thc casc bclorc thc Court, or (a) thc Unitcd Statcs ol Amcrica spccially
agrccs to jurisdiction. For a rcproduction ol this tcxt, see Nicaragua Case, supra notc
,, at . (a).
66 Dino Kritsiotis
not havc lound any cxprcssion ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion that lorms a
dircct cquivalcnt to thc Chartcrs prohibition ol lorcc lor, whcrcas Articlc a
() ol thc Chartcr addrcsscs its prohibition to thc mcmbcr statcs, thc intcndcd
audicncc ol Articlc a (,) is thc Unitcd Nations itscll. Spccically, thc lattcr provi
sion providcs that Nothing containcd in thc prcscnt Chartcr shall authorizc thc
Unitcd Nations to intcrvcnc in mattcrs which arc csscntially within thc domcstic
jurisdiction ol any statc or shall rcquirc thc Mcmbcrs to submit such mattcrs to
scttlcmcnt undcr thc prcscnt Chartcr, but this principlc shall not prcjudicc thc
application ol cnlorccmcnt mcasurcs undcr Chaptcr \!!.
:o
Tc Court lully (and
rightlully) acknowlcdgcd this position:
statcmcnts whcrcby Statcs avow thcir rccognition ol thc principlcs ol intcr
national law sct lorth in thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr cannot strictly bc intcr
prctcd as applying to thc principlc ol nonintcrvcntion by Statcs in thc intcrnal
and cxtcrnal aairs ol othcr Statcs, since this principle is not, as such, spelt out in
the Charter. 8ut it was ncvcr intcndcd that thc Chartcr should cmbody writtcn
conrmation ol cvcry csscntial principlc ol intcrnational law in lorcc.
:o
For its construction ol thc principlc ol nonintcrvcntion, thc Court thcrclorc had
to turn its attcntions clscwhcrc, it had to cast its gazc away lrom thc Chartcrs
tcxt. Tc Court rclicd on what it callcd gcncrally acccptcd lormulations ol thc
principlc,
:o6
as had appcarcd in Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolutions,
:o
rcgional trca
tics and in institutional practicc.
:o8
As it did so, thc Court rcmaincd conscious ol
thc occasions whcn statcs had committcd thcmsclvcs to thc principlc only |as| a
statcmcnt ol political intcntion and not a lormulation ol law.
:o
!t ncvcrthclcss
lclt sucicnt condcncc in disccrning a ccrtain dctcrminacy lor thc prohibition
ol intcrvcntion in intcrnational law a conclusion it rcachcd cvcn though (as
ac Comparc Albrccht Randclzholcr, rticle :(,), in Tnv Cn~v:vv ov :nv Uxi:vb
N~:ioxs: A Co::vx:~vv ..a, at .a. (\ol. !) (and cd., acca) (8runo Simma ct al.
cds.) with Gcorg Noltc, rticle : (,), in Simma (cd.), ibid., ., at ...a.
ac See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c6.c, (aca) (cmphasis supplicd).
ac6 Ibid., at .c,.c (ac).
ac, Ibid., at .c6.c, (acaac).
ac Such as thc . Montcvidco Convcntion on Rights and utics ol Statcs and thc
.6 Additional Protocol Rclativc to Non!ntcrvcntion and AG/RS. , and AG/
RS. .a ol thc Gcncral Asscmbly ol thc rganization ol Amcrican Statcs: ibid., at
.c, (ac). Tc Court also rclcrrcd to thc dcclaration appcaring in thc Final Act ol
thc Conlcrcncc on Sccurity and Coopcration in uropc (Hclsinki, . August .,)
which includcd an claboratc statcmcnt ol thc principlc ol nonintcrvcntion: ibid.
ac As had happcncd with thc Unitcd Statcs in rcspcct ol Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution
a.. (XX): cial Rccords ol thc Gcncral Asscmbly, Twcnticth Scssion, First
Committcc, A/C.!/SR..a, p. 6: citcd by thc Court in ibid., at .c, (ac). Tough
notc thc Courts position in rcspcct ol thc Hclsinki Final Act: ibid.
67 l Topographies of Force
thc Court obscrvcd) cxamplcs ol trcspass against this principlc arc not inlrc
qucnt.
:+o
For thc Court, thc principlc lorbids all Statcs or groups ol Statcs to intcr
vcnc dircctly or indircctly in intcrnal or cxtcrnal aairs ol othcr Statcs, whcrc
|t|hc clcmcnt ol cocrcion is what dcncs, and indccd lorms thc vcry csscncc
ol, prohibitcd intcrvcntion.
:++
Tc Court lound that intcrvcntion, is particularly
obvious in thc casc ol an intcrvcntion which uscs lorcc, cithcr in thc dircct lorm
ol military action, or in thc indircct lorm ol support lor subvcrsivc or tcrrorist
armcd activitics within anothcr Statc,
:+:
a statcmcnt which tcstics as much to
thc indcpcndcnt cxistcnccs ol thc prohibitions ol lorcc and intcrvcntion as it
docs to thc broadcr swccp ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion whcn comparcd
with that ol lorcc. According to thc Court, thcn, as a mattcr ol law, intcrvcntion
should bc undcrstood to includc uscs ol lorcc intcrvcntion is particularly obvi
ous in such cascs, thc Court says allowing us to inlcr that not all intcrvcntions
involvc or contain uscs ol lorcc as dcncd by intcrnational law.
!n dcning thc scopc ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion, thc Court paid
important homagc to Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\) lor its spcci
cation ol basic principlcs ol intcrnational law and, signicantly, on thc adoption
ol which no analogous statcmcnt was madc by thc Unitcd Statcs rcprcscntativc,
as had happcncd lor Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a.. (XX).
:+
Tis imbucd
Rcsolution a6a (XX\) with thc rclcvant normativc crcdcntials that allowcd thc
Court to intcrprct |t|hc ccct ol conscnt in rclation to Rcsolution a6a (XX\)
as an acccptancc ol thc validity ol thc rulc or sct ol rulcs dcclarcd by thc rcso
lution |itscll |.
:+
!t is lrom this conccption ol intcrvcntion a conccption that
incorporatcs armcd intcrvcntions as wcll as all othcr lorms ol intcrlcrcncc, and
which providcs that |n|o Statc may usc or cncouragc thc usc ol cconomic politi
cal or any othcr typc ol mcasurcs to cocrcc anothcr Statc in ordcr to obtain lrom
it thc subordination ol thc cxcrcisc ol its sovcrcign rights and to sccurc lrom it
advantagcs ol any kind
:+
that thc Court obviously took its cuc.
Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\) dcmonstratcs thc conscious
cort ol thc Gcncral Asscmbly in ctobcr .,c to lramc an undcrstanding ol
thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion that was morc cxpansivc in naturc than thc prohi
a.c Ibid., at .c6.c, (aca).
a.. Ibid., at .c,.c (ac). See, also, \aughan Lowc, Te Principle of Non-inter.ention:
Use of Force, in Tnv Uxi:vb N~:ioxs ~xb Pvixcivivs ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w:
ss~vs ix Hoxov ov Micn~vi Axvnuvs: 66, 6, (.) (Colin Varbrick and
\aughan Lowc cds.) (|i|t is thc intcntion, rathcr than thc mcans adoptcd, which
may qualily a Statcs action as unlawlul intcrvcntion).
a.a Ibid., at .c,.c (ac).
a. Ibid., at .c, (ac). See, lurthcr, supra notc ac,.
a. Ibid., at .cc (.).
a. See Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\), supra notc .a6 (a).
68 Dino Kritsiotis
bition ol lorcc which, as wc havc alrcady lcarnt, was itscll thc subjcct ol clabora
tion in thc samc rcsolution.
:+6
Tis intcrprctation is not only obtainablc lrom thc
Gcncral Asscmblys cxplicit invocation ol tcrms such as armcd intcrvcntion and
usc ol lorcc lor part ol its dcnition ol intcrvcntion, but in thc rcstrictivc trcat
mcnt it aordcd to thc conccpt ol lorcc in thc vcry samc rcsolution. vcr sincc
thc inccption ol thc Chartcrs prohibition ol lorcc, it has bccn argucd that thc
prohibition applics to forms ol lorcc other than to armcd lorcc.
:+
Support lor this
intcrprctation is typically drawn lrom thc lact that Articlc a () ol thc Chartcr
docs not contain thc adjcctival qualication ol armed lorcc, whcn that lormula
tion appcars clscwhcrc in thc Chartcr.
:+8
Howcvcr, thc rclcrcnccs madc by thc
Gcncral Asscmbly in thc contcxt ol thc prohibition ol lorcc in Rcsolution a6a
(XX\) wars ol aggrcssion, thc violation ol cxisting intcrnational bounda
rics and intcrnational lincs ol dcmarcation, acts ol rcprisal involving thc usc
ol lorcc, lorciblc action, thc organizing or cncouraging ol irrcgular lorccs or
armcd bands, and military occupation
:+
suggcst that thc Gcncral Asscmbly
was not prcparcd to sharc this undcrstanding. Rathcr, thc ovcrall incctions ol
thc Gcncral Asscmbly in Rcsolution a6a (XX\) sidcd against a prohibition ol
lorcc that cncompasscs |p|sychological or cconomic prcssurc.
::o
Tc diculty in thc Courts rcliancc on thc Gcncral Asscmblys con
struction ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion lics not so much in thc cxact con
tcnt ol thc principlc so acccptcd,
::+
although, truth bc told, |t|akcn litcrally,
as has bccn argucd in an idcntical contcxt, this languagc would outlaw diplo
a.6 Supra notc .a6.
a., J. Zourck, L!x:vvbic:iox bv iv:vioi bv i~ vovcv vx bvoi: ix:vvx~:iox~i ,
, (.,) and Higgins, supra notc , at a,6a,,.
a. Namcly, in thc Prcamblc and in Arts. . and 6: see instcin, supra notc ., at 6.
Furthcrmorc, Art. |ol thc Chartcr| supports thc vicw that thc Chartcr uscs thc
tcrm lorcc whcn it clcarly mcans armcd lorcc. See Randclzholcr, supra notc ac,
at ...
a. See Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\), supra notc .a6, and, lurthcr, supra
notc .a,.
aac See instcin, supra notc ., at 6. Tough, in this scction ol thc Rcsolution, thc
Gcncral Asscmbly docs stipulatc that Statcs havc thc duty to rclrain lrom propa-
ganda for .ars of aggression (supra notc .a6 (cmphasis supplicd)) but this statcmcnt
is madc in thc contcxt ol thc purposcs and principlcs ol thc Unitcd Nations. Notc,
though, Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a/aa: A/RS/a/aa, ,rd Plcnary Mtg. (Nov.
., .,), which, as part ol its cclaration on thc nhanccmcnt ol thc cctivcncss
ol thc Principlc ol Rclraining lrom thc Trcat or Usc ol Forcc in !ntcrnational
Rclations, providcs: No Statc may usc or cncouragc thc usc ol cconomic, political
or any othcr typc ol mcasurcs to cocrcc anothcr Statc in ordcr to obtain lrom it thc
subordination ol thc cxcrcisc ol its sovcrcign rights and to sccurc lrom it advantagcs
ol this kind ().
aa. See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c,.c (ac).
69 l Topographies of Force
macy.
:::
Tc problcm ariscs morc lrom thc catcgorical stancc with which thc
Gcncral Asscmbly cndorscd thc prohibition. !ts rcprcscntation ol thc prohibi
tion was cast in tcrms as absolutc as thcy wcrc broad, lor thc Rcsolution pro
vidcd that |n|o Statc or group ol Statcs has thc right to intcrvcnc, dircctly or
indircctly, for any reason .hate.er, in thc intcrnal or cxtcrnal aairs ol any othcr
Statc. Conscqucntly, armcd intcrvcntion and all othcr lorms ol intcrlcrcncc or
attcmptcd thrcats against thc pcrsonality ol thc Statc or against its political, cco
nomic and cultural clcmcnts, arc in violation ol intcrnational law.
::
!t is hcrc that thc Court partcd company with thc Gcncral Asscmbly.
::
Tis
is bccausc, in thc Nicaragua Case, thc Courts commitmcnt was not to grand
standing or to scrmonizing in thc abstract, but to tcsting thcsc hypothcscs ol
thc Gcncral Asscmbly on intcrvcntion (or, lcss controvcrsially, thcsc gcncrally
acccptcd lormulations)
::
against thc vicissitudcs ol statc practicc. !t askcd at onc
point whcthcr thc practicc |is| sucicntly in conlormity with |thc cxact con
tcnt ol thc principlc so acccptcd| lor this to bc a rulc ol customary intcrnational
law.
::6
Tc Court was also ol thc vicw that |r|cliancc by a Statc on a novcl right
or an unprcccdcntcd cxccption to thc principlc might, il sharcd in principlc by
othcr Statcs, tcnd towards a modication ol customary intcrnational law,
::
as
il thc Court was sctting out to providc somc mcthodological constitution lor
mcaning ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion in intcrnational law (notc thc rcl
crcncc to an cxccption to |this| principlc). Vc arc thcrclorc put on alcrt lor a
mcthod that was by turns morc nuanccd and ncgotiablc than that ol thc Gcncral
Asscmbly at lcast as lar as thc Courts initial approach toward thc prohibition
ol intcrvcntion was conccrncd.
To this cnd, and altcr it had madc somc dcnitional hcadway on thc pro
hibition ol intcrvcntion, thc Court cnquircd whcthcr thcrc might bc indications
ol a practicc illustrativc ol bclicl in a kind ol gcncral right lor Statcs to intcr
aaa See Farcr, supra notc a6, at c,. Tc contcxt was Art. . ol thc Chartcr ol thc
rganization ol Amcrican Statcs: No Statc has thc right to intcrvcnc, dircctly
or indircctly, lor any rcason whatcvcr, in thc intcrnal or cxtcrnal aairs ol any othcr
Statc. Tc lorcgoing principlc prohibits not only armcd lorcc but also any othcr lorm
ol intcrlcrcncc or attcmptcd thrcat against thc pcrsonality ol thc Statc or against its
political, cconomic, and cultural clcmcnts. See .. U.N.T.S. , .
aa See, Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\), supra notc .a6 (cmphasis supplicd).
aa n which, see Lowc, supra notc a.., and ino Kritsiotis, Feappraising Policy Objections
to Humanitarian Inter.ention, . Micnic~x J. !x:i L~w .cc, ...c... (.).
aa See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c,.c (ac).
aa6 Ibid., at .c,.c (ac). r, as thc Court put it in paragraph ac6: bclorc rcaching a
conclusion on thc naturc ol prohibitcd intcrvcntion, thc Court must bc satiscd that
Statc practicc justics it.
aa, Ibid., at .c.c (ac,) (though it is not altogcthcr clcar how thc Court would havc
sct about this task givcn its statcmcnt that it has no jurisdiction to rulc upon thc
conlormity with intcrnational law ol any conduct ol Statcs not partics to thc prcscnt
disputc, or ol conduct ol thc Partics unconncctcd with thc disputc (ac,)).
70 Dino Kritsiotis
vcnc, dircctly or indircctly, with or without armcd lorcc, in support ol an intcrnal
opposition in anothcr Statc whosc causc appcarcd particularly worthy by rcason
ol thc political and moral valucs with which it was idcnticd.
::8
Tc Court is
thcrclorc applying its lramcwork to a spccic contcxt or qucstion hcrc whcthcr,
as a mattcr ol law, statcs posscss a right to intcrvcnc or to thrcatcn or to usc lorcc
in ordcr to changc thc political or idcological pcrsuasion ol thc govcrnmcnt ol
a country (by rcmoving, il ncccssary, an incumbcnt govcrnmcnt lrom powcr).
::

For convcnicncc, wc shall lramc this proposition as a right ol political or idco
logical intcrvcntion. Tc Court concludcd that any nding in lavor ol such a
gcncral right would involvc a lundamcntal modication ol thc customary law
principlc ol nonintcrvcntion.
:o
Vhat is ol intcrcst to us hcrc is not that, lor bcttcr or lor worsc, thc Court
ccctivcly rcachcd thc samc substantivc conclusion on thc unlawlulncss ol a right
ol political or idcological intcrvcntion as thc Gcncral Asscmbly had donc in
ctobcr .,c, but thc manner in which it did so. !n lcalty to its own tcrms ol
rclcrcncc, thc Statutc ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, thc Court lound that
no such modication ol a right ol political or idcological intcrvcntion was cvi
dcnccd by a gcncral practicc acccptcd as law.
:+
!t did so as part and parccl ol
a proccss that admittcd thc possibility at lcast in principlc ol exceptions to
thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion: thc Court lound that Statcs havc not justicd
thcir conduct by rclcrcncc to a ncw right ol intcrvcntion or a ncw cxccption to
aa Ibid., at .c (ac6).
aa Notc, howcvcr, thc Courts obscrvation, ibid. at .a (a.): !t appcars to thc Court
to bc clcarly cstablishcd rst, that thc Unitcd Statcs intcndcd, by its support ol thc
contras, to cocrcc thc Govcrnmcnt ol Nicaragua in rcspcct ol mattcrs in which cach
Statc is pcrmittcd, by thc principlc ol Statc sovcrcignty, to dccidc lrccly , and
sccondly that thc intcntion ol thc contras thcmsclvcs was to ovcrthrow thc prcs
cnt Govcrnmcnt ol Nicaragua. For thc historical dimcnsion ol this dcbatc, scc V.
Michacl Rcisman, Old !ine in Ne. Bottles: Te Feagan and Bre.hne. Doctrines in
Contemporary International La. and Practice, . Y~iv J. !x:i L~w .,. (.) and,
lurthcr, Robcrt F. Turncr, !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w ~xb :nv 8vvznxvv oc:vixv
(.,) and Jcannc J. Kirkpatrick and Michacl Gcrson, Te Feagan Doctrine, Human
Fights and International La., in Ricn: v. Micn:: !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w ~xb :nv
Usv ov Fovcv (and cd., ..) (Louis Hcnkin et. al. cds.). Morc contcmporary rccc
tions arc ocrcd by Prolcssor Rcisman on this topic in his acc Manlcy . Hudson
Lccturc, !hy Fegime Change is (lmost l.ays) a Bad Idea, A:. J. !x:i L~w .6
(acc).
ac See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c (ac6) (as opposcd to its latcr spccication
(supra notc aa,) ol an unprcccdcntcd cxccption).
a. Tc prclcrrcd undcrstanding ol custom to Art. (.) (b) ol thc Statutc ol thc Court:
see Higgins, supra notc .., at ... Notc, though, that thc Court also said that it
cannot contcmplatc thc crcation ol a rulc opcning up a right ol intcrvcntion by onc
Statc against anothcr on thc ground that thc lattcr has optcd lor somc particular idc
ology or political systcm. See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at . (a6).
71 l Topographies of Force
thc principlc ol its prohibition
::
and that, in conscqucncc, acts constituting a
brcach ol thc customary principlc ol nonintcrvcntion will also, il thcy dircctly
or indircctly involvc thc usc ol lorcc, constitutc a brcach ol thc principlc ol non
usc ol lorcc in intcrnational rclations.
:
Tis lormulation raiscs thc qucstion ol
thc potcntial application ol this sct ol cxccptions to thc prohibition ol intcrvcn
tion to that ol lorcc,
:
which, today, is invariably conccivcd in thc tcrms ol thc
Unitcd Nations Chartcr and only thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr.
:
!mportantly,
thc Courts mcthod also highlights thc timcscnsitivc naturc ol its substantivc
pronounccmcnts, coming as thcy do with thc implicit proviso that thc statc prac
ticc which lormcd thc basis ol thc Courts conclusions in Junc .6 might not
still obtain in our timc.
:6
Tc Courts schcmata lor intcrvcntion did not cnd with its cxamination ol
an allcgcd right ol political or idcological intcrvcntion: it procccdcd to discuss
thc possibility ol other cxccptions to thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion with vary
ing dcgrccs ol subtlcty and dctail.
:
Tc Court madc passing rclcrcncc to what it
callcd thc proccss ol dccolonization
:8
and, thcn, to thc intcrvcntion ol socallcd
third Statcs. !t addrcsscd this mattcr in thc languagc ol countcrmcasurcs:
aa See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .c.c (ac,). According to thc Court, opinio
juris si.e necessitatis could bc manilcstcd by |c|ithcr thc statcs taking such action |i.c.
intcrvcntion| or othcr Statcs in a position rcact to it, or, wc can prcsumc, both.
a Ibid., at .c..c (ac).
a Vc prcsumc that an intcrvcntion which uscs lorcc (supra notc a.a) but which is
accommodatcd by an cxccption to thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion will not qualily
as a violation ol thc prohibition ol lorcc as pcr thc vcry lormulation ol thc Court:
ibid.
a Vc rclcr back to thc Courts hclplul prognosis at supra notc ac.
a6 Vhilc it may havc bccn thc situation in thc Nicaragua Case that thc Unitcd Statcs
has not claimcd that its intcrvcntion, which it justicd in this way on thc politi
cal lcvcl, was also justicd on thc lcgal lcvcl, allcging thc cxcrcisc ol a ncw right ol
intcrvcntion rcgardcd by thc Unitcd Statcs as cxisting in such circumstanccs (ibid.,
at .c (ac)), this situation is ol coursc subjcct to changc as a mattcr ol lact (and,
thcrclorc, possibly, law). Tc Court indccd said as much in its position on a right ol
collcctivc armcd rcsponsc to acts which do not constitutc an armcd attack: !n thc
vicw ol thc Court, under international la. in force today whcthcr customary intcr
national law or that ol thc Unitcd Nations systcm Statcs do not havc a right ol
collcctivc armcd rcsponsc to acts which do not constitutc an armcd attack (ibid.,
at ..c... (a..) (cmphasis supplicd)).
a, !n thc spirit ol its scllprolcsscd cntcrprisc: see supra nn. .ac. (and accompanying
tcxt).
a Vhich, thc Court notcd, is not in issuc in thc prcscnt casc: Nicaragua Case, supra
notc ,, at .c (ac6). See, also, instcin, supra notc ., 6,c and, lurthcr, R.. Gorlick,
!ars of National Liberation: Jus ad bcllum, .. C~sv V. Rvs. J. !x:i L~w ,. (.,). Scc
Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\) (supra notc .a6) and Art. , ol Rcsolution
. (XX!X) (supra notc a).
72 Dino Kritsiotis
il onc Statc acts towards anothcr Statc in brcach ol thc principlc ol nonintcr
vcntion, may a third Statc lawlully takc such action by way ol countcrmcasurcs
against thc rst Statc as would othcrwisc constitutc an intcrvcntion in its intcr
nal aairs: A right to act in this way in thc casc ol intcrvcntion would bc analo
gous to thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc in thc casc ol an armcd attack, but
both thc act which givcs risc to thc rcaction, and that rcaction itscll, would in
principlc bc lcss gravc. Sincc thc Court is hcrc dcaling with a disputc in which a
wronglul usc ol lorcc is allcgcd, it has primarily to considcr whcthcr a Statc has
a right to rcspond to intcrvcntion with intcrvcntion going so lar as to justily a
usc ol lorcc in rcaction to mcasurcs which do not constitutc an armcd attack but
may ncvcrthclcss involvc a usc ol lorcc. Tc qucstion is itscll undcniably rclc
vant lrom thc thcorctical vicwpoint. Howcvcr, sincc thc Court is bound to con
nc its dccision to thosc points ol law which arc csscntial to thc scttlcmcnt ol
thc disputc bclorc it, it is not lor thc Court hcrc to dctcrminc what dircct rcac
tions arc lawlully opcn to a Statc which considcrs itscll thc victim ol anothcr
Statcs acts ol intcrvcntion, possibly involving thc usc ol lorcc. Hcncc it has not
to dctcrminc whcthcr, in thc cvcnt ol Nicaraguas having committcd any such
acts against l Salvador, thc lattcr was lawlully cntitlcd to takc any particular
countcrmcasurc. !t might howcvcr bc suggcstcd that, in such a situation, thc
Unitcd Statcs might havc bccn pcrmittcd to intcrvcnc in Nicaragua in thc cxcr
cisc ol somc right analogous to thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc, onc which
might bc rcsortcd to in a casc ol intcrvcntion short ol armcd attack.
:
Vc noticc that this paragraph actually approachcs thc qucstion ol third Statc
intcrvcntion (or thc cxcrcisc ol somc right analogous to thc right ol collcctivc
sclldclcnsc, onc which might bc rcsortcd to in a casc ol intcrvcntion short ol
armcd attack),
:o
but that, in so doing, thc Court also aggcd thc possibility ol
intcrvcntion by the .ictim State (notc thc rclcrcncc within this passagc to any par
ticular countcrmcasurc), possibly involving thc usc ol lorcc.
:+
Vhilc thc Court
ultimatcly concludcd against thc lawlulncss ol thc lormcr proposition,
::
it did so
in a manncr that sccmcd to lcavc thc door opcn to thc pcrmissibility ol thc lattcr
proposition in thc cxccrptcd passagc abovc a position that somchow sccmcd to
havc maturcd as thc Courts judgmcnt unloldcd:
a See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at ..c (a.c) (though instcin is ol thc vicw that
|i|l lorciblc countcrmcasurcs arc takcn in rcsponsc to an ordinary brcach ol intcr
national law, not constituting an armcd attack, thcy arc unlawlul: instcin, supra
notc ., at aa6).
ac Ibid. (and, also, supra notc ac.).
a. Ibid.
aa See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at ..c... (a..) (thc lawlulncss ol thc usc ol lorcc by
a Statc in rcsponsc to a wronglul act ol which it has not itscll bccn thc victim is not
admittcd whcn this wronglul act is not an armcd attack) and, further, infra notc a.
73 l Topographies of Force
Vhilc an armcd attack would givc risc to an cntitlcmcnt to collcctivc scll
dclcnsc, a usc ol lorcc ol a lcsscr dcgrcc ol gravity cannot, as thc Court has
alrcady obscrvcd , producc any cntitlcmcnt to takc collcctivc countcrmcas
urcs involving thc usc ol lorcc. Tc acts ol which Nicaragua is accuscd, cvcn
assuming thcm to havc bccn cstablishcd and imputablc to that Statc, could only
havc justicd proportionatc countcrmcasurcs on thc part ol thc Statc which had
bccn thc victim ol thcsc acts, namcly l Salvador, Honduras or Costa Rica. Tcy
could not justily countcrmcasurcs takcn by a third Statc, thc Unitcd Statcs, and
particularly could not justily intcrvcntion involving thc usc ol lorcc.
:
Tc Courts dclibcrations on intcrvcntion in thc Nicaragua Case thcrclorc opcncd
up a lairly sophisticatcd sct ol idcas and structurcs ol thinking and, pcrhaps
most importantly ol all, ol possibilities lor pcrmissiblc intcrvcntion undcr intcr
national law, possibilitics that stand an apprcciablc distancc lrom thc catcgorical
articulations ol thc Gcncral Asscmbly ol ctobcr .,c. Vc havc cngagcd part ol
this discoursc, but wc should notc that it is a discoursc which cxtcndcd much lur
thcr into thc Courts jurisprudcncc in thc Nicaragua Case, touching upon intcr
vcntions pursuant to a mcrc rcqucst lor assistancc madc by an opposition group
in anothcr statc,
:
to intcrvcntions which occur at thc rcqucst ol thc govcrn
a See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .a, (a). Notwithstanding thc tcmporal quali
cation issucd by thc Court (supra notc a6), its conclusion attractcd thc criticism
ol Judgc Stcphcn M. Schwcbcl in his isscnting pinion: See ibid. at (.,).
Tough thc Courts conclusion on this issuc was obiter dictum, Judgc Schwcbcl
argucd that it is no morc corrcct bccausc it is unncccssary, and considcrcd that its
crrors arc conspicuous:
Tc Court appcars to rcason in this way. orts by Statc A (howcvcr insidious,
sustaincd, substantial and ccctivc), to ovcrthrow thc govcrnmcnt ol Statc 8, il
thcy arc not to amount to an armcd attack upon Statc 8, givc risc to no right
ol sclldclcnsc by Statc 8, and hcncc, to no right ol Statc C to join Statc 8 in
mcasurcs ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc. Statc 8, thc victim statc, is cntitlcd to takc
countcrmcasurcs against Statc A, ol a dimcnsion thc Court docs not spccily.
8ut Statc C is not thcrcby justicd in taking countcrmcasurcs against Statc A
which involvc thc usc ol lorcc.
Judgc Schwcbcl lound thc rcasoning ol thc Court and thc cccts ol its conclusion
worrisomc: thc Court appcars to ocr quitc gratuitously a prcscription lor
ovcrthrow ol wcakcr govcrnmcnts by prcdatory govcrnmcnts whilc dcnying potcn
tial victims what is somc cascs may bc thcir only hopc ol survival. See ibid., at c
(.,,). See, lurthcr, John A. Pcrkins, Te Fight of Counter-inter.ention, ., G~. J. !x:i
a Co:v. L~w .,. (.,).
a See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .a6 (a6) (whcrc thc Court concludcd that it
is dicult to scc what would rcmain ol thc principlc ol nonintcrvcntion in intcr
national law il intcrvcntion wcrc to bc allowablc at thc rcqucst ol thc opposi
tion).
74 Dino Kritsiotis
mcnt ol a Statc,
:
as wcll as thosc undcrtakcn to monitor or cnsurc rcspcct
lor human rights.
:6
l thosc possibilitics mcntioncd by thc Court in Junc .6, ocially solic
itcd intcrvcntions (or thosc pursuant to thc rcqucst ol thc govcrnmcnt ol a
Statc)
:
cmcrgcd with thc blcssing ol thc Court, lor (in thc Courts own words)
thcsc arc alrcady allowablc.
:8
Tc Court sccmcd to adopt this position within
its analytical lramcwork ol prima facie acts ol intcrvcntion that may ncvcrthc
lcss bc justicd on somc lcgal ground,
:
though othcrs (such as instcin) havc
maintaincd that |m|iltary assistancc lrom thc outsidc against nonStatc actors,
bcing conscnsual rathcr than cocrcivc is not lorbiddcn by Articlc a () ol thc
Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations.
:o
a Ibid., at .a6 (a6).
a6 Although, so broadly was this right construcd or conccptualizcd, that it should not
bc mistakcn lor a right ol humanitarian intcrvcntion, which claims a much morc
cxccptional provcnancc. See Nicaragua Case, ibid., at .. (a6):
whilc thc Unitcd Statcs might lorm its own appraisal ol thc situation as
to rcspcct lor human rights in Nicaragua, thc usc ol lorcc could not bc thc
appropriatc mcthod to monitor or cnsurc such rcspcct. Vith rcgard to thc
stcps actually takcn, thc protcction ol human rights, a strictly humanitarian
objcctivc, cannot bc compatiblc with thc mining ol ports, thc dcstruction ol oil
installations, or again with thc training, arming and cquipping ol thc contras.
Tc Court concludcs that thc argumcnt dcrivcd lrom thc prcscrvation ol
human rights in Nicaragua cannot aord a lcgal justication lor thc conduct ol
thc Unitcd Statcs, and cannot in any cvcnt bc rcconcilcd with thc lcgal stratcgy
ol thc rcspondcnt Statc, which is bascd on thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc.
See, lurthcr, Kritsiotis, supra notc aa, at .c.. Cl. Nigcl S. Rodlcy, Human Fights and
Humanitarian Inter.ention: Te Case La. of the !orld Court, !x:i a Co:v. L.Q.
a. (.).
a, See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .a6 (a6).
a Ibid. Considcr also thc Courts stancc on proportionatc countcrmcasurcs on thc
part ol thc Statc which |is| thc victim ol acts |ol a lcsscr dcgrcc ol gravity than
an armcd attack|: cl. supra nn. a and a). See, lurthcr, thc Courts conclusion that
|t|hcrc can bc no doubt that thc provision ol strictly humanitarian aid to pcrsons or
lorccs in anothcr country, whatcvcr thcir political aliations or objcctivcs, cannot bc
rcgardcd as unlawlul intcrvcntion, or as in any othcr way contrary to intcrnational
law: ibid., at .a.a (aa).
a Ibid. (whcrc thc Court draws an cxplicit parallcl bctwccn intcrvcntion at thc rcqucst
ol thc govcrnmcnt ol a Statc and that at thc rcqucst ol thc opposition). See, also, Case
Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo, supra notc , at (.),
whcrc thc Court rcachcd its conclusions .ithin thc lramcwork ol Articlc a () ol thc
Chartcr that Uganda cngagcd in thc usc ol lorcc lor purposcs and in locations in
which it had no conscnt whatcvcr. Tc Court has also lound that thc cvcnts attcstcd
to by Uganda did not justily rccoursc to thc usc ol lorcc in sclldclcnsc.
ac See instcin, supra notc ., at ..a (lootnotc omittcd) and Fawcctt, supra notc .a, at
6 (though, prcsumably, wc would includc within this rcasoning thc prohibition ol
intcrvcntion) although onc ol thc citations uscd in corroboration ol this position is
75 l Topographies of Force
As wc attcmpt to digcst thc Courts thinking on intcrvcntion, wc might
rcmark upon thc importancc ol any premise which undcrpinncd thc Courts obscr
vations wcrc thc various postulations ol thc Court intcndcd lor all scasons: do
thcy prcsumc thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol pcacc or a statc ol civil war:
:+
what, il any,
changc would thc lattcr condition yicld upon thc lormcr lrom thc spccic stand
point ol intcrnational law rulcs on intcrvcntion:
::
8c thcsc qucstions as thcy may,
sincc thc Court has dcvclopcd a clcar scnsc ol thc prohibitions ol lorcc and intcr
vcntion,
:
it may bc hclplul, in thc concluding part ol this scction, to providc a
kalcidoscopic rccction ol thc limitations or ol thc potential limitations which
Articlc ac ol thc !ntcrnational Law Commissions Articlcs on Statc Rcsponsibility,
which rcgards |v|alid conscnt by a Statc to thc commission ol a givcn act by anothcr
Statc as an act which precludes the .rongfulness of that act in relation to the former State
to thc cxtcnt that thc act rcmains within thc limits ol that conscnt (cmphasis sup
plicd). Quaere, though, whcthcr thcrc would bc any lcgal nccd to prccludc thc wrong
lulncss ol conscnsual uscs ol lorcc/intcrvcntions il thcsc arc not, in lact, lorbiddcn
by Articlc a () ol thc Chartcr (ibid.), or, indccd, by thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion.
Notc in this rcspcct thc manncr in which thc Court has undcrstood thc mattcr (in thc
Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo, supra notc , thc Court
considcrcd conscnt as validating that prcscncc |ol Ugandas lorccs| in law (at
(.c)). See, also, thc position takcn by Rosalyn Higgins rcgarding thc !ntcrnational
Law Commissions trcatmcnt ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc in its Articlcs: see Hiccixs,
supra notc .., at .6. (a lawlul mcasurc ol sclldclcnsc will not bc a wronglul act).
Tc answcr to this cnigma undoubtcdly lics in how wc construct thc prohibitions ol
lorcc and intcrvcntion: notc that though thc Court rclicd on thc clcmcnt ol cocr
cion in its cxposition ol thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion in thc Nicaragua Case (supra
notc a..), it is in rcspcct ol cconomic, political or any othcr typc ol mcasurcs that thc
Gcncral Asscmbly invokcs thc notion ol cocrcion (i.c. cocrcion ol anothcr Statc in
ordcr to obtain lrom it thc subordination ol thc cxcrcisc ol its sovcrcign rights and to
sccurc lrom it advantagcs ol any kind): Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution a6a (XX\),
supra notc .a6. Armcd intcrvcntion and all othcr lorms ol intcrlcrcncc or attcmptcd
thrcats arc constructcd against thc pcrsonality ol thc Statc or against its political,
cconomic and cultural clcmcnts: ibid. ppcnhcim lamously dcncd intcrvcntion as
thc dictatorial intcrlcrcncc ol a third Statc in a dicrcncc bctwccn two Statcs, lor
thc purposc ol scttling thc dicrcncc in thc way dcmandcd by thc intcrvcning Statc:
see ppcnhcim, supra notc a, at .c (c) itscll a valuablc comparator lor making
asscssmcnts ol thc construction ol thc prohibition ol lorcc in intcrnational law.
a. Notc principally thc August ., Rcsolution ol thc !nstitut dc roit !ntcrnational
on Tc Principlc ol Non!ntcrvcntion in Civil Vars. Scc, lurthcr, Tom J. Farcr,
Harnessing Fogue Elephants: Short Discourse on Foreign Inter.ention in Ci.il Strife,
a H~vv~vb L~w Rvv. .. (.6).
aa Notc, lor instancc, Rosalyn Higgins, Internal !ar and International La., in Tnv
Fu:uvv ov :nv !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i vbvv (\ol. ) .. (.,.) (C. 8lack and
Richard Falk cds.) (Vhat is lcss clcar and it has bccomc still morc doubtlul in
rcccnt ycars is thc lcgal authority ol thc govcrnmcnt to ask lor military assistancc
during civil hostilitics cithcr ol arms or activc participation).
a See Nicaragua Case, supra notc ,, at .... (aa) (thc Court considcrs that thc mcrc
supply ol lunds to thc contras, whilc undoubtcdly an act ol intcrvcntion in thc
intcrnal aairs ol Nicaragua docs not in itscll amount to a usc ol lorcc).
76 Dino Kritsiotis
thc Court has cnvisagcd lor thc prohibition ol intcrvcntion (and, by possiblc impli
cation, lor thc prohibition ol lorcc).
:
Tcsc havc bccn dcvclopcd bclow (gure ):
monitor/rcspcct human rights
(Nicaragua Case (.6), a6)

rcqucst ol Govcrnmcnt
(Nicaragua Case (.6), a6)

rcqucst ol opposition group

(Nicaragua Case (.6), a6)

victim Statc countcrmcasurcs

(Nicaragua Case (.6), a.c
a..)

third Statc countcrmcasurcs

(Nicaragua Case (.6), a.c
a..)

political/idcological intcrvcn
tion
(Nicaragua Case (.6), ac6)

proccss ol dccolonization
(Nicaragua Case (.6), ac6)

Prohibition ol !ntcrvcntion
.6 GA Rcsn. a.. (XX)

.,c GA Rcsn. a6a (XX\)

. UN Chartcr, Art. a (,)

all othcr lorms ol intcrlcrcncc
or attcmptcd thrcats against
thc pcrsonality ol thc Statc or
against its political, cconomic
and cultural clcmcnts
(GA Rcsn. a6a (XX\) (.,c))

|n|o Statc may usc or cncour

agc thc usc ol cconomic
political or any othcr typc ol
mcasurcs to cocrcc anothcr
Statc in ordcr to obtain lrom it
thc subordination ol thc cxcr
cisc ol its sovcrcign rights and
to sccurc lrom it advantagcs ol
any kind
(GA Rcsn. a6a (XX\) (.,c))

supply ol lunds
(Nicaragua Case (.6), aa)
armcd intcrvcntion
(GA Rcsn. a6a (XX\) (.,c))

dircct lorm ol military action

(Nicaragua Case (.6), ac)

indircct lorm ol support lor

subvcrsivc or tcrrorist armcd
activitics within anothcr Statc
(Nicaragua Case (.6), ac)
Prohibition ol Forcc
. UN Chartcr, Art. a ()
...
.,c GA Rcsn. a6a (XX\)
...
., GA Rcsn. a/aa

Armcd
Attack

Scll
dclcnsc
(gure )
a Supra nn. aa.
77 l Topographies of Force
V Conclusion
!n thc coursc ol this cssay, our cndcavor has bccn to dcpict what wc havc callcd
thc topographies of force, csscntially thc broadcr lay ol thc land with rcspcct to
lorcc in intcrnational law, by rclcrcncing its various conccptual guiscs or aliascs.
Vc havc attcmptcd to makc a provisional advancc on this topic, although, it is
clcar that, in our corts, wc havc sought to bc ncithcr cxhaustivc nor comprc
hcnsivc.
:
ur main motivation has bccn to makc a start at ctching thc broadcr
contours ol thcsc topographics so that, as is so oltcn thc casc with lcgal discoursc,
somc insights might bc shcd on thc minutiac ol thc law on lorcc, or somc causc
givcn to rccct on thc history or lunction ol a particular rulc as it rclatcs to thc
lcgal dctail ol lorcc. Tc outlinc ol thcsc topographics has comc to pass as wc
havc cxamincd thc rclationships ol lorcc with, rst, war and, thcn, armcd con
ict, lollowcd by armcd attack and aggrcssion and, nally, intcrvcntion. Tc
idca has bccn to cmphasizc thc broadcr contcxt in which thc laws on lorcc livc
and opcratc, rathcr than to run our horizons along thc sanguinc pcrimctcrs ol thc
Unitcd Nations Chartcr. !t is an cxcrcisc undcrtakcn vcry much in thc gcncral
spirit ol thc jurisprudcncc ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc and, in thc proc
css, it is hopcd that a bcttcr undcrstanding has bccn lorgcd ol thc conccpt ol lorcc
itscll, togcthcr with its importancc lor intcrnational law and lor thc (apparcntly)
scttlcd law ol thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr.
:6
a Vc havc not lor cxamplc givcn lull cxposition to thc doctrinc ol statc rcsponsibility
or thc impact ol bilatcral arrangcmcnts on lorcc (which consumcd a good sharc ol
thc Courts cncrgy in thc Case Concerning Oil Platforms, supra notc ).
a6 Supra notc ac.
Chapter 4
Claims to Prccmptivc Uscs ol Forcc:
Somc Trcnds and Projcctions and Tcir !mplications lor
Vorld rdcr
!. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
Tc Unitcd Statcs claim to a right ol what has comc to bc known as prccmptivc
sclldclcnsc has provokcd dccp anxicty and soulscarching among thc mcmbcrs
ol thc collcgc ol intcrnational lawycrs. Somc havc lcarcd that thc claim was sign
aling a dcmand to lcgitimizc Pcarl Harbor typcs ol actions, i.c., suddcn massivc
and dcstructivc military actions by onc statc against anothcr in thc abscncc ol a
statc ol war, out ol thc bluc as it wcrc, all undcrtakcn to ncutralizc militarily, or
cvcn climinatc, a latcnt or potcntial advcrsary. Sincc voiccs ol somc public intcl
lcctuals within thc Amcrican political systcm had, in thc midst ol thc Cold Var,
rccommcndcd such a stratcgy with rcspcct to thc Pcoplcs Rcpublic ol China,
+

thc anxicty could not bc dismisscd as cntircly unloundcd or cvcn hystcrical. Nor
could it bc dismisscd as somc sort ol Amcrican abcrration. From thc carlicst uni
latcral claims to a contincntal shcll, a copycat or mimctic dynamic in modcrn
intcrnational law has bccn cvidcnt whcncvcr an cnhanccmcnt ol statc powcr is
availablc, so thc possibility ol many othcr statcs making a similar claim to an
cxpandcd notion ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc could not bc cxcludcd.
Tc Unitcd Nations Chartcrs prcscription with rcspcct to thc usc ol lorcc is
csscntially binary: a usc ol military lorcc is cithcr in sclldclcnsc, as that conccpt
is conccivcd in thc Chartcr, in which casc it is lawlul, or it is not, in which casc
it is unlawlul. As lor thc right to rcsort to military mcasurcs in sclldclcnsc, it
matcrializcs only upon thc statc invoking it, having sucrcd an armcd attack, a
stricturc that docs not cvcn cxtcnd to thc Caroline doctrinc.
:

. Villiam 8ucklcy, Noted Liberal grees: Lets Destroy Pekings -Treat No., L.A.
Ti:vs, cc .6, .6, at A6 a.ailable at ProQucst Historical Ncwspapcrs.
a Scc R.Y. Jcnnings, Te Caroline and McLeod Cases, a A:. J. !x:i L. a (.). Scc
also Rcisman, International Legal Fesponses to Terrorism, aa:. Hous:ox Jouvx~i ov
!x:vvx~:iox~i L~w (.).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. ,,-zz:.
80 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
uring thc Cold Var, thc Chartcr rcgimc had comc undcr strcss lrom thc
practicc ol lowlcvcl protractcd conicts and it was obligcd to ignorc thc ovcrt
and cxplicit nuclcar thrcats which had comc to constitutc thc systcm ol stratc
gic dctcrrcncc. 8ut dcspitc thcsc problcms, thc !ntcrnational Court

and most
intcrnational lawycrs havc stcadlastly insistcd on a strict rctcntion ol thc Chartcr
rcgimc, most rcccntly in thc Congo .. Uganda dccision, which is discusscd bclow.
Vhcthcr customary intcrnational law is in thc proccss ol accommodating thc
Unitcd Statcs claim to a right ol prccmptivc action and thus brcaching thc doc
trincs dclcnsivc pcrimctcr is onc ol thc issucs wc addrcss.
I
Tc claim to prccmptivc sclldclcnsc is a claim to usc unilatcrally, and without
prior intcrnational authorization, high lcvcls ol violcncc to arrcst an incipicnt
dcvclopmcnt that is not yct opcrational and is not yct dircctly thrcatcning, but
that, il pcrmittcd to maturc, could thcn, in thc vicw ol thc potcntial prccmptor,
bc ncutralizcd only at a highcr and possibly unacccptablc cost to thc party con
tcmplating thc prccmptivc action.

Prccmptivc sclldclcnsc dicrs lrom antici

patory sclldclcnsc in that thc lattcr can point to a palpablc and immincnt thrcat.
Tus, anticipatory sclldclcnsc (which was, in our vicw, not in thc contcmpla
tion ol thc draltcrs ol thc Chartcr, though claimcd by many to havc bccn graltcd
thcrcon by subscqucnt practicc) is at lcast akin to thc armcd attack rcquircmcnt
ol Chartcr Articlc ., in that thcrc is palpablc cvidcncc ol an immincnt attack. A
claim lor prccmptivc sclldclcnsc can point only to a possibility among a rangc
ol othcr possibilitics, a contingcncy. As onc movcs lrom an actual armcd attack
as thc rcquisitc thrcshold ol rcactivc sclldclcnsc, to thc palpablc and immincnt
thrcat ol attack, which is thc thrcshold ol prcvcntivc sclldclcnsc, and lrom thcrc
to thc conjcctural and contingcnt thrcat ol only thc possibility ol an attack at
somc point in thc luturc, which is thc thrcshold ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc,
thc scllassigncd intcrprctivc latitudc ol thc unilatcralist bccomcs widcr yct thc
naturc and quantum ol cvidcncc that can satisly thc burdcn ol prool on thc uni
latcralist bccomcs lcss and lcss dcncd and is oltcn, by thc vcry naturc ol thc
cxcrcisc, cxtrapolativc and spcculativc. !n an intcrnational systcm markcd by radi
cally dicrcnt culturcs, valucs and, as a conscqucncc, lactual pcrccptions and thcir
See e.g., Military and Paramilitary cti.ities in and gainst Nicaragua (Nicar. v.
U.S.), . !.C.J. a (Nov. a6) ( Jurisdiction ol thc Court and Admissibility ol thc
Application), Military and Paramilitary cti.ities in and gainst Nicaragua (Nicar. v.
U.S.), .6 !.C.J. .. ( Junc a,) (Mcrits), Oil Platforms (!ran v. U.S.), .6 !.C.J. c
(cc. .a) (Prcliminary bjcctions ccision), Oil Platforms (!ran v. U.S), acc !.C.J.
.6. (Nov. 6) (Mcrit).
Tc discoursc has uscd dicrcnt tcrms to dcscribc this claim throughout thc dcbatc
on thc lcgality ol thc usc ol lorcc. For an intcrcsting discussion, scc Yoram instcin,
V~v, Accvvssiox ~xb Svivvvvxcv (th cd. acc).
81 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
asscssmcnts, an act ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc, bascd upon thc actors scllpcr
ccivcd good laith conviction, will oltcn look likc a scrious or hystcrical misjudg
mcnt to somc actors and likc cithcr cynical or sclldcludcd nakcd aggrcssion to
othcrs.
Vhcn a major intcrnational actor claims a right ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc,
thc implications lor changing customary intcrnational law arc grcat, lor, at cvcry
lcvcl ol social organization, lawmaking, much morc than lawapplying, is largcly
political, doctrincs ol sovcrcign cquality notwithstanding, thc actions ol a grcat
powcr may bc morc lawgcncrativc than thosc ol smallcr statcs. Tc qucstion
that is poscd in this cssay, which is dcdicatcd to Yoram instcin, an admircd and
cstccmcd lricnd lor morc than c ycars, is whcthcr, in thc pcriod sincc acca whcn
thc Unitcd Statcs bcgan claborating its claim, thc U.S. has rcmaincd committcd
to its broadcst possiblc conccption and whcthcr thc intcrnational lcgal systcm
has bcgun to incorporatc it, in wholc or in part. !l it has, a pcrtincnt qucstion lor
thc jurist is whcthcr thc changc has cnhanccd or rcduccd world public ordcr.
II
Claims to prccmptivc uscs ol military lorcc havc bccn associatcd prccmincntly
with thc Administration ol Gcorgc V. 8ush but thcy wcrc, in lact, prcsscd by
prcvious administrations as wcll as by a numbcr ol othcr statcs. !n thc Unitcd
Statcs, onc can tracc a scrics ol indicators ol a shilt in ocial thinking toward
prccmptivc military stratcgics wcll prior to ... !n ., Prcsidcnt Rcagan issucd
a classicd National Sccurity ccision ircctivc outlining his Administrations
rcsponsc to tcrrorism. An unclassicd cxtract cxplains:
Statcsponsorcd tcrrorist activity or dircctcd thrcats ol such action arc consid
crcd to bc hostilc acts and thc U.S. will hold sponsors accountablc. Vhcncvcr
wc havc cvidcncc that a statc is mounting or intcnds to conduct an act ol tcr
rorism against us, wc havc a rcsponsibility to takc mcasurc (sic) to protcct our
citizcns, propcrty, and intcrcsts.

Two ycars latcr, against thc continuing backdrop ol suspcctcd Libyan govcrn
mcnt support lor tcrrorist attacks, a classicd dircctivc raiscd thc prospcct ol uni
latcral attacks to prcvcnt tcrrorist attacks. National Sccurity ccision ircctivc
ac, cxplaincd:
Tc U.S. Govcrnmcnt considcrs thc practicc ol tcrrorism by any pcrson or
group a potcntial thrcat to our national sccurity and will rcsist thc usc ol tcrror
Extract of National Security Decision Directi.e z8, April ., at: http://www.gwu.
cdu/~nsarchiv/NSA88/NSA88/nsdd..pdl (thc lull dircctivc is still classi
cd).
82 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
ism by all lcgal mcans availablc. Tc Unitcd Statcs is opposcd to domcstic and
intcrnational tcrrorism and is prcparcd to act in conccrt with othcr nations or
unilatcrally whcn ncccssary to prcvcnt or rcspond to tcrrorist acts.
Statcs that practicc tcrrorism or activcly support it, will not bc allowcd to
do so without conscqucncc. Vhcncvcr wc havc cvidcncc that a statc is mount
ing or intcnds to conduct an act ol tcrrorism against us, wc havc a rcsponsibility
to takc mcasurcs to protcct our citizcns, propcrty, and intcrcsts.
6

Although initially conncd to classicd documcnts, thc ncw policy was cxplicitly
discusscd in ncwspapcr articlcs and in spccchcs by high administration ocials

,
a widcly uscd and intcrnationally lcgally notcd mcthod lor cstablishing national
positions.
8
!n what latcr bccamc known as thc Shultz octrinc, Sccrctary
ol Statc Gcorgc Schulz argucd lor thc right to takc limitcd military action to
addrcss tcrrorist thrcats whilc thcy arc still managcablc.
!n thc wakc ol thc rcccnt attacks at thc Romc and \icnna airports, wc havc
hcard it asscrtcd that military action to rctaliatc or prccmpt tcrrorism is con
trary to intcrnational law. Somc havc suggcstcd that cvcn to contcmplatc using
lorcc against tcrrorism is to lowcr oursclvcs to thc barbaric lcvcl ol thc tcrror
ists. ! want to takc this issuc hcad on.
Unlikc tcrrorists and communist gucrrillas, wc do not bclicvc thc cnd
justics thc mcans. Vc bclicvc in thc rulc ol law. Tis nation has long bccn a
champion ol intcrnational law, thc pcacclul scttlcmcnt ol disputcs, and thc UN
Chartcr as a codc ol conduct lor thc world community.
8ut thc Chartcrs rcstrictions on thc usc or thrcat ol lorcc in intcrnational
rclations includc a spccic cxccption lor thc right ol sclldclcnsc. !t is absurd to
arguc that intcrnational law prohibits us lrom capturing tcrrorists in intcrna
tional watcrs or airspacc, lrom attacking thcm on thc soil ol othcr nations, cvcn
lor thc purposc ol rcscuing hostagcs, or lrom using lorcc against statcs that
support, train, and harbor tcrrorists or gucrrillas. !ntcrnational law rcquircs no
such rcsult. A nation attackcd by tcrrorists is pcrmittcd to usc lorcc to prcvcnt
or prccmpt luturc attacks, to scizc tcrrorists, or to rcscuc its citizcns whcn no
othcr mcans is availablc. Tc law rcquircs that such actions bc ncccssary and
6 National Sccurity ccision ircctivc ac,, Te National Program for Combating
Terrorism, January ac, .6 (Top Sccrct), at: http://www.gwu.cdu/~nsarchiv/
NSA88/NSA88/nsddac,.pdl.
, See e.g. Robcrt C. Toth, Pre-empti.e nti-Terrorist Faids llo.ed, V~sn. Pos:., Apr.
.6, ., at A..
Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), ., !.C.J. a, a6,a6 (cc. ac).
83 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
proportionatc. 8ut this nation has consistcntly armcd thc right ol statcs to
usc lorcc in cxcrcisc ol thcir right ol individual or collcctivc sclldclcnsc.

And strongly lorcshadowing thc position cspouscd by thc 8ush Administration

in acca, Shultz argucd:
Such discrcct uscs ol powcr lor limitcd purposcs will always involvc risks. 8ut
thc risks ol inaction will, in many circumstanccs, bc grcatcr. ur political anal
ysis must bc clcar sightcd. Allics and lricnds may objcct to our actionor
say thcy objcct. 8ut this cannot bc dccisivc. Striking against tcrrorism in thc
Middlc ast, lor cxamplc, is bound to bc controvcrsial. 8ut thc worst thing wc
could do to our modcratc lricnds in thc rcgion is to dcmonstratc that cxtrcm
ist policics succccd and that thc Unitcd Statcs is impotcnt to dcal with such
challcngcs.
Scvcral months latcr, Sccrctary ol Statc Schulz cxpandcd on thcsc commcnts
arguing lor dcvcloping a domcstic conscnsus on thc right to usc lorcc prccmp
tivcly in tcrrorist gray arcas ol lact and law.
Tc hcart ol thc challcngc lics in thosc cascs whcrc intcrnational rulcs and
traditional practiccs do not apply. Tcrrorists will strikc lrom arcas whcrc no
govcrnmcntal authority cxists, or thcy will basc thcmsclvcs bchind what thcy
cxpcct will bc thc sanctuary ol an intcrnational bordcr. And thcy will dcsign
thcir attacks to takc placc in prcciscly thosc gray arcas whcrc thc lull lacts
cannot bc known, whcrc thc challcngc will not bring with it an obvious or
clcarcut choicc ol rcsponsc.
!n such cascs wc must usc our intclligcncc rcsourccs carclully and com
plctcly. Vc will havc to cxaminc thc lull rangc ol mcasurcs availablc to us to
takc. Tc outcomc may bc that wc will lacc a choicc bctwccn doing nothing
or cmploying military lorcc. Vc now rccognizc that tcrrorism is bcing uscd by
our advcrsarics as a modcrn tool ol warlarc. !t is no abcrration. Vc can cxpcct
morc tcrrorism dircctcd at our stratcgic intcrcsts around thc world in thc ycars
ahcad. To combat it, wc must bc willing to usc military lorcc.
+o

Tcsc claims ol a right to unilatcral prccmption wcrc morc mutcd in thc
Administration ol Gcorgc 8ush, Sr. lrom ..a. !ndccd, dircctly altcr Shultzs
Gcorgc Shultz, Sccrctary ol Statc, Low!ntcnsity Varlarc: Tc Challcngc ol
Ambiguity (Prcscntation at National clcnsc Univcrsity) ( January ., .6), in a
!.L.M. .,, acc6 (.6).
.c Gcorgc Shultz, Sccrctary ol Statc, Tcrrorism and thc Modcrn Vorld, (Prcscntation
at Park Avcnuc Synagoguc) (ctobcr a, .), in 8urcau ol Public Aairs, U.S.
cpartmcnt ol Statc: Currcnt Policy No. 6a.
84 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
spccch in ctobcr ., thcn \iccPrcsidcnt 8ush (pcrhaps not coincidcntally
onc ol thc lcw lcadcrs in thc Administration to havc had battlc cxpcricncc) pub
licly disagrccd with thc policy. \iccPrcsidcnt 8ush argucd, ! think youvc got
to pinpoint |thc rcsponsc to tcrrorism| and wcrc not going to go out and bomb
innoccnt civilians or somcthing ol that naturc.
++

Tc claim to a right ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc was not limitcd to Rcpublican
administrations. !n thc National Sccurity Stratcgy lor a Ncw Ccntury, pub
lishcd by thc Clinton Administration in ctobcr, ., thc possibility ol a claim
lor a right ol prccmption was indicatcd, but morc by implication.
Advcrsarics will bc tcmptcd to disrupt our critical inlrastructurcs, impcdc con
tinuity ol govcrnmcnt opcrations, usc wcapons ol mass dcstruction against
civilians in our citics, attack us whcn wc gathcr at spccial cvcnts and prcy on our
citizcns ovcrscas. Tc Unitcd Statcs must act to dctcr or prcvcnt such attacks
and, il attacks occurs |sic| dcspitc thosc corts, must bc prcparcd to limit thc
damagc thcy causc and rcspond dccisivcly against thc pcrpctrators.
+:
8ut in accc, thc Clinton Administration issucd a ncw sccurity documcnt, A
National Sccurity Stratcgy lor a Global Agc, in which morc cxplicit attcntion
was givcn to tcrrorism. Vith rcspcct to possiblc nuclcar attacks lrom a symmctri
cal advcrsary, thc policy continucd to bc rcactivc.
ur military planning lor thc possiblc cmploymcnt ol U.S. stratcgic nuclcar
wcapons is locuscd on dctcrring a nuclcar war and it cmphasizcs thc surviv
ability ol our nuclcar systcms, inlrastructurc, and command, control, and com
munication systcms ncccssary to cndurc a prccmptivc attack yct still dclivcr
an ovcrwhclming rcsponsc.
+
A stratcgic posturc ol reaction rathcr than pro-action would bc consistcnt with
Articlc .. 8ut in thc samc documcnt, prccmptivc action is raiscd as a mcans ol
combating asymmctrical locs using thc tcchniqucs ol tcrrorism.
Tc Unitcd Statcs has mountcd an aggrcssivc rcsponsc to tcrrorism. ur strat
cgy prcssurcs tcrrorists, dctcrs attacks, and rcsponds lorcclully to tcrrorist
acts. !t combincs cnhanccd law cnlorccmcnt and intclligcncc corts, vigor
ous diplomacy and cconomic sanctions, and, whcn ncccssary, military lorcc.
.. on bcdorlcr and Juan Villiams, Ocials Split on Shult.s nti-Terrorism Speech,
V~sn. Pos:, ct. a,, ., at ProQucst Historical atabasc.
.a A National Sccurity Stratcgy lor a Ncw Ccntury at ,, (ctobcr .), at: http://
www.las.org/man/docs/nssr.pdl.
. A National Sccurity Stratcgy lor a Global Agc at .,, (cccmbcr accc) at: http://
www.globalsccurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nsscc.a.pdl.
85 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
omcstically, wc scck to stop tcrrorists bclorc thcy act, and climinatc thcir
support nctworks and nancing. vcrscas, wc scck to climinatc tcrrorist sanc
tuarics, countcr statc and nongovcrnmcntal support lor tcrrorism, hclp othcr
govcrnmcnts improvc thcir physical and political countcrtcrrorism, antitcrror
ism, and conscqucncc managcmcnt corts, tightcn cmbassy and military lacil
ity sccurity, and protcct U.S. citizcns living and travcling abroad. Vhcthcr at
homc or abroad, wc will rcspond to tcrrorism through dclcnsivc rcadincss ol
our lacilitics and pcrsonncl, and thc ability ol our tcrrorism conscqucncc man
agcmcnt corts to mitigatc injury and damagc.
ur stratcgy rcquircs us to both prcvcnt and, il ncccssary, rcspond to tcr
rorism.
+
Tc Sccurity Stratcgy procccdcd to an cvcn morc cxplicit lormulation:
Vhcncvcr possiblc, wc usc law cnlorccmcnt, diplomatic, and cconomic tools to
wagc thc ght against tcrrorism. 8ut thcrc havc bccn, and will bc, timcs whcn
thosc tools arc not cnough. As long as tcrrorists continuc to targct Amcrican
citizcns, wc rcscrvc thc right to act in sclldclcnsc by striking at thcir bascs and
thosc who sponsor, assist, or activcly support thcm, as wc havc donc ovcr thc
ycars in dicrcnt countrics.
+
Tus, thc attack on Scptcmbcr .., acc., rathcr than occasioning a radical changc
in stratcgy, only rcinlorccd incipicnt trcnds. n Junc ., acca, Prcsidcnt 8ush
statcd: Vc must takc thc battlc to thc cncmy, disrupt his plans, and conlront thc
worst thrcats bclorc thcy cmcrgc.
+6
n Scptcmbcr .,, acca, hc madc cxplicit and
cxpandcd a claim to prccmptivc action:
Vc will disrupt and dcstroy tcrrorist organizations by:
dircct and continuous action using all thc clcmcnts ol national and intcr
national powcr. ur immcdiatc locus will bc thosc tcrrorist organiza
tions ol global rcach and any tcrrorist or statc sponsor ol tcrrorism which
attcmpts to gain or usc wcapons ol mass dcstruction (VM) or thcir
prccursors,
dclcnding thc Unitcd Statcs, thc Amcrican pcoplc, and our intcrcsts
at homc and abroad by idcntilying and dcstroying thc thrcat bclorc it
rcachcs our bordcrs. Vhilc thc Unitcd Statcs will constantly strivc to
cnlist thc support ol thc intcrnational community, wc will not hcsitatc
. Id. at a.
. Id. at a.
.6 Gcorgc V. 8ush, Prcs. ol thc Unitcd Statcs, Commcnccmcnt Addrcss at thc Unitcd
Statcs Military Acadcmy in Vcst Point ( Junc ., acca), Vvvxiv Co:v. Pvvs.
oc. , 6 ( Junc .c, acca).
86 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
to act alonc, il ncccssary, to cxcrcisc our right ol sclldclcnsc by acting
prccmptivcly against such tcrrorists, to prcvcnt thcm lrom doing harm
against our pcoplc and our country, and
dcnying lurthcr sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to tcrrorists by con
vincing or compclling statcs to acccpt thcir sovcrcign rcsponsibilitics.
+
vcn morc cxplicitly, thc Prcsidcnts National Strategy to Combat !eapons of Mass
Destruction, issucd in cccmbcr acca, statcd: 8ccausc dctcrrcncc may not suc
cccd, and bccausc ol thc potcntially dcvastating conscqucnccs ol VM usc
against our lorccs and civilian population, U.S. military lorccs and appropriatc
civilian agcncics must havc thc capability to dclcnd against VMarmcd advcr
sarics, including in appropriatc cascs through prccmptivc mcasurcs.
+8
Tis is a
claim ol prccmption in thc broadcst scnsc.
Tc 8ush Administration is currcntly dcbating thc military contcnt ol thcsc
prccmptivc mcasurcs. A Pcntagon dralt ol thc octrinc lor Joint Nuclcar
pcrations suggcstcd that thc U.S. could dcploy nuclcar wcapons in sclldclcnsc
to prccmpt a VM attack.
+
Congrcssional lcadcrs and arms control cxpcrts
quickly criticizcd thc dralt documcnt, howcvcr, and an Administration ocial
cmphasizcd that thc doctrinc had not yct bccn nalizcd.
:o
Sincc thc rclcasc ol thc acca stratcgy, mcmbcrs ol thc 8ush administra
tion havc indicatcd that thc 8ush doctrinc ol prccmption may indccd bc morc
limitcd. nc limiting lactor appcars to bc thc rationality ol thc statc rcgimc sup
porting tcrrorism. !n distinguishing thc claim by thc U.S. to potcntial claims
lor prccmption within thc contcxts ol thc simmcring China/Taiwan or !ndia/
Pakistan conicts, a Vhitc Housc ocial argucd,
Vcll, ! think whats dicrcnt is thc uniquc history ol !raq and thc irrationality
ol !raq. icrcnt policics work in dicrcnt rcgions ol thc world, and dicrcnt
doctrincs work at dicrcnt timcs and in dicrcnt rcgions bccausc ol thc local
circumstanccs. Policics ol containmcnt work morc with a rational gurc than
with an irrational onc. Tats why thc policy ol containmcnt workcd vis a vis
thc Sovict Union.
., National Sccurity Stratcgy ol thc Unitcd Statcs at 6 (Scpt. acca), at: http://www.
whitchousc.gov/rcsponsc/indcx.html.
. National Stratcgy to Combat Vcapons ol Mass cstruction at , (cc. acca), at:
http://www.whitchousc.gov/rcsponsc/indcx.html.
. cpt ol clcnsc, octrinc lor Joint Nuclcar pcrations, Final Coordination (a),
March ., acc at !6. ( JP .a), at: http://www.globalsccurity.org/wmd/library/
policy/dod/jp_.alca.pdl.
ac Valtcr Pincus, Pentagon May Ha.e Doubts on Pre-empti.e Nuclear Mo.es, V~sn.
Pos:, Scpt. ., acc at A (Lcxis). Pincus also notcs that thc unclassicd dralt docu
mcnt was rcmovcd lrom thc clcnsc cpartmcnt wcbsitc altcr dctails wcrc pub
lishcd in ncwspapcrs.
87 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force

|spcaking about !raq| Givcn thc lact that an irrational lcadcr who has a his
tory ol military lorcc and military usc and military aggrcssion and domination
may acquirc a nuclcar wcapon, thc qucstion is, should it bc thc policy ol thc
Unitcd Statcs to do nothing, and allow such a lcadcr to acquirc a wcapon that
hc could thcn usc to blackmail thc world and blackmail thc rcgion, and cvcn
usc it to harm us.
:+
TcnNational Sccurity Advisor, r. Condolcczza Ricc, similarly limitcd thc
policy, noting,
Tc numbcr ol cascs in which it might bc justicd will always bc small. !t
docs not givc a grccn light to thc Unitcd Statcs or any othcr nation to act
rst without cxhausting othcr mcans, including diplomacy. Prccmptivc action
docs not comc at thc bcginning ol a long chain ol cort. Tc thrcat must bc
vcry gravc. And thc risks ol waiting must lar outwcigh thc risks ol action.
::

!ndccd, thc 8ush Administration appcars to havc modcratcd its initial cxpansivc
claims in thc ncwly rclcascd acc6 National Sccurity Stratcgy, whilc ncvcrthc
lcss rctaining its claim ol a right to usc lorcc prccmptivcly. Although thc ncw
stratcgy proclaims that |t|hc placc ol prccmption in our national sccurity strat
cgy rcmains thc samc,
:
thc acc6 stratcgy also placcs much morc cmphasis on
altcrnativcs to military prccmption and rcliancc on multilatcral solutions. Tc
8ush Administration argucs, |t|aking action |to prcvcnt prolilcration ol wcap
ons ol mass dcstruction| nccd not involvc military lorcc. ur strong prclcrcncc
and common practicc is to addrcss prolilcration conccrns through intcrnational
diplomacy, in conccrt with kcy allics and rcgional partncrs.
:
Prccmptivc mili
tary action also appcars to bc limitcd to a hard corc ol tcrrorists, who cannot bc
dctcrrcd and thcrclorc must bc trackcd down, killcd, or capturcd.
:
Tc undcr
lying nctworks supporting thcsc tcrrorists, howcvcr, would bc dctcrrcd using a
broad rangc ol tools.
:6

Tc acc6 stratcgy providcs lurthcr support to cxpcrts, who, in thc altcrmath
ol thc war in !raq, spcculatcd that thc 8ush Administration had alrcady soltcncd
a. Ari Flcishcr, Vhitc Housc Spokcspcrson, Prcss 8ricng, ct. ., acca, http://www.
whitchousc.gov/ncws/rclcascs/acca/.c/acca.c..html.
aa Condolcczza Ricc, Scc. ol Statc, Vriston Lccturc at thc Valdorl Astoria Hotcl,
(ct. ., acca), http://www.whitchousc.gov/ncws/rclcascs/acca/.c/acca.cc.6.html.
a National Sccurity Stratcgy ol thc Unitcd Statcs at a (March acc6), at: http://www.
whitchousc.gov/nsc/nss/acc6/nssacc6.pdl.
a Id.
a Id. at .a.
a6 Id.
88 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
its claim to a right ol prccmption in practicc il not in policy particularly with
rcspcct to !ran and North Korca.
:
Largc scalc attacks on statcs appcar to bc lcss
lavorcd than stratcgic prccmptivc strikcs against wcapons ol mass dcstruction
or tcrrorist training camps. Tis may bc morc ol a tactical rathcr than an intcrna
tional lcgal corrcction.
III
!n thc pcriod undcr rcvicw, thc Unitcd Nations Highlcvcl Pancl on Trcats,
Challcngcs and Changc, appointcd by thc Sccrctary Gcncral, appcars to havc
sidcd with thosc lavoring a ccrtain looscning ol thc strict rcquircmcnt ol an
armcd attack lor sclldclcnsc by rcsort to unilatcral military action. Tc High
lcvcl Pancl statcd:
.. Tc languagc ol this articlc is rcstrictivc: Nothing in thc prcscnt Chartcr
shall impair thc inhcrcnt right ol individual or collcctivc scll dclcnsc il
an armcd attack occurs against a mcmbcr ol thc Unitcd Nations, until thc
Sccurity Council has takcn mcasurcs to maintain intcrnational pcacc and sccu
rity. Howcvcr, a thrcatcncd Statc, according to long cstablishcd intcrnational
law, can takc military action as long as thc thrcatcncd attack is imminent, no
othcr mcans would dccct it and thc action is proportionatc. Tc problcm
ariscs whcrc thc thrcat in qucstion is not immincnt but still claimcd to bc rcal:
lor cxamplc thc acquisition, with allcgcdly hostilc intcnt, ol nuclcar wcapons
making capability.
:8

Tc Rcd Quccn may assign whatcvcr mcaning shc wishcs to words but it is plain
to us that thc languagc ol Articlc ., whcthcr wisc or not, was not dcsigncd to
accommodatc thc Caroline principlc. Tc Pancls intcrprctation appcars to bc an
attcmpt at adjustmcnt ol thc Chartcr to mcct part ol thc Unitcd Statcs claim.
:

8ut only part ol it! Tc Highlcvcl Pancl procccdcd to makc clcar that il immi
ncnt armcd attack wcrc now brought within thc mcaning ol armcd attack and
unilatcral military action to hcad it o could now bc potcntially lawlul, prc
cmptivc sclldclcnsc could not. Tc Pancl rcjcctcd, in cxplicit tcrms, thc possi
bility that acting prcvcntivcly (against a nonimmincnt or nonproximatc onc
a, Scc, c.g., Francis Fukuyama, fter Neoconser.atism, N.Y. Ti:vs, Fcb.., acc6,
Jamcs Stcrngold, Bush Tempers rgument for Pre-empti.e strikes, S~x Fv~xcisco
Cnvoxiciv, ct.a, acc at A.c (Lcxis).
a Rcport ol thc Highlcvcl Pancl on Trcats, Challcngcs and Changc, more secure
.orld: Our Shared Fesponsibility, , U.N. oc. A//6 (cc. a, acc), at: http://
www.un.org/sccurcworld/rcport.pdl.
a Rcisman, Expanding the UN Security Council: Much do, JUR!ST, Aug. ,, acc, at:
http://jurist.law.pitt.cdu/lorumy/acc/c/cxpandingunsccuritycouncilmuch
ado.php.
89 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
|thrcat|) could lall within thc conncs ol lawlul sclldclcnsc. Tc Highlcvcl
Pancl cxplaincd:
... For thosc impaticnt with such a rcsponsc, thc answcr must bc that, in a
world lull ol pcrccivcd potcntial thrcats, thc risk to thc global ordcr and thc
norm ol nonintcrvcntion on which it continucs to bc bascd is simply too
grcat lor thc lcgality ol unilatcral prcvcntivc action, as distinct lrom collcctivcly
cndorscd action, to bc acccptcd. Allowing onc to so act is to allow all.
o
Curiously, this part ol thc High Lcvcl Pancl Rcport, with its putativc cmcndation
ol thc Chartcr, has cxcitcd rclativcly littlc commcnt dcspitc its radical charactcr,
lor it would signicantly changc thc purport ol Articlc . by moving it towards
thc U.S. position. Unlcss, ol coursc, thc changc had alrcady bccn accomplishcd by
practiccs long sincc incorporatcd into customary intcrnational law.
IV
!n a scrics ol judgmcnts and advisory opinions, thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc
has hcwcd to a rathcr strict rcading ol Articlc . ol thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr.
Asscssing thc lcgal contcnt ol thc right to scll dclcnsc in .6, thc Court sur
vcycd trcaty law and customary intcrnational law and concludcd:
.. !n thc casc ol individual sclldclcncc, thc cxcrcisc ol this right is subjcct
to thc Statc conccrncd having bccn thc victim ol an armcd attack. Rcliancc
on collcctivc sclldclcncc ol coursc docs not rcmovc thc nccd lor this. Tcrc
appcars now to bc gcncral agrccmcnt on thc naturc ol thc acts which can bc
trcatcd as constituting armcd attacks. !n particular, it may bc considcrcd to bc
agrccd that an armcd attack must bc undcrstood as including not mcrcly action
by rcgular armcd lorccs across an intcrnational bordcr, but also thc scnding
by or on bchall ol a Statc ol armcd bands, groups, irrcgulars or mcrccnarics,
which carry out acts ol armcd lorcc against anothcr Statc ol such gravity as to
amount to (inter alia) an actual armcd attack conductcd by rcgular lorccs, or
its substantial involvcmcnt thcrcin. . . . !t is also clcar that it is thc Statc which
is thc victim ol an armcd attack which must lorm and dcclarc thc vicw that it
has bccn so attackcd. Tcrc is no rulc in customary intcrnational law pcrmit
ting anothcr Statc to cxcrcisc thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcncc on thc basis ol
its own asscssmcnt ol thc situation. Vhcrc collcctivc sclldclcncc is invokcd,
it is to bc cxpcctcd that thc Statc lor whosc bcnct this right is uscd will havc
dcclarcd itscll to bc thc victim ol an armcd attack.
+
c Id. at .
. Military and Paramilitary cti.ities in and gainst Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), .6
!.C.J. ., .cc. ( Junc a,) (Mcrits).
90 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
Scvcntccn ycars latcr, thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc applicd its intcrprctation
ol Articlc . lrom Nicaragua to U.S. claims ol sclldclcnsc in attacking !ranian oil
installations. Tc Court lurthcr cxplaincd that thc U.S. must provc not only that
it sucrcd lrom an armcd attack, but also that it must cstablish !ranian rcspon
sibility lor that attack a rcquircmcnt thc U.S. was ultimatcly unablc to satisly.
:
Tcrclorc, in ordcr to cstablish that it was lcgally justicd in attacking thc
!ranian platlorms in cxcrcisc ol thc right ol individual sclldclcncc, thc Unitcd
Statcs has to show that attacks had bccn madc upon it lor which !ran was
rcsponsiblc, and that thosc attacks wcrc ol such a naturc as to bc qualicd
as armcd attacks within thc mcaning ol that cxprcssion in Articlc . ol thc
Unitcd Nations Chartcr, and as undcrstood in customary law on thc usc ol
lorcc. As thc Court obscrvcd in thc casc conccrning Military and Paramilitary
cti.ities in and against Nicaragua, it is ncccssary to distinguish thc most gravc
lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc (thosc constituting an armcd attack) lrom othcr lcss
gravc lorms (I.C.J. Feports z,8o, p. .c., para. ..), sincc !n thc casc ol indi
vidual sclldclcncc, thc cxcrcisc ol this right is subjcct to thc Statc conccrncd
having bccn thc victim ol an armcd attack (ibid., p. .c, para. .). Tc Unitcd
Statcs must also show that its actions wcrc ncccssary and proportional to thc
armcd attack madc on it, and that thc platlorms wcrc a lcgitimatc military
targct opcn to attack in thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcncc.

Tc Court similarly cmploycd a strict rcading ol Articlc . in thc !all opinion,

nding that !sracls claim ol sclldclcnsc in constructing a wall in thc ccupicd
Palcstinian Tcrritorics was not rclcvant to thc casc.
Articlc . ol thc Chartcr thus rccognizcs thc cxistcncc ol an inhcrcnt right ol
sclldclcncc in thc casc ol armcd attack by onc Statc against anothcr Statc.
Howcvcr, !sracl docs not claim that thc attacks against it arc imputablc to a
lorcign Statc.
Tc Court also notcs that !sracl cxcrciscs control in thc ccupicd
Palcstinian Tcrritory and that, as !sracl itscll statcs, thc thrcat which it rcgards
as justilying thc construction ol thc wall originatcs within, and not outsidc, that
tcrritory. Tc situation is thus dicrcnt lrom that contcmplatcd by Sccurity
Council rcsolutions .6 (acc.) and ., (acc.), and thcrclorc !sracl could not
in any cvcnt invokc thosc rcsolutions in support ol its claim to bc cxcrcising a
right ol sclldclcncc.
a Oil Platforms (!ran v. U.S), acc !.C.J. .6., para. ,, 6., 6, ,.,a (Nov. 6) (Mcrit).
Id. at para. .
91 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
Conscqucntly, thc Court concludcs that Articlc . ol thc Chartcr has no
rclcvancc in this casc.

!ts most rcccnt holding in thc Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of
the Congo, which thc cmocratic Rcpublic ol thc Congo brought against Uganda,
thc Court was rcquircd to addrcss, undcr its contcntious jurisdiction, thc issuc ol
prccmptivc sclldclcnsc.
n Scptcmbcr .., ., thc Ugandan High Command issucd a documcnt
known as Salc Havcn. Tc documcnt statcd
VHRAS lor a long timc thc RC has bccn uscd by thc cncmics ol Uganda
as a basc and launching pad lor attacks against Uganda,
AN
VHRAS thc succcssivc govcrnmcnts ol thc RC havc not bccn in ccc
tivc control ol all thc tcrritory ol thc Congo,
AN
VHRAS in May .,, on thc basis ol a mutual undcrstanding thc
Govcrnmcnt ol Uganda dcploycd UPF to jointly opcratc with thc Congolcsc
Army against Uganda cncmy lorccs in thc RC,
AN
VHRAS whcn an antiKabila rcbcllion cruptcd in thc RC thc lorccs ol
thc UPF wcrc still opcrating along sidc thc Congolcsc Army in thc RC,
against Uganda cncmy lorccs who had cd back to thc RC,
NV THRFR thc High Command sitting in Kampala this ..th day
ol Scptcmbcr, ., rcsolvcs to maintain lorccs ol thc UPF in ordcr to sccurc
Ugandas lcgitimatc sccurity intcrcsts which arc thc lollowing:
.. To dcny thc Sudan opportunity to usc thc tcrritory ol thc RC to dcsta
bilizc Uganda.
a. To cnablc UPF to ncutralizc Uganda dissidcnt groups which havc bccn
rccciving assistancc lrom thc Govcrnmcnt ol thc RC and thc Sudan.
. To cnsurc that thc political and administrativc vacuum, and instability
causcd by thc ghting bctwccn thc rcbcls and thc Congolcsc Army and
its allics do not advcrscly acct thc sccurity ol Uganda.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a !all in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
!.C.J. Rcports acc, para. ..
92 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
. To prcvcnt thc gcnocidal clcmcnts, namcly, thc !ntcrahamwc, and cx
FAR, which havc bccn launching attacks on thc pcoplc ol Uganda lrom
thc RC, lrom continuing to do so.
. To bc in position to salcguard thc tcrritory intcgrity ol Uganda against
irrcsponsiblc thrcats ol invasion lrom ccrtain lorccs.

Nonc ol thc lcgitimatc sccurity intcrcsts in thc vc points in Salc Havcn involvcs
rcsponsc to an armcd attack. ach is cithcr an action in anticipatory sclldclcnsc,
in thc scnsc ol thc Caroline doctrinc, or, insolar as thc cvcnt lor which military
action is proposcd is not immincnt, it is an action purportcdly in prccmptivc
sclldclcnsc, in thc scnsc in which thc Unitcd Statcs Administration has uscd
thc tcrm. nly !tcm a, insolar as thc lacts supportcd it, could bc charactcrizcd as
anticipatory sclldclcnsc in thc Caroline scnsc.
Tc Court rcmarkcd that thc objcctivcs ol opcration Salc Havcn, as statcd
in thc Ugandan High Command documcnt || wcrc not consonant with thc con
ccpt ol sclldclcncc as undcrstood in intcrnational law.
6
Altcr rcciting Articlc
. ol thc Chartcr, thc Court continucd:
Tc Court rccalls that Uganda has insistcd in this casc that opcration Salc
Havcn was not a usc ol lorcc against an anticipatcd attack. As was thc casc also
in thc Military and Paramilitary cti.ities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua
v. United States of merica) casc, rcliancc is placcd by thc Partics only on thc
right ol sclldclcncc in thc casc ol an armcd attack which has alrcady occurrcd,
and thc issuc ol thc lawlulncss ol a rcsponsc to thc immincnt thrcat ol armcd
attack has not bccn raiscd (I.C.J. Feports z,8o, p. .c, para. .). Tc Court
thcrc lound that |a|ccordingly |it| cxprcsscs no vicw on that issuc. So it is
in thc prcscnt casc. Tc Court lccls constraincd, howcvcr, to obscrvc that thc
wording ol thc Ugandan High Command documcnt on thc position rcgarding
thc prcscncc ol thc UPF in thc RC makcs no rclcrcncc whatcvcr to armcd
attacks that havc alrcady occurrcd against Uganda at thc hands ol thc RC
(or indccd by pcrsons lor whosc action thc RC is claimcd to bc rcsponsiblc).
Rathcr, thc position ol thc High Command is that it is ncccssary to sccurc
Ugandas lcgitimatc sccurity intcrcsts. Tc spccicd sccurity nccds arc csscn
tially prcvcntativc to cnsurc that thc political vacuum docs not advcrscly acct
Uganda, to prcvcnt attacks lrom gcnocidal clcmcnts, to bc in a position to
salcguard Uganda lrom irrcsponsiblc thrcats ol invasion, to dcny thc Sudan
thc opportunity to usc thc tcrritory ol thc RC to dcstabilizc Uganda. nly
onc ol thc vc listcd objcctivcs rclcrs to a rcsponsc to acts that had alrcady
Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Fepublic of
the Congo .. Uganda), !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, . cccmbcr acc, at paragraph
.c.
6 Id. at para. ...
93 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
takcn placc thc ncutralization ol Uganda dissidcnt groups which havc bccn
rccciving assistancc lrom thc Govcrnmcnt ol thc RC and thc Sudan.

Tc Court also obscrvcd that Uganda had not rcportcd thc cvcnts purporting to
justily sclldclcnsc to thc Sccurity Council. Rcvcrting to thc strict contingcncy ol
Articlc ., thc Court said whilc Uganda claimcd to havc actcd in sclldclcncc, it
did not cvcr claim that it had bccn subjcctcd to armcd attack by thc armcd lorccs
ol thc RC.
8
As to whcthcr a statc is cntitlcd to takc actions in sclldclcnsc whcn it has
sucrcd an armcd attack lrom a military lorcc not aliatcd with a statc, thc
Court obscrvcd as a lactual mattcr that on thc cvidcncc bclorc it, cvcn il this
scrics ol dcplorablc attacks could bc rcgardcd as cumulativc in charactcr, thcy
still rcmaincd nonattributablc to thc RC.

As lor sclldclcnsc against such

irrcgular lorccs, thc Court statcd:
thc Court has no nccd to rcspond to thc contcntions ol thc Partics as to whcthcr
and undcr what conditions contcmporary intcrnational law providcs lor a right
ol sclldclcncc against largcscalc attacks by irrcgular lorccs. qually, sincc thc
prcconditions lor thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcncc do not cxist in thc circumstanccs
ol thc prcscnt casc, thc Court has no nccd to cnquirc whcthcr such an cntitlc
mcnt to sclldclcncc was in lact cxcrciscd in circumstanccs ol ncccssity and
in a manncr that was proportionatc. Tc Court cannot lail to obscrvc, how
cvcr, that thc taking ol airports and towns many hundrcds ol kilomctrcs lrom
Ugandas bordcr would not sccm proportionatc to thc scrics ol transbordcr
attacks it claimcd had givcn risc to thc right ol sclldclcncc, nor to bc ncccs
sary to that cnd.
o
Tc qucstion ol sclldclcnsc with rcspcct to armcd bands not aliatcd with a statc
is, ol coursc, at thc vcry ccntcr ol thc cxpandcd claim to prccmptivc sclldclcnsc.
As wc havc sccn, thc !ntcrnational Court had rcjcctcd a right ol sclldclcnsc to
such armcd attacks in Nicaragua and thc !all opinion, Congo .. Uganda might
havc bccn, as Judgc Kooijmans in a scparatc opinion obscrvcd, an opportunity lor
thc Court to rcvisit thc issuc. Judgc Kooijmans suggcstcd an analytical distinc
tion with rcgard to thc qucstion ol whcthcr or not a statc lrom which irrcgular
lorccs sally lorth is rcsponsiblc and thc qucstion ol whcthcr such actions cntitlc
thc targct statc to undcrtakc actions in sclldclcnsc.
, Id. at para. ..
Id. at para. .6.
Id. at para. .6.
c Id. at para. .,.
94 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
Tc Court only dcals with thc qucstion whcthcr Uganda was cntitlcd to act
in sclldclcncc against the DFC and rcplics in thc ncgativc sincc thc activitics
ol thc rcbcl movcmcnts could not bc attributcd to thc RC. 8y doing so, thc
Court docs not answcr thc qucstion as to thc kind ol action a victim Statc is
cntitlcd to takc il thc armcd opcration by irrcgulars, bccausc ol its scalc and
cccts, would havc bccn classicd as an armcd attack rathcr than as a mcrc
lronticr incidcnt had it bccn carricd out by rcgular armcd lorccs (Military
and Paramilitary cti.ities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States
of merica), Jurisdiction and dmissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Feports z,8,, p. .c,
para. .) but no involvcmcnt ol thc host govcrnmcnt can bc provcd.
+
!n thc !all pinion, Judgc Kooijmans had said in this rcgard that Articlc .
conditions thc cxcrcisc ol thc inhcrcnt right ol sclldclcnsc on a prcvious armcd
attack without saying that this armcd attack must comc lrom anothcr Statc cvcn
il this has bccn thc gcncrally acccptcd intcrprctation lor morc than c ycars.
:

!n CongoUganda, hc obscrvcd that thc Courts intcrprctation is no longcr sharcd
by thc Sccurity Council.

!ndccd, altcr agrccing with Judgc Kooijmans that thc

Court should havc addrcsscd thc right to sclldclcnsc with rcspcct to nonstatc
groups, Judgc 8runo Simma claboratcd in his scparatc opinion,
Such a rcstrictivc rcading ol Articlc . might wcll havc rccctcd thc statc, or
rathcr thc prcvailing intcrprctation, ol thc intcrnational law on sclldclcncc
lor a long timc. Howcvcr, in thc light ol morc rcccnt dcvclopmcnts not only
in Statc practicc but also with rcgard to accompanying opinio juris, it ought
urgcntly to bc rcconsidcrcd, also by thc Court. As is wcll known, thcsc dcvcl
opmcnts wcrc triggcrcd by thc tcrrorist attacks ol Scptcmbcr .., in thc wakc
ol which claims that Articlc . also covcrs dclcnsivc mcasurcs against tcrrorist
groups havc bccn rcccivcd lar morc lavourably by thc intcrnational community
than othcr cxtcnsivc rcrcadings ol thc rclcvant Chartcr provisions, particularly
thc 8ush doctrinc justilying thc prccmptivc usc ol lorcc. Sccurity Council
rcsolutions .6 (acc.) and ., (acc.) cannot but bc rcad as armations ol thc
vicw that largcscalc attacks by nonStatc actors can qualily as armcd attacks
within thc mcaning ol Articlc ..

. Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo (cmocratic Rcpublic
ol thc Congo v. Uganda), !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, . cccmbcr acc, (Scparatc
pinion ol Judgc Kooijmans at para. a6).
a Legal Consequences of the Construction of a !all in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
!.C.J. Rcports acc at para. .
Id. at para. a.
Case Concerning rmed cti.ities on the Territory of the Congo (cmocratic Rcpublic
ol thc Congo v. Uganda), !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, . cccmbcr acc, (Scparatc
opinion ol Judgc 8runo Simma at para. ..) (lootnotcs omittcd).
95 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
V
Tc Sccurity Council has bccn skcptical ol cxplicit unilatcral claims ol prccmp
tivc scll dclcnsc. !n .., thc Sccurity Council condcmncd !sracls prccmptivc
strikc against !raq,

noting
Deeply concerned about thc dangcr to intcrnational pcacc and sccurity crcatcd
by thc prcmcditatcd !sracli air attack on !raqi nuclcar installations on , Junc
.., which could at any timc cxplodc thc situation in thc arca, with gravc con
scqucnccs lor thc vital intcrcsts ol all Statcs,
Considering that, undcr thc tcrms ol Articlc a, paragraph , ol thc Chartcr ol
thc Unitcd Nations: All Mcmbcrs shall rclrain in thcir intcrnational rclations
lrom thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc against thc tcrritorial intcgrity or political indc
pcndcncc ol any Statc, or in any othcr manncr inconsistcnt with thc purposcs
ol thc Unitcd Nations,
.. Strongly condemns thc military attack by !sracl in clcar violation ol thc
Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations and thc norms ol intcrnational conduct,
a. Calls upon !sracl to rclrain in thc luturc lrom any such acts or thrcats
thcrcol,
6
!n tcrms ol cxplicit collcctivc claims to prccmptivc sclldclcnsc, thc Sccurity
Council has rcmaincd rclativcly silcnt. Tc Sccurity Council has cxprcsscd nci
thcr support lor nor disapproval ol U.S. prccmptivc strikcs in !raq, a posturc
attributablc to thc lact that, as a pcrmancnt mcmbcr, thc U.S. could vcto any such
rcsolution, rathcr than to a vicw sharcd by thc othcr mcmbcrs ol thc Council on
this qucstion ol intcrnational law

As is wcll known, thc 8ush Administration

tricd, but lailcd, to win Sccurity Council authorization lor thc U.S. March acc
invasion.
8
8ut thc Sccurity Council has not acccptcd thc intcrprctation ol thc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc ol Articlc . which rcquircs state rcsponsibility lor
thc attack provoking a claim ol a right to sclldclcnsc. Following thc Scptcmbcr
.., acc. tcrrorist attacks in thc U.S., thc Sccurity Council was plainly opcrating
See infra Scction \!.8.
6 S.C. Rcs. , ( Junc ., ..).
, Tc Sccurity Council did howcvcr approvc a rcsolution implicitly cndorsing U.S.
occupation by authorizing a multinational lorcc undcr unicd command to providc
sccurity in !raq. Scc Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council, Rcsolution ..., U.N. oc.
No: S/acc/... (ct. .6, acc).
See e.g., lizabcth Ncucr, fter Discord, UNs Eecti.eness Called into Question,
8os:ox Gionv, Mar. ., acc (Vcstlaw).
96 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
on thc undcrstanding that both nonstatc actors and thc statcs that aid, support,
or harbor thcm would bc hcld accountablc.
Fecogni.ing thc inhcrcnt right ol individual or collcctivc sclldclcncc in accord
ancc with thc Chartcr,
. . .
. Calls on all Statcs to work togcthcr urgcntly to bring to justicc thc pcrpctra
tors, organizcrs and sponsors ol thcsc tcrrorist attacks and stresses that thosc
rcsponsiblc lor aiding, supporting or harbouring thc pcrpctrators, organizcrs
and sponsors ol thcsc acts will bc hcld accountablc,

VI
!n thc pcriod sincc thc Unitcd Statcs lodgcd its broadcr claim, a numbcr ol gov
crnmcnts havc opcnly dcbatcd thc qucstion ol a possiblc right ol prccmptivc
sclldclcnsc. Classicd mcmoranda and contingcncy plans may bc bascd on
othcr lcgal thcorics, but it is signicant that public documcnts arc almost always
cxprcsscd as proposing actions that arc intcrnationally lawlul. Tc lollowing dis
cussion cxamincs two groups ol statcs: thosc participating in thc U.S. coalition
cort in !raq, part ol whosc rationalc was prccmptivc sclldclcnsc, and thosc
statcs which havc rcluscd to takc part and havc bccn critical ol Unitcd Statcs
action thcrc. Vhilc any grouping is somcwhat arbitrary, an initial cxamination
rcvcals rathcr surprisingly that a statcs position on thc lawlulncss ol thc military
strikcs in !raq is not ncccssarily dctcrminativc ol its adoption ol a policy ol prc
cmption.
U.S. partners in Iraq
Unitcd Kingdom
Tc Unitcd Kingdom has not cxplicitly adoptcd thc prccmptivc sclldclcnsc
doctrinc dcscribcd in thc Unitcd Statcs National Sccurity Stratcgy acca. 8ut
various rcmarks by thc Primc Ministcr, Forcign Ministcr, clcnsc Ministcr and
Ministcr ol \ctcran Aairs comc closc to it. !n March acc, Primc Ministcr
8lair statcd:
Containmcnt will not work in thc lacc ol thc global thrcat that conlronts us.
Tc tcrrorists havc no intcntion ol bcing containcd. Tc statcs that prolilcr
atc or acquirc VM illcgally arc doing so prcciscly to avoid containmcnt.
S.C. Rcs. .6, U.N. oc. No: S/acc./.6 (Scpt. .a, acc.).
97 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
mphatically ! am not saying that cvcry situation lcads to military action. 8ut
wc surcly havc a duty and a right to prcvcnt thc thrcat matcrialising.
o
!n rcaction, a Sclcct Committcc ol thc Housc ol Commons concludcd, Tc
Primc Ministcrs words appcar to support thc doctrinc ol anticipatory scll
dclcnsc.
+
Tis buttrcsscd an carlicr Housc ol Commons nding in acca, whcrc
Tc Forcign Sccrctary appcars to acccpt thc principlc ol prccmption, as sct
out in thc National Sccurity Stratcgy ol thc Unitcd Statcs. Hc told us on a
Scptcmbcr that !l any nation lccls that it is thrcatcncd in a dircct way thcn
undcr Articlc . it has an inhcrcnt right to takc action prccmptivcly. Tc
Primc Ministcr has also asscrtcd that Tc onc thing wc havc lcarncd post
.. Scptcmbcr is that to takc action in rcspcct ol a thrcat that is coming may
bc morc scnsiblc than to wait lor thc thrcat to matcrialisc and thcn to takc
action.
:
Tc primary impctus lor thc U.K.s implicit though inconsistcnt support lor thc
U.S. prccmption stratcgy is thc nccd lor an ccctivc and timcly rcsponsc to thc
ncw typc ol thrcats poscd by tcrrorism. Altcr thc attacks on Scptcmbcr .., acc.,
thc 8ritish govcrnmcnt commissioncd a ncw chaptcr to its Stratcgic clcnsc
Rcvicw, which had bccn compilcd in ..
xpcricncc shows that it is bcttcr whcrc possiblc, to cngagc an cncmy at longcr
rangc, bclorc thcy |sic| gct thc opportunity to mount an assault on thc UK. Not
only is this morc ccctivc than waiting to bc attackcd at a point and timing
ol an cncmys choosing, but it can havc a dctcrrcnt ccct. Vc must thcrclorc
continuc to bc rcady and willing to dcploy signicant lorccs ovcrscas and, whcn
lcgally justicd, to act against tcrrorists and thosc who harbour thcm.

c Primc Ministcr Tony 8lair, Primc Ministcr warns ol continuing global tcrror thrcat
(Scdgccld Constitucncy Spccch) March , acc, at: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/
Pagc6..asp.
. Housc ol Commons, Sclcct Committcc on Forcign Aairs Scvcnth Rcport,
!ntcrnational Law and thc Var Against Tcrrorism (para ac) July a., acc, at:
http://www.publications.parliamcnt.uk/pa/cmaccc/cmsclcct/cmla/./.ac.
htm.
a Housc ol Commons, Sclcct Committcc on Forcign Aairs Sccond Rcport,
isarming !raq (para .) cccmbcr .,, acca, at: http://www.publications.par
liamcnt.uk/pa/cmaccac/cmsclcct/cmla/.6/.6c.htm=na.c (intcrnal lootnotcs
omittcd).
Ministry ol clcncc, Tc Stratcgic clcnsc Rcvicw: A Ncw Chaptcr (para ), July
acca, at: http://www.mod.uk/issucs/sdr/ncwchaptcr.htm A progrcss rcport on thc
Ncw Chaptcr statcd:
all our analysis shows that tackling thc problcm at distancc whcthcr through
prcvcntion or, whcrc justicd, prccmption, or through usc ol othcr cccts in
98 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
And, in any casc, all our analysis shows that tackling thc problcm whcrc pos
siblc at a distancc is prclcrablc to waiting lor problcms to comc to us: in that
scnsc opcrations ovcrscas arc oltcn thc bcst lorm ol homc dclcncc.

At thc samc timc, thc Unitcd Kingdom has approachcd thc U.S. position with cau
tion. Tc clcnsc Ministry has notcd thc importancc ol a cascbycasc approach
lor prccmptivc action.

!n addition, thc Unitcd Kingdom docs not appcar ncccs

sarily to support unilateral prccmptivc action.
6
Tc clcnsc Military Acadcmy,
which publishcs papcrs produccd by thc Conict Rcscarch and Sccurity Ccntrc,
thc lramcwork wc havc dcvclopcd is much prclcrablc to waiting lor problcms
to comc to us.
Ministry ol clcnsc, Spccch to City Forum Roundtablc, A Progrcss Rcport on thc
Ncw Chaptcr to thc Stratcgic clcnsc Rcvicw, May a, acca, at http://ncws.mod.
uk/ncws/prcss/ncws_prcss_noticc.asp:ncws!tcm_id-.,a,.
Id. at para ,,. A stratcgy ol attacking problcms abroad bclorc thcy manilcst thcm
sclvcs on 8ritish soil is also a promincnt thcmc in discussions on rcstructuring thc
military. !n April acca, thc \ctcrans Ministcr statcd:
Tc Ministry ol clcncc is thcrclorc currcntly conducting work to rccxaminc
our own dclcncc posturc to cnsurc that wc havc thc right dclcncc conccpts,
lorccs and capabilitics to dclcat thc thrcat lrom intcrnational tcrrorism. . . .
8ut thc initial ndings arc that wc nccd to put morc cmphasis on taking thc
initiativc and, whcrc possiblc and justiablc, to prccmpt problcms rathcr than
simply wait lor problcms to comc to us.
pcning Addrcss by r Lcwis Moonic MP, Ministcr lor \ctcrans Aairs to \ctcran
Plcnary Forum, April .,, acca, at: http://www.vctcransagcncy.mod.uk/vctcrans_inti
ativc/vctcrans_intiativc_opcnadd.htm.
!n a Lcttcr to thc Housc ol Commons, thc clcnsc Ministry summarizcd kcy dis
cussion points ol a acca scminar, stating,
Prccmptivc action and particularly a scrics ol prccmptivc actions is likcly
to crcatc scrious dicultics lor coalition cohcsion. Vc cannot bc dogmatic in
pursuing prccmptivc action: a casc by casc analysis will bc rcquircd bclorc any
action is undcrtakcn.
Housc ol Commons, Sclcct Committcc on clcncc, Appcndiccs to thc Minutcs ol
vidcncc Appcndix .c, Lcttcr lrom Ministry ol clcncc to Committcc Spccialist
summarising kcy points ol 8irmingham Scminar a Fcbruary acca, (scminar dis
cusscd dralts ol Ncw Chaptcr) May ,, acc, at: http://www.publications.parliamcnt.
uk/pa/cmaccac/cmsclcct/cmdlcncc//ap...htm.
6 Sclcct Committcc on clcncc Appcndiccs to thc Minutcs ol vidcncc, Appcndix
., Lcttcr to thc Committcc Spccialist lrom thc Ministry ol clcncc (., May
acca), at: http://www.publications.parliamcnt.uk/pa/cmaccac/cmsclcct/cmdlcncc/
/apca.htm.
[House of CommonsJ Te Ne. Chapter consultation paper uses terms such as pre.ent,
deter, coerce, disrupt and destroy does this mean that a pre-empti.e role for the UK
forces is at the heart of the Ne. Chapter in the .ar on terrorism? Can the UK
actually do any of these things alone and if not ho. far is our understanding of this
problem shared by likely allies or collaborators?
99 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
takcs a similarly skcptical vicw ol prccmptivc strikcs, although lor practical, not
lcgal, rcasons.

|Administration Rcsponsc| ur initial thinking on thcsc issucs was sct out in
thc discussion papcr publishcd in Fcbruary. Vc will sct out morc dcvclopcd
thinking whcn wc publish somc conclusions. 8ut thc UN, NAT, thc U
and othcr organisations havc all playcd kcy rolcs in rcccnt months, and wc scc
thcm all playing kcy rolcs in luturc. Vc continuc to rcgard it as vital lor thc
US and its uropcan Allics to bc ablc to opcratc togcthcr (as many Allics arc
doing now in Alghanistan), and lor thc uropcans to makc improvcmcnts in
thcir capabilitics to lacilitatc that. Vc lully rccognisc that, in thc luturc as in
thc past, ccctivc coalition opcrations will normally bc thc kcy to succcss, and
that wc thcrclorc nccdcd a sharcd approach, sharcd doctrinc and intcropcrablc
capabilitics. Vc havc bccn continuing to work to thosc cnds.
Vc havc alrcady indicatcd that wc nccd to put morc cmphasis on bcing
proactivc and, whcrc possiblc and justiablc, prccmpting problcms, rathcr
than simply waiting lor problcms to comc to us. !n that, wc should usc thc
wholc rangc ol rcsponscs that thc Govcrnmcnt has at its disposal not just
military mcans.
See also Housc ol Commons, Sclcct Committcc on Forcign Aairs Scvcnth Rcport,
!ntcrnational Law and thc Var Against Tcrrorism (para. c) July a., acc, at:
http://www.publications.parliamcnt.uk/pa/cmaccc/cmsclcct/cmla/./.ac.
htm.
Tc Housc ol Commons also concludcd that:
Tc Forcign Sccrctary undcrlincd thc Govcrnmcnts advocacy ol rclorm ol
thc systcm ol intcrnational law whcn hc gavc thc Committcc cvidcncc on c
March acc. Vc prcscntcd a thcorctical situation to thc Ministcr, asking how
thc Govcrnmcnt might rcspond to cvidcncc ol an immincnt thrcat by tcrrorists
with acccss to VM, but whcn thcrc was littlc ccrtainty as to thc targct. Tc
Ministcr said:
!l it was that immincnt and country X pcrccivcd that thc thrcat could apply
to thcm, thcn ! think that thcy would bc justicd in acting in sclldclcncc
and thcrc is nothing in Articlc . which could prcvcnt that. !l it was a widcr,
morc gcncral thrcat, thcn although thcrc might not bc thc timc nor might
it bc dcsirablc to havc a public dcbatc, thcrc would almost ccrtainly bc timc
sccrctly to consult P partncrs who arc crucial to any dccision and il thcy wcrc
on board, in practicc thc Sccurity Council would bc.
, C.J. ick, Conict Studics Rcscarch Ccntrc, clcncc Acadcmy, Tc Futurc ol
Conict Looking ut to acac (= MJc) April acc p. a and ,, at: http://www.
da.mod.uk/CSRC/documcnts/Spccial/McCJ.pdl/lc_vicw. Tcir rcport notcs,
ctcrring intrastatc conict, including by prccmptivc dcploymcnts, is
thcorctically attractivc and may bccomc lashionablc but will bc lraught with
problcms ... . cspitc thc lcssons ol thc wars ol Yugoslav succcssion and,
arguably, thc longtcrm thrcat poscd by Saddams missilcs and VM, it will
bc vcry dicult to convincc many clcctoratcs that such action will bc chcapcr in
thc long run. Prccmptivc actions may also bc morally and lcgally dubious and
thcrclorc politically divisivc, both domcstically and intcrnationally (including
bctwccn allics). Prcsidcnt 8ushs stridcnt dcmands lor war to disarm !raq and
morc controvcrsially, to ccct rcgimc changc is a casc in point. (p. a)
100 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
Tc Ncw Chaptcr spccically notcs that prccmption is allowcd only whcn
lcgally justicd. Tc Ncw Chaptcr spccically statcs:
Vc havc madc clcar that our rcsponscs will bc proportionatc and in accord
ancc with our intcrnational lcgal obligations. 8ut wc will not lct thc lcss scru
pulous think wc do not mcan busincss, or simplily an aggrcssors calculations
by announcing how wc would rcspond in particular circumstanccs. Tc only
ccrtainty wc should ocr is that wc shall rcspond appropriatcly il wc nccd
to, using any ol thc widc rangc ol options opcn to us. !t should bc clcar that
lcgally thc right to scll dclcncc includcs thc possibility ol action in thc lacc ol
an immincnt attack.
8
8ut that, ol coursc, assumcs that prccmptivc military action may somctimcs
bc lawlul. Notc also that thc tcrm immincnt appcars to havc acquircd a ccr
tain longitudinal cxtcnsion. !ndccd, thc U.K. govcrnmcnt docs not appcar to
bclicvc that intcrnational law imposcs scvcrc limits. nc cxchangc in thc Housc
ol Commons suggcsts that thc U.K. military takcs a rathcr broad vicw ol intcr
national law in this rcgard.

!n contrast to thc public documcnts indicating

somc dcgrcc ol support lor an implicit acccptancc ol thc U.S. stratcgy, Attorncy
Gcncral Goldsmith, in a ncwly lcakcd documcnt, cxplicitly statcd in acc:
|!|n my opinion thcrc must bc somc dcgrcc ol immincncc. ! am awarc that
thc USA has bccn arguing lor rccognition ol a broad doctrinc ol a right to
nc way or anothcr, thc USA will lcavc itscll opcn to chargcs ol hypocrisy,
sclcctivity and bullyboy bchaviour, not to mcntion thc dclibcratc outing ol
intcrnational law through mounting dubious prccmptivc attacks. (p. ,).
Ministry ol clcncc, Tc Stratcgic clcnsc Rcvicw: A Ncw Chaptcr (para. aa), July
acca, at: http://www.mod.uk/issucs/sdr/ncwchaptcr.htm.
6.. |Housc ol Commons| Arc you saying thcn that il thcrc wcrc a sccond
Rcsolution ol thc Unitcd Nations which was not carricd, but in lact was
dclcatcd and thc outcomc was that it was not right lor a war to bc cngagcd in
at this timc against !raq, would you thcn say that il thc Unitcd Kingdom and
thc Unitcd Statcs wcrc to act unilatcrally and go ahcad and cngagc in a war
with !raq, basically thcy would bc working within thc rcalms ol thc law:
(Mr Hoon) ! indicatcd carlicr that thcrc arc dicrcnt sourccs ol intcrnational
law. Tcrc is thc common law ol intcrnational nations which providcs basic
principlcs likc sclldclcncc, lor cxamplc. Tcrc is also thc law madc by thc
Sccurity Council ol thc Unitcd Nations and indccd by thc Gcncral Asscmbly,
so thcrc is a rangc ol ways in which action would bc justicd, but ! assurc
you that whatcvcr dccision is takcn by thc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt would bc in
conlormity with intcrnational law.
Housc ol Commons, Sclcct Committcc on clcncc, Minutcs ol vidcncc,
xamination ol Vitncsscs, March , acc, at http://www.publications.parliamcnt.
uk/pa/cmaccac/cmsclcct/cmdlcncc//ccc.htm.
101 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
usc lorcc to prccmpt dangcr in thc luturc. !l this mcans morc than a right
to rcspond proportionatcly to an immincnt attack (and ! undcrstand that thc
doctrinc is intcndcd to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrinc which, in
my opinion, cxists or is rccogniscd in intcrnational law.
6o
Australia
Tc Australian govcrnmcnt dclcnds its adoption ol a prccmptivc strikc policy
against tcrrorists as a libcral intcrprctation ol Articlc .. clcnsc Ministcr Robcrt
Hill has argucd,
!t is clcar that, whcn an armcd attack against a Statc is immincnt, that Statc
is not compcllcd to wait until thc rst blow has bccn struck. 8ut what action
can a Statc lcgitimatcly takc whcn that attack is to bc launchcd by a nonStatc
actor, in a nonconvcntional manncr, opcrating lrom a varicty ol bascs in dis
paratc parts ol thc world: Tcrc arc no tclltalc warning indicators such as thc
mobilisation and prcdcploymcnt ol convcntional lorccs.
Vhilst thc Chartcr ol thc U.N adoptcd not dissimilar languagc (Articlc
. pcrmits thc usc ol sclldclcncc il criminal attack occurs), it has not sct
tlcd thc dcbatc bctwccn thosc who adopt a litcral intcrprctation and thosc who
arguc that contcmporary rcality dcmands a morc libcral intcrprctation.
Again thc jurisprudcncc ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc docs not
includc a dcnitivc statcmcnt on thc scopc ol thc law ol anticipatory scll
dclcncc undcr thc Chartcr. Statcs act according to thcir intcrprctation, no
doubt inlormcd by thc intcrprctations ol othcrs.
6+
Tis policy is also cmbodicd in Australian military policy documcnts. Tc
National Sccurity: A clcncc Updatc acc statcs,
6c Attorncy Gcncral Goldsmith, Sccrct Mcmo to thc UK Primc Ministcr on !raq
Rcsolution .., , March acc, at: http://www.numbcr.c.gov.uk/lcs/pdl/
!raqacRcsolutionac...pdl (lcakcd April acc). Tis scction was not includcd
in thc rst publicly rclcascd vcrsion ol thc opinion in March acc. Scc Attorncy
Gcncral Goldsmith, Public Mcmo to thc UK Primc Ministcr on !raq Rcsolution
.., ., March acc, at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/!raq/Story/c,a,6,.,.6,cc.
html (summary prcscntcd to Parliamcnt). !ndccd, in initial discussions about thc
lcgality ol military action, thc 8ritish govcrnmcnt rcluscd to basc its actions on
thc U.S. prccmptivc doctrinc. !nstcad, in accordancc with AttorncyGcncral
Goldsmiths opinion, thc purportcd basis was thc brcach ol Sccurity Council rcsolu
tions.
6. clcncc Ministcr Robcrt Hill, John 8ray Mcmorial ration, at thc Univcrsity ol
Adclaidc (Nov. a, acca), at: http://www.ministcr.dclcncc.gov.au/HillSpccchtpl.
clm:Currcnt!d-a.a..
102 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
8ut diplomacy and intcrnational coopcration will not always succccd: thc
Australian Govcrnmcnt may nccd to considcr luturc rcqucsts to support coa
lition military opcrations to prcvcnt thc prolilcration ol VM, including to
roguc statcs or tcrrorists, whcrc pcacclul corts havc lailcd.
6:
Similarly, a rcport by thc Australian Air Forcc notcs,
Strikc may also takc thc lorm ol a prccmptivc strikc, aimcd at dctcrring an
aggrcssor bclorc major conict crupts. Vhilc thcrc would always bc signicant
political and diplomatic considcration ol any prccmptivc strikc, conlrontcd by
irrclutablc intclligcncc ol impcnding hostilitics, thc Govcrnmcnt may cxcrcisc
a prccmptivc strikc option to rcmovc thc immcdiatc thrcat and dcmonstratc
national rcsolvc.
6
Australia was an carly supportcr ol thc U.S. prccmption claim. !n Junc acca, lol
lowing a prcss conlcrcncc on thc ratication ol thc !ntcrnational Criminal Court
statutc, Primc Ministcr Howard statcd,
Vcll thc principlc that a country which bclicvcs it is likcly to bc attackcd is
cntitlcd to takc prccmptivc action is a scllcvidcntly dclcnsiblc and valid prin
ciplc and ! dont think you nccd a govcrnmcnt dccision to say you agrcc with
that. ! mcan lct mc makc it vcry clcar il ! wcrc prcscntcd with cvidcncc that
Australia was about to bc attackcd and ! was told by our military pcoplc that
by launching a prccmptivc hit wc could prcvcnt that attack occurring ! would
authorisc that prccmptivc hit and cxpcct thc pposition to support mc in thc
proccss.
6

Tis commcnt, wcll bclorc thc ctobcr acca 8ali tcrrorist attacks, rcccivcd littlc
public attcntion. !n cccmbcr acca, Primc Ministcr Howard rcpcatcd his claim
ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc but within a dicrcnt contcxt. !n rcsponsc to a qucs
tion on whcthcr Australia would act prccmptivcly bascd on knowlcdgc ol tcr
rorists in a neighboring country planning an attack, Howard statcd,
h ycs, ! think any Australian Primc Ministcr would. ! mcan, it stands to
rcason that il you bclicvcd that somcbody was going to launch an attack against
your country, cithcr ol a convcntional kind or ol a tcrrorist kind, and you had a
6a Australian Ministry ol clcncc, Australias National Sccurity: A clcncc Updatc
(acc), at: http://www.dclcncc.gov.au/ansacc/Rcport.pdl.
6 Australian Air Forcc, Air Forcc uring Military pcrations: Strikc, at: http://
www.dclcncc.gov.au/raal/organisation/inlo_on/opcrations/strikc.htm.
6 John Howard, Primc Ministcr, Australia, Prcss Conlcrcncc, Parliamcnt Housc, ( Junc
ac, acca), at: http://www.pm.gov.au/Ncws/intcrvicws/acca/intcrvicw.,c.htm.
103 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
capacity to stop it and thcrc was no altcrnativc othcr than to usc that capacity
thcn ol coursc you would havc to usc it.
6
Lcss than a wcck altcr thosc commcnts, Mr. Howard mct with highlcvcl dip
lomats lrom tcn Southcast Asian nations in rcsponsc to a widcsprcad rcgional
outcry.
66
Morc rcccntly, Primc Ministcr Howard has cast prccmptivc action as a
thcorctical, not concrctc, possibility.
Vcll, ! ccrtainly wouldnt cnvisagc that that would occur in rclation to
!ndoncsia. ! was not rcally stating that in rclation to any country and ! havc
thc vcry strong vicw that countrics likc !ndoncsia, with whom wc havc vcry
closc rclationships, il action wcrc nccdcd to bc takcn against groups that might
thrcatcn Australia thcn that action would bc takcn by thc !ndoncsian lorccs. !
was simply stating a principlc, that principlc mcrcly was that il you cvcr had,
how rcmotc thc likclihood ol thc situation in thc luturc whcrc a country wcrc
unablc or unwilling and thc only way to protcct Australia was to takc action,
that that action would bc takcn. 8ut ! imaginc thats a vicw that many coun
trics hold. ! dont think Australia would bc alonc in holding that vicw but !
ccrtainly dont rcgard that as a statcmcnt ol a last rcsort principlc as somcthing
that should bc sccn as bcing in any way antagonistic to any ol our lricnds in
thc rcgion and, most particularly, !ndoncsia.
6
Japan
Tc Japancsc govcrnmcnt, whilc not cngagcd in warghting in !raq, has sup
plicd clcmcnts ol its Scllclcnsc Forccs to !raq sincc cccmbcr acc to assist
in humanitarian and rcconstruction corts.
68

Articlc ol thc Japancsc Constitution lorcvcr rcnouncc(s) war as a sov
crcign right ol thc nation and thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc as mcans ol scttling
intcrnational disputcs. Tcrc is somc movcmcnt within Japan to amcnd thc
Constitution to makc cxplicit thc right to sclldclcnsc undcr Articlc .
6
cspitc
thcsc potcntial constitutional dicultics, thc Japancsc parliamcnt rcccntly passcd
thc Law Conccrning Mcasurcs to nsurc National !ndcpcndcncc and Sccurity
in a Situation ol Armcd Attack. Tc law addrcsscs |s|ituation(s) ol Armcd
6 John Howard, Primc Ministcr, !ntcrvicw with Lauric aks, (cc. ., acca) (Lcxis).
66 AAP Ncwslccd, Philippine !P defends outcry o.er ustralia, cc. , acca (Lcxis).
6, Primc Minstcr John Howard, !ntcrvicw with Mctro T\ (!ndoncsia), (ct. ., acc),
at: http://www.pm.gov.au/ncws/intcrvicws/!ntcrvicw..c.html.
6 Japancsc clcnsc Agcncy, O.er.ie. of Japans Defense Policy (May acc), at: http://
www.jda.go.jp/c/publications/ovcrvicw/cnglish.pdl.
6 Tctsushi Kajimoto, Constitution faces long road to amendment, J~v~x Ti:vs, May ,
acc (LcxisAcadcmic).
104 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
Attack |which arc| a situation whcrc an Armcd Attack against Japan lrom thc
outsidc (including a casc whcrc an Armcd Attack is immincnt) has occurrcd and
a situation whcrc an Armcd Attack is anticipatcd as tcnsions arisc.
o
Tc acc
law contcmplatcs two potcntial situations: onc in which thcrc arc actual military
attacks and thc othcr whcn attacks arc cxpcctcd.
+
Unlikc positions advanccd
by othcr coalition partncrs, thc law rcquircs immincnt and illcgal invasion ol
Japancsc tcrritory to triggcr thc right to sclldclcnsc.
:
8oth China and North
Korca havc criticizcd thc ncw laws as dcstabilizing to thc rcgion.

B Non-U.S. coalition partners

!sracl
Tc !sracli raid on thc sirak rcactor in !raq in .. rcmains thc clcarcst cxamplc
ol a prccmptivc usc ol lorcc in thc pcriod lollowing Vorld Var !!.

!sracl has
also practiccd targctcd assassinations which might bc charactcrizcd as a lorm ol
prccmptivc sclldclcnsc.

!n thc pcriod covcrcd in this cssay, !sracl has madc

an cxplicit claim ol a right to prccmptivc sclldclcnsc in thc contcxt ol thc
withdrawal lrom Gaza in acc. !n thc Amcndcd iscngagcmcnt Plan ol acc,
!sracl statcd
Tc Statc ol !sracl rcscrvcs thc lundamcntal right to sclldclcnsc, including thc
taking ol prcvcntivc mcasurcs, and rcsponsivc acts using lorcc against thrcats
cmanating lrom thc Gaza Strip.
6
,c Japancsc clcnsc Agcncy, clcnsc ol Japan Vhitc Papcr (summary), acca, Scction
, at: http://www.jda.go.jp/c/pab/wpacca/cc.htm.
,. 8ritish 8roadcasting Corporation, Japans Upper House Begins Debating Military
Contingency Bills, May ., acc (LcxisAcadcmic).
,a Go.t outlines ne. .ie. on self-defense Tnv ~iiv Yo:iuvi, (Tokyo) January a6, acc
(Lcxis).
, See e.g., Cnix~ ~iiv, Japans Security Bills Dangerous for Fegion, Junc , acc. 8ritish
8roadcasting Corporation !ntcrnational Ncws Scrvicc, North Korea Denounces Japans
Mo.es for O.erseas Expansion, Junc , acc. (LcxisAcadcmic).
, Rcisman, ssessing Claims to Fe.ise the La.s of !ar, , A:. J. !x:i L. a (acc).
, See generally, rna 8cnNaltali & Kcrcn R. Michacli, !e Must Not Make a Scarecro.
of the La.: Legal nalysis of the Israeli Policy of Targeted Killings, 6 Covxvii !x:i
L.J. a (acc).
,6 Amcndcd iscngagcmcnt Plan, Anncx A, scction .A., May a, acc, at: http://
www.pmo.gov.il/PM/Communication/hitntkut/mcshtacc.htm.
105 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
Russia
Following thc scizurc ol a school in 8cslan by Chcchcn militants, thc Russian gov
crnmcnt indicatcd its willingncss to strikc at tcrrorists prccmptivcly. Prcsidcnt
Putin dcclarcd on Scptcmbcr .,, acc that today in Russia, wc arc scriously prc
paring to act prcvcntivcly against tcrrorists. . . . Tis will bc in strict rcspcct with
thc law and constitution and on thc basis ol intcrnational law.

Tc clcnsc
Ministcr has cxplicitly announccd thc right ol prccmptivc strikcs against tcrror
ists anywhcrc in thc world.
8
At thc samc timc, Russian ocials havc notcd that
thcir prccmptivc strikcs will not includc thc usc ol nuclcar wcapons.

Tis policy stands in markcd contrast to numcrous public statcmcnts prior to

thc U.S.lcd attacks in !raq, which thc Russian govcrnmcnt loudly dcnounccd.
8o

Prcsidcnt Putin cvcn lamcntcd thc rcplaccmcnt ol thc intcrnational law with thc
law ol thc junglc.
8+
nc lormcr highlcvcl Russian ocial bclicvcs thc rcccnt
statcmcnts cndorsing prccmptivc strikcs arc morc likcly a diplomatic ovcrturc
to thc U.S. and NAT, rathcr than a concrctc statcmcnt on military policy.
8:

!n any cvcnt, both thc U.S. and thc U.K. havc publicly supportcd thc changc in
Russian policy.
8
!ndia
Fcdcral Financc Ministcr Jaswant Singh has said cvcry country has a right to prc
cmptivc strikcs as an inhcrcnt part ol its right to sclldclcncc and it was not thc
prcrogativc ol any onc nation. Prccmption or prcvcntion is inhcrcnt in dctcr
rcncc. Vhcrc thcrc is dctcrrcncc thcrc is prccmption. Tc samc thing is thcrc in
Articlc . ol thc UN Chartcr which calls it thc right ol sclldclcncc.
8
,, Putin says Fussia seriously preparing pre.enti.e strikes, rejects talks, Agcncc Francc
Prcssc nglish Virc, Scpt. .,, acc (Vcstlaw).
, I.ano.: Military Force Femains a Political and nti-Terrorist Instrument, Ncws From
Russia (compilcd by Russian Forcign Ministry), cc. .,, acc, at: http://www.india.
mid.ru/nlracc/nl..html.
, 8ritish 8roadcasting Corporation Vorldwidc Monitoring, Fussias pre.enti.e strike
rhetoric seen as oli.e branch to NTO and US, Scpt. .a, acc (Lcxis).
c See e.g., Christian Caryl, Balancing ct, Nvwswvvx, March ac, acc (Lcxis).
. \cronika \oskoboinikova, Putin-Iraq Statement, !TARTASS, March ac, acc
(Lcxis).
a 8ritish 8roadcasting Corporation Vorldwidc Monitoring, Fussias pre.enti.e strike
rhetoric seen as oli.e branch to NTO and US, Scpt. .a, acc (Lcxis).
See e.g., Nicholas Kralcv, Fussia .o.s pre-empti.e terror hits, V~sn. Ti:vs, Scpt. ,
acc (Lcxis), Cam Simpson, U.S. .oices support, caution on Fussias terrorism .ar,
Cni. Tvin., Scpt. .c, acc (Lcxis).
E.ery country has right to pre-emption: Jas.ant, Tnv Pvvss Tvus: ov !xbi~, Scpt.c,
acca (Lcxis).
106 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
!ran
!ran has adoptcd a dual stratcgy in light ol U.S. claims ol a right to prccmptivc
scll dclcnsc. First, it has cxplicitly raiscd thc costs ol a potcntial prccmptivc attack
by dcclaring that an attack on its nuclcar lacilitics would bc an attack on thc cntirc
country. Morcovcr, thc !ranian govcrnmcnt notcd that it would not distinguish
bctwccn thc U.S. and !sracl, in thc cvcnt ol an attack by !sracli lorccs.
8
clcnsc
Ministcr Ali Shamkhani, in an intcrvicw with Al Jazccra nctwork, argucd,
As lar as thc dcstruction ol our nuclcar program, !ll tcll you its impossiblc
givcn thc basic lact that thc program is supportcd by cxpcrts among our pcoplc
who cant bc dcstroycd militarily. So any attack against our nuclcar lacilitics
will bc sccn as an attack against thc wholc country. Vcll rcspond with cvcry
mcans in our powcr.
As lar as !sracl is conccrncd, wc havc no doubts its an cvil cntity. !t cant
takc any military action without a US grccn light. So wc cant distinguish thc
two.
Sccond, clcnsc Ministcr Shamkhani has signalcd that thc !ranian govcrnmcnt
may also invokc a right to prccmptivc sclldclcnsc cithcr on U.S. soil or U.S.
lorccs in thc Middlc ast.
AL! SHAMKHAN!: Tc prcscncc ol thc US military docsnt cmpowcr thc
US at our cxpcnsc. Tc oppositc is truc. Vc can hold thcir troops hostagc.
ANCHR: You say that !ran has a prcscncc in thc Gull, in !raq, and in
Alghanistan, which mcans that il thc US attacks you, you can rcspond. !s that
a corrcct intcrprctation:
AL! SHAMKHAN!: Vc wont stay silcnt and wait lor othcrs to act against us.
Somc among !rans military lcadcrship arc condcnt that thc prcvcntivc opcra
tions bcing discusscd by thc Amcricans arcnt limitcd to thcm.
86
North Korca
!n Fcbruary acc, in thc contcxt ol continuing discussions on North Korcas
allcgcd nuclcar program, thc North Korcan Forcign Ministry dcclarcd that
North Korca was cntitlcd to launch a prccmptivc strikc against US lorccs rathcr
than wait until thc Amcrican military was nishcd with !raq. Tc dcputy dircctor
Fcdcral Ncws Scrvicc, !ntcrvicw with !ranian clcnsc Ministcr Ali Shamkhani, Al
Jazccra, August ., acc (LcxisAcadcmic).
6 Id.
107 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
statcd, Tc Unitcd Statcs says that altcr !raq, wc arc ncxt, but wc havc our own
countcrmcasurcs. Prccmptivc attacks arc not thc cxclusivc right ol thc US.
8

Similarly, in Scptcmbcr acc, Yang Hyongsop, viccprcsidcnt ol thc Prcsidium
ol thc Suprcmc Pcoplcs Asscmbly, statcd that |a| prccmptivc attack is not a
monopoly ol thc US.
88
Francc
cspitc Franccs vocal opposition to thc war in !raq, it too has announccd a
dclcnsc policy that would allow lor prccmptivc action. !n a statcmcnt ol dclcnsc
policy lor accacc, thc Frcnch govcrnmcnt notcd:
utsidc our bordcrs, within thc lramcwork ol prcvcntion and projcction
action, wc must bc ablc to idcntily and prcvcnt thrcats as soon as possiblc.
Vithin this lramcwork, possiblc prccmptivc action is not out ol thc qucstion,
whcrc an cxplicit and conrmcd thrcat has bccn rccognizcd. Tis dctcrmina
tion and thc improvcmcnt ol long rangc strikc capabilitics should constitutc a
dctcrrcnt thrcat lor our potcntial aggrcssors, cspccially as transnational tcrror
ist nctworks dcvclop and organizc outsidc our tcrritory, in arcas not govcrncd
by statcs, and cvcn at timcs with thc hclp ol cncmy statcs... . Prcvcntion is thc
rst stcp in thc implcmcntation ol our dclcnsc stratcgy, lor which thc options
arc groundcd in thc appcarancc ol thc asymmctric thrcat phcnomcnon.
8
Hcrc, as in many ol thc othcr cxamplcs, thc locus is on thc asymmctrical thrcat
prcscntcd by tcrrorists. As an additional dctcrrcnt to tcrrorist attack, Prcsidcnt
Chirac rcccntly statcd that rctaliations lor largc statcbackcd tcrrorist attacks
against Francc could involvc thc usc ol nuclcar wcapons. !n a spccch dclivcrcd at
a military basc, Prcsidcnt Chirac argucd that,
|N|uclcar dctcrrcncc is not intcndcd to dctcr lanatical tcrrorists. Yct, thc lcad
crs ol Statcs who would usc tcrrorist mcans against us, as wcll as thosc who
would considcr using, in onc way or anothcr, wcapons ol mass dcstruction,
must undcrstand that thcy would lay thcmsclvcs opcn to a rm and adaptcd
, ustralia, N. Korea join pre-empti.e band.agon, Nvws S:v~i:s Ti:vs, ct. a6,
acc.
Global NcwsVirc, North Korean Ocial Says Pre-empti.e ttack Not a Monopoly of
the U.S., Scpt. .c, acc (LcxisAcadcmic).
Govcrnmcnt ol Francc, Ministry ol clcnsc, accacc Military Program, at:
http://www.ambalranccus.org/atoz/mindcla.pdl.
108 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
rcsponsc on our part. And this rcsponsc could bc a convcntional onc. !t could
also bc ol a dicrcnt kind.
o
China
Tc Chincsc govcrnmcnt has criticizcd thc U.S. prccmptivc policy bccausc it
mainly rclics on subjcctivc judgmcnts, and is vcry casily abuscd and uscd as a
prctcxt lor war. So, thc US prccmptivc stratcgy is in lact a logic ol thc powcr
lul.
+
Notwithstanding this criticism, such action appcars to bc possiblc in thc
limitcd contcxt ol Chinas claims to Taiwan, with rcspcct to which thc Chincsc
govcrnmcnt appcars to support a limitcd vcrsion ol a right to prccmptivc action.
!n March acc, thc Pcoplcs Congrcss ol China adoptcd an antiscccssion law
that authorizcs nonpcacclul mcans in thc cvcnt ol ovcrt Taiwancsc scccssionist
actions or cvcn oncc possibilitics ol pcacclul rcunication arc cxhaustcd.
:

Taiwan
Vcll bclorc thc passagc ol thc Chincsc AntiScccssion Law, Taiwan had invokcd
thc right to prccmptivc action against China. !n acc, thc clcnsc Ministcr ol
Taiwan rcluscd to rulc out prccmptivc attacks against military targcts in China
in situations whcrc thcrc is clcar Chincsc intcnt and military mobilization.

VII
Tc initial asscrtions ol a right ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc madc by thc 8ush
Administration in acca wcrc cast morc broadly than thosc ol his prcdcccssors.
vcn though thc broadcr claim was provokcd and was conditioncd by thc attack
ol Scptcmbcr .., acc., its opcntcxturcd lormulation could bc intcrprctcd to
includc surprisc attacks on othcr statcs. Tis is, as wc havc sccn, how somc mcm
bcrs ol thc 8ritish govcrnmcnt, which was hardly unlricndly to thc U.S. and its
military program, rcad it. Tc 8ritish rcading may not havc bccn o thc mark.
Signicant statcmcnts ol national military doctrinc arc not madc hastily. !t is
c Prcsidcnt Jacqucs Chirac, Spccch during visit to Stratcgic Air and Maritimc Forccs
at Landivisau, January a, acc6, at: http://www.clyscc.lr/clyscc/clyscc.lr/anglais/
spccchcs_and_documcnts/acc6/spccch_by_jacqucs_chirac_prcsidcnt_ol_thc_
lrcnch_rcpublic_during_his_visit_to_thc_statcgic_lorccs.,.html.
. 8ritish 8roadcasting Corporation !ntcrnational Rcports, Quotes from China, Tai.an
Press, Fcb. , acc6, (citing China Defense Daily) (Lcxis Acadcmic).
a Pcoplcs Rcpublic ol China, rdcr ol thc Prcsidcnt No., Mar. ., acc (promul
gating thc law), at: http://taiwansccurity.org/Ncws/acc/C.cc.htm (nglish
translation).
8ritish 8roadcasting Corporation, Tai.an cannot rule out pre-empti.e attacks on
mainland, ct. 6, acc (LcxisAcadcmic).
109 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
possiblc that thc National Sccurity Stratcgy ol acca was alrcady in thc works and
was dcsigncd to prcparc thc world lor dircct action against !raq, onc ol whosc
justications was a prccmptivc sclldclcnsc.
Signicantly, not all statcs claims ol rights ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc which
wc havc bccn ablc to nd appcar to contcmplatc a right to attack anothcr statc
prccmptivcly. Rathcr, thc morc common lormulation appcars to bc a right to usc
lorcc in a prccmptivc lashion against nonstatc cntitics cmploying what havc
comc to bc callcd tcrrorist mcthods. nc variation on this lcitmotil in statc
mcnts by thc U.S., Francc, and Australia, appcars to bc thc right to strikc prc
cmptivcly against statcs only whcn thcrc is a risk ol tcrrorists acquiring wcapons
ol mass dcstruction lrom a roguc statc. (Tat conclusion is pcrlorcc spcculativc,
lor wc do not havc acccss to sccrct contingcncy plans which may bc bascd on
much broadcr conccptions ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc.) Hcncc, thc policy ol
prccmptivc strikcs ol many ol thc statcs rcvicwcd hcrc appcars morc narrowly
conncd to cascs ol .) nonstatc cntitics, such as tcrrorists who may or may not
posscss wcapons ol mass dcstruction, and a) statcs whcrc thcrc is a risk ol tcrror
ists acquiring wcapons ol mass dcstruction.
!t is also notcworthy that many govcrnmcnts havc cxplicitly rcluscd to rcc
ognizc thc U.S. claim as indicativc ol or consistcnt with intcrnational law. Tcn
Chanccllor Gcrhard Schrodcr cxplicitly statcd his disagrccmcnt with thc U.S.
claims to thc right to prccmption.

Tc Spanish Primc Ministcr, citing !raq as

an cxamplc ol lailurc, statcd, prccmptivc wars, ncvcr again, violations ol intcr
national law, ncvcr again.

Tc !slamic Conlcrcncc ol Forcign Ministcrs has

similarly condcmncd thc principlc ol prccmptivc military strikcs against any
country undcr any prctcxt whatsocvcr.
6
Tus, insolar as thc collcgc ol jurists may havc considcrcd thc claim to usc
military lorcc prccmptivcly as a scrious crosion ol intcrnational rcstraints on
thc usc ol lorcc and, in thc worst scnsc, simply as a cuphcmism lor aggrcssion,
thc cxamination ol statcmcnts ol political lcadcrs madc in thc last vc ycars in
thc contcxts ol national political dcbatcs may providc a modcst dcgrcc, il not ol
comlort thcn at lcast thc rclicl ol concluding that it could havc bccn worsc. \cry
lcw ol thc morc rcccnt statcmcnts sccm to contcmplatc or claim a right to dircct
prccmptivc attacks against othcr statcs. nly !ran and North Korca appcar to
sanction such action. Almost all ol thc rcmaining statcs sccm to bc locuscd on
actions against nonstatc cntitics and, in virtually all thc statcmcnts, thc assumcd
!ntcrvicw with 8undcskanzlcr Gcrhard Schrodcr in thc AR tclcvision show
Tagcsthcmcn ( Jan. a, acc), at: http://www.bundcsrcgicrung.dc/dokumcntc/,
..6.c/!ntcrvicw/dokumcnt.htm.
Iraq pro.es pre-empti.e .ars fail, Associatcd Prcss, May , acc (Lcxis).
6 Final Communiquc ol thc TirtyFirst Scssion ol thc !slamic Conlcrcncc ol Forcign
Ministcrs, !stanbul, Rcpublic ol Turkcy, para. . ( Junc .6, acc), rcprintcd in Gcncral
Asscmbly, U.N. oc. No. A//6 ( July a., acc).
110 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
contcxt appcars to bc scrial conicts, i.e., continuing conicts markcd by intcr
mittcnt cxplosions ol violcncc, lollowcd by rclativcly long pcriods ol quicsccncc
without, howcvcr, lormal conclusion ol thc conict, succccdcd by rcncwcd cxplo
sions ol violcncc. !n this rcspcct, onc wondcrs il thc claimcd right ol prccmptivc
sclldclcnsc may bc subsiding into a right to initiatc thc usc ol lorcc in ongoing
ovcrt conicts, without awaiting a particular provocation. 8ut cvcn undcr thcsc
morc limitcd circumstanccs, claims ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc would involvc
uscs ol lorcc in an cvcr widcning arcna and any possiblc gain in thc rcstoration
ol minimum ordcr will havc bccn sccurcd at thc cost ol a gcographical cxtcnsion
ol thc conict. A prccmptivc attack on !ranian nuclcar installations would, ol
coursc, dcpart lrom thc trcnd wc havc dcscribcd and signal a major changc in thc
jus ad bellum.
vcn il claims to prccmptivc sclldclcnsc arc hcncclorth limitcd to mil
itary actions in protractcd lowlcvcl conicts rathcr than Pcarl Harbor typc
initiations ol intcrstatc war, it is clcar that all ol thc claims arc incompatiblc
with conccptions ol thc lawlul usc ol lorcc in sclldclcnsc as undcrstood by thc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc in its rcccnt dccisions. A discrcpancy bctwccn
practicc and lormal law bctwccn myth systcm and opcrational codc

is hardly
uniquc to thc intcrnational lcgal systcm. 8ut thc unccrtainty ol prcciscly what
thc law prohibits is always an invitation to advcnturism, advcnturism with highly
dcstructivc and nondiscriminating wcapons is a particularly lrightlul prospcct.
!n any cvcnt, il onc wcrc to hazard a prcdiction in this vcry uid situation, it
would bc that a conccption ol lawlul sclldclcnsc incorporating only thc Caroline
doctrinc will continuc lor most mattcrs, having bccn rclaxcd only lor thc so
callcd war against tcrrorism.
8ut just as this broad, but ncccssarily incomplctc, survcy may havc providcd
somc comlort, incrcasing lcgal mimctic cccts may accclcratc thc drilt away
lrom thc binary lormulation ol Articlc . towards a morc vaguc, and possibly
lcss stablc, dcnition on thc right to usc lorcc. !mitation is said to bc thc highcst
complimcnt. And in this instancc, thc Unitcd Statcs has dcvclopcd somc unlikcly
and lrom its pcrspcctivc, undcsircd admircrs. Two ol thc thrcc rcmaining
axis ol cvil mcmbcrs, North Korca and !ran, quickly adoptcd thc U.S. claim
in potcntial dclcnsc ol thcir own lragilc intcrnational positions.
8
Russia spc
cically notcd that it was not thc rst govcrnmcnt to announcc a policy ol prc
cmptivc sclldclcnsc. According to clcnsc Ministcr !vanov, |w|hcthcr wc likc
it or not, thc prccmptivc usc ol lorcc in thc modcrn world is a rcality. Vhilc
, V.M. Rcisman, Foibvb Livs (.,).
Prcsidcnt Gcorgc 8ush, Statc ol thc Union Addrcss, January a, acca (noting !raq,
North Korca and !ran constitutcd an axis ol cvil), at: http://www.whitchousc.gov/
ncws/rclcascs/acca/c./accac.a...html.
111 4 Claims to Pre-empti.e Uses of Force
this principlc cxists, wc arc not going to rclinquish it voluntarily.

Tc Housc
ol Commons notcd this vcry dangcr in rcqucsting thc 8lair govcrnmcnt to assist
in dcvcloping a clcar intcrnational conscnsus on thc right to usc lorcc in scll
dclcnsc. thcrwisc, thcrc is a scrious risk that this will bc takcn as lcgitimising
thc aggrcssivc usc ol lorcc by othcr, lcss lawabiding statcs.
+oo
Primc Ministcr
Howard has rcjcctcd thcsc claims, arguing that thcrc has bccn too grcat a tcn
dcncy to imputc a gcncraliscd intcntion on thc part ol thc Unticd Statcs to adopt
what you call a prccmptivc strikc policy.
+o+

8ut in thc grip ol such mimctic cccts, thc actual policy ol thc Unitcd Statcs
bccomcs lcss important than its imputcd policy. !n its cxaminations ol cvolving
custom, intcrnational law will takc account ol thc policics and practiccs ol all
nations. Although U.S. policy may now bc morc limitcd than initially claimcd,
othcr statcs may not havc rcccivcd that mcssagc and may rcactivcly adopt cxag
gcratcd prccmption policics with rcspcct to thcir own latcnt advcrsarics, thus
skcwing asscssmcnts ol intcrnational conscnsus and practicc back toward a posi
tion which may ironically no longcr bc claimcd by major powcrs. Hcncc, what
appcars to bc a growing adoption ol claims to prccmptivc scll dclcnsc in limitcd
circumstanccs may mistakc political posturing lor intcrnational conscnsus with
gravc conscqucnccs lor both thc cxpcctation and cvcntuation ol violcncc.
Tcrc arc othcr covcrt costs to broad claims ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc.
Although thc U.S. doctrinc not unrcasonably aims to cnhancc its own sccurity,
widcr adoption ol a lcgal policy ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc may actually undcr
minc it. Statcs may, rightly or wrongly, appropriatc thc languagc ol prccmption
to t thcir individual sccurity conccrns csscntially lrcc ridcrs in thc intcrna
tional lcgal systcm. For cxamplc, North Korca has justicd its lurthcr dcvclop
mcnt ol nuclcar wcapons as csscntial to North Korcan sclldclcnsc against U.S.
claims ol a right to prccmptivc sclldclcnsc.
+o:
Such invocations ol U.S. policics
to justily domcstic mcasurcs is apparcnt in othcr arcas impactcd by thc war on
tcrror. Tc UN Spccial Rapportcur on !ndcpcndcncc ol thc Judiciary notcs thc
downward spiral as statcs rclashion U.S. policy lor thcir particular local circum
stanccs.
8ritish 8roadcasting Corporation !ntcrnational Monitoring, Fussia Not Planning to
Gi.e Up Fight to Pre-empti.e Strikes, ct. ac, acc (Lcxis).
.cc Housc ol Commons, Sclcct Committcc on Forcign Aairs Sccond Rcport,
Conclusions and Rccommcndations cccmbcr .,, acca, para .(r), at: http://
www.publications.parliamcnt.uk/pa/cmaccac/cmsclcct/cmla/.6/.6c.htm.
.c. John Howard, Primc Ministcr, Australia, !ntcrvicw with Lcon clancy, Radio aSM
(ct. .c, acc) See also, !heres the Fed Line?, Nvwswvvx, Fcbruary .,, acc (Lcxis).
.ca Forcign Ministry ol North Korca, Mcmorandum ol PRK Forcign Ministry,
March , acc (acccsscd via LcxisAcadmic)(stating Tcrclorc, it is quitc natural
that thc PRK has manulacturcd nukcs lor sclldclcncc and continucs to do so to
copc with thc policy ol thc 8ush administration aimcd at mounting a prccmptivc
nuclcar attack on it.).
112 !. Michael Feisman and ndrea rmstrong
8ascd on thc doctrinc ol countcrtcrrorism and somctimcs cvcn taking inspi
ration lrom thc status ol cncmy combatant, thc govcrnmcnts ol many Statcs
havc adoptcd or strcngthcncd lcgal instrumcnts giving thcm powcrs ol dctcn
tion bcyond all judicial control which, dcpcnding on thc contcxt, thcy usc to
dctain tcrrorist suspccts, political opponcnts, rclugccs or asylum scckcrs.
+o

Tcsc mimctic and lrcc riding cccts rcmaincd somcwhat mutcd during thc ini
tial itcration ol claims to a right ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc undcr thc Rcagan
Administration. Pcrhaps this was duc to thc controls which two supcrpowcrs
in a bipolar systcm cxcrciscd ovcr thc various statcs within thcir zoncs ol inu
cncc. Tc point is not to bc nostalgic about thc Cold Var but simply to notc that
bccausc thc controls cxcrciscd by thc lormal institutions ol intcrnational law arc
not yct comparably ccctivc, thcsc implications should bc bornc in mind whcn
contcmplating thc cxpansion ol lawlul unilatcral military action.
Tc dangcrs ol lcgal mimcsis and lrccriding arc lurthcr amplicd givcn thc
diculty ol thc intcrnational community in lormulating a conscnsus on dcning
tcrrorism. cnitions cstablish a locus. cnitions ol tcrrorism arc particu
larly outcomc scnsitivc prcciscly bccausc thcy tcnd to dclimit thc rangc ol lawlul
rcsponscs to thcm.
+o
As a rcsult, intcrnational politics, in proving itscll unablc to
adopt a comprchcnsivc dcnition, may bc provoking cvcn broadcr claims to prc
cmptivc scll dclcnsc.
.c Rcport ol thc Spccial Rapportcur on thc !ndcpcndcncc ol Judgcs and Lawycrs,
Lcandro cspouy, U.N. SCR, Commn on Human Rights, 6.st Scss., para. 6,
oc. No. /CN./ acc/6c (acc).
.c For lurthcr discussion ol tcrrorism and intcrnational law, scc Rcisman, Legal Fesponses
to International Terrorism, aa Hous. J. !x:i L (.).
Chapter 5
Tc Tcmporal imcnsion ol Scllclcnsc: Anticipation,
Prccmption, Prcvcntion and !mmcdiacy
Terry D. Gill
I Introduction
Tc adoption by thc Unitcd Statcs ol a doctrinc ol prccmptivc, or cvcn prcvcn
tivc, sclldclcnsc as part ol its national sccurity stratcgy, and its partial rcliancc
upon that doctrinc to justily thc rcccnt war against !raq, has causcd a grcat dcal
ol controvcrsy at both thc diplomatic lcvcl and among intcrnational lcgal scholars
rclating to thc pcrmissibility ol anticipatory or prcvcntivc sclldclcnsc in advancc
ol an armcd attack.
+
Vhilc much lcgal opinion sccms to bc in broad agrccmcnt
that sclldclcnsc would bc pcrmissiblc in rcsponsc to an immcdiatc and mani
lcst thrcat ol an attack,
:
opinion divcrgcs sharply on whcthcr sclldclcnsc would
bc pcrmissiblc in rcsponsc to potcntial thrcats ol an attack and, morc cspccially,
whcthcr thc notion ol an immcdiatc thrcat nccds to bc rccxamincd in thc light
ol changcd circumstanccs, such as tcrrorist thrcats and thc possiblc usc ol wcap
. National Sccurity Stratcgy ol thc Unitcd Statcs at www.whitchousc.gov/nsc/nss.
html. A numbcr ol justications wcrc advanccd by thc US Govcrnmcnt lor thc usc
ol lorcc against !raq. Among thcsc wcrc rclcrcnccs to thc ncccssity ol prcvcnting
!raq lrom cngaging in an attack with wcapons ol mass dcstruction upon thc Unitcd
Statcs, US intcrcsts in thc Middlc ast, or ncighboring Statcs, as wcll as thc prolil
cration by !raq ol such wcapons to tcrrorist movcmcnts. Scc Prccmption, !raq and
!ntcrnational Law Commcnts by V.H. Talt !\ and T.F. 8uchwald in thc gora scc
tion ol , JIL (acc) 6,.
a A signicant numbcr ol scholars opposc any notion ol anticipatory or prccmptivc
sclldclcnsc prior to thc actual launching ol an armcd attack. Tcsc includc, inter
alia, !. 8rownlic, International La. and the Use of Force Bet.een States (.6), a,
,, 8othc, Tcrrorism and thc Lcgality ol Prccmptivc Forcc in . EJIL (acc)
no. , aa, and Randclzholcr, Articlc . in 8. Simma (cd.) Te Charter of the United
Nations: Commentary (a
nd
cd. acca), c. Anothcr group ol scholars takcs thc
position that anticipatory sclldclcnsc is pcrmissiblc within thc strict limits ol thc
Caroline critcria, c.g. C. Grccnwood, !ntcrnational Law and thc Prccmptivc Usc ol
Forcc in San Diego International La. Journal , (acc), . 8owctt, Self-Defense in
International La. (.) at .6, T. Franck, Fecourse to Force (acca), , et seq., and
Valdock, Tc Rcgulation ol thc Usc ol Forcc by !ndividual Statcs in !ntcrnational
Law in . FCDI (.a), . et seq. at 6a6.
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. zz-z.
114 Terry D. Gill
ons ol mass dcstruction by tcrrorist organizations and socallcd roguc rcgimcs.

thcr points ol controvcrsy includc such qucstions as what constitutcs an immc
diatc thrcat ol an armcd attack, what is thc propcr intcrprctation ol thc rclation
ship bctwccn Chartcr law and customary law rclating to sclldclcnsc, and what
is thc propcr and dcsirablc rclationship bctwccn thc right ol sclldclcnsc and thc
rcst ol thc law govcrning thc usc ol lorcc:
Tis articlc will addrcss thcsc qucstions, hopclully contributing to this top
ical dcbatc through a combination ol lcgal rcasoning and an cxamination ol
Statc practicc. Tc starting point is that sclldclcnsc is a right, groundcd in both
Chartcr and in customary law, which allows somc dcgrcc ol anticipatory action to
countcr a clcar and manilcst thrcat ol attack in thc immcdiatc, or at lcast proxi
matc, luturc, within thc conncs ol thc wcllknown and widcly acccptcd .,
Caroline incidcnt critcria, rclating to ncccssity, immcdiacy and proportionality.

!n this contcxt, it is submittcd that thcsc critcria still providc a workablc

and acccptablc lramcwork lor analysis, but arc not a substitutc lor analysis itscll.
Tosc critcria must bc applicd in contcxt, taking into account thc crcdibility and
urgcncy ol a spccic thrcat, thc conscqucnccs ol sucring thc incipicnt or proba
blc attack and thc availability, or lack thcrcol, ol lcasiblc altcrnativcs to thc taking
ol action in sclldclcnsc. !n short, thc Caroline critcria must bc applicd in thc
light ol othcr lactual and lcgal considcrations and wcrc ncvcr mcant to bc, nor
can thcy bc sccn in isolation, as mcrc abstractions, without duc rcgard lor thc rcl
cvant circumstanccs ol cach particular situation. To dcmonstratc this, it will bc
ncccssary to cxaminc a numbcr ol cxamplcs lrom Statc practicc in which varying
dcgrccs ol anticipatory action in sclldclcnsc wcrc applicd. Conscqucntly, much
ol this articlc will bc dcvotcd to an cxamination ol thc pcrmissiblc limits to thc
cxcrcisc ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, taking into account thc analytical lramc
work providcd by thc Caroline critcria and thc rclcvant circumstanccs ol cach
particular casc or sccnario which is uscd.
Following this cxamination ol Statc practicc in rclation to thc limits ol
anticipatory sclldclcnsc and thc qucstion ol thc rclcvancc and lunctions ol
thc Caroline critcria, an analysis will bc conductcd ol thc shortcomings in thc
National Sccurity Stratcgy ol thc Unitcd Statcs, particularly, ol thc challcngc
it poscs to thc contcmporary jus ad bellum in attcmpting to rcdcnc thc notion
Sincc thc cvcnts ol .., a third body ol opinion has cmcrgcd within thc dcbatc
ovcr thc paramctcrs ol sclldclcnsc. !t suggcsts that prccmptivc action is justicd
not only within thc traditional limits ol thc Caroline doctrinc against immcdiatc and
manilcst thrcats, but also to countcr thrcats which arc morc rcmotc in thc luturc. Scc
c.g. Solacr, n thc Ncccssity ol Prccmption in . EJIL (acc) no. a, ac, and thc
commcnts by Talt and 8uchwald rclcrrcd to in n. ., supra.
Tc Caroline incidcnt was rclcrrcd to by thc !ntcrnational Military Tribunals in
Nurcmburg and Tokyo, in dcbatcs in thc UN Sccurity Council and in acadcmic
litcraturc rclating to sclldclcnsc. Scc nn. a, ,, a and and accompanying tcxt
infra.
115 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
ol sclldclcnsc and its placc and lunction within thc contcmporary lcgal rcgimc
conccrning thc usc ol lorcc, including thc UN collcctivc sccurity systcm. Tc arti
clc concludcs with a discussion ol tcmporal aspccts ol sclldclcnsc in thc contcxt
ol thc rulcs and principlcs govcrning thc usc ol lorcc, in particular thc rcspcctivc
rolcs ol sclldclcnsc and thc UN collcctivc sccurity systcm.
To avoid possiblc conlusion, somc prcliminary tcrminological clarication
is usclul. Tc tcrm prccmptivc sclldclcnsc will bc uscd hcrc to dcnotc thc cxcr
cisc ol sclldclcnsc in rclation to manilcst thrcats ol armcd attack which arc in
progrcss or at thc point ol bcing launchcd. Prcvcntivc action or prcvcntivc scll
dclcnsc rclcrs to thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc in rclation to thrcats ol attack which
arc somcwhat morc rcmotc in timc, but arc ncvcrthclcss manilcst or at lcast rca
sonably probablc undcr thc circumstanccs prcvailing at thc timc.
Tc phrascs anticipatory sclldclcnsc or anticipatory action apply to both
variants. Nonc ol thcsc tcrms arc mcant to rclcr to action undcrtakcn in rcsponsc
to thc mcrc possibility ol an attack bcing launchcd at somc indctcrminatc point
in thc luturc in rcsponsc to a thrcat which has not yct manilcstcd itscll in any
substantial scnsc. !mmcdiacy is thc notion ol an immcdiatc or immincnt thrcat
ol attack within thc contcxt ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, although sccondary con
sidcration will bc givcn to thc tcrm as onc ol thc conditions lor thc cxcrcisc ol
sclldclcnsc in a morc gcncral scnsc.

Tis articlc will bc roundcd o by a numbcr

ol nal conclusions.
II Te Iegal Basis of the Right of Self-efense
Substance of the Fight of Self-Defense and its Felationship to
rticle :(,) and Chapter !II of the Charter
Tc starting point lor any discussion ol thc substancc ol sclldclcnsc and its
placc within thc contcmporary jus ad bellum is thc prohibition ol thc usc ol lorcc
containcd in Articlc a() ol thc Chartcr and in customary intcrnational law. Tc
prohibition ol thc usc ol lorcc has bccn thc linchpin ol thc intcrnational lcgal
!mmcdiacy can bc uscd in two dicrcnt contcxts. Firstly, it occurs in rclation to
thc conccpt ol an immincnt or immcdiatc thrcat ol an attack within thc contcxt ol
anticipatory sclldclcnsc. Tis usagc will bc cxplorcd in this articlc. Sccondly, immc
diacy can bc intcrprctcd as a rcquircmcnt lor taking action in sclldclcnsc within a
short span ol timc subscqucnt to an attack in ordcr to distinguish sclldclcnsc lrom
rcprisal. Uscd in thc lattcr scnsc, immcdiacy is oltcn sccn as onc ol thc rcquircmcnts
lor thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc alongsidc ncccssity and proportionality. Scc in rcla
tion to this lattcr contcxt, inter alia, Y. instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence,
(a
nd
cd. .,) aca, a., a.ac and a,, Ago, Addcndum to ighth Rcport on
Statc Rcsponsibility, (.c) !! (.) ILC Yearbook . at 6, and Schmitt, Prccmptivc
Stratcgics in !ntcrnational Law in a Mich. J. Intl La. (acc) . at . !mmcdiacy
uscd in this scnsc will bc givcn sccondary considcration in this articlc. Scc paragraph
infra.
116 Terry D. Gill
systcm sincc thc Chartcr camc into lorcc in .. Although subjcctcd to dicr
ing intcrprctations by scholars, and violatcd on numcrous occasions, it ncvcrthc
lcss rcmains an almost univcrsally acccptcd lundamcntal rulc ol intcrnational
law and rclations, onc widcly rccognizcd as having a jus cogens charactcr.
6
Much
controvcrsy has ccntcrcd on whcthcr thc prohibition was intcndcd to bar uscs
ol lorcc not cxplicitly trcatcd as cxccptions in thc Chartcr, such as humanitar
ian intcrvcntion and national libcration strugglcs. Sincc thosc topics havc no
dircct bcaring on thc scopc ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc, thcy nccd not conccrn us
hcrc, bcyond stating that lcgal opinion is in widc agrccmcnt that thc only clcarly
rccognizcd cxccptions to thc prohibition arc thosc thc Chartcr scts lorth thc
maintcnancc ol collcctivc sccurity by or through Sccurity Council mandatc and
sclldclcnsc. Conscqucntly, any usc ol lorcc at thc intcrStatc lcvcl which docs
not qualily as action by or on bchall ol thc Sccurity Council in thc maintcnancc
ol collcctivc sccurity or as a lawlul cxcrcisc ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc is prima
facie illcgal, although thcrc may bc cxtcnuating circumstanccs in rclation to cascs
ol humanitarian intcrvcntion, or support lor national libcration which must bc
takcn into account in asscssing what thc lcgal conscqucnccs ol such cascs should
bc.

Tc right ol sclldclcnsc is prcdicatcd upon thc notion that cvcry Statc has
thc inhcrcnt right to dclcnd itscll. Articlc . ol thc Chartcr was somcthing ol an
altcrthought, and did not gurc in thc original dralts ol thc Chartcr. !t was only
includcd rclativcly latc in thc tra.eaux lcading to thc Chartcrs adoption at thc
bchcst ol Latin Amcrican Statcs sccking a guarantcc ol thc lcgality ol rcgional
collcctivc sclldclcnsc arrangcmcnts, such as thc Act ol Chapaltupcc.
8
Tis col
lcctivc variant on thc right ol sclldclcnsc allows lor Statcs to assist cach othcr in
rcsponsc to an armcd attack on thc basis ol cithcr a prccxisting trcaty providing
lor mutual assistancc, or an ad-hoc rcqucst.

Sincc sclldclcnsc is an cxccption to thc prohibition, somc authors arguc

that it must bc applicd strictly in accordancc with Articlc .s tcxt.
+o
Tis is an
undcrstandablc position, lor, as a rulc, lcgal doctrinc prcscribcs that cxccptions
to gcncral rulcs should bc applicd rcstrictivcly.
++
Howcvcr, this approach ignorcs
both thc dralting history ol Articlc . and thc lact that it was ncvcr intcndcd to
6 Scc e.g. instcin, op. cit. supra n. at .c..6.
, Scc n. , infra.
8owctt, supra n. a, .a, L. Goodrich, . Hambro and A. Simons, Charter of the
United Nations (.6), a, Valdock, supra n. a, cc. Tc Act ol Chapaltupcc
was concludcd on aa March . and providcd lor mutual assistancc bctwccn thc
!ntcr Amcrican Statcs in thc cvcnt ol cxtcrnal aggrcssion and was publishcd in Dept
of State Bull. X\!, 6,,c.
instcin, supra n. , a, . Schachtcr, International La. in Teory and Practice (..)
..
.c E.g., C. Gray, International La. and the Use of Force (acca) 6,.
.. R. Jcnnings and A. Vatts, Oppenheims International La. (th cd. .a) \ol. . Pcacc,
Parts a at .a,.
117 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
complctcly codily thc law ol sclldclcnsc. !nstcad, it primarily sought to salcguard
thc right ol mutual assistancc providcd lor in rcgional sclldclcnsc agrccmcnts
and dclincatc thc rclationship bctwccn thc right ol Statcs to cxcrcisc sclldclcnsc
and thc systcm ol collcctivc sccurity containcd in Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr.
Tis rclationship is spcllcd out in dctail in Articlc ., whilc thc substancc ol thc
right is mcrcly mcntioncd. No rclcrcncc is madc as to what constitutcs an armcd
attack, whcn such an attack can bc said to havc bcgun, or any ol thc othcr condi
tions, such as ncccssity and proportionality.
Conscqucntly, thc right ol sclldclcnsc cannot bc intcrprctcd solcly on thc
basis ol Articlc . ol thc Chartcr. Vhcrc Articlc . is spccic it will clcarly prc
vail, as lor instancc in subjccting thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc to thc rcquircmcnt
ol an armcd attack, or in providing lor thc Sccurity Council as the ultimatc arbi
tcr ol thc continucd ncccssity ol thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc. Morcovcr, Articlc .
should not bc sccn in isolation lrom Articlc a() ol thc Chartcr, and this applics
to thc right ol sclldclcnsc in a morc gcncral scnsc. Howcvcr, whcrc Articlc .
is incomplctc, as in lcaving opcn what constitutcs an armcd attack and whcn an
attack has commcnccd, or silcnt, as in rclation to othcr rcquircmcnts govcrning
sclldclcnsc, rccoursc must bc had to customary law as a mcans ol complcmcnt
ing thc Chartcr lex scripta. Tis applics both to prcChartcr customary law as wcll
as postChartcr customary law rclating to sclldclcnsc, unlcss it can bc conclu
sivcly dcmonstratcd that such custom has comc into disusc or would bc in con
ict with thc Chartcr.
Furthcrmorc, without clcar cvidcncc that an oldcr customary rulc has bccn
rcplaccd by a ncwcr onc, thcrc is no rcason to automatically assumc thc dcmisc ol
prcchartcr customary law rclating to sclldclcnsc as a mattcr ol lcgal mcthodol
ogy ol Chartcr intcrprctation.
+:
Having cstablishcd that sclldclcnsc is a right having a dual custom
ary Chartcr basis and that Articlc . was intcndcd to cmbcd that right into thc
Chartcr systcm ol collcctivc sccurity in conjunction with thc Chartcr prohibition
ol thc usc ol armcd lorcc, it is ncccssary to addrcss what this mcans in tcrms ol
sclldclcnscs placc within that ovcrall systcm.
Sincc Articlc a() ol thc Chartcr prohibits thc usc ol lorcc, it lollows that
sclldclcnsc is a right ol Statcs, acting individually or collcctivcly, to rcspond to
illcgal lorcc, with lcgally sanctioncd lorcc aimcd at rcpclling thc attacking party.
As such, only onc sidc to a conict can havc thc right ol sclldclcnsc. Tcrc is
no sclldclcnsc against sclldclcnsc, or sclldclcnsc against action carricd out on
anothcr lcgal basis, such as thc maintcnancc ol collcctivc sccurity by or through
.a Tis lollows lrom thc gcncral doctrinc ol intcrprctation ol sourccs. !. 8rownlic,
Principles of Public International La. (th cd. .c), , Jcnnings and Vatts, supra
n. .., aa6, R. 8crnhard, Customary !ntcrnational Law in Encyclopedia of Public
International La. (acc), \ol. ,, 6.6a.
118 Terry D. Gill
a mandatc ol thc UN Sccurity Council or rcgional organization.
+
Furthcrmorc,
sincc sclldclcnsc is an cxccption to thc ovcrall prohibition ol intcrStatc lorcc,
it lollows that it may in principlc bc conductcd on thc tcrritory ol thc Statc(s)
whcncc thc attack originatcd and in intcrnational sca and airspacc, in addition
to thc dclcnding Statcs own tcrritory. Tc tcrritory ol ncutral or nonbclligcrcnt
Statcs is inviolablc, cxccpt whcn it is bcing uscd as a launching pad lor attacks or
as a basc ol opcrations which contributcs to thc attack.
+
Nothing in cithcr Articlc . or customary law says that attacks can only bc
carricd out by Statcs. Although thc prcsumption at thc timc thc Chartcr was
draltcd was that Statcs wcrc thc logical candidatcs to carry out aggrcssion and
Articlc a() is addrcsscd to Statcs, thc right ol sclldclcnsc is not rcstrictcd to
attacks carricd out by Statcs.
+
Any act ol lorcc which can bc dccmcd to consti
tutc an armcd attack can triggcr thc right ol sclldclcnsc, irrcspcctivc ol whcthcr
such an attack is carricd out by ocial Statc organs, by a Statc acting indircctly
through othcr agcnts, such as armcd bands, militias, tcrrorist groups and so lorth,
or by a nonStatc cntity which is capablc ol mounting an attack on its own.
Nothing in cithcr Articlc . or in customary law rcstricts thc right ol sclldclcnsc
to rcsponscs against attacks which arc carricd out by ocial organs ol anothcr
Statc. Howcvcr, it is clcar that only Statcs can cxcrcisc thc right ol sclldclcnsc
undcr intcrnational law. thcr lorms ol sclldclcnsc, such as that ol individu
als against illcgal assault, arc subjcct to thc rulcs govcrning sclldclcnsc undcr
national law.
+6
Articlc . is silcnt (or at bcst only indicativc) rcgarding what constitutcs
an armcd attack, or, indccd, othcr critcria lor thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc, such
as ncccssity and proportionality. Tis is onc clcar cxamplc ol thc complcmcn
tarity bctwccn thc customary and Chartcr law rclating to sclldclcnsc. Vc will
rcturn to thosc critcria lurthcr on in this articlc, but it is important to point this
complcmcntarity out, cvcn at thc risk ol somc rcpctition, in vicw ol thc ongoing
. Scc e.g. instcin, supra n. , .,,.
. Tc tcrritorial scopc ol sclldclcnsc is, morcovcr, subjcct to proportionality, which
can havc gcographical connotations alongsidc othcr considcrations. Scc c.g. instcin,
supra n. , ., et seq. and Schachtcr, supra n. , ..
. Scc, inter alia, N. Schrijvcr, Rcsponding to !ntcrnational Tcrrorism: Moving thc
Fronticrs ol !ntcrnational Law lor !nnitc Justicc in Netherlands International
La. Fe.ie. no. (acc.), a,. , SIL Insights, www.asil.org, Tcrrorist Attacks on
thc Vorld Tradc Ccntrc and thc Pcntagon commcnts by Kirgis et al., T.. Gill,
Tc lcvcnth ol Scptcmbcr and thc Right ol Scllclcnsc in V.P. Hccrc (cd.)
Terrorism and the Military: International Legal Implications (acc), ac.
.6 Sclldclcnsc as a lcgal conccpt has its roots in natural law doctrinc. !n that con
tcxt, it makcs no clcar distinction bctwccn pcrsonal sclldclcnsc and sclldclcnsc
at thc intcrnational lcvcl. Scc c.g. 8owctt, supra n. a, and instcin, supra n. ,
.,6. Howcvcr, in (modcrn) positivc law thcy arc distinct rights. Scc in addition to
thcsc sourccs, inter alia, 8rydc, Scllclcnsc in R. 8crnhardt, Encyclopedia of Public
International La., \ol. , a.a, 8rownlic, op. cit. supra n. a, a.6 et seq.
119 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
controvcrsy and conlusion rcgarding thc rclationship bctwccn thc two sourccs
containing thc law ol sclldclcnsc.
Vhcrc Articlc . is not silcnt is on thc rclationship bctwccn thc right ol
sclldclcnsc and thc UN collcctivc sccurity systcm. !t is clcar, both lrom thc
tcxt ol this provision and thc intcntions ol thc lramcrs ol thc Chartcr, that scll
dclcnsc was intcndcd to lunction as a morc or lcss tcmporary adjunct to thc
powcr and authority ol thc Sccurity Council to takc action to maintain or rcstorc
intcrnational pcacc and sccurity through thc taking ol ccctivc collcctivc mca
surcs to that cnd.
+
Tc collcctivc sccurity systcm as cnvisagcd in Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr
providcs thc Sccurity Council with broad discrction and cxtcnsivc powcrs to takc
a varicty ol mcasurcs in rcsponsc to thrcats to, or brcachcs ol, intcrnational pcacc,
including thc proactivc usc ol lorcc against an aggrcssor.
+8
Howcvcr, this docs
not takc thc placc ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc unlcss and until thc Council dctcr
mincs to act. Until thc Council takcs thc ncccssary mcasurcs to rcstorc intcrna
tional pcacc and sccurity, thcrc can bc no doubt that a Statc laccd with an attack
rctains thc lull right to dclcnd itscll or to assist anothcr Statc (or othcr Statcs)
conlrontcd with an attack on thc basis ol a rcqucst or othcr lorm ol conscnt,
within thc customary law limitations on sclldclcnsc. l coursc any action takcn
in sclldclcnsc must bc rcportcd to thc Sccurity Council and may nd itscll sub
jcct to its scrutiny, and ultimatc sanction or disapproval.
+
sscntially, thc Council
can do onc ol thrcc things in thc lacc ol a Statc which has invokcd thc right ol
sclldclcnsc. Tc Council can dccidc to cndorsc thc invocation and takc action
to assist thc Statc which has donc so. !n such a casc, thc Councils action will
complcmcnt thc mcasurcs takcn in sclldclcnsc, or cvcn subsumc thc Statcs scll
dclcnsc mcasurcs into a broadcr collcctivc cort to rcstorc intcrnational pcacc
and sccurity. A simplc cndorscmcnt is just that, whilc lurthcr rcaching collcc
tivc mcasurcs will lunction alongsidc thc Statcs action in sclldclcnsc, unlcss thc
Council dctcrmincs othcrwisc.
Tc sccond option opcn to thc Council is to ccnsurc thc Statcs invocation
ol sclldclcnsc as illcgal or inappropriatc undcr thc circumstanccs. Tc Council
can cvcn disallow a Statc which has a right to invokc sclldclcnsc lrom continu
ing to cxcrcisc that right, providcd it takcs thc mcasurcs ncccssary to rcstorc
., Scc, inter alia, Articlcs .(.), and . ol thc Chartcr. Tis is cspccially clcar lrom thc
wording ol Articlc . and is oltcn rclcrrcd to in thc litcraturc. Scc e.g. instcin, supra
n. , ac, Valdock supra n. a, , and Gray, supra n. .c, .c.
. Scc e.g. instcin, supra n. , a, et seq., Goodrich, Hambro & Simon, supra n. , a
et seq., Koskcnnicmi, Tc Placc ol Law in Collcctivc Sccurity in N. Vhitc (cd.)
Collecti.e Security La. (acc), , Grccnwood, supra n. a, . and Frowcin and Krisch
Action with Rcspcct to Trcats to thc Pcacc, 8rcachcs ol thc Pcacc, and Acts ol
Aggrcssion in 8. Simma (cd.) Te Charter of the United Nations (and cd. acca), ,c. et
seq.
. instcin, supra, n. , acc.
120 Terry D. Gill
pcacc and sccurity or thc attackcr ccascs and dcsists lrom continuing with its
attack and providcs thc ncccssary coopcration to assurc thc discontinuancc ol its
attack. !l ncithcr ol thcsc is lorthcoming, thc attackcd Statc rctains its right ol
sclldclcnsc. Sccurity Council mcasurcs aimcd at rcstoring intcrnational pcacc
and sccurity must havc that ccct bclorc thcy lcgally dcprivc a Statc ol its right
ol sclldclcnsc.
:o

Tc third possibility has occurrcd most oltcn. !n this sccnario, thc Council
lails to act, or is unablc to act, bcyond pcrhaps simply condcmning thc attack or
noting thc cxistcncc ol a brcach ol thc pcacc, bccausc ol thc (thrcat ol a) vcto.
Tis was thc situation during most ol thc Councils rst lortyvc ycars. vcn
now, in thc postCold Var cra, thcrc arc any numbcr ol rcasons why thc Council
may lail to act in rcsponsc to a thrcat to or brcach ol thc pcacc, although that
is lcss likcly than prcviously. !n thc cvcnt thc Council takcs any action short ol
ccctivc mcasurcs aimcd at rcstoring intcrnational pcacc, or lails to takc action
at all, a Statc laccd with an armcd attack rctains thc right to act in sclldclcnsc,
cithcr individually or collcctivcly with othcr Statcs. Howcvcr, whilc it is up to thc
Statc which invokcs sclldclcnsc to do so in thc rst instancc, it is thc Council
which ultimatcly has thc last word, providcd it is prcparcd to back its words with
action il dcmandcd by thc situation. Any action in sclldclcnsc will bc subjcct
to thc Councils ultimatc lcgal and political approval or condcmnation, or lailing
that, thc intcrnational communitys morc gcncral approval or disapproval.
:+
Tis
is what Prolcssor instcin has rclcrrcd to as thc two phasc rulc govcrning scll
dclcnsc.
::
!t is this incorporation ol sclldclcnsc into thc systcm ol thc Councils
ovcrall primary rcsponsibility lor thc maintcnancc ol intcrnational pcacc and
sccurity which is thc most important lcaturc ol Articlc . ol thc Chartcr, not
any rcal or imagincd intcntion to signicantly altcr thc substancc ol that right
through its partial codication into thc Chartcr.
:
B Te Dual Treaty-Customary Basis of Self-Defense and the
General Criteria for the Exercise of the Fight
!n thc prcccding scction, wc havc dctcrmincd that sclldclcnsc is a right groundcd
in both Chartcr and customary law and cxamincd its placc within thc ovcrall
Chartcr systcm rcgulating thc usc ol lorcc. !n that contcxt it was pointcd out that
thc primary purposc undcrlying thc inclusion ol Articlc . was to salcguard thc
ac Id. ac6c,. Scc also, inter alia, Schachtcr, supra n. , c.c, Gill, Lcgal and Somc
Political Limitations on thc Powcr ol thc UN Sccurity Council to xcrcisc its
nlorccmcnt Powcrs undcr Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr in a6 Neth. Yrbk Intl La.
(.) , at c .
a. Schachtcr, supra, n. , .6c, Valdock supra, n. a, .
aa instcin, supra, n. , acc.
a 8owctt, supra, n. a, ., Valdock, supra, n. a, 6,.
121 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
right ol mutual assistancc providcd lor in rcgional sclldclcnsc trcatics, and morc
cspccially, to incorporatc sclldclcnsc into thc Chartcr systcm rcgulating thc usc
ol lorcc, rathcr than to sct out thc critcria govcrning its cxcrcisc. For an indica
tion ol thc critcria and conditions govcrning cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc, wc must
ncccssarily turn to customary law, both that which cxistcd whcn thc Chartcr was
drawn up and that which has cmcrgcd sincc thcn.
Tc tcxt ol Articlc . prcdicatcs thc cxcrcisc ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc upon
thc occurrcncc ol an armcd attack.
:
Howcvcr, Articlc . givcs us no indication as
to what constitutcs an armcd attack, or still lcss, whcn such an attack can bc said
to havc commcnccd or to havc bccn complctcd. !t is clcar lrom an cxamination
ol thc tra.eaux preparatoires that lcss attcntion was dcvotcd to thcsc qucstions
than to thc salcguarding ol thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc, which was sccn as
a catcgory somcwhat distinct lrom individual sclldclcnsc.
:
Tcrc is no cvidcncc
that thc draltcrs intcndcd to altcr thc right ol sclldclcnsc as it thcn cxistcd in
customary law, or to substitutc Articlc . in its placc.
:6
Ncvcrthclcss, a school ol intcrprctation has cmcrgcd which purports to limit
thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc to a strict and litcral intcrprctation ol thc tcxt ol
Articlc ..
:
Tc problcm with this approach, asidc lrom thc lact that it ignorcs
thc dralting history, is that it rclics on a tcxt which is ambiguous and incomplctc.
!t is impossiblc, rclying solcly on Articlc ., to dctcrminc what is mcant by thc
tcrm armcd attack, or cvcn thc phrasc il an armcd attack occurs, much lcss
to gain an indication ol othcr conditions that govcrn thc usc ol lorcc in scll
dclcnsc.
Tcrc can bc littlc doubt that thc right ol sclldclcnsc has customar
ily includcd at lcast somc dcgrcc ol anticipatory action, using thc wcll known
Caroline incidcnt as a lramcwork lor rclcrcncc. Tis was ccrtainly thc casc in .
whcn thc Chartcr was draltcd, as is cvidcnccd by thc rcliancc ol thc !ntcrnational
Military Tribunals in Nurcmbcrg and Tokyo upon that prcccdcnt in dccisions
rclating to .c thc Gcrman invasion ol Norway and thc cclaration ol Var
a Tc tcxt ol Articlc . rcads in rclcvant part as lollows: Nothing in thc prcscnt
Chartcr shall impair thc inhcrcnt right ol individual or collcctivc sclldclcnsc il
an armcd attack occurs against a mcmbcr ol thc Unitcd Nations ... . For a discus
sion ol thc notion ol an armcd attack, scc, inter alia, instcin supra n. , .a et seq.,
Randclzholcr, Articlc . in Simma, supra n. a, ,a et seq.; and Gill Tc Law ol
Armcd Attack in thc Contcxt ol thc Nicaragua Casc in . Hague Yrbk Intl La.
(.), c .
a Scc sourccs citcd in n. supra. Scc additionally, Kcarlcy, Rcgulation ol Prcvcntivc
and Prccmptivc Forcc in thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr: A Scarch lor riginal !ntcnt,
in !yoming La. Fe.ie. 66, 6ca.
a6 Scc thc sourccs citcd in nn. and a supra.
a, Among thc authors who rcly upon a strict and litcral intcrprctation ol Articlc .
arc, inter alia, 8rownlic, supra n. a, a,.,a, Gray, supra n. .c, , and Casscsc,
International La. (a
nd
cd. acc) a.
122 Terry D. Gill
by thc Ncthcrlands (ast !ndics) against Japan immcdiatcly subscqucnt to thc
attack on Pcarl Harbor.
:8
Vithout any cvidcncc which would indicatc that this
has changcd, thcrc is littlc rcason to assumc that at lcast somc dcgrcc ol anticipa
tory sclldclcnsc no longcr cxists within customary intcrnational law. Tc scopc
ol thc anticipatory dimcnsion is cxamincd latcr.
Somc indication ol what constitutcs an armcd attack in a morc gcncral scnsc
appcars in thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justiccs Nicaragua judgmcnt.
:
!n that
dccision, thc Court, rclying hcavily upon thc Gcncral Asscmblys cnition
ol Aggrcssion dcclaratory rcsolution and thc particular circumstanccs ol thc
Nicaragua casc, dctcrmincd that an armcd attack consistcd ol a signicant dircct
usc ol lorcc by onc Statc against anothcr, as wcll as thc scnding by or on bchall ol
a Statc ol armcd bands, militias and thc likc to carry out armcd actions whcn such
activitics wcrc comparablc in scalc and cccts to a convcntional armcd attack car
ricd out by rcgular lorccs. !n addition, thc possibility was admittcd that thc sub
stantial involvcmcnt ol a Statc in actions carricd out by armcd bands, irrcgulars
and so lorth, could constitutc an armcd attack undcr thc samc provision. thcr
lorms ol support which lcll short ol this thrcshold wcrc dccmcd not to constitutc
an armcd attack, irrcspcctivc ol thcir ccct upon thc targct Statc.
Tis rathcr rcstrictivc rcndition ol an armcd attack was hcavily criticizcd at
thc timc by a numbcr ol thc judgcs in disscnting opinions, as wcll as by numcr
ous commcntators,
o
including thc prcscnt writcr, as bcing unrcalistic and lor lail
ing to takc into account that othcr considcrations could lcad to dicrcnt rcsults
undcr dicrcnt circumstanccs. !n addition, cvidcncc which cmcrgcd latcr con
ccrning Nicaraguas conduct indicatcs that thc Court may havc bccn mistakcn in
acccpting at lacc valuc its vcrsion ol thc lacts.
+
8c that as it may, thc Nicaragua dccision, whilc authoritativc, should not bc
sccn as solving thc qucstion ol what lorms ol armcd action, and involvcmcnt and
support lor insurgcncics, tcrrorist acts and thc likc, constitutc an armcd attack
a Scc 8owctt, supra n. a, ... For thc Nurcmburg Judgmcnt rclating to thc rclcvancc
ol thc Caroline critcria to thc Gcrman plca ol prcvcntivc sclldclcnsc in rclation to
its invasion ol Norway, scc Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the
Trial of German Major !ar Criminals (HMS .6), ac. For thc dcclaration ol
war by thc Ncthcrlands on Japan, scc Judgment of the International Military Tribunal
for the Far East, .
a ICJ Feports .6, ., para. ., .c.
c !n addition to thc disscnting opinions ol Judgcs Jcnnings and Schwcbcl, scc, inter
alia, instcin, supra n. , .a and .aca, Hargrovc, Tc Nicaragua Judgmcnt
and thc Futurc ol thc Law ol Forcc and Scllclcnsc in . JIL . (.,), Franck,
supra n. a, 6a. For a critique ol aspccts ol thc Courts Judgmcnt by thc prcscnt
author, scc Gill op. cit. supra n. a, c.
. Scc T. . Gill, Fosennes Te !orld Court: !hat It Is and Ho. It !orks, 6
th
rcv. cd.,
(acc) .a.
123 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
which would triggcr thc right ol sclldclcnsc. Signicantly, thc Court rclraincd
lrom pronouncing upon thc qucstion ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc.
Morc rcccntly, in thc Oil Platforms dccision, thc Court sct a high burdcn ol
prool on thc Statc invoking thc right ol sclldclcnsc, without clcarly dcning thc
standard ol prool, and ocrcd a numbcr ol rathcr ambiguous indications con
ccrning thc thrcshold lor an armcd attack.
:
Howcvcr, dcspitc a somcwhat dcccp
tivc numcrical majority in thc dispositief, a carclul rcading ol thc judgmcnt and
thc individual opinions rcvcals a hcavily dividcd Court on both thc intcrprctation
ol many sclldclcnsc issucs, as wcll as thc propricty ol cvcn pronouncing upon
thcm. Tcsc considcrations should bc takcn into account in trcating this dccision
as authoritativc prcccdcnt on issucs ol sclldclcnsc.

Vhat docs bccomc clcar, howcvcr, is that an armcd attack, howcvcr dcncd,
is a strict rcquircmcnt lor thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc. !t is submittcd that thc
Courts approach in Nicaragua and Oil Platforms is ovcrly abstract, unrcalistic and
somcwhat imbalanccd, in that it rclics too hcavily on thcorctical dcnitions ol an
armcd attack, rathcr than taking sucicnt account ol thc rclcvant circumstanccs.
Tc Court is lurthcr pronc to takc dcnials ol involvcmcnt in armcd action by thc
(allcgcd) attackcr too much at lacc valuc, whilc cxpccting thc Statc which invokcs
sclldclcnsc to providc conclusivc cvidcncc not only ol its own conduct, lack ol
altcrnativcs and motivcs, but also thosc ol thc attacking party.
!n addition to thc rcquircmcnt ol an armcd attack, or a (probablc) impcnd
ing attack, in cascs ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, thcrc is littlc controvcrsy rcgard
ing thc lurthcr rcquircmcnts ol ncccssity and proportionality. Tcsc havc long
bccn acccptcd in customary law and arc cchocd in both ol thc abovcmcntioncd
a Scc e.g. a !LM (acc) . lor thc !CJ Judgmcnt in thc Oil Platforms casc. For thc
Courts pronounccmcnts on thc burdcn ol prool in rclation to thc cxistcncc ol an
armcd attack on thc US rcaggcd tankcr Sea Isle City by an antiship missilc allcg
cdly rcd lrom thc !ranian hcld Fao Pcninsula and a minc attack on thc US war
ship USS Samuel B. Foberts, scc paras. 6. at ., and paras. 6,. at .6c. Tc
Court indicatcd that thc cvidcncc was rcspcctivcly suggcstivc and highly suggcs
tivc in rclation to thosc two incidcnts, but insucicnt to cstablish !ranian involvc
mcnt. Tc Court did not indicatc what thc rcquisitc burdcn ol prool is to cstablish
involvcmcnt in an armcd attack. Tis and othcr aspccts ol thc Courts judgmcnt
wcrc vigorously criticiscd by a numbcr ol thc judgcs in thcir individual opinions. Scc,
e.g., Judgc Higgins, id. .6, Kooymans, id. .6,, 8ucrgcnthal, id. ...6, and
wada, id. .aa.
Tc Courts dccision was takcn by .a votcs on thc qucstion ol whcthcr thc US
action against !ranian oil platlorms was justicd undcr thc law rclating to thc usc ol
lorcc and on thc nding that thc US had not brcachcd its obligations rclating to thc
lrccdom ol commcrcc undcr a . bilatcral FCN Trcaty. 8y joining thcsc two issucs
into onc paragraph ol thc dispositief, thc optical illusion was crcatcd ol ncar unanim
ity. Tis was not thc casc. n thc othcr hand, thcrc can bc no doubt that a signicant
majority within thc Court lound thc US rcliancc on sclldclcnsc unwarrantcd.
124 Terry D. Gill
Court dccisions, although onc nds littlc indication ol what thcy mcan in prac
ticc in cithcr dccision.

Tis is not ncccssarily as problcmatic as it might sound, sincc both cri

tcria obviously havc to bc applicd in rclation to thc rclcvant circumstanccs.
Ncvcrthclcss, somc indication ol what thcy mcan in a gcncral scnsc is unavoid
ablc, lcaving discussion ol thcir application to anticipatory sclldclcnsc, and ol
thc notion ol immcdiacy, to latcr in this articlc.
Ncccssity rclatcs to thc cxistcncc ol an ongoing armcd attack, a crcdiblc
thrcat ol an impcnding armcd attack or thc clcar probability ol a (rcncwcd)
attack, as wcll as to lcasiblc altcrnativcs to taking armcd action in sclldclcnsc.

Tc cxistcncc ol an armcd attack can consist, in addition to thc actual usc ol
lorcc, ol thc illcgal ongoing occupation ol tcrritory, military prcparations lor con
tinuing opcrations and so lorth. Fcasiblc altcrnativcs can includc, inter alia, thc
acccptancc ol a ccascrc, thc ncgotiatcd withdrawal ol lorccs, thc discontinu
ancc ol hostilc activity, thc adoption and implcmcntation ol ccctivc collcctivc
mcasurcs by thc Sccurity Council or, in somc cascs, thc possibility ol lorcstall
ing an incipicnt or impcnding attack by thc usc ol altcrnativc mcans, such as law
cnlorccmcnt.
Proportionality in conncction with sclldclcnsc rclatcs both to thc ovcrall
scalc and ccct ol thc attack, and to what is rcquircd undcr thc circumstanccs to
rcpcl it and put an cnd to thc thrcat ol lurthcr attacks. !l an attack is simply an
isolatcd incidcnt, rcstrictcd in scalc, localc and timc, sclldclcnsc will corrcspond
ingly bc limitcd to what is ncccssary to ward o thc attack. !l, howcvcr, an armcd
attack consists ol a scrics ol rclatcd incidcnts ovcr a pcriod ol timc, proportional
ity would allow lor a largcr scalc rcsponsc aimcd at putting an cnd to what is in
ccct a phascd attack. !n thc casc ol a largc scalc attack dcsigncd to signicantly
disrupt thc targct Statc, or takc ovcr (part ol ) its tcrritory, proportionality would
allow waging a lull scalc war in sclldclcnsc to rcducc or climinatc thc attackcrs
capacity to conduct military opcrations, or othcrwisc continuc thc attack. Tis
could ncccssitatc, in somc cascs, thc total dclcat ol an attacking Statc and thc
rcplaccmcnt ol its govcrnmcnt with onc which is rcady to mcct its intcrnational
obligations.
Tc csscntial lcaturc ol sclldclcnsc is its purposc ol cnding thc illcgal situ
ation poscd by thc armcd attack. A Statc may usc thc ncccssary countcrlorcc
to achicvc that cnd, but no morc than ncccssary undcr thc circumstanccs. Tis
is what dcncs it and distinguishcs it lrom othcr lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc, both
For thc Courts rclcrcnccs to ncccssity and proportionality in thc Nicaragua dccision,
scc op. cit. supra n. a, para. . at .c. For thc Courts rclcrcnccs to thcsc critcria in
rclation to thc Oil Platforms dccision, scc supra n. a, .6a.
Ncccssity and proportionality as critcria lor thc lcgal cxcrcisc ol thc right ol scll
dclcnsc can tracc thcir roots back to at lcast thc Caroline incidcnt (scc scc. C bclow).
For rclcrcnccs to and somc dcscription ol ncccssity in thc litcraturc scc, inter alia,
instcin, supra n. , aca, and Gray, supra n. .c, .c.
125 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
lcgal and illcgal. Tis has always bccn its csscntial charactcristic undcr customary
law and it rcmains so today.
C Te Carolinc Case as the Starting Point and Di.iding Line in the
Discussion of the Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
Vhilc thcrc arc somc intcrnational lawycrs who, rclying on a litcral tcxtual intcr
prctation ol Articlc ., rcjcct thc possibility ol any lorm ol anticipatory scll
dclcnsc altogcthcr, most authoritics and Statcs arc prcparcd to conccdc thc
possibility ol somc dcgrcc ol anticipatory action within what arc lrcqucntly
rclcrrcd to as thc strict critcria ol thc Caroline casc.
6
Tc Caroline incidcnt (a
morc accuratc tcrm, sincc it ncvcr camc bclorc any court or tribunal) is gcncrally
rcgardcd as thc rclcrcncc point lor any discussion ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, as
wcll as thc critcria govcrning thc usc ol lorcc in sclldclcnsc morc gcncrally. Tc
incidcnt has bccn commcntcd upon so lrcqucntly that it is hardly ncccssary to go
into grcat dctail about what occurrcd.

Tc corrcspondcncc bctwccn Sccrctary

ol Statc Vcbstcr, thc rcprcscntativc ol thc 8ritish Crown, Lord Ashburton, and
thc 8ritish diplomatic rcprcscntativc to thc Unitcd Statcs, Mr. Fox, is primarily
rclcvant lor two rcasons.
Firstly, it laid out thc gcncral critcria and lramcwork ol analysis lor thc
cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc, which includcd anticipatory sclldclcnsc in prcChartcr
customary law. Tc acccptancc by both thc 8ritish and Amcrican govcrnmcnts
ol thc principlc that sclldclcnsc was rclcvant in situations whcrc thc ncccssity
to act in anticipation ol a thrcatcncd (incipicnt or probablc) armcd attack was
instant, ovcrwhclming, lcaving no choicc ol mcans and no momcnt lor dclib
cration clcarly indicatcs that anticipatory sclldclcnsc was an acccptcd part ol
traditional customary law.
8
Sccondly, thc rclcrcncc to this gcncral lramcwork lor analysis and thcsc cri
tcria by both thc Nurcmbcrg and Tokyo Tribunals dcmonstratc that thcy wcrc
still considcrcd customary law as thc Chartcr was bcing draltcd and cnactcd.

6 For cxamplc ol authors adhcring to thc strict or litcralist approach to Articlc . scc
nn. a and a, supra. xamplcs ol authors who acknowlcdgc or support a right ol antic
ipatory sclldclcnsc arc providcd in n. a supra. Anothcr authority within this group
includcs Judgc amc Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International La. and
Ho. !e Use It (.), aa.
, Scc, inter alia, M. 8ycrs, !ar La. (acc) , 8rownlic, op. cit. supra n. a, a,
instcin, supra n. , a, Franck, supra n. a, ,, etc. Tc most authoritativc articlc
on thc Caroline incidcnt rcmains without doubt that by Jcnnings, Tc Carolinc and
McLcod Cascs in a JIL (.) a et seq. Tc primary sourcc lor thc Caroline inci
dcnt is thc cxchangc ol corrcspondcncc bctwccn Vcbstcr and Fox in a BFSP, ..,
and Vcbstcr and Ashburton in c BFSP, . et seq.
Jcnnings, supra n. ,, a.
Scc n. a supra.
126 Terry D. Gill
Sincc most authoritics acccpt this as a givcn, and bccausc thcrc is no con
vincing cvidcncc that thc Caroline lramcwork ol rclcrcncc or critcria havc lallcn
into disusc or havc bccn rcplaccd by a ncw rulc ol customary or convcntional law
(sincc Articlc . ol thc Chartcr was ncvcr intcndcd to havc this ccct), wc can
salcly assumc that Caroline still lorms part ol thc customary law rclating to scll
dclcnsc.
Howcvcr, thc Caroline lramcwork and critcria havc bccn subjcctcd to rcin
tcrprctation and rcjcction on a numbcr ol othcr grounds, cspccially in light ol
rcccnt cvcnts. n thc onc hand, a group ol authors has consistcntly rcjcctcd any
lorm ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, notwithstanding its rccognition as customary
law at thc timc thc Chartcr was bcing drawn up.
o
Anothcr group, whilc acknowl
cdging thc Caroline critcria, takcs thc position that it only would apply to incipi
cnt attacks or to thosc alrcady launchcd, but which havc yct to rcach thcir point
ol impact.
+
A third group acccpts, albcit to dicrcnt dcgrccs, thc proposition that
Caroline allows lor anticipatory action in thc lacc ol an immcdiatc, or at lcast a
rcasonably proximatc, thrcat ol attack which has not yct bccn launchcd, but is
vcry likcly to bc launchcd within thc ncar luturc.
:
Finally, a lourth group, that
has cmcrgcd sincc .. Scptcmbcr acc., argucs that thc conccpt ol immcdiacy has
to bc rcintcrprctcd in thc light ol ncw circumstanccs, such as thc thrcat poscd
by tcrrorists and roguc rcgimcs suspcctcd ol posscssing, or sccking, wcapons ol
mass dcstruction. Tis group would allow lor anticipatory action in rcsponsc to
thc hypothctical possibility that an attack may occur at somc indctcrminatc point
in thc luturc. !t is a position takcn in thc US Scptcmbcr acca National Sccurity
Stratcgy (NSS) and by thosc authors who havc comc out in support ol it.

Tis admittcdly ovcrsimplicd summary ol thc positions rcgarding thc con

tinuing rclcvancc ol thc Caroline critcria raiscs a numbcr ol qucstions conccrning
thc intcrprctation ol such an incidcnt and gcncral statcmcnt ol principlcs.
Tc rst ol thcsc is what Caroline actually says rcgarding thc possibility ol
taking anticipatory action. ocs Caroline limit thc cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc to
c Among thosc who rcjcct anticipatory action altogcthcr arc thc sourccs rclcrrcd to
in nn. a and a, supra. Authors who conccdc thc possibility ol anticipatory or intcr
ccptivc action strictly within a rcstrictivc scnsc ol rcsponding to an incipicnt attack
or onc which has bccn initiatcd, but has not yct crosscd an intcrnational lronticr or
rcachcd its targct, includc instcin, supra n. , ..c, and pcrhaps Valdock, supra
n. a, ,.
. Authors who conccdc thc possibility ol anticipatory or intcrccptivc sclldclcnsc
in rclation to incipicnt attacks includc instcin, supra n. , .c, and, pcrhaps,
Valdock, supra n. a, ,.
a Authors who takc thc position that Caroline allows lor anticipatory action in rcsponsc
to a clcar thrcat ol an attack which has yct to bc initiatcd includc 8owctt, op. cit. n.
a at .6, Franck op. cit. n. a, , et seq., Grccnwood, op. cit. n. a, .., and Higgins,
op. cit. n. 6, aa.
Supra, nn. . and .
127 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
situations in which an attack has actually commcnccd, but has yct to rcach its
targct, as thc rcjcctionists ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc arguc: Vas this thc statc ol
thc law, cithcr at thc timc ol thc Caroline incidcnt or in . whcn it was applicd
by thc !ntcrnational Military Tribunals: !l so, whcn docs an armcd attack actu
ally commcncc: !l, on thc othcr hand, Caroline applics to thrcats ol attacks, how
immcdiatc do thcy havc to bc: Vould this includc thrcats which arc morc rcmotc
in timc than thc pcriod immcdiatcly prcccding thc actual launching ol an attack:
!l so, how much morc rcmotc and docs this includc potcntial thrcats, as support
crs ol thc currcnt US NSS contcnd: !l not, should immcdiacy bc rcintcrprctcd in
thc light ol (supposcdly) changcd circumstanccs:
Morc lundamcntal, pcrhaps, is thc qucstion ol how a prcccdcnt such as
Caroline should bc vicwcd in thc rst placc. Vcrc Sccrctary Vcbstcrs words
mcant to scrvc as guiding principlcs to bc intcrprctcd in thc light ol all rclcvant
circumstanccs or a sct ol abstractions which lrozc thc issuc ol anticipatory scll
dclcnsc into thc conncs ol thc ninctccnth ccntury prosc uscd to rcsolvc a par
ticular diplomatic incidcnt:

Tc Caroline incidcnt was but part, albcit an important and at thc timc cmotivc onc,
ol a largcr sct ol issucs which complicatcd thc rclations bctwccn Grcat 8ritain and
thc Unitcd Statcs. Tcsc includc, inter alia, thc rcsolution ol a lronticr disputc dating
back to thc Amcrican Var ol !ndcpcndcncc involving thc bordcr bctwccn Amcricas
Ncw ngland Statcs and 8ritish North Amcrica. Ncithcr sidc was intcrcstcd in a
military conlrontation, although, il handlcd dicrcntly, thc Caroline incidcnt could
casily havc rcsultcd in war. Vcbstcr as Sccrctary ol Statc sought to rcsolvc thc inci
dcnt in such a way that Amcricas tcrritorial intcgrity and scnsitivitics would bc
rcspcctcd and 8ritish lrccdom ol action to intcrvcnc militarily into thc US tcrri
tory along thc long and lightly dclcndcd USCanadian bordcr would bc curtailcd
as lar as possiblc. As thc wcakcr party in thc controvcrsy, thcsc goals wcrc rccctcd
in thc vcry rcstrictivc dcnition ol sclldclcnsc uscd by Vcbstcr in his lcttcr ol a
April .. to thc 8ritish nvoy to thc Unitcd Statcs, Mr. Fox (rcpcatcd latcr in his
corrcspondcncc with Lord Ashburton). Tc rcply by Ashburton acknowlcdging thc
paramctcrs ol sclldclcnsc, whilc skilllully insisting that thc 8ritish action had mct
thc conditions sct by Vcbstcr, was intcndcd to lacilitatc an amicablc solution and
contributc to an ovcrall scttlcmcnt ol thc issucs bcsctting AngloAmcrican rclations.
Tcir mutual commitmcnt to rcstraint and thc achicvcmcnt ol a compromisc solu
tion rcsultcd in thc VcbstcrAshburton Trcaty ol .a, which ccctivcly rcsolvcd
thc outstanding controvcrsics accting thc rclations bctwccn thc two countrics. Tis
would not havc bccn possiblc without a laccsaving compromisc on thc Caroline and
McLcod issucs which satiscd thc intcrcsts ol both partics. !t should bc cmphasizcd
that whilc thc Caroline incidcnt took placc at a timc that Statcs wcrc still lcgally lrcc
to rcsort to war, thc Unitcd Statcs and Grcat 8ritain wcrc not at war whcn thc inci
dcnt took placc, nor did thcy want to go to war. Conscqucntly, Grcat 8ritain rcquircd
a lcgal justication lor taking armcd action on US tcrritory as a mcasurc short ol
war, which is thc rcason bchind thc diplomatic corrcspondcncc subscqucnt to thc
incidcnt, and, morc to thc point, why this incidcnt has had a continuing lcgal signi
cancc to thc prcscnt day in an arca whcn thc usc ol lorcc is subjcct to lcgal rcgulation.
For an authoritativc trcatmcnt ol thc diplomacy surrounding thc Caroline incidcnt
within thc contcxt ol thc ovcrall complcx disputc scc in addition to thc sourccs citcd
128 Terry D. Gill
An answcr to thcsc qucstions can only bc lound by looking morc closcly at
actual practicc rcgarding anticipatory sclldclcnsc, rathcr than simply trcating
Vcbstcrs phrascology in thc Caroline incidcnt as a sort ol mantra in support ol
any particular intcrprctation ol whcthcr anticipatory sclldclcnsc cxists or how
lar it may cxtcnd.
!n doing so, onc must bc awarc that cvcry approach has its own particular
limitations, and that intcrprctations ol historical cvcnts, both distant and rcccnt,
will incvitably vary. Ncvcrthclcss, somc attcmpt should bc madc il thc qucstion
ol what constitutcs customary law is to mcan morc than an cxcrcisc in purc scho
lasticism that trcats a particular choicc ol words as dctcrminativc.
Sincc wc arc dcaling with thc qucstion ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc in cus
tomary law, this will involvc looking morc closcly at a numbcr ol cxamplcs ol
Statc practicc in which sclldclcnsc was claimcd, or actually cxcrciscd, in advancc
ol an actual armcd attack. Tc cxamplcs choscn will includc somc which occurrcd
shortly bclorc thc Chartcr was adoptcd and somc which havc takcn placc sincc
thcn. Among thc cxamplcs arc incidcnts charactcrizcd by varying dcgrccs ol prc
cmption and in which varying dcgrccs ol rcliancc wcrc placcd upon anticipatory
sclldclcnsc as a justication. !n addition to thc cxamplcs ol actual Statc practicc,
somc discussion ol thc controvcrsy surrounding thc US NSS has bccn includcd.
Tis cxamination combincs both discussion ol how Statc practicc rclatcs to antic
ipatory sclldclcnsc and somc lcgal rcasoning ol a morc gcncral naturc. 8oth will
gurc promincntly in thc attcmpt to answcr thc qucstions rcgarding thc signi
cancc ol Caroline and its prcscnt day application to thc controvcrsy surrounding
anticipatory sclldclcnsc.
III Te Temporal imension of the Right of Self-efense I:
Te Status of Self-efense in Customary Iaw
Introductory Femarks and Methodology Employed
Vc will now turn to an cxamination ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc in Statc practicc,
covcring thc pcriod lrom .c through thc Tird Gull Var ol acc. Tis pcriod,
cxtcnding ovcr somc sixty ycars, covcrs thc immcdiatc prcChartcr pcriod, as wcll
as thc pcriod sincc thc Chartcr has comc into lorcc. xamplcs sclcctcd includc
a varicty ol situations in which anticipatory lorcc was uscd. !n cach, thc rcl
cvant lacts will bc sct out bricy and a numbcr ol qucstions will bc cxamincd:
thc dcgrcc ol immcdiacy involvcd in rclation to thc naturc and crcdibility ol
thc thrcatcncd or incipicnt attack, thc availability ol lcasiblc altcrnativcs to thc
taking ol somc lorm ol anticipatory action, thc probablc conscqucnccs ol lailing
to takc action, and thc conscqucnccs ol thc action takcn, including thc rcaction
in n. , supra, K.. Shcwmakcr (cd.), Daniel !ebster Te Completist Man (.c), ac
et seq.
129 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
ol thc intcrnational community. Vhcrc ncccssary, othcr rclcvant considcrations
will bc addrcsscd. Altcr this cxamination ol Statc practicc has bccn conductcd, a
numbcr ol gcncral considcrations and conclusions will bc discusscd.
B n Examination of the Exercise of nticipatory Self-Defense
in State Practice
i Tc Ncutralization ol thc Frcnch Flcct by thc Royal Navy in .c
!n thc spring ol .c, a disastcr bclcll thc Allics in Vcstcrn uropc. Tc Gcrman
!ehrmacht, cmploying a ncw conccpt ol mobilc warlarc known as Blit.krieg, suc
cccdcd in ovcrrunning thc Ncthcrlands. !t capturcd thc powcrlul 8clgian lron
ticr lortrcss ol bcn macl, quickly crushcd 8clgian rcsistancc, and bcgan to
surround thc main Allicd lorccs, which wcrc dcploycd in Northcrn Francc and
8clgium. Vithin a mattcr ol a lcw wccks, thc 8ritish xpcditionary Forcc was
cvacuatcd lrom unkirk, and thc Maginot Linc had bccn almost complctcly
cncirclcd. Paris lcll on . Junc and thc ncw Frcnch Govcrnmcnt undcr Marshal
Pctain cntcrcd into an armisticc on aa Junc .c.

Undcr thc tcrms ol thc armisticc, all ol Francc cxccpt thc Southcrn third,
minus thc Atlantic coast, camc undcr Gcrman occupation. Tat portion ol
thc country continucd to lunction as a scmiindcpcndcnt rump Statc known
as unoccupicd or \ichy Francc, so callcd bccausc its scat ol govcrnmcnt was
locatcd in thc slccpy spa town ol \ichy. !n addition to thc unoccupicd portion ol
Mctropolitan Francc, thc \ichy Govcrnmcnt maintaincd control ovcr thc cxtcn
sivc Frcnch ovcrscas cmpirc and thc powcrlul Frcnch cct, with its principal
bascs locatcd in thc Mcditcrrancan at Toulon and in Frcnch North Alrica. !n
addition, a numbcr ol Frcnch warships wcrc locatcd in Frcnch ovcrscas posscs
sions lurthcr acld and in 8ritish or 8ritish controllcd ports. Tc armisticc tcrms
lurthcr stipulatcd that part ol thc Frcnch cct would continuc to bc stationcd
in Frcnch ovcrscas posscssions to cnablc thc \ichy Govcrnmcnt to maintain
control ovcr thc Frcnch ovcrscas cmpirc. Tc bulk would rcturn to Unoccupicd
Francc and rctain its autonomy undcr Gcrman and !talian inspcction and ovcrall
supcrvision.
6
Two cxccllcnt accounts ol thc 8attlc ol Francc and thc Low Countrics can bc lound
in A. Hornc, To Lose a Battle: France z,,c (Pcnguin dition .,), a et seq., and
Vm. L. Shircr, Te Collapse of the Tird Fepublic (Hcincmann dition .,c), a et
seq.
6 Tc tcrms ol thc Armisticc Agrccmcnt arc dcalt with in Shircr, supra n. , 6a, and
V.S. Churchill, Te Second !orld !ar (abridgcd Pcnguin cdition .) .a. Tc rcl
cvant provision in rclation to thc Frcnch Flcct was Articlc , which rcad in part: Tc
Frcnch Flcct, cxccpting thc units ncccssary lor salcguarding Frcnch colonial intcr
csts shall bc collcctcd in ports to bc spccicd and thcrc dcmobilizcd and disarmcd
undcr Gcrman or !talian control (Churchill, op. cit. .). Tc word control (Fr. con
130 Terry D. Gill
uring thc ycars prcccding thc outbrcak ol war, Francc had built its cct
with thc support ol succcssivc govcrnmcnts, undcr thc guidancc and lcadcrship
ol Admiral Jcan arlan, to bccomc thc worlds lourth largcst navy. Tc cct
includcd a numbcr ol ncwlydcsigncd and constructcd battlcships, which wcrc
among thc lastcst and most powcrlul warships aoat and had bccn spccially built
to countcr thc thrcat poscd by thc ncwcst class ol Gcrman pockct battlcships.
Somc wcrc opcrational, whilc othcrs wcrc in thc nal stagcs ol complction. !n
addition, thc Frcnch cct includcd an aircralt carricr, a sizcablc numbcr ol last
modcrn cruiscrs and a largc submarinc lorcc. Asidc lrom countcring thc thrcat
poscd by Gcrman surlacc raidcrs, its principal task in thc pcriod bctwccn thc
outbrcak ol thc war in . and thc conclusion ol thc armisticc in Junc .c had
bccn to maintain control ovcr thc Mcditcrrancan and kccp a watch on thc largc
!talian Navy.

Vith thc conclusion ol thc armisticc and thc occupation ol Frcnch Channcl
and Atlantic ports, togcthcr with thc cntry ol !taly into thc war on Gcrmanys
sidc, thc stratcgic situation and balancc ol lorccs at sca, upon which Grcat 8ritain
dcpcndcd lor its survival, shiltcd dramatically to 8ritains disadvantagc. !nstcad
ol bcing ablc to count on thc Frcnch Navy as a powcrlul ally which would assist
thc Royal Navy in maintaining control ol thc vital sca lancs, thc 8ritish wcrc
now conlrontcd by thc combincd lorcc ol thc Gcrman and !talian Navics, as
wcll as thc prospcct ol thc Frcnch cct controllcd by a nominally indcpcndcnt
but Gcrman dominatcd govcrnmcnt at bcst, and potcntially lalling undcr dircct
Gcrman and !talian control at worst.
!n thc pcriod immcdiatcly prcccding thc armisticc, Primc Ministcr Churchill
had pcrsonally sought thc assurancc ol Admiral arlan that hc would not allow
thc Frcnch cct to lall into thc hands ol thc Gcrmans. Churchill had urgcd arlan
to takc thc cct out ol rcach ol thc Axis powcrs by scnding its most powcrlul
warships to Frcnch ovcrscas posscssions in thc Vcstcrn Hcmisphcrc, a rcqucst
which arlan sccms to havc considcrcd scriously, but dccidcd against oncc thc
Armisticc Agrccmcnt was concludcd and hc was givcn thc important Ministry ol
trlc) may wcll havc partially contributcd to 8ritish anxicty in rclation to thc latc ol
thc Frcnch vcsscls. !n nglish thc tcrm dcnotcs a rcstraining powcr, authority or
govcrnmcnt, whilc in Frcnch thc tcrm dcnotcs inspcction or supcrvision, which
is how ! havc translatcd it in thc tcxt. Scc in this rcspcct Lukacs, op. cit. n. c infra,
.6..
, Tc comparativc strcngth ol thc Frcnch Flcct in rclation to othcr major naval
powcrs at thc outbrcak ol thc war is analyzcd in R.. upuy and T.N. upuy, Te
Encyclopedia of Military History (and Rcv. d. Publishcd by Jancs .6), .ca and ..a,.
A complctc dcscription ol all Frcnch war vcsscls is givcn in P. Auphan and J. Mordal,
La Marine Franaise dans la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (.6,) in Anncx ., 6c,, et seq.
For thc rolc ol thc Frcnch Navy in thc pcriod bctwccn Scptcmbcr . and Junc
.c, scc thc lattcr work, ,.. For arlans rolc in building up thc Frcnch Navy, scc
Churchill op. cit. ..
131 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
thc Marinc, in chargc ol both thc cct and most ol thc ovcrscas colonics.
8
nc
ol thc primc considcrations bchind Hitlcrs dccision not to occupy all ol Francc
and allow thc Frcnch to maintain control ovcr thcir ovcrscas cmpirc and cct
was prcvcnting thc Frcnch Govcrnmcnt lrom withdrawing lrom Mctropolitan
Francc and continuing to ght alongsidc Grcat 8ritain lrom its ovcrscas bascs. !t
was an cconomical way to kccp thc cct and ovcrscas cmpirc out ol 8ritish hands
and undcr Gcrman inucncc and supcrvision, il not outright control.

Although thcrc is no cvidcncc ol concrctc plans to try to takc dircct control
ol thc Frcnch cct at thc timc, this possibility was uppcrmost in Churchills mind
lrom thc momcnt thc Armisticc Agrccmcnt was concludcd, lor it brought most
ol thc cct back to Mctropolitan Francc undcr Gcrman and !talian supcrvi
sion and within striking distancc ol thc Gcrmans. Churchill harborcd no illusion
ol thc sacrosanctity ol any agrccmcnt cntcrcd into by thc Nazi lcadcrship and
was not convinccd ol thc \ichy Govcrnmcnts willingncss to vigorously rcsist
a Gcrman attcmpt to scizc thc cct, or its ability to do so cvcn il it wantcd to.
8ccausc thc Gcrmans had dcmonstratcd thcir ability to carry out daring and dil
cult lightning strikcs during thcir invasion ol Francc and thc Low Countrics,
Churchill and his cabinct had littlc doubt ol thcir ability to scizc control ol thc
Frcnch cct il thcy wishcd. Vcrc this to happcn, Grcat 8ritain would not only
havc bccn lorccd to complctcly withdraw lrom thc Mcditcrrancan, but would
havc potcntially bccn laccd with thc loss ol ovcrall naval supcriority, which would
havc incvitably rcsultcd in its dclcat.
o
Tcsc considcrations brought Churchill to what hc dcscribcd as onc ol thc
most painlul dccisions hc had to takc during thc war: thc ncutralization, or, il
ncccssary, thc dcstruction ol thc Frcnch cct in its ovcrscas bascs and in 8ritish
or 8ritish controllcd ports bclorc it could rcturn to Mctropolitan Francc out ol
rcach ol thc Royal Navy. Vhilc a signicant part ol thc Frcnch Navy was alrcady
locatcd in Francc, thc majority ol its most powcrlul vcsscls wcrc still in Frcnch
ovcrscas bascs or in 8ritish or 8ritish controllcd ports. Tc window ol opportu
nity was cxtrcmcly narrow. !l thc 8ritish wcrc going to strikc, thcy would havc
to do so quickly.
+
Churchill gavc thc ordcr to carry out Operation Catapult on July .c.
Tis cntailcd thc takcovcr ol Frcnch warships in 8ritish ports and thc ncutral
n Churchills contacts with arlan in gcncral and spccically in rclation to thc
position ol thc Frcnch Flcct in thc days immcdiatcly prcccding thc armisticc, scc id.
.. n thc probablc ccct ol arlans appointmcnt as Ministcr ol Marinc, scc id.
.. Scc also R.. Paxton, !ichy France: Old Guard and Ne. Order .c. (.,a).
Paxton, op. cit. supra, n. , ,., and Shircr, op. cit. n. , a, et seq.
c Churchill, op. cit, n. 6, .. Scc also, J. Lukacs, Te Duel: zc May-z July z,,c: Te
Eighty-Day Struggle Bet.een Churchill and Hitler (.c), .6c et seq. and upuy and
upuy, op. cit. n. ,, .c6.
. Churchill in id. .6. Churchill dcscribcd thc dccision to takc action to prcvcnt thc
Frcnch Flcct carrying out thc tcrms ol thc Armisticc as a Grcck Tragcdy.
132 Terry D. Gill
ization or, il ncccssary, dcstruction ol thosc locatcd in 8ritish and Frcnch ovcr
scas bascs. Tc rst part ol thc plan wcnt rclativcly smoothly. Vithin a mattcr
ol hours 8ritish sailors and marincs succccdcd in scizing Frcnch naval vcsscls in
8ritish ports with minimal loss ol lilc. Tc succcss ol this part ol thc opcration
only conrmcd Churchill in his conviction ol thc ncccssity ol action, lor what
thc 8ritish could do, could also bc accomplishcd by thc Gcrmans.
:
Tc ncutral
ization ol thc powcrlul Frcnch squadrons locatcd in Alcxandria and thc Frcnch
Vcst !ndics was also accomplishcd bloodlcssly, with thc local Frcnch command
crs acccpting thc 8ritish ultimatum to acccpt thc supcrviscd dcmobilization ol
thcir vcsscls in thc lacc ol ovcrwhclming 8ritish naval supcriority.

Tc rcst ol Operation Catapult took a dicrcnt coursc. 8ritish \icc Admiral

Somcrvillc was dispatchcd lrom Gibraltar on . July .c with ordcrs to dclivcr
an ultimatum to Frcnch Admiral Gcnsoul commanding thc main Frcnch strikc
lorcc at McrsclKcbir, locatcd closc to thc port ol ran in Frcnch North Alrica.
Tc most powcrlul vcsscls in thc Frcnch Navy wcrc locatcd thcrc, including thc
modcrn battlc cruiscrs thc Dunkerque and Strasbourg. Tc ultimatum ocrcd
thrcc altcrnativcs: join thc 8ritish and continuc thc ght against thc Axis, sail
undcr 8ritish cscort to cithcr thc Frcnch Vcst !ndics or to an Amcrican port and
bc dcmobilizcd, or scuttlc thc vcsscls undcr 8ritish supcrvision. Failurc to agrcc
would lorcc thc 8ritish to opcn rc.
Tc Frcnch commandcr was givcn until sunsct on July to considcr thc
tcrms. !n his communication with thc \ichy Govcrnmcnt, hc lailcd to mcn
tion thc sccond altcrnativc. Hc rcccivcd ordcrs lrom \ichy to rcsist and try to
cscapc, which hc procccdcd to carry out oncc thc ultimatum cxpircd. Tc 8ritish
opcncd rc, dcstroying or hcavily damaging thc bulk ol thc Frcnch squadron,
although thc battlcship Strasbourg succccdcd in cscaping with signicant damagc
to Toulon, togcthcr with an cscorting cruiscr. Somc .cc Frcnch sailors dicd and
c wcrc woundcd, but thc 8ritish ncutralizcd thc most important scgmcnt ol
thc Frcnch cct albcit at a hcavy cost in Frcnch livcs. !t should not bc lorgottcn
that thc Frcnch and 8ritish had bccn allics until a lcw short wccks carlicr, and
that thc 8ritish took action vcry rcluctantly. Nccdlcss to say, thc cntirc opcra
tion was vicwcd in a dicrcnt light by most Frcnch. Somc mcmbcrs ol thc \ichy
Govcrnmcnt saw it as grounds lor dcclaring war on Grcat 8ritain, although morc
prudcnt counscl prcvailcd.

\ichy was in no position to wagc war and would

havc lost whatcvcr bargaining position it had, il it assumcd thc rolc ol a minor
Gcrman ally.
Vhat about thc broadcr rcpcrcussions: Tc action ccrtainly ccmcntcd thc
will ol both thc 8ritish public and political clitc to continuc rcsistancc against
thc sccmingly ovcrwhclming Axis, alonc il nccd bc in thc words ol Churchill.
a Id. .6.
upuy and upuy, supra n. ,, .c6.
Paxton, supra n. , 6,.
133 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
Tc Primc Ministcrs announccmcnt ol thc opcration in thc Housc ol Commons
rcccivcd a tumultuous rcsponsc, and Grcat 8ritain laccd thc prospcct ol sicgc,
possiblc invasion, and thc opcning ol thc 8attlc ol 8ritain with rcncwcd con
dcncc.

Spain and Portugal wcrc givcn a strong induccmcnt to rcmain ncu

tral, dcspitc thc proFascist lcanings ol thcir govcrnmcnts. vcn mcmbcrs ol thc
Fascist !talian Govcrnmcnt, such as Count Ciano, Mussolinis soninlaw and
!talys Forcign Ministcr, wcrc privatcly imprcsscd by 8ritains show ol rcsolvc and
dcmonstratcd capacity to act, although this had littlc ovcrall impact upon !talian
conduct in thc war.
6
Most importantly, thc Unitcd Statcs Govcrnmcnt was both
rclicvcd at thc rcmoval ol a potcntial thrcat to its own sccurity and lavorably
imprcsscd with thc succcss ol thc opcration. Prcsidcnt Rooscvclts policy, which
lavorcd providing matcrial assistancc to Grcat 8ritain short ol actually cntcring
thc war, was strcngthcncd. Tc 8ritish opcration wcnt somc way in assisting him
against thosc who lclt such assistancc would bc wastcd cort.

Most notcworthy lor our discussion is that no major nonbclligcrcnt nation
(othcr than \ichy Francc) condcmncd thc action as cithcr unncccssary or illcgal.
From a strictly lcgal pcrspcctivc, Grcat 8ritain had struck a major blow against a
govcrnmcnt with which it was not at war, and which until rcccntly had bccn its
ally. Francc was within its lcgal rights to scck an armisticc undcr thc bcst tcrms it
could obtain. Tc tcrms ol thc Armisticc Agrccmcnt did not providc lor a surrcn
dcr ol thc Frcnch cct to Gcrman and !talian control, which would havc madc
it a lawlul targct undcr thc laws ol war. Tcrc wcrc no concrctc indications at thc
timc, nor has any cvidcncc cmcrgcd sincc, that thc Gcrmans had any immcdiatc
plans to try and scizc dircct control ol thc Frcnch cct,
8
although that was an
option thcy could considcr. Still, this was in lcgal tcrms a casc ol prcvcntivc, or
at bcst prccmptivc, sclldclcnsc. Tcrc was ccrtainly no qucstion ol intcrccpting
a Gcrman movc to scizc thc Frcnch cct, much lcss ol an attack by that cct on
Grcat 8ritain itscll, nor ol any othcr lcgal ground othcr than (anticipatory) scll
dclcnsc, which would justily thc 8ritish action against a dclcatcd nonbclligcrcnt
Statc likc \ichy Francc.
Tis brings us to thc qucstion ol thc lcgality ol thc 8ritish action in tcrms
ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc. cspitc thc lack ol concrctc cvidcncc ol a Gcrman
invcntion to try to scizc control ol thc Frcnch cct, thcrc can bc littlc doubt that
thc thrcat to Grcat 8ritains sccurity which was poscd cvcn by that possibility
Lukacs, supra n. c, .6.
6 Ibid. Scc also Cianos Diary (Hcincmann translation .,) a, (cntry lor /,/.c).
Cianos commcnt was: For thc momcnt it provcs that thc ghting spirit ol His
8ritannic Majcstys cct is quitc alivc, and still has thc aggrcssivc ruthlcssncss ol thc
captains and piratcs ol thc scvcntccnth ccntury.
, Auphan and Mordal, op. cit. n. ,, ., quoting Cordcll Hull on thc imprcssion thc
8ritish action madc upon thc Unitcd Statcs Govcrnmcnt and public. Scc also Lukacs
in id. .6a.
A point that Churchill admits in his mcmoirs. Scc Churchill, op. cit. ..
134 Terry D. Gill
was immcdiatc. ncc thc cct had rcturncd to Mctropolitan Francc and comc
undcr Gcrman and !talian supcrvision, it would havc bccn virtually impossiblc
lor thc Royal Navy to havc rcachcd it. Tc chanccs ol succcss without thc risk ol
prohibitivc losscs in both mcn and matcrial would havc bccn virtually ncgligiblc.
As statcd carlicr, thc window ol opportunity to carry out this opcration, with
thc grcatcst chancc ol succcss and lcast prospcct ol unncccssary loss ol livcs, was
cxtrcmcly narrow. Hcncc, undcr thc spccic conditions prcvailing at thc timc, thc
potcntial thrcat ol thc Frcnch cct coming undcr Gcrman control was immcdi
atc cnough to justily anticipatory action in sclldclcnsc.
Tcrc wcrc likcwisc no lcasiblc altcrnativcs to thc coursc ol action Churchill
chosc. Tc altcrnativcs ocrcd thc Frcnch commandcrs wcrc honorablc, rcason
ablc and, in lact, thc only oncs thc 8ritish could ocr undcr thc circumstanccs.
!l thc Frcnch cct had comc undcr Gcrman control, it would havc bccn too latc,
cvcn il that only happcncd months latcr. Tc thrcat poscd by that possibility can
only bc dcscribcd as ovcrwhclming, sincc it would havc almost incvitably mcant
8ritish dclcat, cspccially in thc rst ycar lollowing thc lall ol Francc.
Tcsc lactual considcrations, applicd in contcxt with thc Caroline critcria,
justily thc 8ritish action as a lawlul cxcrcisc ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc. Tc casc
also is a clcar indication that anticipatory sclldclcnsc was acccptcd as lawlul in
principlc undcr thc customary law cxisting only a lcw ycars bclorc thc Chartcr
was adoptcd. Tcrc is no indication that thc law undcrwcnt any signicant changc
in this rcspcct prior to thc adoption ol thc Chartcr.
ii Tc Six ay Var ol .6,
!n thc latc spring ol .6,, as tcnsions mountcd stcadily in thc Middlc ast, cvcnts
movcd incxorably in thc dircction ol rcncwcd war bctwccn !sracl and its Arab
ncighbors. Tcsc includcd thc closing ol thc Straits ol Tiran to all maritimc trac
bound lor thc !sracli port ol ilat (thc Sucz Canal had long bccn closcd to trac
bound to or lrom !sracl), thc cxpulsion by gypt ol thc UN pcacckccping lorcc
(UNF!!) stationcd in thc Sinai Pcninsula along thc !sracligyptian bordcr,
and thc lormation ol a joint command bctwccn gypt and Syria. Tcsc cvcnts
wcrc accompanicd by spccchcs in which Prcsidcnt Nasscr ol gypt cxprcsscd
his dctcrmination to cnd thc prcscncc ol thc !sracli Statc oncc and lor all by
driv|ing| thc Jcws into thc sca. !n addition, thcrc was an upsurgc in fedayeen
attacks lrom across thc Sinai bordcr into gypt and thc dcploymcnt ol gyptian
troops into lorward positions along that bordcr, which had bccn vacatcd by thc
dcparting UNF troops.

n thc Six ay Var gcncrally, scc J.N. Moorc (cd.) Tc rab-Israeli Conict, \l. !!
(Rcadings) (.,) and !!! (ocumcnts) (.,,). For a concisc cvaluation ol thc cvcnts
lcading up to thc conict, scc Franck supra n. a, .c.a. For an asscssmcnt ol thc com
135 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
iplomatic corts by !sracl in thc Unitcd Nations and clscwhcrc to at lcast
partially rcstorc thc status quo ante wcrc unsucccsslul. Tc UN Sccrctary Gcncral
took thc position that hc had no choicc but to acccdc to thc gyptian dcmand
that UNF bc withdrawn, sincc it was dcpcndcnt upon gyptian conscnt to
carry out its lunctions. Tcrc was obviously no qucstion ol thc Sccurity Council
providing a mandatc lor UNF to carry on without gyptian conscnt undcr thc
prcvailing political conditions.
Cold Var divisions charactcrizcd thc situation. !nitiativcs aimcd at lorming
a multinational naval lorcc to rcstorc and maintain !sracls maritimc communi
cations through thc Straits ol Tiran also loundcrcd as a rcsult ol thcsc political
divisions and conccrn that a rcgional crisis might dcvclop into a broadcr ast
Vcst conlrontation.
Tc situation bccamc gravcr whcn Jordan announccd its support lor gypt
and Syria and cntcrcd into a military alliancc with thcm. Tis mcant that !sracl
was now surroundcd by potcntial advcrsarics, who togcthcr posscsscd an ovcr
whclming numcrical supcriority in numbcrs ol availablc combat troops, tanks,
armorcd vchiclcs and artillcry, including surlacctosurlacc missilcs capablc ol
striking at !sracli population ccntcrs. Tis was now compoundcd by a prccarious
gcographical position, at onc point thc !sracliJordanian bordcr along thc Vcst
8ank cxtcndcd to only twclvc milcs lrom !sracls Mcditcrrancan coastlinc, opcn
ing thc possibility that thc country could bc cut in two il thc Jordanian Army
succccdcd in driving a wcdgc bctwccn !sracls northcrn and southcrn halvcs.
6o
Although thc unlavorablc gcographical situation and numcrical inlcriority
wcrc somcwhat compcnsatcd lor by thc qualitativc supcriority ol thc !sracli Air
Forcc, !sracl was conlrontcd with a largc gyptian Air Forcc which was cquippcd
with a sizcablc numbcr ol modcrn Russian built combat aircralt. !l !sracl was
going to cnsurc a succcsslul dclcnsc, and probably its vcry survival against what
appcarcd to bc an incrcasingly likcly attack within thc ncar luturc, its bcst option
was to try to takc out thc gyptian Air Forcc on thc ground bclorc any ocnsivc
was mountcd. ncc an attack was undcrway, it would bc much morc dicult to
avoid largc scalc casualtics among thc !sracli population in vicw ol thc proximity
ol its major population ccntcrs to thc bordcrs and thc lack ol stratcgic dcpth.
!l !sracl succccdcd in gaining air supcriority by dcstroying a largc portion ol
thc gyptian Air Forcc bclorc it could attack or dispcrsc, it would havc a good
chancc ol dclcating its advcrsarics in dctail.
6+
parativc numcrical and advcrsarics, as wcll as an analysis ol thc military aspccts ol
thc conict, scc upuy and upuy supra n. ,, .ac et seq.
6c gypt and Jordan concludcd a mutual assistancc trcaty on c May .6,. An gyptian
gcncral was immcdiatcly dispatchcd to Jordan to takc command ol Arab lorccs on
thc Jordan lront, scc upuy and upuy supra n. ,, .ac et seq.
6. Id. .a..
136 Terry D. Gill
Tcsc considcrations lcd !sracl to strikc prccmptivcly in anticipatory scll
dclcnsc. n thc carly morning ol Junc, its air lorcc, ying low to avoid gyptian
radar, dcstroycd thc bulk ol gypts modcrn combat aircralt and air dclcnscs
on thc ground within a mattcr ol hours. Having cstablishcd air supcriority, thc
!sracli armcd lorccs wcrc ablc to drivc through thc gyptian positions in thc
Sinai and rcach thc Sucz Canal, whilc simultancously succcsslully taking thc
initiativc on thc Jordanian and Syrian lronts. Altcr scvcral UN Sccurity Council
rcsolutions which callcd on thc partics to acccpt a ccascrc without apportion
ing blamc on cithcr sidc had bccn ignorcd, thc partics to thc conict nally
acccptcd a unanimous call by thc Sccurity Council lor a ccascrc on thc cvcning
ol .c Junc .6,.
6:
How was thc !sracli prccmptivc strikc vicwcd at thc timc and what wcrc its
immcdiatc rcpcrcussions: Tc ovcrwhclming majority ol opinion was lavorablc
and in support ol thc !sracli action as a rcasonablc and lawlul cxcrcisc ol antici
patory sclldclcnsc. Attcmpts to havc thc !sracli prccmptivc strikc condcmncd
in both thc Sccurity Council and thc Gcncral Asscmbly lailcd by largc majori
tics.
6
!t is signicant that during thc dcbatcs, rclcrcncc was madc to thc Caroline
critcria by a numbcr ol dclcgatcs, indicating that many Statcs saw thc !sracli
action as a lawlul cxcrcisc ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, rathcr than assuming that
it may havc had its lcgal basis on somc othcr grounds, as has bccn submittcd by
a numbcr ol authoritics sincc thcn, a qucstion wc will rcturn to prcscntly in this
discussion.
A lurthcr indication that thc !sracli action was vicwcd as lawlul at thc timc
can bc lound in thc tcrms ol thc wcll known Rcsolution aa, which was adoptcd
by thc Sccurity Council on aa Novcmbcr .6,, and is still widcly sccn as provid
ing thc lramcwork lor an ovcrall scttlcmcnt ol thc conict. Tcrc is no mcntion
ol any condcmnation ol thc !sracli action, nor cvcn a rclcrcncc to any illcgality
in !sracls occupation ol thc tcrritorics it had gaincd control ol as a rcsult ol thc
Six ay Var. !nstcad, both partics wcrc callcd upon to rcach a lasting ovcrall
scttlcmcnt on thc basis ol an acccptancc ol !sracls right to sccurity, in cxchangc
lor a rcturn ol (most ol ) thc land it had occupicd as a conscqucncc ol thc war.
Tis would sccm to bc an implicit acknowlcdgcmcnt ol thc lcgality ol !sracls
action which takcs into account thc circumstanccs which lcd to it. Rcsolution
6a Id. .aa. Scc also Franck, supra n. a, .ca.
6 Franck op. cit. supra n. a, .c, points out that thc Sovict dralt rcsolution condcmn
ing !sracl only gaincd support lrom lour ol thc Councils . mcmbcrs. Tc Spccial
mcrgcncy Scssion ol thc Gcncral Asscmbly also lailcd to adopt various dralt rcso
lutions condcmning !sracl, with a dralt submittcd by a group ol nonaligncd Statcs
(A/L/aa) rccciving votcs in lavor, 6 opposcd and ac abstcntions. !t was thcrcby
rcjcctcd sincc it lailcd to gain thc ncccssary two thirds majority votc. Scc Franck in
id. at .c. An carlicr Sovict dralt rcsolution containing strongcr condcmnatory lan
guagc had bccn rcjcctcd on July .6, by ,. votcs opposcd, aa in lavor and ac abstcn
tions. (A/L/a.). Scc United Nations Yearbook .6,, ac.
137 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
aa rcccivcd thc widc support ol thc intcrnational community. Had thc gcncral
opinion rcgarding thc !sracli action bccn dicrcnt, it sccms salc to say that this
rcsolution would havc bccn dicrcntly wordcd, lor cxamplc, by including sticr
languagc dircctcd at !sracl that rccctcd thc gcncral tcnurc ol Gcncral Asscmbly
rcsolutions dircctcd at !sracl. Vhatcvcr oncs vicws rcgarding thc subscqucnt
conduct ol both partics, or rcgarding !sracls policics in thc ccupicd Tcrritorics,
thcy should not lcad to ex-post asscssmcnts ol thc !sracli rccoursc to anticipatory
sclldclcnsc, or ol how thc intcrnational community vicwcd it at thc timc.
Turning to application ol thc Caroline lramcwork and critcria in thc light
ol thc rclcvant circumstanccs, thc rst qucstion to bc addrcsscd is whcthcr wc
arc dcaling with an cxamplc ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, or whcthcr thc !sracli
action had anothcr lcgal basis which would cxplain its gcncral acccptancc. Somc
authoritics havc opincd that thc !sracli action could bc sccn as an cxcrcisc ol bcl
ligcrcnt rights in thc contcxt ol an ongoing armcd conict against Statcs with
which !sracl was in a tcchnical statc ol war. Anothcr possibility put lorward is
that !sracl rcspondcd to an actual attack which had alrcady commcnccd, rathcr
than an immcdiatc thrcat ol onc, making its action onc ol rcgular, rathcr than
anticipatory sclldclcnsc.
6
8oth ol thcsc argumcnts arc implausiblc at bcst and articial and uncon
vincing at worst. To bc surc, !sracl had bccn in a tcchnical statc ol war with its
Arab ncighbors (and still is with thc cxccptions ol gypt and Jordan which havc
sincc signcd lormal pcacc trcatics) sincc its inccption in .. Howcvcr, that docs
not changc thc lact that this tcchnical statc ol war has bccn charactcrizcd by long
pcriods in which no signicant intcrStatc hostilitics havc takcn placc, intcr
spcrscd with lour short, intcnsivc intcrnational armcd conicts. To arguc that
any ol thc rcspcctivc partics has thc right to rcopcn hostilitics at any momcnt
ol its choosing on thc basis ol bclligcrcnt rights is to y in thc lacc ol various
armisticc agrccmcnts, ccascrc ordcrs and Sccurity Council rcsolutions rcjcct
ing such claims ovcr a long pcriod. Nor docs thc abscncc ol a lormal armisticc or
ccascrc agrccmcnt providc an automatic cxccption to this, il in lact a de-facto
matcrial armisticc has bccn in ccct lor any signicant pcriod ol timc.
6
6 \arious authoritics havc opincd that thc !sracli prccmptivc strikc ol Junc .6, was
an cxcrcisc ol rcgular rathcr than anticipatory sclldclcnsc. Tcsc includc Gray, op.
cit. n. .c supra at ..a, M. Shaw, International La. (
rd
cd. ..) 6 and instcin, op.
cit. n. supra et seq.
6 n this point, ! rcspcctlully disagrcc with Prolcssor instcins vicws as sct out in
op. cit. n. supra at 6. To bc surc a ccascrc is not ncccssarily synonymous with
pcacc, nor can it on its own cnd a tcchnical statc ol war. Howcvcr, a prolongcd ccasc
rc can consolidatc into a situation ol rclativc normalcy. !t is cvcn possiblc that a
ccascrc comcs into placc by thc conduct ol thc partics, rathcr than through mutual
agrccmcnt or lormal acccptancc ol a Sccurity Council ccascrc rcsolution. !n any
casc, oncc a ccascrc has bccomc a de-facto armisticc, it is no longcr opcn to thc par
tics to rcopcn hostilitics at a momcnt ol thcir choosing.
138 Terry D. Gill
Likcwisc, thc contcntion that !sracl rcspondcd to an actual attack, rathcr
than to thc prospcct ol a probablc attack in thc ncar luturc, is to strctch thc
mcaning ol thc tcrm to thc limit. To bc surc, !sracls ncighbors wcrc cxprcss
ing hostilc intcnt by cngaging in prcparations lor an attack and dcstruction ol
!sracl as a Statc (and possibly its pcoplc), but no attack had bccn launchcd at thc
momcnt !sracl struck.
!t is also truc that by closing thc Straits ol Tiran to !sracli maritimc com
mcrcc, gypt had initiatcd a partial blockadc, or rathcr intcnsicd an cxisting
blockadc, sincc thc land bordcrs bctwccn !sracl and its Arab ncighbors, as wcll
as thc Sucz Canal, had long bccn closcd to any trac bound to or lrom !sracl.
Howcvcr, !sracls air and sca communications through thc Mcditcrrancan wcrc
still unacctcd, and !sracl was ncithcr lacing strangulation nor cconomic ruin
as a rcsult ol gypts act. Vhilc a blockadc can somctimcs bc tantamount to an
armcd attack, it is not just any blockadc that can amount to such an attack, and
particularly not onc ol a partial naturc, such as thc onc that had bccn in ccct
against !sracl sincc closurc ol thc Straits. Many cxamplcs ol partial blockadcs or
closing ol lronticrs sincc . havc not bccn sccn as constituting armcd attacks,
thcrc was no rcason to trcat this onc as a spccial casc constituting an armcd
attack. !l gypt had attcmptcd to cut !sracls sca and air communications com
plctcly, thc situation would havc bccn dicrcnt, but no such action had occurrcd
at thc timc !sracl dccidcd to takc prccmptivc action.
66
Taking thc abovc considcrations into account, thc most rcasonablc conclu
sion is that whilc thcrc wcrc clcar indications ol a probablc impcnding armcd
attack, nonc had yct bccn launchcd, or cvcn put into motion at thc timc !sracl
dccidcd to takc anticipatory action by dcstroying gypts ocnsivc capability. Tc
upsurgc in fedayeen incursions lrom across thc gyptian bordcr would havc jus
ticd a proportionatc rcsponsc dcsigncd to ncutralizc this thrcat, not a lull scalc
war.
Hcncc, !sracls prccmptivc strikc is an almost tcxtbook cxamplc ol antici
patory sclldclcnsc in thc lacc ol an immcdiatc thrcat ol an armcd attack, rathcr
than onc ol rcsponsc to an actual attack, or cvcn intcrccption ol an attack which
had alrcady bccn launchcd, but had not yct rcachcd its targct. Tc majority ol
authoritics sharc this conclusion.
6
!l !sracls action was onc ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, thc ncxt qucstion is
how it mcasurcd up to thc Caroline lramcwork and critcria. Tc answcr is that
66 An cxamplc ol such a partial blockadc which, whilc hostilc and illcgal undcr thc
Four Powcr Agrccmcnts rclating to thc ccupation Rcgimc in Gcrmany, was not
trcatcd as an armcd attack, was thc 8crlin 8lockadc ol .. Tc action closcd o
land communications bctwccn thc Vcstcrn Zoncs ol Gcrmany and 8crlin, but lclt
thc air corridors unacctcd. Tis blockadc was lar morc scrious than thc closurc ol
thc Straits ol Tiran, but was not vicwcd as a casus belli.
6, Tis is thc vicw ol a largc numbcr ol authoritics and is bcst summcd up by Franck,
op. cit. n. a supra, .c.
139 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
!sracls action is an cxamplc ol a rcasonablc and justicd rccoursc to anticipa
tory sclldclcnsc undcr thc circumstanccs. Tat thc thrcat was immcdiatc would
sccm to hardly rcquirc lurthcr cxplanation. gypt, Jordan and Syria had takcn
a numbcr ol stcps which clcarly pointcd to thcir likcly intcntion and capability
to launch an attack in thc immcdiatc luturc. Vhcthcr or not thcy would havc
actually struck, or wcrc mcrcly cngaging in a dangcrous gamc ol blu and hostilc
rhctoric is irrclcvant. 8y initiating an acutc crisis and making prcparations thcy
crcatcd an immcdiatc thrcat justilying thc !sracli rcsponsc. No Statc can rcason
ably bc cxpcctcd to takc thc risk that advcrsarics which havc pronounccd thcir
intcntion to wagc a war ol annihilation, and madc corrcsponding prcparations,
arc blung.
Likcwisc, thc thrcat poscd was ccrtainly crcdiblc. Tc lormation ol a joint
command, movcmcnt ol troops into lorward positions, numcrical supcriority and
thc probability ol high civilian casualtics il thc Arab Statcs did strikc rst com
bincd to posc a thrcat which was both crcdiblc and ovcrwhclming.
!t is also clcar that !sracl had no lcasiblc altcrnativcs to taking anticipatory
military action. ncc its diplomatic corts had lailcd, it could cxpcct no ccc
tivc cort by thc UN or anyonc clsc that would havc rcsolvcd thc situation. !l it
rcstrictcd its rcsponsc to thc taking ol prcparations on its own tcrritory, it would
not bc cnsurcd ol avoiding disastcr. ncc an attack was launchcd, !sracl would bc
at a scrious disadvantagc duc to its lack ol stratcgic dcpth and lorccd to acccpt thc
prospcct ol its citics bccoming a battlcground. !n short, its options wcrc ncarly
noncxistcnt.
Finally, !sracls action was proportionatc in rclation to thc thrcat it laccd.
Tc !sracli armcd lorccs drovc back its advcrsarics to positions which cnsurcd its
sccurity against rcncwcd attack and providcd it with a lavorablc bargaining posi
tion in any subscqucnt ncgotiations. Tat this has not rcsultcd in a lasting pcacc
scttlcmcnt is irrclcvant to thc issuc at hand. !n short, thc !sracli prccmptivc
strikc ol Junc .6, was a clcar cxamplc ol justicd anticipatory sclldclcnsc.
iii Tc .. !sracli Strikc against thc sirak Nuclcar Rcactor
!n Junc .., thc !sracli Air Forcc carricd out a succcsslul surgical strikc against
an !raqi nuclcar rcactor locatcd at sirak ncar 8aghdad. Tc rcactor had bccn
purchascd lrom Francc in ., and was not yct opcrational at thc timc thc strikc.
Although, undcr thc tcrms ol thc purchasc agrccmcnt bctwccn Francc and !raq,
thc sirak lacility was subjcct to !AA inspcction in accordancc with thc .6
Nuclcar NonProlilcration Trcaty, !sracl had rcason to bclicvc that !raq had vio
latcd thc agrccmcnt and was in lact cngagcd in a program aimcd at thc produc
tion ol wcapons gradc nuclcar matcrial.
Although !sracl had protcstcd thc salc ol a nuclcar rcactor to !raq, and had
attcmptcd to dissuadc Francc lrom going through with thc agrccmcnt and madc
its conccrns known in various diplomatic lora, its corts to prcvcnt thc dcliv
140 Terry D. Gill
cry ol nuclcar tcchnology to !raq had bccn unsucccsslul. !sracl undcrstandably
rcgardcd !raq as an implacablc hostilc Statc which would posc a gravc thrcat to
its sccurity, and possibly survival, il it wcrc to acquirc nuclcar wcapons. At thc
timc, !raqs lormidablc military potcntial was growing rapidly. Morcovcr, though
its may sccm strangc today, it is worth rcmcmbcring that !raq cnjoycd a vcry
lavorablc diplomatic position at that timc, which rcndcrcd thc prospcct ol !sracl
succcsslully cnlisting ccctivc Sccurity Council support lor thc containmcnt ol
!raqs nuclcar wcapons program and rcgional powcr ambitions rcmotc.
68
Tc Unitcd Statcs vicwcd !raq as a bulwark against !ranian rcvolutionary
rcligious cxtrcmism, whilc Francc had intcnsivc commcrcial and diplomatic tics
with thc country and thc Sovict Union had long bccn a traditional ally. Finally,
!sracl almost ccrtainly must havc takcn into considcration that a succcsslul strikc
against thc sirak nuclcar lacility would bccomc innitcly morc dicult oncc
thc rcactor bccamc opcrational. From its point ol vicw, it had to prcvcnt !raq
gaining acccss to nuclcar wcapons tcchnology by any mcans, cvcn at thc cost ol
diplomatic isolation and lcgal condcmnation. !t chosc to act at what appcarcd to
bc thc most lavorablc momcnt lrom a military stratcgic pcrspcctivc bclorc thc
possibility to act unacccptably narrowcd or passcd.
6
!n thc cvcnt, thc Sccurity Council and thc intcrnational community roundly
condcmncd !sracls action. !ts invocation in thc Council ol thc right to antici
patory sclldclcnsc was unanimously rcjcctcd. !t is, howcvcr, signicant that in
doing so many dclcgatcs did not rcjcct thc conccpt ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc
per se, but rathcr !sracls rcliancc on it undcr thc circumstanccs. !sracls rcliancc
upon anticipatory sclldclcnsc was rcjcctcd cxplicitly by a numbcr, and implic
itly by a majority, ol dclcgatcs, as not mccting thc Caroline critcria ol immcdiacy
and lack ol lcasiblc altcrnativcs. Tis rcjcction can bc sccn as at lcast conditional
support lor thc conccpt ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc by a widc scgmcnt ol thc
intcrnational community, providcd thc conditions laid down in thc Caroline
lramcwork havc bccn plausibly mct.
o
At thc timc, it was clcarly thc vicw ol
thc intcrnational community that !sracl had lailcd to mcct this tcst.
+
Although
many havc modicd thcir opinion in thc light ol subscqucnt cvcnts, it rcmains an
6 !n thc altcrmath ol thc !ranian Rcvolution, thc US, whilc ocially ncutral in thc
war bctwccn !raq and !ran that had bcgun in Scptcmbcr .c whilc US diplomatic
hostagcs wcrc bcing hcld in Tchran, vicwcd !ran as thc grcatcr thrcat to Middlc
astcrn sccurity and stability. Tc USSR had a lormal trcaty ol Fricndship with !raq
and had supplicd thc bulk ol its alrcady lormidablc arscnal, whilc Francc maintaincd
closc commcrcial tics with !raq and was also a signicant supportcr ol !raqs diplo
matic position in .c., scc . Hiro, Te Longest !ar: Te Iran-Iraq Military Conict
(.), ,. et seq.
6 Franck, n. a supra, .c. Scc also A.M. Vcisburd, Use of Force: Practice of States Since
!orld !ar II (.,), a,.
,c Grccnwood, supra n. a, ..
,. S.C. Rcs. , ol ./6/. adoptcd unanimously.
141 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
incontrovcrtiblc lact that thc !sracli strikc against thc sirak nuclcar lacility was
dccmcd illcgal at thc timc.
Tis brings us to thc qucstion whcthcr thc !sracli action was justiablc in
lact, cithcr at thc timc or in rctrospcct, as a lawlul cxcrcisc ol anticipatory scll
dclcnsc on thc basis ol thc Caroline lramcwork and critcria. vcn il onc takcs
into account thc dicult dilcmma which !sracl laccd thc prospcct ol a hostilc
ncighbor gaining acccss to nuclcar tcchnology combincd with a rcmotc chancc
ol prcvcnting this through diplomacy within thc immcdiatc luturc it is hard to
scc how !sracls strikc can bc judgcd lawlul.
Tcrc was no cvidcncc ol an !raqi intcntion to attack !sracl in thc lorcscc
ablc luturc. Tcrc was not cvcn conclusivc cvidcncc that !raq was acquiring, much
lcss on thc point ol dcvcloping, a nuclcar wcapons capability whcn thc !sracli
action was carricd out. Tc lact that wc now know morc about !raqs ambitions
to obtain nuclcar and othcr wcapons ol mass dcstruction and about thc naturc
ol thc crstwhilc !raqi rcgimc docs not changc this, although it docs makc !sracls
action morc acccptablc in historical tcrms. Ncvcrthclcss, as has bccn pointcd out,
much ol what wc know about !raqi ambitions and its propcnsity to cngagc in
antisocial bchavior, such as invading ncighbors and massacring its own citizcns
with chcmical wcapons, had yct to bc rcvcalcd. Ncithcr thc !sracli Govcrnmcnt,
nor anyonc clsc, could lorcscc in .. what has occurrcd sincc thcn. Ex-post
asscssmcnts ol thc !raqi thrcat and thc naturc ol its govcrnmcnt do not substi
tutc lor cvaluations ol thc ncccssity ol !sracls action at thc timc. Circumstanccs
which wcrc known at thc timc must prcvail ovcr historical hindsight. Any othcr
approach would makc it virtually impossiblc to asscss thc lcgality ol a usc ol lorcc,
anticipatory or othcrwisc. n thc othcr hand, it is rcasonablc to takc subscqucnt
cvcnts into account to thc cxtcnt that thcy mitigatc thc unlawlulncss ol an act
which was rightly dctcrmincd to bc illcgal at thc timc.
!t is submittcd that this should bc thc outcomc ol an ovcrall asscssmcnt ol
!sracls strikc against thc sirak nuclcar lacility lor a numbcr ol rcasons. !sracl
kncw that !raq was an implacably hostilc advcrsary and had littlc rcason to bclicvc
that its purchasc ol a nuclcar rcactor was cconomically ncccssary, in vicw ol its
vast pctrolcum rcscrvcs, or that it would rclrain lrom producing nuclcar wcap
ons at thc rst opportunity. Tc strikc was carricd out surgically and proportion
ally, bcing dircctcd solcly at climinating thc potcntial thrcat poscd by thc rcactor.
Morcovcr, !sracl had littlc prospcct ol gaining diplomatic support in thc Sccurity
Council or clscwhcrc lor an initiativc aimcd at prcvcnting !raq lrom gaining
acccss to nuclcar tcchnology, at lcast within thc lorcsccablc luturc.
Vhilc thcsc lactors go a considcrablc way towards making !sracls action
undcrstandablc, thcy did not makc it lcgal at thc timc, nor do thcy makc it lcgal
in thc light ol what wc havc subscqucntly lcarncd. !sracl was not laccd with thrcat
ol attack by a nuclcar armcd !raq within thc short or mcdium tcrm. Conscqucntly,
!sracls action was rightly judgcd unlawlul at thc timc. !sracl did not, nor could it,
producc clcar cvidcncc ol morc than, at thc most, a potcntial thrcat to its sccurity.
142 Terry D. Gill
To thc rcst ol thc intcrnational community, !sracls action appcarcd to bc prccipi
tatc and unncccssary. vcn il thc Caroline critcria and lramcwork lor asscssmcnt
providc lor thc possibility ol anticipatory action against potcntial thrcats undcr
spccial circumstanccs, thcy cannot bc strctchcd to thc cxtcnt that thcy would
justily prcvcntivc action against thc mcrc possibility that a Statc might obtain a
nuclcar wcapon and bc in a position to usc it at somc complctcly indctcrminatc
luturc momcnt.
n thc othcr hand, !raqs conduct sincc .. should not bc ignorcd cithcr.
!l thc intcrnational community would havc known, or cvcn scriously suspcctcd,
what has comc to light, it is highly unlikcly that !sracls action would havc bccn
condcmncd, ccrtainly not as univcrsally as was thc casc at thc timc. Tis gocs a
considcrablc way towards mitigating thc illcgality ol !sracls action. !n thc prcscnt
authors vicw, !sracls action was illcgal, but both undcrstandablc and, ultimatcly,
partly justiablc in historical tcrms.
iv Tc Gull Var ol acc
Tc most rcccnt Gull Var was conductcd by thc Unitcd Statcs and thc Unitcd
Kingdom to rcmovc Saddam Husscin and his closc associatcs lrom powcr and
to cnlorcc compliancc with UN Sccurity Council rcsolutions rclating to !raqs
partial disarmamcnt. !t rcmains highly controvcrsial, and has bccn widcly com
mcntcd upon in intcrnational lcgal litcraturc. A numbcr ol possiblc lcgal justi
cations havc bccn advanccd lor thc invasion and rcsulting ovcrthrow ol Saddam
Husscins govcrnmcnt. Tcy includc as thc primary lcgal justication Sccurity
Council Rcsolutions 6,, 6, and .. and thc lailurc ol !raq to lully coopcratc
with thc Councils corts to cnsurc its disarmamcnt ovcr morc than a dccadc.
Anothcr possiblc lcgal justication put lorward is that thc Unitcd Statcs
and Unitcd Kingdom had thc right to rcopcn hostilitics against !raq on thc basis
ol thc law govcrning armisticcs and ccascrcs, containcd in thc .c, Haguc
Convcntion on Land Varlarc and customary law. Tis linc ol rcasoning vicws thc
rcccnt conict as a continuation ol thc .. conict on thc basis ol a brcach ol
thc armisticc / ccascrc tcrms by !raq. A brcach, so thc argumcnt gocs, cnablcs
thc othcr principal bclligcrcnts (thc US and thc UK) to rcopcn hostilitics. Tis
linc ol argumcnt is rclatcd to, but distinct lrom, that onc which suggcsts cxist
ing Sccurity Council rcsolutions providc a lcgal basis lor military action against
!raq, in that it rclics on a scparatc lcgal basis, thc law govcrning armisticcs and
ccascrcs, rathcr than thc rcsolutions thcmsclvcs, as a justication lor military
action.
:
,a Tc ocial argumcnts rclating to thc justication ol thc invasion ol !raq arc to bc
lound inter alia in statcmcnts by mcmbcrs ol thc US and UK Govcrnmcnts immc
diatcly prcccding and subscqucnt to thc opcning ol hostilitics in March acc. Scc e.g.
thc Advicc ol thc UK Attorncy Gcncral, Lord Goldsmith, at www.numbcr.cgov.
143 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
Tcrc arc rcasonablc argumcnts both lor and against thcsc two possiblc
justications. Ncithcr ol thcsc possiblc justications dircctly rclatc to thc con
ccpt ol sclldclcnsc anticipatory or othcrwisc or to thc topic ol this articlc.
Conscqucntly, thcy will rcccivc no dircct attcntion bcyond stating that, on bal
ancc, thcy do not appcar to providc a convincing lcgal basis lor thc invasion and
military occupation although admittcdly thcy arc not wholly dcvoid ol mcrit.

Additional argumcnts unrclatcd to sclldclcnsc, such as thc undoubtcd

opprcssivc naturc ol thc !raqi rcgimc and its long rccord ol scrious human rights
violations, or thc dcsirability ol rcmoving a govcrnmcnt which has provcn itscll
uk, availablc via www.answcrs.com/topic/accinvasionol!raq. For morc cxtcnsivc
lcgal analysis ol thc argumcnts rclating to thc usc ol lorcc against !ran lrom thc
pcrspcctivc ol thc prcscnt US Administration, scc thc commcnts by V.H. Talt and
T.F. 8uchwald (rcspcctivcly Lcgal Adviscr ol thc US cpt. ol Statc and Asst. Lcgal
Adviscr lor PoliticalMilitary Aairs at thc US cpt. ol Statc) and J. Yoo (Formcr
cputy Assistant Attorncy Gcncral at thc cc ol Lcgal Counscl ol thc US cpt.
ol Justicc) in thc Agora Scction ol , JIL (acc), ,, et seq. For an inlormativc and
gcncrally objcctivc account ol thc lactual cvidcncc rclating to !raqs allcgcd posscs
sion ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction and thc possiblc lcgal implications thcrcol, scc
. McGoldrick, From ,-zz to the Iraq !ar :cc (acc), 6 et seq. For thc prcscnta
tion by US Sccrctary ol Statc Colin Powcll on thc cvidcncc ol allcgcd !raqi non
compliancc with S.C. Rcsolution rclating to disarmamcnt, scc www.whitchousc.
gov/rclcascs/acc. (http://www.whitchousc.gov/inlocus/nationalsccurity/).
, Tc argumcnts lor and against acccpting thc lcgality ol thc invasion on thc basis
ol (prc)cxisting S.C. Rcsolutions and/or violation ol thc ccascrc imposcd by thc
UNSC in S.C. Rcs. 6, arc sct lorth in thc alorcmcntioncd Agora Scction ol ,
JIL (acc). Scc also thc vicws ol Solacr and 8othc in . EJIL (acc) citcd in nn.
and a supra rcspcctivcly. My own vicw, in a nutshcll, is that ncithcr S.C. Rcs. ..
vicwcd on its own, nor vicwcd in conjunction with S.C. Rcs. 6, and 6,, gavc thc
US and UK a right to unilatcrally takc military action (bcyond localizcd lorcc pro
tcction in rcsponsc to an immcdiatc thrcat to units cnlorcing thc S.C. cmbargo and
noy zoncs), much lcss to conduct a lull scalc invasion and occupation ol !raq,
without lurthcr S.C. authorization.
Likcwisc, ncithcr thc US nor thc UK had thc right to rcinitiatc hostilitics on thc
basis ol a unilatcral brcach ol thc ccascrc provisions ol S.C. Rcs. 6,, which had
bccn implcmcntcd by thc Council as a wholc .is--.is !raq and had supcrscdcd
thc intcrim ccascrc arrangcmcnts bctwccn thc Coalition Forccs and thc !raqi
Govcrnmcnt. n thc othcr hand, thc rccord ol !raqi noncompliancc with prcvious
S.C. Rcsolutions and its obstructionist bchavior ovcr a long pcriod, couplcd with
thc widcly hcld pcrccption immcdiatcly prcccding thc invasion in March acc that
!raq still probably posscsscd somc wcapons ol mass dcstruction should not bc dis
countcd, although thcsc lactors did not makc thc invasion lawlul. !l thc invasion
had bccn rcsistcd by chcmical or othcr wcapons ol arms dcstruction, or had VM
bccn uncovcrcd in thc subscqucnt occupation pcriod, this would havc gonc a long
way towards mitigating thc unlawlulncss ol thc US/UK military action. Howcvcr,
as is wcll known, no such wcapons havc bccn cncountcrcd and any mitigation such
a discovcry might havc rcndcrcd must rcmain in thc rcalm ol historical might havc
bccns.
144 Terry D. Gill
an obstaclc to pcacc and stability in thc rcgion, will likcwisc not bc discusscd,
bcyond stating that thcy arc gcncrally sccn as cvcn lcss lcgally pcrsuasivc.

Howcvcr, onc linc ol rcasoning put lorward in justication ol thc war on

thc basis ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc is thc thrcat poscd by thc allcgcd actual or
potcntial link bctwccn Saddam Husscins govcrnmcnt and intcrnational tcrror
ism, as wcll as thc possibility that !raq could havc providcd support to Al Qacda
in obtaining wcapons ol mass dcstruction which might bc uscd in an attack on
thc Unitcd Statcs or its allics. Vc turn to that now, momcntarily dclcrring dis
cussion ol thc broadcr implications ol what is somctimcs rclcrrcd to as thc 8ush
octrinc ol prccmptivc sclldclcnsc.
!n rclation to thc lacts known at thc timc thc US initiatcd military action
against !raq in thc spring ol acc, or which havc cmcrgcd sincc, thc mattcr is
straightlorward. Tcrc wcrc no indications, bcyond mcrc allcgations, that !raq
had any signicant links to Al Qacda or similar tcrrorist organizations, or was in
any way associatcd with thc attack ol .. Scptcmbcr acc.. Ncithcr thc cvidcncc
prcscntcd at thc Sccurity Council in thc wccks prcccding thc invasion, nor any
which has cmcrgcd sincc, has providcd anything indicating thc cxistcncc ol a
rclationship bctwccn !raq and Al Qacda or .. Scptcmbcr acc.. Nor havc any
indications cmcrgcd that !raq was cstablishing (or cvcn contcmplating) any such
link. !n thc abscncc ol crcdiblc cvidcncc ol such links, thc conclusion rcgarding
thc lcgality ol action in anticipatory sclldclcnsc against !raq is ovcrwhclmingly
that it could not bc justicd on that basis.

, Humanitarian intcrvcntion is a highly controvcrsial and vcry cxtcnsivcly dcbatcd

possiblc lcgal basis lor thc usc ol lorcc outsidc thc contcxt ol thc UN collcctivc
sccurity systcm. Howcvcr, cvcn thosc authoritics who support thc possibility that
humanitarian intcrvcntion is lcgal, or could bc to somc cxtcnt justicd, usually do
so on thc basis ol thc cxistcncc ol an acutc situation in which thc right to lilc ol a
signicant part ol a Statc population is bcing violatcd (or thrcatcns to bc violatcd),
such as was thc casc in Northcrn !raq in thc altcrmath ol thc Sccond Gull Var in
.., in Rwanda in ., or Kosovo in .. Tis is in contrast to thc prospcct ol
military intcrvcntion to ovcrthrow a dcspotic rcgimc and promotc dcmocracy, which
has lar lcwcr supportcrs. Tis is cvcn trucr in rclation to Statc practicc. For rcccnt
trcatmcnt ol humanitarian intcrvcntion scc inter alia, 8ycrs, op. cit. supra n. ,,
et seq., Franck, op. cit. n. a supra ., et seq. and S. Chcstcrman, Just !ar or Just Peace
(acc.). For thc prcscnt authors vicws on thc topic, scc Humanitarian !ntcrvcntion
Lcgality, Justicc and Lcgitimacy in Te Global Community Yearbook of International
La. and Jurisprudence acc, \ol. !! (acc) . et seq.
, Tc Rcport ol thc National Commission on Tcrrorist Attacks upon thc Unitcd
Statcs (Tc .. Commission) concludcd, rcgarding thc qucstion ol an allcgcd
link bctwccn Al Qacda and !raq, that thcrc was no crcdiblc cvidcncc that Saddam
Husscin had assistcd Al Qacda in prcparing lor or carrying out thc .. attacks
(quotc lrom www.answcrs.com/topic/accinvasionol!raq). For thc Rcport itscll,
scc www.gpoacccss.gov/.., spccically chaptcr .c Vartimc, para. .c. Phasc Two
and thc Qucstion ol !raq. Scc also McGoldrick, supra n. ,a, .,ac.
145 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
C Some Preliminary Conclusions Fegarding the State Practice in
Felation to nticipatory Self-Defense
!n thc prcccding scction, wc cxamincd a numbcr ol situations strctching ovcr a
pcriod ol somc sixty ycars in which a claim ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc playcd a
ccntral or promincnt rolc. Tc cxamplcs choscn wcrc thc most illustrativc ol thc
scopc ol, and limitations on, thc right to takc anticipatory action. Tcy also pro
vidc a kcy to undcrstanding how thc Caroline critcria work in practicc not as a
static chccklist or as a vcrbal straitjackct to bc takcn litcrally, but as a sct ol guid
ing principlcs which providc a lramcwork lor asscssmcnt applicd in thc light ol
thc rclcvant circumstanccs, bascd upon thc inlormation availablc at thc timc.
Tis bccomcs clcar il onc looks at how thcsc incidcnts rclatc to Sccrctary
Vcbstcrs wcllknown lormula, a ncccssity ol sclldclcnsc, instant, ovcrwhclm
ing, lcaving no choicc ol mcans and no momcnt ol dclibcration. Tis lormula
has oltcn bccn undcrstood to apply cxclusivcly to situations in which thcrc is a
virtual ccrtainty that an attack has bccn initiatcd, but has yct to rcach its point
ol impact. At most, it is a qucstion ol minutcs or hours away rathcr than days or
wccks. Howcvcr, this is not thc way Caroline has bccn applicd in practicc. To lur
thcr illustratc, wc must takc a closcr look at our cxamplcs ol Statc practicc, and at
othcr situations in which thc Caroline lramcwork lor asscssmcnt and critcria lor
anticipatory action wcrc applicd.
ur rst cxamplc was thc 8ritish action to ncutralizc thc Frcnch cct in
.c. As wc havc sccn, thc Unitcd Kingdom was conlrontcd with a gravc situa
tion in thc summcr ol .c lollowing thc lorccd cvacuation ol thc 8ritish Army
lrom unkirk, thc loss ol most ol its hcavy cquipmcnt and thc lall ol Francc.
nc distinct possibility was that thc Frcnch cct could bc uscd by Gcrmany to
gain ovcrall naval supcriority and mount a succcsslul invasion or cut 8ritains
lilclincs and starvc it into submission. !n thc cvcnt, Hitlcr was rcluctant to mount
an invasion and put o that possibility lor a varicty ol rcasons until thc oppor
tunity passcd. !t docs not appcar that hc scriously considcrcd thc possibility ol
using thc Frcnch cct to gain thc naval supcriority that thc 8ritish lcadcrship so
lcarcd. !nstcad, hc probably gavc thc cct littlc considcration, asidc lrom its usc
lulncss in achicving a lavorablc armisticc with Francc.
Howcvcr, this is historical hindsight. Tc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt did not know,
nor could it, what was going through Hitlcrs mind or what plans Gcrmany
might havc lor continuing thc war. At thc timc, it appcarcd vcry possiblc that
Gcrmany could and would attcmpt to gain control ol thc Frcnch cct in ordcr to
mount a succcsslul invasion. Although thc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt had no concrctc
inlormation indicating Gcrmany was actually contcmplating such action, it was
a distinct possibility which thcy had to takc into account. Failurc to do so could
vcry wcll havc cndcd in dclcat. !n othcr words, undcr thc spccic circumstanccs
cxisting in thc summcr ol .c, thc thrcat poscd by thc distinct possibility that
Gcrmany could gain control ovcr thc Frcnch cct was immcdiatc, ovcrwhclming,
146 Terry D. Gill
lcaving no choicc ol mcans and no momcnt lor dclibcration. !t was rcasonablc
lor 8ritain to assumc that such an attcmpt could bc madc at any timc oncc thc
bulk ol thc Frcnch cct had rcturncd to Francc and camc undcr Axis supcrvision
undcr thc tcrms ol thc armisticc. !t was also rcasonablc lor 8ritain to assumc that
oncc such an attcmpt was madc it would bc too latc. !t was rcasonablc, thcrclorc,
lor 8ritain to lorcstall this possibility at thc only timc it was assurcd ol a clcar
possibility ol succcss.
Tc samc could bc said ol thc dccision ol thc Tokyo Tribunal not to vicw
thc cclaration ol Var by thc Ncthcrlands (ast !ndics) on cccmbcr ..
as an cxcusc lor thc Japancsc invasion, which in thc cvcnt only occurrcd wccks
latcr ( Japancsc lorccs did not movc against thc utch ast !ndics until mid
January .a altcr achicving thcir initial objcctivcs clscwhcrc in thc Pacic and
South ast Asia). Tc Japancsc strikc on Pcarl Harbor on thc prcccding day
and thc opcning ol its ocnsivc across thc Pacic wcrc clcar indications that thc
Japancsc intcndcd to gain control ovcr thc cntirc Pacic and South ast Asia
rcgion. Undcr thosc circumstanccs, it was rcasonablc lor thc utch Govcrnmcnt
to assumc that it was only a mattcr ol timc bclorc thc utch ast !ndics would
bc invadcd and to takc thc stcp ol dcclaring war in thc hopc ol mounting somc
kind ol joint dclcnsc with thc Unitcd Statcs, 8ritain and Australia, rathcr than
waiting to bc pickcd o in picccmcal lashion. Tc lact that this joint dclcnsc
lailcd to thwart thc Japancsc invasion is irrclcvant in lcgal tcrms.
Turning to thc Six ay Var, it is cqually clcar that thc rcason why it is gcn
crally considcrcd a classic cxamplc ol a lawlul anticipatory sclldclcnsc is bascd
lcss on any clcar cvidcncc ol impcnding attack, than on thc lact that undcr thc
circumstanccs it was rcasonablc lor !sracl to takc thc coursc ol action it did. Tc
conduct ol !sracls ncighbors in crcating a crisis, cngaging in prcparations lor
a potcntial attack, and uttcring hostilc pronounccmcnts lormcd an immcdiatc
thrcat which justicd !sracls anticipatory action in sclldclcnsc. !rrcspcctivc ol
whcthcr such an attack was in lact on thc point ol bcing launchcd, or cvcr would
havc bccn, !sracl had cvcry rcason at thc timc to bclicvc that thcrc was a high
possibility, that an attack would bc mountcd in thc ncar luturc. How ncar was
unknown, but undcr thc circumstanccs that lact hardly mattcrcd. Likcwisc, it was
clcar that waiting would only incrcasc !sracls vulncrability, without any likcli
hood that thc situation would rcsolvc itscll.
!n short, immcdiacy in rclation to anticipatory sclldclcnsc is not primarily
a qucstion ol timc, but onc ol thc cxistcncc ol a crcdiblc thrcat ol probablc (or
in somc cascs potcntial) attack, which togcthcr with ncccssity and thc abscncc
ol lcasiblc altcrnativcs, makc anticipatory action justiablc or cvcn impcrativc.
Vhilc timc is a rclcvant considcration, it is not thc only onc, nor ncccssarily thc
most important.
Tc rcmaining two cxamplcs do not mcct thc tcst ol lawlul anticipatory
action. Tc rst, thc !sracli air strikc, csscntially lails on thc qucstion ol thc cxis
tcncc ol a crcdiblc thrcat, bascd on thc inlormation known at thc timc. vcn il
147 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
!sracl had rcason to bclicvc !raq would try to circumvcnt thc tcrms ol its purchasc
agrccmcnt and thc !AA inspcction proccdurcs, and would lurthcr attcmpt to
dcvclop and producc nuclcar wcapons, thc situation prcscntcd did not constitutc
a crcdiblc thrcat ol an attack within thc lorcsccablc luturc lor which no altcr
nativc courscs ol action wcrc availablc. !t normally takcs a Statc ycars bctwccn
gaining acccss to nuclcar tcchnology and producing nuclcar wcapons. Vith this
in mind, and taking into account thc unccrtainty ol !raqi intcntions at thc timc,
it sccms lairly clcar that !sracl was not conlrontcd in .. with thc prospcct ol
cvcn a potcntial !raqi nuclcar attack lor which no lcasiblc altcrnativcs to mili
tary action wcrc availablc. Subscqucnt cvcnts go a considcrablc way in justilying
!sracls dccision to strikc prccmptivcly, but thcy do not makc it lawlul.
Tis sccms il anything trucr ol thc US dccision to invadc !raq in acc, at
lcast insolar as that action was bascd on thc right ol (anticipatory) sclldclcnsc.
Vhatcvcr othcr justications thcrc might havc bccn, thcrc was no crcdiblc cvi
dcncc ol any !raqi intcntion or prcparation to attack thc Unitcd Statcs, cithcr on
its own, or in conccrt with or in support ol any tcrrorist group or organization.
Tcsc two cxamplcs lail to mcct thc critcria lor thc lawlul cxcrcisc ol antici
patory sclldclcnsc bccausc thcy wcrc ncithcr pcrsuasivc nor rcasonablc undcr
thc circumstanccs. At thc timc, too many unccrtaintics cxistcd rcgarding thrcats
and altcrnativc courscs ol action appcarcd to bc prcscnt.
D Te Bush Doctrine, Self-Defense and the UN
Collecti.e Security System
Tc 8ush octrinc ol prcvcntivc sclldclcnsc was sct out in thc US National
Sccurity ol Scptcmbcr acca. Tis doctrinc is awcd in a numbcr ol ways, somc
ol which havc rcccivcd signicant attcntion and somc ol which havc bccn largcly
ignorcd. Firstly, it is mistakcn in taking as its starting point thc position that
anticipatory sclldclcnsc is dcpcndcnt upon an outmodcd conccpt ol immincnt
thrcat in thc lorm ol a visiblc mobilization ol armics, navics and air lorccs lor
an attack.
6
Tcrc was no qucstion ol such a mobilization lorming an immcdiatc
thrcat in thc original Caroline incidcnt which, altcr all, only involvcd onc Grcat
Lakcs stcam vcsscl and a handlul ol activc Amcrican participants in a rcbcllion
across thc bordcr in 8ritish Canada. Nor was this thc casc with rcgard to all sub
scqucnt cxamplcs ol Statc practicc, such as thc ncutralization ol thc Frcnch cct
by thc Royal Navy in .c, or thc acc. US lcd campaign in Alghanistan.

,6 Scc n. . supra.
,, Tc invocation ol thc right ol thc Unitcd Statcs to cxcrcisc sclldclcnsc in rcponsc
to thc attack ol .. Scptcmbcr acc. and thc cnsuing usc ol lorcc against l Qaeda
and its Taliban host and ally in Alghanistan was rccognizcd or condoncd by thc
UN Sccurity Council and a varicty ol othcr Statcs and intcrnational organizations.
Likcwisc, most intcrnational lcgal authoritics havc cxprcsscd agrccmcnt that thc
cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc against Alghanistan was lawlul as such, notwithstanding
148 Terry D. Gill
!n thc lormcr cxamplc, thcrc was no qucstion ol any mobilization ol thc
Frcnch Navy lor an attack on Grcat 8ritain, rathcr thc mcrc cxistcncc ol thc
Frcnch cct, combincd with thc distinct possibility that it might lall into thc
wrong hands, constitutcd immcdiacy. !n thc lattcr, thc cxistcncc ol a signicant
Al Qacda prcscncc and inlrastructurc in Alghanistan with thc knowlcdgc and
support ol thc Taliban, togcthcr with thc occurrcncc ol a scrics ol attacks in thc
past and thc likclihood ol lurthcr attacks in thc lorcsccablc luturc, mct thc immc
diacy critcrion, thcrc was no qucstion ol a convcntional mobilization ol armcd
lorccs in thc scnsc rclcrrcd to abovc. To bc surc, such a mobilization is onc way
in which immcdiacy can bc manilcstcd, as was thc casc in rclation to thc Six ay
Var. Yct it is not, nor has it cvcr bccn, a ncccssary prccondition lor thc cxcrcisc
ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc.
Tis may appcar to somc a rathcr nitpicking criticism, wcrc it not lor thc
lact that thc statcmcnt is a prcludc to a much morc scrious aw in thc rcasoning
ol thc 8ush octrinc. Tc NSS gocs on to statc that thc conccpt ol an immc
diatc thrcat nccds to bc rcdcncd to takc account ol ncw capabilitics and objcc
tivcs ol todays advcrsarics. !t lurthcr statcs that in an agc whcrc thc cncmics
ol civilization opcnly and activcly scck thc worlds most dcstructivc tcchnologics,
thc Unitcd Statcs cannot rcmain idlc whilc dangcrs gathcr.
8
Tc csscntial problcm with this rcasoning is that, takcn togcthcr and sccn
in contcxt, it not only sccms to imply that thc cxisting conccpt ol anticipatory
sclldclcnsc is inadcquatc to dcal with contcmporary thrcats, without ocring
any cvidcncc that this is so, but also sccms to rcjcct thc basis ol thc right ol scll
dclcnsc (and thc contcmporary jus ad bellum as a wholc) on thc basis ol a pcr
ccivcd, but ncvcr rcally argucd, much lcss provcn, inability to addrcss both rcal
and potcntial thrcats. Finally, thc 8ush octrincs rcasoning attcmpts to shilt
thc paramctcrs ol immcdiacy, and thc notion ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc itscll, to
dcal with a vaguc ncw conccpt ol inchoatc thrcats which could manilcst thcm
sclvcs at somc point in thc luturc, instcad ol concrctc or probablc thrcats ol attack
within thc lorcsccablc luturc. !l thc implication ol this is that thc cxisting right
ol sclldclcnsc is inhcrcntly incapablc ol dcaling with situations in which thc
Unitcd Statcs, or any othcr Statc lor that mattcr, might nd itscll in, it is bascd
on an incorrcct prcmisc and a lundamcntal misrcading ol thc scopc ol thc right
criticism ol various aspccts ol thc conduct ol thc military campaign by somc. Scc
S.C. Rcs. .6 (acc.) and ., (acc.). A signicant numbcr ol Statcs both insidc and
outsidc thc NAT alliancc havc providcd various lorms ol military, logistical and
diplomatic support to thc US cort to cradicatc l Qaedas bascs in Alghanistan. For
support in doctrinc, scc, inter alia, Grccnwood, supra n. a and thc sourccs citcd in n.
. supra. Tc USlcd campaign was both rcactivc and, at lcast to somc cxtcnt, antici
patory, in that it was dircctcd towards not only rcsponding to thc attack ol .., but
also towards lorcstalling luturc attacks. Scc in this rcspcct e.g. Grccnwood, op.cit. a.
et seq.
, NSS ocumcnt citcd in nn. . and ,a supra at .
149 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
ol sclldclcnsc. Sclldclcnsc, combining both Chartcr and customary law, has
long includcd thc right to takc anticipatory action against concrctc and crcd
iblc thrcats ol attack, cithcr lrom Statcs or lrom othcr sourccs, irrcspcctivc ol
thc naturc ol thc attack (convcntional, irrcgular or asymmctrical) or thc typc
ol wcapons conccrncd (VM or othcr wcapons). bviously, thc right to takc
(anticipatory) action in sclldclcnsc is not unlimitcd. !t is prcdicatcd upon thc
principlcs ol ncccssity and proportionality, intcrprctcd in rclation to thc naturc
ol thc thrcat and thc availability, or lack thcrcol, ol lcasiblc altcrnativcs which
would adcquatcly addrcss thc thrcat. Tcsc arc not outmodcd conccpts, and nccd
not bc sccn as ovcrly rcstrictivc or ncccssarily condcmning a Statc to a purcly
rcactivc posturc.
Tc prcccding cxamination ol Statc practicc dcmonstratcs that thc Caroline
critcria should not bc sccn as prcvcnting a statc lrom taking thc ncccssary action
to lorcstall concrctc and crcdiblc thrcats ol attack within thc lorcsccablc luturc.
Tc conccpts ol immcdiacy and ncccssity arc capablc ol bcing applicd cxibly
and in rclation to a widc varicty ol situations. 8ut thcy arc also lundamcntal.
Vithout thcm, thcrc would bc no limits to thc usc ol lorcc undcr thc guisc ol
sclldclcnsc.
!l, howcvcr, thc implication put lorward in thc US NSS is that sclldclcnsc
is or should bc rclcvant to situations in which only thc gcncral possibility ol attack
lrom an indctcrminatc sourcc and at somc indctcrminatc point in thc luturc
cxists, a total rcdcnition ol thc cntirc conccpt ol sclldclcnsc and thc complctc
rcplaccmcnt ol thc prcscnt lcgal systcm govcrning thc usc ol lorcc would rcsult.
Sclldclcnsc howcvcr dcncd, has always bccn linkcd to thc cxistcncc ol a con
crctc (thrcat ol an) attack within at lcast thc lorcsccablc luturc. Vhilc this is not
ncccssarily thc immcdiatc tcmporal luturc in thc scnsc ol minutcs, hours or cvcn
days, thc principlcs ol immcdiacy and ncccssity arc ccntral to thc conccpt ol scll
dclcnsc itscll and cannot bc opcn cndcd as thc NSS implics.
!t sccms clcar lrom thc lorcgoing that thc position put lorward in thc NSS
lails on at lcast two counts. Firstly, thc cxisting right ol sclldclcnsc is in lact
capablc ol bcing applicd to contcmporary thrcats and is adcquatc to countcr
such concrctc thrcats ol attack. Sccondly, sclldclcnsc is not rclcvant in situations
whcrc no such concrctc thrcat ol attack cxists.
Undcr thc contcmporary lcgal systcm, thc usc ol lorcc othcr than in scll
dclcnsc can only bc undcrtakcn by thc Sccurity Council, or by a rcgional organi
zation or a (coalition ol ) Statc(s) acting undcr thc authorization ol thc Council.
Tc Council has cxtcnsivc powcrs to takc any mcasurcs it dctcrmincs arc rcquircd,
including thc usc ol military lorcc to dcal with situations othcr than sclldclcnsc
in rcsponsc to an attack or concrctc thrcat ol attack. To bc surc, it has not always
uscd thosc powcrs ccctivcly. Room rcmains lor considcrablc improvcmcnt in
its ccctivcncss and lcgitimacy. nc possibility would bc to work towards somc
kind ol cohcrcnt intcrnational sccurity stratcgy to dcal with thc gcncral long
tcrm problcms ol thc possibility ol prolilcration ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction,
150 Terry D. Gill
intcrnational tcrrorism and thc undcrlying structural problcms which contributc
to and aggravatc thcsc phcnomcna.

Tis is a task bcyond thc capacity ol any

singlc Statc or group ol Statcs, but it would complcmcnt thc corts and poli
cics ol Statcs sccking to addrcss such problcms. Tc option docs not cvcn sccm
to bc considcrcd in thc NSS. !ndccd, it makcs no mcntion ol thc UN collcctivc
sccurity systcm at all. Tis is an additional rcason why it has gcncratcd so much
discussion.
Tc answcr to this challcngc to thc prcscnt lcgal structurc govcrning thc usc
ol lorcc is twolold. Firstly, it is ncccssary to rcach a rcalistic undcrstanding ol thc
scopc and limits ol sclldclcnsc which takcs into account thc possibility ol antici
patory action in rcsponsc to concrctc thrcats ol attack. !t would includc situations
involving pcrsuasivc cvidcncc ol probablc attack within thc lorcsccablc luturc (in
accordancc with thc Caroline critcria), but would not scck to cxtcnd thc conccpt
to situations whcrc no concrctc thrcat cxists. Nor would it substitutc sclldclcnsc
lor collcctivc sccurity. Sccondly, a scrious attcmpt to utilizc thc Chartcrs col
lcctivc sccurity systcm is rcquircd in situations not covcrcd by sclldclcnsc. Tis
would includc an cort by thc Council and thc broadcr intcrnational community
to work out a cohcrcnt stratcgy, and thc mcans to implcmcnt it, lor dcaling with
thrcats to intcrnational sccurity to which no gcncrally acccptablc conccpt ol scll
dclcnsc applics.
Tc Unitcd Nations collcctivc sccurity systcm and a rcalistically intcrprctcd
right ol sclldclcnsc groundcd in customary and Chartcr law combinc to lorm
a potcntially ccctivc lcgal and political structurc capablc ol dcaling with a widc
varicty ol situations. 8clorc abandoning this structurc, it sccms rcasonablc to try
to adapt it to mcct currcnt and luturc thrcats to intcrnational sccurity and to
individual Statcs.
, nc rcasonablc attcmpt which has bccn madc to addrcss thc problcms ol thc UN
in gcncral and thc UN collcctivc sccurity systcm in particular, as wcll as providc a
lramcwork and starting point lor a cohcrcnt intcrnational sccurity stratcgy is thc
Rcport ol thc Highlcvcl Pancl ol xpcrts on Trcats, Challcngcs and Changc
drawn up at thc rcqucst ol UN SccrctaryGcncral Anan and transmittcd to thc
UN Gcncral Asscmbly lor considcration at its annual scssion in Scptcmbcr acc
as UN oc. A//6 ol a cccmbcr acc. Tc Rcport addrcsscs thc rclationship
ol (anticipatory) sclldclcnsc to thc UN collcctivc sccurity systcm in its Part Trcc
at et seq. Vhilc thc suggcstions madc in thc Rcport rcgarding this rclationship
and thc paramctcrs ol sclldclcnsc arc not abovc criticism and wcrc not actcd upon
by thc Gcncral Asscmbly at its acc annual scssion, this docs not mcan thcy do not
dcscrvc scrious considcration. Tc Rcport ocrs a usclul stating point lor a dcbatc
conccrning thc rolc ol thc UN collcctivc sccurity systcm and its rclationship with
sclldclcnsc, onc which should bc takcn up at thc carlicst possiblc timc.
151 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
IV Te Temporal imension of the Right of Self-efense II:
Immediacy as the ividing Iine between Self-efense and Reprisal
Introductory Femarks
!mmcdiacy in thc contcxt ol thc Caroline critcria lor anticipatory sclldclcnsc is
synonymous with thc cxistcncc ol an immincnt or immcdiatc thrcat ol an armcd
attack. !t is not primarily a qucstion ol timc, but rathcr thc cxistcncc ol a crcdiblc
thrcat ol probablc or, in somc cascs, cvcn potcntial attack. Tc spccic, lactual
circumstanccs ol cach particular situation arc dctcrminativc.
Vc now turn to immcdiacy in a morc gcncral scnsc, as onc ol thc corc critc
ria (alongsidc ncccssity and proportionality) lor thc usc ol lorcc in sclldclcnsc.
8o

!n this rcgard, immcdiacy is oltcn sccn as thc dividing linc bctwccn sclldclcnsc
and armcd rcprisal. According to this approach, immcdiacy implics a duty on
thc part ol thc dclcnding Statc to cxcrcisc thc right ol sclldclcnsc vcry shortly
altcr thc armcd attack. Any armcd rcsponsc not mccting this rcquircmcnt would
instcad constitutc an armcd rcprisal, which is gcncrally considcrcd illcgal undcr
contcmporary intcrnational law. !n this paragraph, wc cxaminc whcthcr such a
rcquircmcnt in lact lorms part ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc.
B Immediacy as an Independent Criterion for the Exercise of the
Fight of Self-Defense
Tc contcntion that sclldclcnsc is subjcct to a rcquircmcnt ol immcdiatc cxcr
cisc can bc traccd to two sourccs. Tc rst is a common association ol thc intcrna
tional law ol sclldclcnsc with thc conccpt ol pcrsonal sclldclcnsc against illcgal
assault undcr domcstic criminal law. Tc sccond is thc undcrstandablc dcsirc to
distinguish bctwccn thc right ol sclldclcnsc undcr thc Chartcr and customary
intcrnational law lrom thc conccpt ol armcd rcprisal, which has no lcgal basis
undcr contcmporary intcrnational law.
8+
Vith rcgard to thc rst ol thcsc rcasons, it would appcar that cvcn whcrc
no dircct link is claimcd to cxist bctwccn thc intcrnational and domcstic law
rights ol sclldclcnsc, much thinking rcgarding thc lormcr is inucnccd by thc
scopc and limitations ol thc lattcr variant. Undcr thc domcstic criminal law, scll
dclcnsc is gcncrally a narrow ground lor justilying what would othcrwisc bc
c Scc n. and accompanying tcxt supra.
. n thc illcgality ol punitivc armcd rcprisals, scc inter alia instcin, supra n. , a..6
(whcrc hc distinguishcs bctwccn dclcnsivc and punitivc armcd rcprisals) and 8arsotti,
Armcd Rcprisals in A. Casscsc (cd.), Te Current Legal Fegulation of the Use of Force
(.6) , et seq. Scc also thc rclcrcncc to thc illcgality ol (pcacc timc) armcd rcprisal
in UNGA Rcs. a6a (xxv) ol .,c cclaration on Principlcs ol !ntcrnational Law
Conccrning Fricndly Rclations and Coopcration among Statcs in accordancc with
thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations (thc Fricndly Rclations cclaration).
152 Terry D. Gill
criminal bchavior. !t is tcmporary and rcstrictcd. Tc loundational prcmisc is, ol
coursc, that thc Statc bcars thc rcsponsibility and solc right to maintain public
ordcr and uphold thc domcstic lcgal ordcr. l coursc, not all Statcs arc capablc
ol lullling thcsc rcsponsibilitics. Howcvcr, thc morc stablc and wcll ordcrcd a
socicty and its Statc structurc, thc morc rcstrictivc thc right ol sclldclcnsc undcr
domcstic law is likcly to bc.
!t is almost impossiblc to imaginc a domcstic criminal law sccnario in which
an individual would bc justicd in taking action in sclldclcnsc othcr than cithcr
at thc momcnt an illcgal assault took placc or (pcrhaps) just immcdiatcly bclorc
or altcr it occurrcd. ncc any apprcciablc amount ol timc had lapscd, it would bc
cxtrcmcly dicult to lcgally justily any typc ol violcnt rcsponsc.
Howcvcr, thc right ol Statcs to cxcrcisc sclldclcnsc undcr intcrnational law
cannot bc comparcd to thc domcstic rights ol individuals. cspitc thc common
roots ol thc two variants in natural law doctrinc, thcy arc complctcly distinct,
opcrating within totally dicrcnt contcxts and cnvironmcnts.
!ntcrnational rclations and thc corrcsponding intcrnational lcgal ordcr arc
charactcrizcd by a dcgrcc ol dcccntralization and horizontalism which radically
dicr lrom a wcll ordcrcd and stablc domcstic lcgal ordcr. !ndividuals arc not
Statcs and thc Sccurity Council is by no mcans a world govcrnmcnt cxcrcising
control ovcr an cstablishcd and ccctivc criminal justicc systcm.
As to thc sccond sourcc, thc qucstion is whcthcr thc distinction bctwccn
lcgitimatc sclldclcnsc and illcgal armcd rcprisal lics principally in thc lapsc
ol timc bctwccn an attack and rcsponsc, or whcthcr othcr lactors, such as thc
rcsponscs naturc, purposc and objcctivc, arc in lact morc important. Vhilc scll
dclcnsc and armcd rcprisal arc both lorms ol scllhclp, and thcrcby havc ccrtain
common charactcristics, thcy arc distinct in tcrms ol purposcs and objcctivcs. Tc
purposc ol sclldclcnsc is to ward o and, il ncccssary, dclcat an attack. Armcd
rcprisals rcdrcss an injusticc and mctc out punishmcnt to thc wrongdocr. Tc
grcy arca bctwccn sclldclcnsc and rcprisals is somctimcs rclcrrcd to as dclcnsivc
armcd rcprisals, arguably a particular typc ol sclldclcnsc blcnding clcmcnts ol
both.
8:
!n any casc, thc qucstion ol whcthcr a particular action qualics as scll
dclcnsc dcpcnds primarily on whcthcr such action was ncccssary to ward o an
a Tis is thc position takcn by instcin, op. cit. a. et seq. Vhilc his argumcnts arc gcn
crally pcrsuasivc, thcrc sccms to bc a ccrtain inconsistcncy in his support ol dclcnsivc
armcd rcprisals on thc onc hand and his rcjcction ol anticipatory action or at lcast
his rcstriction ol such action to what hc rclcrs to as intcrccptivc sclldclcnsc. !l
dclcnsivc armcd rcprisals lorm part ol sclldclcnsc, it must bc so primarily bccausc
thcy arc dircctcd towards thc prcvcntion ol lurthcr or rccurring attacks at somc
point in thc luturc. 8y its naturc, such action includcs an clcmcnt ol anticipatory
sclldclcnsc which is not ncccssarily rcstrictcd to thc intcrccption ol an attack that
has bccn initiatcd. An cxamplc ol such an cxcrcisc ol sclldclcnsc which was both
partly a dclcnsivc armcd rcprisal and partly an act ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc was
thc US and Allicd rcsponsc to thc .. attack by mcans ol a countcr attack against
Al Qacda and thc Taliban in Alghanistan, rclcrrcd to in n. ,, supra. !t sccms to this
153 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
ongoing (or dctcr a continuing) attack, and not whcthcr thc rcsponsc immcdi
atcly lollowcd thc attack.
Tcrc arc various rcasons why immcdiacy applicd in this scnsc should not
scrvc as a litmus tcst lor whcthcr a particular action qualics as sclldclcnsc
rathcr than rcprisal. Tc rst is that sclldclcnsc is not subjcct to such a rcquirc
mcnt undcr cithcr customary law or thc Chartcr. !n many situations, Statcs may
not bc in a position to rcspond immcdiatcly. Rcasons could includc a lack ol mili
tary prcparcdncss, thc timc involvcd in dcploying lorccs ovcr largc distanccs, an
imbalancc in military capabilitics bctwccn thc attacking and dclcnding Statcs,
thc nccd to consult with allics, and so lorth. nc particular circumstancc might
bc a socallcd indircct attack carricd out covcrtly or through third partics such
as armcd bands, tcrrorist groups and thc likc, acting undcr thc dircction ol or in
coopcration with a Statc. !n such cascs, it will not always bc clcar who authorcd
thc attack, so thc victim will havc to assurc itscll and othcr Statcs and intcrna
tional actors that its rcsponsc in sclldclcnsc is actually dircctcd against thosc
rcsponsiblc (and is bascd on rcasonablc cvidcncc).
8
Tc sccond rcason why immcdiacy docs not scrvc as a rcquircmcnt that
dclcnsivc action must lollow an attack quickly or not at all lics in thc undcr
lying purposc and rationalc ol sclldclcnsc. Although linkcd to thc rst sct ol
considcrations, it is in lact lundamcntal. An armcd attack is a scrious thrcat to a
Statcs indcpcndcncc and intcgrity so scrious that it givcs risc to thc only clcarly
acccptcd cxccption to thc prohibition ol thc usc ol lorcc. Tcrc is no pcrsuasivc
rcason why a Statc should bc cxpcctcd to lorlcit its rights to intcgrity and indc
pcndcncc simply bccausc it is not in a position to instantly rcspond militarily.
To acccpt such a condition would bc tantamount to acccpting a gross incquality
in thc intcrnational lcgal rights ol Statcs. A powcrlul Statc with thc mcans to
author that it is morc a qucstion ol thc rcasoning uscd than thc conclusions rcachcd
by dicrcnt routcs that scparatc our rcspcctivc positions.
For problcms rclating to cvidcncc ol thc sourcc ol attacks cspccially indircct attacks
in thc lacc ol dcnials and rclatcd conduct, scc nn. ca supra. !t is submittcd that
thcrc must bc crcdiblc and pcrsuasivc cvidcncc as to thc sourcc ol a particular attack.
Tis is pcrhaps cvcn morc thc casc in rclation to thc cxcrcisc ol anticipatory scll
dclcnsc, whcrc thc possibility ol crror (bascd upon laulty or incomplctc inlorma
tion or intclligcncc) is scllcvidcnt. Howcvcr, this docs not signily that thc cvidcncc
should bc hcld to thc samc standard as in criminal procccdings. !t would bc unrca
sonablc to imposc such a high burdcn ol prool in rclation to intcrStatc sclldclcnsc.
Vhcrc a Statc can makc out a casc bascd on pcrsuasivc cvidcncc which is highly
suggcstivc, to usc thc tcrminology ol thc !CJ in thc Oil Platform casc, thcrc is in
principlc a basis ol taking action in sclldclcnsc, including anticipatory sclldclcnsc.
Tis is a fortiori thc casc whcn a Statc has contributcd to a pcrccption on thc part
ol thc rcacting Statc that it approvcs, condoncs or othcrwisc thrcatcns thc rcacting
Statc by its own conduct. !n any casc, it should bc clcar that mcrc dcnial ol rcspon
sibility should not bc takcn at lacc valuc any morc than mcrc allcgations ol rcspon
sibility that arc unsupportcd by lurthcr cvidcncc should bc.
154 Terry D. Gill
rcspond instantly would havc morc right to dclcnd itscll than onc lcss ablc to do
so. Tis is not an acccptablc outcomc, nor onc rcccting thc undcrlying purposc
ol sclldclcnsc or, lor that mattcr, ol thc Chartcr itscll.
!n sum, whilc immcdiacy scrvcs as a corc clcmcnt ol sclldclcnsc, it must
bc intcrprctcd rcasonably. First, it should not bc conluscd with thc right ol scll
dclcnsc in domcstic criminal law. Sccond, a Statc must bc allowcd thc ncccssary
timc to ovcrcomc practical and lcgal hurdlcs bclorc it dccidcs to rcact. Tc dctcr
mining lactor is thc purposc and naturc ol its rcaction, not whcthcr it takcs action
within an articially short timc span. Vhcthcr onc sccs immcdiacy uscd in this
scnsc as an indcpcndcnt critcrion alongsidc ncccssity and proportionality, or as
lorming part ol thc critcrion ol ncccssity is immatcrial, thc point is that a Statc
cxcrcising sclldclcnsc should do so within a rcasonablc pcriod, on thc basis ol
pcrsuasivc cvidcncc and with a vicw towards thwarting or, whcrc ncccssary, ovcr
coming thc attack and rcmoving thc thrcat ol lurthcr attack.
V Iinal Conclusions
!n this articlc wc havc cxamincd thc tcmporal dimcnsion ol sclldclcnsc. Vc
havc also lookcd at thc qucstions and challcngcs poscd by thc National Sccurity
Stratcgy rcgulating thc usc ol lorcc and in thosc contcxts lookcd at thc rcla
tionship bctwccn sclldclcnsc and thc collcctivc sccurity systcm ol thc Unitcd
Nations. Vith rcgard to anticipatory sclldclcnsc, a right to takc such antici
patory action has long cxistcd undcr customary intcrnational law. !t continucs
to cxist undcr thc Chartcr. Longstanding Statc practicc spanning ovcr sixty
ycars lollowing adoption ol thc Chartcr, togcthcr with signicant cvidcncc ol thc
opinio juris in thc lorm ol thc Caroline critcria as a sct ol guiding principlcs, sup
port its continual vitality.
Tc cxamplcs analyzcd abovc makc it clcar that lull account must bc givcn
to thc rclcvant circumstanccs ol cach spccic situation. !n doing so, thc conccpt
ol an immcdiatc or immincnt thrcat ol attack rcvcals itscll as a cxiblc onc. !t
allows a Statc to takc anticipatory action whcn thcrc is pcrsuasivc cvidcncc ol thc
cxistcncc ol a probablc or, in cxccptional circumstanccs, cvcn a potcntial thrcat ol
attack within thc lorcsccablc luturc. !t is cqually clcar that although this conccpt
is cxiblc, it is not opcn cndcd, lor it docs not allow taking anticipatory action
abscnt a crcdiblc thrcat ol attack, nor would it pcrmit prcvcntivc action against
thc mcrc possibility ol attack at somc indctcrminatc point. Tis is why thc acca
US NSS, somctimcs rclcrrcd to as thc 8ush octrinc, has provcn to bc so con
trovcrsial, its acccptancc would totally rcwritc thc lcgal systcm govcrning thc usc
ol lorcc. Tc bcttcr altcrnativc consists ol rcasonably applying thc cxisting law ol
anticipatory sclldclcnsc with utilization ol thc UN collcctivc sccurity systcm.
!t is cqually csscntial to rcasonably intcrprct thc rcquircmcnt ol immc
diacy. Such an intcrprctation must not rcstrict dclcnsivc mcasurcs to mcrc
rcaction, or intcrccption ol, an attack, but rathcr includcs actions ol a truly antici
155 3 Te Temporal Dimension of Self-Defense
patory charactcr in thc lacc ol a clcar and concrctc thrcat ol an attack within thc
lorcsccablc luturc, subjcct, ol coursc, to thc additional Caroline critcria ol ncccs
sity and proportionality. Tat is thc limit ol sclldclcnsc lor it to rcmain such. !n
rclation to thrcats and situations which do not constitutc such thrcats ol attack,
thcrc can bc no rolc lor sclldclcnsc. Tat is why thc notion ol prcvcntivc scll
dclcnsc in rclation to inchoatc thrcats possibly occurring at somc indctcrminatc
luturc point, as advanccd in thc 8ush octrinc, is inconsistcnt with acccptablc
intcrprctation ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc.
Vith rcgard to immcdiacy as a gcncral critcrion, no rcquircmcnt cxists lor
dclcnsivc action to bc cxcrciscd or risk lorlciturc immcdiatcly lollowing an armcd
attack. Acccptancc ol such a rcquircmcnt would in somc cascs lorcc a Statc to
attcmpt sclldclcnsc whcn it was at a scvcrc disadvantagc, or causc it to act on
thc basis ol incomplctc inlormation. !t would ignorc military, political, and lcgal
rcalitics. Morcovcr, it is incquitablc, and violatcs onc ol thc ccntral tcncts ol thc
intcrnational lcgal systcm that sovcrcign Statcs cnjoy cquality, indcpcndcncc
and sccurity.
Tc right ol sclldclcnsc must rccct thc rcalitics ol thc intcrnational systcm
and thc aspirations ol thc intcrnational community. !ntcrnational law providcs
Statcs with thc inhcrcnt right to dclcnd thcmsclvcs, whilc making thc cxcrcisc
ol that right subjcct to lcgal rcgulation within gcncrally acccptcd principlcs and
tcrms ol asscssmcnt. !t is submittcd that Sccrctary Vcbstcrs lormulation ol thcsc
guiding principlcs, whcn applicd in contcxt, docs just that. Tc principlcs hold as
truc today as whcn thcy wcrc rst sct out ovcr a ccntury and a hall ago.
Chapter 6
Rcsponding to Transnational Tcrrorism undcr thc Jus ad
Bellum: A Normativc Framcwork
Michael N. Schmitt
n April , .6, tcrrorists bombcd 8crlins La 8cllc discothcquc, a bar lrcqucntcd
by US military pcrsonncl. nc Amcrican soldicr and onc Turkish woman wcrc
killcd and ncarly acc othcr patrons injurcd. Prior to thc attack, US intclligcncc
intcrccptcd communications to thc Libyan Pcoplcs 8urcau in thc city ordcring
an attack on Amcricans. thcr intcrccpts, collcctcd both bclorc and altcr thc
bombing, lurthcr substantiatcd Libyan involvcmcnt.
Tcn days latcr, thc Unitcd Statcs rcspondcd with pcration l orado
Canyon, a strikc involving somc acc aircralt targcting tcrrorist and Libyan gov
crnmcnt lacilitics in Tripoli and 8cnghazi, including a rcsidcncc ol Libyan lcadcr
Muammar clQada. Tc intcrnational rcaction was ovcrwhclmingly criti
cal. Tc Unitcd Nations Gcncral Asscmbly condcmncd thc attack as a vio
lation ol thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations and ol intcrnational law,
+
whilc
Sccrctary Gcncral Javicr Pcrcz dc Cucllar publicly dcplorcd thc military action
by onc mcmbcr statc against anothcr.
:
Tc rcaction ol individual Statcs, with
thc notablc cxccptions ol thc Unitcd Kingdom (lrom which somc ol thc aircralt
launchcd) and !sracl, was likcwisc unsupportivc.

!ndccd, aircralt bascd in thc

Tc vicws cxprcsscd in this articlc arc thosc ol thc author in his privatc capacity and
arc not mcant to ncccssarily rccct thosc ol thc Unitcd Statcs or Gcrman govcrn
mcnts.
. GA Rcs. ./ (Nov. ac, .6).
a lainc Sciolino, ttack on Libya: Te !ie. from Capital Hill. Nvw Yovx Ti:vs, Apr.
.6, .6, at A.,.
For instancc, Shimon Pcrcs, thc !sracli Primc Ministcr, statcd thc Amcrican action
bcnctcd thc wholc lrcc world, which was bccoming morc and morc a victim ol irrc
sponsiblc tcrrorism. !t is good that a major powcr likc thc Unitcd Statcs took stcps to
cut o thc arm ol thc tcrrorists, at lcast onc ol thcm. Jonathan 8rodcr, Israelis Praise
It !hile rabs !o. to .enge It, Cnic~co Tvinuxv, Apr. .6, .6, at A. n thc rcac
tion to thc strikc, scc V. Michacl Rcisman, International Legal Fesponses to Terrorism,
aa Hous:ox Jouvx~i ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w , (.) lor a dcscription ol
thc intcrnational rcaction. Scc also Stuart G. 8akcr, Comparing the z,, U.S irstrike
on Iraq to the z,8o Bombing of Libya: Te Ne. Interpretation of rticle z, a Gvovci~
Jouvx~i v !x:vvx~:iox~i ~xb Co:v~v~:ivv L~w (.).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), !ntcrnational Law and Armcd Conict: xploring thc Faultlincs
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. z,-z,.
158 Michael N. Schmitt
Unitcd Kingdom had to transit thc Strait ol Gibraltar bccausc thc Unitcd Statcs
could not sccurc ovcright rights lrom countrics, including NAT ally Francc,
along thc most dircct routc to thc targct arca.

Filtccn ycars latcr, on .. Scptcmbcr acc., mcmbcr ol al Qacda, a shadowy

tcrrorist nctwork opcrating lrom somc 6c countrics, scizcd control ol lour air
cralt, ying two into thc Vorld Tradc Ccntcr, and a third into thc Pcntagon.
Tc lourth crashcd in Pcnnsylvania lollowing a valiant attcmpt by passcngcrs to
rcgain control ol thc aircralt. !n all, ncarly ,ccc pcoplc dicd, thc citizcns ol ovcr
.cc nations. Tc nancial impact ol thc attack has bccn cstimatcd in thc hun
drcds ol billions ol dollars.

Tc Unitcd Statcs and its coalition partncrs rcspondcd on ctobcr ,
th

by attacking both al Qacda and Taliban targcts in Alghanistan. Not only did
thc intcrnational community rclrain lrom condcmning pcration nduring
Frccdom (F), but many Statcs providcd vcrbal and matcrial support. Tc
Unitcd Nations and othcr intcrgovcrnmcntal organizations trcatcd thc /.. tcr
rorist strikcs as mcriting military action in sclldclcncc, cvcn as thc Unitcd Statcs
oustcd thc Taliban rcgimc, which no crcdiblc sourcc citcd as bchind thc attacks.
Tcrc is littlc qucstion but that thc intcrnational normativc undcrstandings
rcgarding thc application ol thc jus ad bellum, that componcnt ol intcrnational
law which govcrns whcn Statcs may rcsort to lorcc, had changcd dramatically.
6

Tis contribution to honour Prolcssor Yoram instcin on thc occasion ol his
,c
th
birthday cxplorcs thc rclationship bctwccn tcrrorism and intcrnational law
undcr thc jus ad bellum. !t is a particularly appositc topic, lor Prolcssor instcin
has authorcd thc scminal tcxt on thc topic, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence.

Now in its
th
cdition, it has bccomc a classic in thc ncarly two dccadcs sincc its
rclcasc.
Vith rcgard to tcrrorism, Prolcssor instcin has addcd a scparatc scction
on armcd attacks by nonStatc actors to thc currcnt cdition ol his tomc. thcr
aspccts ol thc tcxt rclcvant to tcrrorism havc also bccn rcviscd. Such rcvisions
arc lar lrom surprising. Largcscalc transnational tcrrorism compcllcd thc intcr
Military aircralt arc pcrmittcd transit passagc through intcrnational straits, i.c.,
a strait in tcrritorial watcrs (including ovcrlapping tcrritorial watcrs ol multiplc
Statcs) linking two parts ol thc high scas (or cxclusivc cconomic zoncs). Scc Tc
Commandcrs Handbook on thc Law ol Naval Varlarc (NVP ..M, MCVP
a.., CMPU8 Pcc.,) (.), at para. a.....
Tc Comptrollcr ol Ncw York City cstimatcd thc cost to thc city alonc at s billion.
Richard Vray, NY Counts Cost of ,zz, Tnv Gu~vbi~x Uxii:i:vb, Scpt. , acca,
at www.guardian.co.uk/scptcmbcr../story/c,..ac,,6a6,cc.html. Financial losscs
and thc cost to thc US govcrnmcnt dwarls that gurc.
6 For a discussion ol such issucs, scc Michacl N. Schmitt, Counter-terrorism and the Use
of Force in International La., a !sv~vi Yv~vnoox ox Hu:~x Ricn:s (acca).
, Yoram instcin, V~v, Accvvssiox ~xb Svivvvvxcv, (
th
cd., Cambridgc,
acc).
159 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
national community to discovcr a normativc architccturc govcrning thc lcgal
bascs lor countcrtcrrorism that had thcrctolorc bccn rathcr obscurc. Spccically,
although traditionally vicwcd as a mattcr lor law cnlorccmcnt, Statcs and intcr
govcrnmcntal organizations now stylc tcrrorism as justilying, with ccrtain condi
tions, thc usc ol military lorcc pursuant to thc jus ad bellum. !t is not so much that
thc law has changcd as it is that cxisting law is bcing applicd in a nasccnt contcxt.
!n law, as in all othcr aspccts ol intcrnational sccurity, what onc sccs dcpcnds on
whcrc onc stands.
I Te Jus ad Bellum Schema
Sct out in thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr, thc jus ad bellum schcma is lincar. Pursuant
to Articlc a(), Statcs Party to thc Chartcr agrcc to rclrain in thcir intcrnational
rclations lrom thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc against thc tcrritorial intcgrity or polit
ical indcpcndcncc ol any statc, or in any othcr manncr inconsistcnt with thc
Purposcs ol thc Unitcd Nations.
8
Tcrc arc two univcrsally acccptcd cxccptions
to thc prohibition.
Security Council Mandate
Tc rst occurs whcn thc Sccurity Council dctcrmincs pursuant to Articlc
that a brcach ol thc pcacc, act ol aggrcssion, or thrcat to thc pcacc cxists.

Having madc such a dctcrmination, and having attcmptcd to rcsolvc thc situ
ation through nonlorcclul mcasurcs as rcquircd by Articlc . (or dctcrmining
that thcy would provc lruitlcss),
+o
thc Council may authorizc thc usc ol lorcc
to maintain or rcstorc intcrnational pcacc and sccurity pursuant to Articlc a.
++

Such actions arc known variously as Chaptcr \!!, pcacc cnlorccmcnt, or collcc
tivc sccurity opcrations.
UN Chartcr, art. a().
UN Chartcr, art. . Tc Sccurity Council shall dctcrminc thc cxistcncc ol any
thrcat to thc pcacc, brcach ol thc pcacc, or act ol aggrcssion and shall makc rccom
mcndations, or dccidc what mcasurcs shall bc takcn in accordancc with Articlcs .
and a, to maintain or rcstorc intcrnational pcacc and sccurity.
.c UN Chartcr, art. .. Tc Sccurity Council may dccidc what mcasurcs not involving
thc usc ol armcd lorcc arc to bc cmploycd to givc ccct to its dccisions, and it may
call upon thc Mcmbcrs ol thc Unitcd Nations to apply such mcasurcs. Tcsc may
includc complctc or partial intcrruption ol cconomic rclations and ol rail, sca, air,
postal, tclcgraphic, radio, and othcr mcans ol communication, and thc scvcrancc ol
diplomatic rclations.
.. UN Chartcr, art. a. Should thc Sccurity Council considcr that mcasurcs providcd
lor in Articlc . would bc inadcquatc or havc provcd to bc inadcquatc, it may takc
such action by air, sca, or land lorccs as may bc ncccssary to maintain or rcstorc intcr
national pcacc and sccurity. Such action may includc dcmonstrations, blockadc, and
othcr opcrations by air, sca, or land lorccs ol Mcmbcrs ol thc Unitcd Nations.
160 Michael N. Schmitt
!n thc cycs ol thc Sccurity Council, intcrnational tcrrorism qualics as a thrcat
to intcrnational pcacc and sccurity. !t madc cxactly that nding thc vcry day altcr
thc attacks ol Scptcmbcr ..
th
. !n Rcsolution .6, thc Council |u|ncquivocally
condcmn|cd| in thc strongcst tcrms thc horrilying tcrrorist attacks which took
placc on .. Scptcmbcr acc. in Ncw York, Vashington, .C. and Pcnnsylvania
and regards such acts, likc any act ol intcrnational tcrrorism, as a thrcat to intcr
national pcacc and sccurity.
+:
Notc thc scopc ol thc Councils charactcrization ol any act ol intcrnational
tcrrorism as a thrcat to intcrnational pcacc and sccurity. !t did so again on a
Scptcmbcr in Rcsolution .,, which cncouragcd intcrnational coopcration in
thc ght against tcrrorism, spccically through implcmcntation ol intcrnational
convcntions.
+
Tc Rcsolution lurthcr |u|ncquivocally condcmn|cd| all acts,
mcthods and practiccs ol tcrrorism as criminal and unjustiablc, rcgardlcss ol
thcir motivation, in all thcir lorms and manilcstations, whcrcvcr and by whom
cvcr committcd, in particular thosc which could thrcatcn intcrnational pcacc and
sccurity ... .
n .a Novcmbcr, thc Council adoptcd Rcsolution .,,, to which a Ministcrial
lcvcl dcclaration on tcrrorism was attachcd. Tc dcclaration brandcd intcrna
tional tcrrorism onc ol thc most scrious thrcats to intcrnational pcacc and sccu
rity in thc twcntyrst ccntury, dcclarcd it a challcngc to all Statcs and to all
ol humanity, rcarmcd thc Councils uncquivocal condcmnation ol all acts,
mcthods and practiccs ol tcrrorism as criminal and unjustiablc, rcgardlcss ol
thcir motivation, in all thcir lorms and manilcstations, whcrcvcr and by whom
cvcr committcd, and callcd on all Statcs to intcnsily thcir corts to climinatc
thc scourgc ol intcrnational tcrrorism.
+
Sincc thcn, thc Sccurity Council has
charactcrizcd tcrrorist attacks as thrcats to intcrnational pcacc and sccurity with
.a SC Rcs. .6 (Scpt. .a, acc.).
. SC Rcs. ., (Scpt. a, acc.). Tc rcsolution rcarmcd Rcsolution .,, as wcll as
SC Rcsolution .a6 (ct. ., .), which had |u|ncquivocally condcmn|cd|all acts,
mcthods and practiccs ol tcrrorism as criminal and unjustiablc, rcgardlcss ol thcir
motivation, in all thcir lorms and manilcstations, whcrcvcr and by whomcvcr com
mittcd, in particular thosc which could thrcatcn intcrnational pcacc and sccurity.
Scc also SC Rcs. . ( Jan. .,, acc), SC Rcs. 66 (ct. , acc), SC Rcs. .a6 ( Jan.
c, acc), SC Rcs.. (Mar. a6, acc), and SC Rcs..6., ( July a, acc).
. SC Rcs. .,, (Nov. .a, acc.). !n acc, thc Council, mccting at thc Forcign Ministcr
Lcvcl, adoptcd a similar dcclaration. SC Rcs. .6 ( Jan. ac, acc). At thc acc
Sccurity Council Summit, Rcsolution .6a (Scpt. ., acc) was adoptcd, again call
ing on Mcmbcr Statcs to intcnsily thcir domcstic and intcrnational corts to combat
tcrrorism.
161 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
grcat rcgularity: 8ali (acca),
+
Moscow (acca),
+6
Kcnya (acca),
+
8ogot (acc),
+8

!stanbul (acc),
+
Madrid (acc),
:o
London (acc),
:+
and !raq (acc).
::
!t is, thcrclorc, irrclutablc that intcrnational tcrrorism constitutcs a qualily
ing condition prcccdcnt to Articlc a action. n rcpcatcd occasions, thc Council,
cxcrcising its Chaptcr \!! powcrs, has cncouragcd, and somctimcs rcquircd, Statcs
to coopcratc in combating intcrnational tcrrorism. Most notably, in Rcsolution
.,, it obligcd thcm to, inter alia, prcvcnt thc nancing ol tcrrorism, criminalizc
thc collcction ol lunds lor tcrrorist purposcs, lrcczc thc nancial asscts ol anyonc
who participatcs in, or lacilitatcs, tcrrorism, and takc any stcps ncccssary to prc
vcnt tcrrorist acts, including passing carlywarning inlormation to othcr Statcs.
rawing on thc rcccnt Taliban cxpcricncc, thc Rcsolution additionally instructcd
Statcs to |r|clrain lrom providing any lorm ol support, activc or passivc, to cnti
tics or pcrsons involvcd in tcrrorist acts, including by supprcssing rccruitmcnt
ol mcmbcrs ol tcrrorist groups and climinating thc supply ol wcapons to tcr
rorists, |d|cny salc havcn to thosc who nancc, plan, support, or commit tcr
rorist acts, or providc salc havcns, |p|rcvcnt thosc who nancc, plan, lacilitatc or
commit tcrrorist acts lrom using thcir rcspcctivc tcrritorics lor thosc purposcs
against othcr Statcs or thcir citizcns, and |c|nsurc that any pcrson who par
ticipatcs in thc nancing, planning, prcparation or pcrpctration ol tcrrorist acts
or in supporting tcrrorist acts is brought to justicc and cnsurc that, in addition
to any othcr mcasurcs against thcm, such tcrrorist acts arc cstablishcd as scrious
criminal ocnccs in domcstic laws and rcgulations and that thc punishmcnt duly
rcccts thc scriousncss ol such tcrrorist acts.
:
Although thc Sccurity Council has ncvcr cxprcssly mandatcd thc usc ol
lorcc in rcsponsc to tcrrorism, it has takcn mcasurcs short ol that rcmcdy. For
instancc, thc Council dircctcd nonlorcclul sanctions against both Libya and
Sudan during thc .cs lor thcir support ol tcrrorism.
:
And in . it imposcd
sanctions on thc Taliban bccausc, among othcr rcasons, thc rcgimc was providing
salc havcn to sama bin Ladcn and allowing him and his associatcs to opcratc a
nctwork ol tcrrorist training camps lrom Talibancontrollcd tcrritory and to usc
Alghanistan as a basc lrom which to sponsor intcrnational tcrrorist opcrations.
:

. SC Rcs. . (ct. ., acca).
.6 SC Rcs. .c (ct. a, acca).
., SC Rcs. .c (cc. ., acca).
. SC Rcs. .6 (Fcb. ., acc).
. SC Rcs. ..6 (Nov. ac, acc).
ac SC Rcs. .c (Mar..., acc).
a. SC Rcs. .6.. ( July ,, acc).
aa SC Rcs. .6., (Aug. , acc).
a SC Rcs. ., (Scpt. a, acc.).
a SC Rcs. , (Mar. ., .a) (Libya), S.C. Rcs. .c (Apr. a, .6) (Sudan).
a SC Rcs. .a6, (ct. ., .).
162 Michael N. Schmitt
Tc sanctions includcd a ban on ights to and lrom Alghanistan and an intcr
national lrcczc on Taliban asscts. Furthcr sanctions wcrc imposcd in accc and a
sanctions monitoring mcchanism was cstablishcd in acc..
:6
Fcw would contcst thc powcr ol thc Sccurity Council to takc thc lurthcr
stcp ol authorizing lorcc to countcr tcrrorism, should it so dccm ncccssary. !t
is important to undcrstand that thc Council cnjoys unconditional authority to
dctcrminc both whcn a situation constitutcs a thrcat, brcach, or act ol aggrcs
sion and whcthcr to mandatc thc usc ol lorcc in rcsponsc. ncc thc Council
grants a mandatc, it is irrcvcrsiblc cxccpt by dccision ol thc Council itscll or upon
occurrcncc ol a tcrmination condition, such as a ccssation datc, sct lorth in thc
Rcsolution in qucstion.
:
No rcvicw mcchanism cxists to ccctivcly challcngc thc
Councils dccision.
Tis bcing so, it would bc cntircly within thc Sccurity Councils prcrogativc
to dctcrminc that any tcrrorist rclatcd action amountcd to a thrcat to intcrna
tional pcacc and sccurity ncccssitating a lorcclul rcsponsc. As an cxamplc, lrom
. through acc., thc Council lrcqucntly ccnsurcd thc Taliban rcgimc ovcr tcr
rorism rclatcd issucs.
:8
At any timc during that pcriod, thc Council could havc
authorizcd thc usc ol lorcc against thc Taliban, cithcr to cocrcc thc rcgimc into
compliancc with its wishcs or to rcmovc it lrom powcr. !t clcctcd to not takc such
a dramatic stcp, cvcn altcr thc attacks ol Scptcmbcr ..
th
. 8ut thc point is that thc
Council cnjoycd thc discrction to do so and, in thc luturc, it may opt to cxcrcisc
said powcr in thc lacc ol transnational tcrrorism posing catastrophic risks to thc
global community.
B Self-Defence
Vhcn thc Unitcd Statcs, Unitcd Kingdom and othcr Statcs attackcd Alghanistan
in acc., thcy avcrrcd sclldclcncc as thc opcrations lcgal basis. Sclldclcncc con
stitutcs thc sccond cxprcss cxccption to thc Chartcr prohibition on thc usc ol
a6 SC Rcs. . (cc. ., accc), SC Rcs. .6 ( July c, acc.).
a, An cxamplc ol cxpiration involvcd thc UN Prcvcntivc cploymcnt Forcc
(UNPRP) in thc Formcr Yugoslav Rcpublic ol Maccdonia. !ts mandatc, ini
tially sct out in SC Rcs. (Mar. ., .), cxpircd on Fcbruary a, .. China
vctocd thc rcsolution sccking cxtcnsion, a movc widcly rcgardcd as rctaliation lor
Maccdonias cstablishmcnt ol diplomatic rclations with Taiwan.
A rcsolution may also lall into dcsuctudc whcn circumstanccs havc so changcd that
thc undcrlying logic and purposc ol thc rcsolution no longcr rcsonatc. Howcvcr,
abscnt that condition or a ncw rcsolution rcpudiating thc original rcsolution a prc
sumption ol continuity is plausiblc. Scc Adam Robcrts, La. and the Use of Force in
Iraq, Suvviv~i, Junc acc, at ., .
a SC Rcs. .. (Aug. a, .), SC Rcs. .a. (cc. , .), SC Rcs. .a6, (ct. ., .),
SC Rcs. . (cc. ., accc), SC Rcs. .6 ( July c, acc.).
163 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
lorcc. A lorm ol scllhclp in intcrnational law, it is a customary intcrnational law
norm codicd in Articlc . ol thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr.
Nothing in thc prcscnt Chartcr shall impair thc inhcrcnt right ol individ
ual or collcctivc sclldclcncc il an armcd attack occurs against a Mcmbcr ol
thc Unitcd Nations, until thc Sccurity Council has takcn mcasurcs ncccssary
to maintain intcrnational pcacc and sccurity. Mcasurcs takcn by Mcmbcrs in
thc cxcrcisc ol this right ol sclldclcncc shall bc immcdiatcly rcportcd to thc
Sccurity Council and shall not in any way acct thc authority and rcsponsibil
ity ol thc Sccurity Council undcr thc prcscnt Chartcr to takc at any timc such
action as it dccms ncccssary in ordcr to maintain or rcstorc intcrnational pcacc
and sccurity.
Notc that sclldclcncc may bc cxcrciscd individually or collcctivcly. Sincc not cvcry
Statc participating in F had bccn attackcd on Scptcmbcr ..
th
, thc Coalition
opcrations launchcd on ctobcr ,
th
amountcd to both collcctivc dclcncc and
individual sclldclcncc.
pcration nduring Frccdom was not thc rst instancc ol thc Unitcd Statcs
claiming sclldclcncc as a right in lorcclully countcring tcrrorism, although in
prcvious dccadcs it typically addrcsscd transnational tcrrorism through thc prism
ol law cnlorccmcnt.
:
Tc intcrnational rcaction to such asscrtion ol sclldclcncc
has cvolvcd stcadily, an cvolution that rcccts a clcar shilt in thc normativc cxpcc
tations rcgarding cxcrcisc ol thc right.
Rccall pcration l orado Canyon in .6, mcntioncd at thc outsct ol
this articlc. Following thc attack, Prcsidcnt Rcagan announccd thc Unitcd Statcs
had actcd dclcnsivcly: Sclldclcnsc is not only our right, it is our duty. !t is thc
purposc bchind thc mission undcrtakcn tonight a mission lully consistcnt with
Articlc . ol thc UN Chartcr.
o
As notcd, thc intcrnational community gcncrally
balkcd at this justication.
Tc Unitcd Statcs again claimcd thc right to rcact to tcrrorism in scll
dclcncc whcn it uncovcrcd an assassination plot against lormcr Prcsidcnt Gcorgc
a !n ., Prcsidcnt Gcorgc H.V. 8ush clcctcd not to rcspond militarily whcn tcr
rorists blcw up Pan Amcrican ight .c ovcr Lockcrbic, Scotland. a,c dicd in thc
attack. !nstcad, thc Unitcd Statcs mobilizcd intcrnational prcssurc that lcd to prosc
cution by a Scottish court sitting in thc Ncthcrlands. xtradition and criminal pros
ccution ol thosc involvcd in thc Vorld Tradc Ccntcr bombing, particularly Shcik
mar Abdcl Rahman, was thc choscn coursc ol action.
c Prcsidcnt Ronald Rcagan, Addrcss to thc Nation (Apr. ., .6), in vv~v::vx:
ov S:~:v 8uiiv:ix, Junc .6, at .a. Scc also, Vhitc Housc Statcmcnt, in
vv~v::vx: ov S:~:v 8uiiv:ix, Junc .6, at .. A suggcstion that thc motivc was
rctaliation crcatcd somc conlusion: Scvcral wccks ago in Ncw rlcans, ! warncd
Coloncl Qadha wc would hold his rcgimc accountablc lor any ncw tcrrorist attacks
launchcd against Amcrican citizcns. Morc rcccntly, ! madc it clcar wc would rcspond
as soon as wc dctcrmincd conclusivcly who was rcsponsiblc.....
164 Michael N. Schmitt
8ush in .. !n rcporting to thc Sccurity Council that US lorccs had rcplicd by
launching cruisc missilcs against !raqi intclligcncc lacilitics, Madclinc Albright,
US Ambassador to thc Unitcd Nations, statcd ! am not asking thc Council
lor any actionbut in our judgmcnt cvcry mcmbcr hcrc today would rcgard an
assassination attcmpt against its lormcr hcad ol statc as an attack against itscll
and would rcact.
+
!ntcrnational rcaction was ccrtainly morc mutcd than it had
bccn in rcsponsc to l orado Canyon, a lact no doubt inucnccd by !raqs
status as an intcrnational pariah in thc altcrmath ol cvcnts that had prccipitatcd
thc First Gull Var, as wcll as that nations noncompliancc with thc tcrms ol thc
ccascrc.
!n ., thc Unitcd Statcs again claimcd a right to usc dclcnsivc lorcc lol
lowing thc bombings ol US cmbassics in Nairobi and arcsSalaam. Albright,
now Sccrctary ol Statc, announccd that |!|l wc had not takcn this action, wc
would not havc bccn cxcrcising our right ol sclldclcnsc ... .
:
A numbcr ol Statcs,
including !ran, !raq, Libya, Pakistan, and Russia, condcmncd thc rcsponsc, which
consistcd ol cruisc missilc strikcs against tcrrorist camps in Alghanistan and a
pharmaccutical plant in Sudan allcgcdly ticd to tcrrorism.

Howcvcr, a strcam ol
criticism distinguishing bctwccn thc two targcts lorcshadowcd a shilt in intcr
national normativc cxpcctations rcgarding lorcclul Statc rcsponscs to transna
tional tcrrorism. Tc Lcaguc ol Arab Statcs, lor cxamplc, criticiscd thc strikc into
Sudan whilc ocring no commcnt on that against targcts in Alghanistan.

At
thc Unitcd Nations, Sudan, thc Group ol Alrican Statcs, thc Arab Lcaguc, and
thc Group ol !slamic Statcs askcd thc Sccurity Council to invcstigatc thc Sudan
attack, but rcmaincd silcnt ovcr thc companion opcrations against Alghanistan
bascd targcts.

Pcrhaps most tcllingly, in ncarly cvcry casc, ccnsurc locuscd not

. Stanlcy Mcislcr, U.N. Feaction Mild s U.S. Explains Faid, Los Axcvivs Ti:vs,
Junc a, ., at A..
a Michacl Laccy, Self-Defense or Self-Denial, Te Proliferation of !eapons of Mass
Destruction, .c !xbi~x~ !x:vvx~:iox~i ~xb Co:v~v~:ivv L~w Rvvivw a, a
(accc), citing Sccrctary ol Statc Madclcinc K. Albright, !ntcrvicw bctwccn Albright
and C8ST\ Nightly Ncws with an Rathcr Aug. a., ..
Scan . Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States Felating to International
La., A:vvic~x Jouvx~i ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w .6., .66 (.).
Lcttcr lrom thc Chargc dAaircs A.!. ol thc Pcrmancnt Mission ol Kuwait to thc
Unitcd Nations Addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council (Aug. a., .),
UN oc. S/./,
Lcttcr lrom thc Pcrmancnt Rcprcscntativc ol thc Sudan to thc Unitcd Nations
Addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council (Aug. a., .), UN oc.
S/./,6, Lcttcr lrom thc Pcrmancnt Rcprcscntativc ol Namibia to thc Unitcd
Nations Addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council (Aug. a, .), UN oc.
S/./ca (convcying Group ol Alrican Statcs rcqucst), Lcttcr lrom thc Chargc
dAaircs ol thc Pcrmancnt Mission ol Kuwait to thc Unitcd Nations Addrcsscd
to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council (Aug. a., .), UN oc. S/l /,. (con
vcying Lcaguc ol Arab Statcs rcqucst), Lcttcr lrom thc Chargc dAaircs A.!. ol
165 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
on thc lact that a lorcclul rcsponsc to a tcrrorist attack had bccn mountcd, but
rathcr on a bclicl that thc Sudan attack was bascd on laulty intclligcncc. !n othcr
words, thcrc was implicd acccptancc ol a Statcs right to rcact lorcclully to tcrror
ism pursuant to thc law ol sclldclcncc, so long as thc action is bascd on rcliablc
inlormation.
Tc acccptability ol rcsorting to military lorcc in rcsponsc to transnational
tcrrorism crystallizcd in thc altcrmath ol /... Prior to that cvcnt, many in thc
intcrnational lcgal community would still havc urgcd that thc intcrnational law
ol sclldclcncc rclcrrcd only to armcd attacks by Statcs or armcd groups acting
on bchall ol a Statc. \iolcnt acts by nonStatc actors rcmaincd thc provincc ol
lawcnlorccmcnt.
Howcvcr, within a day ol thc attacks, and at a timc whcn no onc was sug
gcsting a Statc was bchind thcm, thc Sccurity Council adoptcd Rcsolution .6,
in which it rccognizcd thc inhcrcnt right ol individual or collcctivc sclldclcncc.
6

Tis action suggcstcd that thc Council now undcrstood thc law ol sclldclcncc
as cxtcnding to tcrrorism, at lcast ol thc kind mountcd on Scptcmbcr ..
th
. Lcst
thc rcsolution bc stylcd mcrcly an cmotivc rcaction to thc cvcnts ol thc prcvi
ous day, on a Scptcmbcr thc Council again armcd thc right ol sclldclcncc
in Rcsolution .,.

thcr intcrnational organizations took cxactly thc samc

approach. For instancc, both NAT and thc rganization ol Amcrican Statcs
activatcd thc collcctivc dclcncc provisions ol thcir rcspcctivc trcatics.
8
So too did
Australia visavis thc ANZUS Pact.

8ilatcral support lor thc prospcctivc US

cxcrcisc ol its sclldclcncc rights was cqually widcsprcad, as a, nations grantcd
ovcright and landing rights to US military aircralt and 6 issucd dcclarations ol
support. Quitc simply, it was univcrsally acccptcd that a military rcsponsc in scll
dclcncc would bc appropriatc and lawlul.
n ctobcr ,
th
, US and Coalition lorccs launchcd that rcsponsc. US
Ambassador to thc Unitcd Nations John Ncgropontc contcmporancously noti
thc Pcrmancnt Mission ol Qatar to thc Unitcd Nations Addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt
ol thc Sccurity Council (Aug. a., .), UN oc. S/l /,c (convcying Group ol
!slamic Statcs rcqucst).
6 SC Rcs. .6 (Scpt. .a, acc.).
, SC Rcs. ., (Scpt. a, acc.).
North Atlantic Trcaty, Apr. ., art. , 6 Stat. aa., aa, UNTS a, a6, Prcss
Rclcasc, NAT, Statcmcnt by thc North Atlantic Council (Scpt. .a, acc.), !ntcr
Amcrican Trcaty ol Rcciprocal Assistancc, Scpt. a, .,, art. .., 6a Stat. .6., .,cc,
a. UNTS ,,, , Tcrrorist Trcat to thc Amcricas, Rcs. ., Twcntylourth Mccting ol
Consultation ol Ministcrs ol Forcign Aairs, Tcrrorist Trcat to thc Amcricas, AS
oc. RC.a/RS../c. (Scpt. a., acc.).
Sccurity Trcaty, Scpt. ., .., USAust.N.Z., art. !\, UST ac, a, .. UNTS
, 6, 8rcndan Pcarson, PM Commits to Mutual Defence, Aus:v~ii~x Fix~xci~i
Rvvivw, Scpt. ., acc., at .
166 Michael N. Schmitt
cd thc Sccurity Council, as rcquircd by Articlc ., that thc Unitcd Statcs was
cxcrcising its right to sclldclcncc.
!n accordancc with Articlc . ol thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations, ! wish,
on bchall ol my Govcrnmcnt, to rcport that thc Unitcd Statcs ol Amcrica,
togcthcr with othcr Statcs, has initiatcd actions in thc cxcrcisc ol its inhcrcnt
right ol individual and collcctivc sclldclcnsc lollowing thc armcd attacks that
wcrc carricd out against thc Unitcd Statcs on .. Scptcmbcr acc..
Sincc .. Scptcmbcr, my Govcrnmcnt has obtaincd clcar and compcl
ling inlormation that thc AlQacda organization, which is supportcd by thc
Taliban rcgimc in Alghanistan, had a ccntral rolc in thc attacks. Tcrc is still
much wc do not know. ur inquiry is in its carly stagcs. Vc may nd that our
sclldclcnsc rcquircs lurthcr actions with rcspcct to othcr organizations and
othcr Statcs.
Tc attacks on .. Scptcmbcr acc. and thc ongoing thrcat to thc Unitcd
Statcs and its nationals poscd by thc AlQacda organization havc bccn madc
possiblc by thc dccision ol thc Taliban rcgimc to allow thc parts ol Alghanistan
that it controls to bc uscd by this organization as a basc ol opcration. cspitc
cvcry cort by thc Unitcd Statcs and thc intcrnational community, thc Taliban
rcgimc has rcluscd to changc its policy. From thc tcrritory ol Alghanistan, thc
AlQacda organization continucs to train and support agcnts ol tcrror who
attack innoccnt pcoplc throughout thc world and targct Unitcd Statcs nation
als and intcrcsts in thc Unitcd Statcs and abroad.
!n rcsponsc to thcsc attacks, and in accordancc with thc inhcrcnt right
ol individual and collcctivc sclldclcnsc, Unitcd Statcs armcd lorccs havc initi
atcd actions dcsigncd to prcvcnt and dctcr lurthcr attacks on thc Unitcd Statcs.
Tcsc actions includc mcasurcs against AlQacda tcrrorist training camps and
military installations ol thc Taliban rcgimc in Alghanistan ... .
o
cspitc thc lact that thc attacks lcll on not only al Qacda, but also thc de facto gov
crnmcnt ol Alghanistan, thc Taliban, criticism was nowhcrc to bc hcard. n thc
contrary, support lor thc opcrations was cusivc. Tc Unitcd Kingdom partici
patcd lrom thc bcginning, and Australia, Canada, thc Czcch Rcpublic, Gcrmany,
!taly, Japan, thc Ncthcrlands, Ncw Zcaland, Turkcy, and thc Unitcd Kingdom
ocrcd ground troops.
+
Gcorgia, man, Pakistan, thc Philippincs, Qatar, Saudi
c Lcttcr lrom Tc Pcrmancnt Rcprcscntativc ol thc Unitcd Statcs ol Amcrica to thc
Unitcd Nations Addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council, ct. ,, acc,, UN
oc S/acc./6.
. Scan . Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States Felating to International
La., 6 A:vvic~x Jouvx~i ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w a,, a (acca).
167 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkcy, and Uzbckistan opcncd airspacc and providcd lacili
tics to support opcrations.
:
Furthcr, thc claim ol thc right to act in sclldclcncc cngcndcrcd de mini-
mis controvcrsy. China and Russia cndorscd thc opcrations, as did Arab statcs
such as gypt.

!ntcrnational organizations wcrc likcwisc sympathctic to thc

position. Tc uropcan Union conrmcd its staunchcst support lor thc mili
tary opcrations . . . which arc lcgitimatc undcr thc tcrms ol thc Unitcd Nations
Chartcr and ol Rcsolution .6 ol thc Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council.

Tc
Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council continucd to adopt rcsolution altcr rcsolution
rcarming thc right to sclldclcncc, thcrcby implicitly acccpting thc Coalition
opcrations as lcgitimatc and lawlul.

vcn thc rganization ol thc !slamic

Conlcrcncc sccmcd to approvc, simply urging thc Unitcd Statcs not to cxpand
opcrations bcyond Alghan tcrritory.
6

l coursc, that thc Unitcd Statcs had actcd militarily in sclldclcncc did
not prccludc it and its partncrs around thc world lrom taking othcr mcasurcs.
For instancc, thc Sccurity Council imposcd nancial sanctions on Alghanistan
in Rcsolution .,, Saudi Arabia and thc Unitcd Arab miratcs brokc o dip
lomatic rclations with thc alrcady isolatcd rcgimc, and thc largcst intcrnational
coopcrativc law cnlorccmcnt cort in history was (and continucs to bc) mountcd
to idcntily, locatc, arrcst, and prosccutc tcrrorists. Howcvcr, with /.., intcrna
tional law bccamc uncquivocal visavis thc propricty ol using armcd lorcc to
countcr transnational tcrrorism. Tc military has bccn addcd as yct anothcr arrow
in thc quivcr ol intcrnational countcrtcrrorism stratcgy.

Self-Defence gainst Non-State ctors: cspitc a paucity ol scholarly or policy

attcntion to sclldclcncc against armcd attacks by nonStatc actors acting auton
omously lrom a Statc, cxtcnsion ol thc right to such situations is supportablc
as a mattcr ol law, not mcrc political cxpcdicncy. !n particular, notc that Articlc
. makcs no mcntion ol thc naturc ol thc cntity that commits thc ocnding
armcd attack, whcrcas thc Articlc a() prohibition on thc usc ol lorcc spccically
rclcrs to Mcmbcr statcs acting in thcir intcrnational rclations (i.c., against
othcr Statcs). Tis suggcsts thcrc is no limitation on thc usc ol dclcnsivc lorcc
a Id.
Id.
cclaration by thc Hcads ol Statc or Govcrnmcnt ol thc uropcan Union and thc
Prcsidcnt ol thc Commission: Followup to thc Scptcmbcr .. Attacks and thc Fight
Against Tcrrorism, ct. ., acc., at ., SN a6/a/c. Rcv. a.
E.g., SC Rcs. ., (Nov. ., acc.), S.C. Rcs. .6 (cc. ac, acc.), S.C. Rcs. .c ( Jan.
a, acca).
6 anicl Villiams, Islamic Group Oers U.S. Mild Febuke, V~snixc:ox Pos:, ct. ..,
acc., at Aa..
, l coursc, thc military is uscd in many nations lor countcrtcrrorist purposcs. Vhat
is ncw is thc trcatmcnt ol countcrtcrrorism as a classic military opcration rathcr
than assistancc to law cnlorccmcnt.
168 Michael N. Schmitt
against cntitics othcr than Statcs, a position supportcd by thc lact that ncithcr
Articlc nor ., which appcar in thc samc chaptcr as ., rclcr to Statcs. !ndccd,
thc Sccurity Council has ncvcr rcstrictcd cnlorccmcnt actions to thosc dircctcd
against Statcs. For instancc, it has crcatcd intcrnational tribunals to prosccutc
individuals chargcd with crimcs against humanity, war crimcs, and gcnocidc.
8

!t would bc incongruous to suggcst that Articlc . should bc intcrprctcd dicr
cntly.
Curiously, thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc appcars to havc donc just that
in its Advisory pinion on Legal Consequence of the Construction of a !all in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Tcrc, thc majority opincd that Articlc . was

irrclcvant bccausc !sracl did not avow that thc tcrrorist attacks thc wall was
intcndcd to thwart wcrc imputablc to a lorcign Statc.
o
!n doing so, thc Court
sccmcd to strictly apply, without dircctly rclcrcncing, its holding in Military and
Paramilitary cti.ities in and against Nicaragua. !n Nicaragua, thc Court lound
that actions ol irrcgulars could constitutc an armcd attack il thcy wcrc scnt by
or on bchall ol a Statc and il thc scalc and cccts ol thc action would havc
bccn classicd as an armcd attack . . . had it bccn carricd out by rcgular armcd
lorccs
+

Judgcs Higgins, Kooijmans, and 8ucrgcnthal rcjcctcd thc majority position,
corrcctly pointing to: .) thc abscncc ol mcntion ol a Statc as thc originator ol an
armcd attack in Articlc . and a) thc clcar intcnt ol thc Sccurity Council to trcat
tcrrorist attacks as armcd attacks (cxprcsscd, c.g., in Rcsolutions .6 and .,).
:

Morcovcr, thc qucstion in thc two !CJ cascs dicrcd matcrially. !n Nicaragua, thc
issuc was whcn did a Statcs support ol gucrrillas justily imputing thcir acts to thc
Statc, such that thc victim could rcspond in sclldclcncc (individually or collcc
tivcly) dircctly against thc supportcr. Tc Court did not addrcss thc issuc at hand
in thc !all casc, i.c., whcthcr thc actions ol a nonStatc actor justicd thc usc ol
lorcc dircctly against that actor in sclldclcncc.
!n this rcgard, thc onc point ol agrccmcnt in thc !all opinion was that
acts against which thc Statc is rcsponding in sclldclcncc havc to bc mountcd
lrom outsidc thc Statc (unlcss thcy can bc imputcd to anothcr Statc) bclorc
triggcring thc right to sclldclcncc. Tc majority uscd this as a sccond basis lor
rcjccting !sracls claim to sclldclcncc. !t distinguishcd thc situation contcm
!ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor thc Formcr Yugoslavia, SC Rcs. a, (May a,
.), !ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor Rwanda, SC Rcs. (Nov. , .).
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a !all in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Advisory pinion (!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, July , acc), !x:vvx~:iox~i
Lvc~i M~:vvi~is .cc (acc).
c Id. at para. ..
. Military and Paramilitary cti.ities in and gainst Nicaragua (Nicar. v. US), Mcrits,
.6 !CJ Rcp. . ( Junc a,), at para. ..
a Scparatc pinion ol Judgc Higgins, para. , Scparatc pinion ol Judgc Kooijmans,
para. , cclaration ol Judgc 8ucrgcnthal, para. 6.
169 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
platcd by Sccurity Council Rcsolutions .6 (acc.) and ., (acc.), arguing that
!sracl cxcrciscs control in thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory and thc thrcat
which it rcgards as justilying thc construction ol thc wall originatcs within, and
not outsidc, that tcrritory.

Judgcs 8ucrgcnthal and Higgins both (corrcctly)

contcstcd thc Courts cxtcnsion ol thc principlc to occupicd tcrritorics. !n thcir
vicw, attacks originating thcrcin mcct thc cxtcrnal attack critcrion.

Tc cavcat
ol occupicd tcrritory asidc, though, tcrrorism occurring wholly within thc Statc
docs not implicatc thc right ol sclldclcncc. Rathcr, it lalls within thc purvicw ol
domcstic criminal law and, in ccrtain circumstanccs, thc law ol nonintcrnational
armcd conict.
Te Nature of an rmed ttack: !t is now clcar that tcrrorists may launch
armcd attacks as that phrasc is undcrstood in thc Articlc . contcxt. Howcvcr,
this lcavcs opcn thc qucstion ol what constitutcs an armcd attack.
Articlc a() prohibits ccrtain uscs ol lorcc, whcrcas thc Articlc . condi
tion prcccdcnt is an armcd attack. Tc distinction is constitutivcly logical. Tc
Chartcr was mcant to crcatc an organization and sct norms that would savc
succccding gcncrations lrom thc scourgc ol war.

Tus, thc draltcrs sct a low

thrcshold lor prohibitcd uscs ol lorcc by Statcs, whilc cstablishing a highcr onc
bclorc a Statc could usc dclcnsivc lorcc, abscnt Unitcd Nations acquicsccncc. !n
light ol thc dicrcnt standards, uscs ol lorcc that do not risc to thc armcd attack
lcvcl must a priori cxist. Although Articlc a() applics only to Statcs, thc dicr
cncc is rclcvant to this inquiry bccausc thcrc would pcrlorcc bc uscs ol lorcc by
tcrrorists that would not activatc thc right to sclldclcncc, thcrcby limiting thc
victim Statcs rcsponsc to onc ol classic law cnlorccmcnt mcasurcs.
!n .,, thc Gcncral Asscmbly cmbraccd thc notion ol a gap, albcit in thc
contcxt ol a usc ol lorcc not amounting to an act ol aggrcssion. Articlc a ol thc
Rcsolution on Aggrcssion statcd that thc Sccurity Council could concludc that
a dctcrmination that an act ol aggrcssion has bccn committcd would not bc jus
ticd in thc light ol othcr rclcvant circumstanccs, including thc lact that thc acts
conccrncd or thcir conscqucnccs arc not ol sucicnt gravity.
6
!n Articlc (g),
it includcd as an cxamplc ol aggrcssion |t|hc scnding by or on bchall ol a Statc
ol armcd bands, groups, irrcgulars or mcrccnarics, which carry out acts ol armcd
lorcc against anothcr Statc ol such gravity as to amount to thc acts listcd abovc,
or its substantial involvcmcnt thcrcin. 8y this standard, thcrc arc scllcvidcntly
uscs ol armcd lorcc that do not risc to thc lcvcl ol aggrcssion bccausc thcy arc
insucicntly gravc.
Vall, supra notc , para. ..
Scparatc pinion ol Judgc Higgins, para. , cclaration ol Judgc 8ucrgcnthal,
para. 6.
UN Chartcr, pmbl.
6 GA Rcs. . (XX!X) (cc. ., .,), anncxcd cnition ol Aggrcssion.
170 Michael N. Schmitt
!n Nicaragua, thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc spccically addrcsscd thc
gap whcn it distinguishcd bctwccn thc most gravc lorms ol thc usc ol lorcc
(thosc constituting an armcd attack) and othcr lcss gravc lorms.

!n acc, thc
Court, in Case Concerning Oil Platforms, rclcrrcd approvingly to thc most gravc
lorms approach.
8

Tc Nicaragua Court lound that arming gucrrillas and providing thcm
logistic support might bc a usc ol lorcc, but did not constitutc an armcd attack.

As notcd, it also statcd that armcd attacks wcrc actions ol particular scalc and
cccts, distinguishing thcm lrom mcrc lronticr incidcnts(s),
6o
a distinction
Prolcssor instcin lamously dismisscs.
|U|nlcss thc scalc and cccts arc triing, bclow thc dc minimis thrcshold, thcy
do not contributc to a dctcrmination whcthcr an armcd attack has unloldcd.
Tcrc is ccrtainly no causc to rcmovc smallscalc armcd attacks lrom thc spcc
trum ol armcd attacks.
6+
!n thc contcxt ol StatconStatc hostilitics, thcrc is much to rccommcnd Prolcssor
instcins rcjcction ol thc Courts suggcstion that violcncc must risc abovc a ccr
tain lcvcl.
6:
Yct, thc Courts scalc and cccts critcrion makcs scnsc in thc casc ol
nonStatc actors. For Statcs, thc only options in thc lacc ol attack arc sclldclcncc
(including thc collcctivc variant) and Sccurity Council cnlorccmcnt action. Sincc
thc Council has a lcss than august rccord in coming to thc rcscuc ol Statcs undcr
, Nicaragua, supra notc ., para. ...
Oil Platforms (!ran v. US), Mcrits, acc !CJ Rcp. .6., para. . (Nov. 6), a
!x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is, at para. ..
Nicaragua, supra notc ., para. ..
6c Id.
6. instcin, supra notc ,, at ..
6a nc wondcrs il thc criticism would havc bccn tcmpcrcd had thc Court includcd a
Statc intcnt rcquircmcnt. At thc risk ol ovcrsimplilying, an armcd attack is an intcn
tional military attack or othcr intcntional act rcsulting in, or dcsigncd to rcsult in,
immcdiatc violcnt conscqucnccs (such as a computcr nctwork attack causing physical
damagc). |For a discussion ol this point, scc Michacl N. Schmitt, Computer Net.ork
ttack and Use of Force in International La.: Toughts on a Normati.e Frame.ork, ,
Coiu:ni~ Jouvx~i ov Tv~xsx~:iox~i L~w , (.).| \icwcd in this way,
thc distinction bctwccn training gucrrillas and scnding thcm out to do oncs bid
ding makcs scnsc. !t also cxplains thc Courts rathcr curious, and ccrtainly conlus
ing, rclcrcncc to lronticr incidcnts. Fronticr incidcnts arc usually bricl cncountcrs
bctwccn lorccs lacing cach othcr across a bordcr. Tcy scldom rcprcscnt a conscious
stratcgic dccision to initiatc intcrnational armcd conict. Rathcr, thcy tcnd to bc
unplanncd or, at most, communicativc in naturc. !n thc lattcr casc, thc intcnt is oltcn
to a.oid conict by signalling thc scriousncss ol thc disputc at hand. l coursc, thc
lact that an incidcnt docs not amount to an armcd attack in thc Articlc . scnsc docs
not dcprivc thosc lacing thc violcncc ol thcir right to dclcnd thcmsclvcs in individ
ual sclldclcncc.
171 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
attack, thc notion ol limiting a Statcs rccoursc to dclcnsivc lorcc is disquicting.
8y contrast, a rathcr robust law cnlorccmcnt rcgimc cxists to dcal with minor
attacks by tcrrorists and othcr nonStatc actors. Tis bcing so, thc Courts scalc
and cccts rcquircmcnt is lar lcss worrisomc in thc casc ol tcrrorism.
Tc right to act in sclldclcncc against tcrrorists is not unlcttcrcd. All
dclcnsivc uscs ol lorcc, including thosc dircctcd against nonStatc actors, must
mcct thrcc critcria ncccssity, proportionality, and immcdiacy that dcrivc
lrom thc .
th
Ccntury Carolinc Casc and thc cnsuing cxchangc ol diplomatic
notcs bctwccn thc Unitcd Statcs and Unitcd Kingdom. Tcrc, Sccrctary ol Statc
anicl Vcbstcr opincd that dclcnsivc actions must rccct a ncccssity ol scll
dclcnsc, instant, ovcrwhclming, lcaving no momcnt lor dclibcration.
6
Tc !CJ
has rccognizcd thc applicability ol thc rst two critcria on multiplc occasions. !n
Nicaragua, thc Court conrmcd thcir status as customary intcrnational law.
6
!t
cxtcndcd thcm to Articlc . sclldclcncc in thc advisory opinion, Legality of the
Treat or Use of Nuclear !eapons.
6
Lcst thcrc bc any doubt, thc Court conrmcd
thc rcquircmcnts in its Oil Platforms judgcmcnt.
66
Te Necessity Criterion: Tc rst ol thc principlcs, ncccssity, rcquircs thcrc to
bc no viablc option othcr than lorcc to dctcr or dclcat thc armcd attack. Tis is
a critical critcrion in thc contcxt ol tcrrorism. !l lawcnlorccmcnt mcasurcs (or
othcr mcasurcs short ol sclldclcncc) will assurcdly loil a tcrrorist attack on their
o.n, lorcclul mcasurcs in sclldclcncc may not bc takcn. Tc issuc is not whcthcr
law cnlorccmcnt ocials arc likcly to bring thc tcrrorists to justicc, but instcad
whcthcr, with a rcasonablc dcgrcc ol ccrtainty, law cnlorccmcnt actions alonc will
protcct thc targct(s) ol thc tcrrorism. For instancc, il mcmbcrs ol a tcrrorist ccll
can condcntly bc arrcstcd, that action must bc takcn in licu ol a military attack
dcsigncd to kill its mcmbcrs. Factors such as risk ol thc tcrrorists cluding capturc
and thc dcgrcc ol dangcr involvcd in thc capturc arc ccrtainly rclcvant.
Not only must thcrc bc condcncc ol succcss, law cnlorccmcnt must alonc
bc capablc ol dctcrring or dclcating thc thrcat (or ongoing attack) bclorc actions
in sclldclcncc arc rulcd out. Tc attacks ol Scptcmbcr ..
th
triggcrcd thc most
intcnsivc intcrnational law cnlorccmcnt opcrations in history, largcly targctcd
at al Qacda and its aliatcs. Yct, al Qacda rcmaincd activc, launching numcr
ous spcctacular attacks in thc wakc ol /... Tis bcing so, it is plain that military
opcrations launchcd in sclldclcncc against thc organization and its opcrativcs
mct thc ncccssity critcrion.
6 c 8vi:isn a Fovvicx S:~:v P~vvvs . (.), reprinted in R.Y. Jcnnings, Te
Caroline and McLeod Cases, a A:vvic~x Jouvx~i ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w a,
(.).
6 Nicaragua, supra notc ., para. ..
6 Legality of the Treat or Use of Nuclear !eapons, Advisory pinion, .6 !CJ Rcp. aa6,
( July ), at para. ..
66 il Platlorms, supra notc , paras. , ,,, ,6.
172 Michael N. Schmitt
Te Proportionality Criterion: Tc proportionality critcrion addrcsscs thc
issuc ol how much lorcc is pcrmissiblc in sclldclcncc. !t is widcly misundcr
stood. Proportionality docs not rcquirc any cquivalcncy bctwccn thc attackcrs
actions and dclcndcrs rcsponsc. Such a rcquircmcnt would cvisccratc thc right ol
sclldclcncc, particularly in thc tcrrorist contcxt. For instancc, tcrrorists may con
duct a scrics ol isolatcd bombings, yct thc only way to prccludc lollowon attacks,
sincc surprisc is thcir modus operandi, would bc major air strikcs against thcir basc
camps. Surcly, it would bc absurd to suggcst that thc grcatcr usc ol lorcc by thc
victim Statc is unlawlul.
!nstcad, proportionality limits dclcnsivc lorcc to that rcquircd to rcpcl thc
attack. Tis may bc lcss or morc than uscd in thc armcd attack that actuatcd thc
right to sclldclcncc, in csscncc, thc dctcrmination is an opcrational onc. Tc
availability ol othcr options, cspccially law cnlorccmcnt, would in part dctcrminc
thc pcrmissiblc quantum and naturc ol thc lorcc cmploycd. To thc cxtcnt that law
cnlorccmcnt is likcly to prcvcnt lollowon attacks, thc acccptability ol largcscalc
military opcrations drops accordingly.
Te Immediacy Criterion: Tc third critcrion, immcdiacy, imposcs a tcmporal
limitation on sclldclcncc, both in advancc ol an attack and lollowing onc. Tc
rst issuc is whcn docs thc right to act in sclldclcncc maturc: Prolcssor instcin
has conspicuously criticizcd notions ol a right to anticipatory sclldclcncc, i.c.,
dclcnsivc actions in anticipation ol an attack. !nstcad, hc asscvcratcs that such
actions may bc intcrccptivc at most. Prolcssor instcin cxplains that an intcr
ccptivc strikc countcrs an armcd attack which is in progrcss, cvcn il it is still
incipicnt: thc blow is immincnt and practically unavoidablc.
6

Prolcssor instcins vicw ol in progrcss is markcdly broad.
Tc crux ol thc issuc, thcrclorc, is not who rcd thc rst shot but who cmbarkcd
upon an apparcntly irrcvcrsiblc coursc ol action, thcrcby crossing thc lcgal
Rubicon. Tc casting ol thc dic, rathcr than thc actual opcning ol rc, is what
starts thc armcd attack. !t would bc absurd to rcquirc that thc dclcnding Statc
should sustain and absorb a dcvastating (pcrhaps a latal) blow, only to provc
thc immaculatc conccption ol sclldclcncc.
68
!t is so broad that it cmbraccs many actions that othcr scholars might wcll labcl
anticipatory.
Asccrtaining whcn thc dic has bccn cast in instanccs ol tcrrorism will
provc lar morc challcnging than in thc casc ol attacks launchcd by Statcs. Vith
attacks by Statcs, thcrc arc oltcn transparcnt activitics ol indications and warn
ings (!V) valuc: hcightcncd political tcnsions, callup ol rcscrvc lorccs, movc
mcnt ol lorccs towards thc bordcr, standdown ol air units, warships putting to
6, instcin, supra notc ,, at ...
6 Id.
173 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
sca, ctc. Although it may bc impossiblc to know thc prccisc momcnt thc blow
will lall, thc opponcnt will usually havc a rough scnsc ol whcn thc attackcr might
cross thc Rubicon. Tis is cspccially truc in an cra ol global mass mcdia, instant
communications, and commcrcially availablc satcllitc imagcry.
Tcrrorism aords no such transparcncy. n thc contrary, a dcning char
actcristic ol tcrrorist attacks is thc abscncc ol warning. As thc targct Statc usu
ally cnjoys a dramatic advantagc in lorcc capabilitics, surprisc is typically thc
only option availablc to countcr thc tcrrorist groups asymmctrical disadvantagc.
minously, givcn growing tcrrorist acccss to wcapons ol mass dcstruction, mis
calculation as to whcn a tcrrorist group is cntcring thc Rubicons watcrs may
provc catastrophic.
Tis was a point cxprcssly madc in thc acca US National Sccurity Stratcgy.
!n that documcnt, Prcsidcnt 8ush argucd that thc conucncc ol transnational
tcrrorism and wcapons ol mass dcstruction ncccssitatcd a rcthinking ol thc con
ccpt ol anticipatory sclldclcncc
For ccnturics, intcrnational law rccognizcd that nations nccd not sucr an
attack bclorc thcy can lawlully takc action to dclcnd thcmsclvcs against lorccs
that prcscnt an immincnt dangcr ol attack. Lcgal scholars and intcrnational
jurists oltcn conditioncd thc lcgitimacy ol prccmption on thc cxistcncc ol an
immincnt thrcat most oltcn a visiblc mobilization ol armics, navics, and air
lorccs prcparing to attack.
Vc must adapt thc conccpt ol immincnt thrcat to thc capabilitics and
objcctivcs ol todays advcrsarics. Roguc statcs and tcrrorists do not scck to
attack us using convcntional mcans. Tcy know such attacks would lail. !nstcad,
thcy rcly on acts ol tcrror and, potcntially, thc usc ol wcapons ol mass dcstruc
tion wcapons that can bc casily conccalcd, dclivcrcd covcrtly, and uscd with
out warning.
.
Tc Unitcd Statcs has long maintaincd thc option ol prccmptivc actions
to countcr a sucicnt thrcat to our national sccurity. Tc grcatcr thc thrcat, thc
grcatcr is thc risk ol inaction and thc morc compclling thc casc lor taking
anticipatory action to dclcnd oursclvcs, cvcn il unccrtainty rcmains as to thc
timc and placc ol thc cncmys attack. To lorcstall or prcvcnt such hostilc acts
by our advcrsarics, thc Unitcd Statcs will, il ncccssary, act prccmptivcly.
6

As a practical mattcr, thc Prcsidcnt was, ol coursc, corrcct. !n thc uniquc circum
stanccs ol a.
st
ccntury tcrrorism, targct Statcs will scldom know whcrc and whcn
an attack is to occur until it is too latc. Yct, it would bc loolhardy to wait until thc
launch ol a particular tcrrorist strikc bclorc acting in sclldclcncc.
6 Tc Vhitc Housc, Tc National Sccurity Stratcgy ol thc Unitcd Statcs ol Amcrica
(Scpt. acca), at ..
174 Michael N. Schmitt
How, thcn, should thc lcgality ol intcrccptivc (anticipatory) countcrtcr
rorist actions bc mcasurcd: !ntcrnational law must always bc intcrprctcd in light
ol thc contcxt to which it is bcing applicd and with scnsitivity to thc undcrlying
purposc ol thc norm in qucstion. !n particular, as a lorm ol scllhclp, sclldclcncc
has to bc construcd in a way that rcndcrs it mcaninglul, scllhclp must hclp.
!n thc contcxt ol tcrrorism, it is csscntial to bcar thc vcry raison detre ol tcr
rorist groups conducting violcnt attacks on Statcs and/or socictics in mind
whcn asscssing thc propricty ol anticipatory action. vcn though thc timing and
location ol an attack may bc unccrtain, thcrc is ncar ccrtainty that an attack
will bc conductcd sincc that is thc groups vcry purposc. Tis lact distinguishcs
armcd attacks conductcd by Statcs lrom thosc mountcd by tcrrorists. Statcs pcr
lorm usclul lunctions in thc intcrnational systcm, indccd, thc global architcc
turc rclics on Statcs. Tat bcing so, a rebuttable prcsumption that Statcs will act
in accordancc with intcrnational norms, cspccially thosc govcrning thc usc ol
lorcc, attachcs hcncc thc normativc conccrns about acting prccipitously in scll
dclcncc.
Such prcsumptions cannot logically attach to tcrrorist groups. n thc con
trary, an irrebutable prcsumption that thc organization will act outsidc thc law
should bc at play. Tis rcality shapcs thc intcrprctation ol what it mcans to say a
tcrrorist group has crosscd thc Rubicon. Undcr such circumstanccs, it is rcason
ablc to charactcrizc thc convcrgcncc ol two lactors as thc launch ol a tcrrorist
attack justilying intcrccptivc (anticipatory) action: .) lormation ol a group with
an avowcd purposc ol carrying out attacks, and a) acquisition (or matcrial stcps
towards thc acquisition) ol thc mcans to carry out such an attack. A combination
ol will and capability must coincidc.
Lcst thcrc bc conccrn this standard scts thc thrcshold lor action in scll
dclcncc too low, rccall that immcdiacy is but onc ol thc thrcc critcria applica
blc in dclcnsivc actions. !n particular, ncccssity, with its rcquircmcnt that law
cnlorccmcnt not succ to prcvcnt tcrrorist acts, scrvcs as a brakc on prccipitous
actions by thc Statc. Combining thcsc rcquircmcnts, intcrccptivc (anticipatory)
sclldclcncc against tcrrorists is appropriatc and lawlul whcn a tcrrorist group
harbours both thc intcnt and mcans to carry out attacks, thcrc is no ccctivc
altcrnativc lor prcvcnting thcm, and thc Statc must act now or risk missing thc
opportunity to thwart thc attacks. !t is action during thc last viablc window ol
opportunity a Statc has to dclcnd itscll. !n thc shadowy and sccrctivc world ol
transnational tcrrorism, that window can closc long bclorc a tcrrorist strikc takcs
placc. Statcd bluntly, whcn thc opportunity prcscnts itscll, it may bc ncccssary,
and lawlul, to kill a tcrrorist that you cannot capturc, cvcn though you do not
know prcciscly whcn and whcrc hc or shc will strikc.
Tc othcr sidc ol thc coin is thc qucstion ol whcn tcrrorists may bc struck
after thcy act. Tis is an important qucry, lor, in most tcrrorist acts, thc attackcrs
cscapc. Vhcn thcy do not, as in thc casc ol suicidc bombings, thc organization ol
which thcy arc mcmbcrs livcs on.
175 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
Prolcssor instcin has sagcly contcndcd that although |w|ar may not bc
undcrtakcn in sclldclcncc long altcr an isolatcd armcd attack, a war ol scll
dclcncc docs not havc to commcncc within a lcw minutcs, or cvcn a lcw days,
lrom thc original attack.||vcn whcn thc intcrval bctwccn an armcd attack
and a rccoursc to war ol sclldclcncc is longcr than usual, thc war may still bc
lcgitimatc il thc dclay is warrantcd by thc circumstanccs.
o
!n othcr words, hc
rcasonably suggcsts a tcst ol rcasonablcncss in light ol thc circumstanccs prcvail
ing at thc timc.
8ut this is a Statcccntric analysis. !t prcsumcs that at a ccrtain point scll
dclcncc is inappropriatc bccausc Statcs should dclcr to nonlorcclul mcans ol
scttling thcir disputcs. Such a prcsumption docs not apply to cascs ol transna
tional tcrrorism, thc tcrrorist group would disband il it did not intcnd to continuc
thc violcncc. Unlikc Statcs, and by dcnition, thc mcrc cxistcncc ol thc group
mcans thc disputc bctwccn it and thc Statc(s) will rcmain violcnt. Tc onc cxccp
tion is a tcrrorist group that morphs into a political organization, as somc havc
suggcstcd (too optimistically) Hamas is doing.
Tis bcing so, it docs not makc scnsc to trcat multiplc tcrrorist strikcs by
thc samc tcrrorist organization (or nctwork such as al Qacda) as isolatcd acts to
which thc law ol sclldclcncc applics scparatcly. Rathcr, it is morc appropriatc to
charactcrizc thcm as a continuous attack, much as individual and distinct tactical
cngagcmcnts coalcscc into a military campaign. Just as thcrc arc tactical pauscs
in military campaigns, so rclatcd tcrrorist attacks arc oltcn scparatcd by pcri
ods during which thc tcrrorist rcgroup and plan thcir ncxt attack. For instancc,
cxpcrts tracc attacks by al Qacda against US asscts back at lcast to thc carly .cs.
Sadly, thcy will likcly strctch somc distancc into thc luturc.
Considcrcd in this way, thc immcdiacy critcrion applics only to thc rst in
an anticipatcd scrics ol attacks. Tc rcmaindcr comprisc a continuing tcrrorist
campaign cntitling thc Statc to an cxtcndcd pcriod ol sclldclcncc. Tc critc
ria ol ncccssity and proportionality continuc to apply, lor mcasurcs such as law
cnlorccmcnt may rcmain viablc and usclul. !n this scnsc, a dclcnsivc war against
a tcrrorist group dicrs lrom an allout war ol sclldclcncc in rcsponsc to, c.g.,
a major invasion by thc military lorccs ol a ncighbouring Statc. !n thc lattcr casc,
thc application ol thc critcria ol ncccssity and proportionality dicrs, lor ncccs
sity is scllcvidcnt oncc thc attackcr crosscs thc bordcr and conccrns about pro
portionality rcccdc as thc Statcs survival is placcd at risk.
+
,c instcin, supra notc ,, at aaa.
,. Tc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc hintcd at this point in its Nuclcar Vcapons
Advisory pinion: |T|hc Court is lcd to obscrvc that it cannot rcach a dcnitivc
conclusion as to thc lcgality or illcgality ol thc usc ol nuclcar wcapons by a Statc
in an cxtrcmc circumstancc ol sclldclcncc, in which its vcry survival would bc at
stakc. Nuclcar Vcapons, supra notc 6, para. ,.
176 Michael N. Schmitt
Te Situs of Counter-terrorist Operations: Morc scnsitivc than thc issuc ol
whcn countcrtcrrorist opcrations may bc mountcd is that ol whcrc thcy may
occur. bviously, a Statc may conduct thcm on its own tcrritory or thc tcrritory
ol anothcr Statc that has conscntcd. Tus, lor instancc, thc acca strikc against al
Qacda opcrativcs in Ycmcn with thc conscnt and coopcration ol Ycmcni intclli
gcncc was lawlul, at lcast as to its vcnuc.
:
Countcrtcrrorist opcrations may also
occur on thc high scas, lor it is acccptcd customary intcrnational law that Statcs
may cngagc in military action bcyond thc tcrritorial watcrs ol ncutral Statcs, so
long as thcy act with duc rcgard to thc rights ol othcrs.

8ut whcn can such opcrations bc mountcd .ithout thc conscnt on thc Statc
on which thcy takc placc: Tc dilcmma is that thc qucstion involvcs two con
icting intcrnational law rights, sclldclcncc on thc part ol thc victim Statc and
thc right ol tcrritorial intcgrity cnjoycd by thc Statc on which thc tcrrorists arc
locatcd. Tcrritorial intcgrity is a corc principlc ol intcrnational law, onc cxprcssly
codicd in Articlc a()s prohibition on thc usc ol lorcc. Tc sanctity ol bordcrs
prccludcs any nonconscnsual pcnctration ol anothcr sovcrcigns tcrritory.

n
thc othcr hand, sclldclcncc is also a corc right in intcrnational law codicd in
thc Chartcr. !t is dccmcd so ccntral to thc Statcbascd paradigm that Statcs arc
allowcd to usc lorcc to ccctuatc it.
!n asscssing thcsc two rclcvant aspccts ol intcrnational law, it is usclul to
rccall that whcn intcrnational law rights collidc, onc nccd not prcvail ovcr thc
othcr. Rathcr, an accommodation should bc sought bctwccn thcm that bcst maxi
mizcs and balanccs thcir rcspcctivc undcrlying purposcs.
Assumc lor thc sakc ol analysis that thc Statc whcrc thc tcrrorists arc locatcd
is not so complicit in thc tcrrorism that it may bc trcatcd as having conductcd thc
armcd attacks itscll, an issuc that will bc dcalt with latcr. Rathcr, it cithcr lacks
thc mcans to put an cnd to thc tcrrorist activitics on its soil or docs not havc thc
will to do so. !n thc lattcr casc, thc host Statc may sympathizc with thc groups
aims, bcnct lrom its prcscncc,

or lcar rctaliation il it movcs against thc organi

,a Scc tcxt accompanying lootnotcs , infra.
, NVP .., supra notc , para. a...
, Scc also cclaration on Principlcs ol !ntcrnational Law Conccrning Fricndly
Rclations and Coopcration Among Statcs in Accordancc with thc Chartcr ol thc
Unitcd Nations: vcry Statc has a duty to rclrain in its intcrnational rclations lrom
thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc against thc tcrritorial intcgrity or political indcpcndcncc
ol any Statc, or in any othcr manncr inconsistcnt with thc purposcs ol thc Unitcd
Nations. Such a thrcat or usc ol lorcc constitutcs a violation ol intcrnational law
and thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations and shall ncvcr bc cmploycd as a mcans ol
scttling intcrnational issucs. GA Rcs. a6a (XX\) (ct. a, .,c). Tc rcsolution
was adoptcd by acclamation. Tcrc arc scvcral possiblc cxccptions, such as rcscuc ol
nationals abroad and humanitarian intcrvcntion.
, As in thc casc ol thc al Qacda, which supportcd thc Taliban in its conict with thc
Northcrn Alliancc.
177 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
zation. Vhatcvcr thc casc, il thc host Statcs tcrritory is unqualicdly inviolablc,
thc victim Statc might bc dcprivcd ol any ccctivc dclcncc. Tis is particularly
so with tcrrorism. uc to thc sccrctivc planning, surprisc launch, and at timcs
suicidal cxccution that charactcrizc it, prccmptivc action may bc thc only viablc
dclcncc.
Prolcssor instcin labcls such actions cxtratcrritorial law cnlorccmcnt.
Hc cxplains:
xtratcrritorial law cnlorccmcnt is a lorm ol sclldclcncc, and it can bc undcr
takcn by Utopia against tcrrorists and armcd bands insidc Arcadian tcrritory
only in rcsponsc to an armcd attack unlcashcd by thcm lrom that tcrritory.
Utopia is cntitlcd to cnlorcc intcrnational law cxtratcrritorially il and whcn
Arcadia is unablc or unwilling to prcvcnt rcpctition ol that armcd attack.
6
As hc corrcctly notcs, thc asscrtion ol such a right is lar lrom cxccptional. Quitc
to thc contrary, thc Carolinc incidcnt, thc touchstonc ol thc law ol sclldclcncc,

involvcd cxtratcrritorial sclldclcncc. Forccs undcr 8ritish command crosscd
into Ncw York whcn 8ritish ocial protcstations that rcbcls wcrc bcing sup
portcd lrom US tcrritory during thc Mackcnzic Rcbcllion ol ., lcll on dcal
Amcrican cars. As notcd by Lord Ashburton, who was ncgotiating with US
Sccrctary ol Statc anicl Vcbstcr rcgarding thc aair,
! might salcly put it to any candid man, acquaintcd with thc cxisting statc ol
things, to say whcthcr thc military commandcr in Canada had thc rcmotcst
rcason, on thc ath day ol cccmbcr, to cxpcct to bc rclicvcd lrom this statc ol
sucring by thc protcctivc intcrvcntion ol any Amcrican authority. How long
could a Govcrnmcnt, having thc paramount duty ol protccting its own pcoplc,
bc rcasonably cxpcctcd to wait lor what thcy had thcn no rcason to cxpcct:
8
A contcmporary cxamplc ol taking thc battlc to thc cncmy in lorcign tcrri
tory without thc conscnt ol thc tcrritorial sovcrcign was, ol coursc, pcration
nduring Frccdom. For thc sakc ol analysis, put asidc thc issuc thc Talibans
involvcmcnt in thc attacks against thc Unitcd Statcs and whcthcr it justicd
military action dircctly against thc Taliban. Tat issuc will bc addrcsscd in duc
,6 instcin, supra notc ,, at a,.
,, For instancc, thc !ntcrnational Military Tribunal at Nurcmbcrg citcd thc standard
whcn rcjccting thc argumcnt that Gcrmany invadcd Norway in sclldclcncc in .c.
!ntcrnational Military Tribunal at Nurcmbcrg, Judgcmcnt (.6), . !MT .,., ac,.
, R.Y. Jcnnings, Te Caroline and McLeod Cases, a A:vvic~x Jouvx~i ov
!x:vvx~:iox~i L~w a, a (.) |quoting Lord Ashburton to Mr. Vcbstcr, July
a, .a, Parliamcntary Papcrs (.), \ol. LX!, 8ritish & Forcign Statc Papcrs, vol.
c, at .|.
178 Michael N. Schmitt
timc. !nstcad, and somcwhat articially, considcr only thc pcnctration ol Alghan
tcrritory to attack al Qacda.
Tc Sccurity Council had, on rcpcatcd occasions prior to /.., dcmandcd
that thc Taliban policc its own tcrritory. !n Rcsolution .a6, ol ctobcr ., lor
instancc, it insistcd that thc Taliban ccasc thc provision ol sanctuary and train
ing lor intcrnational tcrrorists and thcir organizations, takc appropriatc ccctivc
mcasurcs to cnsurc that thc tcrritory undcr its control is not uscd lor tcrrorist
installations and camps, or lor thc prcparation or organization ol tcrrorist acts
against othcr Statcs or thcir citizcns, and coopcratc with corts to bring indictcd
tcrrorists to justicc. !ncludcd was a spccic dcmand that thc Taliban turn ovcr
sama bin Ladcn.

!t rcitcratcd its dcmands in cccmbcr accc.

8o
ncc attcntion locuscd on al Qacda as thc culprit in thc Scptcmbcr ..
attacks, thc Unitcd Statcs insistcd on Taliban coopcration in cradicating thc al
Qacda prcscncc in Alghanistan. Somc dcmands wcrc convcycd through Pakistan,
which had maintaincd rclations with thc Taliban and thcrcby scrvcd as a usclul
intcrmcdiary. thcrs wcrc madc publicly, such as that cxprcsscd by Prcsidcnt
8ush during an addrcss to a joint scssion ol Congrcss: Closc immcdiatcly and
pcrmancntly cvcry tcrrorist training camp in Alghanistan, and hand ovcr cvcry
tcrrorist and cvcry pcrson in thcir support structurc to appropriatc authoritics.
Givc thc Unitcd Statcs lull acccss to tcrrorist training camps, so wc can makc
surc thcy arc no longcr opcrating.
8+
Following a nal ultimatum on ctobcr 6,
8:

thc Prcsidcnt ordcrcd US lorccs into action thc ncxt day.
Tc ovcrturc to pcration nduring Frccdom illustratcs a lurthcr lacct ol
thc rcquisitc balancing bctwccn sclldclcncc and tcrritorial intcgrity. As in thc
Caroline casc, thc aggricvcd party, thc Unitcd Statcs, convcycd dcmands that thc
tcrritorial Statc takc action to put an cnd to thc thrcat cmanating lrom its tcr
ritory. Tc US lcd coalition, likc thc 8ritish ovcr .6c ycars carlicr, only attackcd
oncc it had aordcd thc host Statc, Alghanistan, amplc opportunity to rcctily
thc intolcrablc situation. Tis approach rcprcscnts a lair accommodation ol that
Statcs right to tcrritorial intcgrity. A Statc taking dclcnsivc action cannot bc
dcprivcd ol its right to dclcnd itscll, but at thc samc timc must allow thc host
Statc a rcasonablc opportunity to rcmcdy mattcrs bclorc sucring a nonconscn
sual violation ol its tcrritory.
, SC Rcs. .a6, (ct. ., .). Tc prcvious ycar it had also dcmandcd that thc Taliban
stop providing sanctuary and training lor intcrnational tcrrorists and thcir organiza
tions, and that all Alghan lactions coopcratc with corts to bring indictcd tcrrorists
to justicc. SC Rcs. .a. (cc. , .). Scc also SC Rcs. .. (Aug. a, .).
c SC Rcs. . (cc. ., accc).
. Addrcss 8clorc a Joint Scssion ol thc Congrcss on thc Unitcd Statcs, Rcsponsc to
thc Tcrrorist Attacks ol Scptcmbcr .., , Vvvxiv Co:vii~:iox ov Pvvsibvx:i~i
ocu:vx:s .,, ., (Scpt. ac, acc.).
a Prcsidcnts Radio Addrcss, , Vvvxiv Co:vii~:iox ov Pvvsibvx:i~i ocu:vx:s
.a, .c (ct. 6, acc.).
179 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
Lcst it sccm ovcrly aggrcssivc to allow a victim Statc to violatc anothcrs
bordcrs, rccall that Statcs havc an obligation to policc thcir tcrritory, cnsuring
it is not uscd to thc dctrimcnt ol othcrs. !n thc classic .a, Pcrmancnt Court
ol Justicc casc, Te S.S. Lotus, John 8assct Moorc, writing in disscnt (on othcr
grounds), notcd that it is wcll scttlcd that a Statc is bound to usc duc diligcncc
to prcvcnt thc commission within its dominions ol criminal acts against anothcr
nation or its pcoplc,
8
citing lor support thc ., US Suprcmc Court casc United
States .. rjona.
8

!n ., in its rst casc, Corfu Channel, thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc
addrcsscd thc issuc hcad on.
8
Tc lacts arc pcrtincnt. !n May .6, Albanian shorc
battcrics rcd on two 8ritish cruiscrs transiting thc Corlu Strait, in Albanian
watcrs. Tc UK claimcd thc ships wcrc cntitlcd to pass through thc strait in inno
ccnt passagc, a contcntion contcstcd by thc Albanians. Tc 8ritish scnt word that
in thc luturc thcy would rcturn rc il rcd upon. Tat ctobcr, lour 8ritish war
ships transitcd thc Corlu Strait. Although prcviously swcpt, two struck mincs,
rcsulting in thc loss ol livcs. Vhcn London transmittcd a iplomatic Notc
stating it intcndcd to swccp thc channcl, Tirana rcplicd that doing so would vio
latc Albanias sovcrcignty. !n Novcmbcr, thc 8ritish Navy swcpt thc channcl, cut
ting aa mincs, all ol Gcrman makc.
Tc Court laccd two qucstions: .) !s Albania rcsponsiblc lor thc cxplosions,
such that it has a duty ol compcnsation, and a) id thc UK violatc intcrnational
law through its naval actions in ctobcr and Novcmbcr: As to thc rst, thc
Court concludcd that sincc thc mincs could not havc bccn laid without Albanias
knowlcdgc, it borc rcsponsibility bascd on ccrtain gcncral and wcll rccognizcd
principlcs, including cvcry Statcs obligation not to allow knowingly its tcrri
tory to bc uscd lor acts contrary to thc rights ol othcrs.
86
Vith rcgard to thc
sccond, thc ctobcr passagc nccd not dctain us. Howcvcr, thc Novcmbcr action
was stylcd by thc 8ritish as, in part, scllhclp. Tc Court rcjcctcd thc argumcnt,
noting, rcspcct lor tcrritorial sovcrcignty is an csscntial loundation ol intcrna
tional rclations, but qualilying this nding with thc cavcat that Albanias lailurc
to carry out its dutics altcr thc cxplosions, and thc dilatory naturc ol its diplo
matic notcs wcrc cxtcnuating circumstanccs.
8

Tc Courts opinion is rclcvant in two rcgards. First, it makcs clcar that
Statc A has a duty to prcvcnt its tcrritory lrom bcing uscd in a manncr that
ncgativcly accts an intcrnational law right ol Statc 8. Applicd to tcrrorism,
Statc A must not allow its tcrritory to scrvc as a tcrrorist basc ol opcrations or
sanctuary, or bc uscd in any othcr manncr that would lacilitatc tcrrorism against
S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.) .a, PC!J (scr. A) No. .c, at , (Moorc, J., disscnting).
United States .. rjona, .ac US , (.,).
Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Alb.), . !CJ Rcp. (.).
6 Id. at aa.
, Id. at .
180 Michael N. Schmitt
Statc 8. Sccond, although highlighting thc ccntrality ol tcrritorial sovcrcignty,
thc Courts rclcrcncc to cxtcnuating circumstanccs dcmonstratcs that thc right is
conditional. Although lcss than obvious in thc writtcn opinion, in Corfu Channel
thc Court balanccd compcting rights by dctcrmining that thc right ol innoccnt
passagc must yicld to thc right ol tcrritorial sovcrcignty, at lcast to thc cxtcnt that
lorcc may not bc uscd to sccurc thc lormcr.
Tc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc again turncd to thc issuc ol rcsponsibility
in United States Diplomatic and Consular Sta in Tehran.
88
Tc lacts arc notori
ous and wcll known. !n Novcmbcr .,, !ranian radicals scizcd thc US mbassy
in Tchran and thc Consulatcs in Tabriz and Shiraz, taking hostagc Amcrican
diplomats and othcr US citizcns. Although thc Unitcd Statcs rcqucstcd assist
ancc lrom thc !ranian govcrnmcnt, nonc was lorthcoming. n thc contrary, thc
!ranian govcrnmcnt soon cxprcsscd support lor thc scizurc. Tc Unitcd Statcs
mountcd a lailcd rcscuc attcmpt in April .c. Altcr days in captivity, thc
!ranians rclcascd thc hostagcs on thc day Prcsidcnt Ronald Rcagan was sworn
in as Prcsidcnt.
Tc Court hcld that !rans lailurc to protcct thc diplomatic prcmiscs and
subscqucntly takc action to lrcc thc hostagcs violatcd not only thc .6. and .6
\icnna Convcntions on iplomatic Rclations and Consular Rclations rcspcc
tivcly, but also obligations undcr gcncral intcrnational law.
8
As to thc lailcd
rcscuc attcmpt, it cxprcsscd conccrn that thc Unitcd Statcs had actcd dcspitc thc
cxistcncc ol a provisional ordcr dirccting no action bc takcn by cithcr sidc that
might aggravatc tcnsions. Howcvcr, it notcd that thc US action had no bcaring
on !rans rcsponsibility lor lailurc to protcct thc diplomatic lacilitics and sta.
Tus, again wc scc thc Court cmphasizing that Statcs shouldcr a lcgal obligation
to salcguard thc intcrcsts ol othcr Statcs against acts committcd lrom thcir soil,
at lcast whcn thcy havc thc mcans to do so.
Asidc lrom thc !CJ opinions, a numbcr ol othcr sourccs support thc
obligation to policc oncs own tcrritory. Articlc a() ol thc !ntcrnational Law
Commissions . Draft Code of Oences against the Peace and Security of Mankind,
lor instancc, providcs that |t|hc organization, or thc cncouragcmcnt ol thc orga
nization, by thc authoritics ol a Statc, ol armcd bands within its tcrritory or any
othcr tcrritory lor incursions into thc tcrritory ol anothcr Statc, or thc tolcra
tion ol thc organization ol such bands in its own tcrritory, or thc tolcration ol
thc usc by such armcd bands ol its tcrritory as a basc ol opcrations or as a point
ol dcparturc lor incursions into thc tcrritory ol anothcr Statc, as wcll as dircct
participation in or support ol such incursions, is an ocncc against thc pcacc
Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Sta in Tehran (US v. !ran),
.c !CJ Rcp. (May a).
Id., para. 6a. \icnna Convcntion on Consular Rclations, Apr. a, .6, a. UST ,,, 6
UNTS a6., \icnna Convcntion on iplomatic Rclations, Apr. ., .6., a UST aa,,
cc UNTS .
181 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
and sccurity ol mankind.
o
Notc thc dcpiction ol mcrc tolcration as a crimc in
intcrnational law.
Tc samc prcscription appcars in thc .,c Gcncral Asscmbly Rcsolution,
Declaration on Principles of International La. Concerning Friendly Felations and
Co-operation among States in accordance .ith the Charter of the United Nations. !t
providcs that vcry Statc has thc duty to rclrain lrom organizing, instigating,
assisting or participating in acts ol civil strilc or tcrrorist acts in anothcr Statc or
acquicscing in organizcd activitics within its tcrritory dircctcd towards thc com
mission ol such acts, whcn thc acts rclcrrcd to in thc prcscnt paragraph involvc
a thrcat or usc ol lorcc.
+
!n ., thc Asscmbly addrcsscd thc subjcct ol tcrror
ism dircctly in its Declaration on Measures to Eliminate Terrorism. 8y thc tcrms
ol thc rcsolution, Statcs may not acquicscc in activitics within thcir tcrritorics
dircctcd towards thc commission ol |tcrrorist| acts. Morc to thc point, thcy havc
armativc obligations undcr thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations and othcr pro
visions ol intcrnational law with rcspcct to combating intcrnational tcrrorism
and arc urgcd to takc ccctivc and rcsolutc mcasurcs in accordancc with thc rcl
cvant provisions ol intcrnational law and intcrnational standards ol human rights
lor thc spccdy and nal climination ol intcrnational tcrrorism.
:
Tc rcsolution
gocs on to dclincatc spccic mcasurcs to achicvc thcsc aims. Although solt law,
thcsc instrumcnts plainly cvincc a broad conscnsus that Statcs bcar a duty to act
against tcrrorists locatcd on thcir tcrritory.
Rccall that thc Sccurity Council also spokc to thc issuc, lor cxamplc, whcn
it dircctcd thc Taliban to takc action against al Qacda and othcr tcrrorist groups
opcrating lrom Alghanistan. !n a morc gcncral scnsc, Rcsolution .,, draltcd in
thc immcdiatc altcrmath ol /.., amountcd to a watcrshcd in tcrms ol impos
ing rcquircmcnts on Statcs to combat tcrrorism. !n particular, Statcs arc now
prohibitcd lrom providing any lorm ol support, activc or passivc, to cntitics or
pcrsons involvcd in tcrrorist acts, including by supprcssing rccruitmcnt ol mcm
bcrs ol tcrrorist groups and climinating thc supply ol wcapons to tcrrorists and
obligatcd to, inter alia, |t|akc thc ncccssary stcps to prcvcnt thc commission ol
tcrrorist acts, including by provision ol carly warning to othcr Statcs by cxchangc
ol inlormation, |d|cny salc havcn to thosc who nancc, plan, support, or commit
tcrrorist acts, or providc salc havcns, and |p|rcvcnt thosc who nancc, plan, lacili
tatc or commit tcrrorist acts lrom using thcir rcspcctivc tcrritorics lor thosc pur
poscs against othcr Statcs or thcir citizcns.

c ralt Codc ol cnccs against thc Pcacc and Sccurity ol Mankind, |.| a Yv~v
8oox ov :nv !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w Co::issiox .c, UN oc. A/CN./SR.
A/./Add...
. cclaration ol Fricndly Rclations, supra notc ,.
a GA Rcs. /6c (cc. , .), anncxcd cclaration, paras. .
SC Rcs. ., (Scpt. a, acc.).
182 Michael N. Schmitt
Tus, an asscssmcnt ol thc lawlulncss ol pcnctrating bordcrs to conduct
antitcrrorism opcrations involvcs morc than a simplc balancing ol two con
icting intcrnational law rights. !t also cntails brcach (whcthcr intcntional or duc
to an inability to comply) ol a duty owcd othcr Statcs by thc Statc on whosc tcr
ritory thc tcrrorismrclatcd activitics arc occurring. Analysis will soon turn to thc
issuc ol whcn thc actions ol thc host Statc mcrit trcating that Statc as il it had
itscll conductcd an armcd attack. 8ut thc inaction ol that Statc in policing its
tcrritory is rclcvant to dctcrmining whcn its bordcrs may bc crosscd to conduct
countcrtcrrorist opcrations.
Limits on Cross-border Operations: Tc undcrstandablc hcsitancy to sanc
tion violation ol anothcr Statcs tcrritorial intcgrity must bc tcmpcrcd by thc lact
that doing so in sclldclcncc is only pcrmissiblc oncc that Statc has lailcd in its
duty to policc that tcrritory, cithcr volitionally or unavoidably. Givcn thc scrious
aront to tcrritorial intcgrity, thc right to cross thc bordcr must bc intcrprctcd
vcry narrowly. Tc victim Statc must makc a dcmand on thc host Statc to sat
islactorily curc thc situation (i.c., comply with thc duty dcscribcd abovc), and thc
lattcr must bc aordcd sucicnt opportunity to do so, at lcast to an cxtcnt con
sistcnt with thc rcalitics thc victim Statcs ccctivc dclcncc. !t may not strikc any
targcts ol thc host govcrnmcnt, nor anything clsc unconncctcd with thc tcrror
ist activity. !ndccd, il it docs so, it will havc committcd an armcd attack against
thc host Statc, which would in turn allow that Statc to lawlully usc lorcc against
thc intrudcrs in sclldclcnsc. l coursc, sincc thc Statc conducting thc opcration
is, to thc cxtcnt it rcmains within thc limitations, cxcrcising a lcgitimatc intcr
national law right, thc host Statc may not intcrlcrc with said opcrations. !l it
docs, that Statc commits an armcd attack, thcrcby pcrmitting thc countcrtcrrorist
opcration to cxpand to govcrnmcnt pcrsonncl and lacilitics constituting military
objcctivcs undcr intcrnational humanitarian law (sincc an intcrnational armcd
conict now cxists in light ol thc intcrstatc hostilitics).
Furthcr, thc intrusion must bc limitcd in timc, spacc, and purposc. As soon
as thc mcnacc has ccctivcly bccn quashcd, thc countcrtcrrorist units must with
draw. Furthcr, thc opcration must bc limitcd gcographically to thc minimum tcr
ritorial inlringcmcnt consistcnt with mission succcss. 8oth rcquircmcnts dcrivc
lrom thc principlc ol proportionality in thc law ol sclldclcncc. Finally, thc opcra
tion must bc intcndcd solcly to accomplish a countcrtcrrorist purposc. !t cannot,
lor instancc, bc a subtcrlugc dcsigncd to assist onc sidc in a civil war, intimidatc
thc host Statc, ctc. l coursc, il such a rcsult is thc concomitant conscqucncc ol
thc action, so bc it, but it cannot bc thc undcrlying purposc.
Tc Unitcd Statcs is conducting opcrations along thcsc lincs. At timcs, it
docs so with thc coopcration, or at lcast blcssing, ol thc Statc on whosc tcrri
tory thcy arc mountcd. For instancc, and as bricy mcntioncd carlicr, in acca,
a C!A opcratcd Prcdator unmanncd acrial vchiclc (UA\) launchcd a Hcllrc
missilc to dcstroy a vchiclc in which Qacd Scnyan alHarthi, a scnior alQacda
mcmbcr, was riding. AlHarthi had bccn involvcd in thc bombing ol thc USS
183 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
Colc in accc and, givcn his rolc in thc organization, was a kcy playcr in cur
rcnt and luturc opcrations.

Ycmcni intclligcncc coopcratcd in thc strikc.

Givcn
Ycmcni conscnt and thc clcar nccd to act dclcnsivcly, thc opcration mct thc cri
tcria outlincd abovc. AlHarthi was complicit in prcvious tcrrorist attacks and
surcly intcndcd to continuc opcrations against thc Unitcd Statcs, in that scnsc,
hc was cngagcd in an ongoing campaign, thcrcby rcndcring thc US strikc lcgiti
matc undcr thc immcdiacy critcrion. !t was ncccssary in that lcsscr altcrnativcs
such as law cnlorccmcnt wcrc not viablc at thc timc and thcrc was no ccrtainty
that latcr law cnlorccmcnt actions would havc put him bchind bars bclorc hc
could attack again. Finally, it was proportionatc, lor no lcsscr usc ol lorcc would
havc succd to kill or ncutralizc alHarti, nor was any practically possiblc in thc
circumstanccs.
Morc rcccntly, thc Unitcd Statcs conductcd air strikcs in Pakistan targcting
Ayman alZawahiri, al Qacdas sccond in command. Tc unsucccsslul January
acc6 opcrations, which killcd . civilians, sparkcd nationwidc protcsts. Pakistans
Prcsidcnt, Pcrvcz Musharral, condcmncd thc opcration, stating, !t is an issuc
ol our sovcrcignty and ol our pcoplcs scnsitiviticsVcrc against such strikcs.
Hc also dcnicd that Pakistan had providcd thc intclligcncc ncccssary to conduct
thcm.
6
Such claims must bc takcn with a grain ol salt. Musharral is conducting a
dclicatc balancing act bctwccn support lor US countcrtcrrorism corts and avoid
ancc ol domcstic unrcst and isolation in thc Muslim world. l coursc, although
Pakistans intclligcncc agcncics and military havc bccn coopcrating closcly with
thcir US countcrparts in thc war on tcrror, plausiblc dcniability is oltcn an intc
gral componcnt ol such involvcmcnt. !ndccd, rccall that Prcsidcnt 8ush visitcd
Pakistan in March, in part to dcmonstratc apprcciation lor Musharral s support.
Tis would havc bccn a strangc visit to havc madc il thc Unitcd Statcs had in lact
brazcnly violatcd Pakistani tcrritory.
Howcvcr, taking Prcsidcnt Musharral s public stancc at lacc valuc, thc
attack would ncvcrthclcss havc arguably lallcn within thc normativc lramcwork
sct lorth. Al Zawahiri is a highly clusivc linchpin in thc continuing al Qacda
campaign against thc Unitcd Statcs. pportunitics to takc him out rarcly
prcscnt thcmsclvcs, and, givcn thc rcmotcncss ol thc 8anjur rcgion, thc prospccts
ol a mounting a succcsslul opcration to capturc him wcrc slim to noncxistcnt.
Had thc Unitcd Statcs takcn thc timc to coordinatc its opcrations with Pakistan
(assuming lor thc sakc ol analysis that it did not), it would havc riskcd missing
Prole: li Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, 88C Ncws Vorld Rcport, Nov. , acca, at ncws.
bbc.co.uk/a/hi/middlc_cast/ac.stm.
Anthony workin, Te Yemen Strike, Nov. ., acca, at www.crimcsolwar/onncws/
ncwsycmcn.html.
6 Katrin 8cnnhold, Musharraf Condemns U.S. Strikes in Pakistan, !x:vvx~:iox~i
Hvv~ib Tvinuxv, Jan. a,, acc6, at ,.
184 Michael N. Schmitt
thc opportunity to act, which, apparcntly, it did in any cvcnt. Pakistans sccu
rity lorccs lackcd thc asscts to mount a timcly attack with high condcncc. As
Musharral himscll notcd whcn commcnting on thc aair: Vc cannot comparc
our capabilitics with thc U.S. Finally, thc usc ol a C!A controllcd Prcdator to
conduct thc attack was ccrtainly thc lcast invasivc option availablc.

Tat thc opcration was unsucccsslul is ol only slight rclcvancc. !n asscssing
thc lawlulncss ol military opcrations, thc crux ol thc issuc is thc rcasonablcncss ol
having actcd in thc circumstanccs bascd on inlormation rcasonably bclicvcd rcli
ablc at thc timc. Tcrc has bccn no convincing cvidcncc that thc Unitcd Statcs
bclicl that it had al Zawahiri in thc crosshairs was prccipitous or illrcasoncd. l
coursc, thcrc is thc mattcr ol thc rcsulting . civilian dcaths. Civilian dcaths arc
always tragic, but thc intcrnational humanitarian law principlc ol proportionality
acknowlcdgcs that thcy can bc unavoidablc. !n thc conduct ol hostilitics contcxt,
proportionality rcquircs that collatcral damagc to civilian objccts and incidcntal
injury to civilians causcd during military opcrations not to bc cxccssivc in rcla
tion to thc concrctc and dircct military advantagc anticipatcd to rcsult lrom thc
attack.
8
Al Zawahiri constitutcd a targct ol cnormous valuc in thc war on tcr
rorism, and although civilian dcaths arc tragic, Statc practicc has countcnanccd
lcvcls ol incidcntal injury in cxccss ol this in opcrations dircctcd against lcsscr
objcctivcs. Proportionality in this contcxt must not bc conluscd with thc jus ad
bellum principlc (discusscd abovc) that is onc critcrion lor sclldclcncc.
Critics will asscrt, lairly, that thc lramcwork suggcstcd lor crossbordcr
countcrtcrrorist opcrations is subjcctivc and, thcrclorc, ripc lor abusc. Vhilc thcy
arc corrcct, thc altcrnativc, clcvating tcrritorial intcgrity to a position ol uncon
ditioncd suprcmacy ovcr thc right to sclldclcncc, is inconsistcnt with thc rcali
tics ol a a.
st
ccntury bcsct by transnational tcrrorism in which thc prospcct ol thc
usc ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction by tcrrorists grows stcadily. Lcst it bc rcn
dcrcd obsolctc, law must bc intcrprctcd in light ol thc contcxt in which it is to bc
applicd, and with dclity to its corc purposc, in this casc global ordcr. Tc nor
mativc lramcwork outlincd abovc docs just that without unduc violcncc to thc
rcccivcd undcrstanding ol thc law ol sclldclcncc.
Operations against State-Sponsors: A morc dicult cndcavour is dctcrmining
whcn a victim Statc may trcat thc actions ol tcrrorist group as an armcd attack
not only by thc group, but also by a Statc that has it somc way providcd it sup
port. Until rcccntly, thc gcncrally citcd, albcit not univcrsally acccptcd, stand
, Carlotta Gall & ouglas Jchl, Strike imed at Qaeda Figure Stirs More Pakistan
Protests, Nvw Yovx Ti:vs, Jan .6, acc6, at .
Protocol Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August ., and Rclating to
thc Protcction ol \ictims ol !ntcrnational Armcd Conicts (Protocol !), Junc , .,,,
..a UNTS , at arts. ..(b) & ,.a(a)(iii).
185 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
ard was that cnunciatcd in thc Nicaragua casc.

Tcrc, thc Court opincd that

an armcd attack must bc undcrstood as including not mcrcly action by rcgular
armcd lorccs across an intcrnational bordcr, but also thc scnding by or on bchall
ol a statc ol armcd bands, groups, irrcgulars or mcrccnarics, which carry out acts
ol armcd lorcc against anothcr Statc ol such gravity as to amount to (inter alia)
an actual armcd attack conductcd by rcgular lorccs, or its substantial involvc
mcnt thcrcin.
+oo
!t drcw on thc cnition ol Aggrcssion anncxcd to Gcncral
Asscmbly Rcsolution . (XX!X) lor thc quotcd tcxt,
+o+
arguing that thc dcni
tional cxtract rccctcd customary intcrnal law. Howcvcr, according to thc Court,
thc activitics ol thc gucrrilla lorcc, to qualily as an armcd attack, should bc ol a
scalc and cccts cquivalcnt to thosc that would qualily as an armcd attack il
conductcd by rcgular lorccs, citing acts by armcd bands whcrc such attacks occur
on a signicant scalc, but cxplicitly cxcluding a mcrc lronticr incidcnt.
+o:
Tc
Court wcnt on to dctcrminc that providing wcapons or logistical or othcr sup
port did not succ. Such activitics might amount to a thrcat or usc ol lorcc, or
wronglul intcrvcntion in thc cxtcrnal or intcrnal aairs ol thc targct Statc, but
not armcd attacks.
Tis lattcr point is kcy. Vhcthcr an armcd attack has occurrcd is a dicr
cnt mattcr than that ol a Statcs rcsponsibility (undcr intcrnational law) lor thc
commission ol acts to which it is in somc way conncctcd. Statcs undoubtcdly
shouldcr a dcgrcc ol intcrnational rcsponsibility lor support to tcrrorists or othcr
armcd groups.
+o
Rccall thc solt law tcxts citcd abovc, as wcll as thc Gcncral
Asscmblys .6 Declaration to Supplement the z,,, Declaration on Measures to
Eliminate International Terrorism, which rcitcratcd thc obligation ol Statcs to
Scc, c.g., thc disscnting opinion ol Judgc Schwcbcl in thc Nicaragua casc, csp. para.
. .
.cc Nicaragua, supra notc ., at para. ..
.c. GA Rcs. . (XX!X), supra notc 6.
.ca Nicaragua, supra notc ., para. ..
.c According to Articlc ol thc !ntcrnational Law Commissions Articlcs ol Statc
Rcsponsibility, conduct ol a pcrson or group shall bc considcrcd an act ol Statc
undcr intcrnational law il thc pcrson or group ol pcrsons is in lact acting on thc
instruction ol, or undcr thc dircction or control ol, that Statc in carrying out thc
conduct. !ntcrnational Law Commission, Articlcs on Rcsponsibility ol Statcs lor
!ntcrnationally Vronglul Acts (acc.), with Commcntary, at untrcaty.un.org/ilc/
tcxts/instrumcnts/cnglish/commcntarics/_6_acc..pdl. Tc Commcntary to thc
articlc cxplains:
Morc complcx issucs arisc in dctcrmining whcthcr conduct was carricd out
undcr thc dircction or control ol a Statc. Such conduct will bc attributablc to
thc Statc only il it dircctcd or controllcd thc spccic opcration and thc conduct
complaincd ol was an intcgral part ol that opcration. Tc principlc docs not
cxtcnd to conduct which was only incidcntally or pcriphcrally associatcd with
an opcration and which cscapcd lrom thc Statcs dircction or control.
Id. at .c.
186 Michael N. Schmitt
rclrain lrom nancing, cncouraging, providing training lor or othcrwisc sup
porting tcrrorist activitics.
+o
Tc issuc at hand, howcvcr, is whcn docs a Statc supportcr stand in thc
shocs ol thc tcrrorist group it backs. 8y thc Nicaragua yardstick, thc support
ing Statc must scnd thc tcrrorists, ccctivcly control thcm, or bc substantially
involvcd in thc cxccution ol thcir attack bclorc bcing dccmcd to havc commit
tcd an armcd attack itscll.
+o
Tc Appcals Chambcr ol thc !ntcrnational Criminal
Tribunal lor thc lormcr Yugoslavia rcjcctcd thc ccctivc control tcst in its .
Tadic dccision. Considcring whcthcr an intcrnational armcd conict cxistcd in
8osniaHcrzcgovina by virtuc ol thc Fcdcral Rcpublic ol Yugoslavias control
ovcr 8osnian Scrb lorccs, thc Chambcr adoptcd a morc rclaxcd standard ovcr
all control going bcyond mcrc nancing and cquipping ol such lorccs and involv
ing also participation in thc planning and supcrvision ol military opcrations lor
acts ol an organizcd and hicrarchically structurcd group.
+o6
Although thc prc
cisc issuc was not armcd attack, thc Appcals Chambcr was commcnting on thc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justiccs standard in that rcgard.
!n thc casc ol thc /.. attacks, Taliban support ol al Qacda rosc to ncithcr
thc Nicaragua lcvcl, nor that ol Tadic. Vhilst truc that thc Taliban tolcratcd thc
prcscncc ol al Qacda, and arguably ocrcd sanctuary, thcy cxcrciscd no mcaning
lul control ovcr thc organization. Nor has any cvidcncc bccn produccd that thc
Taliban wcrc accompliccs in thc /.. attacks. !ndccd, thcy did not cvcn providc
nancing, training, or matcricl to al Qacda, standards which both thc !CJ and
!CTY rcjcctcd as mccting thc armcd attack thrcshold. Quitc thc contrary, thc
Taliban was in thc dcpcndcncy rclationship to somc cxtcnt, lor al Qacda sup
portcd thcm in thcir ght with thc Northcrn Alliancc, both in tcrms ol nancing
and clding thc c 8rigadc.
Ncvcrthclcss, as discusscd, thc intcrnational community lully supportcd
thc strikcs on thc Taliban. !ndccd, ovcr a month altcr pcration nduring
Frccdom bcgan, thc Sccurity Council condcmncd thc Taliban lor lor allow
ing Alghanistan to bc uscd as a basc lor thc cxport ol tcrrorism by thc AlQaida
nctwork and othcr tcrrorist groups and lor providing salc havcn to Usama 8in
Ladcn, AlQaida and othcrs associatcd with thcm and cxprcsscd its support lor
.c GA Rcs. ./ac (cc. .,, .6).
.c n an analogous basis, thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc in Nicaragua rcjcctcd
asscrtions ol US rcsponsibility lor thc Contras actions in violation ol intcrnational
humanitarian law. Tc Court statcd that such activitics would not in thcmsclvcs
mcan, without lurthcr cvidcncc, that thc Unitcd Statcs dircctcd or cnlorccd thc pcr
pctration ol thc acts. For this conduct to givc risc to lcgal rcsponsibility ol thc
Unitcd Statcs, it would in principlc havc to bc provcd that thc Statc had ccctivc
control ol thc military or paramilitary opcrations. Nicaragua, supra notc ., para.
...
.c6 !ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor Yugoslavia, Casc !T..., Prosecutor v. Tadic,
!x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is .. (.), at paras. .ac & ..
187 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
thc corts ol thc Alghan pcoplc to rcplacc thc Taliban rcgimc.
+o
Tis is signi
cant, lor thc Coalitions participation turncd thc tidc in thc civil war bctwccn thc
Taliban and Northcrn Alliancc. Tus, to thc cxtcnt that thc Council supportcd
rcgimc changc, it implicitly also supportcd Coalition military opcrations against
thc Taliban.
Vhat docs this mcan lor thc jus ad bellum: Tc gcncral principlc that Statcs
can tcchnically commit an armcd attack through association with nonStatc
actions (that would constitutc an armcd attack il committcd by a Statcs armcd
lorccs) rcmains intact. Vhat appcars to havc changcd is thc lcvcl ol support
that succs. !t would sccm that in thc cra ol transnational tcrrorism, vcry littlc
Statc support is ncccssary to amount to an armcd attack, at lcast in this onc casc,
mcrcly harbouring a tcrrorist group was cnough. Tis is a lar cry lrom Nicaraguas
scnding by or on bchall or Tadics ovcrall control.
Has thc law changcd: !n a scnsc, no. !nstcad, normativc intcrprctation
appcars to havc shiltcd in thc lacc ol changcd circumstanccs. Such shilts arc
cntircly appropriatc, lor intcrnational law cxists to scrvc global nccds lor sccu
rity and othcr common goods. Vc should not bc surpriscd whcn thc normativc
cxpcctations ol thc intcrnational community cvolvc in thc lacc ol ncw thrcats.
Tis is particularly so in thc abscncc ol lex scripta dircctly on point, as is thc casc
with rcgard to attributing actions ol nonStatc actors to Statcs.
Tc intcrnational community has naturally rcactcd vcry aggrcssivcly to both
transnational tcrrorists intcnt on mass casualty attacks and thosc Statcs that
lacilitatc thcir activitics. As any thrcat to thc community cvolvcs, so too must
thc opcrational codc govcrning rcsponscs thcrcto dcsigncd to prcscrvc common
intcrcsts and valucs. Tc dcmisc ol Cold Var bipolarity rcndcrs such aggrcssivc
ncss lcss disruptivc to global ordcr. uring thc Cold Var, many violcnt nonStatc
actors cnjoycd somc dcgrcc ol backing lrom onc ol thc opposing camps. Rcacting
lorcclully to Statcs that supportcd tcrrorism riskcd supcrpowcr conict. Tus, thc
intcrnational community, through Statc practicc and judicial pronounccmcnt, sct
thc lcgality thrcshold lor such rcsponscs vcry high.
Tat paradigm has bccn turncd on its hcad. Today, lailurc to takc strong
action against cithcr tcrrorists (pcrhaps armcd with wcapons ol mass dcstruction)
or thcir sponsors risks catastrophc. Morcovcr, it is in thc battlc against transna
tional tcrrorism that wc scc pcrhaps thc grcatcst dcgrcc ol mcaninglul coopcra
tion bctwccn powcrlul Statcs, thcrcby limiting thc risk that lorcclul rcactions will
cscalatc into major intcrstatc armcd conict.
Tc cxtcnt to which thc armcd attack bar has bccn lowcrcd rcmains to bc
sccn. Vas thc Taliban casc uniquc: Altcr all, thc Taliban wcrc intcrnational pari
ahs, condcmncd widcly lor horrcndous human rights abuscs and isolatcd in thc
intcrnational community. Tc almost audiblc sigh ol rclicl upon thcir oustcr lrom
powcr was not only thc product ol angst ovcr thcir willingncss to allow al Qacda
.c, SC Rcs. ., (Nov. ., acc.).
188 Michael N. Schmitt
to opcratc lrccly within Alghanistan, but also ol ncar univcrsal contcmpt rcsult
ing lrom thcir domcstic bchavior towards thc longsucring Alghan pcoplc. !t is
irrclutablc that both community ordcr and global valucs wcrc advanccd by thcir
dclcat. Tis rcality bcgs thc qucstion ol whcthcr Statcs mcant to rclax normativc
undcrstandings on thc usc ol lorcc against Statcs ticd to tcrrorism or thcy wcrc
simply cclcbrating a lcgitimatc, albcit unlawlul, rcgimc changc.
Te Case of Iraq: Tc casc ol !raq shcds a bit ol light on thc issuc ol whcn
Statc sponsors may bc dccmcd to havc thcmsclvcs committcd an armcd attack. !t
docs so through ncgativc inlcrcncc bccausc although discussions ol !raqi support
ol tcrrorism promincntly occupicd prcattack discoursc, sclldclcncc was notably
abscnt in thc ocial lcgal justication procrcd lor pcration !raqi Frccdom.
!n Rcsolution .. ol Novcmbcr acca thc Sccurity Council statcd it
dcplorcd thc lact that !raq had not complicd with its obligations rcgard
ing tcrrorism. Tosc obligations had bccn sct lorth in Rcsolution 6, ol April
.., which capturcd thc tcrms ol thc .c. Gull Var ccasc rc.
+o8
!n 6,, thc
Council condcmncd thrcats madc by !raq during thc conict to makc usc ol
tcrrorism against targcts outsidc !raq and rcquircd !raq to lormally inlorm thc
Council that it will not commit or support any act ol intcrnational tcrrorism or
allow any organization dircctcd towards thc commission ol such acts to opcratc
within its tcrritory and to condcmn uncquivocally and rcnouncc all acts, mcth
ods, and practiccs ol tcrrorism.
+o
Tc cxtcnt and naturc ol !raqs tics to tcrrorism prior to pcration !raqi
Frccdom havc provcn murky at bcst. Howcvcr, a glimpsc ol what thc Unitcd
Statcs bclicvcd rcgarding !raqi involvcmcnt camc in Fcbruary acc whcn
Sccrctary ol Statc Colin Powcll briclcd thc Sccurity Council in thc unsucccss
lul cort to sccurc a usc ol lorcc rcsolution.
++o
Tc broadcst accusation was that
!raqharbours a dcadly tcrrorist nctwork hcadcd by Abu Musab alZarqawi,
an associatc and collaborator ol sama bin Ladcn and his Al Qacda licutcnants.
Powcll asscrtcd that alZarqawi had movcd a training camp lrom Alghanistan to
northcastcrn !raq whcn thc Taliban lcll. Although thc arca was undcr thc control
ol thc Ansar al!slam movcmcnt, not thc !raqi govcrnmcnt, Saddam Husscin
rcportcdly had an agcnt in thc organization that was providing salc havcn to
somc ol Zarqawis licutcnants and othcr mcmbcrs ol al Qacda. Furthcr, al Qacda
aliatcs bascd in 8aghdad wcrc rcportcdly dirccting opcrations throughout thc
country. Powcll statcd that thc Unitcd Statcs had transmittcd inlormation on
Zarqawis whcrcabouts to thc !raqis through a lricndly intclligcncc scrvicc, but
that !raq did nothing to capturc him. Finally, Powcll asscrtcd a dctaincc had
admittcd during intcrrogation that !raq had providcd training in chcmical and
biological wcapons to two Al Qacda opcrativcs, an admission sincc discrcditcd.
.c SC Rcs. .. (Nov. , acca).
.c SC Rcs. 6, (Apr. , ..).
..c UN oc. S/P\.,c. (Fcb. , acc), at ..,.
189 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
An intcnsivc scarch throughout !raq during thc occupation turncd up vcry
littlc additional cvidcncc ol !raqi support to tcrrorism. Howcvcr, as a mattcr ol
law, thc qucstion is whcthcr thc lcvcl ol support that thc Unitcd Statcs and its
Coalition partncrs belie.ed !raq was providing at thc timc thcy launchcd !F rosc
to thc armcd attack lcvcl. Tc Unitcd Statcs was apparcntly unccrtain it could
crcdibly makc such a casc, lor, having lailcd to convincc thc Sccurity Council to
mandatc military action ol thc basis ol !raqi tics to tcrrorism and wcapons ol
mass dcstruction, it rclraincd lrom lormally asscrting any claim ol sclldclcncc
whcn it did attack. !nstcad, thc Unitcd Statcs and Unitcd Kingdom procrcd
a highly lcgalistic justication matcrial brcach ol thc .. ccascrc tcrms.
+++

!ndccd, in thcir lormal lcttcrs to thc Sccurity Council sctting lorth thc lcgal basis
lor military action, ncithcr country mcntioncd tcrrorism, not cvcn in thc contcxt
ol a brcach ol thc ccascrc obligations visavis tcrrorism.
++:
Tat thc partncrs
chosc a highly tcchnical (albcit corrcct) justication ccrtain to gcncratc intcrna
tional political and lcgal controvcrsy rathcr than sclldclcncc thc always prc
lcrrcd justication lor action without Sccurity Council mandatc dcmonstratcs
thcy undcrstood a claim ol sclldclcncc against Statc support to tcrrorism would
likcly provc unconvincing.
Vhilc thc community rcaction to pcration nduring Frccdom suggcsts
a modicd opcrational codc lor whcn support to tcrrorists may bc trcatcd as an
armcd attack, thc rcticcncc ol thc Unitcd Statcs and Unitcd Kingdom to usc thc
principlc to justily pcration !raqi Frccdom rcvcals its limits. Tc Alghanistan
casc suggcsts that knowingly and willingly allowing tcrritory to scrvc as a basc
ol tcrrorist opcrations may now rcprcscnt a dcgrcc ol complicity sucicnt to
amount to an armcd attack. !raq, on thc othcr hand, sccms to illustratc that thc
scalc and scopc ol tcrrorist opcrations occurring on thc tcrritory in qucstion must
bc signicant, convincing cvidcncc ol thc activitics, as wcll as ol thc willingncss
ol thc host Statc to allow thcm to takc placc, must cxist, and thc host Statc must
bc warncd to put an cnd to tcrrorist opcrations on its soil and providcd amplc
opportunity to do so bclorc a lorcclul rcsponsc in sclldclcncc is pcrmittcd.
Te Case of Pre-empti.e Self-Defence: Tc issucs discusscd abovc havc coa
lcsccd into lormal stratcgy pronounccmcnts by thc Unitcd Statcs and othcr
nations. Most signicant in this rcgard is thc prccmption doctrinc, cnunciatcd
in thc US National Sccurity Stratcgy (NSS) ol Scptcmbcr acca in thc cxtract
... For a discussion ol this point, scc Michacl N. Schmitt, Te Legality of Operation Iraqi
Freedom under International La., :a Jouvx~i ov Miii:~vv :nics a.c (acc).
..a Lcttcr datcd ac March acc lrom thc Pcrmancnt Rcprcscntativc ol thc Unitcd
Statcs ol Amcrica to thc Unitcd Nations addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity
Council, UN oc. S/acc/. (March a., acc), Lcttcr datcd ac March acc lrom thc
Pcrmancnt Rcprcscntativc ol thc Unitcd Kingdom ol Grcat 8ritain and Northcrn
!rcland to thc Unitcd Nations addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council,
UN oc. S/acc/c (March a., acc).
190 Michael N. Schmitt
citcd carlicr.
++
Tc acca NSS also rccctcd thc US conviction that it was at war
with tcrrorists and would, as it had a ycar carlicr, dcal harshly with Statcs com
plicit in tcrrorist activity.
Tc war against tcrrorists ol global rcach is a global cntcrprisc ol unccrtain
duration. Amcrica will hclp nations that nccd our assistancc in combating
tcrror. And Amcrica will hold to account nations that arc compromiscd by
tcrror, including thosc who harbor tcrrorists bccausc thc allics ol tcrror arc
thc cncmics ol civilization. Tc Unitcd Statcs and countrics coopcrating with
us must not allow thc tcrrorists to dcvclop ncw homc bascs. Togcthcr, wc will
scck to dcny thcm sanctuary at cvcry turn.
++
Yct dcspitc thc ominous timing ol its issuancc as cvcnts in !raq cascadcd towards
war, and although it purportcd to bc a ncw adaptation ol thc law ol sclldclcncc
in thc lacc ol roguc statcs and tcrrorists, ultimatcly thc Unitcd Statcs chosc not to
asscrt prccmption as thc lcgal basis lor thc pcration !raqi Frccdom.
!n March acc6, thc Unitcd Statcs issucd a ncw National Sccurity Stratcgy,
onc rctaining all ol thc kcy clcmcnts ol its prcdcccssor. nc intcrcsting point is
that thc discussion ol prccmption occurs primarily in thc scction on wcapons
ol mass dcstruction, whcrcas in thc acca vcrsion it was promincnt visavis both
tcrrorism and wcapons ol mass dcstruction. !n rclcvant part, thc ncw stratcgy
providcs:
ur strong prclcrcncc and common practicc is to addrcss prolilcration con
ccrns through intcrnational diplomacy, in conccrt with kcy allics and rcgional
partncrs. !l ncccssary, howcvcr, undcr longstanding principlcs ol scll dclcnsc,
wc do not rulc out thc usc ol lorcc bclorc attacks occur, cvcn il unccrtainty
rcmains as to thc timc and placc ol thc cncmys attack. Vhcn thc conscqucnccs
ol an attack with VM arc potcntially so dcvastating, wc cannot aord to
stand idly by as gravc dangcrs matcrializc. Tis is thc principlc and logic ol prc
cmption. Vc will always procccd dclibcratcly, wcighing thc conscqucnccs ol
our actions. Tc rcasons lor our actions will bc clcar, thc lorcc mcasurcd, and
thc causc just.
++
Vhcthcr this placcmcnt rcprcscnts a subtlc changc in approach or mcrcly rcccts
thc currcnt stratcgic contcxt, onc in which thc war on tcrrorism is wcll undcr
.. acca National Sccurity Stratcgy, supra notc 6, at . (scc tcxt accompanying lootnotc
6 supra), scc also Tc Vhitc Housc, Stratcgy lor Combating Tcrrorism (Fcb. acc),
at a.
.. Id.
.. Tc Vhitc Housc, Tc National Sccurity Stratcgy ol thc Unitcd Statcs (March
acc6), at a.
191 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
way and !rans nuclcar ambitions havc movcd to thc lorclront ol global attcn
tion, is unclcar. Tc documcnt itscll asscrts that |t|hc placc ol prccmption in our
national sccurity stratcgy rcmains thc samc.
++6

Tc ncw NSS comcs out cvcn morc strongly than thc acca vcrsion against
Statc support lor tcrrorism, making dcny tcrrorist groups thc support and sanc
tuary ol roguc statcs onc ol its lour short tcrm objcctivcs.
Tc Unitcd Statcs and its allics in thc Var on Tcrror makc no distinction
bctwccn thosc who commit acts ol tcrror and thosc who support and harbor
thcm, bccausc thcy arc cqually guilty ol murdcr. Any govcrnmcnt that chooscs
to bc an ally ol tcrror, such as Syria or !ran, has choscn to bc an cncmy ol lrcc
dom, justicc, and pcacc. Tc world must hold thosc rcgimcs to account.
++
Although thc acca NSS cvokcd a rcstorm ol controvcrsy, nothing rcgard
ing tcrrorism stratcgy in cithcr it or its succcssor runs countcr to any ol thc lcgal
norms analyzcd abovc. As thc lormcr Lcgal Adviscr to thc cpartmcnt ol Statc
corrcctly notcd in acc,
!n thc cnd, cach usc ol lorcc must nd lcgitimacy in thc lacts and circum
stanccs that thc statc bclicvcs havc madc it ncccssary. ach should bc judgcd
not on abstract conccpts, but on thc particular cvcnts that gavc risc to it. Vhilc
nations must not usc prccmption as a prctcxt lor aggrcssion, to bc lor or against
prccmption in thc abstract is a mistakc. Tc usc ol lorcc prccmptivcly is somc
timcs lawlul and somctimcs not.
++8
So long as thc Statc is acting in thc likcly last window ol opportunity to dclcnd
itscll ccctivcly against a luturc tcrrorist attack in circumstanccs whcrc altcrna
tivcs such as law cnlorccmcnt arc not ccrtain to succ, thc prccmptivc opcration
is availablc as a mattcr ol law. !l thc Statc acts prior to thc maturation ol thcsc
conditions, it is acting prcvcntivcly, not prccmptivcly.
++
Tc distinction is cru
cial, lor thc pre.enti.e usc ol lorcc is unlawlul. For instancc, il Statc A attacks
VM storagc lacilitics in Statc 8 bccausc it has hard intclligcncc that 8 is about
to translcr VM to a tcrrorist group which has prcviously carricd out attacks
against A, thc action is prccmptivc in naturc. Howcvcr, il it strikcs in thc abscncc
ol actionablc intclligcncc, but simply out ol conccrn that 8 may ccct a translcr
..6 Id.
.., Id. at .a.
.. Villiam H. Talt !\ & Todd F. 8uchwald, Preemption, Iraq, and International La. ,
A:vvic~x Jouvx~i ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w ,, , (acc).
.. Tc conlusion and controvcrsy rcsulting lrom rclcasc ol thc acca NSS was in part
causcd by usc ol thc word prcvcnt in thc titlc ol both thc tcrrorism and VM
chaptcrs.
192 Michael N. Schmitt
to tcrrorists onc day, it has actcd prcvcntivcly. Prcvcntivc action is bascd solcly on
a potcntial opponcnts capability to carry out an attack (or immincnt acquisition
ol such capability). Prccmption rcquircs both capability and intcnt.
+:o
!n cccmbcr acc, a High Lcvcl Pancl appointcd by thc UN Sccrctary
Gcncral issucd More Secure !orld: Our Shared Fesponsibility. !n part, thc rcport
addrcsscd sclldclcncc and its rclationship to actions undcr Chaptcr \!! ol thc
UN Chartcr. Although thc pancl avoidcd usc ol thc controvcrsial tcrm prccmp
tion, it cmbraccd thc notion, whilc rcjccting that ol prcvcntivc attack.
A thrcatcncd Statc, according to long cstablishcd intcrnational law, can takc
military action as long as thc thrcatcncd attack is imminent , no othcr mcans
would dccct it and thc action is proportionatc. Tc problcm ariscs whcrc thc
thrcat in qucstion is not immincnt but still claimcd to bc rcal: lor cxamplc thc
acquisition, with allcgcdly hostilc intcnt, ol nuclcar wcapons making capabil
ity.
Can a Statc, without going to thc Sccurity Council, claim in thcsc cir
cumstanccs thc right to act, in anticipatory scll dclcncc, not just prccmp
tivcly (against an immincnt or proximatc thrcat) but prcvcntivcly (against a
non immincnt
or non proximatc onc):

Tc short answcr is that il thcrc arc good argumcnts lor prcvcntivc mili
tary action, with good cvidcncc to support thcm, thcy should bc put to thc
Sccurity Council, which can authorizc such action il it chooscs to. !l it docs not
so choosc, thcrc will bc, by dcnition, timc to pursuc othcr stratcgics, including
pcrsuasion, ncgotiation, dctcrrcncc and containmcnt and to visit again thc
military option.
+:+
!n othcr words, thc pancl adoptcd thc approach advanccd in this articlc.
Tcrc is onc aspcct ol thc US prccmptivc doctrinc, though, that has provcn
contcntiousthc commitmcnt to act cvcn il unccrtainty rcmains as to thc timc
and placc ol thc cncmys attack. Tc acca statcmcnt in this rcgard has bccn
rctaincd in thc currcnt vcrsion ol thc National Sccurity Stratcgy.
+::
!l thc statc
mcnt implics that thc Unitcd Statcs might act without knowing .hether a potcn
tial cncmy will strikc, thcn a proposcd action would bc prcvcntivc and, thcrclorc,
unlawlul. n thc othcr hand, il, as thc plain tcxt dcnotcs, thc Unitcd Statcs knows
thc attack is coming, but docs not know prcciscly .hen and .here, thcn thc action
.ac l coursc, thc prccmptivc action must comply with thc othcr rcquircmcnts ol scll
dclcnsc.
.a. High Lcvcl Pancl on Trcats, Challcngcs, and Changc, A Morc Sccurc Vorld: ur
Sharcd Rcsponsibility, cc. acc, UN oc. A//6, at .
.aa acc6 National Sccurity Stratcgy, supra notc .., at a.
193 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
would bc judgcd by thc critcria outlincd carlicr, particularly thosc ol acting in thc
last window ol opportunity and thc abscncc ol viablc altcrnativcs.
!t cannot bc othcrwisc in an cra ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction that can bc
unlcashcd by groups who oltcn pay no hccd to to thcir own survival. Authoritics
scldom know whcrc and whcn a tcrrorist strikc will occur. Altcr all, discovcry ol
a prospcctivc attack usually loils it. Conscqucntly, thc tcrrorist modus operandi
involvcs doing cvcrything possiblc to lostcr unccrtainty as to timc and placc. To
imposc a burdcn ol ccrtainty on a potcntial victim Statc would bc ludicrous. Tc
only bcaring that knowlcdgc as to timc and placc has on thc lawlulncss ol an
action in sclldclcnsc is in asscssing whcthcr altcrnativcs to thc usc ol military
lorcc arc availablc and whcthcr thc proposcd dclcnsivc action may bc thc last
opportunity to thwart whatcvcr attack is coming.
Tc unccrtainty rclcrcncc could also bc intcrprctcd as commcnt on thc qual
ity ol thc cvidcncc upon which action is bascd, in othcr words, as an asscrtion that
thc Unitcd Statcs will act on lcss than lully rcliablc inlormation givcn thc stakcs
involvcd with tcrrorism and VM. Tis is an incorrcct charactcrization, lor thc
unccrtainty rclcrs to timc and placc ol thc attack, not to whcthcr an attack will
occur. Howcvcr, in an abundancc ol analytical caution, lct us assumc thc lormcr
is thc casc. Sincc unccrtainty oltcn shrouds intcrnational sccurity mattcrs, how
good must thc cvidcncc bc bclorc a Statc may act in sclldclcncc:
Rccall criticism ol thc . strikc into Sudan. Also rccall thc cxtcnt to which
lailurc to discovcr thc smoking gun linking !raq to VM or tcrrorism rcsultcd
in widcsprcad criticism ol thc dccision to go to war and lclt thc 8ush administra
tion scrambling lor othcr grounds on which to dcnouncc thc !raqi rcgimc, such
as its appalling human rights rccord. 8oth incidcnts cvidcncc an opcrational codc
that rcquircs countcr tcrrorist opcrations to bc bascd on dcpcndablc cvidcncc.
Unlortunatcly, intcrnational law contains no cxprcss cvidcntiary stan
dard govcrning thc quality ol thc inlormation upon which Statcs may rcsort
to lorcc in sclldclcncc. Howcvcr, a usclul standard is that articulatcd by thc
Unitcd Statcs in its notication to thc Sccurity Council that it was acting in scll
dclcnsc whcn attacking Al Qacda and thc Taliban. !n thc lcttcr ol notication,
Ambassador John Ncgropontc statcd that my Govcrnmcnt has obtaincd clcar
and compclling inlormation that thc AlQacda organization, which is supportcd
by thc Taliban rcgimc in Alghanistan, had a ccntral rolc in thc attacks.
+:
NAT
Sccrctary Gcncral Lord Robcrtson uscd prcciscly thc samc tcrm whcn announc
ing that thc attack against thc Unitcd Statcs lcll within thc tcrms ol Articlc \
ol thc North Atlantic Trcaty.
+:
!n light ol thc ncar univcrsal charactcrization ol
.a Lcttcr datcd , ctobcr acc. lrom thc Pcrmancnt Rcprcscntativc ol thc Unitcd
Statcs ol Amcrica to thc Unitcd Nations Addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity
Council, UN oc. S/acc./6 (ct. ,, acc.).
.a Statcmcnt by NAT Sccrctary Gcncral, Lord Robcrtson, NAT Hcadquartcrs
(ct. a, acc.), at www.nato.int/docu/spccch/acc./sc..ccaa.htm.
194 Michael N. Schmitt
pcration nduring Frccdom as lawlul, it appcars that thc intcrnational com
munity acccpts clcar and compclling as an appropriatc cvidcntiary standard in
sclldclcncc cascs.
Clcar and compclling is a tcrm borrowcd lrom in part lrom Amcrican juris
prudcncc, although, whcn asscssing cvidcncc, clcar and convincing is morc typi
cally cmploycd. Clcar and convincing cvidcncc is a lcvcl morc probativc ol thc
issuc at hand than prcpondcrancc ol thc cvidcncc, which simply mcans that
thc cvidcncc makcs thc mattcr morc likcly than not. !t is, on thc othcr hand, lcss
probativc than thc bcyond a rcasonablc doubt standard typically rcquircd lor a
guilty nding in a criminal casc. Uscd in thc contcxt ol justilying a usc ol lorcc,
clcar and convincing cvidcncc ol a lorthcoming armcd attack is cvidcncc that
would convincc a rcasonablc Statc to act dclcnsivcly in samc or similar circum
stanccs. Rcasonablc Statcs do not act prccipitously, nor do thcy rcmain idlc as
indications that an attack is lorthcoming bccomc dcalcning.
Sincc thc Unitcd Statcs procrcd thc phrasc in a sclldclcncc contcxt, it
is rcasonablc to imposc such a standard upon it. Tus, il thc National Sccurity
Stratcgys usc ol thc tcrm unccrtainty is intcrprctcd as alluding to thc quality ol
cvidcncc, that unccrtainty may not risc to a lcvcl that would causc thc basis lor
thc action to bc lcss than clcar and compclling.
II Conclusions
!n a scnsc, thc acc6 National Sccurity Stratcgy rcprcscnts thc maturation ol
countcrtcrrorism stratcgy and law. Tc horrcndous cvcnts ol /.. shockcd thc
intcrnational community into rcconsidcring thc normativc lramcwork govcrning
tcrrorism. Rcsultantly, thc prcmisc that tcrrorism was morc than mcrc criminal
ity, that it riscs to thc lcvcl ol armcd attack, has garncrcd widc acccptancc. Tis
acccptancc is rccctcd in thc lact that thc most powcrlul country in thc world has
choscn to makc countcrtcrrorism thc ccntcrpiccc ol its national sccurity strat
cgy.
pcration nduring Frccdom also lundamcntally altcrcd notions ol thc
sanctions to which Statcs that support tcrrorism arc subjcct. An opcrational
codc that gcncrally rcjcctcd thc usc ol lorcc against Statcs lor involvcmcnt lall
ing bclow somc dcgrcc ol control shiltcd in thc coursc ol lcss than a month to
onc pcrmitting thc lorciblc oustcr ol a rcgimc that had donc littlc morc than
allow a tcrrorist group to lrccly usc its tcrritory. Tis shilt is rccctcd brightly in
thc National Sccurity Stratcgys rclusal to distinguish bctwccn tcrrorists and thc
Statcs that support or harbor thcm.
Tc opcrational codc has cvolvcd othcr ways rcsponsivc to thc ncw con
tcxt. For instancc, immincncy can no longcr bccn sccn in purcly tcmporal tcrms,
in thc a.
st
ccntury thc issuc is opportunity, not timc. And tcrritorial sovcrcignty
has ncccssarily yicldcd a bit to thc practical nccds ol sclldclcncc. As thc di
culty ol combating a tcrritorylcss cncmy bccamc apparcnt, Statcs which cannot
195 6 Fesponding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus ad 8cllum
or will not policc thcir own tcrritory must surrcndcr a dcgrcc ol thcir bordcrs
lcgal impcnctrability. Again, although not complctcly ncw, thcsc issucs wcrc
highlightcd by thc attacks ol /.., with translormations in thc opcrational codc
rcvcaling thcmsclvcs as thc Unitcd Statcs and its global partncrs rcspondcd to
this and subscqucnt acts ol transnational tcrrorism. Tcy arc all rccctcd in thc
National Sccurity Stratcgy.
8ut thc pcration !raqi Frccdom intcrludc dcmonstratcd that wc wcrc
witncssing an cvolution ol thc normativc lramcwork, not its dismantling. Tc
Unitcd Statcs and its allics, dcspitc thc lact that thc Sccurity Council itscll had
condcmncd !raq lor lailing to comply with its obligations rcgarding tcrrorism,
was incapablc ol making thc casc that thc situation mcritcd action in sclldclcncc
(or a Council usc ol lorcc mandatc). !n thc cnd, it rcsortcd to a lcgal justication
that, albcit appropriatc as a mattcr ol law, continucs to mystily many. Morcovcr,
thc lailurc to producc thc smoking gun, and thc ncgativc impact it (wrongly)
had on pcrccptions ol thc lcgality ol thc opcration, dcmonstratc that cvcn in cascs
ol tcrrorism, Statcs will bc hcld to high standards. 8caring this in mind, thc cur
rcnt normativc vcctor ol thc law ol countcrtcrrorism appcars sound.
Chapter 7
!s US Adhcrcncc to thc Rulc ol Law in
!ntcrnational Aairs Fcasiblc:
John F. Murphy
Yoram instcin is a scholar who has writtcn widcly and wcll on a rangc ol intcrna
tional law topics.
+
Hc has writtcn with particular cmphasis and distinction, how
cvcr, in thrcc subjcct arcas: thc jus ad bellum,
:
thc law ol rcsort to thc usc ol armcd
lorcc, thc jus in bello,

thc law rcgulating thc way thc armcd lorcc is cmploycd,

i.c., thc law ol armcd conict, and intcrnational human rights.

!ntcrcstingly, it is
thcsc thrcc arcas whcrc Unitcd Statcs ability (or willingncss) to adhcrc to thc rulc
ol law in intcrnational aairs has incrcasingly bccn callcd into qucstion.

A word or two about thc rulc ol law modcl. Tc prccisc mcaning ol thc tcrm
rulc ol law is unclcar and thc subjcct ol dcbatc.
6
For prcscnt purposcs, ! will
! am indcbtcd to Kristin Scaduto, a sccond ycar studcnt at thc \illanova Univcrsity
School ol Law, Jay Hall, a third ycar studcnt, and Jamic Samanns, a third ycar stu
dcnt, lor thcir cxccllcnt rcscarch assistancc. ! am also gratclul lor a summcr rcscarch
grant lrom thc \illanova Univcrsity School ol Law, which grcatly lacilitatcd my
work on this contribution.
. Yoram instcins curriculum .itae lists .. books and monographs and wcll ovcr .cc
articlcs and notcs.
a !n particular, see Yoram instcin, V~v, Accvvssiox ~xb Svivvvvxcv (th cd.
acc).
See especially, Yoram instcin, Tnv Coxbuc: ov Hos:iii:ivs uxbvv :nv L~w ov
!x:vvx~:iox~i Av:vb Coxviic: (acc).
See e.g., Yoram instcin, Human Fights: Te Quest for Concreti.ation, . !sv~vi
Yv~vnoox ov Hu:~x Ricn:s . (.,.), Yoram instcin, Human Fights:
Implementation through the UN System, Pvocvvbixcs ov :nv A:vvic~x Sociv:v
ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w aa, ac (.).
For a morc widc ranging considcration ol US adhcrcncc to thc rulc ol law in intcr
national aairs, see John F. Murphy, Tnv Uxi:vb S:~:vs ~xb :nv Ruiv ov L~w ix
!x:vvx~:iox~i Avv~ivs (acc). For shortcr trcatmcnts, see e.g., Robcrt V. Tuckcr
and avid C. Hcndrickson, Te Sources of merican Legitimacy, Fovvicx Avv., Nov./
cc., acc, at ., Kcnncth Jost, International La.: Should U.S. Policy gi.e it more
.eight?, CQ Rvsv~vcnvv, cc. .,, acc, at .c, Te insidious .iles of foreign inu-
ence, Tnv coxo:is:, Junc .., acc, at a.
6 !ndccd, it has bccn suggcstcd that thc mcaning ol thc rulc ol law may bc lcss
clcar than cvcr bclorc. See Richard C. Fallon, Te Fule of La. as a Concept in
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. z,,-::,.
198 John F. Murphy
usc thc tcrm in thc scnsc ol Chicl Justicc Marshalls lamous dictum in Marbury
.. Madison that Amcrican Govcrnmcnt would ccasc to dcscrvc thc namc ol a
govcrnmcnt ol laws, and not ol mcn, il its laws lurnish no rcmcdy lor thc vio
lation ol a vcstcd lcgal right.

Tc rulc ol law also rcquircs that it guidc its sub

jccts in thcir aairs and that thcy undcrstand and comply with it. cials as wcll
as ordinary citizcns should bc subjcct to its dictatcs. !mpartial instrumcntalitics
ol justicc, including courts, should bc availablc to cnlorcc thc law and should
cmploy lair proccdurcs. !t may also bc usclul to kccp in mind thc obscrvations ol
Prolcssor Richard H. Fallon:
Pcrlcctly rcalizcd, thc Rulc ol Law would bc rulc: (i) in accordancc with thc
originally intcndcd and undcrstood mcaning ol thc dircctivcs ol lcgitimatc,
dcmocraticallyaccountablc lawmaking authoritics, (ii) cast in thc lorm ol
intclligiblc rulcs binding on citizcns, govcrnmcntal ocials, and judgcs alikc,
(iii) as idcnticd and clucidatcd in any intcrprctivc proccss guidcd by publicly
acccssiblc norms and charactcrizcd by rcasongiving, and (iv) consistcnt with
lcgitimatc public purposcs and sound, sharcd principlcs ol political morality.
Vhcn law, in thc positivist scnsc, lails to satisly any ol thcsc clcmcnts, thc Rulc
ol Law is lcss than complctcly rcalizcd, but still may (or may not) bc morc
ncarly approximatcd than it is scorncd or abandoncd.
8

From cvcn this bricl dcscription ol thc ideal rulc ol law modcl, onc may rcal
izc that thc intcrnational lcgal proccss and thc naturc ol intcrnational law arc
a lar cry lrom thc idcal. Noncthclcss, thc Unitcd Statcs has oltcn proclaimcd
its support lor thc rulc ol law in intcrnational aairs.

!n particular, at thc closc

Constitutional Discourse, , Coiu:. L.Rvv. . (.,). Also, somc commcntators havc
criticizcd thc vcry conccpt. For cxamplc, Morton J. Horwitz, a lcadcr in thc critical
lcgal studics movcmcnt, has contcndcd that thc rulc ol law |b|y promoting procc
dural justicc ... cnablcs thc shrcwd, thc calculating, and thc wcalthy to manipulatc its
lorms to thcir own advantagc. And it ratics and lcgitimatcs an advcrsarial, compcti
tivc, and atomistic conccption ol human rclations. Morton J. Horwitz, Te Fule of
La.: n Unqualied Human Good?, 6 Y~iv L.J. 6., 66 (.,,). For a rcccnt, morc
positivc vicw ol thc rulc ol law, scc 8rian Z. Tamanaha, x :nv Ruiv ov L~w:
His:ovv, Poii:ics, Tnvovv (acc).
, Marbury v. Madison, US (. Cranch) .,, .6 (.c).
Fallon, supra notc 6, at .
Rcmarks madc by Prcsidcnt Gcorgc H.V. 8ush to a joint scssion ol Congrcss in
Scptcmbcr .c in thc wakc ol thc coalitions victory ovcr !raqi lorccs in thc Gull
ocr a rcccnt and promincnt cxamplc. At that timc Prcsidcnt 8ush said that a ncw
world was cmcrging, a world whcrc thc rulc ol law supplants thc rulc ol thc junglc.
A world in which nations rccognizc thc sharcd rcsponsibility lor lrccdom and jus
ticc. A world whcrc thc strong rcspcct thc rights ol thc wcak... Amcrica and thc
world must support thc rulc ol law. And wc will. Transcipt of Presidents ddress to
Joint Session of Congress, Nvw Yovx Ti:vs, Scpt. .a, .c, at Aac. Scc also cxccrpts
199 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
ol Vorld Var !!, whcn it was truly thc solc supcrpowcr, thc Unitcd Statcs
cngagcd in strcnuous corts to crcatc an intcrnational ordcr bascd on lcgal prin
ciplcs.
+o
Tcsc corts rcsultcd in a postVorld Var !! intcrnational systcm, still
vcry much with us, that prcsupposcd at cvcry stagc ol its dcvclopmcnt a domi
nant powcr that would bc csscntially nonimpcrial, nonaggrcssivc and commit
tcd to thc prolilcration ol lawbascd intcrnational institutions.
Tc Unitcd Statcs playcd thc lcading rolc in thc crcation ol thc Unitcd
Nations and strongly supportcd thc attcmpt in thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr to
rcintroducc a systcm ol collcctivc sccurity against aggrcssion, onc that improvcd
upon thc arrangcmcnts sct lorth in thc Covcnant ol Lcaguc ol Nations and
that was bascd upon a rulc ol law paradigm. !t also strongly supportcd a vcrita
blc cxplosion ol intcrnational organizations dcsigncd to cncouragc coopcration
among mcmbcr statcs to addrcss a broad rangc ol ills plaguing thc world commu
nity. Tc Unitcd Statcs was also carly in acccpting thc socallcd compulsory juris
diction ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc (!CJ), thc succcssor to thc Lcaguc ol
Nations Pcrmancnt Court ol !ntcrnational Justicc, whosc jurisdiction thc Unitcd
Statcs ncvcr rccognizcd bccausc it lailcd to join thc Lcaguc. To bc surc, cvcn as
carly as .6, thc Unitcd Statcs had rcscrvations about thc !CJ and hcdgcd its
acccptancc ol thc Courts jurisdiction with thc disabling Connally Rcscrvation,
which rcscrvcd to thc Unitcd Statcs rathcr than thc Court thc authority to dctcr
minc whcthcr a mattcr was csscntially within thc domcstic jurisdiction ol thc
Unitcd Statcs and thcrclorc outsidc thc jurisdiction ol thc Court.
Tc vcry cxistcncc ol thc Unitcd Statcs as the supcrpowcr was an indispcn
sablc clcmcnt lor its strong support ol thc rulc ol law conccpt in intcrnational
aairs. As thc prcdominant authority in world aairs, with a socallcd automatic
majority in thc Unitcd Nations and ovcrriding inucncc in othcr intcrnational
institutions, thc Unitcd Statcs was in a position to cnsurc that thc law would
dcvclop in a way acccptablc to it and, to a considcrablc cxtcnt, that dccisions
takcn rcgarding thc intcrprctation and application ol that law would bc compati
blc with its intcrcsts. Vith thc passagc ol timc, howcvcr, thc Unitcd Statcs gradu
ally bcgan to losc thc control it had ovcr thc intcrnational lcgal proccss. Vith thc
cmcrgcncc ol thc Sovict Union as a kcy advcrsary, and thc communist takcovcr
in China, it bccamc clcar that thc Sccurity Council would not bc ablc to main
tain intcrnational pcacc and sccurity through thc collcctivc sccurity systcm cnvis
agcd by thc draltcrs ol thc UN Chartcr bccausc thcrc would bc no unanimity ol
vicw among thc pcrmancnt mcmbcrs ol thc Council. Also, as thc socallcd third
world statcs bccamc a majority in thc Unitcd Nations, a majority strongly inu
cnccd by Sovict vicws, US inucncc in thc Gcncral Asscmbly sharply dcclincd
lrom Presidents Ne.s Conference on Gulf Crisis, Nvw Yovx Ti:vs, Aug. ., .c, at
A...
.c Tis dcscription ol US corts and strugglcs to support thc rulc ol law in intcrna
tional aairs draws hcavily on John F. Murphy, supra notc , at a.
200 John F. Murphy
during thc .6cs and thc .,cs to thc point whcrc that organ camc to bc rcgardcd
as a dangcrous placc. Furthcr, communist aggrcssion in various parts ol thc
world or statcsponsorcd acts ol intcrnational tcrrorism somctimcs rcsultcd in
unilatcral action by thc Unitcd Statcs ol qucstionablc lcgality. !n gcncral thc Cold
Var crcatcd numcrous barricrs to thc rulc ol law in intcrnational aairs.
!n thc .cs, with rst thc lcss aggrcssivc lorcign policy ol Mikhail
Gorbachcvs Sovict Union, and thcn thc dissolution ol thc Sovict Union and
thc rollback ol communist control in castcrn and ccntral uropc, thc situation
changcd dramatically. Now, it appcarcd, thc rulc ol law intcrnational institutions,
cspccially thosc crcatcd altcr Vorld Var !!, would bc ablc to lunction in thc
manncr cnvisagcd by thcir crcators. Tc high point ol this optimism, pcrhaps, was
thc pcrlormancc ol thc Sccurity Council in rcsponsc to !raqs invasion ol Kuwait
in .c, whcn thc Council adoptcd numcrous rcsolutions dcmanding that !raq
withdraw lrom Kuwait and ultimatcly authorizcd thc usc ol lorcc by coalition
lorccs to lorcc a withdrawal and imposcd an unprcccdcntcd ccascrc rcgimc on
!raq. Tis optimism was soon dispcllcd, howcvcr, as UN corts with rcspcct to
kccping thc pcacc in 8osniaHcrzcgovina, Somalia, and Kosovo, among othcrs,
ran into cxtrcmc dicultics.
For its part, during thc .cs and carly in thc ncw millcnnium, thc Unitcd
Statcs has lound itscll in unchartcd tcrritory. Vhilc proudly proclaiming itscll
thc solc surviving supcrpowcr, thc Unitcd Statcs has cxpcricnccd a powcr shilt
that has rcsultcd in a substantial loss ol autonomy and its sharing powcr with
a varicty ol nongovcrnmcntal actors.
++
Morcovcr, as Samucl P. Huntington has
notcd, |t|hc scttlcmcnt ol kcy intcrnational issucs |including, ol coursc, lcgal
issucs | rcquircs action by thc singlc supcrpowcr but always with somc combina
tion ol othcr major statcs.
+:
Tc Unitcd Statcs, howcvcr, has oltcn actcd morc or
lcss unilatcrally, with thc rcsult bcing that:
n issuc altcr issuc, thc Unitcd Statcs has lound itscll incrcasingly alonc, with
onc or a lcw partncrs, opposing most ol thc worlds statcs and pcoplcs. Tcsc
issucs includc UN ducs, sanctions against Cuba, !ran, !raq, and Libya, thc land
mincs trcaty, global warming, an intcrnational war crimcs tribunal, thc Middlc
ast, thc usc ol lorcc against !raq and Yugoslavia, and thc targcting ol coun
trics with ncw cconomic sanctions bctwccn . and .6.
+
lscwhcrc ! havc cxplorcd thcsc and a host ol othcr rcasons thc Unitcd Statcs has
lound it incrcasingly dicult to adhcrc to thc rulc ol law in intcrnational aairs.
+

.. See Jcssica T. Mathcws, Po.er Shift, Fovvicx Avv. , Jan.Fcb. .,,, at c.
.a Samucl P. Huntington, Te Lonely Superpo.er, Fovvicx Avv., Mar.Apr. ., at
, 6.
. Id. at ..
. See John F. Murphy, supra notc .
201 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
My goal in this contribution to thc Fcstschrilt is morc modcst: To cxplorc somc
salicnt dicultics thc Unitcd Statcs has had in adhcring to thc rulc ol law in thc
arcas ol jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and intcrnational human rights, with rclcrcncc
to Yorams insights as appropriatc.
I Jus ad Bellum
Yoram is a scllproclaimcd strict constructionist whcn it comcs to thc jus ad
bellum. Rcccntly, hc has niccly summarizcd his position:
Tc ovcrall prohibition ol thc usc ol intcrStatc lorcc is subjcct to only two
cxccptions, both cxplicitly rccognizcd in thc |UN | Chartcr: (a) sclldclcnsc in
rcsponsc to an armcd attack, and (b) military action takcn or authorizcd by thc
Sccurity Council in a binding dccision, lollowing dctcrmination ol thc cxist
cncc ol a thrcat to thc pcacc, a brcach ol thc pcacc, or an act ol aggrcssion.
+
! lully sharc Yorams vicw that thc two cxccptions cxplicitly mcntioncd in thc UN
Chartcr arc thc only cxccptions to thc Chartcrs prohibition ol thc usc ol armcd
lorcc.
+6
thcr commcntators, howcvcr, havc argucd in lavor ol additional cxccp
tions.
+
Yoram will havc nonc ol it:
cspitc tcmptations, ! complctcly rcjcct thc notion that thc currcnt prohi
bition ol thc usc ol intcrStatc lorcc is subjcct to any additional cxccption
not cxprcssly incorporatcd in thc Chartcr, bcsidc sclldclcnsc and action by
or with thc authority ol thc Sccurity Council. ! unapologctically bclong to
a school ol thought that intcrprcts thc tcxt ol thc Chartcr vcry strictly in casc
ol a disagrccmcnt rcgarding its rcach or mcaning. ! am apprchcnsivc ol any
crcativc intcrprctation ol thc Chartcr, unlcss it is supportcd by consistcnt and
unilorm practicc.
+8
Pcrhaps thc allcgcd cxccption to thc Chartcrs prohibition ol thc usc ol armcd
lorcc that has had thc most support among thc commcntators is thc socallcd
. Yoram instcin, Comments on !ar, a, H~vv. J. L. a Pun. Poiv ,,, , (acc
acc).
.6 UN Chartcr art. a(), thc kcystonc Chartcr provision prohibiting thc usc ol armcd
lorcc, providcs:
All Mcmbcrs shall rclrain in thcir intcrnational rclations lrom thc thrcat or usc
ol lorcc against thc tcrritorial intcgrity or political indcpcndcncc ol any Statc,
or in any othcr manncr inconsistcnt with thc Purposcs ol thc Unitcd Nations.
., For a discussion and analysis ol somc ol thcsc argumcnts, see John F. Murphy, Force
and rms, in . Uxi:vb N~:ioxs Lvc~i vbvv a,, a6 (scar Schachtcr &
Christophcr C. Joyncr, cds. .).
. Yoram instcin, supra notc ., at ,.
202 John F. Murphy
doctrinc ol humanitarian intcrvcntion,
+
which would pcrmit thc usc ol armcd
lorcc on thc basis ol humanitarian conccrns, cspccially in thc casc whcrc it is uscd
to stop anothcr countrys govcrnmcnt lrom cngaging in a massivc violation ol
thc human rights ol its own citizcns. Again, Yoram catcgorically rcjccts thc argu
mcnts in support ol thc doctrinc.
:o
For its part, thc Unitcd Statcs govcrnmcnt also has adoptcd a strict con
structionist intcrprctation ol thc UN Chartcrs limitations on thc usc ol armcd
lorcc, although somc apologists lor spccic uscs ol armcd lorcc by thc Unitcd
Statcs havc not lclt so bound. !t has, lor cxamplc, so lar assiduously avoidcd
invoking thc doctrinc ol humanitarian intcrvcntion as justication lor thc usc
ol armcd lorcc. Noncthclcss, thc Unitcd Statcs has bccn sharply criticizcd lor two
rcccnt major uscs ol armcd lorcc: thc bombing ol Kosovo in . and thc inva
sion ol !raq and thc subscqucnt rcgimc changc thcrc in acc. Lct us turn rst
to Kosovo.
Koso.o
Tc Kosovo air campaign launchcd by NAT against Scrbia has bccn thc subjcct
ol sharp dcbatc on both lcgal and policy grounds. Timc and spacc limitations do
not pcrmit an cxtcnsivc cxploration ol that dcbatc in this contribution.
:+
!t sul
ccs lor prcscnt purposcs to notc that Yoram has comc down rmly on thc sidc
ol thosc who bclicvc that thc NAT bombing did not conlorm to thc law ol thc
UN Chartcr.
::
Hc has donc so bccausc NAT lailcd to obtain thc authorization
ol thc Sccurity Council (and thc circumstanccs would not sustain claims ol scll
dclcnsc).
:
Hc also notcs that thc kcy playcr, thc Unitcd Statcs, has assiduously
rclraincd lrom rationalizing thc Air Campaign on thc ground ol humanitar
. See e.g., Richard Lillich, Humanitarian Inter.ention: Feply to Ian Bro.nlie and a
Plea for Constructi.e lternati.es, in L~ws ~xb Civii V~v ix :nv Mobvvx Vovib
aa ( John Norton Moorc, cd. .,), Michacl Rcisman, Humanitarian Inter.ention
to Protect the Ibos, in Hu:~xi:~vi~x !x:vvvvx:iox, App. A (Richard Lillich, cd.,
.,).
ac See Yoram instcin, supra notc a, at 666, a,.,.
a. For my contribution to thc dcbatc, see John F. Murphy, Koso.o gonistes, in
Tvii~:vv~i Pvvsvvc:ivvs ox !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i !ssuvs . (Chi Carmody,
Yuji !wasawa, and Sylvia Rhodcs, cds. acca). For a sampling ol othcr contributions,
see Michacl Mandclbaum, Perfect Failure: NTOs !ar gainst Yugosla.ia, Fovvicx
Avv., Scpt.ct..,at a, Jamcs 8. Stcinbcrg, Perfect Polemic: Blind to Feality on
Koso.o, Fovvicx Avv., Nov.cc. ., at .a, Ruth Vcdgwood, NTOs Campaign
in Koso.o, A:. J.!ntl L. a (.), Tomas Franck, Lessons of Koso.o, A:.
J.!x:i L. , (.), Jonathan Charncy, nticipatory Humanitarian Inter.ention in
Koso.o, a \~xb. J. Tv~xsx~:iox~i L. .a. (.), Richard 8ildcr, Koso.o and the
Ne. Inter.entionism: Promise or Peril?, J.:v~xsx~:iox~i L. a Poiv . (.).
aa See Yoram instcin, supra notc a, at a,.,.
a See Yoram instcin, supra notc ., at ..
203 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
ian intcrvcntion, andin strcssing thc sui generis charactcr ol thc Campaignhas
cxprcsscd thc dcsirc not to ovcrdraw thc various lcssons that comc out ol it.
:
!t should also bc notcd that thc Unitcd Statcs has gcncrally avoidcd dclcnd
ing thc Kosovo bombing on lcgal grounds.
:
vcn in thc contcxt ol Scrbia and
Montcncgros suit bclorc thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc against tcn mcmbcr
statcs ol NAT, including thc Unitcd Statcs, challcnging thc lcgality ol thc
bombing, thc rcspondcnt statcs wcrc rcluctant to ocr a lcgal justication ol thc
bombing. Rathcr, thc locus ol thc rcsponscs was on challcnging thc jurisdiction
ol thc Court , and this rcsultcd in thc carly dismissal ol thc cascs against Spain
and thc Unitcd Statcs. Tcn, on cccmbcr ., acc, thc Court unanimously
dccidcd that it had no jurisdiction to cntcrtain thc claims against thc rcmaining
cight mcmbcr statcs ol NAT, on thc ground that Scrbia and Montcncgro had
no standing to pursuc thc claims bclorc thc Court.
:6
Hcncc, as a rcsult ol thc !CJs dismissal ol Scrbia and Montcncgros casc
against thc NAT mcmbcr statcs, thcrc has bccn no dctcrmination by an impar
tial instrumcntality ol justicc ol thc lcgality ol NATs bombing ol Kosovo, a kcy
componcnt ol thc rulc ol law modcl. Assuming argucndo, howcvcr, that Yorams
(and my) vicw ol thc lcgality ol thc bombing is corrcct, thc Unitcd Statcs (and
thc othcr NAT mcmbcr statcs) lailcd to carry out thcir UN Chartcr obligation
to rclrain lrom thc usc ol armcd lorcc. Morcovcr, cvcn il onc assumcs, contrary
to Yorams and my vicw, that thcrc is a humanitarian intcrvcntion cxccption to
thc Chartcrs prohibition ol thc usc ol armcd lorcc, thc doctrinc ol humanitar
ian intcrvcntion would sccm to rcquirc that thc military action undcrtakcn bc
dcsigncd to prcvcnt or bring to an cnd thc humanitarian catastrophc unlolding.
8ut arguably in Kosovo this would havc rcquircd thc thrcat and, il ncccssary, thc
usc ol ground troops or action by air lorccs bclow .,ccc lcct. As ! havc notcd
clscwhcrc:
8ut no such stcps wcrc takcn. n thc contrary, NATs dccision to avoid
thc risk ol NAT military casualtics by rcsorting only to vcry high bombing
and rcmotc missilc strikcs was singularly inccctivc in bringing to an cnd thc
a Id. Yorams quotc is lrom Michacl 8ycrs & Simon Chcstcrman, Changing the Fules
about Fules? Unilateral Humanitarian Inter.ention and the Future of International La.,
in Hu:~xi:~vi~x !x:vvvvx:iox: :nic~i, Lvc~i, ~xb Poii:ic~i iiv::~s
.,,, . ( J. L. Holzgrclc and Robcrt . Kcohanc cds., acc).
a According to Michacl Glcnnon, |i|n thc Unitcd Statcs no argumcnt was madc that
thc law pcrmittcd humanitarian intcrvcntion, and ocial lcgal justications ol any
sort wcrc hard to comc by. Such lcgal dclcnscs ol NATs actions as wcrc prcscntcd
constantly shiltcd lrom onc ground to thc ncxt, with no prcss noticc whatsocvcr.
Michacl Glcnnon, Li:i:s ov L~w, Pvvvoc~:ivvs ov Powvv: !x:vvvvx:ioxis:
Av:vv Kosovo a (acc.).
a6 Casc Conccrning Lcgality ol Usc ol Forcc (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium),
!x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is a (acc).
204 John F. Murphy
actions ol thc Scrbian troops in Kosovo. nc can undcrstand and sympathizc
with thc dcsirc ol NAT lcadcrs to avoid casualtics, but it appcars that thc
ccct ol this dccision was not only to lail to protcct thc Kosovars, but also to
cnragc and incrcasc atrocitics by thc Scrbs against thc Kosovars. As notcd by
Michacl Mandclbaum, bclorc thc NAT bombing bcgan, approximatlcy a,cc
pcoplc had dicd in Kosovo as a rcsult ol thc battlc bctwccn Scrb lorccs and thc
Kosovo Libcration Army and ac,ccc pcrsons wcrc cstimatcd to havc lclt thcir
homcs. uring thc clcvcn wccks ol thc bombing an cstimatcd .c,ccc pcoplc
dicd in Kosovo, most ol thcm Albanian civilians murdcrcd by Scrbs, and ..
million wcrc displaccd, 6c,ccc bccoming rclugccs outsidc ol Kosovo.
:
B Iraq
Tc March acc invasion ol !raq by thc Unitcd Statcs and coalition lorccs and
thc rcsultant rcmoval ol thc Saddam Husscin rcgimc havc gcncratcd a rcstorm
ol dcbatc ovcr thc lcgal and policy justications lor this action. Yoram has sidcd
catcgorically with thosc who support thc lcgality ol this usc ol lorcc, and has
bascd his position on thc thcsis that thc Sccurity Council had authorizcd it.
Yorams analysis bcgins with !raqs invasion ol Kuwait in August .c.
!mmcdiatcly altcr thc invasion, thc Sccurity Council dctcrmincd, in Rcsolution
66c, that it constitutcd a brcach ol thc pcacc.
:8
Four days latcr, thc Council
adoptcd Rcsolution 66., which, among othcr things, armcd thc inhcrcnt right
ol individual or collcctivc sclldclcnsc, in rcsponsc to thc armcd attack by !raq
against Kuwait in accordancc with Articlc . ol thc Chartcr and imposcd cco
nomic sanctions against !raq.
:
At thc samc timc a coalition ol statcs, lcd by thc
Unitcd Statcs, lormcd to opposc thc invasion. As notcd by Yoram, |s|incc thc
cxcrcisc ol individual or collcctivc sclldclcnsc in rcsponsc to an armcd attack can
a, John F. Murphy, supra notc , at .6.. Tc critiquc ol Zbignicw 8rzczinski, lormcr US
National Sccurity Adviscr, is morc biting:
thc painlul rcality is that thc bombing campaign has bccn conductcd as il
thc human livcs at stakc should bc priccd at thrcc dicrcnt lcvcls: Tc most
prccious livcs arc thosc ol thc NAT pilots, with military tactics cxplicitly
dcsigncd to minimizc thcir loss, ncxt arc thosc ol Miloscvics ocials, whosc
hcadquartcrs havc bccn targctcd only whcn cmpty, lcast valuablc arc thc livcs
ol thc Kosovars thcmsclvcs, on whosc bchall no risks havc bccn takcn. ...
|T|o considcr a war in which no cort is madc cvcn at somc risk to oncs
own prolcssional warriors to protcct thc most dclcnsclcss is to dcprivc thc
undcrtaking itscll ol its highcr moral purposc.
Zbignicw 8rzczinski, Compromise O.er Koso.o Means Defeat, V~ii S:. J. uvovv,
May a, ., at ., quotcd in Louis Hcnkin et al., Hu:~x Ricn:s ,, (.).
a S.C. Rcs. 66c (Aug. a, .c), rcprintcd in a !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is
.a (.c).
a S.C. Rcs. 66. (Aug. 6, .c), rcprintcd in a !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is
.a (.c).
205 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
bc carricd out by Statcs unilatcrally, without dcpcnding upon thc prior approval
ol thc Sccurity Council, thcrc was no lcgal nccd lor thc Council to authorizc
thc military action against !raq.
o
Noncthclcss, lor political rcasons, thc Sccurity
Council cvcntually adoptcd Rcsolution 6,, which authorizcd thc coalition to
usc all ncccssary mcans (i.c., lorcc) against !raq il it lailcd to implcmcnt a host
ol prcvious Sccurity Council rcsolutions by January ., ...
+
Upon thc cxpira
tion ol this ultimatum, thc coalition lorccs bcgan thcir attack on thc cvcning ol
January .6, ... n Fcbruary a, Prcsidcnt Gcorgc H.V. 8ush announccd thc
suspcnsion ol hostilitics. Altcr proclaiming prcliminary conditions lor a ccasc
rc in Rcsolution 66,
:
thc Sccurity Council adoptcd Rcsolution 6,,

which
rcprcscnts onc ol thc most ambitious projccts thc Council has cvcr undcrtakcn.
8y Rcsolution 6,, thc Council dccidcd, among othcr things, that !raq would
unconditionally acccpt thc dcstruction, undcr intcrnational supcrvision, ol all
its chcmical and biological wcapons and all its ballistic missilcs with a rangc
grcatcr than .c kilomctcrs, unconditionally agrcc not to acquirc or dcvclop
nuclcar wcapons or nuclcar wcapons usablc matcrial and placc all such matcrials
undcr thc cxclusivc control, lor custody and rcmoval, ol thc !ntcrnational Atomic
ncrgy Agcncy, not commit or support any act ol intcrnational tcrrorism. Upon
!raqs ocial acccptancc ol thcsc and othcr dcmands ol thc Council, Rcsolution
6, would constitutc a lormal ccascrc to thc Gull conict.
Yorams argumcnt suggcsts that a suspcnsion ol hostilitics must bc dicr
cntiatcd lrom thcir tcrmination, and that a ccascrc docs not cnd war. !n his
vicw, |t|hc hostilitics ol acc likc carlicr rounds ol hostilitics bctwccn .. and
acc (prccmincntly in . and .) did not signily thc outbrcak ol a ncw war.
Tcy wcrc only dicrcnt phascs ol thc samc Gull Var that wcnt on lrom .c
to acc ... .

Rcncwal ol armcd conict in thc Gull, according to Yoram, was

justicd by !raqs violations ol thc ccascrc conditions mandatcd by Rcsolution
6,. Hc citcs Articlc c ol thc Rcgulations Rcspccting thc Laws and Customs ol
Var, Anncxcd to Haguc Convcntion (!!) ol . and Haguc Convcntion (!\)
ol .c,, lor thc proposition that any scrious violation ol a ccascrc ... givcs thc
othcr Party thc right to dcnouncc it and cvcn, in cascs ol urgcncy, to rccom
mcncc hostilitics immcdiatcly.

Yoram also notcs that Articlc 6c ol thc \icnna

Convcntion on thc Law ol Trcatics scts lorth that a Party to a trcaty (a tcrm
c Yoram instcin, supra notc ., at .
. S.C. Rcs. 6, (Nov. a, .c), rcprintcd in a !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is
.6.
a S.C. Rcs. 66 (March a, ..), rcprintcd in c !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is
6, (..).
S.C. Rcs. 6, (April , ..), rcprintcd in c !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is ,
(..).
Yoram instcin, supra notc ., at c.
Id. at c.
206 John F. Murphy
cmbracing a lormal ccascrc agrccmcnt bctwccn Statcs) may invokc its matcrial
brcach by anothcr Party as a ground ol tcrminating or suspcnding thc opcration
ol thc trcaty.
6
Sccurity Council Rcsolution ..

is citcd by Yoram as an additional basis

lor thc lcgality ol thc invasion. Hc rst notcs that Rcsolution .. dccidcd catc
gorically in a binding manncr undcr Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr that !raq has
bccn and rcmains in matcrial brcach ol its obligations undcr rclcvant rcsolutions,
including rcsolution 6,, insolar as disarmamcnt obligations arc conccrncd and
that it gavc !raq a nal opportunity to comply with its disarmamcnt obligations
by giving UN inspcctors a lull account ol its programs to dcvclop wcapons ol
mass dcstruction. ncc scvcral rcports lrom UN inspcctors concludcd that !raq
had not mct its obligations and wcrc transmittcd to thc Sccurity Council, a lur
thcr matcrial brcach ol thc ccascrc agrccmcnt mandatcd by Rcsolution 6,
was cstablishcd, and thc dccision whcthcr and whcn to rccommcncc military
opcrations was vcstcd in thc othcr sidc to thc armcd conict undcr thc Haguc
Rcgulations and thc \icnna Convcntion, to wit, thc (rcstructurcd) coalition,
and thcrc was no nccd lor thc coalition to obtain anothcr rcsolution lrom thc
Sccurity Council.
8
Similar argumcnts, with somc variations, havc bccn advanccd by rcprc
scntativcs ol thc Unitcd Statcs Govcrnmcnt,

as wcll as by othcr commcntators

supporting thc lcgality ol thc invasion.
o
!t is notcworthy that thc US govcrn
mcnt, likc Yoram, has not rclicd on sclldclcnsc as a ground lor thc invasion
ol !raq.
+
8y contrast, somc commcntators havc placcd substantial cmphasis on
sclldclcnsc as a justication lor thc invasion ol !raq. John Yoo, lor cxamplc, has
6 Id.
, S.C. Rcs. .. (Nov. , acca), rcprintcd in a !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i M~:vvi~is
ac (acc).
Id. Yoram instcin, supra notc ., at c..
See especially, Villiam H. Talt, !\ & Todd F. 8uchwald, Preemption, Iraq, and
International La., ,, AM. J. !x:i L. ,, 6 (acc) (articlc by thc Statc cpartmcnt
Lcgal Adviscr and his assistant), Villiam H. Talt, !\, US cpt. ol Statc Lcgal
Adviscr, Rcmarks 8clorc thc National Association ol Attorncys Gcncral ..6 (Mar.
ac, acc).
c See e.g., John Yoo, International La. and the !ar in Iraq, , A:. J. !x:i L. 6 (acc),
Nicolas Rostow, Determining the La.fulness of the :cc Campaign gainst Iraq, a
!sv~vi Yv~vnoox ov Hu:~x Ricn:s . (acc).
. To bc surc, as notcd by Scan Murphy, thcrc havc bccn somc bricl and cryptic rcl
crcnccs to sclldclcnsc in statcmcnts madc by US rcprcscntativcs spcaking in an
ocial capacity, but thcsc havc not involvcd an invocation ol Articlc . ol thc UN
Chartcr or any cxtcnsivc lcgal analysis. See sourccs citcd in Scan Murphy, ssessing
the Legality of In.ading Iraq, a Gvo. L. J. .,, .,,6, n. .a (acc).
207 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
argucd that Articlc . ol thc UN Chartcr,
:
dcspitc its apparcnt rcquircmcnt ol
an actual armcd attack, has rctaincd thc prcChartcr doctrinc that pcrmittcd thc
usc ol armcd lorcc in anticipation ol an immincnt armcd attack in accordancc
with thc classic lormulation ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc that arosc lrom thc .,
Carolinc incidcnt. Tcrc, US Sccrctary ol Statc anicl Vcbstcr, in thc contcxt ol
a disputc with Grcat 8ritain ovcr an attack launchcd lrom Canada against thc
small stcamcr Carolinc whilc it was dockcd on thc Amcrican sidc ol thc Niagara
Rivcr, statcd that thc usc ol lorcc in sclldclcnsc should bc limitcd to cascs in
which thc ncccssity ol that sclldclcnsc is instant, ovcrwhclming, and lcaving no
choicc ol mcans, and no momcnt lor dclibcration.

At an carlicr timc Vcbstcr

had dcclarcd a rcquircmcnt ol proportionality that thc act, justicd by thc ncccs
sity ol sclldclcnsc, must bc limitcd by that ncccssity, and kcpt clcarly within it.

As summarizcd by Yoo, |t|hc Carolinc tcst has bccn distillcd into two princi
pal rcquircmcnts. First, thc usc ol lorcc must bc ncccssary bccausc thc thrcat is
immincnt and, thus, pursuing pcacclul altcrnativcs is not an option. Sccond, thc
rcsponsc must bc proportionatc to thc thrcat.

Yoos rclormulatcd tcst lor using lorcc in anticipatory sclldclcnsc, how

cvcr, dcncs thc tcrm immincnt in a highly cxpansivc lashion and applics it to
!raq in a highly controvcrsial manncr. According to Yoo:
Tc usc ol lorcc in anticipatory sclldclcnsc must bc ncccssary and proportional
to thc thrcat. At lcast in thc rcalm ol VM |wcapons ol mass dcstruction|,
roguc nations, and intcrnational tcrrorism, howcvcr, thc tcst lor dctcrmining
whcthcr a thrcat is sucicntly immincnt to rcndcr thc usc ol lorcc ncccs
sary at a particular point has bccomc morc nuanccd than Sccrctary Vcbstcrs
ninctccnth ccntury lormulation. Factors to bc considcrcd should now includc
thc probability ol an attack, thc likclihood that this probability will incrcasc,
and thcrclorc thc nccd to takc advantagc ol a limitcd window ol opportunity,
a Articlc . ol thc UN Chartcr providcs:
Nothing in thc prcscnt Chartcr shall impair thc inhcrcnt right ol individual
or collcctivc sclldclcnsc il an armcd attack occurs against a Mcmbcr ol thc
Unitcd Nations, until thc Sccurity Council has takcn thc mcasurcs ncccssary
to maintain intcrnational pcacc and sccurity. Mcasurcs takcn by Mcmbcrs in
thc cxcrcisc ol this right ol sclldclcnsc shall bc immcdiatcly rcportcd to thc
Sccurity Council and shall not in any way acct thc authority and rcsponsibility
ol thc Sccurity Council undcr thc prcscnt Chartcr to takc at any timc such
action as it dccms ncccssary in ordcr to maintain or rcstorc intcrnational pcacc
and sccurity.
See J.8. Moorc, icvs: ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w .a (.c6).
Mr. Vcbstcr to Mr. Fox (April a, ..), a 8vi:isn Axb Fovvicx S:~:v P~vvvs
..a, .. (.,).
John Yoo, supra notc c, at ,a.
208 John F. Murphy
whcthcr diplomatic altcrnativcs arc practical, and thc magnitudc ol thc harm
that could rcsult lrom thc thrcat....
Applying thc rclormulatcd tcst lor using lorcc in anticipatory scll
dclcnsc to thc potcntial usc ol lorcc against !raq rcvcals that thc thrcat ol a
VM attack by !raq, cithcr dircctly or through !raqs support lor tcrrorism,
was sucicntly immincnt to rcndcr thc usc ol lorcc ncccssary to protcct thc
Unitcd Statcs, its citizcns, and its allics. Tc lorcc uscd was proportionatc to
thc thrcat poscd by !raq, in othcr words, it was limitcd to that which is nccdcd
to climinatc thc thrcat, including thc dcstruction ol !raqs VM capabil
ity and rcmoving thc sourcc ol !raqs hostilc intcntions and actions, Saddam
Husscin.
6
Yoos rclormulatcd tcst lor sclldclcnsc draws hcavily on Te National Security
Strategy of the United States of merica, issucd in Scptcmbcr acca, which scts
lorth a stratcgy ol prccmptivc attack undcr ccrtain circumstanccs, a stratcgy
that othcrs havc labclcd onc ol prcvcntivc attack. According to this stratcgy,
|t|hc grcatcr thc thrcat, thc grcatcr is thc risk ol inaction and thc morc com
pclling thc casc lor taking anticipatory action to dclcnd oursclvcs, cvcn il unccr
tainty rcmains as to thc timc and placc ol thc cncmys attack. To lorcstall or
prcvcnt such hostilc acts by our advcrsarics, thc Unitcd Statcs will, il ncccssary,
act prccmptivcly.

For his part, Yoram has rcjcctcd thc doctrinc ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc
as incompatiblc with Articlc . ol thc UN Chartcr. !n his vicw an actual armcd
attack is rcquircd lor thc usc ol lorcc in sclldclcnsc.
8
!n a provocativc stcp, how
cvcr, hc has dcncd thc scopc ol an armcd attack broadly to covcr not only thc
ring ol rcarms but also ccrtain prcliminary stcps such as troop movcmcnts.

According to Yoram, |t|hc crucial qucstion is who cmbarks upon an irrcvcrsiblc
coursc ol action, thcrcby crossing thc Rubicon.
o
thcr commcntators, includ
ing this writcr, would agrcc with Yoo that Articlc . rctains thc prcChartcr right
ol anticipatory sclldclcnsc, but would disagrcc with his (arguably) ovcrly cxpan
sivc conccpts ol immincncc, ncccssity, and proportionality as applicd to thc
invasion ol !raq.
6 Id. at ,.
, Tnv N~:iox~i Svcuvi:v S:v~:vcv ov :nv Uxi:vb S:~:vs ov A:vvic~ .
(acca).
See Yoram instcin, supra notc a, at .66.
Id. at .6,. Tus, according to Yoram, oncc thc Japancsc cct sct o on its way to
attack Pcarl Harbor, it was cngagcd in an armcd attack on thc Unitcd Statcs, and thc
Unitcd Statcs would havc bccn cntitlcd to rcspond to this armcd attack by ring thc
rst shot. Id. at .,.,a.
c Id. at .,a.
209 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
Tc dcbatc ovcr prccmptivc sclldclcnsc asidc, it is clcar that thc kcy issuc
in thc dcbatc ovcr thc lcgality ol thc invasion ol !raq rcvolvcs around thc intcr
prctation and application ol Sccurity Council rcsolutions. Tis is a highly com
plcx and closc issuc that has bccn cxplorcd in dcpth clscwhcrc.
+
For my part,
with rcgrct, bccausc ! strongly support thc policy rcasons lor invading !raq, !
nd thc US, and Yorams, argumcnts ultimatcly unpcrsuasivc.
:
!n my vicw thc
most scrious wcakncss in thc argumcnt is its rcliancc on thc proposition that
thc ccascrc in thc Gull crcatcd by Sccurity Council Rcsolution 6, bccamc
automatically nonopcrativc in thc cvcnt ol a matcrial brcach by !raq, and, as a
rcsult, thc authority to usc lorcc containcd in Rcsolution 6, rcvivcd and justi
cd thc rcncwcd usc ol lorcc against !raq. Unlikc most ccascrc arrangcmcnts,
thc ccascrc in thc Gull Var did not comc about bccausc ol an agrccmcnt
bctwccn thc warring partics. Rathcr, thc ccascrc in thc Gull was mandatcd
by thc Sccurity Council through Rcsolution 6, and lormally acccptcd by !raq.
Hcncc, thc ccascrc agrccmcnt in this casc is bctwccn thc Unitcd Nations
and !raq, not bctwccn !raq and thc coalition lorccs. Morcovcr, as pointcd out by
Scan Murphy, |n|othing in Rcsolution 6, suggcsts that thc Sccurity Council
sought to lcavc to Mcmbcr Statcs thc rolc ol monitoring thc rcsolution. !ndccd,
. For a scrics ol articlcs cxprcssing various points ol vicw, see gora: Future Implications
of the Iraq Conict, , A:. J. !x:i L. 6a (acc). A similar scrics ol articlcs may
bc lound in Symposium: Te Fule of La. in Conict and Post-Conict Situations, a,
H~vv. J. L. a Pun. Poiv 6a (acc). All ol thcsc articlcs arc worth rcading. At thc
risk ol making invidious comparisons, ! would cspccially rccommcnd, rst, as articlcs
supporting thc lcgality ol thc US usc ol lorcc: Villiam Howard Talt !\ and Todd
8uchwald, Preemption, Iraq, and International La., , A:. J. !x:i L. , (acc),
John Yoo, International La. and the !ar in Iraq, , A:. J. !x:i L. 6 (acc), Ruth
Vcdgwood, Te Fall of Saddam Hussein: Security Council Mandates and Preempti.e
Self-Defense, , A:. J. !x:i L. ,6 (acc), Richard N. Gardncr,Neither Bush Nor
the Jurisprudes, , A:. J. !x:i L. (acc), Yoram instcin, Comments on !ar, a,
H~vv. J. L. a Pun. Poiv ,, (acc), Michacl N. Schmitt, U.S. Security Strategies:
Legal ssessment, a, H~vv. J. L. a Pun. Poiv ,, (acc), Robcrt F. Turncr, Operation
Iraqi Freedom: Legal nd Policy Considerations, a, H~vv.,. L. a Pun. Poiv ,6 (acc),
Vol Hcintschcl von Hcincgg, Factors in !ar to Peace Transitions,a, H~vv. J. L. a
Pun. Poiv (acc), sccond,as articlcs challcnging thc lcgality ol thc US usc ol
lorcc: Richard A. Falk, !hat Future for the UN Charter System of !ar Pre.ention?,
, A:. J. !x:i. L. c (acc), Miriam Sapiro, Iraq: Te Shifting Sands of Preempti.e
Self-Defense, , A:. J. !x:i L. (acc), Tomas M. Franck, !hat Happens No.?
Te United Nations fter Iraq, , A:. J. !x:i L. 6c, (acc), Tom J. Farcr, Te Prospect
for International La. and Order in the !ake of Iraq, , A:. J. !x:i L. 6a. (acc). !n
addition, a tour dc lorcc ol argumcnts challcnging thc lcgality ol thc US usc ol lorcc
may bc lound in Scan Murphy, ssessing the Legality of In.ading Iraq, a Gvo.i. J. .,
(acc). For a thoughtlul cssay that rccognizcs thc closcncss ol thc qucstion ol lcgal
authority lor using lorcc in !raq, and thcn addrcsscs possiblc luturc dcvclopmcnts
in this arca ol law and practicc, see Janc . Stromscth, La. and Force fter Iraq:
Transitional Moment, , A:. J. !x:i L. 6a (acc).
a For discussion, see John F. Murphy, supra notc , at .,, .6,,.
210 John F. Murphy
thc oppositc is thc casc, in paragraph thirtylour ol thc rcsolution, thc Sccurity
Council dccidcd to rcmain scizcd ol thc mattcr and to takc such lurthcr stcps as
may bc rcquircd lor thc implcmcntation ol thc prcscnt rcsolution and to sccurc
pcacc and sccurity in thc arca.

Hcncc it was thc Sccurity Council that was to

dccidc what thc conscqucnccs ol a matcrial brcach ol thc ccascrc should bc,
not thc mcmbcr statcs.
Nor, in my vicw, did thc situation changc with thc Sccurity Councils adop
tion ol Rcsolution ... Although Rcsolution .. was unanimously adoptcd by
thc Sccurity Council, it was a mastcrpiccc ol diplomatic ambiguity that maskcd
rcal dicrcnccs ol opinion bctwccn thc Unitcd Statcs and thc Unitcd Kingdom,
on thc onc hand, and Francc, Gcrmany, and Russia, on thc othcr, in how !raqs
lailurc to lulll its obligations undcr Rcsolution 6, should bc handlcd.

Noncthclcss, again as pointcd out by Scan Murphy, thc dcbatc at thc Sccurity
Council rcccts a bclicl by all thc mcmbcrs (with thc cxccption ol thc Unitcd
Statcs) that thcy had, altcr intcnsivc wccks ol ncgotiation, rcachcd a conscnsus
on a twostagc proccss whcrcby, il !raq lailcd to disarm, thc Sccurity Council
would dccidc at a luturc, sccond stagc whcthcr to authorizc thc usc ol lorcc.

Morcovcr, it is doubtlul whcthcr an authorization ol thc usc ol lorcc may cvcr bc
implicit in a Sccurity Council rcsolution, and Rcsolution .. contains no cxplicit
authorization.
Assuming argucndo that Sccurity Council rcsolutions do not authorizc thc
usc ol lorcc against !raq bccausc ol its violations ol Rcsolution 6,, this should not
bc thc cnd ol thc analysis. Tcrc is considcrablc cvidcncc that, lar lrom hclping
to cnlorcc Rcsolution 6,, Francc and Russia cngagcd in dcals with thc Saddam
Husscin govcrnmcnt that undcrmincd its cnlorccmcnt.
6
Morcovcr, in rclusing
to acccpt thc US and U.K. proposal that thc Sccurity Council adopt a rcsolu
tion cxplicitly authorizing thc usc ol lorcc il !raq lailcd to lulll its obligation to
disarm lor rcasons that had littlc to do with thc mcrits ol thc mattcr

Francc,
China, and Russia arguably lailcd to lulll thcir obligation as pcrmancnt mcm
bcrs ol thc Council to allow thc Council to pcrlorm its collcctivc sccurity lunc
tions to maintain intcrnational pcacc and sccurity.
8
As dward Luck, a longtimc
obscrvcr and commcntator on thc Unitcd Nations, rcccntly notcd: Tc Unitcd
Scan Murphy, supra notc ., at acac.
See John F. Murphy, supra notc , at .6.
Scan Murphy, supra notc ., at a..
6 Tnv Co:vvvnvxsivv Rvvov: ov :nv Svvci~i Abvisov :o :nv C! ox !v~gs
VM (thc ucllcr Rcport) (Scpt. c, acc) is lull ol cxamplcs ol such actions by
thc Russian and Frcnch Govcrnmcnts.
, See Michacl J. Glcnnon, !hy the Security Council Failed, Fovvicx Avv., MayJunc
acc, at .6.
! am pursuing this thcmc in anothcr articlc, tcntativcly titlcd, nlorcing thc
Pcacc: Privilcgcs and Rcsponsibilitics ol Pcrmancnt Mcmbcrs ol thc UN Sccurity
Council.
211 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
Nations, sadly, has driltcd lar lrom its lounding vision. !ts Chartcr ncithcr calls
lor a dcmocratic council nor rclcgatcs thc collcctivc usc ol lorcc to a last rcsort. !t
was a wartimc documcnt ol a military alliancc, not a univcrsal pcacc platlorm.

!l thc Unitcd Statcs violatcd thc UN Chartcr by its military actions in
Kosovo and !raq, it has indccd driltcd lar lrom thc rulc ol law paradigm. To bc
surc, as wc havc sccn, this proposition is dcbatablc, with Yoram in opposition
with rcgard to !raq. !n any cvcnt, thc dcbatc will not bc rcsolvcd through rclcr
cncc to a court, itscll a dcviation lrom thc rulc ol law paradigm. Somc commcn
tators havc suggcstcd that thc rcsult ol thcsc actions is that thc norms ol thc UN
Chartcr on thc usc ol lorcc arc dcad and thc Sccurity Council is clcarly unablc
to addrcss major thrcats to intcrnational pcacc and sccurity.
6o
lscwhcrc, ! and
othcrs havc attcmptcd to rclutc thc thcsis that thc law ol thc Chartcr on armcd
lorcc is dcad.
6+
Tc validity ol thc proposition that thc Sccurity Council is unablc
to addrcss major thrcats to intcrnational pcacc and sccurity rcmains to bc sccn.
6:

Michacl Rcisman has argucd that, il thc Sccurity Council lails to act in rcsponsc
to a thrcat to thc pcacc, this lailurc to lulll its rcsponsibilitics rclcascs mcmbcr
statcs lrom thc constraints on thc usc ol lorcc imposcd by Articlc a() ol thc
Chartcr.
6
Tis claim has not bccn acccptcd by most scholars or rccctcd in statc
practicc.
6
!n rcality, howcvcr, il thc Sccurity Council lails in thc luturc to lulll
its obligation to maintain intcrnational pcacc and sccurity, powcrlul statcs, likc
thc Unitcd Statcs, arc likcly to takc thc law into thcir own hands, with thc most
scrious advcrsc conscqucnccs lor thc jus ad bellum ol thc UN Chartcr.
II Jus in Bello and Alleged Violations of
International Human Rights
Tc rcstorm ol dcbatc gcncratcd by ccrtain US actions takcn as part ol thc
war on tcrrorism has bccn at lcast as hcatcd, il not morc so, than thc dcbatc
ovcr thc invasion ol !raq.
6
A promincnt cxamplc is thc chargc containcd in
dward C. Luck, Making the !orld Safe for Hypocrisy, N.Y. Ti:vs, Mar. aa, acc, at
A.., col. ..
6c Michacl J. Glcnnon, supra ,, at .6., a, Anthony Clark Arcnd, International La.
and the Preempti.e Use of Military Force, V~sn. Q., Spring acc, at , .c..
6. John F. Murphy, supra notc , at .,,.. See also, e.g., Janc . Stromscth, supra notc .,
at 6a.
6a Janc Stromscth has suggcstcd that stcps should bc takcn to rclutc thc validity ol this
proposition. Scc Janc . Stromscth, supra notc ., at 6a.
6 Michacl Rcisman, Nuiii:v Axb Rvvisiox (.,.).
6 John F. Murphy, Force and rms, in . Uxi:vb N~:ioxs Lvc~i vbvv a,, a,. (scar
Schachtcr & Christophcr C. Joyncr, cds. .).
6 To bc surc, thc 8ush administration has in part dclcndcd thc invasion ol !raq as a
componcnt ol thc war on tcrrorism, but lor purposcs ol this contribution, thcy will
bc trcatcd as scparatc issucs.
212 John F. Murphy
Amncsty !ntcrnationals acc annual rcport on thc statc ol human rights around
thc world that thc 8ush administration had condoncd atrocious human rights
violations, thcrcby diminishing its moral authority and sctting a global cxam
plc cncouraging abusc by othcr nations.
66
!n hcr lorward to thc rcport, !rcnc
Khan, Sccrctary Gcncral, Amncsty !ntcrnational, claimcd that thc dctcntion
lacility at Guantanamo 8ay had bccomc thc gulag ol our timcs, cntrcnching
thc practicc ol arbitrary and indcnitc dctcntion in violation ol intcrnational
law.
6
Ms. Khan also chargcd that thc Unitcd Statcs had gonc to grcat lcngths
to rcstrict thc application ol thc Gcncva Convcntions and to rcdcnc torturc.
!t has sought to justily thc usc ol cocrcivc intcrrogation tcchniqucs, thc practicc
ol holding ghost dctainccs (pcoplc in unacknowlcdgcd incommunicado dctcn
tion) and thc rcndcring or handing ovcr ol prisoncrs to third countrics known to
practicc torturc ... Trials by military commissions havc madc a mockcry ol justicc
and duc proccss.
68

For his part, thc cxccutivc dircctor ol Amncsty !ntcrnational in thc Unitcd
Statcs, Villiam F. Schultz, at a prcss conlcrcncc, callcd upon thc US Congrcss
to appoint a truly impartial and indcpcndcnt commission to invcstigatc thc
mastcrminds ol thc atrocious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and othcr
dctcntion ccntcrs.
6
!n rcsponsc, Scott McClcllan, thc Vhitc Housc spokcsman,
rcportcdly said: ! think thc allcgations arc ridiculous, and unsupportcd by thc
lacts. Tc Unitcd Statcs is lcading thc way whcn it comcs to protccting human
rights and promoting human dignity. Vc havc libcratcd c million pcoplc in !raq
and Alghanistan. Vc havc workcd to advancc lrccdom and dcmocracy in thc
world so that pcoplc arc govcrncd undcr a rulc ol law, that thcrc arc protcctions
in placc lor minority rights, that womcns rights arc advanccd so that womcn can
lully participatc in socictics whcrc now thcy cannot.
o

Tcrc havc bccn a numbcr ol othcr strongly wordcd writings that havc
claimcd numcrous allcgcd US violations ol thc law ol armcd conict and intcr
national human rights arising out ol thc war on tcrrorism.
+
Spacc and timc limi
tations prccludc this contribution cxploring most ol thcsc allcgations. Rathcr,
66 See U.S. Tumbs Its Nose t Fights, mnesty Says, N.Y. Ti:vs, Junc a6, acc, at A.c.
6, !rcnc Khan, Forward, A:xvs:v !x:vvx~:iox~i Rvvov: acc, at ..
6 Id.
6 See Transcript ol Amncsty !ntcrnational Ncws Conlcrcncc, May a, acc, availablc
at 6, http://globalrcscarch.ca/articlcs/AMNcA.html.
,c U.S. Tumbs Its Nose t Fights, mnesty Says, supra notc 66.
,. See e.g., Jordan J. Paust, Executi.e Plans and uthori.ations to !iolate International
La., Coiu:. J. Tv~xsx~:i L. .. (acc), Jordan J. Paust, Post-,zz O.erreaction
and Fallacies Fegarding !ar and Defense, Guantanamo, the Status of Persons, Treatment,
Judicial Fe.ie. of Detention, and Due Process in Military Commissions, , No:vv
~:v L. Rvv. . (acc). For a usclul ovcrvicw, see Martha Minow, !hat is the
Greatest E.il?, .. H~vv. L. Rvv. a. (acc) (rcvicwing Michacl !gnatic, Tnv
Lvssvv vii: Poii:ic~i :nics ix ~x Acv ov Tvvvov (acc)).
213 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
lor prcscnt purposcs, this contribution will bricy cxaminc thrcc issucs con
ccrning which Yorams writings havc particular rclcvancc: thc applicability ol
thc law ol armcd conict to thc war on tcrrorism, thc status ol thc dctainccs at
Guantanamo 8ay and othcr dctcntion ccntcrs outsidc ol thc Unitcd Statcs, and
command rcsponsibility lor clcar violations ol thc law ol armcd conict commit
tcd by US lorccs.
pplicability of the La. of rmed Conict
!n his trcatisc on thc law ol armcd conict, Yoram limits his discussion to thc law
ol international armcd conict and makcs no attcmpt to addrcss thc law ol intra
statc conict or civil wars.
:
Yoram also makcs it clcar that thc applicability ol
thc law ol intcrnational armcd conict rcquircs thc prcscncc ol an armcd conict
bctwccn two or morc statcs. Somc commcntators, thcrclorc, quickly concludc
that, sincc thc Scptcmbcr .. attack against thc Unitcd Statcs was not commit
tcd by a statc but rathcr by a nonStatc actor (Al Qacda), thc war on tcrrorism
is a misnomcr and intcrnational criminal law is thc appositc cld ol law.

8ut
thc war on tcrrorism would sccm to involvc both thc law ol armcd conict and
intcrnational criminal law. Tc US and UK attack on Alghanistan ncccssarily
gavc risc to an intcrstatc conict bctwccn thc Unitcd Statcs and Alghanistan.
Tc Taliban, thc de facto govcrnmcnt ol Alghanistan in control ol ovcr c ol
thc countrys tcrritory, had givcn sanctuary to Al Qacda, allowing it to usc its tcr
ritory as a basc ol opcrations, and rcluscd to surrcndcr thc lcadcrs ol Al Qacda
and closc down thcir bascs in rcsponsc to thc US ultimatum.

Although only
thrcc statcs (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and thc Unitcd Arab miratcs) had rccog
nizcd thc Taliban as thc govcrnmcnt ol Alghanistan, Yoram has pointcd out that
no lormal rccognition ol a particular rcgimc as thc Govcrnmcnt ol thc cncmy
Statc is ncccssary. Conscqucntly, in thc acc. hostilitics, it did not mattcr that thc
Taliban rcgimc lailcd to gain rccognition as thc Govcrnmcnt ol Alghanistan by
thc intcrnational community at largc (and spccically by thc Unitcd Statcs). Tc
lact that thc Taliban was in control ol most ol thc tcrritory ol Alghanistan mcant
that (rccognizcd or not) it was thc de facto Govcrnmcnt, and thc rcgimcs actions
had to bc trcatcd as thc actions ol thc statc ol Alghanistan.

For its part, thc Unitcd Statcs govcrnmcnt had an intcrnal dcbatc on thc
applicability ol thc Gcncva Convcntions to thc conict in Alghanistan. Tc
,a Yoram instcin, supra notc , at ..
, See Antonio Casscsc, Terrorism is lso Disrupting Some Crucial Legal Categories of
International La., .a uv. J. !x:i L. (acc.), Jordan J. Paust, !ar and Enemy
Status fter ,zz: ttacks on the La.s of !ar, a Y~iv J. !x:i L. a (acc).
, See Michacl N. Schmitt, Counter-Terrorism and the Use of Force in International La.,
in a !sv~vi Yv~vnoox ox Hu:~x Ricn:s , 6 (acca).
, Yoram instcin, supra notc , at .6.
214 John F. Murphy
cpartmcnt ol Justicc took thc position that thc Gcncva Convcntions, cspccially
thc Gcncva Convcntion Rclativc to thc Trcatmcnt ol Prisoncrs ol Var (thc Tird
Gcncva Convcntion), did not apply to thc conict in Alghanistan and thcrclorc
ncithcr thc Taliban nor Al Qacda was cntitlcd to prisoncr ol war status.
6
!n con
trast, thc cpartmcnt ol Statc was ol thc vicw that thc Gcncva Convcntions,
including thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion, applicd to thc conict and thc status ol
thc Taliban and Al Qacda should bc dctcrmincd in accordancc with thc critcria
sct lorth in thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion.

Tc thcn Counscl to thc Prcsidcnt,

Albcrto R. Gonzalcs, supportcd thc position ol thc cpartmcnt ol Justicc but
did notc thc policy argumcnts advanccd by thc cpartmcnt ol Statc.
8

n Fcbruary ,, acca, Prcsidcnt 8ush announccd thc US position on this
issuc. Hc dctcrmincd that: (.) thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion applics to thc
armcd conict in Alghanistan bctwccn thc Taliban and thc Unitcd Statcs, (a) thc
Convcntion docs not apply to thc armcd conict in Alghanistan and clscwhcrc
bctwccn Al Qacda and thc Unitcd Statcs, () ncithcr capturcd Taliban pcrsonncl
nor capturcd Al Qacda pcrsonncl arc cntitlcd to thc status ol prisoncrs ol war
,6 US cpartmcnt ol Justicc, Mcmorandum lor Villiam J. Hayncs !!, Gcncral Counscl,
cpartmcnt ol clcnsc, Fe pplication of Treaties and La.s to al Qaeda and Taliban
Detainees, prcparcd by John Yoo and Robcrt J. clahunty, cc ol Lcgal Counscl,
Jan. , acca, availablc at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/cacc/sitc.ncwswcck.
,, US cpartmcnt ol Statc, Mcmorandum to thc Counscl to thc Prcsidcnt, Assistant
to thc Prcsidcnt lor National Sccurity Aairs, by Colin L. Powcll, Draft Decision
Memorandum for the President on the pplicability of the Gene.a Con.ention to the
Conict in fghanistan, availablc at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6/sitc/ncws
wcck.
, Vhitc Housc, Mcmorandum lor thc Prcsidcnt lrom Albcrto R. Gonzalcs, Decision
Fe pplication of the Gene.a Con.ention on Prisoners of !ar to the Conict .ith l
Qaeda and the Taliban, Jan. a, acca, availablc at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
./sitc/ncwswcck. !t should bc notcd that somc ol thc argumcnts advanccd
in this mcmorandum in lavor ol not applying thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion prc
cipitatcd strong rcactions. For cxamplc, at pagc a, thc mcmorandum suggcsts that
thc naturc ol thc war on tcrrorism (thc ncw paradigm) rcndcrs obsolctc Gcncvas
strict limitations on qucstioning ol cncmy prisoncrs and rcndcrs quaint somc ol
its provisions rcquiring that capturcd cncmy bc aordcd such things as commis
sary privilcgcs, scrip (i.c., advanccs ol monthly pay), athlctic unilorms, and scicntic
instrumcnts. (cmphasis addcd). Similarly, also on pagc a, thc mcmorandum suggcsts
that a dctcrmination that thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion docs not apply would sig
nicantly rcducc thc thrcat ol domcstic criminal prosccution undcr thc Var Crimcs
Act (. U.S.C. a.). !t lurthcr notcs that thc Var Crimcs Act criminalizcs thc
commission ol a war crimc by or against a US pcrson, including US ocials. Var
crimcs includc any gravc brcachcs ol thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion or any violation
ol common articlc thcrcol, such as outragcs against pcrsonal dignity. !l thc Tird
Gcncva Convcntion applics, somc ol thcsc provisions apply cvcn il thc dctaincd
individual docs not qualily as a prisoncr ol war. Critics ol thc 8ush administration
havc contcndcd that thcsc argumcnts hclpcd to crcatc an atmosphcrc which cncour
agcd thc outragcs committcd at Guantanamo 8ay and othcr dctcntion ccntcrs.
215 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
undcr thc Convcntion, and () noncthclcss, all capturcd Taliban and Al Qacda
pcrsonncl arc to bc trcatcd humancly and consistcntly with thc gcncral princi
plcs ol thc Convcntion, to thc cxtcnt appropriatc and consistcnt with military
ncccssity, and dclcgatcs ol thc !ntcrnational Committcc ol thc Rcd Cross may
privatcly visit cach dctaincc.

Tc blankct dccision to dcny prisoncr ol war status to all capturcd Taliban
and Al Qacda dctainccs has comc undcr sharp rc.
B Status of the Detainees at Guantanamo Bay and
other Detention Centers
Gcorgc Aldrich, a lormcr cputy Lcgal Adviscr ol thc US cpartmcnt ol Statc
and cpartmcnt ol clcnsc lawycr, has criticizcd Prcsidcnt 8ushs dccision to
dcny prisoncr ol war status to all capturcd Taliban and Al Qacda dctainccs as
contrary to thc rcquircmcnts ol thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion.
8o
Articlc ol thc
Tird Gcncva Convcntion providcs in pcrtincnt part:
A. Prisoncrs ol war, in thc scnsc ol thc prcscnt Convcntion, arc pcrsons
bclonging to onc ol lollowing catcgorics, who havc lallcn into thc powcr
ol thc cncmy:
(.) Mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs ol a Party to thc conict, as wcll as
mcmbcrs ol militias or voluntccr corps lorming part ol such armcd
lorccs.
(a) Mcmbcrs ol othcr militias and mcmbcrs ol othcr voluntccr corps,
including thosc ol organizcd rcsistancc movcmcnts, bclonging to a
Party to thc conict and opcrating in or outsidc thcir own tcrritory,
cvcn il this tcrritory is occupicd, providcd that such militias or vol
untccr corps, including such organizcd rcsistancc movcmcnts, lulll
thc lollowing conditions:
(a) that ol bcing commandcd by a pcrson rcsponsiblc lor his sub
ordinatcs,
(b) that ol having a xcd distinctivc sign rccognizablc at a dis
tancc,
(c) that ol carrying arms opcnly,
(d) that ol conducting thcir opcrations in accordancc with thc
laws and customs ol war.
, Ari Flcischcr, Spccial Vhitc Housc Announccmcnt Rc: Application ol Gcncva
Convcntions in Alghanistan (Fcb. ,, acca), availablc in LX!S, Lcgis Library, Fcdncw
Filc, see also Vhitc Housc Fact Shcct: Status ol ctainccs at Guantanamo (Fcb. ,,
acca), availablc at http://www.whitchousc.gov/ncws/rclcascs/acca/ca.html.
c Gcorgc H. Aldrich, Te Taliban, l Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants,
6 A:. J. !x:i L. . (acca).
216 John F. Murphy
Although no lormal lcgal dclcnsc ol thc Prcsidcnts dccision was publishcd, Ari
Flcischcr, thc Vhitc Housc Prcss Sccrctary, ocrcd thc lollowing cxplanation ol
that dccision:
Undcr Articlc ol thc Gcncva Convcntion...Taliban dctainccs arc not cntitlcd
to PV status. To qualily as PVs undcr Articlc , al Qacda and Taliban
dctainccs would havc to havc satiscd lour conditions: Tcy would havc to bc
part ol a military hicrarchy, thcy would havc to havc worn unilorms or othcr
distinctivc signs visiblc at a distancc, thcy would havc to havc carricd thcir
arms opcnly, and thcy would havc to havc conductcd thcir military opcrations
in accordancc with thc laws and customs ol war.
Tc Taliban havc not ccctivcly distinguishcd thcmsclvcs lrom thc
civilian population ol Alghanistan. Morcovcr, thcy havc not conductcd thcir
opcrations in accordancc with thc laws and customs ol war. !nstcad, thcy havc
knowingly adoptcd and providcd support to thc unlawlul tcrrorist objcctivcs ol
thc al Qacda.
8+
!n his commcntary, Aldrich points out that Flcischcr was summarizing thc pro
visions ol Articlc (A) (a) ol thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion. 8ut paragraph A
(a) dcals only with mcmbcrs ol militias or othcr voluntccr corps that are not
part of the armed forces of a party to the armed conict .Tc Taliban wcrc, ol coursc,
mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorcc ol Alghanistan, a party to thc armcd conict. As
to thcm, paragraph A (.) would sccm appositc. Tc lour conditions spccicd by
Flcischcr as justilying thc Prcsidcnts dccision would appcar to apply only to thc
sccond catcgory ol PVs, and that catcgory rclatcs solcly to militias and volun
tccr corps that do not lorm part ol thc armcd lorccs ol a party to thc conict. !n
most cascs, Al Qacda dctainccs would lall into this catcgory. vcn as to thc Al
Qacda dctainccs, howcvcr, it is arguablc that somc may bc cntitlcd to prisoncr ol
war status. Tis would appcar to bc thc casc il an individual Al Qacda mcmbcr
could provc that hc was a mcmbcr ol a militia or voluntccr corps lorming part ol
thc armcd lorccs ol Alghanistan within thc mcaning ol Articlc (A) (.) ol thc
Tird Gcncva Convcntion.
Yoram supports a dicrcnt intcrprctation ol Articlc (A) (.), although thc
languagc ol that provision would appcar on its lacc to support thc Aldrich vicw.
As cxplaincd by Yoram:
. Ari Flcischcr, Spccial Vhitc Housc Announccmcnt Rc: Application ol Gcncva
Convcntions in Alghanistan (Fcb. ,, acca), a.ailable in LX!S, Lcgis Library,
Fcdncw Filc, see also Vhitc Housc Fact Shcct: Status ol ctainccs at Guantanamo
(Fcb. ,, acca), availablc at http://www.whitchousc. gov/ncws /rclcascs/acca/ca.
html.
217 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
n thc lacc ol it, thc Gcncva Convcntions do not posc any conditions to thc cli
gibility ol rcgular lorccs to prisoncrs ol war status. Ncvcrthclcss, rcgular lorccs
arc not absolvcd lrom mccting thc cumulativc conditions binding irrcgular
lorccs. Tcrc is mcrcly a prcsumption that rcgular lorccs would, by thcir vcry
naturc, mcct thosc conditions. 8ut thc prcsumption can dcnitcly bc rcbuttcd.
Tc issuc camc to thc lorc in thc Mohamed li casc ol .6, whcrc thc Privy
Council hcld (pcr \iscount ilhornc) that it is not cnough to cstablish that a
pcrson bclongs to thc rcgular armcd lorccs, in ordcr to guarantcc to him thc
status ol a prisoncr ol war. Tc Privy Council pronounccd that cvcn mcmbcrs ol
thc armcd lorccs must obscrvc thc cumulativc conditions imposcd on irrcgular
lorccs, although this is not statcd expressis .erbis in thc Gcncva Convcntions or
in thc Haguc Rcgulations. Tc lacts ol thc casc rclatcd to !ndoncsian soldicrs
who at a timc ol a conlrontation bctwccn !ndoncsia and Malaysia plantcd
cxplosivcs in a building in Singaporc (thcn a part ol Malaysia) whilc wcaring
civilian clothcs. Tc Privy Council conrmcd thc Appcllants dcath scntcncc
lor murdcr, on thc ground that a rcgular soldicr committing an act ol sabotagc
whilc not in unilorm loscs his cntitlcmcnt to a prisoncr ol war status. Tc car
licr Quirin Judgmcnt conccrning Gcrman mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs who
took o thcir unilorms on a sabotagc mission in thc Unitcd Statcs (whcrc thcy
had landcd by submarinc) is to thc samc ccct.
8:
Tus, undcr Yorams analysis ol Articlc (A)(.) and (a) ol thc Tird Gcncva
Convcntion, ncithcr thc Taliban nor Al Qacda qualily lor prisoncr ol war status
and arc rathcr unlawlul combatants.
8
8y contrast, undcr Aldrichs analysis, thc
Taliban and somc Al Qacda mcmbcrs would qualily. Yoram rccognizcs thc dicr
cncc bctwccn him and Aldrich and suggcsts Articlc , paragraph a, ol thc Tird
Gcncva Convcntion as a way to rcsolvc this dicrcncc.
8
Articlc (a) providcs:
Should any doubt arisc as to whcthcr pcrsons, having committcd a bclligcrcnt
act and having lallcn into thc hands ol thc cncmy, bclong to any ol thc cat
cgorics cnumcratcd in Articlc , such pcrsons shall cnjoy thc protcction ol thc
prcscnt Convcntion until such timc as thcir status has bccn dctcrmincd by a
compctcnt tribunal.
Yoram suggcsts that thc Unitcd Statcs might bc wcll adviscd to havc thc status
ol Taliban lorccs dctcrmincd by a compctcnt tribunal. A compctcnt tribunal lor
this purposc can bc a military commission.
8
a Yoram instcin, supra notc , at 6.
For lurthcr discussion, see id. at ,c.
Id. at .
Id.
218 John F. Murphy
A rcccnt dccision ol thc Unitcd Statcs Court ol Appcals lor thc istrict ol
Columbia Circuit has indicatcd, in dicta, that an allcgcd mcmbcr ol Al Qacda
might bc ablc to asscrt his claim to prisoncr ol war status bclorc a military com
mission. !n Hamdan v. Fumsfeld,
86
Alghani militia lorccs had capturcd Salim
Ahmcd Hamdan in Alghanistan in latc Novcmbcr acc. and turncd him ovcr to
thc Amcrican military who transportcd him to thc Guantanamo 8ay Naval 8asc
in Cuba. Hc was kcpt in dctcntion thcrc until July , acc, whcn Prcsidcnt 8ush
dctcrmincd that thcrc was rcason to bclicvc that |Hamdan | was a mcmbcr ol al
Qacda or was othcrwisc involvcd in tcrrorism dircctcd against thc Unitcd Statcs.
Tis nding brought Hamdan within thc scopc ol thc Prcsidcnts Novcmbcr .,
acc., rdcr conccrning thc Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-citi-
.ens in the !ar gainst Terrorism,
8
and hc was dcsignatcd lor trial bclorc a mili
tary commission.
!n rcsponsc to thc U.S. Suprcmc Courts dccision in Hamdi v.Fumsfeld,
88

Hamdan rcccivcd a lormal hcaring bclorc a Combatant Status Rcvicw Tribunal.
Tc Tribunal armcd his status as an cncmy combatant, cithcr a mcmbcr ol or
aliatcd with Al Qacda, lor whom continucd dctcntion was rcquircd. !n April
acc, Hamdan lcd a pctition lor habcas corpus with thc Fcdcral istrict Court
lor thc istrict ol Columbia. n Novcmbcr , acc, thc district court grantcd
in part Hamdans pctition, holding, among othcr things, that Hamdan could not
bc tricd by a military commission unlcss a compctcnt tribunal dctcrmincd that
hc was not a prisoncr ol war undcr thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion.
8
n July
., acc, thc Court ol Appcals rcvcrscd, on a varicty ol grounds. Vith rcspcct
to Hamdans claim bascd on thc Gcncva Convcntions, thc court rulcd that thc
Tird Gcncva Convcntion did not conlcr upon Hamdan a right to cnlorcc its
provisions in U.S. courts. !n addition, Hamdan claimcd that, cvcn il thc Tird
Gcncva Convcntion was not judicially cnlorccablc, Army Rcgulation .c pro
vidcd a basis lor rclicl. Tis rcgulation implcmcnts intcrnational law, both cus
tomary and codicd, rclating to |cncmy prisoncrs ol war| ... which includcs thosc
pcrsons hcld during military opcrations othcr than war.
o
Hamdan claimcd that
Army Rcgulation .c cntitlcd him to havc a compctcnt tribunal dctcrminc
his status. Tc court cxprcsscd its bclicl that thc military commission would bc
such a tribunal and statcd: Vc thcrclorc scc no rcason why Hamdan could not
asscrt his claim to prisoncr ol war status bclorc thc military commission at thc
6 Hamdan v. Rumslcld, . F. d (.C. Cir. acc), cert. granted, , U.S. L. V. .c,
, U.S.L. V. a, , U.S. L.V. a, (U.S. Nov. ,,acc) (No. c.).
, 66 Fcd. Rcg. ,,.
a U.S. c, (acc).
Hamdan v. Rumslcld, F. Supp. ad .a (..C. acc), re.d by Hamdan v.
Rumslcld, . F. d (.C. Cir. acc), cert. granted, , U. S. L. V. .c, , U.S. L. V.
a , , U.S.L.V. a, (U.S. Nov. ,, acc) (Noc.).
c AR .c, scction ..(b).
219 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
timc ol his trial and thcrcby rcccivc thc judgmcnt ol a compctcnt tribunal within
thc mcaning ol Army Rcgulation .c.
+

!n Khalid v. Bush,
:
lorcign nationals who wcrc capturcd abroad and dctaincd
at Guantanamo 8ay lcd individual pctitions lor writs ol habcas corpus chal
lcnging thc lcgality ol thcir dctcntion and thc conditions ol thcir conncmcnt.
Tc US istrict Court lor thc istrict ol Columbia grantcd thc govcrnmcnts
motion to dismiss. Although thc pctitioncrs asscrtcd that thcir continucd dctcn
tion violatcd thc Gcncva Convcntions, thcy latcr conccdcd at oral argumcnt
that thcsc convcntions did not apply bccausc thc pctitioncrs wcrc not capturcd
in thc zonc ol hostilitics in and around Alghanistan. Altcrnativcly, thcy argucd
that thcir living conditions constitutcd torturc and violatcd thc Convcntion
Against Torturc and thcr Crucl, !nhuman or cgrading Trcatmcnt and thc
!ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights. Tc court concludcd that
thcsc claims wcrc not a viablc basis in a habcas procccding to cvaluatc thc lcgality
ol thc pctitioncrs dctcntion. !t hcld that ncithcr thc Convcntion nor thc Covcnant
is a scllcxccuting trcaty, and, in such a casc, thcy can only bc cnlorccd pursuant
to lcgislation to carry thcm in ccct. No lcgislation has bccn adoptcd to implc
mcnt thc Covcnant, and thc lcgislation adoptcd to implcmcnt thc Convcntion
docs not givc thc pctitioncrs a privatc causc ol action to challcngc thc lcgality ol
thcir dctcntion.

!t is possiblc that issucs raiscd in thcsc and othcr dctaincc cascs will ulti
matcly bc rcsolvcd by thc Unitcd Statcs Suprcmc Court. !l so, it will rcmain to
bc sccn thc cxtcnt to which thc Court will rcsolvc thcsc issucs on thc basis ol
intcrnational law. Michacl Rcisman has sharply criticizcd thc Courts dccision in
Fasul .. Bush,

which hcld that any pcrson dctaincd in a placc controllcd by thc

Unitcd Statcs is ablc to invokc lcdcral judicial rcvicw through thc US habcas stat
utc, on thc ground that thc dccision, in its majority opinion, concurring opinion
and disscnt, is so complctcly oblivious to intcrnational law. !ndccd, nonc cvcn
discusscs intcrnational law or thc Gcncva Convcntion.

Tc application and
cnlorccmcnt ol intcrnational law in domcstic courts is an important componcnt
. Hamdan v. Rumslcld, supra notc 6, at .
a F. Supp. ad .. (..C. acc).
F. Supp.ad at a,. !n lootnotc a. to pagc a,, thc court notcd that |t|hc implc
mcnting lcgislation ... conlcrs standing to suc lor (.) alicns that can dcmonstratc it
is morc likcly than not that hc or shc would bc torturcd il rcmovcd to a particular
country ... and (a) victims ol torturc who scck damagcs against individuals whom
thcy allcgc subjcctcd thcm, undcr thc authority ol a lorcign nation, to torturc.
.a S. Ct. a66 (acc).
V. Michacl Rcisman, Fasul .. Bush: Failure to pply International La., a J. !x:i
Cvi:. Jus:. ,, c (acc).
220 John F. Murphy
ol thc rulc ol law modcl in intcrnational aairs. Tc lailurc ol US courts to do so
undcrmincs thc ccctivcncss ol thc rulc ol law at thc intcrnational lcvcl.
6

C Command Fesponsibility
Although thc Unitcd Statcs is not a party to thc Romc Statutc ol thc !ntcrnational
Criminal Court,

Yoram citcs and quotcs lrom it as thc most rcccnt intcrnational

lcgal instrumcnt dcaling with command rcsponsibility.
8
For cxamplc, Articlc a
() (b) ol thc Romc Statutc providcs that a pcrson who ordcrs thc commission
ol any crimc within thc jurisdiction ol thc court, which includcs war crimcs, may
bc hcld criminally rcsponsiblc and liablc lor punishmcnt. As Yoram points out,
howcvcr, this is thc casy casc. Tc much morc complcx sccnario is that ol com
mand rcsponsibility lor war crimcs committcd by subordinatcs, irrcspcctivc and
pcrhaps cvcn in brcach ol ordcrs issucd.

Hcrc, too, in Articlc a, thc Romc

Statutc givcs uptodatc guidancc.
+oo
Yoram aptly summarizcs thc importancc ol
this provision:
6 lscwhcrc ! havc notcd that thc US lcgal systcm as a wholc is not conducivc to thc
application and cnlorccmcnt ol intcrnational law. See John F. Murphy, supra notc ,
at ,...
, Romc Statutc ol thc !ntcrnational Criminal Court, ., , !x:vvx~:iox~i Lvc~i
M~:vvi~is (.).
Yoram instcin, supra notc , at a..
Id. at a.
.cc Articlc a ol thc Romc Statutc providcs:
.. A military commandcr or pcrson ccctivcly acting as a military commandcr
shall bc criminally rcsponsiblc lor crimcs within thc jurisdiction ol thc
Court committcd by lorccs undcr his or hcr ccctivc command and
control, or ccctivc authority and control as thc casc may bc, as a rcsult ol
his or hcr lailurc to cxccrcisc control propcrly ovcr such lorccs, whcrc:
(a) Tat military commandcr or pcrson cithcr kncw or, owing to thc
circumstanccs at thc timc, should havc known that thc lorccs wcrc
committing or about to commit such crimcs, and
(b) Tat military commandcr or pcrson lailcd to prcvcnt or rcprcss thcir
commission or to submit thc mattcr to thc compctcnt authoritics lor
invcstigation and prosccution.
a. Vith rcspcct to supcrior and subordinatc rclationships not dcscribcd in
paragraph ., a supcrior shall bc criminally rcsponsiblc lor crimcs within
thc jurisdiction ol thc Court committcd by subordinatcs undcr his or hcr
ccctivc authority and control, as a rcsult ol his or hcr lailurc to cxcrcisc
control propcrly ovcr subordinatcs, whcrc:
(a) Tc supcrior cithcr kncw, or consciously disrcgardcd inlormation
which clcarly indicatcd, that thc subordinatcs wcrc committing or
about to commit such crimcs,
(b) Tc crimcs conccrncd activitics that wcrc within thc ccctivc
rcsponsibility and control ol thc supcrior, and
221 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
Plainly, unlikc thc othcr instrumcnts, thc Romc Statutc applics thc rulcs ol
command rcsponsibility not only to military commandcrs but to civilian supc
riors too. Vhcn thc tcxts ol Paragraphs (.) and (a) ol Articlc a arc carclully
comparcd, it cnsurcs that in a civilian contcxt (i) a clcar ncxus must bc traccd
bctwccn thc crimcs committcd by subordinatcs and thc ccctivc authority
and control ol thc civilian supcrior, and (ii) whcrc knowlcdgc is imputcd to
thc civilian supcrior, thcrc is a strict rcquircmcnt ol conscious disrcgard ol thc
inlormation availablc. Tc rst point is duc to thc spccial nccd (noncxistcnt
in a military hicrarchy) to provc that thc civilian accuscd ol a crimc commit
tcd by anothcr pcrson was actually vcstcd with ccctivc authority and control
as a supcrior. Tc sccond point, by raising thc bar, sccms to limit thc liability ol
civilian supcriors comparcd to military commandcrs.
+o+

As prcviously notcd, thcrc havc bccn numcrous chargcs advanccd that thc
Unitcd Statcs has cngagcd in atrocious violations ol thc law ol armcd conict
and intcrnational human rights law in its conduct ol thc war on tcrrorism. For
cxamplc, at thc prcss conlcrcncc introducing its acc annual rcport, Amncsty
!ntcrnational prcscntcd a list ol high ranking civilian and military ocials who,
Amncsty claimcd, ordcrcd, or at lcast tolcratcd, torturc at various dctcntion ccnt
crs.
+o:
Tc Amncsty list ol civilian ocials includcs, among othcrs, Sccrctary
ol clcnsc onald Rumslcld, lormcr C!A ircctor Gcorgc Tcnct, Attorncy
Gcncral Albcrto R. Gonzalcs, and cvcn Prcsidcnt 8ush.
Tcsc chargcs havc bccn strcnuously dcnicd by thc 8ush administration,
and high lcvcl military invcstigations into complaints havc rcachcd varying
conclusions.
+o
Tcrc can bc no doubt, howcvcr, that truly atrocious abuscs ol
(c) Tc supcrior lailcd to takc all ncccssary and rcasonablc mcasurcs
within his or hcr powcr to prcvcnt or rcprcss thcir commission or to
submit thc mattcr to thc compctcnt authoritics lor invcstigation and
prosccution.
.c. Yoram instcin, supra notc , at aa.
.ca See Transcript ol Amncsty !ntcrnational Ncws Conlcrcncc, supra notc 6, at a.
.c For cxamplc, a high lcvcl military invcstigation into complaints by F.8.!. agcnts
about thc abusc ol dctainccs at Guantanamo 8ay concludcd that whilc thcir trcat
mcnt was somctimcs dcgrading, it did not qualily as inhumanc or as torturc. Scc
Ncil A. Lcwis, Feport Discredits F.B. I. Claim of buse at Guantanamo Bay, N.Y.
Ti:vs, July ., acc, at A a., col. . !n contrast, thc Final Rcport ol thc !ndcpcndcnt
Pancl To Rcvicw o ctcntion pcrations (August acc), availablc onlinc at
http://www. dclcnsclink.mil/ncws/Augaccdacccanalrcport.pdl, concludcd
that thc cvcnts ol ctobcr through cccmbcr acc on thc night shilt ol Ticr . at
Abu Ghraib prison wcrc acts ol brutality and purposclcss sadism. At thc samc timc
thc rcport concludcd that thc abuscs constitutcd a lailurc ol military lcadcrship and
disciplinc. !t notcd that, whilc many ol thcsc abuscs wcrc not dircctcd at intclligcncc
targcts, somc ol thc cgrcgious abuscs at Abu Ghraib which wcrc not photographcd
did occur during intcrrogation scssions and that abuscs during intcrrogation scssions
222 John F. Murphy
dctainccs occurrcd at Abu Ghraib, as graphically illustratcd by thc photographs
takcn ol thcm. Amncsty !ntcrnational has chargcd that thcn Vhitc Housc
Counscl Albcrto R. Gonzalcs should bc hcld criminally liablc bccausc hc callcd
thc Gcncva Convcntions quaint and obsolctc in a January acca mcmorandum
and rcqucstcd mcmoranda lrom thc cc ol thc Lcgal Counscl, cpartmcnt ol
Justicc, that luclcd thc atrocitics at Abu Ghraib.
+o
!t may bc worth a momcnt
to asscss thc validity ol this contcntion by thc critcria ol command rcsponsibility
sct lorth in thc Romc Statutc and discusscd by Yoram.
Gonzalcs suggcstion in his January a, acca mcmorandum that thc Gcncva
Convcntions arc quaint and obsolctc, in that thcy placc, in his vicw, unacccpt
ablc limitations on thc intcrrogation ol prisoncrs and othcr dctainccs, can hardly
bc callcd thc basis lor criminal liability undcr thc law ol armcd conict, and
Amncsty !ntcrnationals chargc that it may can bc casily dismisscd. Tc inlamous
mcmoranda produccd by thc cc ol thc Lcgal Counscl dcscrvc a bit morc
attcntion.
!n particular, thc socallcd 8ybcc mcmorandum, prcparcd by thcn Assistant
Attorncy Gcncral Jay S. 8ybcc on August ., acca at thc rcqucst ol Gonzalcs, sct
lorth an cxtrcmcly narrow vicw ol what acts might constitutc torturc.
+o
According
to thc mcmorandum, physical pain amounting to torturc must bc cquivalcnt in
intcnsity to thc pain accompanying scrious physical injury, such as organ lailurc,
impairmcnt ol bodily lunction, or cvcn dcath. Tc mcmorandum also suggcstcd
that mcntal torturc only includcd acts that rcsultcd in signicant harm ol sig
nicant duration, c.g., lasting lor months or cvcn ycars. Tc mcmorandum also
claimcd that, in any cvcnt, thc domcstic statutc criminalizing thc commission
ol torturc outsidc ol thc Unitcd Statcs
+o6
could bc ovcrriddcn by thc Prcsidcnt
occurrcd clscwhcrc.(at p. ). Tc pancl lound that |t|hcrc is no cvidcncc ol a policy
ol abusc promulgatcd by scnior ocials or military authoritics, but addcd that thc
abuscs wcrc not just thc lailurc ol somc individuals to lollow known standards, and
thcy arc morc than thc lailurc ol a lcw lcadcrs to cnlorcc propcr disciplinc. Tcrc
is both institutional and pcrsonal rcsponsibility at highcr lcvcls. (id.). Tc pancl
concurrcd with thc ndings ol thc Fay/Joncs rcport, Gcorgc R. Fay and Anthony
R. Joncs, !nvcstigation ol !ntclligcncc Activitics at Abu Ghraib, availablc at http://
www.dclcnsclink.mil/ncws/Augaccdacccalay.pdl, that Licutcnant Gcncral
Richard Sanchcz, lormcr commandcr ol US lorccs in !raq, and Major Gcncral
Valtcr Vojdakowski, his dcputy, lailcd to cnsurc propcr sta ovcrsight ol dctcntion
and intcrrogation. (id. at .). Tcrc wcrc no such ndings ol lailurc, howcvcr, with
rcspcct to civilian ocials.
.c Transcript ol Amncsty !ntcrnational Ncws Conlcrcncc, supra notc 6, at a.
.c Jay S. 8ybcc to Albcrto R. Gonzalcs, Counscl to thc Prcsidcnt, mcmorandum,
Standards lor Conduct ol !ntcrrogation undcr . U.S.C. Scctions acacA, Aug.
., acca, availablc at http://ncws.ndlaw.com/wp/docs/doj/bybccc.camcm.pdl.
(hcrcinaltcr 8ybcc mcmorandum).
.c6 . U.S.C. Scction acA makcs it a criminal ocnsc lor any pcrson outsidc thc
Unitcd Statcs |to| commit||or attcmpt||to commit torturc ... .
223 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
acting undcr his CommandcrinChicl powcr. !n thc words ol thc mcmoran
dum, |c|vcn il an intcrrogation arguably wcrc to violatc |thc criminal statutc|,
thc statutc would bc unconstitutional il it impcrmissibly cncroachcd on thc
Prcsidcnts constitutional powcr to conduct a military campaign.
+o

Tc rcvclations ol thcsc mcmoranda, coming as thcy did in thc wakc ol thc
Abu Ghraib scandal, prccipitatcd a urry ol sharp rcactions, lrom both cnds ol
thc political spcctrum, rcjccting thc argumcnts sct lorth in thc mcmoranda. Tc
sharply circumscribcd dcnition ol torturc sct lorth in thc 8ybcc mcmorandum
camc in lor cspccially scvcrc criticism. As notcd by Ruth Vcdgwood and Jamcs
Voolscy:
Tis diminishcd dcnition ol thc crimc ol torturc will bc quotcd back at thc
Unitcd Statcs lor thc ncxt scvcral dccadcs. !t could bc misuscd by al Qacda
dclcndants in thc military commission trials and by Saddams hcnchmcn. !t
docs not scrvc Amcricas intcrcst in a world in which dictators so commonly
abusc thcir pcoplc and quash thcir political oponcnts.
+o8
Tc 8ybcc mcmorandum also camc undcr attack lor its intcrprctation ol and
allcgcdly dismissivc attitudc toward provisions ol thc Convcntion Against Torturc
and thcr Crucl, !nhuman or cgrading Trcatmcnt or Punishmcnt
+o
and ol thc
Gcncva Convcntions ol .. For cxamplc, Articlc .6 ol thc Torturc Convcntion
rcquircs cach statc party to prcvcnt crucl, inhuman or dcgrading trcatmcnt or
punishmcnt within its jurisdiction.
++o
Tc 8ybcc mcmorandum dismisscs thc
signicancc ol this provision by noting that it docs not rcquirc that statcs partics
providc criminal pcnaltics lor pcrsons who commit such acts.
+++
Vcdgwood and
Voolscy, howcvcr, point out that Articlc .6 is still a lcgal commitmcnt to which
wc havc willingly acccdcd... Vc arc not lcgally lrcc to choosc crucl tcchniqucs
just bccausc thcy lall short ol torturc.
++:

.c, 8ybcc mcmorandum, supra notc .c, at ..
.c Ruth Vcdgwood and R. Jamcs Voolscy, La. and Torture, V~ii S:. J., Junc a, at
A.c.
.c Concludcd at Ncw York, cc. .c, .. ntcrcd into lorcc Junc a6, .,. .6 U.N.T.S.
. Signcd by thc Unitcd Statcs, Apr. ., .. Raticd by thc Unitcd Statcs, ct. a,
.. ntcrcd into lorcc lor thc Unitcd Statcs, Nov. ac, ..
..c Articlc .6 ol thc Torturc Convcntion providcs, in pcrtincnt part:
ach Statc Party shall undcrtakc to prcvcnt in any tcrritory undcr its jurisdiction
othcr actions ol crucl, inhuman or dcgrading trcatmcnt or punishmcnt which
do not amount to torturc as dcncd in articlc ., whcn such acts arc committcd
by or at thc instigation ol or with thc conscnt or acquicsccncc ol a public
ocial or othcr pcrson acting in an ocial capacity.
... 8ybcc mcmorandum, supra notc .c, at ..
..a Ruth Vcdgwood and R. Jamcs Voolscy, supra notc .c.
224 John F. Murphy
Tc January aa, acca mcmorandum
++
is similarly dismissivc ol common
Articlc ol thc Gcncva Convcntions ol ., which scts lorth minimum protcc
tions lor pcrsons invovlcd in an armcd conict not ol an intcrnational charactcr
occurring in thc tcrritory ol onc ol thc High Contracting Partics. According to
thc mcmorandums analysis, common Articlc applics only to civil wars or to a
largc scalc armcd conict bctwccn a Statc and an armcd movcmcnt within its
own tcrritory, and not to a strugglc lor thc control ol Alghaistan.
A litcral rcading ol common Articlc supports thc January acca mcmoran
dums thcsis bccausc by its tcrms it appcars to apply only to an armcd conict
not ol an intcrnational charactcr,and Alghanistan was clcarly an intcrnational
armcd conict. !n .6, howcvcr, a majority ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc,
in thc Nicaragua casc, hcld that minimum rulcs applicablc to intcrnational and
nonintcrnational conicts arc cxprcsscd in common Articlc .
++
8y contrast, in his disscnting opinion, Sir Robcrt Jcnnings suggcstcd that
thc majoritys vicw ol common Articlc as a minimum standard ol trcatmcnt is
not a mattcr lrcc lrom diculty.
++
For his part, Yoram may havc rcsolvcd this
diculty by his commcnt on Sir Jcnnings suggcstion:
Tis is particularly truc considcring that thc Court did not dccm t to producc
any cvidcncc lor thc conclusion that thc provision rcccts norms idcntically
applicablc to intcrnational and to nonintcrnational armcd conicts. Still, it
can hardly bc disputcd that whcn common Articlc prohibits outragcs upon
pcrsonal dignity, in particular humiliating and dcgrading trcatmcnt, or cstab
lishcs thc nccd to aord in trial all thc judicial guarantccs which arc rcc
ognizcd as indispcnsablc by civilizcd pcoplc, thc tcxt rcccts an irrcduciblc
minimum that no Statc is allowcd to rachct down cvcn a notch in any armcd
conict (whcthcr intcrnational or nonintcrnational).
++6
!n Junc acc thc cpartmcnt ol Justicc took thc unprcccdcntcd stcp ol
rcscinding thc 8ybcc mcmorandum
++
and, in cccmbcr acc, rcplaccd it with a
ncw mcmorandum cxplicitly rcjccting thc controvcrsial argumcnts ol thc 8ybcc
.. See Mcmorandum lor Albcrto R. Gonzalcs, Counscl to thc Prcsidcnt, and Villiam
J. Hayncs !!, Gcncral Counscl ol thc cpartmcnt ol clcnsc, Rc: Application ol
Trcatics and Laws to al Qacda and Taliban ctainccs ( Jan. aa, acca), in Karin J.
Grccnbcrg, Tnv Tov:uvv P~vvvs: Tnv Ro~b To Anu Gnv~in . (acc).
.. Military and Paramilitary Activitics (Nicar. v. U.S), .6 !.C.J. ., .. ( Junc a,).
.. Id. at a, , (isscnting opinion ol Judgc Sir Robcrt Jcnnings).
..6 Yoram instcin, supra notc , at a.
.., Id.
225 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
mcmorandum.
++8
Critics havc claimcd, howcvcr, that thc 8ybcc mcmorandum
gavc potcntial abuscrs a road map lor how to avoid prosccution.
++
!t is not at all clcar what impact, il any, thc 8ybcc mcmorandum has had
on intcrrogation policy. Tc 8ybcc mcmorandum was an intcrnal govcrnmcnt
documcnt, and thcrc is no cvidcncc availablc that it was adoptcd as ocial gov
crnmcntal policy. Tcrc also is no cvidcncc that thc lcgal analysis sct lorth in thc
mcmorandum won thc approval ol Mr. Gonzalcs. vcn il it did, thc intcrprcta
tion ol thc law sct lorth in thc mcmorandum, no mattcr how wrong hcadcd, was
mcrcly a lcgal opinion that would not bc a sound basis lor holding Gonzalcs crim
inally liablc lor violations ol thc law ol armcd conict. !t is clcar that Gonzalcs
gavc no ordcrs approving thc usc ol thc cocrcivc intcrrogation mcthods cmploycd
in !raq, Guantanamo 8ay, Alghanistan or othcr dctcntion ccntcrs. Hc had no
authority to issuc such ordcrs. Nor was hc actually vcstcd with ccctivc authority
and control as a supcrior
+:o
ovcr thc pcrsonncl who cngagcd in thc intcrrogations
in qucstion. Undcr thcsc circumstanccs, thc tcsts lor command rcsponsibility sct
lorth in Articlc a ol thc Romc Statutc and summarizcd by Yoram simply wcrc
not mct.
At this writing, it appcars highly unlikcly that any ol thc civilian ocials
idcnticd by Amncsty !ntcrnational will bc subjcct to criminal invcstigations. !t is
worth noting parcnthctically, howcvcr, that thcrc is pcnding a civil suit in thc US
istrict Court lor thc Northcrn istrict ol !llinois against Sccrctary ol clcnsc
onald Rumslcld, allcging that his policics, pattcrns, practiccs, dcrclictions ol
duty and command lailurcs causcd Plaintis abusc in dctcntion ccntcrs in !raq
and Alghanistan. According to thc complaint, thc cight plaintis wcrc subjcctcd
to torturc or othcr crucl, inhuman or dcgrading trcatmcnt or punishmcnt, includ
ing scvcrc and rcpcatcd bcatings, cutting with knivcs, scxual humiliation and
assault, conncmcnt in a woodcn box, lorciblc slccp and scnsory dcprivation,
mock cxccutions, dcath thrcats, and rcstraint in contortcd and cxcruciating posi
tions.
+:+
Tcrc is no qucstion that Rumslcld had supcrvisory authority ovcr most
il not all pcrsons who allcgcdly cngagcd in thcsc violations ol thc law ol armcd
conict and intcrnational human rights law. Assuming argucndo that Rumslcld
lailcd to lulll his rcsponsibilitics as supcrvisor to prcvcnt atrocitics, it rcmains to
bc sccn whcthcr Rumslcld can bc hcld civilly liablc in US courts lor this lailurc.
.. See Mcmorandum lor Albcrto R. Gonzalcs, Counscl to thc Prcsidcnt, Rc: Standards
ol Conduct lor !ntcrrogation undcr . U.S.C. Scctions acacA (cccmbcr c,
acc), availablc at http://www.usdoj.gov/gov/olc/.uscacacaa.htm.(supcrscding
August ., acca opinion outlining applicablc standards ol conduct).
.. See Adam Liptak, Ho. Far Can a Go.ernment La.yer Go?, N.Y. Ti:vs, Junc a,,
acc, at , col...
.ac See Yoram instcin, supra notc , at aa.
.a. See Complaint lor cclaratory Rclicl and amagcs, li .. Fumsfeld, Casc No .:c
cvc.ac., Mar. ., acc, at ..
226 John F. Murphy
III Conclusion
Yoram instcin has spcnt his distinguishcd carccr working to uphold thc rulc ol
law in intcrnational aairs and dcmanding adhcrcncc to it. As thc bricl lorcgoing
survcy indicatcs, thc Unitcd Statcs has had considcrably morc diculty.
Vith rcspcct to thc jus ad bellum, Yoram, !, and a host ol othcr commcn
tators agrcc that thc Unitcd Statcs (and othcr NAT mcmbcrs) violatcd lun
damcntal norms ol thc UN Chartcr in rcsorting to thc usc ol armcd lorcc in
Kosovo. !ndccd, littlc cort has bccn madc by thc Unitcd Statcs to dclcnd its
actions in Kosovo on lcgal grounds and substantial cort has bccn madc to limit
thc prcccdcntial valuc ol that action. As to thc invasion ol !raq, thcrc has bccn
a substantial split ol opinion among thc commcntators rcgarding thc lcgality ol
that action, with Yoram and ! on dicrcnt sidcs ol thc issuc (although not with
rcspcct to thc policy issucs surrounding thc invasion). !t is notcworthy, howcvcr,
that, by and largc, thc dcbatc has bccn ovcr thc intcrprctation and application
ol Sccurity Council rcsolutions rathcr than ovcr such controvcrsial doctrincs as
humanitarian intcrvcntion or prccmptivc sclldclcnsc. 8ccausc thc disputc ovcr
thc lcgality ol thc invasion involvcs vital national intcrcsts, ncithcr thc Unitcd
Statcs nor othcr statcs havc bccn willing to submit it to judicial rcsolution, in
accordancc with thc rulc ol law modcl. Tc morc important long rangc issuc,
howcvcr, is whcthcr thc Sccurity Council will bc ablc to lulll its primary rcspon
sibility lor thc maintcnancc ol intcrnational pcacc and sccurity. Tc inability ol
thc Council to takc lorcclul action to prcvcnt or stop thc widcsprcad atrocitics in
arlur, in thc Sudan, docs not bodc wcll in this rcgard.
!t is clcar that gravc violations ol thc jus in bello and intcrnational human
rights law havc bccn committcd by US military pcrsonncl at Abu Ghraib and
othcr dctcntion ccntcrs in !raq, and thcrc is disquicting cvidcncc that similar vio
lations havc takcn placc at Guantanamo 8ay, Alghanistan and clscwhcrc. Somc
disciplinary action has bccn takcn with rcspcct to individual pcrpctrators, but lcw
military supcrvisors and no civilian supcrvisors havc bccn hcld accountablc undcr
thc doctrinc ol command rcsponsibility.
Tcrc has bccn considcrablc controvcrsy ovcr thc status ol Taliban and Al
Qacda dctainccs, with Yoram supporting thc US position that nonc ol thcsc
dctainccs cnjoy prisoncr ol war status, and othcr distinguishcd commcntators
contcnding that thc Taliban and at lcast somc Al Qacda mcmbcrs do. Yoram
would havc thc issuc rcsolvcd by a compctcnt tribunal, but thc Unitcd Statcs
has rcsistcd this approach. US courts havc incrcasingly bccomc involvcd with
allcgcd abusc ol dctainccs issucs, but, with rarc cxccptions, thcy havc avoidcd
thc application ol thc jus in bello and intcrnational human rights law and havc
dccidcd thc cascs instcad on thc basis ol US constitutional law or othcr sourccs
ol domcstic law.
Tcrc is cvcn lcss chancc that thc Unitcd Statcs would allow thcsc jus in bello
and intcrnational human rights issucs to bc dctcrmincd by an intcrnational tri
227 7 US dherence to the Fule of La.
bunal than thc chancc that thc Unitcd Statcs would pcrmit such a dctcrmination
ol thc lcgality ol thc invasion ol !raq or othcr jus ad bellum issucs. Hcrc, too, thc
Unitcd Statcs vicws such issucs as involving vital national issucs and thcrclorc
outsidc thc scopc ol judicial procccdings.
Tc 8ush administration is also rcsisting congrcssional involvcmcnt in thcsc
issucs, cithcr through thc lorm ol crcating a commission to invcstigatc incarccra
tion policics at thc Guantanamo 8ay dctcntion ccntcr
+::
or through lcgislation
dcsigncd to sct clcar and cxact standards lor intcrrogation ol dctainccs.
+:
!t has
madc it clcar that it wishcs to maintain maximum cxibility in this arca, lrcc
lrom outsidc intcrlcrcncc ol any kind.
!n short, at thc prcscnt timc, it appcars that thc Unitcd Statcs is likcly to
havc incrcasing diculty adhcring closcly to a rulc ol law modcl with rcspcct to
thc jus ad bellum, thc jus in bello, or intcrnational human rights law.
.aa See Stcvc Goldstcin, Spector may seek probe of Guantanamo, Pnii~bvivni~ !xguivvv,
July a6, acc, at A..
.a Liz Sidoti, Senators press bill on detainee rights, Pnii~bvivni~ !xguivvv, July a6,
acc, at A, col ., Sending out the .rong message, Fix~xci~i Ti:vs, July a, acc, at
.a, col...
Chapter 8
Tc Military Action in !raq
and !ntcrnational Law
Futh !edg.ood

!n thc rcarvicwmirror ol a dicult war, rcasscssing lcgality may sccm bcsidc
thc point to both critics and supportcrs. Tc war lor thc libcration ol !raq has
unloldcd in unprcdictablc ways lor all sidcs. !n a rcal scnsc, thc war is not yct ovcr,
cvcn as thc Unitcd Nations and thc allicd lorccs support thc attcmpt by !raqi citi
zcns to cstablish a working dcmocracy and lcdcral structurc. Tc ongoing tcrror
by 8aathist insurgcnts against !raqi citizcns who havc workcd to adopt a consti
tution, build a govcrnmcnt, and rcstorc an cconomy is a rcmindcr ol thc naturc
ol thc lormcr rcgimc. Studcnts ol pcacckccping may bc rcmindcd ol thc parallcl
attcmpt by old rcgimc militias in ast Timor to usc a scorchcdcarth policy to
cripplc that countrys hardwon indcpcndcncc. !n !raqs nasccnt dcmocracy, thcrc
is thc additional challcngc ol an insurgcncy that is in part dircctcd and nanccd
lrom across thc bordcr by scnior 8aathist lcadcrs who cd to Syria in anticipa
tion ol thc allicd capturc ol 8aghdad, a rcmindcr that somc problcms cannot bc
lully solvcd in isolation. Judgmcnts about thc intcrvcntion in !raq will incvitably
havc a broad rcach, bcyond a spotasscssmcnt ol thc allicd dccision in March
acc to procccd to thc usc ol military lorcc. Alongsidc thc important qucstions
ol lcgality and lcgitimacy, onc would wish to look ovcr timc at its ccct on intcr
national institutions, sccurity doctrinc, and thc translormation ol thc Middlc
ast. Noncthclcss, thcrc arc important obscrvations that can clarily oncs judg
mcnt cvcn now.
First, a lastlorward summary. From thc vicwpoint ol a doctrinal intcr
national lawycr, thc argumcnt in support ol thc March acc intcrvcntion is
straightlorward, cvcn though contcstcd by somc. Tc justication is loundcd on
!raqs cxtcndcd and stubborn lailurc to account lor its wcapons programs undcr
thc mandatory Sccurity Council rcsolutions imposcd at thc cnd ol thc .. Gull
Var. Rathcr than attacking 8aghdad, thc allics had hopcd to dcmonstratc that
!raqs thrcat to thc rcgion could bc containcd by a monitorcd coursc ol compul
sory disarmamcnt. Tc disarmamcnt and rcporting rcquircmcnts imposcd by thc
Sccurity Council in .. wcrc not disposablc, dcspitc !raqs .aycarlong history
ol dcancc. !n Novcmbcr .c, in Rcsolution 6,, thc Council votcd to autho
rizc mcmbcr statcs coopcrating with Kuwait to usc military lorcc to cxpcl !raqi
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. ::,-:,c.
230 Futh !edg.ood
lorccs lrom Kuwait and to rcstorc pcacc and sccurity in thc rcgion, as wcll as to
uphold and implcmcnt all subscqucnt rclcvant rcsolutions.
+
!n April ..,
altcr thc succcsslul allicd ground campaign, thc Council grantcd a ccascrc in
thc war. 8ut thc cnd ol hostilitics was cxplicitly conditioncd on two obligations
thc dismantling ol all programs lor wcapons ol mass dcstruction, and a lull and
complctc accounting ol that disarmamcnt. Tc matcrial brcach ol thcsc rcquirc
mcnts ol Rcsolution 6,
:
scrvcd to suspcnd thc ccascrc, lcaving in placc thc
authorizations ol Rcsolution 6,, as wcll as, arguably, a right ol collcctivc scll
dclcnsc stcmming lrom thc .. war.
Tc claim that only a sccond act ol authorization would succ to pcrmit
cnlorccmcnt ol Rcsolution 6, ignorcs thc tccth ol thc original rcsolutions.
Rcsolution 6, authorizcd mcmbcrs statcs coopcrating with thc Govcrnmcnt
ol Kuwait, to usc all ncccssary mcans to uphold and implcmcnt rcsolution
66c (.c) and all subscqucnt rclcvant rcsolutions and to rcstorc intcrnational
pcacc and sccurity in thc arca. Rcsolution 6, was indccd a subscqucnt rclcvant
rcsolution, and was ccntral to thc rcstoration ol pcacc and sccurity in thc Gull.
Tcrc is nothing in thc tcxt ol Rcsolution 6, that limits its duration or sug
gcsts cxpiry. Nor is thcrc any conccivablc claim ol dcsuctudc or abandonmcnt. To
thc contrary, thc cnlorccmcnt ol Rcsolution 6, was lront and ccntcr in intcr
national dcbatc lor ovcr a dccadc, consuming political and military rcsourccs
that would havc had othcr uscs in mccting human catastrophcs. Tc sanctions
rcgimc imposcd on !raq was tcstamcnt to thc scriousncss with which thc intcr
national community rcgardcd !raqs obligation. Any claim that !raq was not givcn
a lair chancc to comply with thc rcquircmcnts ol Rcsolution 6, is bclicd by
!raqs dangcrous gamc ol brinksmanship ovcr thc coursc ol a dccadc. Tis was
not a voluntary rcgimc, whosc lorcc was contingcnt on a latcr ratilying act. And,
as a law prolcssor argucd in thc Financial Timcs on March ., acc, Sccurity
Council rcsolutions arc not yct so airy as to cxpirc with thc tcrm ol a particular
sccrctarygcncral.

nc may notc thc sobcr voicc ol Sir Adam Robcrts: How

much wcight attachcs to thc past dccisions ol thc Sccurity Council in authorising
lorcc: !l thc Council authoriscs ccrtain mcmbcr statcs to undcrtakc a task, but
is thcn unablc to agrcc on lollowup action, docs thc original authorisation still
stand: Tc simplc guiding principlc has to bc that a rcsolution, oncc passcd
rcmains in ccct. !n thc abscncc ol a ncw rcsolution rcpudiating carlicr positions
(which will always bc hard to achicvc, grantcd thc cxistcncc ol a vcto) a prcsump
tion ol continuity is plausiblc.

. UN Sccurity Council Rcs. 6,, Nov. a, .c.

a UN Sccurity Council Rcs. 6,, Apr. , ...
Ruth Vcdgwood, Lcgal Authority xists lor a Strikc on !raq, Financial Timcs,
March ., acc.
Adam Robcrts, Law and thc Usc ol Forcc, (a) Survival . (acc). Scc also Adam
Robcrts, !ntcrnational Law and thc !raq Var acc, Mcmorandum lor thc Sclcct
231 8 Te Military ction in Iraq and International La.
Tcrc is nothing in Rcsolution .., votcd by thc Sccurity Council in
Novcmbcr acca,

that suspcndcd thc lorcc ol thc carlicr rcsolutions.

6
To thc con
trary, Rcsolution .. rccordcd thc Councils nding that !raq has bccn and
rcmains in matcrial brcach ol its obligations undcr rclcvant rcsolutions, including
rcsolution 6,. !raq was pcrmittcd a nal opportunity to comc into compliancc,
bcginning with an accuratc, lull, and complctc dcclaration ol its programs. 8ut
thc rcsolution warncd that lalsc statcmcnts and omissions would, in thcmsclvcs,
constitutc a lurthcr matcrial brcach ol !raqs obligations.
!raqis disrcgard ol thc nal opportunity providcd by Rcsolution .. (and
continuing brcach ol Rcsolution 6,) was madc plain in thc !raqi dcclaration
lcd in cccmbcr acca. ncc again (as so many timcs in thc past), Saddam
Husscin spurncd thc obligation to givc a complctc accounting ol !raqi wcap
ons programs. Tat, without nccding morc, succd as casus belli, alongsidc thc
rcgimcs pcrsistcnt rclusal to pcrmit any intcrvicws ol !raqi wcapons scicntists
outsidc thc country, thc inspcctors discovcry that !raq was still dclibcratcly vio
lating thc .c kilomctcr limit on ballistic missilcs, and thc discovcry that !raq had
rctaincd growth stocks ol anthrax and othcr prohibitcd biological rcagcnts.

Tc invasion ol Kuwait in August .c was thc culmination ol a long rccord
ol aggrcssivc conduct by thc 8aathist !raqi lcadcrship. Tc rcgimc had prcvi
ously invadcd !ran and gasscd !raqi Kurds in thc Anlal campaign,
8
and whcn
laccd with this dismaying rccord, thc Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council rcactcd
with admirablc dispatch against !raqs invasion ol Kuwait, not lcast bccausc ol
thc additional thrcat to Saudi Arabia. To point out a lactor ol scllintcrcst in thc
worlds swilt rcaction to !raqs attcmptcd domination ol an oilrich Gull is no
insult to thc sharcd principlc that othcr countrics should not bc swallowcd up.
Tc cconomic lacts ol lilc, howcvcr, scrvc as a rcmindcr that collcctivc sccurity
mcchanisms lack any automatic supply ol policc powcr. vcn whcrc thc Sccurity
Council votcs to authorizc thc usc ol lorcc, thc cmploymcnt ol that authority
Committcc on Forcign Aairs, Vrittcn vidcncc lor thc Tcnth Rcport: Forcign
Policy Aspccts ol thc Var against Tcrrorism, July ., acc.
UN Sccurity Council Rcs. .., Nov. , acca.
6 Scc Ruth Vcdgwood, Tc Fall ol Saddam Husscin, Sccurity Council Mandatcs and
Prccmptivc Scllclcnsc, , Amcrican Journal ol !ntcrnational a, a (acc).
, Tc suggcstion has bccn madc that a matcrial brcach ol a Council rcsolution is dil
lcrcnt lrom thc matcrial brcach ol a trcaty, and may lack thc samc suspcnsivc ccct.
8ut thc Council itscll has uscd thc idca ol matcrial brcach in just this way through
out thc .aycar history ol Rcsolution 6,. Scc, c.g., statcmcnt by thc Prcsidcnt ol thc
Sccurity Council conccrning Unitcd Nations ights into !raqi tcrritory, UN oc.
S/ac. (.), quotcd in Ruth Vcdgwood, Tc nlorccmcnt ol Sccurity Council
Rcsolution 6,: Tc Trcat ol Forcc Against !raqs Vcapons ol Mass cstruction, a
Amcrican Journal ol !ntcrnational Law ,a, ,a, & accompanying notcs (.).
Scc, c.g., Human Rights Vatch, !raqs Crimc ol Gcnocidc: Tc Anlal Campaign
Against thc Kurds (Yalc Univcrsity Prcss .).
232 Futh !edg.ood
dcpcnds upon coalitions ol thc willing countrics willing to raisc and contributc
military lorccs. Council authorization may bc stymicd as wcll by thc particular
ambitions and conicting agcndas ol Council mcmbcrs. nc may notc, lor cxam
plc, thc potcntial ccct ol Chincsc cncrgy rclationships on thc Sccurity Councils
dclaycd rcsponsc to !ranian violations ol thc Nuclcar NonProlilcration Trcaty
and to Sudans gcnocidal acts in arlur.
!n August .c, thc Sccurity Council dcmandcd !raqs withdrawal lrom
Kuwait, and imposcd cconomic sanctions against thc rcgimc. Sanctions and
diplomacy wcrc givcn scvcral months to work. !n Novcmbcr .c, thc usc ol
armcd lorcc was authorizcd by Sccurity Council Rcsolution 6,, undcr Chaptcr
\!!, with a cday timc dclay to pcrmit Russian Forcign Ministcr Primakov and
othcrs to undcrtakc onc nal round ol diplomacy. Tc potcntial costs ol last
chancc diplomacy wcrc latcr shown in a dramatic discovcry madc by Unitcd
Nations wcapons inspcctors. As it turncd out, Saddam had uscd thc cday dip
lomatic intcrval in .c. to gct rcady lor battlc, producing and loading bio
logical rcagcnts into acrial bombs and warhcads.

!t was also rcvcalcd, altcr thc

lact, that lollowing thc invasion ol Kuwait, Saddam attcmptcd to accclcratc thc
production ol a nuclcar wcapon, hoping lor a wcapon within a ycars timc.
+o
!raq
did not cmploy chcmical or biological wcapons during thc March .. ground
war, but this may havc bccn thc rcsult ol thc dctcrrcncc providcd by US Sccrctary
ol Statc Jamcs 8akcrs warning that dcvastating conscqucnccs would lollow il
such wcapons wcrc cmploycd. (Vhcthcr this should bc considcrcd a thrcat ol
bclligcrcnt rcprisal is a dicrcnt lcgal dcbatc.
++
)
!n Fcbruary .., altcr a monthlong air campaign, coalition lorccs swcpt
into Kuwait and !raq, with a lamcd HailMary pass ol thc armorcd and inlantry
divisions. Tc coalitions pursuit ol !raqi Rcpublican Guard ivisions stoppcd
short ol 8aghdad, allowing Saddam to prcscrvc substantial military lorccs. A
ccascrc was ocrcd to thc !raqis, and was lormalizcd in Sccurity Council
Rcsolution 6,.
Tis constitutivc rcsolution rcquircd that !raq abidc by uniquc limitations
on its military capacity lor thc indcnitc luturc. !raq would havc to givc up any
missilcs with a rangc cxcccding .c kilomctcrs, togcthcr with any chcmical, bio
logical, or nuclcar wcapons, and any componcnts and prccursors. !n addition,
Saddam would havc to providc a lull and accuratc accounting ol thcsc wcap
Rcport ol thc SccrctaryGcncral on thc status ol thc implcmcntation ol thc Spccial
Commissions plan lor thc ongoing monitoring and vcrication ol !raqs compliancc
with rclcvant parts ol scction C ol Sccurity Council rcsolution 6, (..), U.N oc.
S/./6, at a, para. ,(w).
.c Scc Mahdi bcidi, A 8omb in My Gardcn ( John Vilcy & Sons acc). Scc also
Rcport ol thc !raq Survcy Group (acc), availablc at www.cia.gov~.
.. Scc gcncrally Frits Kalshovcn, 8clligcrcnt Rcprisals (8rill .,., rcprintcd acc).
233 8 Te Military ction in Iraq and International La.
ons programs, subjcct to vcrication by Unitcd Nations wcapons inspcctors, and
agrcc to ongoing monitoring to prcvcnt any rcconstitution ol thcsc programs.
Tc cxpcctcd compliancc by !raq was not lorthcoming. Tc UN spccial com
mission on !raq, lormcd undcr thc lcadcrship ol Swcdish diplomat Roll kcus,
originally cxpcctcd to complctc vcrication ol !raqs wcapons disposal within 6
to .a months. 8ut !raq rcluscd to grant intcrnational inspcctors opcn acccss to
thc rccords, scicntists, and sitcs that would havc pcrmittcd a rapid assay ol thc
statc ol thc rcgimcs wcapons programs. Rccords wcrc rcmovcd lrom sitcs schcd
ulcd lor inspcction, travcl by thc inspcctors was dclaycd and impcdcd, and air
inspcctions wcrc subjcctcd to landing rcstrictions and, on at lcast onc occasion,
a physical strugglc ovcr a hclicoptcrs controls. !t was not until lour ycars latcr,
in ., that !raq nally acknowlcdgcd it had cstablishcd a rcscarch program on
biological rcagcnts such as anthrax, botulinum and aatoxin. Tis admission was
not lorthcoming until thc UN Spccial Commission (UNSCM) succccdcd in
piccing togcthcr supplicr rccords that showcd unaccountably largc purchascs ol
biological growth mcdia, ultimatcly totaling tons (grossly cxccssivc lor mcdi
cal laboratory culturcs but usclul in biological wcapons rcscarch and production.)
Admission that thc program had procccdcd to thc stagc ol wcaponizing rcagcnts
camc only altcr Saddam Husscins soninlaw dclcctcd to Jordan, with knowl
cdgc ol thc programs. Skilllul conccalmcnt ol wcapons production capability
within dual usc rcscarch and manulacturing lacilitics also thwartcd vcrication.
!raq produccd a paradc ol last and nal accountings throughout thc .cs,
cach sworn to bc thc truc and complctc vcrsion. !raqs ambassador to thc Unitcd
Nations in Ncw York showcd cvidcnt chagrin, whcn hc was rcduccd cach timc
to thc argumcnt that !raqs admissions ol prior lics now provcd its incontcstablc
good laith.
!raq rcgularly thrcatcncd to withhold luturc coopcration with thc
UNSCM inspcctors unlcss cconomic sanctions against thc rcgimc wcrc liltcd.
Francc and Russia bcgan to rcgularly challcngc thc rcgimc ol sanctions dcsigncd
to cocrcc !raqi compliancc, and criticizcd thc inspcction mcthods ol UNSCM,
suggcsting that thc burdcn ol pcrsuasion lay upon UNSCM rathcr than !raq.
vcn altcr thc il lor Food program was introduccd in latc .6, thc ambiva
lcnt stancc ol thcsc two mcmbcrs ol thc Pcrmancnt Fivc continucd. Saddam
Husscins political skill was cvidcnt, as wcll, sincc any lracturc in thc Council
alliancc was translatcd into rcsistancc on thc ground. Tc !raqi rcgimc rcluscd
acccss to various sitcs ol intcrcst to thc inspcctors, including socallcd prcsidcn
tial palaccs, and pcrsistcntly argucd that it was up to UNSCM to provc that
!raq still had wcapons, rathcr than !raqs burdcn to show thc oppositc. Tc doc
laccd claim that !raqi pcrsonncl had pourcd out chcmical wcapons and biological
rcagcnts into thc dcscrt sand, without kccping rccords ol thc disposal or rccord
ing thc placc, was mct with undcrstandablc incrcdulity. Attcmpts to study !raqs
mcthods ol dcnial and conccalmcnt, in ordcr to avoid cvasion ol thc inspcc
tion mcthods, had limitcd succcss. Tc samc closcd !raqi sccurity apparatus was
234 Futh !edg.ood
chargcd with supcrvision ol wcapons rcscarch and with Saddams pcrsonal sccu
rity. Tc situation continucd to dctcrioratc dcspitc thc ., appointmcnt ol a ncw
dircctor ol UNSCM, Australian diplomat Richard 8utlcr, a conciliatory trip to
8aghdad by UN SccrctaryGcncral Ko Annan obtaining a shortlivcd mcmo
randum ol undcrstanding with thc rcgimc, a rcvicw ol UNSCM inspcction
rcsults by 8razilian diplomat Ccsarc Amorim, and thc lurthcr rcorganization
ol UN inspcction corts (and ncarly wholcsalc changc ol inspcction pcrson
ncl) in a ncw UN group hcadcd by Hans 8lix (thc Unitcd Nations Monitoring,
\crication and !nspcction Commission, or UNM\!C). Vhcn !raq rcluscd to
admit Amcrican inspcctors as part ol thc UNM\!C tcams, onsitc inspcctions
wcrc tcrminatcd in latc .. Tis was lollowcd by a bricl air campaign against
!raqi military sitcs, dubbcd cscrt Fox.
+:
Pcrhaps onc should havc cxpcctcd at thc
outsct that Saddam was unlikcly to comply with any program ol monitorcd dis
armamcnt, cvcn altcr a dclcat. As Roll kcus has obscrvcd, whcn a lcadcr comcs
to powcr through stcalth and violcncc, thc samc pattcrn ol bchavior is likcly to
manilcst itscll intcrnationally.
Tcrc is no nccd to summon a controvcrsial thcory ol prcvcntivc war or prc
cmptivc sclldclcnsc as a basis lor obtaining !raqs compliancc with a Council
mandatcd disarmamcnt rcgimc. Tc lcgal argumcnt against !raq can bc modcst
and conncd. As a rccidivist aggrcssor against its ncighbors, !raq was assigncd
and acccptcd singular dutics undcr Council Rcsolution 6,, to shcd its dcvclop
mcnt ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction, to abstain lrom any rcncwal ol thosc pro
grams, in pcrpctuity, and to show thc intcrnational community that it had donc
so. To bc surc, thc attacks ol Scptcmbcr .., acc., havc challcngcd classic stratc
gic doctrinc, by cxposing thc potcntial lailurc ol dctcrrcncc against nonstatc
actors. Any luturc attacks with wcapons ol mass dcstruction may lack a rcturn
addrcss. A statc could hando wcapons matcricl to a nonstatcactor, in ordcr
to targct a sharcd cncmy, and yct avoid thc mattcr coming to light. ctcrrcncc
ol such conduct would not bc availablc, unlcss onc was prcparcd to announcc an
unprcccdcntcd stratcgic doctrinc that would thrcatcn a rcsponsc against any pos
siblc sourcc ol thc anonymous attack. Tus, in a bravc ncw world ol nonstatc
actors, cvcn whcrc thcrc is no cstablishcd rclationship or hicrarchical intcgration
bctwccn a statc and a privatc nctwork, dctcrrcncc may lail to prcvcnt dcadly
handos. As with Scptcmbcr .., thcrc may bc no warning ol an immincnt
attack. !t may bc a bolt lrom thc bluc, or a bolt lrom a smugglcd cargo containcr
on an occan bargc.
.a Tcrc was no additional Sccurity Council rcsolution prcccding cscrt Fox. So, too,
in ., Amcrican, 8ritish and Frcnch aircralt took part in limitcd air attacks against
!raqi radar sitcs as a mcans ol cocrcing !raqi compliancc with inspcction rcquirc
mcnts. Scc Ruth Vcdgwood, Tc nlorccmcnt ol Sccurity Council Rcsolution
6,: Tc Trcat ol Forcc against !raqs Vcapons ol Mass cstruction, a Amcrican
Journal ol !ntcrnational Law ,a, ,a,,a (.).
235 8 Te Military ction in Iraq and International La.
Unlawlul production ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction and dclibcratc cvasion
ol rcporting rcquircmcnts thus sccmcd an aggravatcd dangcr altcr thc occurrcncc
ol al Qacdas tcrrorist attacks ol Scptcmbcr ... arlicr in thc .cs, !raq may (or
may not) havc cxportcd chcmical wcapons production to Sudan, whcrc sama
bin Ladcn maintaincd important links.
+
!raqi agcnts may (or may not havc) mct
in Praguc with a lcadcr ol thc Scptcmbcr .. attacks. Rcgardlcss ol thc intcrprcta
tion ol intclligcncc sourccs on thcsc mattcrs, thc dclibcratc cvasion ol inspcction
rcquircmcnts by an irrcsponsiblc rcgimc could not bc ignorcd or indulgcd, cvcn
in acc.
Tis hclps to cxplain thc willingncss ol thc Unitcd Statcs and its allics to
ow signicant numbcrs ol troops into thc Gull rcgion, in midacca, in ordcr to
pcrsuadc !raq that it nccdcd to rcadmit thc UN wcapons inspcctors and comply
with thc vcrication rcquircmcnts ol Rcsolution 6,. Undcr Rcsolution .., !raq
was givcn what thc Sccurity Council dccmcd a nal chancc to givc an adcquatc
accounting, and lailcd to do so. UNM\!C inspcctors dircctcd by Hans 8lix
did rccntcr !raq, and conductcd somc onsitc inspcctions. 8ut cvcn thcn, thcy
could not intcrvicw wcapons scicntists in privatc nor ocr to takc thc scicntists
and thcir lamilics out ol thc country, whcrc thcy would cnjoy somc salcguards
against rctaliation. 8lix was rcduccd to playing nccdlcinahaystack. Hc could
not lollow rccords or matcricl that may havc bccn rcmovcd to Syria, a 8aathist
ncighbor. Hc could not dig up thc !raqi dcscrt, though thc intriguing discovcry
ol a Sovict M!G buricd in thc dcscrt sand suggcsts that unusual storagc mcth
ods wcrc not bcyond Saddams imagination. !ndccd, Saddams scicntic cxpcrt
on nuclcar ccntrilugcs admittcd altcr thc war in acc that hc had bccomc cxpcrt
in clcansing inspcction sitcs to thwart UNSCM inspcctors, and had cndcd up
burying crucial dcsign blucprints in his own gardcn undcr a trcc.
+
Shortly bclorc thc allicd military intcrvcntion, thcrc was a rcportcd mccting
in Saint Pctcrsburg bctwccn Frcnch prcsidcnt Jacqucs Chirac, Gcrman chanccl
lor Gcrhard Schrocdcr, and Russian prcsidcnt \ladimir Putin, to discuss thcir
positions. Scvcral public intcrnational lawycrs lrom cach country wcrc rcportcdly
invitcd to this aair ol statc, in ordcr to attcmpt to lramc argumcnts in opposi
tion. 8ut thc lat was thrown in thc rc by Prcsidcnt Chiracs statcmcnt to thc
prcss on March .c, acc, that undcr no circumstanccs would Francc votc in lavor
ol rcncwcd authorization ol thc usc ol lorcc.
+

Tc Sccurity Council was thus blockcd lrom lurthcr action. Tc Unitcd
Statcs, Unitcd Kingdom, and Australia, acting in coopcration with thc miratc
. Scc Ruth Vcdgwood, Rcsponding to Tcrrorism: Tc Strikcs Against 8in Ladcn, a
Yalc Journal ol !ntcrnational Law (.).
. Mahdi bcidi, A 8omb in My Gardcn ( John Vilcy & Sons acc).
. Scc !ntcrvicw Tclcvisc sur l!raq du Prcsidcnt dc la Rcpubliquc, M. Jacqucs Chirac,
.c mars acc, par Patrick Poivrc dArvor (TF.) ct avid Pujadas (Francc a), Palais
dc lyscc.
236 Futh !edg.ood
ol Kuwait, dccidcd to procccd with a military intcrvcntion, without cxtcnding
thc UNM\!C inspcctions lor any lurthcr pcriod. Factors that may havc argucd
in lavor ol an carlicr start wcrc thc challcngcs in maintaining battlcrcadincss in a
dcscrt bivouac, and thc dicultics ol ghting in summcr tcmpcraturcs (cspccially
in chcmical protcctivc suits, sincc !raq was bclicvcd to havc chcmical arms). !n
addition, thcrc was an advantagc in achicving tactical surprisc oncc thc Turkish
parliamcnt rcluscd to allow thc US Fourth !nlantry ivision to dcploy on !raqs
northcrn bordcr, and postwar analysts havc crcditcd that surprisc as a lactor in
thc coalitions succcss in gctting to 8aghdad with uncxpcctcd spccd. Saddams
calculatcd cxploitation ol thc .. diplomatic pausc also showcd thc hazards ol
granting an advcrsary cxtra timc to prcparc, oncc an opcration was widcly sccn
to bc incvitablc.
Tc racc to 8aghdad wcnt bcttcr than anyonc cxpcctcd. Tc occupation has
bccn dicult and costly to human lilc, both civilian and military. Tc war plan
ncrs saw thc possiblc dicultics ol housctohousc ghting in thc initial assault
on urban arcas. 8ut thc mclting away ol !raqi lorccs and thc organization ol a
lundcd, wcllsupplicd, and sustaincd urban insurgcncy in Sunni arcas turncd thc
occupation into a continuation ol combat by anothcr namc. vcn thc capturc ol
Saddam Husscin in a spidcr holc ncar Tikrit has not succd to qucll thc insur
gcncy.
Still, scvcral things havc happcncd that may cast a warmcr light on cvcnts.
First, thcrc is thc rcmarkablc and uplilting cclcbration ol !raqi dcmocracy. !raqi
womcn and mcn couragcously wcnt to thc polls in January acc, and again in
cccmbcr acc, dclying thc dangcr ol car bombs and suicidc attacks, in ordcr
to cast thcir ballots. Tcir lorcngcrs wcrc paintcd with indcliblc purplc ink to
show that thcy had votcd. Tis salcguard against doublc voting also providcd thc
rcmarkablc sight ol womcn and mcn, proud ol thcir purplc ngcrs, pointcd up, in
dcancc ol thc rcprcssion ol thc old rcgimc. !raqs cxamplc was rcinlorccd by thc
cvcnts ol Ukraincs orangc rcvolution, showing thc powcr ol civil disobcdicncc
and public dcmonstration in rcbung outsidc intcrlcrcncc in national clcctions.
Sincc that timc, thcrc has bccn a domino ccct ol dcmocracy as il othcr
rcgimcs ncwly undcrstood thcir citizcns would claim thc samc voicc. Tc rcsults
ol a dcmocratic ballot arc not always casy in thc short run, cspccially in thc wakc
ol a lundamcntalist !slamist movcmcnt that has radicalizcd somc actors. 8ut thc
longtcrm trcnd toward dcmocracy may bc thc bcst chancc to bring prospcrity
and stability to thc rcgion. Vith thc dcath ol Yasir Aralat, thc Palcstinian pcoplc
votcd lor Mahmoud Abbas as thc ncw prcsidcnt ol thc Palcstinian Authority,
upon his plcdgc to rid thc Authority ol its dcbilitating nancial corruption. A
ycar latcr, in acc6, thc parliamcntary showing ol Hamas has bccn startling to
somc obscrvcrs, but its rolc as a govcrning coalition may mitigatc its radical
ism towards cocxistcncc with !sracl. Saudi Arabia hcld municipal clcctions in
Fcbruary acc, and has indicatcd that womcn may bc pcrmittcd to votc in acc.
Prcsidcnt Mubarak ol gypt hcld prcsidcntial clcctions in Scptcmbcr acc,
237 8 Te Military ction in Iraq and International La.
though his rst impulsc was to arrcst thc most promincnt opposition candidatc.
Tc pcoplc ol Lcbanon rcactcd to thc brazcn assassination ol lormcr primc min
istcr Rak Hariri by dcmanding an cnd to thc thirtyycar occupation ol Lcbanon
by Syrian troops. Tc Sccurity Council lollowcd suit by dcmanding thc immcdi
atc withdrawal ol Syrian troops in Rcsolution .
+6
and thc UN authorizcd an
astonishing invcstigation ol Hariris murdcr that pointcd to thc complicity ol
Syrias lcadcrship. !t is too carly to spcak ol a 8asra or 8aghdad spring, but thc
dcmonstration ccct ol thc !raqi votc has bccn cxtraordinary.
Sccond, thcrc is thc impact ol thc Unitcd Nations HighLcvcl Pancl, a
study commissioncd by thc SccrctaryGcncral to assay luturc dangcrs lacing thc
intcrnational community. Tc pancl mcmbcrs includc a rcmarkablc array ol lormcr
intcrnational and national lcadcrs, including lormcr UN High Commissioncr
lor Rclugccs Sadako gata, lormcr gyptian lorcign ministcr Amr Moussa,
lormcr hcad ol thc Frcnch conscil constitutionncl Robcrt 8adintcr, and lormcr
Australian lorcign ministcr Garcth vans. nc ol thc primc thrcats idcnticd
by thc pancl is thc problcm ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction in thc hands ol bcl
licosc rcgimcs.
Customary intcrnational law has ncvcr purportcd to limit thc acquisition ol
wcapons capability by indcpcndcnt statcs. Tc limits on acquisition ol biologi
cal wcapons, chcmical wcapons, and nuclcar wcapons havc dcvclopcd as a mattcr
ol trcaty law, and countrics can lcavc thosc trcatics. 8ut thc pancl laccd a ncw
and morc dangcrous world with thc cxamplcs ol North Korca and !ran, as wcll
as thc cvidcnt dangcrs ol thc attcmptcd acquisition ol VM by privatc tcrror
nctworks. Tc pancl obscrvcd that thcrc is a ncw typc ol collcctivc thrcat lacing
thc intcrnational community, namcly, nightmarc sccnarios combining tcrrorists,
wcapons ol mass dcstruction and irrcsponsiblc Statcs. For thc rst timc, thc
Unitcd Nations community which rcactcd with grcat skcpticism to thc Unitcd
Statcs National Sccurity Stratcgy in acca has acknowlcdgcd that capacity can
itscll bc dangcrous and potcntially actionablc. Tc acquisition ol VM by an
irrcsponsiblc Statc might conccivably justily thc usc ol lorcc, not just rcactivcly
but prcvcntivcly and bclorc a latcnt thrcat bccomcs immincnt.
+
To bc surc, thc HighLcvcl Pancl concludcs that thrcats should bc coun
tcrcd collcctivcly, rathcr than unilatcrally. 8ut thc pancl also acknowlcdgcs that
this prclcrcncc lor multilatcral rcsponsc dcpcnds upon thc tcmpcr and scnsc ol
rcsponsibility ol Council mcmbcrs. Tc Sccurity Council must risc to thc occa
sion. !n considcring thc tcnsion bctwccn unilatcralism and multilatcralism, onc
may rcmcmbcr thc SccrctaryGcncrals own conundrum about who could autho
rizc humanitarian intcrvcntion. !n ., in a spccch to thc Gcncral Asscmbly,
.6 UN Sccurity Council Rcs. ., Fcb. , acc.
., A Morc Sccurity Vorld: ur Sharcd Rcsponsibility, Rcport ol thc Sccrctary
Gcncrals Highlcvcl Pancl on Trcats, Challcngcs and Changc, cccmbcr a, acc,
at p. 6, paragraph ..
238 Futh !edg.ood
Ko Annan poscd a morcthanrhctorical qucstion about gcnocidc in Rwanda
and cthnic clcansing in Kosovo. Hc askcd what statcs should do il thc Sccurity
Council rcluscd to act.
+8
Vas humanitarian intcrvcntion pcrmissiblc without
Council approval: Tc SccrctaryGcncrals suggcstion was that thc succcss
lul maintcnancc ol a collcctivc systcm lor dccisionmaking would dcpcnd upon
thc Councils willingncss to rcspond to thrcats. Quitc apart lrom thc ccct ol
Rcsolutions 6, and 6,, thc samc point might bc drawn in rclation to an irrc
sponsiblc rcgimc such as thc 8aathist dictatorship ol Saddam Husscin. As thc
SccrctaryGcncral notcd in his visit to Vashington in cccmbcr acc, whcrc
thcrc is a convincing and pcrsuasivc casc, thc council must lacc up to its rcspon
sibilitics and act, rathcr than crcatc a situation whcrc a mcmbcr statc lccls it has
to go outsidc thc council to takc to gct rcdrcss or to takc action.
+

As a third lactor, onc should notc thc sobcring ccct ol postwar asscssmcnts
ol Saddam Husscins wcapons programs. To bc surc, thc postwar !raq Survcy
Group discovcrcd no stockpilcs ol chcmical wcapons or biological wcapons. 8ut
thc rcticcnt voicc ol lormcr UNSCM dircctor Roll kcus has rcmindcd post
war obscrvcrs ol thc ccntral rolc ol Saddams intcntion and his intcrcst in brcak
out capability. !n an cssay callcd ont bc loolcd, thcy lound morc than you
think, kcus notcs that thc work ol thc postwar wcapons inspcctors convinc
ingly dcmonstratcs that !raqs biological wcapons cxpcrts dcvclopcd and main
taincd a clandcstinc nctwork ol laboratorics and lacilitics within thc sccurity
apparatus. Tis inlrastructurc lor cxpcrimcntation was not rcportcd in !raqs
dcclaration, and this was an obvious violation ol !raqs rcporting obligations
undcr UN Sccurity Council rcsolution ... So, too, rccordcd kcus, !raqi sci
cntists havc also admittcd to invcstigating how to improvc and simplily lcrmcn
tation and spraydrying capabilitics ol 8Vsimulants lor application to anthrax.
kcus also statcd that hc was struck by inlormation on !raqs production
ol liquid rockct lucl and oxidiscr. Tis docs sccm to support thc argumcnt that
!raq had maintaincd its intcrcst in longcrrangc missilcs (ovcr thc milc rangc
allowcd).
:o
Tc ultimatc challcngc, notcs kcus, is how to handlc a rcgimc lcadcr who
sccks to cnginccr thc lilting ol multilatcral sanctions in ordcr to go back to his
intcrcsts in prohibitcd wcapons systcms. kcus rcachcs thc unvarnishcd conclu
sion that !t is dicult to bclicvc that, had thcrc not bccn a war, it would havc
. Ko Annan, n Sovcrcignty and !ntcrvcntion, rcprintcd in SccrctaryGcncral
Prcscnts His Annual Rcport to Gcncral Asscmbly, UN Prcss Rclcasc SG/SM/,.6,
GA/6 (Scpt. ac, .). Scc also Ko Annan, Two Conccpts ol Sovcrcignty, Tc
conomist, Scpt. ., ..
. Rcmarks ol SccrctaryGcncral Ko Annan, A Morc Sccurc Vorld: Vho Nccds to
o Vhat:, Council on Forcign Rclations, Vashington, .C., cc. .6, acc.
ac Roll kcus, ont bc loolcd, thcy lound morc than you think, Sunday Timcs
(London), Ncws Rcvicw ,, ct. ., acc. Scc also Roll kcus, !raqs Rcal Vcapons
Trcat, Vashington Post, Junc a, acc.
239 8 Te Military ction in Iraq and International La.
bccn possiblc to control and monitor !raqs dualusc capacitics lor any lcngth ol
timc. Tc problcm was somcthing that no inspcctor could cxtirpatc namcly,
Saddams commitmcnt to wcapons ol mass dcstruction as a ccntral stanchion ol
his rcgimcs powcr and prcstigc. !n a challcngc that is unusually blunt lor UN
diplomacy, kcus statcs: ! put it to thosc who criticiscd thc dccision to go to war
against !raq to outlinc an altcrnativc routc and cxplain what should havc bccn
donc with Saddams wcapons programmcs.
:+
So, too, thc rcsults ol thc !raq Survcy Group corroboratc that Saddam had
not abandoncd his ambitions. Charlcs ucllcr, who had scrvcd as dcputy cxccu
tivc chairman ol UNSCM undcr both kcus and 8utlcr, concludcd that thc
!raqi !ntclligcncc Scrvicc maintaincd throughout .. to acc a sct ol undc
clarcd covcrt laboratorics to rcscarch and tcst chcmicals and poisons, primarily
lor intclligcncc opcrations. !n addition, thc Survcy Group uncovcrcd !raqi plans
or dcsigns lor thrcc longrangc ballistic missilcs with rangcs lrom cc to .,ccc
km and lor a .,ccc kmrangc cruisc missilc.
::
Although thcsc wcrc still in thc
dcsign phasc, this was a lorbiddcn cntcrprisc, and was accompanicd by thc impor
tation ol cngincs lrom Poland, and possibly Russia or 8clarus, which would havc
supportcd longcr rangc missilcs, and by thc importation ol missilc guidancc and
control systcms. Tc ucllcr rcport concludcd that Saddam Husscin wantcd to
cnd sanctions whilc prcscrving thc capability to rcconstitutc his wcapons ol mass
dcstruction (VM) whcn sanctions wcrc liltcd.
:
Yct, ol coursc, thc rcgimc
crcatcd by Rcsolution 6, would not bc satiscd by a momcntarily cmpty lardcr.
Rathcr, it rcquircd thc dismantling ol VM programs in pcrpctuity. !t is hard,
thcn, to know how inspcctions would havc qucllcd this commitmcnt. !nspcctors,
supportcd by aa,ccc troops in thc dcscrt, would havc had to continuc thcir work
until Saddam and his hcirs had nishcd thcir natural span ol ycars.
Tc nal postwar dcvclopmcnt that has put thc asscssmcnts ol Rcsolutions
6,, 6, and .. into a dicrcnt light is thc socallcd il lor Food scandal.
Starting in .,, thc UN sanctions program pcrmittcd !raq to scll signicant
amounts ol oil, lor thc purposc ol raising moncy lor humanitarian supplics, as
wcll as to pay rcparations dcmandcd by thc !raqi Claims Commission, a body
sitting undcr UN auspiccs in Gcncva. Tc invcstigativc rcport by lormcr Fcdcral
Rcscrvc chairman Paul \olckcr, appointcd by thc SccrctaryGcncral, concludcs
that a UN dircctor ol thc il lor Food program was stccring valuablc oil pur
chasc vouchcrs to a lavorcd company, and obtaincd cash in rcturn.
:
il allot
mcnts wcrc allcgcdly givcn to promincnt politicians ol Sccurity Council mcmbcr
a. Roll kcus, ont bc loolcd, thcy lound morc than you think, Sunday Timcs
(London), Ncws Rcvicw ,, ct. ., acc.
aa Scc Rcport ol thc !raq Survcy Group, availablc at www.cia.org.
a !d.
a !ndcpcndcnt !nquiry Committcc into thc Unitcd Nations illorFood Programmc,
Tird !ntcrim Rcport, August , acc, availablc at www.iicop.org.
240 Futh !edg.ood
statcs, to outspokcn opponcnts ol thc !raqi sanctions, and to two lamily mcm
bcrs ol a lormcr UN Sccrctary Gcncral, acting lor an gyptian oil company. Tc
stcady ow ol illicit cash to !raq as kickbacks on oil purchascs and surchargcs
on contracts lor thc supply ol humanitarian goods, mcant that thc rcgimc had a
stcady supply ol hard currcncy to usc as it might wish, including lor purchasc ol
wcapons componcnts. Tc il lor Food scandal showcd that cconomic sanctions
had, in a scnsc, alrcady bccn liltcd against !raq, at lcast as to highpriority rcgimc
purchascs. Tus, thcrc could bc no guarantcc that lorbiddcn lruit was rcally out
ol rcach, cvcn whilc UN wcapons inspcctors might bc travcling around thc coun
trysidc in pursuit ol a sitc inspcction. Tis rcsupply chain sustaincd by cash, and
shapcd by intcntion could ovcrcomc any inspcctors ability to scparatc Saddam
lrom VM. Tc brcach ol Rcsolutions 6, and .., as shown in thc lalsc dcc
laration ol cccmbcr acca, was morc than a tcchnical lailurc. !t was yct anothcr
sign ol Saddams totcmic attachmcnt to wcapons ol mass dcstruction, as symbols
ol powcr and as a club with which to ovcrawc his ncighbors and his own popula
tion. Tat is what Rcsolution 6, was dcsigncd to prcvcnt.
Chapter 9
Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello
Tc Scparation bctwccn thc Lcgality ol thc Usc ol Forcc and
Humanitarian Rulcs to 8c Rcspcctcd in Varlarc:
Crucial or utdatcd:
Marco Sassli
nc ol thc qualitics that makc Yoram instcin such a uniquc scholar is that hc
is onc ol thc vcry lcw who arc gcnuinc cxpcrts in both ius ad bellum (thc rulcs
on thc lcgality ol thc usc ol lorcc) and ius in bello (thc rulcs on how lorcc may
bc uscd, which comprisc !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law (!HL)). Hc has ncvcr
tricd to mix thc two branchcs or cvcn to nuancc thc absolutc scparation bctwccn
thcm. n thc contrary, hc has insistcd on strict scparation in many ol his writ
ings.
+
As lar as ! know, nonc ol his numcrous publications is cvcn dcdicatcd to
both branchcs: thcy always cithcr dcal with ius ad bellum or ius in bello. !t may
thcrclorc bc appropriatc in this contribution in his honour to cxplorc this scpara
tion in my vicw crucial lor thc survival ol !HL and lor thc ccctivc protcction
ol war victims its rcasons and conscqucnccs, thc thrcats it is subjcct to, and thc
possiblc tcndcncics which would makc it pointlcss.
:
! would likc to thank my rcscarch assistants, Ms Lindscy Camcron, Ms Maric
Hlnc Proulx and Mr ric Corthay, lor thcir hclp in nding rclcrcnccs lor and
rcvising this tcxt.
. Yoram instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence,
rd
cd., (Cambridgc: Cambridgc
Univ. Prcss, acc.) at .c.,, Yoram instcin, Te Conduct of Hostilities under the
La. of International rmed Conict (Cambridgc: Cambridgc Univ. Prcss, acc) at
, Yoram instcin, Symposium: Tc Rulc ol Law in Conict and PostConict
Situations: Commcnts on Var (acc) a, Har.. J.L. . Pub. Pol cy ,, at .a,
Yoram instcin, Jus in 8cllo !ssucs Arising in thc Hostilitics in !raq in acc
Israel Yearbook on Human Fights (acc) at a.
a Scc gcncrally on this distinction, Franois 8ugnion, Gucrrc justc, gucrrc dagrcssion
ct droit intcrnational humanitairc (acca) , Intl Fe.. Fed Cross a6 (also
availablc onlinc in nglish: http://www.icrc.org/Vcb/ng/sitccngc.nsl/htmlall/
rcvicw:pcnocumcnt), Tcrry Gill, Tc Nuclcar Vcapons Advisory pinion ol
thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc and thc Fundamcntal istinction bctwccn thc
Ius ad Bellum and thc Ius in Bello (.) .a Leiden J. Intl La. 6.6a, Christophcr
Grccnwood, Scllclcncc and thc Conduct ol !ntcrnational Armcd Conict in
Yoram instcin, cd., International La. at a Time of Perplexity (ordrccht: Martinus
Nijho Publishcrs, .) at a,a, Christophcr Grccnwood, Tc Rclationship
8ctwccn Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello (.) Fe.ie. of International Studies at aa.
a. Pctcr Kooijmans, !s thcrc a Changc in thc Ius ad Bellum and, il so, Vhat ocs
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. :,z-:o,.
242 Marco Sassli
I enitions
Tc ius ad bellum dcncs whcn it is lawlul to usc lorcc in intcrnational rclations,
i.e., to rcsort to armcd conict. At lcast sincc thc prohibition ol thc usc ol lorcc
was cnshrincd in Articlc a () ol thc UN Chartcr, it could bc morc appropriatcly
rclcrrcd to as ius contra bellum. As Yoram instcin has so brilliantly cxplaincd
in cvcry dctail, thc usc ol lorcc bctwccn Statcs is prohibitcd by a pcrcmptory
rulc ol intcrnational law. Tcrc arc cxccptions, in particular individual and collcc
tivc sclldclcncc, cnlorccmcnt mcasurcs dccidcd or approvcd by thc UN Sccurity
Council, probably national libcration wars and arguably othcr cascs. Howcvcr,
thosc cxccptions in which a ius ad bellum (i.e., a right to wagc war) cxists may only
justily thc usc ol lorcc by onc party. Tc cncmy has ncccssarily violatcd thc ius
contra bellum. Statcs arc ncvcr cqual bclorc thc ius ad bellum and il thc ius contra
bellum wcrc rcspcctcd, intcrnational armcd conicts would no longcr cxist.
!n this articlc, ! will usc a broad conccpt ol ius ad bellum, onc which includcs
not only thc rulcs ol thc UN Chartcr on thc usc ol lorcc, but also all rulcs ol
intcrnational law which dircctly or indircctly justily thc usc ol lorcc in intcrna
tional rclations.
Tc ius in bello dcncs what is lcgal in an armcd conict. !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law is its most important branch, cqually commcntcd upon in all
its aspccts by Yoram instcin. !t limits thc usc ol violcncc in armcd conicts by
protccting thosc who do not or no longcr dircctly participatc in hostilitics and
limiting thc violcncc to thc amount ncccssary to achicvc thc aim ol thc conict,
which undcr ius in bello can, whcthcr that aim is lawlul or unlawlul undcr ius ad
bellum, only bc to wcakcn thc military potcntial ol thc cncmy. Today, this branch
ol intcrnational law is largcly codicd in thc . Gcncva Convcntions and thc
it Mcan lor thc Ius in Bello: in Licsbcth Lijnzaad, Johanna van Sambcck and 8ahia
TahzibLic, cds., Making the !oice of Humanity Heard (Lcidcn/8oston: Martinus
Nijho Publishcrs, acc) at aaa,, Hcrsch Lautcrpacht, Rulcs ol Varlarc in An
Unlawlul Var in Gcorgc A. Lipsky, cd., La. and Politics in the !orld Community
(8crkclcy: Univ. Calil. Prcss, .) at .., Mclanic Macdonagh, Can thcrc bc
such a Ting as a Just Var: (accc) International Journal of Human Fights at a
a, Hcnri Mcyrowitz, Le principe de l egalite des belligerants de.ant le droit de la guerre
(Paris: Pcdonc, .,c), Rcin Mullcrson, n thc Rclationship 8ctwccn Ius ad Bellum
and Ius in Bello in thc Gcncral Asscmbly Advisory pinion in Laurcncc 8oisson
dc Chazourncs, cd., International La., the International Court of Justice and Nuclear
!eapons (Cambridgc: CUP, .) at a6,a,, Gcorgcs Sccllc, Quclqucs rcxions
sur labolition dc la comptcncc dc la gucrrc (.) FGDIP at aa. Michacl Valzcr,
Just and Unjust !ars, Moral rgument .ith Historical Illustrations,
rd
cd., (Ncw
York: 8asic 8ooks, accc), Quincy Vright, Tc utlawry ol Var and thc Law ol
Var (.) , JIL at 6,6.
243 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
.,, Additional Protocols.

!n a rcccnt study, thc !CRC lurthcr idcnticd a largc

body ol customary rulcs ol !HL applicablc to both intcrnational and nonintcr
national armcd conicts.

II Terminology and History

Vhilc thc Latin tcrms lcign ancicnt origins, and whilc war is onc ol thc carli
cst subjccts dcalt with by intcrnational law, thc two tcrms discusscd in this arti
clc wcrc born in thc carly twcnticth ccntury and uscd rcgularly only sincc thc
Sccond Vorld Var

intcrcstingly cnough prcciscly whcn ius (in thc scnsc ol a

right) ad bellum no longcr cxistcd. Tc litcral Gcrman cquivalcnt ol thc two tcrms
Rccht zum Kricgc and Rccht im Kricgc had howcvcr alrcady bccn cmploycd
by !mmanucl Kant, who also strcsscd thc ncccssity ol distinguishing thc two
branchcs.
6

arlicr, at thc timc ol Grotius and thc classical just war thcory, a bellum
iustum (but only such a war) was subjcct to temperamenta belli (rcstraints on thc
waging ol war, which wcrc considcrcd by Grotius not to bc lcgal obligations).
To bc just, a war had to comply with both, in todays tcrminology, ius ad bellum
and ius in bello.

Tc cncmy, waging war lor an unjust causc, was not subjcct to

such temperamenta belli. Yct, as \attcl notcd, both sidcs, cvcn in a civil war, oltcn
claimcd in good laith to bc right, thcrclorc, intcrnational law had to apply pcnd
ing dctcrmination ol who is actually right.
8

Gene.a Con.ention [ IJ for the melioration of the Condition of the !ounded and Sick
in rmed Forces in the Field, .a August ., , U.N.T.S. ., Gene.a Con.ention [IIJ
for the melioration of the Condition of the !ounded, Sick and Ship.recked Members
of rmed Forces at Sea, .a August ., , U.N.T.S. , Gene.a Con.ention [IIIJ rel-
ati.e to the Treatment of Prisoners of !ar, .a August ., , U.N.T.S. ., Gene.a
Con.ention [I!J relati.e to the Protection of Ci.ilian Persons in Time of !ar, .a August
., , U.N.T.S. a,, Protocol dditional to the Gene.a Con.entions of z: ugust z,,,,
and relating to the Protection of !ictims of International rmed Conicts (Protocol I),
of 8 June z,,,, ..a U.N.T.S. , and Protocol dditional to the Gene.a Con.entions of
z: ugust z,,,, and relating to the Protection of !ictims of Non-International rmed
Conicts (Protocol II), of 8 June z,,,, ..a U.N.T.S. 6c.
JcanMaric Hcnckacrts and Louisc oswald8cck, cds., Customary International
Humantiarian La. (Cambridgc: Cambridgc Univ. Prcss, acc).
Robcrt Kolb, rigin ol thc Twin Tcrms Ius ad Bellum Ius in Bello (.,) ac Intl
Fe.. Fed Cross at 6a.
6 !mmanucl Kant, Te Philosophy of La., n Exposition of the Fundamental Principles
of Jurisprudence as the Science of Fight, trans. V. Hastic (dinburgh, .,) at paras.
and ,.
, Scc Pctcr Haggcnmachcr, Grotius et la doctrine de la guerre juste (Paris: PUF, .) at
,6c.
Scc 8ugnion, Gucrrc justc, supra notc a at aa6.
244 Marco Sassli
Vhcn natural law conccpts wcrc largcly abandoncd, war bccamc a simplc
lact in intcrnational rclations. !t was only logical that intcrnational law, thc ius
durante bello, govcrncd this aspcct ol intcrnational rclations. !ntcrcstingly cnough,
only whcn thc prohibition ol thc usc ol lorcc appcarcd did thc tcrms ius ad bellum
and ius in bello appcar.

Tc lattcr had to ncccssarily bc distinguishcd lrom thc

lormcr, lor it applicd to a situation which should not cxist undcr thc lormcr body
ol law. As will bc discusscd, onc day, whcn thc intcrnational community is rcgu
larly ablc and willing to livc up to (or with) thc rulc ol intcrnational law and to
rcgularly and impartially cnlorcc ius ad bellum, wc may rcturn to conccpts ol tem-
peramenta belli.
III Reasons for the Separation
Although intcrnational armcd conicts arc prohibitcd, thcy still occur. !t is today
rccognizcd that intcrnational law must not only countcr this rcality, but also rcg
ulatc it through !HL, which has to apply cqually to both sidcs: thc onc rcsort
ing lawlully to thc usc ol lorcc and thc onc violating thc ius contra bellum. !n its
Prcamblc, Protocol ! clarics both aspccts. First, whilc !HL applics to violations
ol thc ius ad bellum, it docs not justily thcm: Tc High Contracting Partics
|.| |c|xprcssing thcir conviction that nothing in this Protocol or in thc Gcncva
Convcntions ol .a August . can bc construcd as lcgitimizing or authorizing
any act ol aggrcssion or any othcr usc ol lorcc inconsistcnt with thc Chartcr ol
thc Unitcd Nations. Sccond, !HL must bc rcspcctcd by all sidcs, indcpcndcnt ol
who is right or wrong undcr ius ad bellum: |r|carming lurthcr that thc provi
sions ol thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August . and ol this Protocol must bc
lully applicd in all circumstanccs to all pcrsons who arc protcctcd by thosc instru
mcnts, without any advcrsc distinction bascd on thc naturc or origin ol thc armcd
conict or on thc causcs cspouscd by or attributcd to thc Partics to thc conict.
Post VorldVar !! trials rccognizcd that Gcrmans accuscd ol war crimcs could
rcly on all thc rights !HL providcs to a lawlul bclligcrcnt and could cxpcct that
thc inhabitants ol tcrritorics thcy occupicd in violation ol thc ius ad bellum would
comply with thcir own obligations undcr ius in bello.
+o

Scvcral rcasons undcrlic this scparation, cach ol which illustratcs thc con
trovcrsics surrounding it. First, onc may considcr it a mcrc qucstion ol logic.
ncc thc primary rulcs prohibiting thc usc ol lorcc (i.e. thc ius ad bellum) havc
bccn violatcd, thc subsidiary rulcs ol ius in bello must apply, as thcy arc lorcsccn
Scc Kolb, supra notc at 6.6a.
.c Scc thc US Military Tribunal at Nurcmbcrg in thc cascs ol !ilhelm List et al. (scction
(v)) July ., . Fcbruary ., La. Feports of Trials of !ar Criminals, vol. \!!!
(Tc Unitcd Nations Var Crimcs Commission) at ,6, and In re Altstottcr and
thcrs (Tc Justicc Trial), D ., at a,. Scc lor thc contrary vicw 8. . Mcltzcr,
A Notc on Somc Aspccts ol thc Nurcmbcrg cbatc (.6,) . U.C.L.F. at 6.
and F. c Mcnthon, pcning Addrcss, I.M.T. at ,.
245 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
prcciscly lor situations in which thc primary rulcs havc bccn violatcd. Tcy must
pcrlorcc apply indcpcndcntly. Tis prcmisc was not always uncontrovcrsial. Somc
havc objcctcd to it, on thc lcvcl ol lcgal logic, bascd on thc gcncral principlc ex
iniuria ius non oritur, whcrcby hc who acts contrary to thc law cannot acquirc
rights as a rcsult ol his transgrcssion.
++
!n thc main, howcvcr, !HL cannot bc sccn
as providing rights to Statcs, but rathcr as sctting lorth objcctivc rulcs ol bchav
iour binding thcm lor thc bcnct ol individuals acctcd by war. !n addition, it is
impossiblc to scparatc rights lrom obligations in !HL.
+:
From a morc tclcological point ol vicw, in . thc !ntcrnational Law
Commission rcluscd to cngagc in codication ol thc laws ol war bccausc public
opinion might intcrprct its action as showing lack ol condcncc in thc ccicncy
ol thc mcans at thc disposal ol thc Unitcd Nations lor maintaining pcacc.
+

!ndccd, a national lcgislator adopting rulcs on how drivcrs should bchavc whcn
driving in thc prohibitcd dircction on a oncway road would bc criticizcd lor
undcrmining thc main rulc. nc may rcply that il thc dircction to bc travcllcd
on a oncway road was oltcn controvcrsial, subsidiary rulcs might hclp thc avoid
ancc ol many accidcnts. Tis is prcciscly thc approach ol !HL. !n many parts ol
thc public, ccrtain sccpticism pcrsists towards !HL on thc ground that it argu
ably divcrts attcntion lrom thc main aim: to avoid wars. vcn such an cmincnt
!HL cxpcrt as Tcodor Mcron writcs, altcr cxplaining thc scparation bctwccn
ius ad bellum and ius in bello, that it also ocrs an casy way out to thosc satiscd
with thc prcscnt situation. !ronically, making thc war morc humanc cnhanccs its
acccptability and might cvcn prolong it.
+
!l this wcrc truc, onc should scriously
rcthink thc justication lor !HL. ! would simply rcspond that thc prcmisc is
lalsc. ! am convinccd that no politician, military lcadcr or soldicr has cvcr wagcd
war bccausc hc or shc trustcd that !HL will bc rcspcctcd, thcrcby limiting thc
risks ol battlc. First, cvcn a war in which !HL is pcrlcctly rcspcctcd causcs unprc
dictablc human sucring. Sccond, rcality unlortunatcly shows that no bclligcrcnt
can condcntly count on thc rcspcct ol !HL.
Humanitarian rcasons lor thc scparation arc cvcn morc compclling. Var
victims nccd as much protcction against thc bclligcrcnt ghting in conlormity
with thc ius ad bellum as against a bclligcrcnt who violatcd ius contra bellum. Tcy
arc not rcsponsiblc lor thcir Statcs violation ol intcrnational law (i.e., ius ad
bellum) and thcy rcquirc thc samc protcction rcgardlcss ol whcthcr thcy arc on
.. Scc Hcrsch Lautcrpacht, Tc Limits ol thc pcration ol thc Law ol Var (.)
c B.Y.B.I.L. ac6 at a.a (who rcbuts himscll this thcsis). For a dctailcd rcbuttal, scc
8ugnion, Gucrrc justc, supra notc a at a.
.a 8ugnion, ibid. at 6,.
. Scc (.) Yearbook of the International La. Commission at a. (A/CN./SR.
A/.).
. Tcodor Mcron, Tc Humanization ol Humanitarian Law (accc) JIL a at
a..
246 Marco Sassli
thc right or on thc wrong sidc. Conccptually, this asscrtion may bc justicd
by thc lact that ius in bello conlcrs rights (and imposcs dutics) not only on thc bcl
ligcrcnt Statcs but also on human bcings.
+
A right aordcd by intcrnational law
to an individual, such as thc right ol a combatant to bc trcatcd in a humanc way
whcn capturcd by thc cncmy, is not rcscindcd just bccausc his Statc has actcd in
contravcntion ol intcrnational law.
+6

Tc humanitarian considcration is couplcd with a vcry practical onc. Most
bclligcrcnts and thosc who ght lor thcm arc convinccd thcir causc is just. Scldom
docs any binding thirdparty dccision on which sidc violatcd ius ad bellum cxist
during thc conict. vcn il it docs, thc bclligcrcnt dcsignatcd as thc aggrcssor
will disagrcc. uring a conict, bclligcrcnts ncvcr agrcc on which party violatcd
ius ad bellum, e.g. on which sidc is thc aggrcssor, but !HL ncvcrthclcss has to
apply during thc conict. !t thcrclorc only has a chancc ol bcing rcspcctcd il it
applics indcpcndcntly ol thc violation ol ius ad bellum and il both sidcs apply thc
samc rulcs.
+
thcrwisc, |c|ach ol thc bclligcrcnts would considcr its advcrsary
to bc thc aggrcssor and takc advantagc ol this dctcrmination to disrcgard thc
rulcs imposcd by thc law ol war. Hcrc too, thc oodgatcs would bc lclt opcn lor
a surgc ol unchcckcd violcncc.
+8

IV Consequences of the istinction
Te Equality of Belligerents before International Humanitarian La.
Undcr ius ad bellum, thc partics to an intcrnational armcd conict arc ncvcr cqual
bccausc onc sidc has ncccssarily violatcd that law, although it is oltcn contro
vcrsial which sidc has donc so. Convcrscly, undcr ius in bello, both sidcs havc
to always comply with cxactly thc samc rulcs. Many scholars rightly scc this as
absolutc dogma.
+
!t mcans that whilc aggrcssion is unlawlul, thc rst shot rcd
by a mcmbcr ol thc aggrcssors armcd lorccs upon a soldicr ol thc attackcd Statc
is as lawlul undcr ius in bello and govcrncd by thc idcntical rcstraints as thc
lattcrs shooting back in ordcr to dclcnd his country. !n othcr words, |t|hc indi
vidual military action undcrtakcn within thc lramcwork ol thc conict can only
. Scc Yoram instcin, Tc !ntcrnational Law ol !ntcrStatc Vars and Human
Rights (.,,) , Israel Yearbook on Human Fights . at .,a.
.6 Scc Vright, Tc utlawry ol Var supra notc a at ,, Yoram instcin, !ar,
ggression and Self-Defence, supra notc . at .a.
., Yoram instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence, supra notc . at ...
. 8ugnion, Gucrrc justc, supra notc a at 6.
. Louisc oswald8cck, !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law and thc Advisory pinion
ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc on thc Lcgality ol thc Trcat or Usc ol Nuclcar
Vcapons (.,) , Intl Fe..Fed Cross at , Yoram instcin, !ar, ggression and
Self-Defence, supra notc . at ., and most importantly thc lundamcntal book by
Mcyrowitz, supra notc a.
247 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
bc judgcd in thc light ol thc ius in bello, but not by thc yardstick ol thc ius ad
bellum indcpcndcntly lrom thc qucstion which party violatcd thc ius ad bellum by
starting thc conict.
:o
Any rcquircmcnt trcating thc partics to an armcd conict
dicrcntly can thcrclorc only bc bascd upon ius ad bellum. Tus, whcn, in ., thc
UN Sccurity Council rcquircd thc 8osnian Scrbs to rclrain lrom attacking pro
tcctcd arcas, whilc 8osnian govcrnmcnt lorccs wcrc allowcd to rcmain in thosc
arcas
:+
and not prohibitcd to rc upon 8osnian Scrb lorccs (e.g., to dclcnd thc
arcas), such rcquircmcnt did not dcrivc lrom thc !HL rcgimc on protcctcd arcas,
but was pcrlorcc a ius ad bellum rcgimc.
::

!t is not surprising that this cquality comcs undcr attack by thosc who con
sidcr thcmsclvcs as scrving a particularly noblc causc. Tat !HL did not bind
thc victim ol aggrcssion was apparcntly ocial doctrinc in thc Sovict Union
(and undcr MarxistLcninist doctrinc aggrcssion was by dcnition an attributc
ol capitalist Statcs).
:
At thc diplomatic conlcrcncc which adoptcd thc .,,
Additional Protocols, thc cmocratic Rcpublic ol \ictnam cxplaincd in dctail
why an aggrcssor should bc subjcct to !HL, whilc thc victim ol an aggrcssion
should bc rclicvcd ol any ol its obligations.
:
Tc \ictnamcsc proposal was lortu
natcly not acccptcd, thc abovcmcntioncd prcambular paragraph ol Protocol !
was instcad adoptcd by conscnsus.
:
!n actual practicc, \ictnam also abandoncd
its position.
:6
Similar thcorics rcappcar, howcvcr, in thc war on tcrror. nc
author writcs: |T|hc lundamcntal principlc ol thc cquality ol bclligcrcnts in
thc cycs ol ius in bello mcans that thc combatants privilcgc would bc grantcd not
only to arguably worthy lorccs such as armcd prodcmocracy militants, but also
to thosc on thc othcr sidc as wcll, such as armcd antidcmocracy lorccs. Tcsc
potcntial cxtcnsions ol thc catcgory ol intcrnational armcd conicts arc prcciscly
thc sorts ol slippcry slopcs that advocatcs ol a strict scparation ol ius ad bellum
ac Michacl 8othc, Tcrrorism and thc Lcgality ol Prccmptivc Forcc (acc) . EJIL
aa, at a.
a. Scc UN Sccurity Council Rcsolutions . (.), a (.), and in particular para.
ol SC Rcs. 6 (.) rclcrring to thc withdrawal ol military and paramilitary units
othcr than thosc ol thc govcrnmcnt ol thc Rcpublic ol 8osnia and Hcrzcgovina.
aa Scc JcanPhilippc Lavoycr, !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law, Protcctcd Zoncs and
thc Usc ol Forcc in Vollgang 8icrmann and Martin \adsct, cds., UN Peacekeeping
in Trouble: Lessons Learned from the Former Yugosla.ia (Aldcrshot: Ashgatc, .) at
a6aa,.
a Scc rclcrcnccs in Jiri Toman, LUnion so.ietique et le droit des conits armes (Gcncva :
Graduatc !nstitutc ol !ntcrnational Studics, .,) at ..
a Ocial Fecords of the Diplomatic Conference on the Fearmation and De.elopment of
International Humanitarian La. applicable in rmed Conicts (Gene.a, z,,,-z,,,)
(8crn: Fcdcral Political cpartmcnt, .,) |hcrcinaltcr: cial Rccords|, vol. !\ at
.,,..
a Ibid., vol. \!! at .6,.,a.
a6 n thc actual practicc ol \ictnam, scc 8ugnion, Gucrrc justc, supra notc a at a
.
248 Marco Sassli
and ius in bello havc long lcarcd, but that thcir argumcnts havc always bccn nor
mativcly and logically insucicnt to prcvcnt.
:
Tis criticism misscs thc point. !n
that thc worthincss ol oncs causc is oltcn in thc cycs ol thc bcholdcr, is ccrtainly
not sharcd by thc cncmy, and may changc ovcr timc, thc prcscrvation ol thc dis
tinction bctwccn ius ad bellum and ius in bello rcmains vcry rclcvant and appro
priatc cvcn in todays conicts. !n my vicw, criticism should instcad bc dircctcd
against cxtcnsions || ol thc catcgory ol || armcd conicts.
:8

B International Humanitarian La. pplies Independently of the
Qualication of the Conict under !us ad 8cllum
Tc applicability ol !HL or ol ccrtain ol its subrcgimcs (such as thc law ol
military occupation) dcpcnds on thc actual situation on thc ground, i.e., upon
whcthcr thcrc is armcd violcncc bctwccn armcd lorccs ol two Statcs or a dcgrcc
ol violcncc by armcd groups within a Statc sucicnt lor a nonintcrnational
armcd conict. Tc justication lor thc violcncc or thc prcscncc ol thc partics is
irrclcvant. Tis may bc illustratcd by thc !sracliPalcstinian conict.
!sracl dcnics thc de iure applicability ol parts ol thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion on occupicd tcrritorics to thc tcrritorics it has occupicd sincc .6,,
arguing that thosc tcrritorics did not lawlully bclong to anothcr High Contracting
Party (in thc casc ol thc Vcst 8ank: Jordan) bclorc .6,.
:
Howcvcr, whatcvcr thc
8iblc or thc 8allour cclaration may havc promiscd to thc Jcwish pcoplc, cvcn
il thc .6, war was lought in sclldclcncc, and cvcn il !sracl had a strongcr right
to thc Vcst 8ank than Jordan and thc anncxation ol thc Vcst 8ank by Jordan
in .c was rcsultantly illcgal, in .6, thcrc was an armcd conict bctwccn !sracl
and Jordan and during that conict !sracl gaincd control ol tcrritorics ovcr which
it prcviously had no control. Tcsc lacts arc dccisivc lor thc applicability ol !HL
ol military occupation.
o
thcr argumcnts pcrtain to ius ad bellum and may, il
corrcct, havc an impact upon thc nal status ol thosc tcrritorics, but thcy do not
bar thc applicability ol !HL pcnding such a nal pcacc agrccmcnt. Palcstinian
groups also rcgularly invokc ius ad bellum to justily nonrcspcct ol ius in bello in
thcir ghting. Vhcn thcy ght !sracli lorccs without distinguishing thcmsclvcs
lrom thc civilian population, or whcn thcy dclibcratcly attack civilians (lor cxam
a, Nathanicl 8crman, Privilcging Combat: Contcmporary Conict and thc Lcgal
Construction ol Var (acc) Colum. J. Transnatl L. at a.
a Id. Scc lor my criticism Marco Sassli, Usc and Abusc ol thc Laws ol Var in thc
Var on Tcrrorism (acc) aa La. and Inequality: Journal of Teory and Practice .
at .ac.
a Scc lor thc !sracli position Mcr Shamgar, Tc bscrvancc ol !ntcrnational Law in
thc Administcrcd Tcrriorics (.,.) . Israel Yearbook on Human Fights at a6aa,,.
c Legal Consequences of the Construction of a !all in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
d.isory Opinion ( July acc) |acc| !.C..J. Rcp. .6, onlinc: http://www.icjcij.org/
icjwww/idockct/imwp/imwplramc.htm at paras. a.
249 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
plc by suicidc attacks), thcy asscrt thcir right to rcsist lorcign occupation. Such
a right could justily thcir acts only undcr ius ad bellum, thcy would ncvcrthclcss
havc to comply with !HL whcn rcsisting.
Tc qucstion whcthcr a lcgitimatc prcscncc bars thc applicability ol !HL
during a military occupation arosc in thc ritrcathiopia Claims Commission.
uring thc conict bctwccn thiopia and ritrca lrom . accc, ritrcan
armcd lorccs movcd into and administcrcd tcrritory that had prcviously bccn
administcrcd by thiopia. ritrca argucd bclorc thc Claims Commission that
thc Gcncva Convcntions, and cspccially thc !HL ol occupation, did not apply to
its activitics thcrc bccausc it claimcd it was thc rightlul sovcrcign ol thc tcrritory
such that thc allcgcd ocnccs wcrc in lact intcractions bctwccn ritrcan lorccs
and ritrcan nationals.
+
Tc ritrcan argumcnt was rcinlorccd by thc lact that
thc 8oundary Commission had dctcrmincd thc tcrritory in qucstion to bc part
ol ritrca. ritrca thcrclorc argucd that it could not bc subjcct to occupation by
ritrcas own lorccs.
:
Tc Commission rcjcctcd this position, stating
Tc Commission docs not agrcc that pcrsons should bc dcnicd thc protcctions
ol intcrnational humanitarian law bccausc ol disputcs bctwccn thc Partics to
an intcrnational conict rcgarding sovcrcignty ovcr thc tcrritory conccrncd.

!n othcr words, thc Commission corrcctly hcld that any ius ad bellum issucs could
not acct thc applicability ol !HL to thc conict.
C rguments under !us ad 8cllum May Not Be Used to Interpret
International Humanitarian La.
Ius ad bellum not only has no impact upon thc applicability ol !HL, but it also
may not bc uscd to intcrprct a provision ol !HL. Tus whcn balancing thc antici
patcd military advantagc ol an attack upon a military objcctivc with thc cxpcctcd
incidcntal civilian losscs in ordcr to cvaluatc whcthcr thc lattcr arc cxccssivc,
thcrcby making thc attack unlawlul

thc military commandcr may only takc

ius in bello advantagcs into account and not, e.g., thc libcration ol civilians undcr
cncmy occupation. Tc proportionality analysis by thc military commandcr
trying to occupy a town on thc tcrritory ol thc advcrsc party and thc analysis by
thc commandcr trying to libcratc a town on his own tcrritory that is occupicd
by thc cncmy is cxactly thc samc. ! could thcrclorc acccpt thc suggcstion that in
. Partial .ard, Central Front, Ethiopias Claim :, ritrca thiopia Claims Commission,
(Fcdcral cmocratic Rcpublic ol thiopia v. Statc ol ritrca) Tc Haguc, a April
acc at para. ,,.
a Ibid.
Ibid. at para. ,. Scc also paras. a, ..
Scc Art. . () (b) ol Protocol !.
250 Marco Sassli
an armcd conict labcllcd a humanitarian intcrvcntion, a strictcr proportion
ality analysis applics

only in thc ovcrall ius ad bellum proportionality analysis,

not lor thc proportionality which must bc rcspcctcd undcr ius in bello lor cvcry
singlc attack. For thc vcry samc rcason, thc conccpt ol military objcctivc cannot
bc morc rcstrictcd during a humanitarian intcrvcntion than in any othcr armcd
conict.
6
Similarly, whilc it may bc possiblc to classily thc solc policcman or local
dclcncc guard |who dclcnds a villagc against cncmy lorccs cngagcd in cthnic
clcansing|, cvcn il thcy joincd hands to try to prcvcnt thc cataclysm,

as mcm
bcrs ol thc civilian population lor thc purposcs ol classilying thcm as possiblc
victims ol a crimc against humanity, thcy arc lawlul targcts undcr !HL.
Unlortunatcly, thc highcst judicial organ ol thc Unitcd Nations, thc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, could not rcach a dcnitivc conclusion as to
whcthcr thc most typical ius ad bellum argumcnt, sclldclcncc, could bc uscd to
intcrprct !HL. 8y scvcn votcs to scvcn, with thc Prcsidcnts casting thc ncccssary
ticbrcaking votc, thc Court camc to thc corrcct conclusion (in my vicw) that thc
usc ol nuclcar wcapons would gcncrally bc contrary to || thc principlcs and
rulcs ol humanitarian law.
8
Tc Court could obviously havc comc to anothcr
conclusion. qually, it could havc lound that a gcncral prohibition cxists, but that
thcrc arc also cxccptions. Undcr thc scparation bctwccn ius ad bellum and ius in
Scc Christophcr Grccnwood, Scllclcnsc, supra notc a at a,, asscrting that
thc usc ol lorcc lor humanitarian purposcs must bc limitcd to what is ncccssary
and proportionatc to achicving thc humanitarian purposcs ol thc opcration. Tis
principlc, Grccnwood argucs, ncccssarily rcstricts thc rangc ol what may bc law
lully attackcd. Scc Christophcr Grccnwood, !ntcrnational Law and thc NAT
!ntcrvcntion in Kosovo (accc) Intl . Comp. L. Q. a6 at . Critical, Andrcas
Laurscn, Nato, thc Var ovcr Kosovo, and thc !CTY !nvcstigation (acca) ., m. U.
Intl L. Fe.. ,6 at ,.
6 vc 8ring, !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law altcr Kosovo: !s Lex Lata Sucicnt:
(acca) ,. Nordic J. Intl La. at c, Michacl 8othc, Tc Protcction ol thc
Civilian Population and NAT 8ombing on Yugoslavia: Commcnts on Rcport
to thc Prosccutor ol thc !CTY (acc.) .a E.J.I.L. . at , Final Feport to the
Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Fe.ie. the NTO Bombing Campaign
gainst the Federal Fepublic of Yugosla.ia, onlinc: http://www.un.org/icty/prcssrcal/
natoc6.cc.htm at para. , |!CTY Rcport|. Richard 8. 8ildcr, Kosovo and thc
Ncw !ntcrvcntionism: Promisc or Pcril: (.) J. Transnatl L. . Pol y . at .,.
.,a, thinks that NAT practicc in thc Kosovo campaign rcvcals rathcr thc oppositc,
i.e. that in a humanitarian intcrvcntion it may bc lcgitimatc to attack additional tar
gcts to put prcssurc on thc lcadcrship.
, Final Feport of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council
Fesolution ,8c (z,,:), S/./6,, para. ,, Prosecutor .. Blaskic (accc) Casc No. !T
. (!CTY, Trial Chambcr) at para. a. and Prosecutor .. Tadic (.,) Casc No. !T
. (!CTY, Trial Chambcr, Mcrits) at para. 6c.
Legality of the Treat or Use of Nuclear !eapons, d.isory Opinion ( July , .6) |.6|
!CJ Rcp. aa6 at para. .c .
251 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
bello, such cxccptions could not bc bascd upon ius ad bellum argumcnts. Yct this
is prcciscly what thc Court considcrcd possiblc whcn it wrotc: Howcvcr ||
thc Court cannot concludc dcnitcly whcthcr thc thrcat or usc ol nuclcar wcap
ons would bc lawlul or unlawlul in an cxtrcmc circumstancc ol sclldclcncc, in
which thc vcry survival ol thc Statc would bc at stakc.

Tis conclusion has bccn

widcly criticizcd, including by Yoram instcin.
o
!l it would bc lawlul lor that
rcason, that would mcan thc cnd ol !HL as wc know it. !n ncarly all intcrnational
armcd conicts, at lcast onc sidc bclicvcs itscll to bc ghting in sclldclcncc. !n
most armcd conicts, at lcast onc sidcs vcry survival is at stakc. !l such a situa
tion could justily thc (othcrwisc prohibitcd) usc ol nuclcar wcapons, it could pcr
lorcc also justily thc killing ol woundcd or sick or thc torturc ol prisoncrs ol war.
! prclcr thc nding ol a postVorld Var !! tribunal (in rclation with thc admit
tcdly slightly dicrcnt plca ol national cmcrgcncy): |T|hc contcntion that thc
rulcs and customs ol warlarc can bc violatcd il cithcr party is hard prcsscd in any
way must bc rcjcctcd ||. Var is by dcnition a risky and hazardous busincss.
||. !t is an csscncc ol war that onc or thc othcr sidc must losc and thc cxpcri
cnccd gcncrals and statcsmcn kncw this whcn thcy draltcd thc rulcs and customs
ol land warlarc. || To claim that thcy can bc || disrcgardcd whcn |onc bcl
ligcrcnt| considcrs his own situation to bc critical, mcans nothing morc or lcss
than to abrogatc thc laws and customs ol war cntircly.
+

Tc !CJ unlortunatcly rcpcatcd thc ocncc in its advisory opinion on thc
Vall in thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory. Altcr mcntioning scvcral rulcs ol
!HL that it considcrcd to bc violatcd by thc wall (without actually providing
rcasons lor its conclusion), thc !CJ cnquircd whcthcr thosc violations could bc
justicd by circumstanccs cxcluding thcir unlawlulncss. Among thcm, it dcalt
with sclldclcncc. !n a vcry controvcrsial paragraph, it lound that thc conditions
lor sclldclcncc wcrc not satiscd bccausc thc attacks wcrc not attributablc to
anothcr Statc and originatcd lrom tcrritory undcr !sracli control.
:
According
to thc scparation bctwccn ius ad bellum and ius in bello, it should simply havc
Id.
c Yoram instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence, supra notc . at .6. Yoram instcin,
Tc Law ol Air, Missilc and Nuclcar Varlarc (.,) a, Israel Yearbook on Human
Fights at .a., ric avid, Tc pinion ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc on
thc Lcgality ol thc Usc ol Nuclcar Vcapons (.,) , Intl Fe.. Fed Cross a. at .,
Louisc oswald8cck, !HL and thc Advisory pinion, supra notc . at .
. US Military Tribunal at Nurcmbcrg, US .. lfried Krupp et al., Tc Unitcd Nations
Var Crimcs Commission, La. Feports of Trials of !ar Criminals, vol. X, ., .cc, at
Scction (iii).
a Legal Consequences of the Construction of a !all, supra notc c at para. .. Scc criticism
in AJ!L acc: Ruth Vcdgwood, Tc !CJ Advisory pinion on thc !sracli Sccurity
Fcncc and thc Limits ol Scllclcnsc (acc) JIL a 6. and Scan . Murphy,
Scllclcnsc and thc !sracli !all Advisory pinion: An Ipse Dixit lrom thc !CJ:
(acc) JIL 6a ,6.
252 Marco Sassli
cxplaincd that as lar as violations ol !HL arc conccrncd, sclldclcncc, bclonging
to ius ad bellum, could not justily violations ol ius in bello.
D International Humanitarian La. May Not Fender the pplication
of !us ad 8cllum, e.g. Self-defence, Impossible
Tc most noblc and lcgitimatc causc undcr ius ad bellum docs not pcrmit onc
to disrcgard !HL or cvcn to intcrprct it dicrcntly, convcrscly, thc scparation
bctwccn ius ad bellum and ius in bello also implics that ius ad bellum is an absolutc
limit on possiblc dcvclopmcnts (or intcrprctations) ol !HL. As long as it is lawlul
undcr ius ad bellum to usc lorcc lor ccrtain rcasons and purposcs, !HL may not
makc it impossiblc to achicvc thosc purposcs. Altcr all, partics and thosc who
ght lor thcm would hardly rcnouncc thcir lawlul purposcs just to comply with
!HL. Tis body ol law incvitably sccks compromisc bctwccn military ncccssity
and thc dcmands ol humanity, prcciscly bccausc military ncccssitics arc lor ccr
tain bclligcrcnts bascd upon, and implcmcnt, ius ad bellum.
!n contcmporary wars dircctcd against modcrn socictics, which arc cvcr
morc intcgratcd and survivc only by rclying on sophisticatcd inlrastructurc nct
works, many attacks against gcnuincly military objcctivcs will havc incrcasingly
distant and indircct rcvcrbcrating cccts throughout country and on thc civil
ian population. !t is suggcstcd with growing lrcqucncy that such rcvcrbcrating
cccts must bc takcn into account whcn cvaluating whcthcr incidcntal civilian
losscs or damagcs arc cxccssivc.

Tis may, howcvcr unlortunatcly, not go as lar

as to makc it impossiblc to ccicntly win a conict wagcd, lor cxamplc, in scll
dclcncc against such a country. Similarly, thc tcndcncy to outlaw wcapons not
bccausc thcy arc tcchnically inhcrcntly indiscriminatc, but bccausc thcy arc most
oltcn uscd in an indiscriminatc way, may not go so lar as to outlaw thc wcapons
ncccssary to win a war complying with ius ad bellum (e.g., authorizcd by thc UN
Sccurity Council to rcstorc intcrnational pcacc and sccurity). !ndccd, contcmpo
rary rcality in many conicts shows that many wcapons arc uscd indiscriminatcly.
Howcvcr, this cannot lcad to thc outlawing ol guns, artillcry or machctcs.
Similarly, il national libcration wars and armcd rcsistancc against a tcch
nologically ovcrwhclming aggrcssor or lorcign occupicr arc lawlul undcr ius ad
bellum, !HL cannot outlaw e.ery ccicnt mcthod to win such a war. Ccrtainly, it
Scc lor thc US !ntcrnational Law and Lcgal Considcrations in Targcting (Appcndix
A), in Joint Doctrine for Targeting, Joint Publication 6c, (., January acca), at A,
onlinc http://www.dtic.mil/doctrinc/jcl/ncw_pubs/jp_6c.pdl, at !6, and Michacl
N. Schmitt, Tc Principlc ol iscrimination in a.
st
Ccntury Varlarc (.) a Yale
Human Fights . De. La. Journal . at .6, Michacl N. Schmitt, Futurc Var
and thc Principlc ol istinction a Israel Yearbook on Human Fights (.) . at ,
c. Contra Lt. Col. Kcnncth A. Rizcr, 8ombing ual Usc Targcts: Lcgal, thical
and octrinal Pcrspcctivcs (acc.), onlinc: http://www.airpowcr.maxwcll.al.mil/air
chroniclcs/cc/Rizcr.html.
253 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
would, lor instancc, bc prclcrablc lor thc protcction ol thc civilian population il
combatants always clcarly distinguishcd thcmsclvcs lrom thc civilian population
and il military objcctivcs wcrc kcpt lar lrom conccntrations ol civilians. Howcvcr,
undcr such rulcs, ccrtain bclligcrcnts would not havc thc slightcst chancc ol ovcr
coming thc cncmy, cvcn though thcy might bc ghting lor a causc which is
lawlul undcr ius ad bellum. !ncvitably, thcrclorc, !HL had to bc adaptcd to makc
such ghting, and victory, possiblc. Tus, Protocol ! had to lowcr thc distinction
rcquircmcnt to what is both possiblc to comply with in a gucrrilla war and thc
minimum ncccssary to cnsurc rcspcct lor thc civilian population.

Tosc who
criticizc this as law in thc scrvicc ol tcrror want to havc ius in bello bar thc rcali
zation ol ius ad bellum.

Similar objcctions must bc raiscd against thc claim madc by thc Unitcd
Statcs and somc writcrs that both sidcs, thc dclcndcr and thc attackcr, havc an
cqual rcsponsibility to protcct thc civilian population lrom thc cccts ol hostili
tics.
6
!t is truc that thc civilian population is bcst protcctcd il both sidcs takc
prccautionary mcasurcs. !n law, howcvcr, Statc practicc and thc tcxt, lcgislativc
history, and contcxt ol Protocol ! indicatc that both undcr Protocol ! and in cus
tomary intcrnational law thc main rcsponsibility is conlcrrcd upon thc attackcr.
8cyond thc absolutc prohibition to usc civilians as shiclds,

Protocol !, which
lists scvcral passivc prccautions to bc takcn by thc dclcndcr, clcarly indicatcs that
thcsc obligations arc wcakcr than thosc ol an attackcr. Tcy havc to bc takcn only
to thc maximum cxtcnt possiblc, and thc dclcndcr has only to cndcavour to
rcmovc thc civilian population and avoid locating military objcctivcs ncarby.
8

Scc Art. () ol Protocol !.
Message from the President of the United States Fegarding Protocol II dditional to the
z,,, Gene.a Con.entions, and Felating to the Protection of !ictims of Non-International
rmed Conicts, Message from the President of the United States, US Govcrnmcnt
Printing cc, .ccth Congrcss, .st scssion, Trcaty oc. .cca, Vashington .C.,
.,, ouglas J. Fcith, Law in thc Scrvicc ol Tcrror (.) Te National Interest No.
. at ,.
6 Scc thc \ictnam war Lcttcr by J. Frcd 8uzhardt, Gcncral Counscl ol thc cpartmcnt
ol clcnsc to Scnator dward Kcnncdy, Chairman ol thc Subcommittcc on Rclugccs
ol thc Committcc on thc Judiciary, rcproduccd in (.,) 6, AJ!L .aa at .a, U.S.
ir Force Pamphlet zzc-, at ., U.S. Na.al Handbook N!P , at ..., lorcclully, V.
Hays Parks, Air Var and thc Law ol Var (.c) a Te ir Force La. Fe.ie. . at
..6 with lurthcr rclcrcnccs, A.P.\. Rogcrs, La. on the Battleeld, (Manchcstcr:
Manchcstcr Univ. Prcss, .6) at ,,,, latcly, Kcnncth Andcrson, Vho wns
thc Rulcs ol Var:, Te Ne. York Times Maga.ine, . April acc, onlinc: http://
www.nytimcs.com/acc/c/./magazinc/.RULS.html. According to anicllc L.
!nlcld, PrccisionGuidcd Munitions cmonstratcd Tcir Pinpoint Accuracy in
cscrt Storm, 8ut !s a Country bligatcd to Usc Prccision Tcchnology to Minimizc
Collatcral Civilian !njury and amagc : (.a) a6 George !ashington J. Intl and
Comp. La. .c at .., thc dclcndcr cvcn has thc primary obligation.
, Scc Art. . (,) ol Protocol !.
Scc Art. ol Protocol !.
254 Marco Sassli
vcn with thosc qualications, scvcral dclcgations at thc iplomatic
Conlcrcncc strcsscd that thc provision, in particular thc obligation in rcspcct to
thc location ol military objcctivcs, may not prcvcnt a Statc lrom organizing its
national dclcncc as it considcrs ncccssary.

thcr dclcgations cnumcratcd thc

many lactors to bc takcn into account whcn cvaluating whcthcr a givcn mcasurc
prcscribcd by Articlc is at all possiblc.
o
Participants rcport that in thc com
pctcnt working group ol thc conlcrcncc,
many rcprcscntativcs ol both dcvcloping and dcvclopcd countrics strongly
objcctcd to thc obligation to cndcavour to avoid thc prcscncc ol military objcc
tivcs within dcnscly populatcd arcas. Tis was dccmcd by rcprcscntativcs ol
dcnscly populatcd countrics to rcstrict thcir right to scll dclcncc, and by othcrs
to imposc too hcavy an cconomic burdcn to dispcrsc thcir industrial, commu
nications and transportation lacilitics lrom cxisting locations in dcnscly popu
latcd arcas.
+

Vhcn bccoming a party to Protocol !, 8clgium, !taly, thc Ncthcrlands, and
Algcria dcclarcd that thc tcrm lcasiblc must bc undcrstood to mcan taking thc
availablc mcans or military considcrations into account. Switzcrland and Austria
cvcn madc lormal rcscrvations subjccting Articlc to thc cxigcncics dictatcd by
thc dclcncc ol thc national tcrritory.
:
Rcquiring cxtrcmc prccautionary mcas
urcs, i.e., cithcr thc rcmoval ol possiblc military objcctivcs lrom thcir population
ccntrcs or thc cvacuation ol that population lrom thcsc ccntrcs, would makc c
cicnt sclldclcncc ol dcnscly populatcd or poorcr countrics, that is to say, ius ad
bellum, impossiblc.
V Te istinction in Non-international Armed Conicts
International La. Does Not Prohibit Non-international rmed
Conicts; Internal La. Does
Tcchnically, no intcrnational ius ad bellum cxists conccrning nonintcrnational
armcd conicts, sincc such conicts arc ncithcr justicd nor prohibitcd by intcr
national law. !n lact, thc only catcgory ol conicts within an cxisting Statc that
Ocial Fecords, supra notc a, vol. \!, a./a. (Francc, Switzcrland, Austria), aa
(!taly), a/a (South Korca), a (Camcroon).
c Ibid., vol. \!, a. (U.K., Tc Ncthcrlands), aa (Canada), aa6 (Gcrmany), a. (U.S.).
. Michacl 8othc, Karl Joscl Partsch, and Valdcmar A. Soll, Ne. Fules for !ictims of
rmed Conicts (8oston: Martinus Nijho, .a) at ,a.
a Scc lor thc tcxt ol dcclarations and rcscrvations ictrich Schindlcr and Jiri Toman
(cds.), Te La.s of rmed Conicts, Collection of Con.entions, Fesolutions and Other
Documents,
th
cd. (Lcidcn/8oston: Martinus Nijho, acc) at ,a, ,, ,6, c,, .c,
and .. Switzcrland withdrcw its rcscrvation on ., Junc acc.
255 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
has bccn considcrcd as having a justication in intcrnational law national lib
cration wars in which a pcoplc cxcrciscs its right to sclldctcrmination has bccn
movcd into thc catcgory ol intcrnational armcd conicts.

Tis shilt in classi

cation, bascd as it is on thc justication lor such conicts, has bccn criticizcd
by many as mixing up ius ad bellum and ius in bello.

Yct, although thc shilt may

bc contrary to thc idca that ius ad bellum should not inucncc thc applicability
ol !HL, thc crucial cquality ol both bclligcrcnts bclorc !HL has bccn prcscrvcd.
Tc national libcration movcmcnt and thc colonial dominator, alicn occupicr
or racist rcgimc against which it is ghting arc cqually bound by this body ol
law.

Ncvcrthclcss, ius ad bellum lor nonintcrnational armcd conicts docs cxist,
in national lcgislation. As thc monopoly on thc usc ol lorcc lor Statc organs is
inhcrcnt in thc vcry conccpt ol thc Vcstphalian Statc, wc may assumc that thc
national lcgislation ol all Statcs prohibits anyonc undcr thcir jurisdiction to wagc
an armcd conict against govcrnmcntal lorccs or, cxccpt Statc organs acting in
said capacity, anyonc clsc.
B International Humanitarian La. Treats Parties to a Non-
international rmed Conict Equally;
Ho.e.er, It Cannot Fequire Internal La.s to Do So
!HL ol nonintcrnational armcd conicts trcats all partics to such conicts
cqually.
6
Articlc common to thc lour Gcncva Convcntions ol . cxplicitly
prcscribcs that cach Party to such a conict has to apply its provisions. Hcrc too,
ius in bello, in thc lorm ol cithcr thc application ol this Articlc or thc conclusion
ol agrccmcnts bctwccn thc partics which bring into lorcc all or part ol !HL ol
Art. . () ol Protocol !.
Scc Mcssagc lrom thc Prcsidcnt, supra notc .
Tus cxplicitly Art. 6 () (c) ol Protocol !.
6 Statcs rcjcctcd at thc .,.,, diplomatic conlcrcncc which claboratcd Protocol !!
an cxplicit provision prcscribing such cquality (cl. Art. ol dralt Protocol !!, Draft
dditional Protocols to the Gene.a Con.entions of ugust z:, z,,, (Gcncva: !CRC, Junc
.,), but thc applicability ol thc principlc is uncontrovcrsial (scc Franois 8ugnion,
Jus ad 8cllum, Jus in 8cllo and Non!ntcrnational Armcd Conict (acc) 6
Yearbook of International Humanitarian La. |lorthcoming|, Yvcs Sandoz, Christophc
Swinarski & 8runo Zimmcrmann (cds.), Commentary on the dditional Protocols of
8 June z,,, to the Gene.a Con.entions of z: ugust z,,,, (Gcncva/ordrccht: !CRC/
Martinus Nijho Publishcrs, .,) at paras. a |!CRC Commcntary|,
Roscmary AbiSaab, Droit humanitaire et conits internes (Gcnvc/Paris, .6) at
.,., Michacl 8othc, Conits arms intcrncs ct droit intcrnational humanitairc
(.,) FGDIP a at a and ).
256 Marco Sassli
intcrnational armcd conicts,

has no impact on thc lcgitimacy or lcgality ol thc

causc ol thc partics undcr ius ad bellum.
8

Vhcn dralting Protocol !!, Statcs madc a dcspcratc attcmpt to ignorc thc
obvious, bascd upon thc illusion that social phcnomcna disappcar whcn thcy arc
not mcntioncd in lcgal rulcs, by dclcting any rclcrcncc to partics to nonintcrna
tional armcd conicts.

8ut it is clcar that thc highcr thrcshold ol Protocol !! can

only bc satiscd whcn highly organizcd nonStatc partics cxist. !t is uncontro
vcrsial that such partics havc to rcspcct all thc rulcs ol Protocol !!. Tosc rulcs
arc now lormulatcd in thc passivc tcnsc, as prohibitions ol various acts against
ccrtain catcgorics ol pcrsons.
bviously, !HL cannot obligc Statcs to adopt intcrnal laws that trcat mcm
bcrs ol rcbcl lorccs and mcmbcrs ol govcrnmcntal lorccs cqually. Vhilc domcstic
law authorizcs thc lattcr to usc lorcc, thc usc ol lorcc by thc lormcr is gcncrally
criminalizcd, cvcn il it complics with !HL, Statcs may punish mcmbcrs ol rcbcl
lorccs lor thc mcrc lact ol having dircctly participatcd in hostilitics. Tis consc
qucncc rcsults lrom thc abscncc ol any combatant status in nonintcrnational
armcd conicts. De lege ferenda, a minimum status rcwarding rcbcls who lought
whilc rcspccting !HL should bc dctcrmincd.
6o
De lege lata, thc only provision
ocring a (vcry limitcd) rcward to rcbcl lorccs who comply with !HL is Articlc
6 () ol Protocol !!, which cncouragcs thc authoritics in powcr at thc cnd ol thc
conict to grant such pcrsons thc broadcst possiblc amncsty. qually, onc cannot
imaginc in nonintcrnational armcd conicts a status ol protcctcd pcrsons, bcn
cting lrom a morc complctc sct ol protcctions, lor civilians ol cncmy nation
ality.
6+
!n a nonintcrnational armcd conict, civilians cannot bc linkcd to onc
party by nationality, indccd, thcy gcncrally all posscss thc samc citizcnship. Nor
can protcctcd civilians bc idcnticd by allcgiancc with thc cncmy
6:
bccausc allc
giancc to rcbcl lorccs is prcciscly what national laws rcprcss.
, Tc conclusion ol such agrccmcnts is cncouragcd by Articlc () common to thc
Convcntions.
Articlc () common to thc Convcntions stipulatcs that its application shall not
acct thc lcgal status ol thc Partics to thc conict.
Scc Roscmary AbiSaab, supra notc 6, pp. .6., Gcorgcs AbiSaab, Non
!ntcrnational Armcd Conicts in International Dimensions of Humanitarian La.
(Gcncva/Paris/ordrccht: Hcnry unant !nstitutc/UNSC/Nijho, .) a., at
a..
6c Scc in dctail 8ugnion, Jus ad 8cllum, Jus in 8cllo and Non!ntcrnational Armcd
Conict, supra notc 6.
6. As lorcsccn in Art. ol Convcntion !\ lor intcrnational armcd conicts.
6a Tc !CTY rcplaccs, lor intcrnational armcd conicts, thc nationality standard laid
down in Articlc ol Convcntion !\, by an allcgiancc standard (Scc Te Prosecutor
.. Tadic (.) Casc No. !T. (!CTY, Appcals Chambcr, Mcrits) at paras. .6
6, and our criticism, Marco Sassli and Laura lson, Casc Rcport, Judgmcnt,
Tc Prosccutor v. usko Tadic, Casc n
o
!TA, !CTY Appcals Chambcr (. July
.) (accc) JIL ,. at ,6,,.
257 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
Apart lrom thcsc dicrcnccs, howcvcr, !HL implics that cvcn bcyond thc
lcttcr ol trcaty law, both partics must havc thc cqual opportunity to rcspcct !HL.
Tis mcans, lor cxamplc, that rcbcl lorccs must bc ablc to cstablish a rcgularly
constitutcd court, although such court must bc cstablishcd by law,
6
and it is
dicult to imaginc nonStatc armcd groups passing thc rcquisitc lcgislation. !l
thcy arc unablc to do so, thc rcbcls arc at scrious disadvantagc in applying !HL
bccausc it prcscribcs that only such a court may pass scntcnccs.
6
Not only could
thcy thcn not punish thcir cncmics, whilc thc govcrnmcnt authoritics could, but
thcir ability to cnlorcc thc rcspcct ol !HL through criminal prosccution ol thcir
own mcmbcrs would bc scriously hampcrcd.
Tus, as with intcrnational armcd conicts, it is crucial to scparatc thc illc
gality ol a nonintcrnational armcd conict undcr domcstic law lrom thc appli
cability and application ol !HL rulcs.
6
Similarly, rulcs ol !HL must apply cqually
to both sidcs, howcvcr morally justicd a conict may bc, as in rcbcllions against
a dictatorial govcrnmcnt, thc battlc bctwccn a dcmocratic govcrnmcnt and a tcr
rorist group, or corts to combat an armcd group sccking to loot natural rcsourccs
or cngagcd in drug tracking. Hcrc again, howcvcr, thc scparation cncountcrs
practical limits whcn thc undcrlying aim ol onc party is incompatiblc with !HL,
as in thc casc ol thc climination or lorciblc translcr ol a civilian population.
66
VI Contemporary Treats to the istinction
Ne. Concepts of Just (or e.en Humanitarian) !ar
Ncithcr cxisting nor suggcstcd ncw justications lor thc usc ol lorcc in intcr
national rclations (such as humanitarian intcrvcntion) ncccssarily lcad to a
blurring ol thc distinction bctwccn ius ad bellum and ius in bello. Tc scparation
prcciscly implics that whatcvcr thc justication lor a conict, thc samc rulcs ol
!HL apply. !n rcality, howcvcr, thc morc cithcr a party to a conict or an indi
vidual ghtcr is convinccd that thc causc is just, thc morc dicultics thcy will
havc in acccpting thc lcgal lact that thcy havc thc samc obligations and (only) thc
samc rights as thcir unjust cncmics.
6
Tcy will invokc many brilliant lcgal thco
rics to obtain morc rights or lcwcr obligations than thcir opponcnts. Carclully
6 Scc, e.g., Art. . (.) ol thc !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights.
6 Scc Art. (.) (.) (d) common to thc Gcncva Convcntions and Art. 6 (a) ol Protocol
!!.
6 Scc 8ugnion, Jus ad 8cllum, Jus in 8cllo and Non!ntcrnational Armcd Conict,
supra notc 6.
66 Kirsti Samucls, Jus ad bellum and Civil Conicts: A Casc Study ol thc !ntcrnational
Communitys Approach to \iolcncc in thc Conict in Sicrra Lconc (acc) Journal
of Conict . Security La. . at ,.
6, Yoram instcin, Symposium: Tc Rulc ol Law in Conict and PostConict
Situations: Commcnts on Var (acc) a, Har.. J.L. . Pub. Pol y ,, at ., and, lor
258 Marco Sassli
considcrcd, such thcorics invariably blur thc distinction bctwccn ius ad bellum
and ius in bello.
!t is thus unsurprising that during its . invasion ol Panama, labcllcd
pcration Just Causc, thc US administration sought to dcny prisoncrolwar
status to thc capturcd commandcrinchicl ol thc armcd lorccs ol Panama, argu
ing that thc lcgitimatc (but oustcd) prcsidcnt ol Panama had rcqucstcd US intcr
vcntion. Corrcctly, US courts rcjcctcd this blurring bctwccn ius ad bellum and ius
in bello by rccognizing Gcncral Noricgas status as a prisoncr ol war, cvcn altcr hc
had bccn convictcd lor drug tracking.
68

Vhcn thc US bricy callcd its acc. invasion ol Alghanistan pcration
!nnitc Justicc,
6
it might rcasonably havc bccn lcarcd thc US would dcny thc
applicability ol !HL bascd upon ius ad bellum argumcnts. Fortunatcly this was
not to bc, although innovativc US intcrprctation ol ius in bello lcd to a similar
rcsult.
o
Vhilc thc Gcncva Convcntions wcrc rccognizcd as applicablc, capturcd
cncmy lorccs wcrc charactcrizcd as having ncithcr combatant nor civilian status.
Tcrclorc, thcy wcrc dcnicd thc protcction ol both thc Tird and thc Fourth
Gcncva Convcntions. Vhcthcr thc dcnial was motivatcd by thc purportcd justi
cation ol thc opcration on thc basis ol thc .. Scptcmbcr acc. attacks is a mattcr
ol purc spcculation. Tat ius ad bellum and ius in bello arc blurrcd in thosc parts
ol thc war on tcrror which arc armcd conicts is, howcvcr, conrmcd by at lcast
onc cxpcrt, who writcs, |i|n short, contcmporary !HL absolutists, by cliding
distinctions bctwccn lawlul and unlawlul combatants and adopting an intcrprc
tivc approach absolutc with rcspcct to obscrvancc ol || thc ius in bello || but
agnostic with rcspcct to thc justicc ol thc causc on bchall ol which combatants
takc up arms (thc ius ad bellum), privilcgc tcrrorists at thc cxpcnsc ol thcir lct
tcrcd targcts.
+
!t is not surprising that hc comcs to thc lollowing conclusion:
!n ccct, a rationalizcd !HL is an admixturc ol ius in bello and ius ad bellum that
trcats not mcrcly thc conduct ol soldicrs but also thc causc lor which thcy ght as
practically signicant in cstablishing dicrcntial lcgal standards, canons ol intcr
prctation and guidclincs lor adjudication.
:
humanitarian intcrvcntions,

Adam Robcrts, Tc SoCallcd Right ol Humanitarian
!ntcrvcntion (accc) Yearbook on International Humanitarian La. at .
6 U.S. .. Manuel ntonio Noriega, Unitcd Statcs istrict Court lor thc Southcrn
istrict ol Florida, c F. Supp. ,. (.a).
6 Scc 8ush to cxplain sustaincd naturc ol luturc war, ac Scptcmbcr acc., CNN.com,
onlinc: http://archivcs.cnn.com/acc./US/c/./gcn.amcrica.undcr.attack/.
,c Scc Marco Sassli, Usc and Abusc, supra notc a at .aa..
,. Villiam 8radlord, 8arbarians at thc Gatcs: A PostScptcmbcr ..th Proposal to
Rationalizc thc Laws ol Var (acc) , Mississippi La. J. 6 at 6c.
,a Ibid. at ,. Scc also, lor a call to dcny Nazis, whcthcr organizcd in rcgular armcd
lorccs or othcrwisc, combatant status, 8crman, Privilcging Combat:, supra notc a,
at 6.
259 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
!n my vicw, thc controvcrsy ovcr whcthcr thc Unitcd Nations is bound by
!HL is partly rclatcd to thc tcndcncy ol thosc who arguc against lull applicabil
ity to invokc ius ad bellum lor thc purposc ol dcnying thc lull applicability ol ius
in bello.

Ccrtainly, thcrc arc tcchnical rcasons lor doubts. Tc UN is not a party

to thc Gcncva Convcntions. Tc UN has insistcd that it is bound by thc prin
ciplcs and spirit ol humanitarian law, but dcnics that it is bound by thc dctailcd
rulcs ol !HL. ! also havc somc doubt whcthcr customary !HL, which dcvclopcd
in conicts bctwccn Statcs, binds thc organization. At thc vcry lcast, soldicrs
involvcd in a UN opcration arc bound by virtuc ol thcir own Statcs cngagcmcnt
to rcspcct and cnsurc rcspcct lor intcrnational humanitarian law in all cir
cumstanccs.

!n addition, a UN SccrctaryGcncrals 8ullctin on bscrvancc by

Unitcd Nations Forccs ol !HL includcs and summarizcs many, but not all, rulcs
ol !HL and instructs UN lorccs to comply with thcm whcn cngagcd as combat
ants in armcd conicts.

!ntcrcstingly cnough, in dcbatcs lcading to its adoption,

UN rcprcscntativcs argucd that UN lorccs, cvcn whcn involvcd in actual ght
ing with thc armcd lorccs ol a Statc, could not possibly bc labcllcd a party to a
conict, an occupying powcr or as thc cncmy. Rathcr, thcy rcprcscnt both intcr
national lcgality and thc cntirc intcrnational community, including cvcn a Statc
against whom thcy ght. Similarly, in dcbatcs about whcn !HL lully applics to
UN lorccs, somc arguc that it dcpcnds on thcir mandatc. 8ut that is clcarly a ius
ad bellum argumcnt, whilc !HL should and docs apply according to thc actual
situation.
!n my vicw, thc notion that UN lorccs, which rcprcscnt intcrnational lcgal
ity and thc intcrnational community, and which cnlorcc intcrnational law, cannot
bc bound by thc samc rulcs as thcir cncmics undcrlics thc UNs rcluctancc to bc
bound by thc lull corpus ol !HL rulcs. Yct, as mcntioncd, thc lact that thc UN
has authorizcd military intcrvcntion has no impact on thc applicability ol !HL
to thc conict. Tc UN may authorizc thc usc ol lorcc and lcad an opcration, or
it may authorizc a rcgional organization or a Statc to lcad a military intcrvcntion.
, Scc, on thc wholc dcbatc whcthcr !HL applics to UN opcrations, Christophcr
Grccnwood, !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law and Unitcd Nations Military
pcrations (.) . Y.B Intl Humanitarian L. , Claudc manuclli, Les actions mili-
taries de l ONU et le droit international humanitaire (Montral: Vilson & Lacur
Ltc, .,), aphna Shraga, Tc Unitcd Nations as an Actor 8ound by !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law in Luigi Condorclli, AnncMaric La Rosa and Sylvic Schcrrcr
(cds), Les Nations Unies et le droit international humanitaire, ctes du Colloque inter-
national l occasion du cinquantime anni.ersaire des Nations Unies, Gen.e z,, :c, :z
octobre z,, (Paris: Pcdonc, .6) .,, ictrich Schindlcr, Unitcd Nations Forccs and
!ntcrnational Humanitarian Law in Christophc Swinarski, cd., Studies and Essays
on International Humanitarian La. and Fed Cross Principles in Honour of J. Pictet
(.) a. at a.
, Articlc . common to thc lour Gcncva Convcntions.
, UN oc. ST/SG8/./. ol 6 August ..
260 Marco Sassli
!s thcrc any rcason to distinguish bctwccn a campaign that is UNlcd as opposcd
to a campaign that is UNauthorizcd with rcgard to thc applicability ol !HL:
n a morc tcchnical lcvcl, Statcs contributing to UN pcacc lorccs cor
rcctly pcrccivc that il !HL applicd to hostilitics bctwccn thcir lorccs and thosc
opposcd to thcm, both would bc combatants and thcrclorc lawlul targcts ol
attacks. Contributing Statcs obviously hopc that thcir lorccs will not bc attackcd.
Howcvcr, do thcy rcally think that such attacks arc lcss likcly il thc applicability
ol !HL is dcnicd, which incidcntally also strips thcir own lorccs ol any protcc
tion by that law:
For an cxtrcmc cxamplc ol an illusionary stand along thcsc lincs, considcr
thc argumcnts ol somc uropcan NAT mcmbcr Statcs during thc UN author
izcd NAT air attacks against 8osnian Scrb artillcry positions thrcatcning pro
tcctcd arcas in 8osnia and Hcrzcgovina during . . Tcy scriously asscrtcd
that thcir pilots wcrc not combatants, that thc 8osnian Scrbs had no right to rc
upon thcm and that il capturcd thc pilots had to bc rclcascd immcdiatcly. Tc
Statcs claimcd thcir pilots wcrc UN cxpcrts on mission, protcctcd by thc .6
Convcntion on thc Privilcgcs and !mmunitics ol thc Unitcd Nations. Somc actu
ally issucd idcntity cards dcsignating thcm as such. !n ius in bello, thc idca that
somconc may attack but not bc attackcd by thosc bombcd, and must bc rclcascd
upon capturc, only to bomb again, is absurd. !t will ncvcr withstand thc tcst ol
rcality. !t was not surprising that as soon as two Frcnch pilots wcrc shot down,
Francc changcd its lcgal position and askcd lor prisoncr ol war status and trcat
mcnt.
6
!ndccd, il ! wcrc such a pilot, ! would clcarly prclcr to invokc prisoncr
ol war status, rathcr than claim that thc lcgitimacy ol my mission undcr thc UN
Chartcr mcant my cncmics should not havc shot mc down and thcy must now
immcdiatcly rclcasc mc to allow mc to lull my mission, i.e., to bomb thcm.
!HL ol intcrnational armcd conicts, including thc rulcs on military occu
pation, docs not apply, howcvcr, whcn UN lorccs arc prcscnt with thc conscnt ol
thc sovcrcign ol thc tcrritory in qucstion. Noncthclcss, in such cascs, it may bc
wisc to apply !HL by analogy, sincc it providcs a lramcwork to addrcss many ol
thc situations with which pcacckccpcrs will bc conlrontcd.

,6 Scc Pcacc pcrations in Jcannc Mcycr and 8rian 8ill, cds., Operational La.
Handbook (:cc:) (\irginia, acca) lor thc cxpcrt on mission status ol NAT pilots
in thc cnlorccmcnt ol thc noy zonc and during thc bombardmcnt ol 8osnian
Scrb positions. Scc also Agcncc Francc Prcssc, Paris admct quc scs dcux pilotcs dis
parus cn 8osnic sont prisonnicrs, pcchc, ac Scptcmbcr ., AFP, M. Millon:
lcs dmarchcs pour librcr lcs pilotcs lranais vont sintgrcr dans lc plan dc paix,
pcchc, ac Scptcmbcr . and AFP, La CroixRougc ignorc toujours ou sont lcs
pilotcs lrancais abattus cn 8osnic, a. Scptcmbcr ., lor Franccs rcaction to its
pilots bcing hcld prisoncr and rccoursc to thc !CRC, which cmphasizcd that it was
not involvcd in ncgotiations lor rclcasc ol thc pilots.
,, Marco Sassli, Lcgislation and Maintcnancc ol Public rdcr and Civil Lilc by
ccupying Powcrs (acc) .6 EJIL 66. at 6 and 6.6.
261 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
B La. Enforcement Directed at Terrorists Classied as
International rmed Conict
Two ol thc many disadvantagcs ol thc US administrations currcnt approach
towards thc war on tcrror, i.e., classilying that war as a singlc worldwidc intcr
national armcd conict, arc that thc charactcrization crcatcs a catcgory ol intcr
national armcd conicts in which !HL cannot bc applicd indcpcndcntly ol thc
conicts justication and in which !HL cannot apply cqually to both sidcs. Tc
author citcd abovc, in criticizing thc strict scparation bctwccn ius ad bellum and
ius in bello in thc contcxt ol a war on tcrror,
8
may bc corrcct in his prcmiscs,
but is wrong in thc conclusion hc draws. !t is not thc war on tcrror that dcmon
stratcs that thc scparation bctwccn ius ad bellum and ius in bello is crroncous. !t is
rathcr thc cquality ol thc bclligcrcnts bclorc !HL, rcsulting lrom that scparation,
which constitutcs an additional argumcnt that thc cntirc war on tcrror should
not bc labclcd as war.
!n thc war on tcrror, thc US and its allics arc by dcnition on thc right sidc
and thc tcrrorists arc on thc wrong onc, il only bccausc thc lattcr arc dcncd by a
mcthodology prohibitcd in !HL, tcrrorism.

To labcl that ght against tcrrorism

as war may conlorm to a political analysis and havc psychological advantagcs,
but lrom an !HL pcrspcctivc it incvitably implics conlcrring upon thc tcrror
ists an cqual status, which criminals do not cnjoy and should not havc. Tis is
prcciscly how thc tcrrorists scc what thcy do not as crimc, but as war against
thc Vcst. !n thc US approach to thc applicablc !HL, thc tcrrorists arc labcllcd
unlawlul combatants who may bc targctcd at any timc until thcy surrcndcr.
Tcy may bc dctaincd without an individual status dctcrmination until thc cnd ol
that war. Howcvcr, thcy arc (corrcctly) dcnicd thc bcncts ol combatant status,
i.e., thc right to commit acts ol violcncc, combatant immunity against prosccu
tion and prisoncr ol war trcatmcnt.
8o

Vhilc such incquality is contrary to thc basic notions ol !HL, it conlorms
to thc typical law cnlorccmcnt situation, which is indccd thc appropriatc lcgal
lramcwork lor all parts ol thc war on tcrror not taking placc within an intcr
national armcd conict (such as thc conict bctwccn thc US and Alghanistan in
acc./acca) or amounting to a nonintcrnational armcd conict. Vhcrc a gcn
uinc armcd conict cxists, howcvcr, thc samc !HL must apply to both sidcs,
cvcn il thc goal ol onc is to ght global tcrrorism. ! thcrclorc agrcc with Ruth
Vcdgwood whcn shc writcs that
, 8crman, Privilcging Combat:, supra notc a, at a.
, Scc Art. () ol Convcntion !\, Art. . (a) ol Protocol ! and Arts. (a) (d) and .
(a) ol Protocol !!.
c Scc Sassli, Usc and Abusc, supra notc a at .6, ac6 and a..a..
262 Marco Sassli
|o|nc potcntial problcm with thc war paradigm is that in an ordinary war
bctwccn statcs, military objccts arc lcgitimatc targcts. Humanitarian lawycrs,
military lawycrs, havc choscn to scparatc ius in bello lrom ius ad bellum, i.c., how
you ght a war lrom whcn you can ght a war. ncc yourc at war, in any ordi
nary intcrstatc sctting, its conccdcd that cithcr sidc can strikc at military tar
gcts. 8ut wc would not conccdc that bin Ladcn has a privilcgcd right to strikc
at thc U.S.S. Colc or thc Pcntagon or Khobar Towcrs. So thc traditional war
paradigm ol war bctwccn Vcstphalian statcs docsnt quitc t propcrly cithcr.
! cannot, howcvcr, agrcc with hcr solution: Vcrc going to havc to pick clc
mcnts lrom cach, and thcn cralt thc rcconstructcd modcl to t thc lacts ol thc
casc.
8+
Tis approach lorlcits !HLs normativity and prcdictability, both ol which
arc csscntial lor victims ol luturc conicts, including US victims, conlronting
opponcnts who bclicvc thc law docs not to t thc lacts ol thcir casc as thcy scc
it.
C Genuine rmed Conicts Percei.ed as International Police ction
Vhilc thc war on tcrror is onc in which thc law cnlorccmcnt paradigm should
prcvail, in othcr situations gcnuinc armcd conicts arc somctimcs pcrccivcd as
intcrnational policc actions. Such labcls imply an unwillingncss to apply !HL.
Tus, lor instancc, thc Russian Fcdcration consistcntly dcnics thc obvious thc
cxistcncc ol an armcd conict in Chcchnya.
vcn in intcrnational armcd conicts, thosc ghting lor thc cncmy arc
somctimcs claimcd by thc opposing sidc to bc not combatants, but criminals,
gcncrally bascd upon thc causc lor which thcy ght. Tis nonapplication ol
!HL is as problcmatic as its application to tcrrorist acts, but lor dicrcnt rcasons.
First, as a practical mattcr, combatants havc much lcss choicc than criminals to
clcct thc causc lor which thcy ght. Sccond, unlikc combatants, all acts ol vio
lcncc criminals commit arc crimcs, whcthcr dircctcd against cncmy armcd lorccs
or uninvolvcd civilians, or simply conductcd indiscriminatcly. Vhilc combatants
havc an inccntivc to comply with !HL bccausc thcy bcnct lrom combatant
immunity lor acts which conlorm to !HL, criminals arc liablc lor punishmcnt
lor any violcnt act thcy commit, whcthcr complying with !HL or not. An impor
tant inccntivc lor rcspcct ol !HL is thcrclorc lost. Tird, il an armcd conict is
labcllcd as law cnlorccmcnt, whilc thc law cnlorccrs rcmain bound by human
rights law and domcstic law, thcir cncmics arc bound only by thc ius ad bellum
barring thcm lrom ghting, not any ius in bello on how to ght. Killing womcn
and childrcn indiscriminatcly and targcting mcmbcrs ol cncmy armcd lorccs
bccomc lcgal cquivalcnts.
. Ruth Vcdgwood, Commcnt in Symposium: Amcrica Fights 8ack: Tc Lcgal
!ssucs (acc) .. Cardo.o J. Intl . Comp. L. . at ,.
263 9 !us ad 8cllum and !us in 8cllo
For thc samc rcasons, thc claim that dclcnsivc armcd rcprisals or othcr
mcasurcs short ol war do not constitutc armcd conicts, il corrcct, may only
havc conscqucnccs undcr ius ad bellum, whilc ius in bello must lully apply.
8:
D International rmed Conicts Change into La. Enforcement ctions
Directed by the International Community against Outla. States
From thc pcrspcctivc ol thc UN Chartcr, thc contcmporary world can bc pcr
ccivcd as rulcd by a collcctivc sccurity systcm. thcrs may scc it as dcvcloping
towards a hcgcmonic systcm in which thc solc supcrpowcr will cnsurc intcr
national law and ordcr with coalitions ol thc willing.
8
From both pcrspcctivcs,
intcrnational armcd conicts bctwccn Statcs can no longcr bc pcrccivcd as con
icts bctwccn cquals. 8oth lrom thc point ol vicw ol thc mcans at thc disposal ol
thc two sidcs and lrom a moral point ol vicw, thcy arc asymmctric. n thc onc
sidc thcrc is thc intcrnational community and thosc who rcprcscnt it, or at lcast
who claim to rcprcscnt it, on thc othcr sidc thcrc is gcncrally onc singlc outlaw
Statc (in rcccnt ycars, lor instancc, Yugoslavia or !raq).
!n such an cnvironmcnt, thc scparation bctwccn ius ad bellum and ius in bello,
and thc application ol thc samc !HL rulcs to both sidcs, bccomcs lcss and lcss
acccptablc lor thosc who pcrccivc thcmsclvcs as cnlorcing thc common intcrcst.
At thc samc timc, cqual application corrcsponds lcss and lcss to rcality bccausc
thc militarily wcakcr outlaw docs not rcspcct !HL, but rathcr sccs thc rcsort to
acts prohibitcd by !HL, such as tcrrorist attacks or pcrdy, as his only chancc ol
avoiding total dclcat.
Tc major disadvantagc ol such a dcvclopmcnt is that it lcads to a scll
lullling prophccy and an ex-post justication lor !HL violations. Similarly, to
criminals in domcstic law cnlorccmcnt, thcrc will bc no rulcs on how thc out
laws may ght against law cnlorccrs. As a rcsult, thc outlaws will not cvcn bc
bound by !HL (rathcr than simply acting in violation ol !HL). As lor thc law
cnlorccrs, thcy can no longcr bc bound by thc lull sct ol !HL rulcs, including,
e.g., combatant status and combatant immunity lor thc mcmbcrs ol thc outlaw
armcd lorccs. Nor can thc law cnlorccrs tolcratc thc rcsistancc that !HL puts
up in situations ol military occupation to changcs ol laws and institutions by an
occupying powcr.
8
At most, thcy will acccpt bcing bound by a ncw sct ol tem-
peramenta belli, human rightslikc rcstraints addrcsscd to thosc who arc cngagcd
a As rccognizcd by Yoram instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence, supra notc . at
..6, and Yoram instcin, Symposium: Tc Rulc ol Law in Conict and Post
Conict Situations: Commcnts on Var supra notc 6, at ,.
ctlcv \agts, Hcgcmonic !ntcrnational Law AJ!L (acc.) . and Jos .
Alvarcz, Hcgcmonic !ntcrnational Law Rcvisitcd (acc) , JIL , .
Scc Sassli, Lcgislation supra notc ,, at 666a.
264 Marco Sassli
in intcrnational law cnlorccmcnt but not to thcir cncmics.
8
Tus, thc historical
cyclc, which startcd with temperamenta belli lor thosc cngaging in a bellum iustum,
would bc closcd and wc would rcturn to thc starting point.
!t may bc that this dcvclopmcnt is incvitablc. ! would hopc it would takc
placc in thc lorm ol strcngthcncd intcrnational institutions ablc and willing to
cnlorcc thc rulc ol intcrnational law. !n such an cnvironmcnt, thcrc could indccd
bc incquality bclorc thc law as bctwccn thosc who cnlorcc intcrnational law
and thc subjccts ol that cnlorccmcnt. Yct, ! contcnd that contcmporary rcality
rcmains vcry lar lrom thc utopia just dcscribcd and lrom a gcnuinc hcgcmonic
world ordcr. First, thc world is still madc up ol sovcrcign Statcs. vcn whcn thcy
violatc intcrnational law, Statcs cannot yct bc pcrccivcd as simplc criminal gangs,
compriscd ol criminal individuals. !n particular, thc lrccdom ol combatants, and
cvcn morc so ol civilians, to join an outlaw Statc is incomparably lcss than thc
lrccdom an individual has to join a criminal gang in thc domcstic lcgal ordcr.
Sccond, dcspitc all thc progrcss madc by intcrnational criminal law and intcr
national criminal justicc in rcccnt ycars, thc possibility ol holding rcsponsiblc
individuals who dccidc upon a coursc ol action rcsulting in thcir Statcs violation
ol intcrnational law is still undcrdcvclopcd. !t dcpcnds to a grcat cxtcnt on thc
willingncss ol Statcs to coopcratc. Tis implics that bchaviour contrary to thc
intcrnational communitys common intcrcst (including law and ordcr) cannot
yct bc dcalt with cxclusivcly as individual bchaviour. !t must still in addition bc
attributcd to Statcs to gcncratc thc ncccssarily collcctivc rcaction. Tird, in thc
abscncc ol an ccicnt intcrnational systcm ol adjudication, thcrc may, in a givcn
armcd conict, still bc bona de divcrgcnccs ol vicw ovcr which sidc is thc outlaw
and which is ghting lor thc common intcrcst.
As long as thcsc rcalitics rcmain unchangcd, armcd conicts will continuc
to havc morc in common with traditional wars than with domcstic law cnlorcc
mcnt. Law that attcmpts to protcct thosc involvcd in, and acctcd by, a social
phcnomcnon should not disappcar bclorc thc phcnomcnon to which it applics.
Tis truism applics to !HL, including thc scparation which must bc drawn
bctwccn it and thc lcgitimacy ol thc causc ol thc partics involvcd.
Scc avid Schccr, 8cyond ccupation Law (acc) , JIL a, Nchal 8huta,
Tc Antinomics ol Translormativc ccupation (acc) .6 EJIL ,a., and Stcvcn
Ratncr, Forcign ccupation and !ntcrnational Tcrritorial Administration (acc) .6
EJIL 6.
Chapter 10
21
st
Ccntury Conict and !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law:
Status Quo or Changc:
Kenneth !atkin
!n thc Law ol Armcd Conicts thc hand ol thc past is hcavy upon us.
Colonel G.I..D. Draper
+
I Introduction
!t is an honour to contributc this articlc to thc Festschrift lor Prolcssor Yoram
instcin. Prolcssor instcins rccord ol scholarship and lcadcrship in thc cld ol
intcrnational law providcs amplc prool ol his mastcry ol this dicult and at timcs
uid disciplinc. Vhilc his list ol accomplishmcnts spcaks to a broad mastcry ol
intcrnational law, it is Prolcssor instcins inucntial works on war and aggrcs
sion
:
and thc conduct ol hostilitics

that bring him particular rcnown among

thosc who scrvc in thc prolcssion ol arms. Prolcssor instcin has achicvcd what
lcw would attcmpt to mastcr as hc combincs matchlcss intcllcctual rigour with
cmincntly practical analysis ol somc ol thc most dicult lcgal problcms lacing
both military commandcrs and humanitarian activists in thc complcx sccurity
situations ol thc a.
st
ccntury. His imprcssivc work Te Conduct of Hostilities Under
Tis articlc is a rcviscd vcrsion ol a papcr prcscntcd at a conlcrcncc: nlorcing
!ntcrnational Law: Practiccs and Challcngcs, hcld at thc Univcrsity ol ttawa
Faculty ol Law lrom ... March acc sponsorcd by thc !ntcrnational Law Studcnts
Association ol thc Univcrsity ol ttawa, thc Canadian Rcd Cross, thc Unitcd
Nations Association ol Canada and thc cpartmcnt ol Forcign Aairs. Tc opin
ions cxprcsscd in this articlc arc solcly thosc ol thc author and do not ncccssarily
rccct thc vicws ol thc Govcrnmcnt ol Canada.
. Coloncl G.!.A.. rapcr, Combatant Status: n Historical Perspecti.e, .. Tc Mil. L.
and L. ol Var Rcv. ., . (.,a).
a Yoram instcin, Var, Aggrcssion and Scllclcncc (
th
cd. acc).
Yoram instcin, Tc Conduct ol Hostilitics Undcr thc Law ol !ntcrnational
Armcd Conict (Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss acc). (Hcrcinaltcr Tc Conduct ol
Hostilitics).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. :o-:,o.
266 Kenneth !atkin
the La. of International rmed Conict

is a ncccssary rclcrcncc book lor anyonc

practicing intcrnational humanitarian law today.
Prolcssor instcins approach to intcrnational law is uniquc in thc scnsc that
hc combincs rcspcct lor tradition with thc rcalists vicw that law must changc to
bc rclcvant to thc socicty it rcgulatcs. !t is Yorams way to cncouragc critical anal
ysis whilc cmbracing changc and advanccmcnt in thc law. As hc himscll notcd
in Te Conduct of Hostilities,

thc limitation ol thc scmitraditional quartcr ccn

tury rcvicws ol thc Gcncva Convcntions to wcaponry ovcr thc last dccadcs has
produccd tangiblc rcsults in that cld but only scrvc to spotlight thc lcthargy in
othcrs.
6
As a rcsult |o|nc can only cxprcss hopc that thc twcntyrst ccntury
will rcvivc thc tradition ol pcriodic rcvicws ol thc main body ol L!AC |law ol
intcrnational armcd conict|. Tc nccd lor such a rcvicw is compclling.

Tc goal ol this articlc is to look at somc ol thc contcmporary challcngcs
lacing intcrnational humanitarian law. !n doing so this analysis will touch on thrcc
ol thc principal problcms conlronting L!AC today highlightcd by Prolcssor
instcin: pcrccptions that intcrnational humanitarian law will havc troublc dcal
ing with thc dcvclopmcnt ol ncw mcthods and mcans ol warlarc, thc intcrmin
gling ol civilians and combatants and thc cmploymcnt ol civilians as combatants,
and thc mcaninglul implcmcntation ol intcrnational humanitarian law.
8

Tc analysis is dividcd into two parts. First, thcrc is considcration ol thc
dcgrcc to which conict in thc a.
st
ccntury prcscnts ncw problcms. Tis is donc
by looking at thc typcs ol conicts, including thc war on tcrror and considcr
ing thc impact ol tcchnology on mcthods and mcans ol warlarc. Tc sccond part
ol thc articlc addrcsscs thc adcquacy ol cxisting law to mcct contcmporary chal
lcngcs, looks at thc prcscnt rcluctancc to changc that law, and outlincs a numbcr
ol thc major cracks in thc humanitarian law normativc lramcwork. Ultimatcly,
thc articlc sccks to idcntily a way ahcad in ordcr to cnsurc thc law kccps pacc
with socictal changc.
II Modern Conicts?
Tc rst issuc to bc considcrcd is whcthcr thc naturc ol conict has changcd in
thc a.
st
ccntury. Such an asscssmcnt will hclp idcntily thc dcgrcc to which chal
lcngcs to intcrnational humanitarian law arc ncw or simply old problcms lor
which incrcascd scrutiny has scrvcd to highlight controvcrsics in thc cxisting
Ibid.
Ibid.
6 Ibid. at a,.
, Ibid.
Ibid. Tc othcr problcms idcnticd by Prolcssor instcin arc: intransigcnt thcorcti
cal disagrccmcnts bctwccn thc supportcrs ol AP ! and somc kcy playcrs lcd by thc
Unitcd Statcs, and thc lcgality ol nuclcar wcapons.
267 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
law. !n that rcgard contcmporary conicts arc asscsscd in two oltcn intcrrclatcd
ways: thc typc ol conicts and thc mcthods and mcans ol warlarc uscd to pros
ccutc thosc conicts.
Types of Conicts
Varlarc is oltcn considcrcd within a bilurcatcd lcgal lramcwork ol intcrnational
and nonintcrnational armcd conict. !n its traditional lorm, intcrnational armcd
conict is vicwcd as a conict bctwccn statcs,

whilc nonintcrnational armcd

conict most oltcn rclatcs to nonstatc insurgcnt groups attcmpting to ovcr
throw or brcak away lrom thc rccognizcd govcrnmcnt.
+o
Tis traditional vicw ol
intcrnational armcd conict bcing idcnticd with intcrstatc conict was rcin
lorccd in thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc dccision, Legal Consequences Of Te
Construction Of !all In Te Occupied Palestinian Territory,
++
whcrc thc justica
tion ol thc construction ol a sccurity lcncc was rcjcctcd bccausc !sracl docs not
claim that thc attacks against it arc imputablc to a lorcign statc.
+:
Tc Prosccutor v. Tadic, !T.A para. (. July .) at http://www.un.org/icty/
tadic/appcal/judgcmcnt/tadajc,.c.pdl. (!t is indisputablc that an armcd con
ict is intcrnational il it takcs placc bctwccn two or morc Statcs. !n addition, in casc
ol an intcrnal armcd conict brcaking out on thc tcrritory ol a Statc, it may bccomc
intcrnational (or, dcpcnding upon thc circumstanccs, bc intcrnational in charactcr
alongsidc an intcrnal armcd conict) il (i) anothcr Statc intcrvcncs in that conict
through its troops, or altcrnativcly il (ii) somc ol thc participants in thc intcrnal
armcd conict act on bchall ol that othcr Statc.).
.c Scc common articlc to thc lour . Gcncva Convcntions. !t docs not dcnc armcd
conicts not ol an intcrnational charactcr. |Tc lour . Gcncva Convcntions arc:
. Gcncva Convcntion (!) lor thc Amclioration ol thc Condition ol thc Voundcd
and Sick in Armcd Forccs in thc Ficld (hcrcinaltcr Gcncva Convcntion !GC !),
. Gcncva Convcntion (!!) lor thc Amclioration ol thc Condition ol Voundcd,
Sick and Shipwrcckcd Mcmbcrs ol Armcd Forccs at Sca (hcrcinaltcr Gcncva
Convcntion !!GC !!), . Gcncva Convcntion (!!!) Rclativc to thc Trcatmcnt ol
Prisoncrs ol Var (Hcrcinaltcr Gcncva Convcntion !!!GC !!!) and . Gcncva
Convcntion (!\) Rclativc to thc Protcction ol Civilian Pcrsons in Timc ol Var
(hcrcinaltcr Gcncva Convcntion !\GC !\)|. Scc also thc Protocol Additional
to thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August ., and Rclating to thc Protcction ol
\ictims ol Non!ntcrnational Armcd Conicts, art. .(.). (Hcrcinaltcr Additional
Protocol !!AP !!).
.. !.C.J. ( July acc) availablc at http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/idockct/imwp/imwp
lramc.htm. (hcrcinaltcr thc !all Opinion). Tis dccision has bccn thc subjcct ol
considcrablc criticism. For cxamplc, scc Scan . Murphy, Self-Defense and the Israeli
!all d.isory Opinion: n Ipse Dixit From the ICJ, Am. J. !ntl. L. 6a (acc),
Gcory Vatson, Te !all Decision in Legal and Political Context, Am. J. !ntl L.
6 (acc) and Ruth Vcdgwood, Te d.isory Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and
the Limits of Self-Defence, Am. J. !ntl. L. a (acc).
.a Te !all Opinion, supra notc .., at 6, para. ..
268 Kenneth !atkin
Attcmpts to strictly catcgorizc armcd conict havc bccn opcn to challcngc
lor somc timc as such simplc thcorctical modcls arc oltcn challcnging to apply
in thc contcmporary complcx sccurity cnvironmcnt. Somc ol thc complcxity ol
intcrstatc conict is rccctcd in Prolcssor instcins usc ol thc tcrms pcacctimc
status mixus and wartimc status mixus to dcscribc thc simultancous opcration
ol thc laws ol war (lor somc purposcs) and thc laws ol pcacc (lor othcrs) in timc
ol war and pcacc.
+
Similarly, in rcspcct ol statc on statc conict occupation can
crcatc situations similar to an intcrnal armcd conict with insurgcnt lorccs bat
tling against thc occupying powcr.
+
Rcstricting intcrnational armcd conict to a
contcst bctwccn statcs also has an clcmcnt ol articiality considcring thc rccog
nition in Gcncva Convcntion !!! ol rcgular armcd lorccs who prolcss allcgiancc
to a govcrnmcnt or authority not rccognizcd by thc ctaining Powcr.
+

Furthcr, Additional Protocol ! cxtcnds thc rulcs ol intcrnational human
itarian law applicablc to intcrstatc conict to nonstatc actors cngagcd in
national libcration.
+6
Tcrc arc a numbcr ol signicant statcs which havc not
raticd Additional Protocol !.
+
Conccrns cxprcsscd by thc Unitcd Statcs havc
includcd thc potcntial lcgitimization ol nonstatc participants in armcd con
. Scc instcin, supra notc a, at ...
. For cxamplc at thc timc ol ncgotiating thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion dcaling with
Prisoncrs ol Var it was concludcd that having organizcd rcsistancc movcmcnts
bclong to a Party to thc Conict in articlc A.(a) rclutcs thc contcntionthat
this provision amounts to a jus insurrectionis lor thc inhabitants ol occupicd tcrri
tory. Scc !CRC Commcntary, GC !!!, art. A.(a) at http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsl/
CM/,ccc,:pcnocumcnt. Howcvcr, thc naturc ol thc combat bctwccn
occupying lorccs and rcsistancc groups oltcn rcscmblcs intcrnal armcd conict. Tc
idca ol insurgcncy in occupicd tcrritory can also bc linkcd to thc lact that prior to
thc .
th
ccntury, occupation mcant thc ccding ol tcrritory including plcdging allc
giancc to thc ncwly occupying powcr. Scc L. ppcnhcim, !ntcrnational Law a
(H. Lautcrpacht cd., ,
th
cd. .a). For anothcr rclcrcncc to insurrcction scc oris
Appcl Grabcr, Tc cvclopmcnt ol thc Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation .6..
(Columbia Univcrsity Prcss .). (!l thc imprcssion is crcatcd that occupation
cxists only whcrc it is visiblc, insurrcction might bc provokcd and pcoplc would
sucr by thc rcprcssivc mcasurcs which lollow insurrcction.).
. GC !!!, art. ().
.6 Scc .,, Protocol Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August ., and
Rclating to thc Protcction ol \ictims ol !ntcrnational Armcd Conicts (Protocol
!), art. .(). (Hcrcinaltcr Additional Protocol !AP !). Scc also Lcslic C. Grccn,
Tc Contcmporary Law ol Armcd Conict 6 (a
nd
cd. .c) (.). (To somc
cxtcnt ccrtain nonintcrnational conicts havc comc undcr thc acgis ol intcrnational
humanitarian law sincc thc adoption ol Articlc .() ol Protocol ! and Protocol !!
Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions.).
., Countrics which havc not raticd AP ! includc thc Unitcd Statcs, !ndia, Pakistan,
!raq, !sracl and !ran. For a list ol ratilying statcs scc http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsl/Vc
bSign:RcadForm&id-,c&ps-P (last visitcd cc. a acc).
269 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
ict,
+8
although thcrc is a considcrablc body ol opinion that thc cxpansion ol AP
! to includc national libcration movcmcnts will not havc a signicant ccct.
+

Tc rcluctancc ol a numbcr ol statcs to sign thc Protocol can bc balanccd with
thc rcality that pcrccnt ol statcs arc now partics to thc documcnt.
:o
!n addition,
many ol thc provisions ol Additional Protocol ! arc oltcn applicd as a mattcr ol
policy by thc most promincnt nonratilying statc: thc Unitcd Statcs.
:+
Pcrhaps thc grcatcst challcngc lacing thosc sccking to cnlorcc thc normativc
provisions ol intcrnational humanitarian law in thc contcmporary intcrnational
sccurity situation is that most ol thc armcd conicts in thc world arc not intcr
national in thc scnsc ol intcrstatc hostilitics. Tc changing naturc ol conict is
such that thcorists now somctimcs trcat intcrstatc conict as a disappcaring il
not cxtinct conccpt,
::
cvcn though rcccnt cvcnts such as thc . Kosovo air cam
paign, thc acc. conict in Alghanistan and thc acc !raq invasion suggcst that
. Scc Letter of Transmittal, gora: Te U.S. Decision Not to Fatify Protocol I to the Gene.a
Con.entions on the Protection of !ar !ictims, . Am. J. !ntl. L. .. (.,). (Tis con
ccrn ovcr lcgitimization is rccctcd in thc lcttcr ol transmittal scnt by Prcsidcnt
Rcagan to thc Unitcd Statcs Scnatc whcrc it is statcd this would cndangcr civil
ians among whom tcrrorists and othcr irrcgulars attcmpt to conccal thcmsclvcs.
Tcrclorc thc Unitcd Statcs must not, and nccd not, givc rccognition and protcction
to tcrrorist groups as a pricc lor progrcss in humanitarian law.) Scc also Abraham
. Solacr, gora: Te US Decision Not to Fatify Protocol I to the Gene.a Con.entions
on the Protection of !ar !ictims (Contd) a Am. J. !ntl. L. , (.). (Trcating thcsc
tcrrorists as soldicrs also cnhanccs thcir staturc, to thc dctrimcnt ol thc civilizcd
community.).
. Gcorgc H. Aldrich, Prospects for United States Fatication of dditional Protocol I
to the z,,, Gene.a Con.entions, Am. J. !ntl. L ., 6 (..), HansPctcr Gasscr,
n ppeal for Fatication by the United States, . Am. J. !ntl. L. .a, .6., (.,),
scc also Tcodor Mcron, Te Time Has Come for the United States to Fatify Gene.a
Protocol I, Am. J. !ntl. L 6,, 6 (.).
ac Tcrc arc .6 statcs partics to Additional Protocol ! and .. mcmbcr statcs ol thc
Unitcd Nations. (For thc numbcr ol statc partics to AP ! scc supra notc ., and lor
mcmbcr statcs ol thc Unitcd Nations scc http://www.un.org/vcrvicw/unmcmbcr.
html) (last visitcd cc. a, acc).
a. Major Jccrson . Rcynolds, Collateral Damage on the :z
st
Century Battleeld: Enemy
Exploitation of the La. of rmed Conict, and the Struggle for a Moral High Ground, 6
Air Forcc L. Rcv. ., aa (acc). (|AP !| is thoroughly rcprcscntcd in U.S. military
doctrinc, practicc and rulcs ol cngagcmcnt.) Scc also Michacl V. Lcwis, Te La. of
erial Bombardment in the z,,z Gulf !ar, , Am. J. !ntl. L. ., a (acc).
aa Scc Villiam S. Lind ct al., Te Changing Face of !ar: Into the Fourth Generation,
Marinc Corps Gazcttc aaa6 (.) availablc at http://www.dni.nct/lcs/th_
gcn_war_gazcttc.htm (last visitcd cc. ., acc) and LicutcnantColoncl Tomas
X. Hammcs, Te E.olution of !ar: Te Fourth Generation, Marinc Corps Gazcttc
(Scptcmbcr .) availablc at http://www.dni.nct/lcs/hammcs.htm (last visitcd
cc. ., acc), lor a discussion ol a thcory ol gcncrational changc in warlarc cvolv
ing lrom masscd manpowcr, to masscd rcpowcr, thcn manocuvrc and nally inlor
mation warlarc. Scc also Coloncl Tomas X. Hammcs, Tc Sling and thc Stonc
ac,ac (Zcnith, Prcss acc).
270 Kenneth !atkin
any prcdictions ol its dcmisc arc both prcmaturc and unrcalistic.
:
Howcvcr, thc
cort in thc post Vorld Var !! cra to rcstrict thc rccoursc to war by statcs (jus ad
bellum) mcans thc rich body ol convcntional and customary law (jus in bello) tcch
nically applics to its lullcst cxtcnt to a signicantly dccrcasing typc ol conict.
Vhilc ovcrall thc numbcrs ol conicts in thc world arc dropping,
:
thcrc
rcmains considcrablc dcstruction and humanitarian tragcdy rcsulting lrom thc
cstimatcd ol armcd conicts that arc conicts within statcs.
:
!n many cascs,
thc rcsolution ol thcsc nonintcrnational conicts cannot simply bc lclt to thc
statc as an intcrnal mattcr, lor thcy oltcn occur in lailcd or lailing statcs. As a rcsult,
thc intcrnational community can bccomc involvcd militarily, as wcll as politically
and diplomatically. Military participation can rangc lrom complcx pcacckccping
missions undcr Unitcd Nations control to signicant participation in thc armcd
conict. Pcrhaps thc most graphic cxamplc ol thc complcxity ol thc lcgal basis
lor such opcrations is lound in Alghanistan, whcrc a Unitcd Nations sanctioncd,
North Atlantic Trcaty rganizationlcd !ntcrnational Sccurity Assistancc Forcc
(!SAF) mission cocxists with a Unitcd Statcslcd Coalition opcration dircctly
cngagcd in armcd conict.
:6

Tc military intcrvcntion by thc Unitcd Statcs Coalition in Alghanistan lol
lowing thc attacks ol /.. also raiscs thc issuc ol whcthcr contcmporary conict
rcsulting lrom transnational tcrrorism is an intcrnational armcd conict. Tcrc
is no conscnsus. \icws about thc post /.. conict in Alghanistan, lor instancc,
a Colin S. Gray, Anothcr 8loody Ccntury: Futurc Var 6 (Vcidcnlcld & Nicolson,
acc).
a Scc Human Sccurity Rcport acc: Var and Pcacc in thc a.
st
Ccntury, ., (xlord
Univcrsity Prcss, acc) availablc at http://www.humansccurityrcport.inlo/HSRacc/
Part..pdl (last visitcd cc. a, acc). (!n tcrms ol battlcdcaths, thc .cs was thc
lcast violcnt dccadc sincc thc cnd ol Vorld Var !!. 8y thc bcginning ol thc a.st ccn
tury, thc probability ol any country bcing cmbroilcd in an armcd conict was lowcr
than at any timc sincc thc carly .cs.).
a Ibid., at a.
a6 Scc NTO in fghanistan Press Fact Sheet availablc at http://www.nato.int/issucs/
alghanistan/cc.6lactshcct.htm=troop_contributions, whcrc it is indicatcd thc
!SAF is not a UN lorcc although it opcratcs undcr Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council
mandatcs UNSCRs .6, .., . and ..c. Furthcr, !SAF was initially lcd
by individual voluntccr nations bclorc translcrring ovcr to NAT in acc. As ol
cccmbcr acc thc Alliancc now commands ninc PRTs and providcs sccurity
assistancc in about c ol Alghanistans tcrritory. Scc also Unitcd Statcs Ccntral
Command Vcbsitc availablc at http://www.ccntcom.mil/pcrations/Coalition/
joint.htm (last visitcd cc. a,, acc). (!n Alghanistan alonc, our coalition partncrs
arc contributing ncarly ,ccc troops to pcration nduring Frccdom and to thc
!ntcrnational Sccurity Assistancc Forcc in Kabul making up ovcr hall ol thc .,ccc
nonAlghan lorccs in Alghanistan.).
271 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
includc charactcrization as an intcrnational armcd conict, intcrnal armcd con
ict and thc intcrnalization ol a civil war.
:

Tc controvcrsy ovcr thc catcgorization ol thc a.st ccntury thrcat poscd by
transnational tcrrorists has locuscd attcntion on how wcll traditional intcrprcta
tions dcscribc contcmporary conict. Tc trcaty lramcwork dcvclopcd to rcgu
latc intcrnal conicts is limitcd in its application in a numbcr ol ways. Statc
conccrn ovcr lcgitimizing intcrnal conict has rcstrictcd thc application ol
Additional Protocol !! to major conicts such as civil wars.
:8
Prcvious corts to
providc cxpandcd humanitarian protcction to nonintcrnational armcd conict
during ncgotiations ovcr thc . Gcncva Convcntions rcsultcd in thc impor
tant, but signicantly watcrcd down, protcction lound in common articlc .
:
Tc
armcd conict not ol an intcrnational charactcr wording in thc . Gcncva
Convcntions has prcscntcd challcngcs in asccrtaining thc limits ol its applica
bility.
o
Tc provisions ol humanitarian law trcatics govcrning intcrnal conict
arc lurthcr markcd by thcir limitcd rclcrcncc to thc rcgulation ol thc conduct ol
hostilitics.
+
Suggcstions to usc conict not ol an intcrnational charactcr
:
or trans
national, rathcr than intcrnational, to dcscribc crossbordcr tcrrorism and vio
a, Scc Kcnncth Vatkin, Controlling the Use of Force: Fole for Human Fights Norms in
Contemporary rmed Conict, Am. J. !ntl. L. ., (acc).
a Scc Kcith Sutcr, An !ntcrnational Law ol Gucrrilla Varlarc: Tc Global Politics ol
LawMaking .,c.,. (St. Martins Prcss, .).
a Scc commcntary GC !!!, art. , availablc at http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsl/CM/,
ccc6:pcnocumcnt, which outlincs thc rcaction by a numbcr ol statcs rcgard
ing a wholcsalc application ol thc Convcntions to intcrnal conict as: !t was said
that it would covcr all lorms ol insurrcctions, rcbcllion, and thc brcakup ol Statcs,
and cvcn plain brigandagc. Attcmpts to protcct individuals might wcll provc to
bc at thc cxpcnsc ol thc cqually lcgitimatc protcction ol thc Statc. To compcl thc
Govcrnmcnt ol a Statc in thc throcs ol intcrnal conict to apply to such a conict
thc wholc ol thc provisions ol a Convcntion cxprcssly concludcd to covcr thc casc ol
war would mcan giving its cncmics, who might bc no morc than a handlul ol rcbcls
or common brigands, thc status ol bclligcrcnts, and possibly cvcn a ccrtain dcgrcc ol
lcgal rccognition.
c Scc Vatkin, supra notc a,, at 6.
. For cxamplc, thc . Gcncva Convcntion, common articlc provision rclcrs to thc
protcction ol pcrsons no longcr taking an activc part in hostilitics including mcm
bcrs ol armcd lorccs who havc laid down thcir arms and thosc placcd hors de combat.
Tosc pcrsons arc to bc trcatcd humancly with spccial protcction rclating to violcncc
to lilc and pcrson, thc taking ol hostagcs, outragcs on pcrsonal dignity and judicial
guarantccs. Tis articlc docs not addrcss thc conduct ol hostilitics. Howcvcr, scc also
Tc Amcndcd Protocol !! to thc Convcntion on Ccrtain Convcntional Vcapons,
art. , para. ,.c. Tcsc provisions appcar somcwhat uniquc in that thcy dcal with
distinction, rcprisals, indiscriminatc attacks and thc taking ol lcasiblc prccautions in
rcspcct ol intcrnal armcd conicts.
a Scc crck Jinks, September zz and the La.s of !ar, a Yalc J. !ntl L. . (acc).
272 Kenneth !atkin
lcncc dclivcrcd across contincnts highlight thc dcgrcc to which contcmporary
conict is challcnging traditional intcrnational law conccpts.

To a ccrtain cxtcnt,
thc cxisting controvcrsy may simply rccct a longstanding wcakncss in thc cat
cgorization ol armcd conict. Tc strongly positivist basis ol intcrnational law,
ccrtainly sincc thc .
th
ccntury, has locuscd attcntion on thc statc as thc sourcc
ol lcgal obligation.

Yct this statcccntric vicw ol law at timcs appcars to havc

maskcd thc lact that de facto hostilitics havc always bccn broadcr in scopc than
thc traditional de jure conccpts ol intcrstatc and nonintcrnational armcd con
ict (i.c., occurring within thc jurisdiction ol a statc). Conicts bctwccn statc
armcd lorccs and nonstatc actors wcrc in a colonial contcxt callcd small wars.

Such de facto wars havc now givcn way to thc Trcc 8lock Vars conlronting
modcrn armcd lorccs in lailcd and lailing statcs.
6

!ntcrnational laws strugglc to dcal with low lcvcl intcrnational or trans
national armcd conict is additionally rccctcd in thc controvcrsy surround
ing noncombatant cvacuation opcrations, hostagc rcscuc and intcrvcntion in
dclcncc ol nationals in lorcign tcrritory.

Tcrc is thc lurthcr qucstion ol cross

For cxamplc, scc Toni Planncr, symmetrical !arfare from the Perspecti.e of
Humanitarian La. and Humanitarian ction, , !ntcrnational Rcvicw ol thc
Rcd Cross ., ..6 (acc) and Gabor Rona, Interesting Times for International
Humanitarian La.: Challenges from the !ar on Terror, a, Tc Flctchcr Forum ol
Vorld Aairs , (acc) availablc at http://www.icrc.org/Vcb/cng/sitccngc.nsl/
htmlall/PVLF/sFilc/Rona_tcrror.pdl (last visitcd Jan. a, acc6).
Scc Stcphcn Hall, Te Persistent Spectre: Natural La., International Order and the
Limits of Legal Positi.ism, .a ur. J. !ntl. L. a6, a,ca,. (acc.), lor a discussion ol
thc strugglc bctwccn natural law and thc doctrinc ol lcgal positivism.
Coloncl C.. Caldwcll, Small Vars: Tcir Principlcs and Practicc a. (rd cd. .6)
(.c6). (xpcditions against savagcs and scmicivilizcd raccs by disciplincd sol
dicrs.) Scc also thc Small Vars Manual, Unitcd Statcs Marinc Corps ., at paras. ..
(c) to .. (d), Unitcd Statcs Govcrnmcnt Printing cc .c. Scc also 8ing Vcst,
No Truc Glory: A Frontlinc Account ol thc 8attlc ol Fallujah . (8antam 8ooks,
acc) (whcrc rclcrcncc is madc to thc Marinc Corps Small Vars Manual bcing
rcquircd rcading lor Unitcd Statcs Marincs prcparing to combat thc !raqi insur
gcncy in acc.
6 Scc Gcncral Charlcs C. Krulak, Te Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Tree Block !ar,
Marincs: cial Magazinc ol thc Marinc Corps a ( January .) availablc at http://
www.usmc.mil/marincsmagazinc/pdl.nsl/caldadc.ccccca6c,ccc,.a/
ba6c,bc,,bc.ba66ccc,a/sF!L/jan.pdl (last visitcd cc. a, acc) lor
a dcscription ol contcmporary opcrations. Scc also Fole of Pride and Inuence in the
!orld, .. (April acc) availablc at http://www.dlaitmacci.gc.ca/cippic/!PS/!PS
vcrvicw.pdl lor a rclcrcncc to Trcc block wars. Such opcrations arc dcscribcd
as |o|ur military could bc cngagcd in combat against wcllarmcd militia in onc city
block, stabilization opcrations in thc ncxt block, and humanitarian rclicl and rccon
struction two blocks ovcr.
, For cxamplc, scc also Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Noncombatant
E.acuation Operations, Joint Pub c,. !, at para. c. (c Scptcmbcr .,) avail
ablc at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrinc/jcl/ncw_pubs/jp_c,_.pdl. (Hcrcinaltcr thc
273 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
bordcr tcrrorist thrcats. Prolcssor instcin has catcgorizcd opcrations takcn
against armcd bands or tcrrorists within thc tcrritory ol anothcr statc as cxtra
tcrritorial law cnlorccmcnt, with law cnlorccmcnt in this contcxt rclcrring to
intcrnational law.
8

Tc blurring and ovcrlap ol thc traditional catcgorics ol conict is rccctcd
in thc trcnd undcr humanitarian law to apply thc cstablishcd rulcs lor govcrn
ing intcrnational armcd conict to its nonintcrnational countcrpart. Tis trcnd
is rccctcd in judicial dccisions

and thc !CRCs Customary !ntcrnational

Humanitarian Law study, whcrc such rulcs, which arc bascd to a largc cxtcnt on
Additional Protocol !, arc procrcd lor application in nonintcrnational armcd
conict.
o
Furthcr, thc accountability lramcwork associatcd with intcrnational
armcd conict is incrcasingly bcing applicd to civil wars and othcr similar con
icts through both thc ad hoc intcrnational tribunals
+
and thc !ntcrnational
Criminal Court.
:

!n summary, modcrn conict oltcn docs not appcar to t niccly into thc
strict traditional lcgal conccpts ol what constitutcs intcrnational or nonintcrna
tional armcd conict. A particular challcngc lor thc intcrnational community
and thcir intcrnational law advisors will bc locusing on thosc ol conicts
that arc not intcrnational conicts in thc tcchnical lcgal scnsc ol thc tcrm. Hcrc
thc cort to cxpand thc application ol intcrnational humanitarian law has bccn,
and will continuc to bc, conlrontcd by statc rcluctancc to apply intcrnational
norms to what has bccn sccn as uniqucly lalling within thcir sovcrcign jurisdic
tion. Howcvcr, as thc !ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor thc Formcr Yugoslavia
Appcals Chambcr notcd in Prosecutor .. Tadic

in ., it cannot bc dcnicd that

customary rulcs havc dcvclopcd to govcrn intcrnal strilc.

Noncombatant E.acuation Manual .) (Pcrsonncl may bc cvacuatcd undcr condi
tions ranging lrom civil disordcr or tcrrorist action to lullscalc combat.) (Last vis
itcd Jan. ., acc6).
Scc instcin, supra notc a, at a.
For cxamplc scc Prosccutor v. Tadic, (Appcal Chambcr) paras. 6.a (a ctobcr
.), availablc at http://www.un.org/icty/tadic/appcal/dccisionc/.cca.htm.
c JcanMaric Hcnckacrts & Louisc oswald8cck, Customary !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law xxix (Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, acc). (Hcrcinaltcr thc
Customary Law Study.).
. For cxamplc, scc thc Statutc ol thc !ntcrnational Tribunal lor thc Prosccution ol
Pcrsons Rcsponsiblc lor Gcnocidc and thcr Scrious \iolations ol !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law Committcd in thc Tcrritory ol Rwanda and Rwandan Citizcns
Rcsponsiblc lor Gcnocidc and thcr Such \iolations Committcd in thc Tcrritory
ol Ncighbouring Statcs, 8ctwccn . January . and . cccmbcr ., SC Rcs. ,
Art. .
a Romc Statutc ol thc !ntcrnational Criminal Court, July .,, ., Art. (a)(c).
Scc Prosccutor v. Tadic, (Appcal Chambcr) (a ctobcr .), supra notc .
Ibid. at para. .a,. (Tcsc rulcs wcrc idcnticd as covcring such arcas as protcction
ol civilians lrom hostilitics, in particular lrom indiscriminatc attacks, protcction ol
274 Kenneth !atkin
Vhat rcmains to bc donc is to articulatc thosc rulcs in a manncr which will
lcad to a conscnsus rcgarding thcir scopc. !l history is a good indicator, achicv
ing such a conscnsus may provc to bc onc ol thc grcatcst challcngcs in intcrna
tional humanitarian law. !n that rcgard, potcntial obstaclcs will not bc limitcd to
gaining acccptancc by statcs. As will bc discusscd, thc rcgulation ol both intcr
nal conicts and violcncc by nonstatc actors transccnding national bordcrs will
rcquirc considcration ol thc intcrlacc bctwccn intcrnational humanitarian law
and human rights norms. Rcaching conscnsus may ncccssitatc rcsolution ol thc
signicantly dicrcnt vicws ol humanitarian law and human rights law advocatcs
on how to control armcd lorcc and its cccts. Furthcr, thc lundamcntal distinc
tions bctwccn thc two normativc rcgimcs in controlling thc usc ol lorcc will havc
to bc rcconcilcd, as a human rights law rcgimc sccks to rcvicw cvcry usc ol lorcc,
whilc humanitarian law is bascd on thc prcmisc thcrc will bc killing and likcly
collatcral damagc.

B Methods and Means
Tc sccond way to asscss contcmporary conict is in rcspcct ol thc mcans and
mcthods ol warlarc. !n many conicts, thc tools ol war havc not changcd.
Varlarc continucs to bc conductcd to a largc cxtcnt by thc usc ol small arms,
artillcry and cvcn landmincs, although a signicant portion ol thc world com
munity has now banncd land minc usc.
6
vcn thc idca ol asymmctric warlarc,

which has a prcdominatc placc in thc contcmporary lcxicon, has long bccn a part
ol a mcans ol warlarc practiccd by both nonstatc
8
and statc actors.

Tc asym
civilian objccts, in particular cultural propcrty, protcction ol all thosc who do not (or
no longcr) takc activc part in hostilitics, as wcll as prohibition ol mcans ol warlarc
proscribcd in intcrnational armcd conicts and ban ol ccrtain mcthods ol conduct
ing hostilitics.).
Scc Vatkin, supra notc a, at a.
6 ., Convcntion on thc Prohibition ol thc Usc, Stockpiling, Production and Translcr
ol AntiPcrsonncl Mincs and on Tcir cstruction.
, Scc S. Mctz & .\. Johnson !!, symmetry and U.S. Military Strategy: Denition,
Background, and Strategic Concepts, Strategic Studies Institute Feport, US Army Var
Collcgc, 6 (acc.). (Acting, organizing and thinking dicrcntly than opponcnts in
ordcr to maximizc oncs own advantagcs, cxploit an opponcnts wcakncsscs, attain
thc initiativc, or gain grcatcr lrccdom ol action.).
Asymmctric attacks arc inhcrcntly part ol what John Kccgan has tcrmcd thc oricn
tal way ol war which dcscribcs a dicrcnt way ol waging war with traits ol cvasion,
dclay and indircctncss. Scc John Kccgan, History of !arfare, (\intagc 8ooks,
.).
Asymmctric warlarc can also bc conductcd by statcs. For cxamplc, thc Allics madc
cxtcnsivc usc ol spccial opcrations lorccs during Vorld Var !! to support organizcd
rcsistancc movcmcnts in occupicd tcrritorics. Such spccializcd lorccs includcd thc
Spccial pcrations xccutivcS, thc cc ol Stratcgic ScrviccsSS and thc
275 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
mctric usc ol military and paramilitary spccial lorccs to countcr thc thrcat ol
intcrnational tcrrorism has bccn onc ol thc hallmarks ol thc Var on Tcrror.
o
cspitc considcrablc dcbatc about thc status ol dctainccs capturcd during
opcrations lollowing thc /.. attacks, unlawlul combatants or unprivilcgcd
bclligcrcnts
+
havc cxistcd throughout history.
:
Similarly, tcrrorism is ncithcr
modcrn nor cxccptional. Tcrrorist acts prcdatc thc a.
st
ccntury usc ol thc tcrm.

Tc statc initiatcd modcrn conccpt ol thc Rcign ol Tcrror was introduccd
during thc Frcnch Rcvolution.

Furthcr, thc two traditional principlcs ol thc

law govcrning thc conduct ol hostilitics: thc rcquircmcnt to distinguish bctwccn
combatants and civilians and limitations on thc mcthods and mcans ol war
larc, continuc to providc thc lundamcntal principlcs upon which intcrnational
humanitarian law is bascd.

Russian Ccntral Sta ol thc Partisan Movcmcnt. Scc Robcrt 8. Asprcy, Var in thc
Shadows, chap. . to . (oublcday and Co. !nc., .,) No. !. Tc post Vorld Var
!! usc ol spccial lorccs is outlincd in books such as Stcphcn orril, M!6: !nsidc thc
Covcrt Vorld ol Hcr Majcstys Sccrct !ntclligcncc Scrvicc ,a (Touchstonc, acca),
John Prados, Lost Crusadcr: Tc Sccrct Vars ol C!A ircctor Villiam Colby ac,
a (xlord Univcrsity Prcss, acc) and Stcvc Coll, Ghost Vars: Tc Sccrct History
ol thc C!A, Alghanistan and 8in Ladcn, From thc Sovict !nvasion to Scptcmbcr .c,
acc. (Pcnguin 8ooks, acc).
c For an outlinc ol a.st ccntury spccial lorccs involvcmcnt scc Max 8oot, Te Struggle
to Transform the Military, For. A. .c (March/April acc), Linda Robinson,
Mastcrs ol Chaos: Tc Sccrct History ol thc Spccial Forccs ..c (Public Aairs,
acc) (outlining Unitcd Statcs Spccial Forccs opcrations in Alghanistan), Gary C.
Schrocn, First !n: An !nsidcrs Account ol How thc C!A Spcarhcadcd thc Var on
Tcrror in Alghanistan (8allcntinc, acc) and Ruth Jamicson & Kicran Mcvoy,
State Crime by Proxy and Juridical Othering, 8rit. J. Crim. L. c, c.c (acc).
. Scc Richard R. 8axtcr, So-called Unpri.ileged Belligerency: Spies, Guerrillas, and
Saboteurs, a 8rit.Y.8. !ntl L. a, a (..), whcrc unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts arc
dcncd as pcrsons who arc not cntitlcd to trcatmcnt cithcr as pcacclul civilians or
as prisoncrs ol war by rcason ol thc lact that thcy havc cngagcd in hostilc conduct
without mccting thc qualications cstablishcd by Articlc ol thc Gcncva Prisoncrs
ol Var Convcntion ol ..
a Scc rapcr, supra notc .. Scc also Kcnncth Vatkin, !arriors !ithout Fights?
Combatants, Unpri.ileged Belligerents, nd Te Struggle O.er Legitimacy a ccasional
Papcr Scrics ,a (Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conict Rcscarch Harvard
Univcrsity, Vintcr acc) availablc at http://www.hpcr.org/pdls/ccasionalPapcra.
pdl.
Scc 8crnard Lcwis, Tc Assassins: A Radical Scct in !slam .a.c (Phocnix, .6,)
(acc), whcrc hc indicatcs thc Assassin scct ol thc mcdicval pcriod may wcll havc
bccn thc rst tcrrorists.
Charlcs Townscnd, Tcrrorism: A \cry Short !ntroduction 6, (xlord Univcrsity
Prcss, acca).
Scc J.M. Spaight, Var Rights on Land , (photo. rcprint .,) (...). (|T|hc scpara
tion ol armics and pcacclul inhabitants into two distinct classcs is pcrhaps thc grcat
cst triumph ol !ntcrnational Law.).
276 Kenneth !atkin
Tcrc has bccn considcrablc strcss placcd on longstanding intcrnational
humanitarian law principlcs. Notwithstanding thc continuing importancc ol thc
principlc ol distinction, which has bccn tcrmcd a lundamcntal and intransgrcss
iblc principlc ol customary intcrnational law, this loundational conccpt has bccn
signicantly impactcd by tcchnology.
6
!t was thc dcvastating ccct on civilians
by tcchnologically cmpowcrcd warlarc which lcd to thc commcnt at thc cnd ol
Vorld Var !! that whatcvcr may havc bccn thc original mcrits ol that distinc
tion, thc phcnomcnon ol total war has rcduccd it, in most rcspccts, to a hollow
phrasc.

Tis crosion ol thc principlc ol distinction to thc vanishing point

8

ultimatcly lcd to a post war cort to rcinlorcc its ccct. nc rcsult was a clcar
rclcrcncc to thc principlc as a basic rulc in Additional Protocol !, articlc .
Vhilc thc usc ol airpowcr and long rangc artillcry continuc to challcngc
thc principlc ol distinction, thcir cmploymcnt is prcscribcd by both thc targct
ing prccautions ol that Protocol

and customary intcrnational law,

6o
as wcll as
public pcrccptions ol acccptablc proportional damagc.
6+
!n a.
st
ccntury conict,
it is tcchnologically drivcn inlormation bascd opcrations that prcscnt a ncw and
potcntially grcatcr thrcat to thc principlc ol distinction.
As a thcorctical construct, inlormation opcrations allow you to protcct your
scll bcttcr, rcact lastcr than an opponcnt, and thcn strikc prcciscly and ccctivcly
at that advcrsary.
6:
Tc tcchnological rcvolution, and with it thc globalization ol
thc capacity to inict violcncc, has impactcd dircctly on what has bccn thc basic
building block ol intcrnational sccurity: thc monopolization ol violcncc in thc
hands ol thc statc.
6
!t has cmpowcrcd nonstatc actors to strikc not just across
6 Scc instcin, supra notc , at a and Nuclcar Vcapons pinion, ..c !ntl Law Rcp.
.6 (.6).
, H. Lautcrpacht, Te Problem of the Fe.ision of the La. of !ar, a 8rit. Y.8. !ntl. L.
6c, 6 (.a).
Scc ppcnhcim, supra notc ., at a.
AP !, art , and .
6c Hcnckacrts & oswald8cck, supra notc c, at .,6.
6. Martin \an Crcvcld, Technology and !ar II, in Tc xlord History ol Modcrn Var
., 6a (Charlcs Townscnd cd., acc), whcrc it is suggcstcd that notwithstanding
thc prccision wcapons systcms and gathcring ol cxccllcnt intclligcncc which cna
blcs !sracli clcncc Forccs to targct individual tcrrorists thc rcsulting casualtics still
invokc rcactions that on thc wholc thc rcsults may wcll bc countcrproductivc.
6a !nlormation opcrations havc bccn dcncd as actions takcn to acct advcrsary
inlormation and inlormation systcms whilc dclcnding oncs own inlormation
and inlormation systcms. Scc Michacl Schmitt ct al., Computcrs and Var: Tc
Lcgal 8attlcspacc a (acc) quoting Joint Chicls ol Sta, cpartmcnt ol clcnsc,
ictionary ol Military and Associatcd Tcrms, Joint Publication .ca, April .a, acc.,
at ac, availablc at http://www.ihlrcscarch.org/ihl/pdls/schmittctal.pdl (last visitcd
Jan. ., acc6).
6 Scc Michacl !gnatic, Tc Varriors Honor . (.,), whcrc it is notcd that a major
contcmporary problcm is that somc statcs arc losing thcir monopoly on violcncc.
277 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
bordcrs, but across contincnts. Tcir tools ol dcstruction includc convcntional
wcapons. !ncrcasingly nonstatc actors arc dcmonstrating an ability to acquirc
and cmploy thc modcrn wcapons ol thc statc, as rcprcscntcd by Hczbollahs
rcportcd usc ol unmanncd acrial vchiclcs.
6
Tcy also cmploy a.
st
ccntury wcap
ons such as thc ubiquitous computcr.
6
Most worrying is thc lact that tcrrorist
groups thrcatcn to usc wcapons ol mass dcstruction. Tc cxpansion ol thc abil
ity to kill citizcns on a massivc scalc bcyond thc control ol thc statc has markcd
thc a.st ccntury. cctivcly, thc rclcntlcss advancc ol tcchnology is dcmocratiz
ing or dcnationalizing killing capabilitics.
66
!n many rcspccts, contcmporary
conict has sccn thc rcintroduction ol thc conccpt ol privatc war, an idca that
appcarcd to havc rcccdcd into a historical lootnotc.
6
Statcs havc similarly harncsscd tcchnology to cnablc thcm, through thc
usc ol intclligcncc gathcrcd by satcllitcs, to strikc at individuals lrom unmanncd
acrial vchiclcs lrom signicant distanccs.
68
Tc ability ol statcs to strikc at cncmy
6 He.bollah drone ies o.er Israel, 88C Ncws, Vorld dition (Novcmbcr ,, acc)
availablc at http://ncws.bbc.co.uk/a/hi/middlc_cast/c,,.stm. (last visitcd cc.
a, acc).
6 Scc Vatkin, supra notc a,, at .. Scc also National Stratcgy lor Homcland Sccurity
( July acca) availablc at http://www.whitchousc.gov/homcland/book/sccta..pdl,
whcrc it is indicatcd that tcrrorist groups arc alrcady cxploiting ncw inlormation
tcchnology and thc !ntcrnct lor thc purposcs ol planning attacks.
66 Scc Graham Allison, Nuclcar Tcrrorism: Tc Ultimatc Prcvcntablc Catastrophc .a
.a (First wl 8ooks, acc). Scc also Michacl L. Vald, !idespread Fadioacti.ity
Monitoring is ckno.ledged, N.Y. Timcs.com (a cccmbcr acc) availablc at http://
www.nytimcs.com/acc/.a/a/national/aradioactivc.html:hp&cx-..6cc&cn
-.6l,ccbcc&ci-c&partncr-homcpagc (last visitcd cc. a, acc). (Tc
concrctc naturc ol thc thrcat is cvidcnccd by thc rcaction ol Unitcd Statcs to invokc
intcrnal monitoring ol possiblc radioactivc markcrs lor thc cxistcncc ol dirty bombs
and nuclcar wcapons.).
6, Scc Hugo Grotius, c Jurc 8clli Ac Pacis Libri Trcs (Francis V. Kclscy trans.,
Carncgic cd., .a) (.66) (|Privatc war| is morc ancicnt than public war and has
incontcstably, thc samc naturc as public war, whcrclorc both should bc dcsignatcd
by onc and thc samc tcrm.).
6 Scc avid Johnston & avid . Sangcr, Fatal Strike in Yemen !as Based on Fules
Set out by Bush, N.Y. Timcs, Nov. 6, acca, at A.6 (lor an outlinc ol thc Novcmbcr
acca missilc strikc on Al Qacda suspccts in Ycmcn.). Scc also ana Pricst, Co.ert
CI Program !ithstands Ne. Furor, Vashington Post, cccmbcr c, acc at Ac.
availablc at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/contcnt/articlc/acc/.a/a/
ARacc.aac..html (Tis month, Pakistani intclligcncc sourccs said, Hamza
Rabia, a top opcrational planncr lor al Qacda, was killcd along with lour othcrs
by a missilc rcd by U.S. opcrativcs using an unmanncd Prcdator dronc, although
thcrc wcrc conicting rcports on whcthcr a missilc was uscd.) Scc also ana Pricst,
Sur.eillance Operation in Pakistan Located and Killed l Qaeda Ocial, Vashington
Post, May ., acc at Aa availablc at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
contcnt/articlc/acc/c/./ARaccc.c..a..html. (Tc sourccs said thc Prcdator
dronc, opcratcd lrom a sccrct basc hundrcds ol milcs lrom thc targct, locatcd and
278 Kenneth !atkin
lcadcrs and pcrsonncl bclonging to insurgcnt or tcrrorist groups raiscs ncw and
complcx issucs rcgarding thc application ol thc principlc ol distinction. Furthcr,
it crodcs thc conccpt that thc conduct ol hostilitics might bc casily limitcd to
onc gcographic arca.
6
Tc notion that North Amcricans arc protcctcd lrom thc
cccts ol contcmporary armcd conict by gcography, distancc and physical bor
dcrs has all but disappcarcd. Tc oltcn surrcal thrcat ol nuclcar mutual assurcd
dcstruction during thc Cold Var has bccn rcplaccd by thrcats ol suicidc bomb
crs, dirty radioactivc bombs and bactcriological cvcnts. !t also mcans that
nontraditional military opcrations such as shooting down civilian airlincrs havc
bccomc a vcry rcal possibility.
o
Continuing tcchnological advanccmcnt mcans that luturc opcrations by
nation statcs may involvc hypcrsonic unmanncd aircralt capablc ol ying ,ccc
milcs to dclivcr prccision munitions.
+
!n addition, thc a.st ccntury battlc may
includc computcr nctwork attack on a scalc that dwarls thc almost quaint currcnt
notion ol computcr hacking thrcats poscd by misguidcd tccnagcrs and computcr
gccks carrying out criminal acts. !t is also dicult to know whcthcr a computcr
nctwork attack is initiatcd by a lonc hackcr or a nation statc.
:
As a rcsult, apply
ing thc principlc ol distinction will bccomc signicantly morc challcnging.
Furthcr, thc cxpanding gcographic arca ol opcrations also impacts on thc
principlc ol distinction, which may bc incrcasingly dicult to apply whcn both
thc thrcats and rcsponscs to armcd attack involvc a growing numbcr ol civil
ians. Tc digitalization ol thc battlccld has continucd thc acth ccntury acrial
warlarcinduccd trcnd ol cxtcnding thc lrontlinc to cncompass an incrcasing
numbcr ol uninvolvcd civilians. As Prolcssor instcin has notcd it must bc cat
cgorically statcd that thc cutting cdgc ol novcl tcchnology cannot acct thc irrc
vocablc commitmcnt to basic principlcs: this is why cvcn nuclcar wcapons arc not
bcyond thc rcach ol thc law.

Tc challcngc will bc in applying thc lcgal thcory,

oltcn bascd on .
th
and ac
th
ccntury conccpts ol convcntional conict, to thc rcal
ity ol thc modcrn battlcspacc.
Tc advcnt ol prccision wcaponry raiscs ncw and challcnging qucstions
rcgarding thc conduct ol hostilitics. For instancc, whcn and how must such
highly accuratc wcapons bc uscd: Somc groups cxprcss a prclcrcncc lor thcir
rcd on alYcmcni latc Saturday night in Toorikhcl, Pakistan, a suburb ol Mirali in
thc provincc ol North Vaziristan.).
6 Scc instcin, supra notc a, at .a (lor an outlinc ol thc rcgions ol war thc tcr
ritorics to thc partics to thc conict, thc high scas and thc cxclusivc cconomic zonc
and potcntially through spacc.).
,c Scc Vatkin, supra notc a,, at aa.
,. U.S. Eyes Global Strike Capability !ithin T.o Hours, N.Y. Timcs/Rcutcrs, . July
acc.
,a Scc Jamcs F. unnigan, Tc Ncxt Var Zonc: Conlronting thc Global Trcat ol
Cybcrtcrrorism a,6 (Citadcl Prcss, acc).
, Scc instcin, supra notc , at a6.
279 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
usc in cvcry instancc to minimizc civilian casualtics. Tis could placc prcssurc
on commandcrs who had planncd to husband thcir hightcch rcsourccs lor
othcr attacks or unknown contingcncics. Tcchnological advanccmcnt in tcrms ol
mcdia and communication capability also incrcascs thc chancc that highcr lcvcl
commandcrs, thc mcdia and ultimatcly thc public on both sidcs ol thc conict
will bc closcly analyzing opcrational dccisions long bclorc thc rationalc lor taking
a particular action can bc cxplaincd by thosc at thc tactical lcvcl who actually
madc thc dccision.

Prolcssor Michacl Schmitt has notcd two rcsulting cccts

in rcspcct ol accountability: a tcndcncy ol highcr lcvcl commandcrs to inscrt
thcmsclvcs into thc dccision making proccss ol subordinatc commandcrs and,
convcrscly, thc rcliancc ol subordinatcs on such ovcrsight in licu ol taking action
on thcir own.

!n ordcr lor thc principlc ol distinction to rcmain rclcvant to thc modcrn
battlcspacc, lundamcntal qucstions nccd to bc askcd about how military objcc
tivcs arc distinguishcd lrom civilians and civilian objccts. To this point, thc appli
cation ol thc principlc ol distinction in scparating combatants lrom uninvolvcd
civilians has largcly bccn unilorm or symbol bascd. thcr than thc marking ol
implcmcnts ol war such as tanks, trucks, ships, aircralt, ctc., thc samc symbol
bascd idcntication has not bc rcquircd lor military objccts such as bridgcs, lac
torics and oil production lacilitics.
6
As was notcd by Prolcssor Richard 8axtcr
ovcr c ycars ago, thc cmphasis on thc propcrly unilormcd bclligcrcnt may bc
only a survival lrom thc typc ol war lought by closcly groupcd ranks ol soldicrs,
in which ring upon cvcn individual dctachcd soldicrs was rcgardcd as violativc
ol intcrnational law.

Tcsc words havc cvcn grcatcr rclcvancc to contcmporary

conict.
Tc timc may havc arrivcd oncc again to critically analyzc thc historically
bascd critcria lor distinction with a vicw to addrcssing thc involvcmcnt ol civil
ians and combatants who drcss likc thcm on thc battlccld. arlicr attcmpts
lcading up to thc .c, Haguc Land Varlarc Rcgulations, thc . Gcncva
Convcntions and thc .,, Additional Protocols did not lully rcsolvc what has
bccn onc ol thc most signicant challcngcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law.
8

, Scc Vcst, supra notc 6, at ., lor an account ol how thc mcdia and highcr hcad
quartcrs wcrc awarc ol thc dcaths ol lour murdcrcd Unitcd Statcs 8lackwatcr sccu
rity contractor cmployccs in Fallujah in acc bclorc thc tactical lcvcl commandcr
rcsponsiblc attcmpting to sccurc thc city.
, Scc Michacl Schmitt, Te Impact of High and Lo.-Tech !arfare on the Principle of
Distinction, Vorking Papcr, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conict Rcscarch
at Harvard Univcrsity (Novcmbcr acca) at .., at http://www.ihlrcscarch.org/ihl/
pdls/bricnga6.pdl (last visitcd Jan. ., acc6).
,6 Scc instcin, supra notc , at .
,, Scc 8axtcr, supra notc ., at .
, Scc Spaight, supra notc , at . (As Jamcs Spaight notcd in ... thc dclcgatcs to thc
.c, conlcrcncc had almost shirkcd thcir task a task ol grcat diculty, it must bc
280 Kenneth !atkin
Tc prcssurc to do so is incrcasing, not only bccausc contcmporary conict
involvcs insurgcnts and tcrrorists, but also bccausc ol thc widcsprcad usc by
statcs ol civilians to support thc opcration ol thcir armcd lorccs and in othcr
sccurity opcrations.

Tis issuc has a signicant impact on targcting. !t is bccom

ing incrcasingly rclcvant to asscss thc lunction pcoplc pcrlorm rathcr than thc
typc ol clothcs or symbols thcy wcar whcn dcciding whcthcr thcy arc valid mili
tary objcctivcs.
8o
Tis is what makcs initiativcs, such as thosc sponsorcd by thc
!CRC and thc Asscr !nstitutc, to dctcrminc what is mcant by thc tcrm taking a
dircct part in hostilitics so important at thc dawn ol thc a.
st
ccntury.
8+

III Is Ixisting Iaw Up to the Challenge?
Vith thc naturc ol a.
st
ccntury conict placing humanitarian law undcr uniquc
strcss thc qucstion ariscs as to whcthcr that normativc lramcwork is up to thc
task ol rcgulating modcrn armcd conict. Tc lollowing analysis will cxplorc
thrcc arcas ol this issuc: thc adcquacy ol cxisting law, rcsistancc to changc, and
wcakncsscs in thc humanitarian law lramcwork.
Te dequacy of Existing La.
Tcrc appcar to bc two main challcngcs to intcrnational humanitarian law. First
is thc qucstion ol whcthcr cxisting law adcquatcly rcccts thc complcxity and
scopc ol contcmporary armcd conict cvcn though many ol thc challcngcs arc
admittcdin lailing to rcach a comprchcnsivc dcnition ol bclligcrcnts.) Tcrc is
also widcsprcad rccognition that thc postVorld Var !! rcquircmcnt lor organizcd
rcsistancc movcmcnts to wcar a xcd distinctivc sign sct out in GC !!!, art. A.(a)
was an amcndmcnt to thc law which providcs PV status only undcr thc most
cxccptional circumstanccs. For cxamplc, scc cxamplc Howard Lcvic in Prisoners of
!ar in International rmed Conict, !ntcrnational Law Studics ., a whcrc hc
indicatcs this amcndmcnt changcd littlc ol cxisting law.
, For cxamplc, scc Michacl Schmitt, Humanitarian La. and Direct Participation
in Hostilities by Pri.ate Contractors or Ci.ilian Employees, Chic. J. !ntl. L. ..
(acc), P.V. Singcr, Outsourcing !ar, For. A. .. (March/April acc), and Avril
Mconald, Te Legal Status of Military and Security Contractors, in !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law and thc a.
st
Ccntury Conicts a. (Robcrta Arnold & Picrrc
Antoinc Hildcbrand cds., acc).
c Scc Kcnncth Vatkin, Humans in the Cross-Hairs: Targeting, ssassination and Extra-
Legal Killing in Contemporary rmed Conict, in Ncw Vars, Ncw Laws: Applying
thc Laws ol Var in a.st Ccntury Conicts .. (avid Vippman & Matthcw
vangclista cds., acc).
. Second Expert Meeting on Direct Participation in Hostilities under International
Humanitarian La., Tc Haguc, a a6 ctobcr acc, Coorganizcd by thc !CRC
and thc TMC Asscr !nstitutc availablc at http://www.icrc.org/Vcb/cng/sitccngc.
nsl/htmlall/TALL/sFilc/ircct_participation_in_hostilitics_acc_cng.pdl (last
visitcd cc. a, acc).
281 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
not ncw. Sccondly, in rcspcct ol thc signicant ncw challcngcs, is thc law prop
crly positioncd to dcal with thc cccts ol thc changing naturc ol warlarc: As thc
lollowing analysis suggcsts, it is unclcar whcthcr cxisting law is up to thc task on
cithcr account.
As law scrvcs two main lunctions in socicty rcgulating thc aairs ol all
pcrsons and acting as a standard ol conduct and morality it appcars scll cvi
dcnt that thc ccctivcncss ol thc law will bc dcpcndcnt upon thc dcgrcc to which
that law rcccts thc nccds and challcngcs lacing that socicty.
8:
Pursuant to thc
contcmporary highly positivist intcrprctations ol intcrnational law, thc govcrn
ing lcgal lramcwork is a mix ol trcaty law and customary intcrnational law. 8oth
lorms ol law havc thcir inhcrcnt limitations.
Tc proccss lor ncgotiating intcrnational trcatics can bc cumbcrsomc, oltcn
rcsulting in a product that rcccts political compromiscs. nc ol thc bcst cxam
plcs ol compromisc that produccd a rcsult which is dicult to apply is thc limi
tation lound in thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion rcstricting prisoncr ol war status
to mcmbcrs ol organizcd rcsistancc movcmcnts who mcct thc traditional vis
iblc signs ol bclligcrcncy (i.c., distinctivc signs visiblc at a distancc).
8
Customary
intcrnational law has its own limitations, to thc cxtcnt it has traditionally bccn
dcpcndcnt upon statc practicc to prcscribc its scopc.
8
!n tcrms ol intcrnational
humanitarian law, thc trcatics thcmsclvcs oltcn providc cvidcncc ol customary
practicc. Howcvcr, il thosc trcatics do not kccp pacc with thc changing nccds ol
socicty thcn thcir rclcvancc may bc incrcasingly callcd into qucstion.
B Fesistance to Change
As Prolcssor instcin has notcd, thcrc has bccn a trcnd ol a signicant rcvicw
ol intcrnational humanitarian law cvcry quartcr ccntury.
8
Howcvcr, at thc turn
a Gcrald Gall, Tc Canadian Lcgal Systcm . (Carswcll, .c). Ultimatcly, consid
cration ol thc lunction pcrlormcd by thc law must bc tcmpcrcd with considcra
tion ol its morc complcx intcraction with politics and morality. Scc numa Yasuaki,
International La. in and .ith International Politics: Te Functions of International
La. in International Society, . ur. J. !ntl. L. .c, .c6 (acc). (Law is a tool ol poli
tics, but at thc samc timc politics is cxpcctcd to bc conductcd within thc lramcwork
ol law. Tus it is mcaninglul and usclul to comparc lunctions ol law with thosc ol
morality and ol politics.).
For cxamplc, scc Howard Lcvic, Prisoners of !ar in International rmed Conict,
!ntl L. Studics ., a. (Tis attcmptcd cnlargcmcnt ol thc provisions ol prior con
vcntions accomplishcd littlc or nothing.).
Scc Anthca lizabcth Robcrts, Traditional and Modern pproaches to Customary
International La.: Feconciliation, Am. J. !ntl. L. ,, (acc.), lor a discussion ol
thc challcngcs ol asscssing customary intcrnational law in rcspcct ol thc traditional
(statc practicc) and modcrn (opinion juris) approachcs.
Scc instcin, supra notc a, at a,. Tc ac to c ycar pcriodic rcturn to codication
is rccctcd in thc lollowing major initiativcs sincc thc mid.ccs: .6.6 (Tc
282 Kenneth !atkin
ol thc a.
st
ccntury thcrc appcars to bc a lundamcntal rcsistancc to considcring
changcs to cxisting intcrnational humanitarian law. nc rationalc lor this rcluc
tancc is providcd by Anthony workin whcn hc statcs rcopcning thc dcbatc will
allow groups to push lor othcr changcs to thc law that could sct back humani
tarian valucs.
86
Tc !ntcrnational Committcc ol thc Rcd Cross (thc !CRC) has
also cxprcsscd similar conccrns.
8

At thc samc timc, rcsistancc to changc is not uniquc to groups or individuals
with a humanitarian locus. Tc Unitcd Statcs has not raticd Additional Protocol
!.
88
As that Protocol was draltcd spccically to dcal with thc changing naturc ol
conict associatcd with gucrrilla warlarc and national libcration movcmcnts in
thc post Vorld Var !! cra, thc unwillingncss to adjust thc law to mcct thc rcali
tics ol thosc conicts dcmonstratcs a prclcrcncc lor thc midccntury lcgal status
quo.
8
Such rcsistancc to changc, particularly by dominant nation statcs, has bccn
a rcgular lcaturc in thc dcvclopmcnt ol intcrnational humanitarian law.
o

Licbcr Codc ol .6 and thc .6 Gcncva Convcntion lor thc Amclioration ol thc
Condition ol thc Voundcd in Armics in thc Ficld), .,.c, (Tc Haguc proc
css: Tc ., 8russcls cclaration, . Haguc Conlcrcncc and thc .c, Haguc
Convcntion and its Rcgulations), .a (Tc two Gcncva Convcntions lor thc Sick
and Voundcd as wcll as Prisoncrs ol Var), . (Tc lour Gcncva Convcntions lor
thc Sick and Voundcd on Land and at Sca, Prisoncrs ol Var and Civilians) and .,,
(thc Additional Protocols).
6 Scc Anthony workin, Fe.ising the La. of !ar to ccount for Terrorism: the Case
gainst Updating the Gene.a Con.entions, On the Ground Tat Changes re Likely
Only to Damage Human Fights, availablc at http://writ.ncws.ndlaw.com/commcn
tary/acccac_dworkin.html (last visitcd Jan. ., acc6).
, Scc r. Jakob Kcllcnbcrgcr, International Humanitarian La. at the Beginning of
the :zst Century, Statcmcnt at thc a6
th
Round Tablc in San Rcmo on thc Currcnt
Problcms ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law: Tc Two Additional Protocols to thc
Gcncva Convcntions: a Ycars LatcrChallcngcs and Prospccts (Scp. , acca), avail
ablc at http://www.icrc.org/Vcb/cng/sitccngc.nsl/html/aC\:pcnocumcnt.
(||o thcy want to lowcr cxisting standards ol protcction: As lar as this last point
is conccrncd, you will undcrstand that thc !CRC will ncvcr bc associatcd with initia
tivcs aimcd at wcakcning cxisting standards ol protcction.).
Scc ouglas J. Fcith, Protocol I: Mo.ing Humanitarian La. Back.ards, . Akron
Law Rcv. . (.6).
Scc Richard 8axtcr, Humanitarian La. or Humanitarian Politics? Te z,,, Diplomatic
Conference on Humanitarian La., .6 Harv. !ntl L. J. ., (.,).
c Scc Spaight, supra notc , at , lor a discussion ol thc disagrccmcnt at thc turn ol
thc ac
th
ccntury bctwccn thc dominant military powcrs (c.g. Prussia) and what wcrc
tcrmcd thc sccondary powcrs (c.g. Francc, Unitcd Kingdom) conccrning thc clas
sication ol lawlul bclligcrcnts. Tc dominant powcrs dcmonstratcd a prclcrcncc lor
rcgular unilormcd armcd lorccs, whilc thc opposing powcrs championcd rccognition
lor lcss structurcd nationalistic lorccs such as thc le.ee en masse. Similar discussions
markcd thc ncgotiations ol thc . Gcncva Convcntions and thc .,, Additional
Protocols. Scc Vatkin, supra notc a, at a and .
283 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
Tc potcntial lor a conict bctwccn somc statcs and groups sccking to main
tain, il not cxpand, humanitarian protcction, appcars to havc incrcascd in thc post
/.. pcriod. Controvcrsics such as thc scopc ol thc war on tcrror, thc status ol
unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts and thc standards ol trcatmcnt lor dctaincd pcrsons
havc scrvcd to lurthcr solidily thc undcrlying tcnsion that has always cxistcd in
intcrnational humanitarian law: cnsuring a basic lcvcl ol protcction lor humanity
whilc conducting warlarc.
For practitioncrs conlrontcd with applying intcrnational humanitarian law
on thc lrontlincs, thc task ol cnsuring compliancc with thc cxisting rulcs may
bc sccn as thc primary challcngc. !t is a sad truth that il thc world simply applicd
thc rulcs that wc now havc in placc, signicantly morc dcath, dcstruction and
human sucring would bc avoidcd. !t is not cnough to sign a trcaty. Statcs also
havc to takc positivc stcps to cnact domcstic law or othcrwisc cnsurc that thc
provisions ol thc intcrnational trcatics arc put into ccct. Tc !CRC Prcsidcnt
cnunciatcd thc organizations position in acca:
thc grcatcst challcngc today towards which thc !CRC, but also thc intcr
national community as wholc, should dircct its cncrgics is cnsuring grcatcr
rcspcct ol cxisting rulcs. Vithout grcatcr rcspcct ol cxisting rulcs thc crcdibil
ity and protcctivc valuc ol ncw rulcs would also bc vcry limitcd.
+
Tcrc is both wisdom and practical rcality rccctcd in thcsc words. As Prolcssor
instcin has notcd, |l|aw must not bc conluscd with liturgy. !t is not cnough to
prcscribc and rcitcratc thc law: to bc mcaninglul, norms must bc adhcrcd to in
rcality.
:
All too oltcn thc application ol thc humanitarian rulcs, both in princi
plc and in thcir dctail, would signicantly lcsscn thc sucring that cxists in armcd
conict. Howcvcr, thc qucstion rcmains whcthcr thc cxisting rulcs, cvcn il lully
implcmcntcd, will mcct thc nccds ol modcrn armcd conict.
!n ccct, a dccision to conccntratc on cnlorcing thc cxisting trcaty law is a
commitmcnt to implcmcnt onc quartcrccntury, onc hallccntury and, in somc
instanccs, ccntury old laws. !n addition, thc cxisting law has always rclicd on
gcncral principlcs to ll what would othcrwisc bc gaps in thc cxisting positivc
law rcgimc. Vhilc gcncral principlcs, such as thc Martcns clausc,

arc csscntial
clcmcnts ol thc humanitarian normativc lramcwork, it is thc rich dctail ol trcaty
documcnts such as thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion which providcs thc most ccr
. Scc Kcllcnbcrgcr, supra notc ,.
a Scc instcin, supra notc , at a,.
Scc Ministry ol Forcign Aairs, Tc !ntcrnational Pcacc Conlcrcncc (Martinus
Nijho, .c,), thc principlcs ol intcrnational law dcrivcd lrom cstablishcd custom,
thc principlcs ol humanity and thc dictatcs ol public conscicncc. Scc also Antonio
Casscsc, Te Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky?, .. ur. J. !ntl. L.
., (accc).
284 Kenneth !atkin
tain protcction. For that rcason, thc Tird Convcntion is hcld out as thc standard
cvcn lor thosc who do not qualily lor combatant status.

Givcn both thc changc in thc naturc ol combat and thc prcdominancc ol
intcrnal conict, it appcars incrcasingly dicult to maintain an argumcnt that
thc status quo providcs cithcr sucicnt protcction to victims or adcquatc guid
ancc lor commandcrs and thcir political lcadcrs. Tc rcsulting nccd to idcntily
and clarily thc customary lcgal rulcs govcrning contcmporary conict undcr
pinncd thc !CRCs Customary !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Study.

C Cracks in the rmour of Humanitarian La.

!t is possiblc to suggcst thcrc arc no gaps in protcction whcn taking thc cxist
ing trcaty law and gcncral principlcs ol humanitarian law into considcration.
Howcvcr, cvcn in such an approach, a signicant numbcr ol unrcsolvcd issucs
and arcas rcmain in which protcction could bc cnhanccd by a morc dctailcd
articulation ol thc law. Tcy includc: thc status and trcatmcnt ol pcrsons who
arc not lawlul combatants, thc intcrlacc bctwccn human rights law and intcr
national humanitarian law, clarilying thc intcrlacc bctwccn jus ad bellum and jus
in bello, and addrcssing thc dcgrcc to which thc prcscnt positivc law rcgimc lully
addrcsscs thc naturc ol contcmporary armcd conict.
i Unprivilcgcd 8clligcrcnts
Tc conlusion that has swirlcd around thc dctcntion ol Taliban and Al Qacda
pcrsonncl in thc post /.. pcriod highlights thc lack ol clarity in cxisting intcrna
tional humanitarian law rcgarding thc status ol unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts. Tc
dcbatc has bccn cmotionally chargcd, with allcgations that dctainccs havc bccn
kcpt in a lcgal black holc.
6

!n much ol contcmporary analysis, thc status ol participants in conict is
commonly addrcsscd by rclying on a bright linc intcrprctation ol thc principlc
ol distinction, onc that scts out two privilcgcd classcs: combatants and civilians.
Tis approach is rccctcd in thc wording ol articlc c(.) ol Additional Protocol !,
whcrc civilians arc idcnticd as thosc who do not qualily lor lawlul combatant
Scc AP !, art. ().
Scc Hcnckacrts & oswald8cck, supra notc ., at xxviii, whcrc it is notcd thc
wcalth ol trcaty law docs not rcgulatc a largc proportion ol todays armcd conicts
in sucicnt dctail.
6 Scc thc UK Court judgcmcnt ol Abassi and Anor. v. Sccrctary ol Statc lor Forcign
and Commonwcalth Aairs & Sccrctary ol Statc lor thc Homc cpartmcnt (acca)
availablc at http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi:doc-/cw/cascs/VCA/Civ/
acca/..html, and Johan Stcyn, Guantanamo Bay: Te Legal Black Hole, a,
th
F.A.
Mann Lccturc, (Novcmbcr a, acc), availablc at http://www.biicl.org/admin/lcs/
FacAacMANN.doc (both last visitcd Jan. ., acc6).
285 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
status.

Vhilc such an approach is conccptually simplc, it docs not lully account

lor cithcr thc historical involvcmcnt in intcrnational armcd conict ol nonstatc
armcd groups who lack lawlul status,
8
or thc loss ol lawlul status by combatants
thcmsclvcs who conduct cspionagc, sabotagc or othcrwisc participatc in hostili
tics without mccting thc critcria ol lawlul combatancy.
Notwithstanding thc wording ol Additional Protocol !, thcrc is no univcr
sal agrccmcnt among intcrnational scholars that pcrsons who takc a dircct part
in hostilitics havc civilian status. nc approach has bccn to catcgorizc such par
ticipants as unlawlul combatants scparatc lrom civilians. Tis is a position that
Prolcssor instcin has takcn, somctimcs in thc lacc ol signicant opposition
lrom thosc who rcly on a narrow litcral intcrprctation ol thc tcxt ol Additional
Protocol !.

Tc narrow intcrprctation only rccognizcs thc spccic tcxtual rclcr
cnccs to lawlul combatants and civilians.
+oo
!l a pcrson docs not qualily as a
lawlul combatant thcn thcy havc civilian status. Such an intcrprctation has thc
potcntial to cxpand thc protcction availablc to civilians, sincc thcy cannot bc tar
gctcd unlcss and lor such timc as thcy takc a dircct part in hostilitics. Howcvcr,
it also could crodc thc sanctity ol civilian status il insurgcnt and othcr armcd
groups, who havc no chancc ol attaining combatant status, arc pcrmittcd to hidc
bchind its protcctivc covcr.
+o+

!n rcality, thc tcxt ol Additional Protocol ! suggcsts a much morc nuanccd
trcatmcnt ol combatant status than would a narrow intcrprctation rclying pri
marily on articlc c(.). Tis is cvidcnt in articlc (), whcrc a combatant who
lails to mcct thc rclaxcd standards applicablc in uniquc circumstanccs (duc to
thc naturc ol hostilitics, i.c., occupations and wars ol national libcration) lorlcits
thc right to bc a prisoncr ol war. !t is not cvidcnt that such combatants would
bccomc civilians and, thcrclorc, it could bc argucd thcy rcprcscnt a class ol
unlawlul combatant. Similarly, notwithstanding thc spccic catcgorics com
batant and civilian, thc Protocol rclcrs gcncrically to |a|ny pcrson who has
takcn part in hostilitics whcn outlining thc protcction availablc to thosc who
, Scc also Prosccutor v. 8laskic, !T.A (Appcal Chambcr) paras. ..... (a July
acc), availablc at http://www.un.org/icty/blaskic/appcal/judgcmcnt/blaajcc,ac.
pdl.
l coursc thc Allics madc considcrablc usc ol organizcd rcsistancc movcmcnts
during Vorld Var !!. Scc Asprcy, supra notc . !t would bc vcry dicult to arguc
that most ol thcsc proxy warriors qualicd lor lawlul combatant and thcrclorc
PV status undcr thc .c, Haguc Land Varlarc Rcgulations.
Scc instcin, supra notc , at a. (A pcrson who cngagcs in military raids by night,
whilc purporting to bc an innoccnt civilian by day, is ncithcr a civilian nor a lawlul
combatant. Hc is an unlawlul combatant. Hc is a combatant in thc scnsc that hc can
bc lawlully targctcd by thc cncmy, but hc cannot claim thc privilcgcs appcrtaining to
lawlul combantancy. Nor docs hc cnjoy thc bcncts ol civilian status .).
.cc AP !, art. c(.).
.c. AP !, art. c().
286 Kenneth !atkin
do not qualily lor prisoncr ol war status.
+o:
Tis phrasc could quitc comlortably
cncompass traditional unlawlul combatants.
!t could bc argucd thcrc arc vc dicrcnt classcs ol pcoplc: lawlul com
batants who lall within articlc ol Additional Protocol !, othcrwisc lawlul
combatants who lall within articlc (), mcmbcrs ol organizcd armcd groups
who do not qualily as combatants undcr articlc ,
+o
civilians who takc a dircct
part in hostilitics,
+o
and uninvolvcd civilians. Along this continuum, thc sccond,
third and lourth catcgorics could bc vicwcd as unlawlul combatants rathcr than
simply civilians.
Tc approach takcn in thc !CRC Customary Law Study rclcrring gcncri
cally to combatant lor both intcrnational and nonintcrnational armcd conict
lails to rcsolvc thc cxisting conlusion.
+o
!t implics that thc gcncric tcrm docs
not raisc issucs ol status. Howcvcr, conccrn ovcr combatant status bcing asso
ciatcd with nonstatc actors has bccn a continuing impcdimcnt to both thc adop
tion ol Additional Protocol ! and thc cxtcnsion ol intcrnational humanitarian
law standards to nonintcrnational armcd conict. Somc conlusion has also bccn
crcatcd by thc Unitcd Statcs usc ol an cvcn morc gcncric tcrm: cncmy combat
ants.
+o6
!n addition, thc dccision by thc Unitcd Statcs govcrnmcnt to dcny PV
status to Taliban ghtcrs as a group has gcncratcd considcrablc critical commcnt
(although group dcnial is lcgally possiblc undcr cxisting intcrnational humani
tarian law).
+o

.ca AP !, art. ().
.c Tcsc groups could bc organizcd armcd lorccs not bclonging to a statc or a national
libcration movcmcnt or transnational tcrrorist organizations such as Al Qacda.
.c For an outlinc ol thc broad rangc ol contcmporary insurgcnt ghtcrs, albcit not
in thc contcxt ol an intcrnational armcd conict whcrc AP ! would apply, scc Vcst,
supra notc , at .a. (Tc !raqis who lought in thc vcday battlc lor Ramadi wcrc a
mixturc ol committcd insurgcnts, scmibclicvcrs, or Minutcmcn, and thc cmotional
tagalongs who grabblcd a wcapon, ran alongsidc thc Marincs lrom a salc distancc ol
a block, thcn cxubcrantly trottcd homc. Not all rcd a wcapon, most rushcd around,
yclling to onc anothcr, brandishing wcapons, rcturning to thcir homcs swcaty and
cxcitcd, latcr in cocchouscs and on strcct corncrs lcvcrishly cxchanging storics ol
ncarmisscs with dcath.).
.c Hcnckacrts & oswald8cck, supra notc c, at . Scc also Chap. (whcrc combat
ant and prisoncr ol war status is only dcalt with in thc contcxt ol intcrnational armcd
conict).
.c6 Scc Hamdi v. onald H. Rumslcld, a U.S. ., a, .a (acc). Tc tcrms cncmy com
batants, lawlul combatants and unlawlul combatants arc uscd.
.c, Tc !CRC Commcntarics to Art. , para. .6, statc that notwithstanding consid
crablc discussion on this issuc at thc timc ol thc dcvclopmcnt ol AP ! this in no way
dctracts lrom thc lact that armcd lorccs as such must submit to thc rulcs ol intcr
national law applicablc in armcd conict, this bcing a constitutivc condition lor thc
rccognition ol such lorcc, within thc mcaning ol Articlc .
287 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
!t is clcar that Additional Protocol ! trcatmcnt ol combatant status is not,
on closc analysis, as clcar cut as articlc c(.) might suggcst. Similarly, whilc thc
. Gcncva Convcntions havc bccn rccognizcd as rcccting customary intcr
national law, thcy ncithcr rcsolvcd thc issuc ol combatancy, nor cntircly rcplaccd
customary law rcgarding combatant status, or thc lack thcrcol.
+o8
Tcrc rcmains
thc rich history and customary lcgal basis ol unlawlul combatancy.
+o
!n this
rcgard, thc suggcstion in .. that thc problcm ol thc gucrrilla ghtcr is still onc
ol customary intcrnational law rcmains valid in thc complcx sccurity situation
ol a.
st
ccntury warlarc.
++o

Until stcps arc takcn to concrctcly addrcss thc cxistcncc ol unprivilcgcd
bclligcrcncy, and providc morc dctailcd standards ol trcatmcnt to pcrsons who
do not havc lawlul combatant status, it is dicult to scc how many ol thc cxist
ing controvcrsics will bc rcsolvcd. Tc problcm that has plagucd intcrnational
humanitarian law sincc thc carlicst corts at codication continuc to prcscnt
signicant problcms lor courts, practitioncrs, acadcmics and humanitarian law
advocatcs.
ii Tc !ntcrlacc bctwccn !ntcrnational Human Rights
and Humanitarian Law
Anothcr challcnging dcmand is thc nccd to morc clcarly articulatc thc intcrlacc
bctwccn intcrnational human rights law and humanitarian law. Such challcngcs
arc particularly cvidcnt in situations ol low lcvcl conict involving insurgcnts
and tcrrorists, in which law cnlorccmcnt opcrations may bc conductcd alongsidc
armcd conict.
Tc Nuclear !eapons Case,
+++
with its acknowlcdgcmcnt that intcrnational
humanitarian law is a lex specialis, providcd an important rclcrcncc point rcgard
ing thc intcraction bctwccn intcrnational human rights norms and intcrnational
humanitarian law in intcrnational armcd conict. Howcvcr, much rcmains unrc
.c For cxamplc, scc 8axtcr, supra notc .. Tis loundational work writtcn in .., just
lollowing thc crcation ol thc . Gcncva Convcntions, clcarly cstablishcd thc
continuing rclcvancc ol what thc author callcd unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts. Scc
also Tc Nurcmburg Tribunal Casc, Tc Hostagcs Casc, Trials ol Var Criminals
(Vashington: Govcrnmcnt Printing cc .c), whcrc mcmbcrs ol rcsistancc
movcmcnts not having lawlul combatant status arc tcrmcd unlawlul bclligcrcnts.
.c For an outlinc ol that history scc Lcstcr Nurick and Rogcr V. 8arrctt, Legality of
Guerrilla Forces Under the La.s of !ar, c Am. J. ol !ntl L. 6 (.6), Ex Parte Quirin,
., U.S. . (.a), 8axtcr, supra notc ., G.!.A.. rapcr, Te Status of Combatants and
the Question of Guerrilla !arfare, 8rit. Y. 8. !ntl. L. ., (.,.), and Vatkin, supra
notc a, at 6.
..c Scc 8axtcr, supra notc ., at ,.
... Lcgality ol thc Trcat or Usc ol Nuclcar Vcapons (Rcqucst by thc Unitcd Nations
Gcncral Asscmbly lor an Advisory pinion, ..c !ntl Law Rcp. .6 (.6).
288 Kenneth !atkin
solvcd. For cxamplc, thc war on tcrror, with its ovcrlap bctwccn law cnlorcc
mcnt and armcd conict paradigms, has intcnsicd thc dcbatc about thc impact
that human rights norms havc in controlling thc usc ol lorcc during armcd con
ict. Tc dynamic ol thc intcrplay bctwccn thc normativc lramcworks appcars, lor
instancc, in two Human Rights Vatch rcports: !iolent Fesponse: Te U.S. rmy
in l-Falluja
++:
and Enduring Freedom: buses by U.S. Forces in fghanistan.
++

Although human rights organizations oltcn lcan towards human rights law solu
tions whcn analyzing thc human rights/humanitarian law intcrlacc, thcrc is a
gcncral rcluctancc on thc part ol statcs to cmbracc that position.
++
Tc problcm
ol ovcrlap occurs not only whcn dcaling with crossbordcr tcrrorism, but also
with rcgard to both occupation and intcrnal armcd conict.
Rcccntly, thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc providcd somc clarication
ol thc mattcr. !n Legal Consequences of the Construction of a !all in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory,
++
thc court dctcrmincd gcncrally that somc rights may bc
cxclusivcly covcrcd by cach arca ol thc law, whilc othcrs may bc mattcrs addrcsscd
by both thcsc branchcs ol intcrnational law. Howcvcr, at this stagc thc ultimatc
solution to this prcssing problcm is not rcadily asccrtainablc in thc customary
or trcaty bascd humanitarian law.
++6
!t is also not always clcar whcthcr intcrna
tional human rights law principlcs arc mcant to providc a govcrning lramcwork
ol humanitarian protcction during armcd conict, or il thcy opcratc mcrcly as a
lorm ol lall back protcction in situations whcrc intcrnational humanitarian law
is silcnt.
Tcrc is incrcasing intcrcst by judicial bodics and human rights advocatcs
in using human rights norms to control thc usc ol lorcc in complcx sccurity situ
ations involving armcd conict.
++
Pcrhaps thc most intcrcsting contcmporary
cxamplcs arisc out ol thc uropcan Court ol Human Rights dccisions rclat
ing to opcrations conductcd by Russian sccurity lorccs in Chcchnya: Isaye.a,
Usupo.a and Ba.aye.a .. Fussia
++8
and Isaye.a .. Fussia.
++
!n thcsc cascs, thc
court applicd humanrights bascd law cnlorccmcnt principlcs to asscss thc usc
ol acrial dclivcrcd munitions in what might ordinarily bc considcrcd, in a de facto
..a . Human Rights Vatch, !raq, No. , (), Junc acc, availablc at http://www.hrw.
org/rcports/acc/iraqlalluja/iraqlalluja.pdl.
.. .6 Human Rights Vatch Rcport, No. (C), March acc, availablc at http://www.
hrw.org/rcports/acc/alghanistancc/alghanistancc.pdl.
.. Scc Vatkin, supra notc a,, at aa.
.. !CJ para. .c6 (acc), availablc at http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/idockct/imwp/
imwplramc.htm (last visitcd . ctobcr acc).
..6 Scc Vatkin, supra notc a,.
.., Scc avid Krctzmcr, Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions
or Legitimate Means of Defence?, .6 ur. J. !ntl. L. .,. (acc).
.. ur. Ct. Hum. Rt., App. Nos. ,,/cc (a Fcb. acc).
.. ur. Ct. Hum. Rt., App. Nos. ,c/cc (a Fcb. acc).
289 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
scnsc, as opcrations at thc armcd conict cnd ol thc hostilitics spcctrum.
+:o
Tis
promptcd a suggcstion that in rcspcct ol intcrnal armcd conicts, thc CtHR
will apply doctrincs it has dcvclopcd on thc usc ol lorcc in law cnlorccmcnt opcr
ations cvcn to largc battlcs involving thousands ol insurgcnts, artillcry attacks,
and acrial bombardmcnt.
+:+

Howcvcr, thc uropcan Court ol Human Rights did not addrcss whcthcr
an armcd conict was occuring or why customary intcrnational humanitarian
law, as was rccognizcd in thc Tadic dccision, was inapplicablc.
+::
Tc court sccms
to a havc rclicd on thc statcs position that thc mattcr was onc ol intcrnal law
cnlorccmcnt sincc no statc ol cmcrgcncy or martial law had bccn dcclarcd and
no dcrogation had bccn madc pursuant to articlc . ol thc uropcan Convcntion
on Human Rights.
+:
!n this rcspcct, thc dctcrmination ol whcn violcncc rcachcs
thc lcvcl ol an armcd conict is both lactually and lcgally dicult, although it
has bccn suggcstcd that thc dccision should not to bc lclt to thc statc.
+:
Tcsc
dccisions will undoubtcdly bc thc subjcct ol critical dcbatc, particularly sincc thc
intcrlacc bctwccn customary intcrnational humanitarian law and thc convcntion
bascd uropcan human rights rcgimc is lclt unrcsolvcd.
+:
Such a dcbatc may
.ac Scc Villiam Abrcsch, Human Fights La. of Internal rmed Conict: Te European
Court of Human Fights in Chechnya, .6 ur. J. !ntl. L. ,., , (acc). (Tc lacts
amply support a Protocol !! charactcrization.).
.a. Ibid., at ,a.
.aa Scc Isaye.a .. Fussia, supra notc .., at , para. ... (Tc Court considcrs that using
this kind ol wcapon |hcavy lrcclalling highcxplosion aviation bombs| in a popu
latcd arca, outside of .artime and without prior cvacuation ol thc civilians, is impos
siblc to rcconcilc with thc dcgrcc ol caution cxpcctcd lrom a lawcnlorccmcnt body
in a dcmocratic socicty (emphasis added ). Rcgarding thc application ol customary
intcrnational humanitarian law to intcrnal conicts scc Te Prosecutor .. Tadic, supra
notc . Scc Abrcsch, supra notc .ac, at ,a (!t is also clcar that |thc CtHR| will
do so |apply law cnlorccmcnt doctrinc| by dircctly applying human rights law, not
only without rclcrcncc to humanitarian law but also in a manncr that is at odds with
humanitarian law.).
.a Isaye.a .. Fussia, supra notc .., at , para. ... (Tis vcry lormal asscssmcnt ol
jurisdiction and thc applicability ol human rights norms appcars to havc bccn madc
indcpcndcntly ol thc actual lcvcls ol violcncc, thc dcgrcc ol organization ol thc
opponcnt or thc ability ol govcrnmcnt sccurity lorccs to cxcrcisc control ovcr thc
tcrritory whcrc thc conict was taking placc.).
.a Scc Nocllc Qucnivct, Te pplicability of International Humanitarian La. to
Situations of a (Counter-) Terrorist Nature, in !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law and
thc a.
st
Ccntury Conicts a, ., n. . (Robcrta Arnold & PicrrcAntoinc Hildcbrand
cds., acc). (Still, this dctcrmination |ol thc cxistcncc ol an armcd conict| is not
lclt to thc Statc. As thc !CTR clcarly announccd in thc kayesu casc thc asccrtain
mcnt ol thc intcnsity ol a nonintcrnational conict docs not dcpcnd on thc sub
jcctivc judgcmcnt ol thc partics to thc conict. Te Prosecutor .. kayesu, Casc No.
!CTR6T, Judgmcnt, a Scptcmbcr ., para. 6c.).
.a Scc Abrcsch, supra notc .ac, at ,, whcrc it is suggcstcd that il human rights law
could ccctivcly rcgulatc such conicts, thc casc lor promoting thc acccptancc ol
290 Kenneth !atkin
rcsult in lundamcntal changcs to thc way in which both intcrnational humanitar
ian law and human rights law arc applicd during armcd conict.
+:6
Notwithstanding thc historical rcluctancc ol statcs to addrcss thc appli
cation ol intcrnational humanitarian law in nonintcrnational conicts, thc
human rights community is acting to ll a pcrccivcd void. Tc !CRC Customary
!ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Study, somc judicial dccisions and numcrous
acadcmic articlcs arc urging that thc timc has comc whcn thc lull naturc ol lun
damcntal principlcs govcrning thc application ol thc usc ol lorcc in armcd con
icts not ol an intcrnational charactcr must bc idcnticd.
iii Tc Scparation bctwccn Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum
!t is oltcn cxprcsscd as an articlc ol laith that thc law rclating to armcd conict is
ncatly dividcd into two scparatc clds: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Tis scpara
tion is rccctcd in thc prcamblc to Additional Protocol !, whcrc it is statcd that
jus in bello law must bc lully applicd in all circumstanccs to all pcrsons who arc
protcctcd by thosc instrumcnts, without any advcrsc distinction bascd on thc
naturc or origin ol thc armcd conict or on thc causcs cspouscd by or attributcd
to thc Partics to thc conict. Howcvcr, thc ccrtainty with which thc scparation
ol intcrnational law into thc two strcams ol jus ad bellum and jus in bello is oltcn
discusscd docs not lully comport with thc lcss clcar and somcwhat arbitrary divi
sion that cxists in rcality.
+:
Vhilc it is clcar that thc application ol humanitarian law standards should
not bc dcpcndcnt upon thc Just Var conccpt ol thc justncss ol a causc, this prin
ciplc is but onc ol scvcn jus ad bellum principlcs.
+:8
At lcast onc ol thc othcrs has a
dircct impact on jus in bello auctoritas principas or ghting lor thc right author
ity. !t is onc ol thc lounding bascs ol combatant status. !l somconc bclongs to
customary rulcs would bc wcakcr.
.a6 Ibid., at ,c. (!t was notcd |h|uman rights law must bc rcalistic in thc scnsc ol not
catcgorically lorbidding killing in thc contcxt ol armcd conict or othcrwisc making
compliancc with thc law and victory in battlc impossiblc to achicvc at oncc.) Scc
also Vatkin, supra notc a,, at aa & c. (Tc attcmpt to apply human rights stand
ards to a situation ol armcd conict could havc an advcrsc impact on thc intcgrity
and strcngth ol pcacctimc norms.).
.a, Scc Robcrt Kolb, Origin of the T.in Terms Jus d BellumJus in Bello, !ntl Rcv. Rcd
Cross , (.,), lor a discussion ol thc rclativcly short lincagc ol two tcrms and thc
linkagc bctwccn thc dccision to makc such a division with thc ac
th
ccntury attcmpt
to outlaw war.
.a Jus ad bellum compriscs scvcn principlcs: war must havc a just causc, compctcnt
authority, thc right intcntion, a rcasonablc hopc ol succcss, ovcrall proportional
ity ol good ovcr harm, bc a last rcsort and havc thc goal ol pcacc. Jus in bello rcccts
two principlcs: distinguishing bctwccn combatants and civilians and that mcans ol
warlarc arc not unlimitcd. Scc Jamcs Turncr Johnson, Morality and Contcmporary
Varlarc a, (Yalc Univcrsity Prcss, .).
291 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
a Party to thc conict,
+:
thcn hc or shc can bc considcrcd a lawlul combatant.
Failurc to ght lor thc right authority rcndcrs thc ghtcrs unlawlul bclligcrcnts.
!n that rcspcct, thc jus ad bellum principlc ol auctoritas principas has a dircct
impact on thc principlc ol distinction, onc ol thc loundational principlcs ol jus
in bello.
Tis raiscs thc qucstion ol thc dcgrcc to which thc standard ol trcatmcnt
aordcd dctainccs should bc bascd on status. As ! havc notcd clscwhcrc, thc
qucstion ol whcthcr unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts arc cntitlcd to prisoncr ol war
likc intcrnmcnt protcctions in occupicd tcrritory was dccidcd c ycars ago. Tosc
intcrnmcnt provisions rccognizc that pcrsons actually chargcd with crimcs can
bc hcld in prctrial dctcntion. Vhat rcmains to bc answcrcd is why thc pro
tcction aordcd to unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts undcr thc . Civilian Gcncva
Convcntion should not also bc cxtcndcd to thosc who tcchnically may bc out
sidc thc rcach
+o
ol thc Civilian Convcntion. !n this rcspcct, it may bc timc lor
humanitarian law advocatcs to conccntratc morc on dctailcd common standards
ol trcatmcnt lor all dctainccs, rathcr than locusing on thc status ol participants.
oing so would thcrcby avoid thc lractious Just Var issuc ol lcgitimization.
++

Tcrc is also, in altcrmath ol /.., a grcatcr rccognition ol thc intcraction
bctwccn thc jus ad bellum and thc jus in bello, at lcast in political tcrms, than tradi
tional lcgal intcrprctation normally admits. !n thc contcxt ol thc war on tcrror,
this includcs considcration ol thc impact thc two lcgal rcgimcs havc on onc
anothcr with rcgard to thc justncss ol thc causc, public support and thc impact
ol tcrrorist activity on notions ol ncutrality.
+:
l coursc, contcmporary qucstions
rcgarding Just Var principlcs arc not linkcd solcly to thc war on tcrror. For cxam
plc, it has bccn suggcstcd that thc proportionality tcst applicd during humanitar
ian intcrvcntions to asscss collatcral civilian injury or damagc during targcting is
.a GC !\, art. A(a).
.c Scc Vatkin, supra notc ., at ,.
.. Ibid., at ,a (8y rcmoving thc dircct conncction to lcgitimacy thcrc may bc an opcn
ing to advancc humanitarian protcction lor conict dctainccs rcgardlcss ol causc or
origin. Unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts would not automatically bc trcatcd as criminals.
ctaincd pcrsons would bc trcatcd on thc basis ol thcir humanity and not thc causc
thcy scrvc, whilc thosc against whom criminal acts can bc cstablishcd would bc sub
jcct to thc appropriatc lcgal proccss.).
.a For cxamplc, scc Adam Robcrts, Counter-terrorism, rmed Force and the La.s of !ar,
no. . Survival ,, (acca). Scc also Gcrald L. Ncuman, Humanitarian La. and
Counterterrorist Force, . ur. J. !ntl. L. a, a6 (acc), whcrc it is notcd that conccrn
ovcr conlcrring inappropriatc lcgitimacy to insurgcnts is partly accommodatcd by
thc rclusal to grant a combatants privilcgc or prisoncr ol war status to insurgcnts,
who may lawlully bc punishcd lor rcsort to arms (illustrating thc inucncc ol jus ad
bellum considcrations on jus in bello). Howcvcr, scc also Abrcsch, supra notc .ac, at
,6. (Vhcthcr thcrc is any such body ol law as thc jus ad bellum ol intcrnal conict
may bc doubtcd. Ncvcrthclcss, conccpts ol sclldctcrmination, thc right ol rcbcllion,
scccssion, constitutional scccssion, ctc., play an analogous rolc.).
292 Kenneth !atkin
morc constraincd than thc onc applicd in traditional armcd conict.
+
Similarly,
as is cvidcnccd in Te Fesponsibility to Protect
+
, with its asscssmcnt ol whcn it
may bc appropriatc to intcrvcnc in thc aairs ol a statc, thcrc is growing prcssurc
to considcr principlcs dcrivcd lrom thc Just Var tradition.
As thc a.
st
ccntury grapplcs with ncw typcs ol conict, thc acth ccntury
conccpt ol a scparation bctwccn thc jus in bello and thc jus ad bellum may not bc
as rclcvant or as clcar cut. To thc cxtcnt cxisting law, or cvcn prcvailing political
opinion, rcccts that vicwpoint, thcrc may bc a rcquircmcnt lor thc jus ad bellum-
jus in bello intcrlacc to bc rcconsidcrcd and claricd.
iv Tc Adcquacy ol thc xisting Positivc Law Framcwork
!t is somcwhat tritc to notc that ncithcr thc . Gcncva Convcntions nor thc
Additional Protocols arc pcrlcct documcnts. Tcy rccct thc compromisc ol
ncgotiation inhcrcnt in thc trcaty making proccss. Vhilc Additional Protocol
! ocrcd a signicant advancc ovcr carlicr laws in its attcmpt to dcal with thc
lull spcctrum ol armcd conict (including gucrrilla warlarc), it docs not covcr all
aspccts ol conict, cithcr complctcly or cvcn that wcll.
!n addition, ccrtain provisions ol cxisting trcaty law arc incrcasingly undcr
scrutiny. As has bccn notcd, thc provision ol articlc c() ol Additional Protocol !
which rcmovcs thc protcction ol civilian status lrom pcrsons unlcss and lor such
timc as thcy takc a dircct part in hostilitics has comc undcr rcvicw as a rcsult ol
thc tcchnologically drivcn capability to strikc prcciscly at individuals wcll bchind
cncmy lincs. Twcntyrst ccntury corts to dctcrminc thc mcaning ol dircct
participation arc rcplctc with disagrccmcnts ovcr issucs such as thc targcting ol
nonstatc actors, whcthcr planncrs can bc attackcd,
+
and how to rcconcilc thc
dicrcnt pcacctimc and armcd conict mcanings ol thc tcrm assassination.
+6

Tc lack ol guidancc in thc Additional Protocol promptcd criticism as carly as
.a that its intcrprctation rcgarding an issuc ol lilc and dcath was lclt to thc
. Scc Michacl 8othc, Te Protection of the Ci.ilian Population and NTO Bombing on
Yugosla.ia: Comments on a Feport to the Prosecutor of the ICTY, .a ur. J. !ntl L. .,
(acc.).
. Te Fesponsibility to Protect, Rcport ol thc !ntcrnational Commission on !ntcrvcntion
and Statc Sovcrcignty X!! (!ntcrnational cvclopmcnt Rcscarch Ccntrc, Canadian
Ministry ol Forcign Aairs cccmbcr acc.), availablc at http://www.iciss.ca/pdl/
CommissionRcport.pdl.
. Scc Antonio Casscssc, Expert Opinion On !hether Israel s Targeted Killings of
Palestinian Terrorists is Consonant .ith International Humanitarian La., Public
Committcc Against Torturc in !sracl ., availablc at http://www.stoptorturc.org.il/
cng/imagcs/uploadcd/publications/6.pdl (last visitcd ct. ., acc).
.6 Unlikc killing in a pcacctimc contcxt, assassination in armcd conict is linkcd
to trcachcry rathcr than thc political naturc ol thc killing. Michacl N. Schmitt,
State Sponsored ssassination in International and Domestic La., ., Yalc Journal ol
!ntcrnational Law 6c, 6 (.a).
293 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
practicc ol statcs.
+
cspitc rcccnt corts to rcach conscnsus on thcsc issucs,
dcnitivc guidancc is unavailablc ovcr two dccadcs latcr.
Tcrc arc many othcr cxamplcs whcrc thc cxisting law can bc improvcd.
Tcrc was considcrablc luror ovcr thc usc ol thc word war in thc immcdiatc
altcrmath ol thc acc. attacks on thc Vorld Tradc Ccntcr towcrs. Vhilc intcr
national lawycrs undcrstand thc purposc ol catcgorizing contcmporary conicts
as armcd conicts, any practitioncr ol humanitarian law who has attcmptcd to
cxplain to laymcn that war no longcr cxists will bc mct with glazcd ovcr cycs and
a dcsirc lor lactual simplicity. Tc tcrminology ol intcrnational humanitarian law
is itscll inconsistcnt with thc vicw that war has bccn outlawcd. Transgrcssions
arc callcd .ar crimcs lor both intcrnational and nonintcrnational armcd con
icts. !n Canadian domcstic lcgislation such as thc mcrgcncics Act,
+8
a .ar
cmcrgcncy is contcmplatcd. !t has also bccn vigorously argucd that thc status
to bc applicd to capturcd Taliban pcrsonncl in Alghanistan lollowing thc /..
attacks is that ol prisoncrs ol .ar. Furthcr, thc activity rcgulatcd in Additional
Protocol ! consists ol mcthods and mcans ol .arlarc.
+

Tc intcrnational humanitarian law trcatics do not, on thcir lacc, providc
unqualicd support to thc charactcrization ol war as a rhctorical tcrm. Tis lack
ol consistcncy and prccision is not hclplul whcn trying to makc cxisting law match
thc rcalitics ol modcrn conict. As has bccn notcd, contcmporary opcrations arc
thcmsclvcs tcrmcd thrcc block wars. A distinction must bc madc bctwccn thc
jus ad bellum conccpt ol outlawing intcrstatc war and thc vcry broad rangc
ol cxisting dc lacto armcd conict. Tc challcngc will bc to maintain thc rigour
ol thc postVorld Var !! jus ad bellum goal ol limiting thc rccoursc by statcs to
war, whilc maintaining a rcalistic approach to dcaling with thc signicant conict
that occurs bcyond thc scopc ol statc vcrsus statc hostilitics. !n doing so, thc law
must communicatc with tcrminology that is rcadily undcrstandablc and rclcvant
to dccision makcrs outsidc thc small intcrnational lcgal community.
IV Te Way Ahead
Notwithstanding thc obvious positivc outcomcs that will accruc through improvcd
application ol cxisting law, it is vcry dicult to arguc that intcrnational humani
tarian law in its prcscnt lorm lully mccts todays challcngcs. Such challcngcs arc
only going to incrcasc ovcr thc ncxt dccadc. !n North Amcrica, thc rst rcspond
crs to modcrn tcrrorists arc not thc military, but rathcr policc lorccs. Howcvcr,
., Scc Michacl 8othc ct al., Ncw Rulcs lor \ictims ol Armcd Conicts ca (Martinus
Nijho Publishcrs, .a).
. Emergencies ct R.S., ., c. aa (th Supp.), s. ,. (A war cmcrgcncy mcans war or
othcr armcd conict, rcal or immincnt, involving Canada or any ol its allics that is so
scrious as to bc a national cmcrgcncy).
. AP !, art. (.).
294 Kenneth !atkin
thc thrcat poscd can bc statclikc violcncc dclivcrcd with sucicnt intcnsity to bc
considcrcd an armcd attack undcr articlc . ol thc UN Chartcr.
+o
As thc thrcat
migratcs to onc in thc cthcr with ammunition consisting ol thc .s and cs ol
digital wcaponry, thc participants in conict will havc cvcn lcss rcscmblancc to
thc armcd lorccs contcmplatcd by articlc ol Additional Protocol !.
So what can bc donc: orts must continuc to cnlorcc cxisting intcrna
tional humanitarian law norms across thc spcctrum ol conict. Howcvcr, that
should only bc thc starting point. !l thc world community only locuscs on that
goal, it will succccd in cnlorcing rulcs that wcrc dcvclopcd at lcast a and primar
ily c ycars ago.
Stcps arc bcing takcn to providc clarication within thc contcxt ol cxisting
law. Tcrc is an incrcasing rcliancc on solt law.
++
Tis can gcncratc a dcbatc
about whcthcr solt law is law at all, lor intcrnational lawycrs basically rcgard
thcm as something minus legal commitment.
+:
Howcvcr, a rcquircmcnt to providc
guidancc in arcas whcrc thc cxisting law docs not spcak loud cnough rcmains.
nc cxamplc ol thc solt law approach is thc Unitcd Nations Human Rights
Committccs General Comment No. z, which in part dcals with thc continucd
application ol human rights during armcd conict.
+
Anothcr cxamplc ol a
soltcr approach to articulating intcrnational law outsidc thc trcaty lramcwork
is thc !CRC Customary Law Study. Tc Study providcs a signicant tool in
intcrprcting cxisting law, although, pcrhaps incvitably considcring its custom
ary locus, it is primarily rctrospcctivc and conrmatory in approach, rathcr than
lorward thinking and prospcctivc. Furthcr, somc statcs and thc Unitcd Nations
.c Scc Vatkin, supra notc a,, at .
.. Solt law has bccn dcncd as an important body ol nontrcaty standards usually
adoptcd within thc lramcwork ol thc Unitcd Nations systcm (dcclarations, bodics
ol principlcs, standard minimum rulcs, ctc.). Although not lcgally binding, solt law
scrvcs to intcrprct and claboratc trcaty provisions and to dcvclop ncw standards in
cmcrging arcas ol intcrnational law. Scc Frequently sked Questions on International
Humanitarian, Human Fights and Fefugee La., !ntcrAgcncy Standing Committcc
Task Forcc on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights a (acc), availablc at http://
www.icrc.org/Vcb/ng/sitccngc.nsl/htmlall/6,KG/sFilc/FAQs.pdl (last visitcd
Jan. a, acc6).
.a numa Yasuaki, supra notc a, at .c, ....
. Scc General Comment No. z, Te Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on
States Parties to the Co.enant, paras. .c and .. CCPR/C/a./Rcv../Add.. a6 May acc
availablc at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsl/(Symbol)/CCPR.C.a..Rcv...Add...
n:pcndocumcnt, which indicatcs that Statc partics, including thcir lorccs con
stituting a national contingcnt ol a Statc Party assigncd to an intcrnational pcacc
kccping or pcacccnlorccmcnt opcration, must rcspcct and cnsurc thc rights laid
down in thc !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights to anyonc within
thc powcr or ccctivc control ol that Statc Party, cvcn il not situatcd within thc tcr
ritory ol thc Statc Party. Furthcr, that Covcnant applics in situations ol armcd con
ict to which thc rulcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law arc applicablc.
295 10 21st Century Conict and International Humanitarian La.
havc applicd a spirit and principlcs approach whcn applying humanitarian law
standards to opcrations outsidc thc scopc ol intcrstatc conict.
+

Howcvcr, by its vcry naturc solt law providcs an inucntial rathcr than
dctcrminativc statcmcnt ol thc law. Vhilc opcn to thc criticism that intcrna
tional lawycrs havc lailcd to rccognizc that both hard laws and solt laws havc
thcir own distinctivc socictal lunctions,
+
thc clcarcst and most ccctivc mcans
to cnsurc compliancc with intcrnational humanitarian law is through thc cnact
mcnt ol trcatics that bind statcs. Tcsc trcatics must thcn bc combincd with a
commitmcnt to implcmcnt, disscminatc and cnlorcc thcir provisions.
At thc prcscnt timc, thc rcluctancc to changc appcars to havc stalcmatcd
advanccs in thc law. Howcvcr, this is not thc rst timc that thc changing naturc ol
warlarc has lorccd a widc scalc rcvicw ol intcrnational humanitarian law. !n thc
postVorld Var !! pcriod, thc signicant incrcasc in nonintcrnational armcd
conict, thc introduction ol ncw politically drivcn dimcnsions ol warlarc in thc
lorm ol wars ol national libcration, and ncw wcapons such as clustcr bomb units
and lragmcntation wcapons lorccd changc on thc world community.
+6
!n rcspcct
ol thc Additional Protocols, it was thc dcdicatcd work ol human rights advocatcs,
likc Mr. Scan Mc8ridc, which hclpcd lorcc thc updating ol intcrnational law in
thc latc .6cs and carly .,cs.
+
Ultimatcly, it took intcrvcntion by thc Gcncral
. Scc Canadian Forccs octrinc Manual: Tc Law ol Armcd Conict at thc
pcrational and Tactical Lcvcl, 8GJcc.c/FPca. at .,., para. .,ca (August
., acc.), availablc at http://www.lorccs.gc.ca/jag/training/publications/loac_man_
c.asp (|t|oday a signicant numbcr ol armcd conicts in which thc CF may bc
involvcd arc nonintcrnational in naturc. As statcd, thc law applicablc to such con
icts is limitcd. !t is CF policy, howcvcr, that thc CF will, as a minimum, apply
thc spirit and principlcs ol thc LAC during all opcrations othcr than domcstic
opcrations.). Scc also thc Unitcd Nations SccrctaryGcncrals 8ullctin Obser.ance
by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian La. !.L.M. .66 (.)
undcr scction . C lundamcntal principlcs and rulcs ol intcrnational humanitar
ian law arc applicablc in situations ol armcd conict, which includc cnlorccmcnt
actions, or in pcacckccping opcrations whcn thc usc ol lorcc is pcrmittcd in scll
dclcncc). Scc also o Law ol Var Program, cpartmcnt ol clcnsc ircctivc,
Numbcr .cc.,, , at para. ... (cccmbcr , .), availablc at http://www.dtic.
mil/whs/dircctivcs/corrcs/pdl/d.cc,,_.ac/d.cc,,p.pdl (last visitcd cc. c,
acc). (Hcads ol o Componcnts shall |c|nsurc that thc mcmbcrs ol thcir o
Componcnts comply with thc law ol war during all armcd conicts, howcvcr such
conicts arc charactcrizcd, and with thc principlcs and spirit ol thc law ol war during
all othcr opcrations.).
. Scc Yasuaki, supra notc .a, at ....
.6 Scc 8axtcr, supra notc , at .
., Scc Sutcr, supra notc a, at a. (uring an cxtraordinary carccr Scan Mc8ridc
was a journalist, Chicl ol Sta ol thc !rish Rcpublican Army, politician, loundcr and
chairman ol Amncsty !ntcrnational, Chairman ol thc Gcncvabascd !ntcrnational
Pcacc 8urcau, SccrctaryGcncral ol thc !ntcrnational Commission ol Jurists and
winncr ol both thc Nobcl Pcacc Prizc and thc Lcnin Prizc.).
296 Kenneth !atkin
Asscmbly, thc tirclcss work ol thc !CRC and signicant statc support to crcatc
thc Protocols.
+8

!n thc a.
st
ccntury, no champion lor changc has madc an appcarancc.
Howcvcr, it may only bc a mattcr ol timc. As was cvidcnccd during thc dcvclop
mcnt ol thc Land Mincs Convcntion, nontraditional stakcholdcrs such as non
govcrnmcntal organizations can havc a signicant inucncc on thc dcvclopmcnt
ol humanitarian law. !n thc luturc, human rights NGs may takc a particu
lar intcrcst in arcas such as thc standards ol trcatmcnt to bc applicd to pcrsons
dcnicd PV status. Tc acadcmic community may also critically analyzc thc
scopc and ccctivcncss ol thc cxisting intcrnational humanitarian law rcgimc.
!ndccd, thc timc may havc ariscn lor a group to takc on a law rclorm commission
typc ol rolc whcrc considcration might bc givcn to dralting initial proposals to
updatc thc cxisting law indcpcndcnt ol thc traditional statc ccntric proccss.
Vhat is ccrtain is that socicty will continuc to cvolvc, particularly as a rcsult
ol tcchnological innovation. Ultimatcly, thc rclcvancc and thc crcdibility ol intcr
national humanitarian law will dcpcnd not only on bcttcr implcmcntation ol
cxisting law, but also on signicant innovation dcsigncd to addrcss cmcrging
intcrnational humanitarian law issucs. Tc advanccmcnt ol intcrnational human
itarian law, and with it thc protcction ol thc victims ol war, cannot bc hcld hos
tagc to thc hcavy hand ol thc past.
+
. Scc 8axtcr, supra notc , at .
. Scc cpigraph, supra notc ..
Chapter 11
Tc Law ol Vcaponry !s !t Adcquatc:
Bill Boothby
I Introduction
Ask a man in thc strcct, pcrhaps thc man on thc Clapham omnibus lrom thc
lamous lcgal ction, about thc Law ol Armcd Conict and you may, il lucky, hcar
a hcsitant mcntion ol thc Gcncva Convcntions. Ask such a tolcrably inlormcd
individual about law rclating to wcaponry and you will achicvc cithcr blank looks
or a vaguc rclcrcncc to domcstic rcarms lcgislation. And yct it was thc wish to
addrcss thc sccmingly purposclcss sucring causcd by a particular munition that
promptcd onc ol thc rst intcrnational law trcatics ol thc modcrn cra.
+
Tc samc
inspircd goal has bccn thc basis lor much work in this cld cvcr sincc. From
thosc highmindcd but limitcd bcginnings, dctailcd rulcs havc cmcrgcd addrcss
ing particular wcapons tcchnologics. Fundamcntal principlcs arc now sucicntly
widcly acccptcd as to bc rcgardcd as customary. Statcs havc acccptcd obliga
tions to considcr thc law whcn acquiring ncw wcapons, although it is not clcar
that many dischargc thcsc dutics. Morcovcr, a trcaty rcgimc has cmcrgcd
:
which
lacilitatcs thc lormulation ol ncw wcapons law as thc nccd ariscs,

or at lcast as
it is sccn to arisc.
Vhilc, sct against a broad historical contcxt, thc cvolution ol law in thc cld
may appcar rapid, thcrc arc thosc who would arguc that it is not spccdy cnough,
nor sucicntly dcnitivc and that unncccssary humanitarian risks arc thc con
scqucncc ol this hcsitancy ovcr lcgal dcvclopmcnt. Ccrtainly thcrc arc wcap
ons which attract controvcrsy but which arc not thc subjcct yct ol spccic lcgal
Tc opinions cxprcsscd in this articlc arc ocrcd in thc authors pcrsonal capac
ity, and should not bc takcn to rcprcscnt thc vicws ol thc Royal Air Forcc or ol thc
Unitcd Kingdom Ministry ol clcncc.
. St. Pctcrsburg cclaration, .6.
a .c UN Convcntion on Prohibitions or Rcstrictions on thc Usc ol Ccrtain
Convcntional Vcapons Vhich May 8c ccmcd to 8c xccssivcly !njurious or to
Havc !ndiscriminatc ccts (hcrcinaltcr rclcrrcd to as thc Convcntional Vcapons
Convcntion or CCV).
Such ncw law may takc thc lorm ol Protocols to thc Convcntion.
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. :,,-zo.
298 Bill Boothby
provision. Vhat is thc currcnt mcans whcrcby conccrn in rclation to a wcapon
is turncd into hard law: !s it adcquatc: Arc thc arrangcmcnts lor ncw law in
thc Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion (CCV) satislactory or should thcy bc
changcd: Arc altcrnativc approachcs, such as that which gavc risc to thc ttawa
Convcntion, prclcrablc: ocs thc currcnt law scrvc to protcct, or is it so limitcd
in scopc and dcpth as to bc a dcad lcttcr:
Sccking to addrcss at lcast somc ol thcsc qucstions, ! start by sctting lorth
thc lundamcntal principlcs ol thc law ol wcaponry. Tc spccic rulcs that havc
cmcrgcd govcrning particular wcapons typcs or tcchnologics will thcn bc out
lincd, as will thc rcquisitc lcgal rcvicw ol wcapons, a proccss distinguishablc
lrom thc provision ol lcgal advicc on opcrations. At that point, ! cxaminc thc
Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion (CCV) proccss, summarising what it has
produccd and whcrc it prcscntly rcsts. !ncludcd is a discussion ol thc advantagcs
and disadvantagcs ol thc CCV approach to making intcrnational law in this
cld. Finally, ! addrcss thc broad adcquacy ol currcnt wcapons law by rclcrcncc to
thc spccic issucs notcd carlicr.
II Iundamental Principles of the Iaw of Weaponry
Tc corncrstonc ol thc law ol wcaponry lics in thc principlc that thc right ol
bclligcrcnts to adopt mcans ol injuring thc cncmy is not unlimitcd. Tis princi
plc is traccd by thc authors ol thc !CRC Commcntary on Additional Protocol
! back to thc writings ol Grotius.

!t is rccctcd in thc Haguc Rcgulations ol

.c,,

in articlc ol thc First Protocol Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions,

6

and clscwhcrc. !t is undoubtcdly a principlc ol customary intcrnational law and
thus binding on all statcs irrcspcctivc ol thcir ratication ol particular trcatics.
!t mcans that a statc, conlrontcd pcrhaps by a dangcrous conict with thc most
advcrsc potcntial conscqucnccs, is not at libcrty to usc whatcvcr mcans it chooscs
in rcsponsc. Law must continuc to rcgulatc thc actions ol thc statc and ol thosc
who opcratc in its namc.
Tc law may, howcvcr, not havc dcvclopcd sucicntly to addrcss a partic
ular situation. Such an abscncc ol spccic law docs not imply that thcrc is a
total abscncc ol applicablc lcgal principlc. A customary principlc, known as thc
Martcns Clausc, makcs it clcar that:
!n cascs not includcd in thc Rcgulations

, thc inhabitants and thc bclligcr

cnts rcmain undcr thc protcction and thc rulc ol thc principlcs ol thc law ol
Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis, .6a.
Articlc aa.
6 Articlc (.), hcrcinaltcr rclcrrcd to as Additional Protocol !.
, Tis is a rclcrcncc to thc Rcgulations anncxcd to Haguc Convcntion !\, .c,.
299 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
nations, as thcy rcsult lrom thc usagcs cstablishcd among civilizcd pcoplcs,
lrom thc laws ol humanity and thc dictatcs ol thc public conscicncc.
Additional Protocol ! rcpcats this principlc in broadly similar tcrms,
8
savc that in
its vcrsion cascs not covcrcd by thc Protocol or by othcr intcrnational agrccmcnts
bcnct lrom its provisions. !n both lormulations, thc point is cxplicitly madc
that whcrc thcrc is an abscncc ol ad hoc lcgal provision, a socallcd lcgal vacuum,
this docs not put thosc involvcd, including combatants, at thc unlcttcrcd mcrcy
ol thc opposing sidc. Rathcr, all involvcd in thc conict must apply customary
lcgal principlcs, including thc principlc ol humanity. Tis has clcar rclcvancc to
thc topic bcing discusscd hcrc. !t suggcsts that thc mcrc lact that thcrc is no spc
cic law dcdicatcd to a particular tcchnology docs not ol itscll mcan that it will
bc lawlul to cmploy it in somc or all circumstanccs. Rathcr, thc wcapon or mcans
or mcthod ol warlarc would havc to bc considcrcd in thc light ol thc lundamcn
tal and widcr principlcs ol intcrnational law in thc way dcscribcd in thc Martcns
Clausc. Vhcn considcring thc Martcns Clausc in rclation to a particular muni
tion, thcrclorc, thcrc will bc a numbcr ol qucstions to considcr. Tcsc arc:
is thcrc cstablishcd practicc ol statcs that ought to inlorm thc asscssmcnt ol
thc wcapon:
lrom what wc know ol thc wcapon, would its usc bc humanc:
arc thcrc othcr aspccts to thc usc ol thc munition that ought to ocnd right
thinking pcoplc:
Taking togcthcr thc two principlcs ol law which wc havc discusscd, thcrclorc, it is
clcar that all military activitics, including all uscs ol lorcc and ol wcapons arc con
trollcd by thc law with thc purposc ol maintaining thc balancc bctwccn military
ncccssity and thc rcquircmcnts ol humanity. Tis is thc balancc bctwccn what arc
somctimcs sccn as compcting intcrcsts that lics at thc corc ol this cld ol law.
!n a rcccnt rcport publishcd by Landminc Action UK, such an assumcd conict
sccms to undcrlic much ol thc analysis.

!t appcars, howcvcr, to thc author that
thcrc will bc many occasions whcn humanitarian and military intcrcsts will coin
cidc, lor cxamplc in sccking accuracy and rcliability in munitions.
A third lundamcntal principlc is that it is prohibitcd to cmploy wcapons,
projcctilcs and matcrial and mcthods ol warlarc ol a naturc to causc supcruous
injury or unncccssary sucring.
+o
Tis rulc also has a rcspcctably long history.
Tc prcamblc to thc St. Pctcrsburg cclaration notcs that thc lcgitimatc objcct
ol wcakcning thc military lorccs ol thc cncmy is cxcccdcd by thc cmploymcnt
ol arms which usclcssly aggravatc thc sucrings ol disablcd mcn, or rcndcr thcir
Articlc .(a).
ut ol 8alancc, Landminc Action, Nov. acc (prcparcd by r. 8. Rappcrt, xctcr
Univcrsity).
.c AP !, Articlc (a).
300 Bill Boothby
dcath incvitablc, which clcarly hints at rcasoning lying bchind thc currcnt rulc.
Articlc a(c) ol thc Haguc Rcgulations, .c,, talks in tcrms ol to cmploy arms,
projcctilcs or matcrial calculatcd to causc unncccssary sucring. Tc ambiguitics
inhcrcnt in thc calculatcd to languagc arc now rcsolvcd in Additional Protocol
!, which uscs thc tcrms ol a naturc to causc .
++
Tc !CRC Customary Law
Study Rcport, Rulc ,c, csscntially lollows thc samc lormulation, concluding that
it is a principlc ol customary intcrnational law, a conclusion lrom which this
author docs not disscnt.
Having acknowlcdgcd thc cxistcncc ol thc rulc, thc pcrhaps morc important
qucstion is what docs it mcan. Tc rst thing to notc is thc usc ol comparativc
languagc, namcly supcruous and unncccssary. Tcsc words involvc a rccog
nition that somc, quitc possibly substantial, sucring and injury including dcath
may bc thc incvitablc conscqucncc ol using a wcapon and show that thc mcrc
lact that pcrsons will bc killcd or injurcd docs not ol itscll rcndcr that wcapon
unlawlul. !ndccd, rccalling thc sccond tirct ol thc prcamblc to thc St. Pctcrsburg
cclaration,
+:
imposing casualtics on thc cncmy is rccogniscd at law as bcing a
lcgitimatc stratcgy ol war.
As McClclland put it, thc issuc is nding thc point at which thc amount
ol sucring and injury inictcd is considcrcd to cxcccd that ncccssary to achicvc
thc military objcctivc.
+
Hc notcs two aspccts to thc lcvcl ol sucring, qualita
tivc and quantitativc. Clcarly, thc morc individuals acctcd by thc munition, thc
grcatcr thc lcvcl ol total sucring its usc can bc said to havc occasioncd. Tcn
thcrc is thc qucstion ol thc dcgrcc and naturc ol thc injury thc munition will typ
ically causc. Tc !CRC has donc much valuablc work in this cld ovcr thc ycars.
Tis includcd thc SirUS projcct in which wounds lrom dicrcnt classications
ol wcapon wcrc catcgoriscd using hospital data in an cort to asccrtain whcthcr
ccrtain wcapons ocndcd thc rulc. Howcvcr, it is widcly acccptcd, including by
thc !CRC, that wcapons cannot bc judgcd by rclcrcncc to thcir wounding char
actcristics alonc, thc military utility dcrivcd lrom using thc wcapon must also bc
wcighcd in thc balancc.
Tcrc is, howcvcr, anothcr aspcct to thc sucring and injury issuc. At any
momcnt thcrc will bc a rccogniscd mcthod ol achicving a particular class ol mili
tary advantagc that involvcs thc usc ol particular typcs ol wcapon in a particular
way. Vhcthcr thc sucring and injury causcd by a ncw wcapon arc supcruous
and unncccssary will thcrclorc in part also dcpcnd on whcthcr thcy cxcccd that to
bc cxpcctcd lrom thosc traditional mcthods in currcnt widcsprcad usc.
.. AP !, Articlc .
.a Tis statcs Tat lor this purposc it is sucicnt to disablc thc grcatcst possiblc
numbcr ol mcn.
. Te Fe.ie. of !eapons in ccordance .ith rticle o of dditional Protocol I. J. McClcl
land, !ntcrnational Rcvicw ol thc Rcd Cross, Junc acc (hcrcinaltcr McClclland).
301 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
Tis rulc has two purposcs in intcrnational law. Tc rst is as a rulc ol law
in its own right and as cxplaincd abovc. Tc sccond lunction is as inspiration
and justication lor thc ncgotiation ol wcapons spccic trcatics both undcr thc
Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion and othcrwisc. Tus, lor cxamplc, thc prc
amblcs ol thc CCV and thc ttawa Convcntion on AntiPcrsonncl Landmincs
mcntion thc rulc.
Considcration ol thc cnvironmcntal dimcnsion appcarcd lor thc rst timc
in Additional Protocol !. Articlcs () and prohibit thc usc ol mcthods or
mcans ol warlarc which arc intcndcd or may bc cxpcctcd to causc widcsprcad,
longtcrm and scvcrc damagc to thc natural cnvironmcnt and which thus prcju
dicc thc hcalth or survival ol thc population. Tc mcaning ol this prohibition
is discusscd in grcatcr dctail latcr. For thc prcscnt purposcs, it is sucicnt to
obscrvc that whilc somc statcs rcgard thc cnvironmcntal rulc as onc ol thc lun
damcntal principlcs, othcrs rcjcct it.
Vc can thcrclorc concludc that thcrc arc a numbcr ol lundamcntal lcgal
principlcs applicablc to wcapons. Tcir purposc is to imposc limits on thc sul
lcring thc usc ol wcapons causcs. Tcy do not howcvcr providc concrctc math
cmatical rcstrictions on what is lcgitimatc. !njury and sucring, and lor that
mattcr military utility which is thc motivation lor thc usc ol wcapons in thc
rst placc, cannot bc mcasurcd with any prccision against a singlc scalc ol valucs.
Furthcrmorc, whilc mcdical cvaluation may wcll idcntily catcgorics ol injury
to bc cxpcctcd lrom ccrtain wcapons typcs, thc military utility ol a wcapon in
gcncric tcrms cannot bc casily mcasurcd. As a rcsult, thc lcgal rulcs rcquirc, and
can only rcalistically bc cxpcctcd to rcquirc, that a scnsiblc balancc bc maintaincd
with a vicw to avoiding thc cxccsscs which ccrtain wcapons or tcchnologics may
bc cxpcctcd to producc.
Crcating such lcgal principlcs is howcvcr likcly to provc a nugatory activ
ity unlcss statcs dcvclop somc way ol cvaluating thc lcgitimacy ol ncw wcapons
against thc lcgal rulcs which havc bccn dcvclopcd to control thcm. Tis is thc
purposc ol wcapons rcvicws. Tc ncxt scction ol this articlc dcscribcs how thc
UK pcrlorms this task.
III Iegal Review of New Weapons
Tis is onc aspcct ol thc law ol wcaponry which has bccn widcly raticd by statcs
and clcarly lundamcntal to national compliancc with thc widcr law, but which is
inadcquatcly implcmcntcd. Vc should start by cxamining thc lcgal rcquircmcnt.
Articlc 6 ol Additional Protocol ! providcs:
!n thc study, dcvclopmcnt, acquisition or adoption ol a ncw wcapon, mcans or
mcthod ol warlarc, a High Contracting Party is undcr an obligation to dctcr
minc whcthcr its cmploymcnt would, in somc or all circumstanccs, bc prohib
302 Bill Boothby
itcd by this Protocol or by any othcr rulc ol intcrnational law applicablc to thc
High Contracting Party.
Tus, whcn a statc studics, dcvclops, or acquircs thc rclcvant cquipmcnt or capa
bility, lcgal advicc is rcquircd. Tc articlc docs not spccily thc lorm ol that advicc,
lor instancc, whcthcr it should bc writtcn or oral, lormal or inlormal. !t mcrcly
rcquircs that thc Statc makc thc ncccssary dctcrmination. !t is not sccmingly
ncccssary to rcvicw rcscarch by corporations and privatc individuals, which may
at rst glancc sccm to bc a shortcoming. Howcvcr, oncc a statc considcrs pro
curing systcms dcvclopcd through that rcscarch, thc obligation lor lcgal rcvicw
ariscs. !t is ol coursc lor industry itscll to asscss whcthcr particular rcscarch is
scnsiblc in thc light ol applicablc law. No commcrcial advantagc accrucs in dcvcl
oping tcchnologics that thc customcr basc cannot lcgally acquirc.
n onc intcrprctation ol articlc 6, lcgal input is nccdcd in rclation to all
wcaponsrclatcd rcscarch by a statc, howcvcr prcliminary in naturc or howcvcr
indircct its conncction with a particular wcapon application. !l, howcvcr, thc arti
clc 6 rcquircmcnt is to makc practical as wcll as lcgal scnsc, a rcasonablc intcr
prctation ol thc trcaty languagc must prcvail. 8y such an intcrprctation, lcgal
input is rcquircd:
il a ncw wcapon or systcm is bought, manulacturcd or othcrwisc acquircd by
a statc,
il a ncw wcaponsrclatcd tcchnology is dcvclopcd, or
il cxisting tcchnology is adaptcd with a vicw to its usc as a wcapon, mcans
or mcthod ol warlarc, and
il an cxisting wcapon or systcm is changcd, whcthcr by upgrading or othcr
wisc, such that thcrc is a matcrial changc in thc way in which it is opcratcd
or in thc ccct it is intcndcd to havc in thc targct arca.
To avoid doubt, whcn a statc has alrcady lcgally rcvicwcd a wcapon bcing trans
lcrrcd through salc or othcrwisc to anothcr statc, thc purchasing statc, il it is a
party to Additional Protocol !, must still conduct its own lcgal asscssmcnt. Tis is
bccausc thc purchasing statc has an indcpcndcnt obligation to chcck compliancc
ol thc wcapon with thc intcrnational law binding it.
+
8cyond thcir timing, it is ncccssary to addrcss thc data rcquircd to support
lcgal rcvicws. Tc rcquisitc inlormation dcpcnds on thc prccisc naturc ol thc
cquipmcnt undcr rcvicw. Tc UK Lcgal Rcvicw Guidancc
+
rccogniscs this and
suggcsts, intcr alia, that rcquircd data should includc:
. icrcnt statcs havc raticd dicrcnt trcatics, somctimcs bascd on statcd intcrprc
tations that may also dicr lrom statc to statc. Scc also para. ., ol thc !CRC
Commcntary on AP !.
. Lcgal Rcvicw ol Ncwly Acquircd or cvclopcd Vcapons and Associatcd quipmcnt,
Unitcd Kingdom Ministry ol clcncc !N acc/c.c.
303 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
a. a tcchnical dcscription ol thc cquipmcnt including rangc, spccd, shapc,
constitucnt matcrials, rcliability, accuracy, dcsircd ccct, thc naturc ol thc
systcm or subsystcm rcquircd lor ring, launching, rclcasing or dispcnsing
thc wcapon, and thc lusing systcm,
b. dcstructivc radius,
c. naturc ol cxpcctcd injury to pcrsons (including mcdical data as availablc)
d. thc dcsign purposc and intcndcd normal mcthod ol usc ol thc wcapon
including typcs ol targcts,
c. tcst data, c.g. as to accuracy, lailurc ratcs livc and incrt, scnsitivity ol uncx
plodcd munitions which lail livc, and
l. impact ol uncxplodcd munitions and dcbris on public hcalth.
!t must bc strcsscd, howcvcr, that thc rcvicwing authority will nccd to bc con
sultcd as to thc inlormation rcquircd to support a rcvicw ol any particular projcct.
Somc ol this inlormation may rcquirc tcst rings, computcr modclling, dcbris
analysis, wound ballistic asscssmcnts and so on. Tc undcrlying purposc is to
cnsurc that thc lcgal rcvicw is supportcd by a thorough and accuratc asscssmcnt
ol thc wcapon and its scicntic charactcristics.
Tc sccond, cqually important, dimcnsion to thc rcvicw is considcration ol
thc broad circumstanccs in which thc wcapon is intcndcd lor usc. A notc ol cau
tion nccds to bc soundcd hcrc. A carclul distinction must always bc maintaincd
bctwccn broad intcndcd circumstanccs ol intcndcd usc on thc onc hand and a
particular usc ol a wcapon to prosccutc a spccic attack on thc othcr. Tc lormcr
is an csscntial clcmcnt in providing advicc by way ol lcgal rcvicw to thc pcrsons
rcsponsiblc lor procuring thc wcapon. Tc lattcr will csscntially comprisc ad hoc
advicc to thc appropriatc commandcr, taking into account such lactors as thc
actual or undcrstood situation in thc targct arca, thc opcrational contcxt ol thc
particular attack, thc military advantagc to bc gaincd, and altcrnativc availablc
courscs ol action.
+6

Tc lcgal rcvicwcr starts by obtaining thc data hc nccds and vcrilying his
scicntic undcrstanding through such additional data or bricngs as hc consid
crs ncccssary. ncc hc has obtaincd a complctc picturc as to thc naturc ol thc
wcapon, its construction, its military purposc, thc broad circumstanccs in which
it will bc uscd and so on, hc will asscss thc wcapon or systcm against a numbcr ol
lcgal critcria. Tcsc arc considcrcd in turn in thc lollowing paragraphs.
.6 Sincc thcsc lactors arc irrclcvant to a gcncric rcvicw ol a wcapon systcm, proportion
ality asscssmcnts, codicd in Articlc . ol Additional Protocol !, will always bc, in
thc opinion ol thc author, irrclcvant to thc lcgal rcvicw proccss. Tis is bccausc thcy
arc situationally dcpcndcnt. Scc Articlc .() ol Additional Protocol !.
304 Bill Boothby
Superuous Injury and Unnecessary Suering
Tc csscntial qucstion is whcthcr thc wcapon or tcchnology is ol a naturc to
causc supcruous injury or unncccssary sucring or, lor that mattcr, whcthcr a
likcly mcthod ol using thc wcapon or systcm is ol such a naturc.
+
As has alrcady
bccn notcd, thc prohibition ol unncccssary sucring implicitly acknowlcdgcs
that causing ncccssary sucring to cncmy combatants is lawlul. !t may includc
scvcrc injurics and loss ol lilc. !n lcgal rcvicws, thc issuc is whcthcr thc wcapon,
whcn uscd lor its intcndcd or dcsigncd purposcs, incvitably and manilcstly causcs
injury, including dcath, to combatants that clcarly cxcccds its statcd purposcs
(its intcndcd uscs and thc military advantagc to bc gaincd lrom such usc). Tis
balancing act cannot bc conductcd in isolation. A wcapon or munitions cccts
must bc wcighcd in thc light ol comparablc, lawlul wcapons or munitions on thc
modcrn battlccld.
+8

All would agrcc that wcapon systcms producing gratuitous sucring and
injury, that is, injury and sucring not rcquircd by thc accomplishmcnt ol thc
dcsircd military purposc, will lall loul ol this tcst. !ncrcasingly, howcvcr, modcrn
Vcstcrn militarics arc sccking and procuring wcapons dcsigncd to causc pro
grcssivcly smallcr dcgrccs ol sucring. Rcduccd yicld bombs producc lcss bang
lor your buck by sprcading lragmcnts ovcr lcsscr distanccs. Fuscs that arc morc
sophisticatcd narrow thc military ccct ol ccrtain bombs and missilcs to thc
dcsircd part ol a military objcctivc. Nonlcthal tcchnologics, carclul attack plan
ning, thc timing ol attacks to avoid pcriods whcn thc targct arca is crowdcd, and
many othcr prccautions
+
lurthcr scck to minimisc civilian casualtics. Such prc
cautions arc also somctimcs cmploycd to minimisc casualtics among thc oppo
ncnts armcd lorccs whcn consistcnt with thc war aim.
As notcd carlicr, howcvcr, articlc ol Additional Protocol ! is writtcn in
comparativc tcrms, namcly supcruous and unncccssary. As tcchnology pcr
mits a statc to prosccutc lowcr casualty attacks, a rcturn to lormcr lcss satislactory
mcthods would arguably brcach thc rcquircmcnt in articlc ,(a) ol Additional
Protocol ! to minimisc civilian injury and loss. Such an analysis, takcn to its
logical conclusion, might suggcst that dicrcnt standards arc to bc imposcd on
statcs bascd on thcir dicring lcvcls ol tcchnological sophistication. Altcrnativcly,
thc rulc in articlc (a) could bc intcrprctcd as a rcquircmcnt that statcs mini
misc such injury and sucring to thc cxtcnt lcasiblc within thc rcsourccs that a
statc dcvotcs to dclcncc. Although this may appcar to bc a supcrcially attractivc
approach, it would sccm to bc unsatislactory that statcs which choosc to dcvotc
., AP !, Articlc (a).
. Tis is an adaptation ol thc tcst uscd by thc US Army in wcapons rcvicws, but is not
cxprcsscd in idcntical tcrms to thc US tcst.
. Tosc who plan and cxccutc attacks arc rcquircd by law to takc all lcasiblc prccau
tions. AP !, Articlc ,.
305 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
lcss cort, and thus cxpcnditurc, to wcapons dcvclopmcnt should bc rcwardcd
with grcatcr latitudc. !t would thcrclorc sccm that thcsc comparativc tcrms can
only scnsibly bc intcrprctcd by rclcrcncc to thc actual options availablc at thc
timc ol an attack or planncd attack, with duc account bcing takcn ol thc way in
which such military opcrations arc conductcd by thc bulk ol rcsponsiblc statcs.
!t is dicult to lormulatc an objcctivc and univcrsal mcasurcmcnt ol sucr
ing, or indccd an indcpcndcntly vcriablc yardstick, lor thc purposcs ol this rulc.
As a rcport ol a group ol mcdical cxpcrts to thc AP ! iplomatic Conlcrcncc
notcs, it sccms impossiblc at thc prcscnt stagc ol mcdical knowlcdgc to objcc
tivcly dcnc sucring or to givc absolutc valucs pcrmitting comparisons bctwccn
human individuals.
:o
Tc bcst approach lor thc rcvicwcr would thcrclorc sccm
to bc to obtain rcliablc data as to thc mcthod and dcgrcc ol wounding to bc
cxpcctcd lrom thc systcm undcr rcvicw, and thcn to comparc this with thc data
availablc in rclation to cxisting systcms uscd in similar circumstanccs.
B En.ironmental Impact
Tc rcvicwcr must considcr whcthcr thc wcapon is intcndcd, or may bc cxpcctcd,
to causc widcsprcad, longtcrm and scvcrc damagc to thc natural cnvironmcnt.
As thc words imply, rclativcly gravc and longlasting damagc is rcquircd bclorc
this tcst is brcachcd. l coursc, ccrtain uscs ol an othcrwisc innocuous wcapon
may havc thc prohibitcd conscqucnccs. Howcvcr, whcn cvaluating thc lcgality ol
a wcapon, thc rclcvant qucstion is whcthcr thc wcapon, in itscll, may bc cxpcctcd
to causc thc prohibitcd damagc, or whcthcr thc wcapon in its normal usc will
incvitably havc thosc conscqucnccs.
Not all statcs arc obligcd to apply this tcst in lcgal rcvicws. Tc Unitcd
Statcs,
:+
lor instancc, docs not acccpt articlcs () and ol Additional Protocol
! as customary law.
::
!t is, thcrclorc, dicult to concludc, that thc rulc is cus
tomary, notwithstanding thc argumcnts dcploycd in support ol Rulc ol thc
!CRC Customary Law Study.
:
Abscnt US adhcrcncc, it would appcar not to
havc achicvcd thc rcquircd ncar univcrsal adhcrcncc. Ncvcrthclcss, statcs party
to Additional Protocol ! must considcr this aspcct in wcapons rcvicws, always
taking into account any clarilying or qualilying statcmcnt in rclation to thc rulc
that thc statc may havc madc.
ac Citcd in !CRC Commcntary to AP !, para. .a.
a. 8y this is mcant that thc Unitcd Statcs has not raticd Additional Protocol ! and
docs not acccpt thc articlcs as constituting customary law.
aa Undcrstanding a cntcrcd by thc US on ratication ol thc Convcntional Vcapons
Convcntion, as rcportcd in Documents on the La.s of !ar, A. Robcrts and R. Gucl,
rd cd., at p. 6c.
a !CRC Customary Law Study, \olumc ., at pp. ...
306 Bill Boothby
Rclativcly scvcrc cnvironmcntal damagc is rcquircd bclorc thc rulc is brokcn.
Tc prohibition is probably bcst cxprcsscd as rclating to damagc as would bc
likcly to prcjudicc ovcr a long tcrm thc continucd survival ol thc civilian popula
tion or would risk causing it major hcalth problcms.
:
Longtcrm lor thcsc pur
poscs sccms to bc mcasurcd in dccadcs.
:
Tc languagc ol thc articlcs makcs it
clcar, morcovcr, that all thrcc clcmcnts, namcly widcsprcad, scvcrc and longtcrm,
must bc prcscnt lor thc rulc to bc brokcn.
An cnvironmcntal impact statcmcnt will bc rcquircd to dctcrminc thc
chcmical composition ol thc wcapons dctritus and cxplain thc ccct ol this on
natural lilc lorms. Tis statcmcnt can thcn bc uscd to asscss whcthcr thc wcapon
brcachcs this rulc.
C Discrimination
Tc ncxt tcst cxamincs whcthcr thc wcapon or systcm can bc uscd in a discrim
inating way. Rccall that indiscriminatc attacks arc prohibitcd. Articlc .() ol
Additional Protocol ! dcscribcs thcm as lollows:
!ndiscriminatc attacks arc:
a. thosc which arc not dircctcd at a spccic military objcctivc,
b. thosc which cmploy a mcthod or mcans ol combat which cannot bc
dircctcd at a spccic military objcctivc, or
c. thosc which cmploy a mcthod or mcans ol combat thc cccts ol which
cannot bc limitcd as rcquircd by this Protocol,
and, conscqucntly, in cach such casc, arc ol a naturc to strikc military objcctivcs
and civilians or civilian objccts without distinction.
Tc distinction drawn carlicr bctwccn gcncric advicc on thc lcgality ol a wcapon
and ad hoc lcgal clcarancc ol a particular attack applics with cqual strcngth hcrc.
Tus, subparagraph (a) abovc clcarly pcrtains to ad hoc targct dccisionmaking
and not gcncric wcapons rcvicw work. 8y contrast, subparagraphs (b) and (c)
should bc considcrcd carclully by thc wcapon rcvicwcr. Tc issuc is whcthcr thc
wcapon or systcm is capablc ol bcing dircctcd at a spccic military objcctivc and
whcthcr its cccts can bc limitcd as rcquircd in intcrnational law:
l coursc, limitcd cxplosivc yicld, smart lusing, carclul opcrational planning
and novcl tcchnologics may contributc to a wcapon bcing judgcd capablc ol com
plying with this rulc. For cxamplc, ccrtain typcs ol wcapons usc scnsors to locatc
particular kinds ol targcts. Rcvicwcrs must carclully considcr thc pcrlormancc
ol such tcchnology as cstablishcd by tcsts, computcr modclling or opcrational
a Rapportcurs rcport .R.X\, pagc a6, CH/a./Rcv.., para. a,, citcd in !CRC
Commcntary to AP !, para. ..
a !CRC Commcntary to AP !, paras. . and ..
307 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
usc, c.g. by othcr statcs. l coursc, any cquipmcnt may pcrlorm unsatislactorily
on a particular occasion. Howcvcr, thc rcvicwcrs main conccrn is with thc way
thc wcapon or cquipmcnt is intcndcd (dcsigncd) to opcratc, assuming thcrc is
no cvidcncc ol such unrcliability as would in its own right causc thc rulc to bc
brcachcd.
D Specic Fules pplicable to Particular !eapons
!n addition to applying thc morc gcncral rulcs sct lorth abovc, thc rcvicwcr will
cvaluatc thc wcapons tcchnology to dctcrminc whcthcr spccic trcaty and/or
customary law rulcs cithcr prohibit it altogcthcr or rcstrict thc way in which,
or thc occasions whcn, it may bc uscd. !l, lor cxamplc, thc programmc sccks to
dcvclop a munition which is dcsigncd to bc cxplodcd by thc prcscncc, proxim
ity or contact ol a pcrson, a rcvicwing authority lrom a statc party to thc ttawa
Convcntion would draw attcntion to thc prohibitions in that trcaty. qually,
a rcvicwcr lrom a statc which is not party to ttawa, but party to Amcndcd
Protocol !! to thc Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion, would highlight thc pro
hibitions and rcstrictions in that trcaty.
A dctailcd considcration ol all ol thc spccic prohibitions and rcstrictions
imposcd by law in rclation to particular munitions and tcchnologics lics outsidc
thc scopc ol this articlc. Tc purposc in thc rcmaindcr ol this scction is thcrclorc
to draw attcntion to only somc ol thc rulcs that thc wcapon rcvicwcr must bcar
in mind, and to discuss cach rulc in thc briclcst ol tcrms in ordcr to illustratc thc
naturc ol thc rcvicw proccss. thcr sourccs must bc consultcd lor a morc dctailcd
cxposition ol thc substantivc law.
a. Poison: Tc usc ol poison or poisoncd wcapons is prohibitcd. Tc rulc can
bc lound in articlc a(a) ol thc Haguc Rcgulations
:6
and in Rulc ,a ol thc
!CRC Customary Law Study. Tis is undoubtcdly a rulc ol customary law
binding on all statcs. As thc !CRC Study notcs, thc prohibition docs not
apply to wcapons that could incidcntally poison, but only to thosc dcsigncd
to injurc or kill by thc ccct ol such poison.
:

b. Vcapons ol Mass cstruction: Tc Gcncva Gas Protocol, thc Chcmical
Vcapons Convcntion and thc 8iological Vcapons Convcntion, takcn
togcthcr, providc thc most comprchcnsivc rcgimc lor thc prohibition and
rcstriction ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction upon which statcs havc bccn
ablc to agrcc. Tc clcar purposc ol this rcgimc is to control thc prolilcra
tion ol thcsc wcapons, whilc prohibiting thcir usc. Tc undcrlying objcctivc,
ol coursc, is to prcvcnt thc unacccptablc sucring that thcy causc. Public
intcrcst would sccm to lic in sccuring thc widcst possiblc adhcrcncc to thc
principlcs sct out in all thrcc trcatics, univcrsal ratication would ccrtainly
a6 Rcgulations anncxcd to Haguc Convcntion !\, .c,.
a, !CRC Customary Law Study, \olumc !, at p. a.
308 Bill Boothby
bc an important rst stcp in that proccss. Tc wcapon rcvicwcr who is to
rcvicw any such substanccs, wcapons or matcrials must cxaminc thc appro
priatc dcnitions with carc and must apply thc lcgal tcsts notcd abovc to
both thc wcapon/tcchnology and to thc intcndcd circumstanccs ol usc. !t
must bc lurthcr rccallcd that by virtuc ol a statcmcnt madc on ratication ol
Additional Protocol !, thc UK docs not acccpt thc applicability ol thc ncw
rulcs introduccd by that Protocol to nonconvcntional wcapons.
:8

c. Prohibitcd bullcts: Tc usc ol bullcts which cxpand or attcn casily in thc
human body is prohibitcd by thc Tird Haguc cclaration, .. Tat instru
mcnt citcs as cxamplcs bullcts with a hard cnvclopc which docs not cntircly
covcr thc corc or thosc picrccd with incisions. As Robcrts and Gucl con
cludc, thc cclaration codics onc aspcct ol thc customary rulc prohibit
ing wcapons that causc unncccssary sucring.
:
Tc !CRC Customary Law
Study, in Rulc ,,, rccogniscs thc prohibition as having customary status.
o
Antipcrsonncl usc ol bullcts which cxplodc within thc human body
is, according to rulc , ol thc !CRC Customary Law Study, prohibitcd.
Ccrtainly, thc St. Pctcrsburg cclaration .6 prohibits military or naval
usc ol projcctilcs bclow cc grammcs il thcy arc cithcr cxplosivc or chargcd
with lulminating or inammablc substanccs. Howcvcr, as thc UK Manual
on thc Law ol Armcd Conict notcs, thc usc ol such wcapons in airto
air combat bccamc customary. uring thc First Vorld Var it was lound
that thc most ccctivc mcans ol dcstroying cncmy balloons was by inccndi
ary bullcts, and thc Haguc Rulcs .a
+
rccogniscd this practicc: thc usc ol
traccr, inccndiary or cxplosivc projcctilcs by or against aircralt is not prohib
itcd.
:

a Statcmcnt a in thc list ol statcmcnts dcpositcd by thc UK with its ratication instru
mcnt, as rcportcd in Documents on the La.s of !ar, by A. Robcrts and R. Gucl, rd
cd., at p. .c. !t rcads: !t continucs to bc thc undcrstanding ol thc Unitcd Kingdom
that thc rulcs introduccd by thc Protocol apply cxclusivcly to convcntional wcapons
without prcjudicc to any othcr rulcs ol intcrnational law applicablc to othcr typcs
ol wcapons. !n particular, thc rulcs so introduccd do not havc any ccct on and do
not rcgulatc or prohibit thc usc ol nuclcar wcapons. !t sccms to thc author that thc
cnvironmcntal rulcs dcscribcd carlicr wcrc introduccd by thc Protocol and arc thus
cxcludcd in rclation to VM by thc UK statcmcnt. Tc lcgitimacy ol thc thrcat to
usc or actual usc ol nuclcar wcapons was ol coursc considcrcd by thc !CJ in its advi
sory opinion. (ICJ Feports, .6, at pp. a6,, ILM (.6) .a).
a Documents on the La.s of !ar, A. Robcrts and R. Gucl, rd cd., at p. 6.
c !CRC Customary Law Study, \olumc !, at p. a6.
. Notc that thcsc rulcs wcrc ncvcr incorporatcd into a trcaty nor wcrc thcy lormally
adoptcd by statcs. Tcy wcrc in lact writtcn in dralt lorm but many ol thc rulcs
drawn up by thc jurists wcrc, and still arc, rcgardcd as customary.
a Tc Manual on thc Law ol Armcd Conict, UK Ministry ol clcncc, acc, at para.
.a.6...
309 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
d. Antipcrsonncl Landmincs: Tc ttawa Convcntion ., prohibits thc
usc, stockpiling, production and translcr ol antipcrsonncl landmincs and
providcs lor thcir dcstruction. For statcs that arc party to thc Convcntion,
thcrclorc, any minc dcsigncd to bc cxplodcd by thc prcscncc, proximity or
contact ol a pcrson and that will incapacitatc, injurc or kill onc or morc
pcrsons, is prohibitcd. !t is thcrclorc important lor rcvicwing occrs to
undcrstand thc mcchanism ol thc munition undcr rcvicw. !n particular, thcy
must apprcciatc thc dcsign intcnt, as thc dcnition was carclully draltcd
with dcsign intcnt in mind. Mincs which arc dcsigncd to bc dctonatcd by
thc prcscncc, proximity or contact ol a vchiclc as opposcd to a pcrson and
that arc cquippcd with antihandling dcviccs, arc not prohibitcd by this
Convcntion.

Antipcrsonncl mincs arc also rcstrictcd through Protocols

to thc Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion.
c. Vcapons addrcsscd in thc Convcntion Vcapons Convcntion: Tc .c
Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion is an cnabling trcaty that docs not in
itscll makc substantivc wcaponsrclatcd provision. Rathcr, six protocols
agrccd to undcr proccdurcs sct out in thc trcaty scrvc that purposc.
Protocol ! prohibits usc ol a wcapon that mainly injurcs by lragmcnts
that cannot bc dctcctcd by Xray,
Protocol a and Amcndcd Protocol a both addrcss mincs, booby traps
and othcr dcviccs,
Protocol addrcsscs inccndiary wcapons,
Protocol prohibits thc cmploymcnt ol lascr wcapons dcsigncd as a
combat lunction to causc pcrmancnt blindncss,
Protocol addrcsscs cxplosivc rcmnants ol war, including abandoncd
cxplosivc ordnancc.
Vhcn asscssing a particular wcapon or associatcd tcchnology, thc rcvicwcr must
cxaminc thc dcnitional articlcs ol any apparcntly rclcvant CCV Protocol to
asscss whcthcr thc trcaty in lact accts thc wcapon. !mportantly, thc Protocols
prohibit thc usc ol ccrtain typcs ol wcapon, rcstrict thc circumstanccs whcn
othcr wcapons may bc uscd and imposc clcan up obligations in rclation to mincs
and uncxplodcd rcmnants ol war. Tc wcapon rcvicwcr must thcrclorc makc it
clcar which sort ol lcgal constraint applics to thc wcapon undcr rcvicw. As thc
Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion has bccn an activc lorum lor thc dcvclop
mcnt ol arms control trcatics in rcccnt ycars, it will bc discusscd lurthcr in thc
ncxt scction.
8ut notc that Protocol a or, as thc casc may bc, Amcndcd Protocol a to thc
Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion must also bc considcrcd.
310 Bill Boothby
E Future De.elopments in the La.
Vhilc thcrc is no rcquircmcnt in articlc 6 that luturc changcs in thc law bc
considcrcd, thcrc arc statcs such as thc UK which, rccognising thc long pcriods
during which wcapons may bc rctaincd in thc arscnal, draw attcntion in lcgal
rcvicws to any anticipatcd changcs in rclcvant intcrnational law. oing so, and by
giving lcgal advicc carly in thc dcvclopmcnt phasc, hclps limit wastclul rcscarch
and dcvclopmcnt cort. !l cxpcctcd changcs in intcrnational law mcan that a
particular wcapon is likcly to brcach an cmcrging norm during its planncd opcra
tional lilc, procurcmcnt stas may prclcr altcrnativc solutions unacctcd by such
risks. Although vcry challcnging to try to prcdict changcs in intcrnational law
ovcr an cxtcndcd pcriod, whcrc controvcrsy alrcady cxists or appcars immincnt,
this lactor should bc considcrcd as part ol thc widcr procurcmcnt dccision.
F lternati.e Systems for Legal Fe.ie.
!t has alrcady bccn notcd that rclativcly lcw statcs havc lormal systcms ol lcgal
rcvicw. !ndccd, articlc 6 docs not prcscribc any particular mcthod and, in a
scnsc, thc mcchanics arc not thc important issuc. Somc statcs cmploy individual
Ministry ol clcncc pcrsonncl or scrvicc lawycrs to undcrtakc thc proccss, whilc
othcrs appoint commissions to makc thc dctcrmination. Additional mcthods arc
also possiblc. !n dcvcloping and administcring thc UK systcm, thc author tricd
to producc a mcthod to suit UK rcquircmcnts. !t is lor othcr statcs to sclcct thc
mcthod that bcst suits thcir procurcmcnt arrangcmcnts and lcgal systcms.
Tc important point is that a statc must actually conduct rcvicws, as this
dcmonstratcs commitmcnt to a lcgally compliant arscnal. qually, whcn arms
manulacturcrs bccomc awarc that thcir products arc lcgally rcvicwcd by customcr
statcs, this may tcnd to inucncc wcapon dcsign lor thc bcttcr. !ncrcasingly,
statcs which havc raticd, or arc about to ratily, Protocol \ to thc Convcntional
Vcapons Convcntion will bc conccrncd to limit thcir liability lor clcaring cxplo
sivc rcmnants ol war by sccking to cnsurc through thc rcvicw proccss that only
rcliablc wcapons arc procurcd. Finally, and most scllcvidcntly, thc rcvicw proc
css will tcnd to prcvcnt acquisition, and thus usc, ol wcapons that lound to occa
sion supcruous injury and unncccssary sucring. Tis may hclp to rcducc, to a
dcgrcc, thc ovcrall lcvcl ol sucring imposcd by war.
Tc !CRC should bc congratulatcd lor prcparing guidancc lor statcs on
how to conduct thcsc rcvicws. !t is, howcvcr, important to cnsurc that such guid
ancc can bc rcadily implcmcntcd by all statcs. xccssivcly complicatcd, lcngthy
and prcscriptivc arrangcmcnts involving cxpcnsivc proccdurcs tcnd to discouragc
statcs lrom cstablishing such a systcm and may thus provc to bc countcrproduc
tivc. !n thc samc way, any suggcstion that statcs must makc thcir lcgal rcvicws
public risks ignoring vital national sccurity intcrcsts and may provc a disinccn
tivc to articlc 6 compliancc. A morc promising approach would bc to show how
311 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
humanitarian law, intcrnational law and opcrational ccctivcncss rcquircmcnts
convcrgc in this cld. Vcapons that most accuratcly and rcliably cngagc a mili
tary objcctivc, or thc most militarily signicant clcmcnt ol such an objcctivc, arc
lcast likcly to causc cxccssivc damagc (which thc uscr may wcll havc to rcpair
in thc cnd in any cvcnt). Vcapons rcvicwcd and lound to opcratc rcliably arc
lcss likcly to imposc cxplosivc rcmnant clcan up costs on thc uscr statc latcr on.
Vcapons lound on rcvicw to comply strictly with thc discrimination rulc may
alicnatc thc population in thc targct arca lcss, whilc hclping to maintain popular
support back homc lor a war sccn by thc public and mcdia to bc carclully wagcd.
Finally, low sucring war, about which many arc pcrhaps justiably sccptical is,
il rcalisablc, likcly to rcsonatc with thc widcr purposcs ol thc conict. !t is thcrc
lorc dicult to ovcrstatc thc importancc ol wcapons rcvicws or thcir rclcvancc
to thc accomplishmcnt ol widcr dclcncc objcctivcs.
IV Is Te Way in Which Weapons Iaw Is eveloped
Tese ays Adequate?
Having considcrcd thc lundamcntal principlcs ol thc law ol wcaponry, having
lookcd at thc proccss ol wcapons rcvicws and having bricy cxamincd somc ol
thc rulcs applicablc to particular wcapons, wc can now start to addrcss thc qucs
tions poscd at thc bcginning ol thc chaptcr. Tc purposc in what lollows is to
asscss how wcapons law is now dcvcloping, to cxaminc what appcar to bc two
dicring approachcs and to try to dctcrminc whcthcr thc proccss mccts global
nccds. Arguably, thc most prolic vchiclc lor thc gcncration ol ncw wcapons law
thcsc days is thc Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion (CCV). !ts proccdurcs
cnablc statcs to lormulatc ncw law to addrcss contcmporary arcas ol humanitar
ian conccrn. Articlc (a)(b) ol thc Convcntion covcrs thc proccdurc lor adop
tion ol ncw Protocols to thc Convcntion. A conlcrcncc ol thc High Contracting
Partics to thc Convcntion may agrcc, with thc lull participation ol all statcs rcp
rcscntcd at thc conlcrcncc, upon additional protocols
Tis rcquircmcnt lor agrccmcnt, or conscnsus, may bc sccn as both a strcngth
and a wcakncss ol thc CCV proccss. !t is a strcngth in thc scnsc that thc law
which cmcrgcs has by dcnition achicvcd thc support, or at lcast has avoidcd thc
outright hostility, ol thc onc hundrcd

statcs ol thc CCV community. ncc

adoptcd, such law thcrclorc stands a good chancc ol ratication by a hcalthy
proportion ol such statcs.

Morcovcr, thc rcquircmcnt lor conscnsus combincd

with thc dcsirc ol spccially acctcd statcs to cnsurc that thc ncw law docs not
Sourcc: www.icrc.org/ihl.nsl wcbsitc, scarchcd on . cc. acc. Tcrc wcrc .cc statcs
party to thc CCV on that datc.
Numbcrs ol statcs that arc party to thc CCV protocols wcrc, on . cc. acc, as
lollows: Protocol ! ,, Protocol a ,, Protocol , Protocol . and Protocol a
(Amcndcd) . Sourcc: www.icrc.org/ihl.nsl wcbsitc scarchcd on . cc. acc.
312 Bill Boothby
advcrscly acct thcir lundamcntal military intcrcsts will tcnd to producc ncw
lcgal arrangcmcnts which arc pragmatic. Tis pragmatic aspcct implics thc dcvcl
opmcnt ol ncw law that is likcly to bc morc rcadily implcmcntcd and rcspcctcd
whilc rcccting thc military nccds ol statcs.
Tc wcakncss ol thc conscnsus rcquircmcnt is that progrcss on mattcrs
alrcady idcnticd as thc sourcc ol humanitarian conccrn can bc blockcd by onc
or morc statcs. Tus, lor cxamplc, altcr lour ycars dcvotcd to thc considcration ol
humanitarian dicultics attributablc to antivchiclc mincs, thc Novcmbcr acc
Mccting ol Statcs Party to thc CCV was unablc to agrcc a ncw Protocol on thc
issuc in tcrms suggcstcd by thc Coordinator. !t could not cvcn adopt a mandatc
to ncgotiatc an instrumcnt in thc lollowing ycar.
6
Such apparcnt lailurc may
causc ccrtain statcs and NGs to bc tcmptcd to go outsidc thc conscnsusbascd
CCV proccss in scarch ol a quickcr x clscwhcrc. Tc lailurc ol thc CCV
proccss to achicvc conscnsus ccrtainly mcans that arcas ol idcnticd humanitar
ian conccrn havc not produccd ncw law. ocs this lact in itscll justily abandoning
thc conscnsus approach:

Tc altcrnativc to thc CCV approach was, arguably, sccn in thc ., adop
tion ol thc ttawa Convcntion on antipcrsonncl landmincs (APL). Tc ncgoti
ations in slo to producc that Convcntion wcrc rapid.
8
A high prolc campaign
supportcd by cxtcnsivc data lrom numcrous conict zoncs madc thc humanitar
ian casc. Tc cvidcncc, prcscntcd by a numbcr ol NGs and ccrtain statcs, cstab
lishcd that thc usc ol APL might givc risc to civilian casualtics long altcr thc
conclusion ol thc hostilitics in which thcy wcrc uscd.
Tcchnology limiting thc activc lilc ol such mincs to thc pcriod rcquircd by
thcir military purposc would havc signicantly addrcsscd thc important humani
tarian issuc whilc cnabling thc rctcntion ol wcapons, which havc undoubtcd mil
itary utility. Tus, thc US dclcgation proposcd to thc slo Conlcrcncc that thcrc
should bc an cxcmption lrom thc ban lor mincs thc activc livcs ol which arc lim
itcd, c.g, by sclldcstruction or sclldcactivation arrangcmcnts.

8y thc timc ol
thc Conlcrcncc in slo, howcvcr, thc prcvailing vicw was that only a total ban on
all APL would bc acccptablc, and that an cxccption availablc only to thosc statcs
with thc tcchnology to cmploy it would prcjudicc achicving this goal. !n thc
authors vicw, thc dcvclopmcnt ol an Austrian dralt tcxt, which was uscd as thc
basis lor ncgotiation ol thc ttawa Convcntion, in consultation with a limitcd
6 8ascd on thc pcrsonal knowlcdgc ol thc author as a mcmbcr ol thc UK clcgation
to thc Conlcrcncc.
, ut ol 8alancc, op. cit., scction , at pp. .a.
8ascd on pcrsonal knowlcdgc ol thc author as a mcmbcr ol thc UK dclcgation to thc
Conlcrcncc.
8ascd on pcrsonal knowlcdgc ol thc author as a mcmbcr ol thc UK dclcgation to thc
Conlcrcncc.
313 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
group ol likcmindcd statcs, mcant that statcs that bccamc involvcd latcr lackcd
thc traction nccdcd to proposc altcrnativc approachcs.
At thc timc ol writing, ., statcs
o
arc party to thc ttawa Convcntion. Forty
havc not bccomc party. Notablc among thcsc nonparticipants arc China, !ndia,
gypt, !ndoncsia, !ran, !raq, !sracl, Pakistan, thc Russian Fcdcration, Poland,
Syria, Ukrainc and thc Unitcd Statcs. As lar as thc author is awarc, nonc ol thcsc
statcs has any immcdiatc intcntion ol so doing. !t is an opcn qucstion whcthcr
an cxcmption ol thc sort proposcd by thc US would havc cnablcd widcr ratica
tion ol thc Convcntion. !t is also pcrhaps worthy ol notc that thc statcs party to
Amcndcd Protocol a to CCV includc China, !ndia, !sracl, Pakistan, Poland, thc
Russian Fcdcration, Ukrainc and thc Unitcd Statcs. Vhilc Amcndcd Protocol
a rcstricts rathcr than prohibits thc usc ol antipcrsonncl landmincs, its adop
tion by thcsc statcs is, at thc vcry lcast, highly signicant. !t would sccm that an
approach that sccks to includc thc vicws ol all acctcd statcs is nccdcd il broad
acccptancc by major statcs ol thc rcsulting trcaty tcxt is to bc achicvcd. Statcs arc
bound to bc suspicious il thcir vicws arc only considcrcd at a latc stagc or, worsc
still, not at all.
Tc dcvclopmcnt ol ncw law is not ncccssarily thc only answcr whcn ncw
conccrns arc raiscd in rclation to particular wcapons. Political statcmcnts, unilat
cral moratoria, cxport controls and othcr mcasurcs not involving thc conclusion
ol trcatics may all havc a rolc to play. Tc bcauty ol law, howcvcr, is that it lacili
tatcs thc dcvclopmcnt ol battlccld norms that, in turn and in timc, will dircctly
inucncc thc bchaviour at thc root ol thc problcm. ctcrmining thc adcquacy ol
that law, howcvcr, involvcs dctcrmining how lar statcs rccognisc and implcmcnt
thosc norms.
Pcrhaps a ncw, rationalist approach to thc cvolution ol ncw wcapons law
is nccdcd. !ntcrcstingly, statcs involvcd in thc CCV proccss havc applicd such
an approach whcn considcring thc apparcntly linkcd issucs ol cxplosivc rcmnants
ol war (RV) and clustcr munitions. Following thc conclusion ol Protocol \ to
CCV, thc qucstion thc CCV mcmbcr statcs wcrc considcring was what lurthcr
stcps should bc takcn to addrcss thc RV problcm.
+
!n a papcr datcd March
c Tc statistics and data in this paragraph arc takcn lrom thc www.icbl.org and www.
icrc.org wcbsitcs rcvicwcd on . cc. acc.
. Tc mandatc, as dccidcd by thc a,a Novcmbcr acc mccting ol Statcs Party to
CCV in paragraph a6 ol CCV/MSP/acc/, statcs: To continuc to considcr thc
implcmcntation ol cxisting principlcs ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law and to
lurthcr study, on an opcncndcd basis, and initially with particular cmphasis on
mcctings ol military and tcchnical cxpcrts, possiblc prcvcntivc mcasurcs aimcd at
improving thc dcsign ol ccrtain spccic typcs ol munitions, including submuni
tions, with a vicw to minimizc thc humanitarian risk ol thcsc munitions bccoming
cxplosivc rcmnants ol war. xchangc ol inlormation, assistancc and coopcration
would bc part ol this work. iscussions havc continucd on thc basis ol a broadly
similar mandatc as rcportcd in UN C/a, datcd .a Aug. acc.
314 Bill Boothby
acc, thc Coordinator suggcstcd a thrccstcp approach. Stcps onc and two con
sistcd ol idcntilying rclcvant principlcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law and
cstablishing thc status ol thcir implcmcntation by statcs.
A group ol cight statcs
:
in association with thc !ntcrnational Committcc
ol thc Rcd Cross thcn dcvclopcd a qucstionnairc.

Tc qucstionnairc sought thc

lollowing inlormation lrom statcs:
what cxisting principlcs ol !HL applicablc to thc usc ol lorcc during an
armcd conict arc considcrcd rclcvant to thc usc ol munitions that may
bccomc RV:
what mcasurcs havc bccn takcn by thc statc to implcmcnt thcsc principlcs:
arc thc principlcs rccctcd in military doctrinc, military manuals and rulcs
ol cngagcmcnt:
arc thc principlcs considcrcd in planning military opcrations, in targcting
proccdurcs and is lcgal advicc availablc at appropriatc lcvcls ol command:
arc mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs traincd in thc principlcs, docs thc statc
lcgally rcvicw ncw wcapons and what othcr mcasurcs arc takcn to implc
mcnt thc principlcs:
8ascd on thc national rcsponscs, an intcrnational law cxpcrt will prcparc a rcport lor
submission to thc March acc6 CCV Conlcrcncc ol thc Group ol Govcrnmcntal
xpcrts. Pursuant to thc samc mandatc, prcscntations locussing on thc cxisting
rclcvant law havc also bccn dclivcrcd to thcsc mcctings. As a third and distinct
strcam ol work, a scicntic analytical mcthodology has bccn dcvclopcd as a basis
lor rcscarch to dctcrminc objcctivcly which sorts ol wcapon causc thc RV prob
lcm, and which typcs ol RV rcprcscnt thc grcatcst humanitarian hazard.
Tc intcntion bchind this thrccclcmcnt analytical approach is to cnsurc
that thc proposals which latcr cmcrgc lor lurthcr action arc groundcd in logic. !t
rcprcscnts a rccognition that, il statcs arc to bc pcrsuadcd to crcatc and implc
mcnt ncw law, a numbcr ol lactors must bc clcarly cstablishcd to thc satislaction
ol national dclcgations. Tcsc includc:
thc prccisc naturc ol thc humanitarian conccrn, its causcs and charactcris
tics, and all ol thc availablc options lor addrcssing that conccrn,
thc scicntic ctc. basis lor concluding that thc proposcd ncw arrangcmcnts
will mitigatc or solvc thc idcnticd problcm,
that thc proposcd arrangcmcnts will not impcdc thc ability ol statcs to
dclcnd thcmsclvcs,
that thc proposcd arrangcmcnts can bc rcasonably implcmcntcd by all
statcs,
that thc ncw arrangcmcnts can bc implcmcntcd at proportionatc cost.
a Australia, Canada, Ncw Zcaland, Norway, Swcdcn, Switzcrland, UK and USA.
CCV/GG/X/VG../VP.a, datcd Mar. acc.
315 11 Te La. of !eaponry Is It dequate?
!l thcy cannot bc cstablishcd bclorc ncw law is crcatcd, obtaining univcrsal rati
cation ol that may wcll provc problcmatic. Somc NGs, howcvcr, considcr that
thc rcquircmcnts ol military utility arc givcn cxccssivc promincncc in this proc
css.

!n thc opinion ol thc author, and givcn that intcrnational law is and will
rcmain a mattcr lor statcs to agrcc upon and implcmcnt, it will always bc ncccs
sary to balancc military rcquircmcnts with humanitarian conccrns. Law which
lails to do so is likcly to bc, and rcmain, inccctivc. Tc CCV proccss ocrs thc
bcst approach yct dcvclopcd lor achicving this goal.
V Conclusion
Among thc conclusions that sccm to cmcrgc lrom thc lorcgoing discussion arc:
that gcncral principlcs ol cxisting law placc limits on thc harm that can
lcgitimatcly bc inictcd on advcrsarics and on thc cnvironmcnt,
that particular tcchnologics lound to bc ol conccrn arc subjcct to intcrna
tional law prohibitions or rcstrictions on usc,
that cxisting law rcquircs statcs to considcr thc applicablc law whcn acquir
ing ncw wcapons,
that a trcaty rcgimc cxists which lacilitatcs thc making ol ncw wcapons
rclatcd intcrnational law il this is nccdcd,
that this rcgimc rcquircs conscnsus bclorc any substantivc dcvclopmcnt ol
thc Convcntion or ol its protocols can takc placc. Vhilc this rcquircmcnt
may impcdc dcvclopmcnt ol thc law, it has thc mcrit that all statcs rcmain
in control ol thc wcapons law making proccss,
that nonconscnsus approachcs can producc ncw law quickly, but thc potcn
tial alicnation ol somc spccially acctcd statcs may diminish thc valuc ol
such a proccss, crodc adhcrcncc to its product and limit thc accomplishmcnt
in lact ol thc intcndcd humanitarian aims,
that an analytic approach to wcapons issucs ought to producc logical solu
tions. Conscnsus in lavour ol such solutions cannot bc guarantccd, but an
approach bascd on logical analysis is morc likcly, givcn timc, to gain widc
sprcad intcrnational support.
Tc body ol law rclating to wcapons has cxpandcd markcdly sincc thc adoption
ol CCV with its Protocols. Statcs havc dcmonstratcd a willingncss to considcr
humanitarian conccrns and, whcrc vcricd to thcir collcctivc satislaction, to act
consistcntly with thc rcquircmcnts ol military ncccssity. Vhilc thc inability to
achicvc conscnsus in lavour ol lurthcr and rapid progrcss in CCV in Novcmbcr
acc may causc somc to bclicvc that progrcss on wcaponry in that lorum has sud
dcnly bccomc impossiblc, it is thc authors vicw that this is lar lrom thc casc.
ut ol 8alancc, op. cit.
316 Bill Boothby
Rathcr, dcvcloping cxpcricncc shows that proposals lor ncw law in thc
wcapons cld must bc supportcd by rigorous and objcctivc justication. Tc sug
gcstcd action must adcquatcly and obscrvably rccognisc thc csscntial dclcncc
nccds ol statcs, and, thus, must pass thc will it work and makc a dicrcncc tcst.
Vhilc wcapons law cannot hopc to obviatc sucring on thc battlccld (indccd,
that is not its purposc), it docs providc an ccctivc mcans ol rcducing thc miscry
to a minimum lcvcl practically achicvablc by statcs. cvclopmcnt ol thc law is a
continuing proccss, and as ncw humanitarian conccrns cmcrgc and arc acccptcd
by statcs, lurthcr changcs in thc law can bc cxpcctcd. Vhcthcr thc spccd ol that
proccss will satisly all conccrncd rcmains to bc sccn. !t is, howcvcr, important in
thc vicw ol thc author that statcs rcmain in control ol thc proccss.
Chapter 12
Combatants Substancc or Scmantics:
Charles H.B. Garra.ay
Vhcn ! usc a word, Humpty umpty said in a rathcr scornlul tonc, it mcans
just what ! choosc it to mcan nothing morc nor lcss.
+
Prolcssor Yoram instcin is a giant in thc cld ol intcrnational law. ! am just onc
ol thc many who havc bcnctcd ovcr thc ycars lrom his wisdom and kindncss. Tc
sign ol truc grcatncss is ncvcr to bc alraid ol argumcnt or disscnt. Yoram instcin
ncvcr is and ncvcr has bccn. !ndccd hc cncouragcs it! nc ol my rst major
Conlcrcncc prcscntations lound mc on thc samc pancl as Prolcssor instcin on a
subjcct on which wc took opposcd vicws. To assist mc in my prcscntation, hc had
scnt mc copics ol somc ol his publishcd and unpublishcd matcrial so that !
could dcvclop my argumcnt. Hc thcn publishcd my papcr in thc !sracl Ycarbook
on Human Rights.
:
vcr thc ycars, wc havc continucd thc dialoguc and although
! initially dcscribcd thc gap bctwccn us as thc Atlantic ividc, hc soon taught
mc that in lact thc dividc is small in practicc and comcs down in somc rcspccts to
scmantics. !n rcality, our scparatc roads lcad to much thc samc cnd rcsult.
Far bc it lrom mc to accusc Prolcssor instcin ol any rcscmblancc to
Humpty umpty or any ol thc othcr charactcrs in Lcwis Carrolls storics.
Howcvcr, scmantics arc important and pcrhaps nowhcrc morc so than in thc
study ol law, whcthcr domcstic or intcrnational. Vords arc thc tools ol thc law
ycrs tradc and thcrclorc it is important that thcrc is somc agrccmcnt as to thc
mcaning to bc ascribcd to words that arc important in thc lcgal lcxicon. Courts
dcnc words and scck to dissuadc thc Humpty umptys ol this world lrom thcir
attcmpts to introducc anarchy into thc usc ol words. !n thc intcrnational cld,
thcrc arc lcwcr opportunitics lor such dccisions and grcatcr cmphasis pcrhaps on
principlcs. Tis is particularly so in thc cld ol intcrnational humanitarian law,
thc law ol armcd conict as it is known in thc military, whcrc thc law is bascd
. Alicc Trough thc Looking Glass, Lcwis Carroll, Valkcr 8ooks, London acc at
p..a.
a !ntcropcrability and thc Atlantic ividc A 8ridgc ovcr Troublcd Vatcrs, !sracl
Ycarbook on Human Rights (acc), at p..c.a.
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. z,-,.
318 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
on trcatics, oltcn containing compromisc wording ol which Humpty umpty
would bc proud.
And yct still words mattcr. Tc soldicr, sailor, airman or marinc is not intcr
cstcd in philosophy or principlcs. Hc or shc wants to know what hc or shc can or
cannot do. His or hcr ordcrs nccd to bc clcar and concisc. Tcrc is no room lor
ambiguity hcrc. nc ol thc tasks ol military lawycrs is to assist in that proccss ol
intcrprctation so that thc raw matcrial containcd in thc trcaty tcxts comcs out at
thc cnd ol thc proccss as clcar instructions, which thc lowcst scrviccman can thcn
undcrstand and implcmcnt.
!t is lor that rcason that ! wish hcrc to rcturn to my original disagrccmcnt
with Prolcssor instcin and scc whcrc wc havc movcd and whcncc wc arc moving.
Tc word that is thc subjcct ol so much controvcrsy is combatant. ! dclibcratcly
lcavc thc word in its unvarnishcd statc. Vhatcvcr adjcctivc somc may wish to usc
to dcscribc any particular catcgory illcgal, unlawlul, unprivilcgcd or just
plain cncmy thc corc ol thc problcm ol intcrprctation lics in thc noun itscll.
Vhat docs it mcan and, pcrhaps morc importantly, what should it mcan:
Somc ycars ago, ! was rcvicwing thc matcrial uscd at thc 8ritish Joint
Scrviccs Command and Sta Collcgc in thcir Foundation Studics Phasc. !n
that phasc, !ntcrnational Law and thics wcrc taught in thc samc packagc. Tc
csscntial rcading listcd consistcd ol a papcr by Christophcr Grccnwood,

a chap
tcr lrom a book by Pctcr Rowc

and a chaptcr lrom a book by Gordon Graham.

Tc problcm was that two wcrc by cmincnt scholars in intcrnational humanitar
ian law and onc by an cqually cmincnt scholar in thc cld ol cthics. No attcmpt
had bccn madc, so lar as ! could nd, to chcck lor consistcncy.
Grccnwood, in his papcr, outlincd in traditional tcrms that a ccntral lcaturc
ol thc laws ol armcd conict cvcr sincc thc cightccnth ccntury has bccn thc dis
tinction bctwccn combatants and civilians.
6
Hc wcnt on to dcal with thc dc
nition ol combatants undcr thc trcaty law, ranging lrom thc Haguc Rcgulations
Command and thc Laws ol Armcd Conict, Christophcr Grccnwood, Stratcgic
Combat Studics !nstitutc ccasional Papcr No., Cambcrlcy, . (Grccnwood).
Chaptcr , Tc Gcncva Convcntions and Additional Protocols, in clcncc: Tc
Lcgal !mplications: Military Law and thc Laws ol Var, Pctcr Rowc, 8rasscys, .,
(Rowc).
Chaptcr , Var, in thics and !ntcrnational Rclations, Gordon Graham, xlord,
8lackwclls, .6 (Graham).
6 Grccnwood, lootnotc abovc, at p...
319 12 Combatants Substance or Semantics?
ol .c,,

through thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion

8
to thc ncw rulcs introduccd by
Additional Protocol !.

Hc clcarly acccptcd that thc tcrm combatant is a tcch

nical tcrm undcr intcrnational humanitarian law and as such is dcncd within
it. Rowc too uscd thc word combatant
+o
lrcqucntly, but did not scck to dcnc
it. Yct, it is clcar lrom thc contcxt that it was bcing uscd again in its tcchnical
mcaning.
Howcvcr, whcn onc rcachcs Graham, thcrc is an cntircly dicrcnt approach.
Undcrstandably, hc is approaching thc wholc subjcct lrom an oppositc dircc
tion. !n his carly discussion on Just Var, thcrc is no mcntion ol trcatics such as
thc Kcllogg8riand Pact
++
or cvcn thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr.
+:
Hc is looking
to a dccpcr philosophical undcrpinning lor his argumcnts. Tis bccomcs appar
cnt also whcn hc movcs to Justicc in Bello.
+
Hc argucs, Vhat is not so clcar
is thc prccisc dcnition ol combatant. Hc comcs up with his own dcnition:
Combatants arc thosc pcoplc thc purposc ol whosc activity is to contributc to
thc thrcat, noncombatants arc thosc pcoplc who do not activcly contributc in
this scnsc, though thcy may constitutc part ol a rclcvant causal chain. Hc acccpts
that undcr this dcnition, munitions workcrs arc combatants, but gocs on to
say:
... it is truc that just whcrc thc linc is to bc drawn bctwccn combatant and non
combatant is in many cascs obscurc. For cxamplc, larmcrs who grow thc lood
an army cats nccd not grow thc lood lor thc army. Tcrc arc many historical
instanccs in which lood supplics havc simply bccn commandccrcd. Tcrc arc
othcrs whcrc thc larmcrs would havc grown thc lood anyway, and would just as
happily scll it to othcr purchascrs. Tcrc arc still othcr cascs, howcvcr, in which
a land army has bccn crcatcd prcciscly in ordcr to sustain or incrcasc lood pro
, Rcgulations Rcspccting thc Laws and Customs ol Var on Land, anncxcd to Haguc
Convcntion (!\) Rcspccting thc Laws and Customs ol Var on Land, . ctobcr
.c, (Haguc Rcgulations), rcprintcd in ocumcnts on thc Laws ol Var, (Adam
Robcrts and Richard Gucl, cds.),
rd
d. accc, xlord, UP, at p., (Robcrts and
Gucl).
Gcncva Convcntion Rclativc to thc Trcatmcnt ol Prisoncrs ol Var, August .a .
(Gcncva Convcntion !!!), rcprintcd in Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.a.
.,, Protocol Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August ., and Rclating
to thc Protcction ol \ictims ol !ntcrnational Armcd Conicts, (Additional Protocol
!), rcprintcd in Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.aa.
.c Scc lor cxamplc, Rowc, lootnotc , pagc . in which hc rclcrs to a rulc ol custom
ary intcrnational law that combatants arc rcquircd to distinguish at all timcs bctwccn
civilian and military objcctivcs and to attack only thc lattcr.
.. Tc Pact ol Paris, Gcncral Trcaty lor Rcnunciation ol Var as an !nstrumcnt ol
National Policy (Kcllogg8riand Pact), .a, LNTS ,.
.a Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations, a6 Junc ., rcprintcd in 8asic ocumcnts in
!ntcrnational Law (!an 8rownlic, cd.),
th
d. acca, xlord, UP, at p.a.
. Graham, lootnotc , at p....
320 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
duction lor military purposcs. Arc agricultural workcrs noncombatants in thc
rst two cascs, but not in thc third: My own inclination is to say ycs, but it has
to bc agrccd that thcrc arc rcasons in support ol varying points ol vicw.
+
At no stagc in thc discussion is thcrc any rccognition that thc tcrm combatant
carrics lcgal connotations undcr intcrnational humanitarian law. Tc contradic
tion bctwccn thc narrow tcst to bc lound in Grccnwood, bascd on lcgal dcni
tions, and thc widcr tcst in Graham, bascd on moral oncs, is striking. Vhat is an
occr conlrontcd with thcsc two dicrcnt tcsts to do: Tc tcmptation must bc
to go lor thc widcr dcnition on thc basis that it is lcss rcstrictivc. Howcvcr, to do
so would put that occr at risk ol committing war crimcs. Vhat may bc cthically
acccptablc may not bc lcgal.
!t is this conlusion that lics bchind much ol thc currcnt dcbatc ovcr thc
mcaning ol thc word combatant. Tc Pockct xlord ictionary dcncs com
batant as a pcrson or nation cngagcd in ghting during a war.
+
Tis sccms in
turn narrowcr than thc cthical dcnition ol Graham in that it involvcs participa
tion in thc act ol ghting. Tis dcnition is pcrhaps closcst to that adoptcd by
Prolcssor instcin himscll who statcs:
Undcr L!AC, combatants in an intcrnational armcd conict lall into two
altcrnativc catcgorics:
(i) Mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs ol a bclligcrcnt party (cxccpt mcdical and
rcligious pcrsonncl ).... cvcn il thcir spccic task is not linkcd to activc
hostilitics.
(ii) Any othcr pcrsons who takc an activc part in hostilitics.
+6

instcins sccond catcgory ts with thc xlord dcnition, but his rst is widcr in
that mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs (othcr than mcdical and rcligious pcrsonncl)
arc combatants at all timcs, whcthcr or not thcy arc cngagcd in ghting. Tis
makcs it clcar that thc tcrm combatant, in this scnsc at lcast, dcscribcs a status
rathcr than an activity. Yct both thc cthical dcnition ol Graham and thc diction
ary dcnition ol xlord dcpcnd on activity and it is as a rcsult ol that activity
that thc dcnition attachcs. Tc kcy to thc disputc is pcrhaps thcrclorc whcthcr
thc tcrm combatant dcpcnds on whom you arc or what you do. To undcrstand
how this situation has ariscn, it is ncccssary to look at how thc usc ol thc tcrm
combatant has dcvclopcd in intcrnational humanitarian law.
Tc Licbcr Codc ol .6, Articlc . statcs:
. Ibid, at p..a.
. Pockct xlord nglish ictionary, .c
th
d. acc, UP, at p..,c.
.6 Tc Conduct ol Hostilitics undcr thc Law ol !ntcrnational Armcd Conict, Yoram
instcin, CUP acc, at p.a,.
321 12 Combatants Substance or Semantics?
All cncmics in rcgular war arc dividcd into two gcncral classcs that is to say,
into combatants and noncombatants, or unarmcd citizcns ol thc hostilc gov
crnmcnt.
+
Howcvcr, thc Codc docs not scck to dcnc thc tcrm combatant. !n thc xlord
Manual,
+8
thc tcrm docs not cvcn appcar. Tc prclcrrcd tcrm is usually bcllig
crcnt and it is this tcrm that again dominatcs thc Haguc Rcgulations ol .
and .c,. Scction ! ol thc .c, Rcgulations is cntitlcd n 8clligcrcnts with
Chaptcr ! Tc Qualications ol 8clligcrcnts.
+
Articlc . ol thc Rcgulations scts
out that:
Tc laws, rights, and dutics ol war apply not only to armics, but also to militia
and voluntccr corps lullling thc lollowing conditions:
.. To bc commandcd by a pcrson rcsponsiblc lor his subordinatcs,
a. To havc a xcd distinctivc cmblcm rccognizablc at a distancc,
. To carry arms opcnly, and
. To conduct thcir opcrations in accordancc with thc laws and customs ol
war.
!n countrics whcrc militia or voluntccr corps constitutc thc army, or lorm part
ol it, thcy arc includcd undcr thc dcnomination army.
:o
Articlc gocs on to providc:
Tc armcd lorccs ol thc bclligcrcnt partics may consist ol combatants and non
combatants. !n thc casc ol capturc by thc cncmy, both havc a right to bc trcatcd
as prisoncrs ol war.
:+
!t would sccm lrom this that thc tcrm combatant was uscd at this timc to indi
catc activity rathcr than status with thc tcrm bclligcrcnt uscd morc as a tcrm ol
status. Tis is to somc cxtcnt supportcd by thc tcxt ol Articlc a, which says:
Tc inhabitants ol a tcrritory which has not bccn occupicd, who, on thc
approach ol thc cncmy, spontancously takc up arms to rcsist thc invading
., Gcncral rdcrs .cc, !nstructions lor thc Govcrnmcnt ol Armics ol thc Unitcd
Statcs in thc Ficld, (Tc Licbcr Codc), rcprintcd in Tc Laws ol Armcd Conict
(ictrich Schindlcr and Jiri Toman cds.),
th
d. acc, Martinus Nijho, Lcidcn,
p., at p.. (Schindlcr and Toman).
. Tc Laws ol Var on Land (xlord Manual), xlord, .c, rcprintcd in Schindlcr
and Toman, lootnotc .,, at p.a.
. Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.,.
ac Ibid.
a. Ibid.
322 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
troops without having had timc to organizc thcmsclvcs in accordancc with
Articlc ., shall bc rcgardcd as bclligcrcnts il thcy carry arms opcnly and il thcy
rcspcct thc laws and customs ol war.
::
!t will bc notcd that pcrsons cngaging in such a le.ee en masse shall bc rcgardcd
as bclligcrcnts providcd that thcy comply with thc tcrms laid down.
Contrary to popular bclicl, thc word combatant docs not lcaturc in thc
Tird Gcncva Convcntion ol ..
:
Tis is hardly surprising, as thc purposc ol
thc lour Convcntions is to dcal with thc protcction ol victims ol war rathcr than
with thc conduct ol hostilitics. Howcvcr, much ol thc Haguc languagc dcaling
with bclligcrcnts was adoptcd in thc dcnition ol prisoncrs ol war. Articlc A
providcs that:
Prisoncrs ol war, in thc scnsc ol thc prcscnt Convcntion, arc pcrsons bclong
ing to onc ol thc lollowing catcgorics, who havc lallcn into thc powcr ol thc
cncmy:
(.) Mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs ol a Party to thc conict, as wcll as mcm
bcrs ol militias or voluntccr corps lorming part ol such armcd lorccs
(a) Mcmbcrs ol othcr militias and mcmbcrs ol othcr voluntccr corps, includ
ing thosc ol organizcd rcsistancc movcmcnts, bclonging to a Party to thc
conict and opcrating in or outsidc thcir own tcrritory, cvcn il this tcrri
tory is occupicd, providcd that such militias or voluntccr corps, including
such organizcd rcsistancc movcmcnts, lull thc lollowing conditions:
(a) that ol bcing commandcd by a pcrson rcsponsiblc lor his subordi
natcs,
(b) that ol having a xcd distinctivc sign rccognizablc at a distancc,
(c) that ol carrying arms opcnly,
(d) that ol conducting thcir opcrations in accordancc with thc laws and
customs ol war.
() Mcmbcrs ol rcgular armcd lorccs who prolcss allcgiancc to a govcrnmcnt
or an authority not rccognizcd by thc ctaining Powcr.
() Pcrsons who accompany thc armcd lorccs without actually bcing mcm
bcrs thcrcol, such as civilian mcmbcrs ol military aircralt crcws, war cor
rcspondcnts, supply contractors, mcmbcrs ol labour units or ol scrviccs
rcsponsiblc lor thc wcllarc ol thc armcd lorccs, providcd that thcy havc
rcccivcd authorization, lrom thc armcd lorccs which thcy accompany,
who shall providc thcm lor that purposc with an idcntity card similar to
thc anncxcd modcl.
() Mcmbcrs ol crcws, including mastcrs, pilots and apprcnticcs, ol thc mcr
chant marinc and thc crcws ol civil aircralt ol thc Partics to thc conict,
aa Ibid.
a Scc lootnotc .
323 12 Combatants Substance or Semantics?
who do not bcnct by morc lavourablc trcatmcnt undcr any othcr provi
sions ol intcrnational law.
(6) !nhabitants ol a nonoccupicd tcrritory, who on thc approach ol thc
cncmy spontancously takc up arms to rcsist thc invading lorccs, without
having had timc to lorm thcmsclvcs into rcgular armcd units, providcd
thcy carry arms opcnly and rcspcct thc laws and customs ol war.
:
Tcsc provisions, ol coursc, go bcyond thc dcnition ol bclligcrcnts in that para
graphs and involvc pcrsonncl who arc not includcd in thc Haguc dcni
tions and arc not mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs. Morcovcr, nobody would arguc
that thcy wcrc in law bclligcrcnts, although undcr thc Graham dcnition, thcy
might ccrtainly bc classcd as combatants by virtuc ol thc activitics that thcy
conduct.
Richard 8axtcr, in his scminal articlc on thc issuc ol unprivilcgcd bcllig
crcncy writtcn in ..,
:
sccms to indicatc that thc undcrstanding ol thc words
bclligcrcnt and combatant was bcginning to changc. !t is unclcar whcthcr hc
is using thc tcrm bclligcrcnt as a status bascd asscssmcnt or onc bascd on con
duct. For cxamplc, whcn dcaling with gucrrilla ghtcr, hc says:
Tc gucrrilla thus appcars, likc thc spy, to bc a bclligcrcnt who has lailcd to
mcct thc conditions cstablishcd by law lor lavourcd trcatmcnt upon capturc.
:6


Tc hcading ol thc passagc on spics is cntitlcd hostilc conduct by pcrsons not ol
thc armcd lorccs: spics
:
and yct somc ol thc tcxt rclatcs to military spics who arc
clcarly bclligcrcnts in thc status scnsc.
Latcr in thc articlc, 8axtcr statcs:
8clligcrcnts, both civilian and military, may also assumc as disguisc thc uni
lorm ol thc cncmy.
:8
Clcarly, it would sccm hcrc that 8axtcr is using thc tcrm bclligcrcnt in its con
duct scnsc, namcly somcbody who is cngaging in hostilitics.
Tc word combatant docs not appcar that lrcqucntly in thc articlc and
again thc scnsc ol its cxact mcaning is unclcar. For cxamplc, 8axtcr statcs:
a Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.a.
a Richard 8axtcr, SoCallcd Unprivilcgcd 8clligcrcncy: Spics, Gucrrillas and
Sabotcurs, .. 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational Law, at p.a.
a6 Ibid, at p..
a, Ibid, at p.a.
a Ibid, at p...
324 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
utsidc thcsc thrcc classcs ol pcrsons to whom intcrnational law has ocrcd
shcltcr lrom thc cxtrcmc violcncc ol war, thcrc arc othcr pcrsons who tradi
tionally havc not bcnctcd lrom a privilcgcd status undcr intcrnational law,
namcly, gucrrillas, partisans, socallcd wartraitors, francs-tireurs, and othcr
pcrsons who in thc lacc ol thc cncmy or bchind his lincs, havc committcd hos
tilc acts without mccting thc qualications prcscribcd lor lawlul bclligcrcnts.
Tc dctcrmination ol thc rcquircmcnts to bc cstablishcd lor thosc claiming
prisoncrolwar status has not bccn casy, and it has bccn cqually troublcsomc
to asscss thc basis on which pcrsons not so qualilying should bc pcnalizcd or
punishcd whcthcr as war criminals, or as violators ol thc laws and customs ol
war, or mcrcly as pcrsons whosc acts havc bccn harmlul to thc opposing bcl
ligcrcnt. !t has gcncrally bccn undcrstood that such pcrsons arc subjcct to thc
dcath pcnalty, and to that cxtcnt thc law applicablc to such combatants has
bccn clcar.
:
Hcrc thc usc ol combatant sccms to indicatc a conduct bascd asscssmcnt rathcr
than status. Hc also citcs thc Vorld Var !! casc ol Ex parte Quirin et al
o
whcrc
sabotcurs landcd in thc Unitcd Statcs and, although mcmbcrs ol thc Gcrman
armcd lorccs, discardcd thcir unilorms on arrival. !n that casc thc Suprcmc Court
statcd:
Lawlul combatants arc subjcct to capturc and dctcntion as prisoncrs ol war
by opposing military lorccs. Unlawlul combatants arc likcwisc subjcct to capturc
and dctcntion, but in addition thcy arc subjcct to trial and punishmcnt by mili
tary tribunals lor acts which rcndcr thcir bclligcrcncy unlawlul.
+
n thc lacts ol thc casc, it would sccm that thc Court was hcrc using thc
tcrm combatant in a status capacity and distinguishing bctwccn thosc combat
ants who arc acting in accordancc with thc laws ol war (lawlul combatants) and
thosc who havc brokcn thc law (unlawlul combatants). Tc lattcr arc subjcct to
trial lor acts which rcndcr thcir bclligcrcncy unlawlul. Hcrc also bclligcrcncy
sccms to bc bcing uscd as a conduct bascd mattcr.
Sincc .., thc word bclligcrcnt has rathcr dicd out and is now lookcd
upon as oldlashioncd. Combatant, on thc othcr hand, has riscn in popular
ity but again onc is lclt with thc problcm ol dcnition. Additional Protocol ! ol
.,,
:
sought to rcsolvc that issuc. Articlc statcs:
.. Tc armcd lorccs ol a Party to a conict consist ol all organizcd armcd
lorccs, groups and units which arc undcr a command rcsponsiblc to that
Party lor thc conduct or its subordinatcs, cvcn il that Party is rcprcscntcd
a Ibid, at p.a6,.
c ., U.S. ..
. Ibid, at p...
a Scc lootnotc .
325 12 Combatants Substance or Semantics?
by a govcrnmcnt or an authority not rccognizcd by an advcrsc Party. Such
armcd lorccs shall bc subjcct to an intcrnal disciplinary systcm which,
intcr alia, shall cnlorcc compliancc with thc rulcs ol intcrnational law
applicablc in armcd conict.
a. Mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs ol a Party to a conict (othcr than mcdical
pcrsonncl and chaplains covcrcd by Articlc ol thc Tird Convcntion)
arc combatants, that is to say, thcy havc thc right to participatc dircctly in
hostilitics.

Tis is a clcar rcvcrsal lrom thc carlicr Haguc Rcgulations in which mcmbcrs ol
thc armcd lorccs could bc combatants or noncombatants, bascd on thcir activi
tics. Now all mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs, othcr than mcdical pcrsonncl and
chaplains, arc combatants rcgardlcss ol whcthcr thcy arc activcly cngagcd in thc
conduct ol hostilitics. vcn military lawycrs arc now combatants! Tc dcnition
hcrc is undoubtcdly bascd on status rathcr than conduct.
8ut Additional Protocol ! gocs lurthcr. !t sccks to closc anothcr gap by pro
viding a dcnition ol civilian. Tis is to bc lound in Articlc c(.) which statcs:
A civilian is any pcrson who docs not bclong to onc ol thc catcgorics ol pcrsons
rclcrrcd to in Articlc (A) (.), (a), () and (6) ol thc Tird Convcntion and in
Articlc ol this Protocol. !n casc ol doubt whcthcr a pcrson is a civilian, that
pcrson shall bc considcrcd to bc a civilian.

From this, it will bc sccn that unlcss somconc is a mcmbcr ol thc armcd lorccs
ol a Party to thc conict, as dcncd in Articlc , or altcrnativcly within thosc
catcgory ol bclligcrcnts cntitlcd to prisoncrolwar status undcr Articlc A ol
thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion, that pcrson is a civilian. Tis includcs thosc cat
cgorics ol pcrson containcd in Articlc A() and (), such as civilians accompa
nying thc armcd lorccs, who might othcrwisc qualily as combatants undcr thc
Graham tcst as outlincd carlicr.
!t is somctimcs claimcd that in lact Additional Protocol ! gocs cvcn lurthcr
than this in cxtcnding thc dcnition ol combatant to includc tcrrorists.

Tc
authority lor this is claimcd to bc Articlc which statcs:
.. Any combatant, as dcncd in Articlc , who lalls into thc powcr ol an
advcrsc Party shall bc a prisoncr ol war.
a. Vhilc all combatants arc obligcd to comply with thc rulcs ol intcrna
tional law applicablc in armcd conict, violations ol thcsc rulcs shall not
Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p..
Ibid, at p..
Scc, lor cxamplc, ouglas Fcith, Law in thc Scrvicc ol Tcrror Tc Strangc Casc ol
thc Additional Protocol, Tc National !ntcrcst, Fall ., at p.6.
326 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
dcprivc a combatant ol his right to bc a combatant or, il hc lalls into thc
powcr ol an advcrsc Party, ol his right to bc a prisoncr ol war, cxccpt as
providcd in paragraphs and .
. !n ordcr to promotc thc protcction ol thc civilian population lrom thc
cccts ol hostilitics, combatants arc obligcd to distinguish thcmsclvcs
lrom thc civilian population whilc thcy arc cngagcd in an attack or in a
military opcration prcparatory to an attack. Rccognizing, howcvcr, that
thcrc arc situations in armcd conicts whcrc, owing to thc naturc ol thc
hostilitics an armcd combatant cannot so distinguish himscll, hc shall
rctain his status as a combatant, providcd that, in such situations, hc car
rics his arms opcnly:
(a) during cach military cngagcmcnt, and
(b) during such timc as hc is visiblc to thc advcrsary whilc hc is cngagcd
in a military dcploymcnt prcccding thc launching ol an attack in
which hc is to participatc.
Acts which comply with thc rcquircmcnts ol this paragraph shall not bc
considcrcd as pcrdious within thc mcaning ol Articlc ,, paragraph .
(c).
. A combatant who lalls into thc powcr ol an advcrsc Party whilc lailing
to mcct thc rcquircmcnts sct lorth in thc sccond scntcncc ol paragraph
shall lorlcit his right to bc a prisoncr ol war, but hc shall, ncvcrthclcss, bc
givcn protcctions cquivalcnt in all rcspccts to thosc accordcd to prison
crs ol war by thc Tird Convcntion and by this Protocol. Tis protcction
includcs protcctions cquivalcnt to thosc accordcd to prisoncrs ol war by
thc Tird Convcntion in thc casc whcrc such a pcrson is tricd and pun
ishcd lor any ocnccs hc has committcd.
. Any combatant who lalls into thc powcr ol an advcrsc Party whilc not
cngagcd in an attack or in a military opcration prcparatory to an attack
shall not lorlcit his rights to bc a combatant and a prisoncr ol war by
virtuc ol his prior activitics.
6. Tis Articlc is without prcjudicc to thc right ol any pcrson to bc a pris
oncr ol war pursuant to Articlc ol thc Tird Convcntion.
,. Tis Articlc is not intcndcd to changc thc gcncrally acccptcd practicc ol
Statcs with rcspcct to thc wcaring ol thc unilorm by combatants assigncd
to thc rcgular, unilormcd armcd units ol a Party to thc conict.
. !n addition to thc catcgorics ol pcrsons mcntioncd in Articlc . ol thc
First and Sccond Convcntions, all mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs ol a Party
to thc conict, as dcncd in Articlc ol this Protocol, shall bc cntitlcd to
protcction undcr thosc Convcntions il thcy arc woundcd or sick or, in thc
casc ol thc Sccond Convcntion, shipwrcckcd at sca or in othcr watcrs.
6
6 Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p..
327 12 Combatants Substance or Semantics?
Howcvcr, what is oltcn ovcrlookcd is thc opcning phrasc, any combatant, as
dcncd in Articlc . Tcrcaltcr, whcrcvcr thc word combatant is uscd, it must
also rclcr back to Articlc . Tus, Articlc docs not cxtcnd thc dcnition ol
combatant but pcrmits ccrtain activitics to thosc who arc alrcady combatants.
!t sccms thcrclorc that thc whccl has now turncd lull circlc. Vhcrcas in
.c,, mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs had thc status ol bclligcrcnts and by thcir
conduct wcrc classcd as combatants or noncombatants, thc status is now that ol
combatant. Tis brings thc argumcnt back to thc position ol thosc who do not
qualily lor thc status ol combatant but takc part in hostilitics ncvcrthclcss. o
thcy bccomc combatants by thcir actions or do thcy lall within somc othcr cat
cgory: !l onc adopts thc conduct dcnition ol combatant, thcn it makcs scnsc
to say that thcy do indccd bccomc combatants, though unlawlul oncs. Howcvcr,
it is hard to rcconcilc this with thc languagc ol Additional Protocol !, cithcr in
its dcnition ol combatant or that ol civilian. n thc othcr hand, il a status
dcnition ol combatant is acccptcd, thcn such pcoplc cannot bccomc combat
ants purcly by action. Tus, to usc thc tcrm combatant in such circumstanccs,
whcthcr lawlul or unlawlul, is conlusing. An unlawlul combatant can only
mcan somcbody cntitlcd to thc status ol combatant but who acts outsidc thc
rulcs govcrning that status, thus dcpriving himscll ol thc privilcgcs that would
normally bclong to somconc with combatant status.
To thcn usc thc tcrm cncmy combatant, particularly il it is not clcarly
dcncd,

mcrcly adds to thc conlusion. Traditionally, thc tcrm cncmy combat

ant rclcrs to lcgitimatc combatants who arc cntitlcd to prisoncrolwar status.
!t is a ncw usagc to dcscribc thosc who arc dccmcd to bc unlawlul bclligcrcnts
as such. Vhat tcrm is lclt lor thosc lcgitimatc combatants bclonging to cncmy
armcd lorccs:
8ut do thcsc linguistic scmantics actually changc practiccs on thc ground: !
bclicvc thcy do. !n ., wars wcrc still largcly lought by organiscd armcd lorccs.
Civilians would only bc involvcd in hostilitics cithcr as part ol a le.ee en masse,
in which casc thcy wcrc cntitlcd to combatant status, or as part ol organiscd
rcsistancc movcmcnts which in turn wcrc givcn rccognition in thc Tird Gcncva
Convcntion.
8
Vhcrc indcpcndcnt civilians took part in armcd conict, it was
morc likcly to bc in thc contcxt ol occupation and thcrclorc was dcalt with undcr
thc acgis ol thc law rclating to occupation, that hall way housc bctwccn thc law
rclating to thc conduct ol hostilitics and that rclating to law cnlorccmcnt. Statcs
wcrc cntitlcd to takc action against pcrsons othcrwisc protcctcd, but only in so lar
as thcir sccurity intcrcsts rcquircd it.

Articlc ol GC !\ providcs that:

, Scc criticism by thc Unitcd Statcs Suprcmc Court in Hamdi v. Rumslcld, !LM
..66 (acc) at p...6.
Art. .A(a), Gcncva Convcntion !!!, Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.a.
Scc lor cxamplc Art., Gcncva Convcntion Rclativc to thc Protcction ol Civilian
Pcrsons in Timc ol Var ol August .a . (Gcncva Convcntion !\), rcprintcd in
328 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
Pcrsons protcctcd by thc Convcntion arc thosc who, at a givcn momcnt and
in any manncr whatsocvcr, nd thcmsclvcs, in casc ol a conict or occupation,
in thc hands ol a Party to thc conict or ccupying Powcr ol which thcy arc
not nationals.
Howcvcr, this vcry widc provision is thcn rcstrictcd somcwhat in that:
Nationals ol a Statc which is not bound by thc Convcntion arc not protcctcd
by it. Nationals ol a ncutral Statc who nd thcmsclvcs in thc tcrritory ol a bcl
ligcrcnt Statc, and nationals ol a cobclligcrcnt Statc shall not bc rcgardcd as
protcctcd pcrsons whilc thc Statc ol which thcy arc nationals has normal dip
lomatic rcprcscntation in thc Statc in whosc hands thcy arc.
o
!t was assumcd that most pcoplc taking part in hostilitics would bc mcmbcrs ol
armcd lorccs or bclligcrcnts othcrwisc dcncd within thc Haguc Rcgulations.
+

Tc Tird Gcncva Convcntion spccically providcs thcm with prisoncrolwar
status. !t also providcs lor cascs whcrc pcrsons who qualily as prisoncrs ol war
havc committcd brcachcs ol thc laws ol war.
:
Vhilst thcy do not losc thcir status
as prisoncrs ol war, thcy can bc tricd and scntcnccd lor such illcgal acts. !t was
thc Sovict bloc who rcsistcd this and argucd that such pcoplc should not bc
cntitlcd to prisoncrolwar status at all.

Tus, it was bclligcrcnt status that pri

marily govcrncd prisoncr ol war status and, according to thc Sovict bloc, illc
gal conduct that could rcmovc it. Tc Sovict bloc rcscrvation was not gcncrally
acccptcd.

As has alrcady bccn idcnticd, thc major cxamplc ol whcrc pcrsons

who wcrc not cntitlcd to bclligcrcnt status took part in hostilitics was providcd
in Vorld Var !! by rcsistancc movcmcnts. Tc Tird Convcntion sought to allc
viatc that by making spccic provision lor such movcmcnts providcd that thcy
mct ccrtain critcria.

!ndividual unlawlul bclligcrcnts wcrc lcss common and

again rcstrictcd to occupicd tcrritory. Tc dangcr thcrclorc was that thcy would
bc trcatcd as common criminals undcr domcstic law. As a rcsult, it madc scnsc
Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.c., c.
c Art. , Gcncva Convcntion !\, ibid, at p.ca.
. Art.., Haguc Rcgulations, ibid, at p.,.
a Art., Gcncva Convcntion !!!, ibid, at p.,.
Scc thc rcscrvation to Gcncva Convcntion !!! ol Albania and othcrs, rcprintcd in
Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.6.
Tc Unitcd Kingdom, lor onc, cxprcsscd doubt as to thc validity ol thc rcscrvation.
Scc John Hydcn, Sovict Attitudcs to Prisoncrs ol Var, Journal ol thc Royal Unitcd
Scrviccs !nstitutc, \ol..c, No. (Scpt. .), p.aa, at p.a. Scc also Commcntary
on thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August . ( Jcan Pictct, cd.), \ol.!!!, !CRC,
Gcncva, .6c at p.a.
Art., Gcncva Convcntion !!!, Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.a.
329 12 Combatants Substance or Semantics?
to cnsurc that thcy bcnctcd lrom somc ol thc protcctions givcn by thc Fourth
Convcntion.
Howcvcr, as timcs havc changcd, so too has thc naturc ol warlarc. nc ol
thc problcms lacing thc ncgotiators ol thc Additional Protocols was this cvolu
tion, and thc corrcsponding changc in thc naturc ol participants in conict. !t was
in thc light ol this that Additional Protocol ! dividcd pcoplc into two catcgorics,
combatants and civilians.
6
ach was a status dctcrmination. A combatant
could losc privilcgcs il hc committcd unlawlul acts but would not losc his status
as a combatant.

!n thc samc way, a civilian would also losc protcction il hc com

mittcd bclligcrcnt acts but would not, by so doing, bccomc a combatant.
Articlc .() ol Additional Protocol ! statcs:
Civilians shall cnjoy thc protcction aordcd by this scction, unlcss and lor such
timc as thcy takc a dircct part in hostilitics.
8
! do not intcnd hcrc to discuss cithcr what is mcant by dircct part or unlcss and
lor such timc. Tc mcanings ol thcsc phrascs arc undcr discussion by a Group
ol xpcrts brought togcthcr by thc !ntcrnational Committcc ol thc Rcd Cross
(!CRC) and thc Asscr !nstitutc in thc Ncthcrlands. Tc dcbatc is intcnsc.

Vhat
is morc important is thc cxtcnt ol thc loss ol protcction. Tc scction rclcrrcd to
in Articlc .() is Scction ! ol Part !\ which dcals with thc Gcncral Protcction
Against ccts ol Hostilitics ol thc civilian population. !t runs lrom Articlc
to 6, and much is dircctcd spccically to thc protcction ol civilians lrom attack,
particularly thc principlc ol distinction. !t is argucd, with somc lorcc thcrclorc,
that whcrc a civilian chooscs to takc a dircct part in hostilitics, hc or shc loscs his
protcction against attack but rctains his othcr privilcgcs, including his rights
undcr thc Fourth Convcntion. Yct, docs this makc scnsc in thc light ol thc ovcrall
purposc ol Additional Protocol ! to draw a distinction bctwccn thosc who choosc
to takc a dircct part in hostilitics and thosc who dont:
As has bccn pointcd out abovc, thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion is pri
marily dcsigncd to protcct cncmy civilians lrom an opposing bclligcrcnt. Tc
Convcntion was draltcd on thc basis that such protcction was nccdcd as civil
ians wcrc, in principlc, innoccnt victims ol war, not conducting bclligcrcnt acts. !t
was rccognizcd that, in particular in occupicd tcrritory, civilians might cngagc in
activitics hostilc to thc sccurity ol thc bclligcrcnt powcr, including spying and
6 Scc lootnotc .
, Art.(a), Additional Protocol !, Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p..
Art..(), ibid, at p..
Rcports can bc lound on thc Asscr !nstitutc wcbsitc at http://www.wihl.nl/ and
on thc !CRC wcbsitc at http://www.icrc.org/Vcb/ng/sitccngc.nsl/iwpList,/
8cFF,c.,6FC.a6cc,aAA.
330 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
sabotagc.
o
Howcvcr, that is dicrcnt lrom thc situation lound today whcrc, in
many conicts, it is dicult to asccrtain thosc who arc thc rcgular bclligcrcnts
and thosc who do not cvcn bcgin to mcct thc critcria laid down in thc trcatics lor
bclligcrcnt, or lor that mattcr combatant status. Such pcoplc arc thc gcnuinc
unlawlul bclligcrcnts in that thcy arc taking a dircct and continuous part in hos
tilitics but lailing to comply with thc rcquircmcnts lor lawlully taking such part.
Tis is not thc casc ol thc civilian who takcs up arms bricy or cvcn thc larmcr
by day, ghtcr by night situation. Many ol thcsc pcoplc arc indistinguishablc in
thcir conduct lrom armcd lorccs.
At prcscnt, it is argucd that il capturcd, thcy arc cithcr prisoncrs ol war
undcr thc Tird Convcntion, or civilians who arc cntitlcd to trcatmcnt as civil
ian intcrnccs undcr thc Fourth, assuming that thcy qualily within thc nationality
critcria.
+
Howcvcr, il thcy do not qualily undcr thc dcnition ol prisoncrs ol war,
is it right that thcy should thcn bc trcatcd in accordancc with thc civilian status
that thcy hold undcr thc ncgativc dcnition ol civilian to bc lound in Articlc c
ol Additional Protocol !: Tis statcs that:
A civilian is any pcrson who docs not bclong to onc ol thc catcgorics ol pcrsons
rclcrrcd to in Articlc (A) (.), (a), () and (6) ol thc Tird Convcntion and in
Articlc ol this Protocol. !n casc ol doubt whcthcr a pcrson is a civilian, that
pcrson shall bc considcrcd to bc a civilian.
:

ocs this cntitlc thcm to thc protcctions ol thc Fourth Convcntion, cvcn il by
thcir conduct, thcy havc lost protcction undcr thc rclcvant Scction ol thc Protocol
itscll: !l that is so, thcn thc unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnt rcccivcs ccrtain privilcgcs
that thc privilcgcd bclligcrcnt, as a prisoncr ol war, docs not. For cxamplc, thc
privilcgcd bclligcrcnt can bc incarccratcd as a prisoncr ol war simply bccausc ol
who hc is.

Tc tcst lor thc civilian intcrncc is much tightcr. Articlc a ol GC

!\ statcs:
Tc intcrnmcnt or placing in assigncd rcsidcncc ol protcctcd pcrsons may bc
ordcrcd only il thc sccurity ol thc ctaining Powcr makcs it absolutcly ncccs
sary.

Vhilst this may, in thc casc ol thc unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnt, sccm a compara
tivcly simplc hurdlc to cross in thc light ol his actions, it rcquircs continuous
c Art Gcncva Convcntion !\, Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.c.
. Scc Knut ormann, Tc Lcgal Situation ol Unlawlul/Unprivilcgcd Combatants,
!ntcrnational Rcvicw ol thc Rcd Cross,\ol., No. (March acc) at p..
a Art.c(.), Additional Protocol !, Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p..
Art.a., Gcncva Convcntion !!!, ibid, at p.a.
Art.a, Gcncva Convcntion !\, ibid, at p...
331 12 Combatants Substance or Semantics?
rcvicw. A prisoncr ol war can bc hcld, on thc basis ol his status alonc, until thc
ccssation ol activc hostilitics.

Tc civilian intcrncc on thc othcr hand is cnti

tlcd to rcconsidcration and rcvicw on a rcgular basis. Articlc ol thc Fourth
Convcntion providcs:
Any protcctcd pcrson who has bccn intcrncd or placcd in assigncd rcsidcncc
shall bc cntitlcd to havc such action rcconsidcrcd as soon as possiblc by an
appropriatc court or administrativc board dcsignatcd by thc ctaining Powcr
lor that purposc. !l thc intcrnmcnt or placing in assigncd rcsidcncc is main
taincd, thc court or administrativc board shall pcriodically, and at lcast twicc
ycarly, givc considcration to his or hcr casc, with a vicw to thc lavourablc
amcndmcnt ol thc initial dccision, il circumstanccs pcrmit.
6
!t is to bc notcd that thcrc is almost a prcsumption in lavour ol rclcasc.
Similarly, whcn onc looks at somc ol thc conditions ol intcrnmcnt, thcy
rccct a dicrcnt situation. Although many ol thc provisions rclating to prisoncrs
ol war and civilian intcrnccs arc thc samc, Articlc ..6 ol thc Fourth Convcntion
statcs:
vcry intcrncc shall bc allowcd to rcccivc visitors, cspccially ncar rclativcs, at
rcgular intcrvals and as lrcqucntly as possiblc. As lar as is possiblc, intcrnccs
shall bc pcrmittcd to visit thcir homcs in urgcnt cascs, particularly in cascs ol
dcath or scrious illncss ol rclativcs.

Such a provision docs not appcar in thc Tird Convcntion lor obvious rcasons.
!t would bc clcarly impracticablc to imposc a rcquircmcnt to pcrmit lamily visits
whcrc such would rcquirc allowing alicns to cross cncmy lincs to visit prisoncr ol
war camps. 8ut, il it is acccptcd that prisoncrs ol war privilcgcd bclligcrcnts
cannot bc allowcd such visits as a mattcr ol right, thcn why, subjcct to Articlc ,
8

should thcir unprivilcgcd countcrparts:
!t is corrcct that unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts can bc prosccutcd lor thcir bcl
ligcrcnt acts as thcy havc no combatant immunity, but thcn privilcgcd bclligcr
cnts arc also liablc to prosccution il thcy act outsidc thc scopc ol thcir privilcgc,
i.c., in brcach ol thc laws ol armcd conict. Tc dicrcncc is in what thcy arc pcr
mittcd to do, not in any immunity lrom prosccution. Furthcrmorc, thc shccr num
bcrs ol unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts now appcaring in modcrn day conict makcs it
impossiblc to dcal with thc problcm by way ol criminal procccdings. Tis is cxac
crbatcd by thc incrcasing inucncc ol human rights law. Tc burdcn ol proving,
Art..., Gcncva Convcntion !!!, ibid, at p.a.
6 Art., Gcncva Convcntion !\, ibid, at p...
, Art...6, Gcncva Convcntion !\, ibid, at p...
Art., Gcncva Convcntion !\, ibid, at p.c.
332 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
to a criminal standard, acts ol bclligcrcncy (including complying with modcrn day
cvidcntial rulcs) may bc too cxacting and again would put thc unprivilcgcd bcl
ligcrcnt in a strongcr position than his privilcgcd countcrpart.
Tc law ol armcd conict has always bccn pragmatic. !t has to bc bccausc it
rccognizcs thc rcality ol armcd conict in a way that human rights law was ncvcr
dcsigncd to do. !t is this rccognition that cnablcs thc statcmcnt to bc madc that
military ncccssity cannot justily a brcach ol thc laws bccausc thc laws arc draltcd
with military ncccssity in mind.

Howcvcr, this nccd to takc into account thc

rcality ol conict also mcans that thc law must bc intcrprctcd in a manncr that
complics with that rcality. !l thc law, lor whatcvcr rcason, lails to rccct rcality as
thc naturc ol conict changcs, thcn it will bc ignorcd. At prcscnt, a strict rcad
ing ol thc law in rclation to unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts would indccd sccm to y
in thc lacc ol rcality and thus risk bcing ignorcd. n thc othcr hand, thc solu
tion proposcd by Prolcssor instcin, namcly that civilians who takc a dircct part
in hostilitics bccomc combatants, whilst supcrcially attractivc, runs cntircly
countcr to thc philosophy undcrpinning Additional Protocol ! and would widcn
thc dividc bctwccn thosc Statcs who arc Partics to Additional Protocol ! and
thosc who arc not.
!s thcrc a middlc way: ! bclicvc that thcrc is but it docs involvc somc
rcintcrprctation ol thc lcgal tcxts. ! would suggcst that thcrc arc now thrcc cat
cgorics ol pcrsons, privilcgcd bclligcrcnts, who arc, in principlc, cntitlcd to pris
oncrolwar status, civilians, who arc protcctcd and, il dctaincd, comc undcr
thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, and unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts, civilians who
choosc to takc a dircct part in hostilitics and thus losc thcir protcction as civil
ians, both undcr thc Additional Protocol and thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion,
lor so long as thcy takc such a dircct part. To somc this may sound a radical pro
posal but it could bc suggcstcd that thc gcrms ol such a solution arc alrcady to
bc containcd in Additional Protocol !. Articlc , providcs that a mcrccnary shall
not havc thc right to bc a combatant or a prisoncr ol war.
6o
ocs this mcan that
hc is a civilian and thcrclorc protcctcd undcr thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion:
A morc scnsiblc rcading would bc that, cvcn though hc lulls thc dcnition ol
combatant within thc Protocol, hc docs not havc thc rights attachcd to such
status and thus is an unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnt, with no prisoncrolwar status.
Howcvcr, hc docs not havc thc status ol civilian.
!l it is acccptcd that thcrc is this third catcgory, thcn how arc thcy to bc
trcatcd il ncithcr thc provisions ol thc Tird or Fourth Gcncva Convcntions arc
applicablc: Arc thcy in a lcgal black holc,
6+
as has bccn suggcstcd in rclation to
thc dctainccs in Guantanamo: Tc answcr is most ccrtainly not. vcn without
Scc, lor cxamplc, A.P.\.Rogcrs, Law on thc 8attlccld, a
nd
d., Manchcstcr
Univcrsity Prcss, acc, at p..
6c Art., Additional Protocol !, Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at p.,.
6. Scc Johan Stcyn, Guantanamo 8ay: Tc Lcgal 8lack Holc, !CLQ (acc) ..
333 12 Combatants Substance or Semantics?
rcliancc on lundamcntal human rights standards, it is possiblc to look at thc pro
visions ol Common Articlc to thc Gcncva Convcntions,
6:
as wcll as Articlc ,
ol Additional Protocol !.
6
!n thc casc ol thc lormcr, thc !ntcrnational Court ol
Justicc in thc Nicaragua Casc said:
Articlc which is common to all lour Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August .
dcncs ccrtain rulcs to bc applicd in armcd conicts ol a nonintcrnational char
actcr. Tcrc is no doubt that, in thc cvcnt ol intcrnational armcd conicts, thcsc
rulcs also constitutc a minimum yardstick in addition to thc morc claboratc rulcs
which arc also to apply to intcrnational conicts, and thcy arc rulcs which, in thc
Courts opinion, rccct ... clcmcntary considcrations ol humanity.
6

Articlc ,, laying down lundamcntal guarantccs which apply to pcrsons who
arc in thc powcr ol a Party to thc conict and who do not bcnct lrom morc
lavourablc trcatmcnt undcr thc Convcntions or undcr this Protocol, is gcncrally
acccptcd as rcccting customary intcrnational law.
6

!t is lair to point out that thc currcnt position ol thc Unitcd Statcs in rclation
to both Common Articlc and Articlc , is unclcar. !n onc ol thc now inlamous
Torturc Mcmos, thc Justicc cpartmcnt dcnicd thc applicability ol Common
Articlc to thc war on tcrror arguing that it only applicd in nonintcrnational
armcd conicts, dcning this as a war that docs not involvc crossbordcr attacks
that occurs within thc tcrritory ol onc ol thc High Contracting Partics.
66
Vhilst
this is corrcct as a mattcr ol trcaty law, it ics in thc lacc ol thc dcclaration by thc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc which has lound gcncral lavour. Similarly, dcspitc
an assurancc by Michacl Mathcson, thcn cputy Lcgal Adviscr at thc Statc
cpartmcnt that, |w|c support in particular thc lundamcntal guarantccs con
taincd in articlc ,,
6
morc rcccnt statcmcnts by thc currcnt Administration havc
6a Art., common to thc lour Gcncva Convcntions, Robcrts and Gucl, lootnotc ,, at
pp.., aa, a & ca.
6 Art.,, Additional Protocol !, ibid, at p.6.
6 Military and Paramilitary Activitics in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. Unitcd
Statcs) (Mcrits), ,6 !LR , at p..
6 Scc Chaptcr a, Fundamcntal Guarantccs, in Customary !ntcrnational Humanitarian
Law, \ol.!, Rulcs ( JcanMaric Hcnckacrts and Louisc oswald8cck cds.), CUP,
acc, at p.a.
66 Scc Mcmorandum lor Villiam J. Hayncs !!, Gcncral Counscl, cpartmcnt ol
clcnsc lrom John Yoo ol January acca, Application ol Trcatics and Laws to al
Qacda and Taliban ctainccs, in Tc Torturc Papcrs (Karcn Grccnbcrg and Joshua
ratcl cds.), CUP acc, at p..
6, Scc Rcmarks by Michacl J. Mathcson to thc Sixth Annual Amcrican Rcd Cross
Vashington Collcgc ol Law Conlcrcncc on !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law: A
Vorkshop on Customary !ntcrnational Law and thc .,, Protocols Additional to
thc . Gcncva Convcntions, a Am.U.J.!ntl L.& Poly, (.,) ., at p.a,.
334 Charles H.B. Garra.ay
cast doubt on thc Mathcson articlc and on thc acccptability ol Articlc ,.
68
!ndccd,
it sccms to havc bccn argucd that unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts havc no rights at
all.
6
!l this wcrc indccd so, thcn thc situation would bc scrious and thc black
holc would cxist. Howcvcr, il it is acccptcd that thc lundamcntal guarantccs arc
applicablc, thcn thc unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts arc indccd protcctcd but not to thc
samc cxtcnt as prisoncrs ol war or civilians undcr thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion.
Tis would sccm appropriatc in vicw ol thcir dicrcnt status. nc point should,
howcvcr, bc clcar. As with prisoncrs ol war and civilian intcrnccs, unprivilcgcd
bclligcrcnts can only bc hcld as such until thc cnd ol activc hostilitics whcrcupon
thcy must bc rclcascd unlcss thcy havc bccn tricd and scntcnccd by duc proccss ol
law lor thc acts that madc up thcir unlawlul bclligcrcncy.
Tis is not thc placc to go into dctailcd discussions on thc thc rights and
wrongs ol thc dccision by thc Unitcd Statcs Administration to dcny prisoncr
olwar status to all opposing lorccs in Alghanistan. Succ it to say that, cvcn
il such dccisions wcrc hcld to bc corrcct, this would only justily thc dctcntion
ol such unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts lor as long as activc hostilitics continucd in
Alghanistan, as was rccognizcd by thc Suprcmc Court.
o
Much ol thc dcbatc on
this issuc has bccn cloudcd by thc dccision to catcgorizc thc campaign against
transnational tcrrorism as a war with conscqucnt conlusion ovcr thc appropri
atc lcgal rcgimc to apply.
As will bc sccn lrom thc abovc, thc practical rcsult ol this analysis is much
thc samc as that achicvcd by Prolcssor instcin in his conduct bascd dcnition ol
combatant. Howcvcr, it avoids cxaccrbating thc philosophical rilt bctwccn thc
Additional Protocol ! Statcs and thosc who havc not raticd and cvcn activcly
opposc. Additional Protocol ! is hcrc to stay, raticd by somc .6 countrics. Tc
phcnomcnon ol pcrsons who do not t thc traditional dcnitions ol bclligcr
cnts or combatants taking up arms and conducting hostilitics is also hcrc to
stay and a practical solution must bc lound which mccts military rcality whilst
providing humanitarian guarantccs. !l that can bc donc in a manncr that providcs
an acccptablc solution lor all sidcs ol thc dividc without compromising cithcr
lcgal philosophy, thcn it is at lcast worth considcring. Maybc, Prolcssor instcin
is right as usual and thc dividc is as narrow as that.
6 Scc thc rrata Shcct ol a, Scptcmbcr acc to thc acc pcrational Law Handbook,
issucd by thc !ntcrnational and pcrational Law cpartmcnt, Tc Judgc Advocatc
Gcncrals Lcgal Ccntcr and School, US Army, which statcs that Michacl Mathcsons
articlc takcs an ovcrly broad vicw ol thc US position and may causc somc conlusion
as to US Policy.
6 !n his Mcmorandum ol , Fcbruary acca, Humanc Trcatmcnt ol al Qacda and Taliban
ctainccs, Prcsidcnt Gcorgc V. 8ush said, l coursc, our valucs as a Nation.. call
lor us to trcat dctainccs humancly, including thosc who arc not lcgally cntitlcd to
such trcatmcnt (cmphasis addcd). Rcprintcd in Tc Torturc Papcrs, lootnotc 66, at
pp...
,c Hamdi v. Rumslcld, !LM ..66 (acc), at p...,..
Chapter 13
Unlawlul/ncmy Combatants:
!ntcrprctations and Conscqucnccs
Jelena Pejic
Introduction
Following thc hcinous attacks ol Scptcmbcr .., acc., thc tcrm unlawlul com
batant was onc ol thc kcy lcgal notions associatcd with thc war on tcrrorism.
Today cvcn though onc cannot bc surc cxactly whcn and by whom thc shilt
was madc thc tcrm cncmy combatant sccms to havc bccomc thc prclcrrcd
dcsignation lor pcrsons involvcd in or associatcd with acts ol tcrrorism. Tc rst
part ol this articlc bricy cxamincs thc conccpts ol combatant and unlawlul
combatant undcr intcrnational humanitarian law. Tc sccond analyzcs thc idca
ol cncmy combatant in thc contcxt ol thc war on tcrrorism with a vicw to sug
gcsting a dicrcnt lcgal rcading ol its clcmcnts. Ultimatcly, thc analysis lcads to
thc conclusion that thc introduction ol an cncmy combatant dcsignation would
jcopardizc thc structurc and rationalc ol cxisting intcrnational law rulcs govcrn
ing thc protcction ol pcrsons.
I Combatant Status under International Humanitarian Iaw
Tc qucstion ol who is a combatant undcr intcrnational humanitarian law has
bccn so cxtcnsivcly cxamincd and dcbatcd that it is mcntioncd hcrc only to lay
thc groundwork lor thc scctions that lollow. To bcgin with, thc tcrm combat
ant, as wcll as dcrivations such as unlawlul combatant, cncmy combatant,
unprivilcgcd combatant and unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnt, arc gcrmanc only to
intcrnational armcd conict. Vhilc combatant is somctimcs uscd whcn rclcr
ring to nonintcrnational armcd conict, such usagc is colloquial, as a mattcr ol
Tis papcr was writtcn in a pcrsonal capacity and docs not ncccssarily rccct thc
vicws ol thc !ntcrnational Committcc ol thc Rcd Cross (!CRC).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. -.
336 Jelena Pejic
law, combatant status (or thc concomitant prisoncr ol war status) docs not cxist
in intcrnal armcd conicts.
+

Combatants arc pcrsons who havc thc right to participatc dircctly in hostili
tics.
:
Tc laws ol war providc combatant status to mcmbcrs ol thc rcgular armcd
lorccs (cxccpt lor mcdical pcrsonncl and chaplains). Ccrtain irrcgular armcd
lorccs havc thc status undcr spccicd conditions.

Apart lrom thc right to partic

ipatc dircctly in hostilitics, combatants cnjoy immunity upon capturc lrom crimi
nal prosccution lor lawlul acts ol war, such as attacks against military objcctivcs.
Tc corollary ol combatant immunity is that capturcd combatants may bc
intcrncd as prisoncrs ol war until thc cnd ol activc hostilitics without any lorm ol
proccss.

Vhilc prisoncrs ol war may not bc tricd lor lawlul acts ol war, thcy may
bc criminally prosccutcd lor war crimcs or othcr criminal acts committcd bclorc
or during intcrnmcnt. Tc Tird Gcncva Convcntion providcs that trial will bc
in thc samc courts, using thc samc proccdurc, as lor mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs
ol thc ctaining Powcr.

vcn il acquittcd, prisoncrs ol war may bc intcrncd by

thc ctaining Powcr until thc cnd ol activc hostilitics.
!n casc ol doubt about thc status ol a pcrson who has committcd a bcl
ligcrcnt act, such pcrson must upon capturc bc trcatcd as prisoncr ol war until
his or hcr status has bccn rcsolvcd by a compctcnt tribunal.
6
Vhilc thcrc has
rcccntly bccn much misundcrstanding about thc rolc and proccdurc to bc applicd
by Articlc tribunals, it is lairly clcar that thcy wcrc not cnvisagcd as judicial
bodics obligcd to comply with lair trial guarantccs. Tc purposc ol thcsc tri
bunals, usually cstablishcd closc to thc battlc zonc, is to individually dctcrminc
thc status ol capturcd bclligcrcnts, not to pronouncc on thcir criminal guilt or
innoccncc. As thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion is silcnt on thc proccdurcs to bc
lollowcd, proccdural issucs lall within thc purvicw ol thc ctaining Powcr. Tc
., US militarys rcgulation on ncmy Prisoncrs ol Var, Rctaincd Pcrsonncl,
Civilian !ntcrnccs and thcr ctainccs providcs a good cxamplc ol how articlc
. Pcrsons who do not or no longcr takc an activc part in hostilitics in nonintcrna
tional armcd conict arc covcrcd by thc rulcs ol Articlc common to thc Gcncva
Convcntions, ol thc Sccond Additional Protocol to thc Gcncva Convcntions il rati
cd, ol customary intcrnational humanitarian law and ol human rights law. Tc tcxts
ol thc . Gcncva Convcntions and ol thcir two Additional Protocols ol .,, is
availablc at www.icrc.org.
a AP !, articlc (a).
Tc conditions lor combatant and prisoncr ol war status arc providcd lor in GC !!!,
articlc and AP !, articlcs and .
GC !!!, articlc ... 8ut scc also articlcs .c.., rcgarding thc dircct rcpatriation and
accommodation in ncutral countrics ol prisoncrs ol war bclorc thc ccssation ol activc
hostilitics.
GC !!!, articlc .ca.
6 !bid, articlc .
337 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
as supplcmcntcd by ccrtain provisions ol Additional Protocol ! can bc clabo
ratcd at thc domcstic lcvcl.

Te Meaning of Unla.ful Combatant
Tc issuc ol who is an unlawlul combatant nccds to bc cxamincd in rclation to
thc rulcs govcrning both thc conduct ol hostilitics and thc trcatmcnt ol pcrsons
in thc powcr ol thc advcrsary. Tc lormcr dcnc a civilian as any pcrson who
docs not bclong to onc ol thc catcgorics ol pcrsons rclcrrcd to in Articlc A .),
a), ) and 6) ol thc Tird Convcntion and in Articlc ol thc First Additional
Protocol to thc Gcncva Convcntions.
8
8ascd on thc plain languagc ol thc tcxt,
which is gcncrally considcrcd to rccct customary intcrnational law, it may bc
said that thcrc arc no gaps in protcction as rcgards who may and who may not
bc attackcd. Simply put, combatants may bc targctcd, whilc civilians may not.
Pursuant to both trcaty and customary law, thc civilian population and indi
vidual civilians cnjoy gcncral protcction against dangcrs arising lrom military
opcrations. Tis mcans, inter alia, that thc civilian population and individual
civilians may not bc thc objcct ol attack, that indiscriminatc attacks (including
thosc that would violatc thc rulc ol proportionality) arc prohibitcd, and that civil
ians may not bc uscd to shicld military objcctivcs or to shicld, lavour or impcdc
military opcrations.

Tc onc cxccption to civilian immunity lrom dircct attack involvcs civil
ian participation in hostilitics. According to Articlc . () ol thc First Additional
Protocol to thc Gcncva Convcntions (and Articlc . () ol thc Sccond Additional
Protocol in thc casc ol nonintcrnational armcd conict), civilians cnjoy gcncral
protcction against thc cccts ol hostilitics, i.c. protcction lrom dircct attacks,
unlcss and lor such timc as thcy takc a dircct part in hostilitics.
+o
Two points
arc worth noting.
First, thcrc is insucicnt agrccmcnt among military and lcgal cxpcrts about
what acts may bc said to constitutc dircct participation and how thc tcmporal
aspcct (lor such timc as) should bc intcrprctcd. Givcn thc vcry gravc consc
qucncc ol targctability, thc notion ol dircct participation warrants comprchcnsivc
cxamination. Tis is all thc morc important having in mind that civilians par
ticipatc in hostilitics in both intcrnational and nonintcrnational armcd conicts
, Unitcd Statcs, Army, Navy, Air Forcc and Marinc Corps, ncmy Prisoncrs ol
Var, Rctaincd Pcrsonncl, Civilian !ntcrnccs and thcr ctainccs (AR .c,
PNA\!NST 6..6, AFJ! .c, MC 6...) (ct. ., .,), at http://ncds.daps.
dla.mil/ircctivcs/6._6.pdl.
AP !, articlc c (.).
!bid, articlc c (a), (), (), (,).
.c !bid, articlc . ().
338 Jelena Pejic
and that thcy contributc to thc asymmctrical naturc ol somc ongoing armcd con
icts.
++

Tc sccond point to bc cmphasizcd is that civilians who takc a dircct part
in hostilitics may bc prosccutcd undcr thc domcstic law ol thc ctaining Powcr
lor having takcn a dircct part in hostilitics, as wcll as lor any war crimcs thcy may
havc committcd. !n othcr words, thcy do not cnjoy a combatants immunity lrom
criminal prosccution lor lawlul acts ol war. !t must also bc notcd, howcvcr, that
intcrnational humanitarian law docs not prohibit civilians lrom taking up arms,
as cvidcnccd by thc lact that participation in hostilitics is not a violation ol intcr
national humanitarian law and thcrclorc not a war crimc per se.
Civilians who takc a dircct part in hostilitics in intcrnational armcd con
ict arc oltcn rclcrrcd to as unlawlul combatants, unprivilcgcd combatants
or unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts, cvcn though thcsc tcrms arc not lound in intcrna
tional humanitarian law trcatics. Along with civilians who participatc dircctly in
hostilitics, thc tcrm unlawlul combatants also cncompasscs mcmbcrs ol militias
and ol othcr voluntccr corps, including thosc ol organizcd rcsistancc movcmcnts,
who bclong to a party to an intcrnational armcd conict, but who lail to lull
thc conditions laid down in Articlc A (a) ol thc Tird Convcntion. As summcd
up by onc lcgal commcntator, whosc dcnition will also bc uscd lor thc purposcs
ol this papcr, thc tcrm unlawlul combatant is undcrstood as dcscribing all pcr
sons taking a dircct part in hostilitics without bcing cntitlcd to do so and who
thcrclorc cannot bc classicd as prisoncrs ol war on lalling into thc powcr ol thc
cncmy.
+:
B Te Legal Status of Unla.ful Combatants
As alrcady mcntioncd, unlawlul combatants may bc subjcct to dircct attack whilc
dircctly participating in hostilitics. Tcy may also bc prosccutcd undcr domcstic
law lor acts that would othcrwisc bc lawlul undcr intcrnational humanitarian law.
!t is thc spccic status and scopc ol protcction undcr intcrnational humanitarian
law ol unlawlul combatants who havc lallcn into thc hands ol thc advcrsc party
that continucs to gcncratc controvcrsy among lcgal practitioncrs and scholars.
At onc cnd ol thc spcctrum arc thosc, a minority admittcdly, who asscrt that
unlawlul combatants arc outsidc any intcrnational humanitarian law protcc
.. Tc !CRC and thc TMC Asscr !nstitutc havc hcld thrcc !nlormal xpcrt Mcctings
in Tc Haguc and Gcncva in acc, acc and acc locuscd on thc lcgal and prac
tical implications ol dircct participation in hostilitics by civilians. Tc summary
rcports ol thc xpcrt Mcctings may bc lound on thc !CRCs wcbsitc at www.icrc.org.
A lourth xpcrt Mccting, at which possiblc intcrprctivc guidancc on thc notion ol
dircct participation will bc discusscd will takc placc in acc6.
.a Knut ocrmann, Tc Lcgal Situation ol Unlawlul/Unprivilcgcd Combatants,
!ntcrnational Rcvicw ol thc Rcd Cross, March acc, \ol. , No. , at p. 6.
339 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
tion.
+
Tc middlc ground is hcld by thosc who bclicvc that unlawlul combat
ants arc covcrcd only by Articlc common to thc Gcncva Convcntions and/or
by Articlc , ol thc First Additional Protocol to thc Convcntions.
+
8oth Articlc
and Articlc , contain salcty nct provisions which, bccausc ol thcir lundamcntal
naturc, must bc obscrvcd at all timcs.
+
Tc two articlcs do not, howcvcr, providc
any guidancc on many substantivc and proccdural lcgal issucs, nor on how to
rcsolvc practical qucstions, that arisc in rclation to capturcd unlawlul combat
ants.
At thc othcr cnd ol thc spcctrum arc thosc, including thc author, who arguc
that unlawlul combatants who lull thc nationality critcria providcd lor in thc
Fourth Gcncva Convcntion rcmain protcctcd pcrsons undcr that Convcntion.
Unlawlul combatants who do not lull thc nationality critcria arc covcrcd by
Articlc , and othcr rulcs ol customary intcrnational humanitarian law.
Tc position that civilians who havc takcn a dircct part in hostilitics arc
covcrcd by thc Fourth Convcntion is bascd on thc plain languagc ol Articlc ol
that Convcntion:
Pcrsons protcctcd by thc Convcntion arc thosc who, at a givcn momcnt and
in any manncr whatsocvcr, nd thcmsclvcs, in casc ol a conict or occupation,
in thc hands ol a Party to thc conict or ccupying Powcr ol which thcy arc
not nationals.
Vhilc thc scopc ol pcrsonal application is thus lormulatcd in thc most com
prchcnsivc way, it is subjcct to limitations providcd lor in thc ncxt paragraph ol
Articlc :
Nationals ol a Statc which is not bound by thc Convcntion arc not protcctcd
by it. Nationals ol a ncutral Statc who nd thcmsclvcs in thc tcrritory ol a bcl
ligcrcnt Statc, and nationals ol a cobclligcrcnt statc, shall not bc rcgardcd as
. Scc !ngrid cttcr, Tc Law ol Var, Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, accc, at p. .6.
. Scc Yoram instcin, Tc Conduct ol Hostilitics undcr thc Law ol !ntcrnational
Armcd Conict, Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, acc, at pp. a. Scc also Adam
Robcrts, Tc Laws ol Var in thc Var on Tcrror, in Tcrrorism and thc Military,
!ntcrnational Lcgal !mplications, Vybo P. Hccrc (cd.), TMC Asscr Prcss, acc, pp.
6a.
. For thc customary law status ol AP !, articlc , scc, inter alia, Rcmarks ol Michacl
J. Mathcson, cputy Lcgal Adviscr, US cpartmcnt ol Statc, Tc Sixth Annual
Amcrican Rcd CrossVashington Collcgc ol Law Conlcrcncc on !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law: A Vorkshop on Customary !ntcrnational law and thc .,,
Protocols Additional to thc . Gcncva Convcntions, Tc Amcrican Univcrsity
Journal ol !ntcrnational Law and Policy, \ol. a, .,, at pp. a,a.
340 Jelena Pejic
protcctcd pcrsons whilc thc Statc ol which thcy arc nationals has normal dip
lomatic rcprcscntation in thc Statc in whosc hands thcy arc.
Vhilc thc sccond scntcncc is somcwhat conlusing, thc !CRC Commcntary clar
ics that on thc tcrritory ol bclligcrcnt statcs protcction is accordcd to pcrsons ol
lorcign nationality and thosc without nationality. Tc cxccption rclcrs to nation
als ol a ncutral or cobclligcrcnt statc, who arc unprotcctcd so long as thc Statc
in qucstion has normal diplomatic rcprcscntation in thc Statc in whosc tcrritory
thcy arc locatcd. !n occupicd tcrritorics, protcction is accordcd to all pcrsons who
arc not ol thc nationality ol thc ccupying Powcr. Tc solc cxccption arc nation
als ol a cobclligcrcnt statc whcn that Statc has normal diplomatic rcprcscntation
in thc occupying Statc.
+6
Finally, according to thc lourth paragraph ol Articlc , pcrsons covcrcd by
thc First, Sccond or Tird Gcncva Convcntion arc not considcrcd protcctcd pcr
sons within thc mcaning ol thc Fourth Convcntion.
Tc position that civilians who may havc takcn a dircct part in hostilitics
rcmain covcrcd by thc Fourth Convcntion il thcy lull thc nationality critc
rion is also bornc out by thc dcrogation clauscs ol that trcaty. Articlc , which
allows lor thc withdrawal ol ccrtain rights and privilcgcs to a pcrson dcnitcly
suspcctcd ol or cngagcd in activitics hostilc to thc sccurity ol thc Statc who is
dctaincd in thc tcrritory ol a Party to thc conict, cxprcssly uscs thc tcrm indi
vidual protcctcd pcrson.
+
Likcwisc, Articlc spcaks ol an individual protcctcd
pcrson whcn it providcs that rights ol communication undcr thc Convcntion
may bc dcnicd thosc dctaincd as spics, sabotcurs or pcrsons undcr dcnitc suspi
cion ol activity hostilc to thc ccupying Powcrs sccurity in occupicd tcrritory.
+8

Logically, acts ol sabotagc and cngaging in an activity hostilc to thc sccurity ol
thc Statc or ccupying Powcr includc dircct participation in hostilitics by civil
ians, thus unlawlul combatants who mcct thc nationality critcria arc protcctcd
pcrsons undcr thc Convcntion.
Articlc () ol thc First Additional Protocol lurthcr buttrcsscs this vicw:

Any pcrson who has takcn part in hostilitics, who is not cntitlcd to prisoncr
olwar status and who docs not bcnct lrom morc lavourablc trcatmcnt in
accordancc with thc Fourth Convcntion shall havc thc right at all timcs to thc
protcction ol Articlc , ol this Protocol. !n occupicd tcrritory, any such pcrson,
unlcss hc is hcld as a spy, shall also bc cntitlcd, notwithstanding Articlc ol thc
Fourth Convcntion, to his rights ol communication undcr that Convcntion.
.6 Jcan Pictct (cd.), Commcntary, !\ Gcncva Convcntion rclativc to thc Protcction
ol Civilian Pcrsons in Timc ol Var, !CRC, Gcncva, . (hcrcinaltcr Commcntary
!\), at p. 6.
., GC !\, articlc (.).
. !bid, articlc (a).
341 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
Tc any pcrson who has takcn part in hostilitics, and who docs not bcnct lrom
morc lavourablc trcatmcnt wording dcmonstratcs that thc Protocol rccognizcs
thc applicability ol thc Fourth Convcntion to ccrtain catcgorics ol unlawlul
combatants. thcrwisc its rclcrcncc to that Convcntion would bc supcruous. A
similar conclusion may bc drawn lrom thc sccond scntcncc ol thc samc articlc, in
which thc draltcrs clcarly assumcd that ccrtain catcgorics ol unlawlul combat
ants in occupicd tcrritory arc covcrcd by thc Fourth Convcntion. !l that wcrc not
thc casc, thcrc would bc no basis lor thc spccic limitation introduccd in rcspcct
ol Articlc ol thc Fourth Convcntion.
Tc vicw that somc unlawlul combatants arc covcrcd by thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion is also cnunciatcd in ccrtain military manuals. !n a scction dcaling
with Pcrsons Committing Hostilc Acts Not ntitlcd To 8c Trcatcd as Prisoncrs
ol Var, thc .6 US Army Manual providcs that: !l a pcrson is dctcrmincd by
a compctcnt tribunal, acting in conlormity with Articlc (GC !!!) not to lall
within any ol thc catcgorics listcd in Articlc (GC !!!), hc is not cntitlcd to bc
trcatcd as a prisoncr ol war. Hc is, howcvcr, a protcctcd pcrson within thc mcan
ing ol Articlc (GC !\).
+

!t has alrcady bccn submittcd that an unlawlul combatant who docs not
lull thc nationality critcria ol Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion is, at
a minimum, covcrcd by thc provisions ol Articlc , ol Additional Protocol !
:o
and
othcr rulcs ol customary intcrnational law. Tc pcrsonal scopc ol application ol
thc Fundamcntal Guarantccs provisions is lormulatcd to cnsurc that no indi
vidual in thc powcr ol a party lalls outsidc intcrnational humanitarian law pro
tcction. Tc wording cxprcssly cncompasscs all pcrsons who arc not othcrwisc
covcrcd by thc Gcncva Convcntions and thc Protocol:
.. !n so lar as thcy arc acctcd by a situation rclcrrcd to in Articlc . ol this
Protocol, pcrsons who arc in thc powcr ol a Party to thc conict and who
do not bcnct lrom morc lavourablc trcatmcnt undcr thc Convcntions
or undcr this Protocol shall bc trcatcd humancly in all circumstanccs and
shall cnjoy, as a minimum, thc protcction providcd by this Articlc with
out any advcrsc distinction bascd on ().
Tc discussion abovc has not dcalt with thc substantivc protcctions providcd to
unlawlul combatants undcr intcrnational humanitarian law.
:+
Rathcr, thc aim
was to dcmonstratc that unprivilcgcd bclligcrcncy is a rcgular lcaturc ol intcr
national armcd conicts and that humanitarian law rcgulatcs thc practicc, cvcn
though grcatcr spccicity would bc wclcomc. Tus, civilians who takc a dircct
. US Army Manual FM a,.c, Tc Law ol Land Varlarc, .6, at pp. ., ct scq.
ac For thc customary law status ol AP !, Articlc , scc notc . abovc.
a. For an cxccllcnt ovcrvicw ol this issuc scc Knut ocrmann, notc .a abovc, pp. 6c
,c.
342 Jelena Pejic
part in hostilitics losc protcction lrom attack during such participation and arc,
upon capturc, cithcr protcctcd by thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion il thcy lull thc
nationality critcria or, at a minimum, covcrcd by Articlc , ol Additional Protocol
! il thcy do not.
Tc vicw that thcrc is an intcrmcdiatc catcgory ol pcrsons who arc ncithcr
combatants nor civilians and arc thcrclorc outsidc humanitarian law covcragc is
not bornc out by thc languagc ol thc rclcvant trcaty tcxts.
::
Tis position can also
bc qucstioncd lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol thc logic and spirit that undcrlic thc rulcs.
Unlcss onc is advocating a complctc dcparturc lrom thc valucs that undcr
pin intcrnational humanitarian law, it is dicult to scc why thc currcnt rulcs,
inadcquatc in somc aspccts as thcy may bc, prcscnt an obstaclc to dcaling with
civilians who havc takcn a dircct part in hostilitics. Civilians may bc targctcd
during dircct participation and may bc prosccutcd undcr domcstic law lor having
donc so. Tcy may bc intcrncd lor thc duration ol hostilitics and, whilc in dctcn
tion, may bc dcnicd ccrtain rights and privilcgcs. !t has yct to bc cxplaincd what
additional mcasurcs could bc implcmcntcd with rcspcct to unlawlul combat
ants that would not run thc risk ol lcading to violations ol thc right to lilc, physi
cal intcgrity and human dignity that lic at thc corc ol humanitarian law.
II Te Notion of Inemy Combatant
n its lacc, thc tcrm cncmy combatant has no spccic lcgal mcaning. !t is a
colloquial phrasc ol widc ambit that may bc uscd to dcscribc a pcrson ghting
on thc cncmy sidc in an intcrnational armcd conict, whcthcr as a mcmbcr ol
thc advcrsarys armcd lorccs (lawlul or privilcgcd combatant) or as a pcrson
dircctly participating in hostilitics without bcing cntitlcd to do so (unlawlul
combatant or unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnt). !n lcgal litcraturc, thc tcrm has most
oltcn bccn uscd in thc lattcr scnsc.
:
Shortly altcr thc launch ol thc global war on tcrrorism and lor somc timc
thcrcaltcr, unlawlul combatant
:
was thc gcncric tcrm domcstically uscd to
cncompass pcrsons dctaincd by thc Unitcd Statcs as part ol that war. Sincc
thcn, thc tcrm unlawlul combatant has bccn almost cntircly rcplaccd with thc
tcrm cncmy combatant in public discoursc, it has also bccn givcn a morc spccic
mcaning. For thc purposcs ol this papcr, thc dcnition containcd in thc ralt
aa Kcnncth Vatkin, Combatants, Unprivilcgcd 8clligcrcnts and Conicts in thc
a.st Ccntury, !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Rcscarch !nitiativc, Program on
Humanitarian Policy and Conict Rcscarch, at p. . (www.hsph.harvard.cdu/hpcr):
Ultimatcly, thc qucstion may not bc il thcrc is a third catcgory, but rathcr whcthcr
intcrnational humanitarian law has lully and rcalistically accountcd lor thc civilian
who docs takc a part in hostilitics.
a !bid, p. .
a Vhitc Housc Fact Shcct, Status ol ctainccs at Guantanamo (Fcbruary ,, acca), at
www.whitchousc.gov/ncws/rclcascs/acca/ca/accacac,..html.
343 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
Joint octrinc lor ctaincc pcrations ol March acc
:
will bc uscd. Vhilc it
is probablc that thc nal tcxt ol thc Joint octrinc will dicr grcatly lrom thc
ralt, thc dcnition is usclul bccausc ol its comprchcnsivcncss. !t is, thcrclorc,
not bcing rclcrrcd to as a dcnition sct in stonc, but simply as a rcprcscntativc
illustration ol thc clcmcnts ol notion itscll.
According to thc ralt Joint octrinc, cncmy combatant is a dctaincc
classication additional to thosc ol thc Gcncva Convcntion: ncmy Prisoncr
ol Var, Civilian !ntcrnccs, Rctaincd Pcrsonncl and thcr ctainccs. Tc
ralt octrinc dcnition providcs:
.. ncmy Combatant (C). Although thcy do not lall undcr thc provisions
ol thc Gcncva Convcntion, thcy arc still cntitlcd to bc trcatcd humancly,
subjcct to military ncccssity, consistcnt with thc principlcs ol GC, and
without any advcrsc distinction bascd on racc, color, rcligion, gcndcr, birth,
wcalth or any similar critcria, and aordcd adcquatc lood, drinking watcr,
shcltcr, clothing, and mcdical trcatmcnt, allowcd thc lrcc cxcrcisc ol rcli
gion consistcnt with thc rcquircmcnts ol such dctcntion. Tcrc is a com
prchcnsivc list ol tcrrorists and tcrrorist groups idcnticd undcr xccutivc
rdcr .aa, locatcd at http://www.trcas.gov/olac/. Anyonc dctaincd that is
aliatcd with thcsc organizations will bc classicd as C. Furthcrmorc,
thcrc arc individuals that may not bc aliatcd with thc listcd organi
zations that may bc classicd as an C. n thcsc spccic individuals,
guidancc should bc obtaincd lrom highcr hcadquartcrs. As dcncd by
thc cputy Sccrctary ol clcnsc, an C is dcncd as: Any pcrson that
US or allicd lorccs could propcrly dctain undcr thc laws and customs ol
war. For purposcs ol thc war on tcrror an cncmy combatant includcs, but
is not ncccssarily limitcd to, a mcmbcr or agcnt ol Al Qacda, Taliban, or
anothcr intcrnational tcrrorist organization against which Unitcd Statcs
is cngagcd in an armcd conict. Tis may includc thosc individuals or
cntitics dcsignatcd in accordancc with rclcrcnccs or G, as idcnticd
in applicablc xccutivc rdcrs approvcd by thc Sccrctary ol clcnsc.
(cputy Sccrctary ol clcnsc global scrccning critcria, Fcb ac, acc).
Rclcrcncc Comprchcnsivc List ol Tcrrorists and Tcrrorist Groups
!dcnticd Undcr xccutivc rdcr .aa (updatcs at http://www.trcas.
gov/olac/).
Rclcrcncc G Pattcrns ol Global Tcrrorism. cpartmcnt ol Statc, acca
(updatcs at http://www.statc.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/).
:6
a ralt Joint octrinc lor ctaincc pcrations, Joint Publication 6, Final
Coordination, a March acc, at http://hrw.org/campaigns/torturc/jointdoctrinc/
jointdoctrinccc,c.pdl.
a6 !bid, at pp. !.. and !.a.
344 Jelena Pejic
Tis dcnition is bascd on thc prcmisc that thc war on tcrror is an armcd con
ict and that an cncmy combatant is any pcrson whom US or allicd lorccs
could propcrly dctain undcr thc laws and customs ol war. Tc classication
includcs both individuals and groups listcd as tcrrorist, as wcll as individuals
who may not bc aliatcd with any ol thc listcd organizations.
!t must bc notcd that nonc ol thc clcmcnts ol thc dcnition arc particularly
ncw. Tcrc has, sincc Scptcmbcr .., acc., bccn an prolusion ol prcss rclcascs, lcgal
mcmoranda and scholarly articlcs cxamining thc various aspccts ol thc dcni
tion.
:
Tcrclorc, a bricl analysis ol thc rcspcctivc clcmcnts bascd on dicrcnt
lcgal intcrprctations is usclul.
Te !ar on Terrorism as an rmed Conict
Tc dcnition ol cncmy combatant is linkcd to thc cxistcncc ol an armcd con
ict. Tc positcd armcd conict involvcs Al Qacda, thc Taliban or anothcr
intcrnational tcrrorist organization. Givcn that, to thc authors knowlcdgc, no
ocial or agcncy ol thc Unitcd Statcs has suggcstcd that thc war on tcrrorism
is a nonintcrnational armcd conict, it must bc concludcd that thc war is to bc
qualicd as a global intcrnational armcd conict. Tis approach may bc qucs
tioncd on both lcgal and practical grounds.
Vhilc thc tcrm war on tcrrorism has vcry much bccomc part ol daily par
lancc, onc nccds to cxaminc, bascd on thc rulcs ol humanitarian law, whcthcr
thc ght against tcrrorism may bc charactcrizcd as an armcd conict in thc lcgal
scnsc. Tc answcr is multilaycrcd. !t is submittcd that thc war on tcrrorism may
in somc situations bc an intcrnational armcd conict, in othcr instanccs a non
intcrnational armcd conict, and in still othcr cascs not an armcd conict in thc
lcgal scnsc at all.
Undcr thc Gcncva Convcntions, intcrnational armcd conicts arc thosc
lought bctwccn statcs. Tus, thc acc. war bctwccn thc USlcd coalition and
Alghanistan, wagcd as part ol thc war on tcrrorism, was initially an intcrna
tional armcd conict.
:8
Humanitarian law docs not cnvisagc an intcrnational
a, Scc, lor cxamplc, Michacl Ncwton, Unlawlul 8clligcrcncy Altcr Scptcmbcr ..:
History Rcvisitcd and Law Rcvisitcd in Ncw Vars, Ncw Laws: Applying thc Laws
ol Var in a.
st
Ccntury Conicts, avid Vippman and Matthcw vangclista (cds.),
Transnational Publishcrs, acc, pp. ,..c.
a Tc lact that thc thcn govcrnmcnt ol Alghanistan, thc Taliban rcgimc, was not
intcrnationally rccognizcd has no bcaring on thc applicability ol thc Gcncva
Convcntions. Tcir applicability to armcd conicts involving a party whosc govcrn
mcnt is not rccognizcd is cxplicitly providcd lor in thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion,
according to which prisoncr ol war status shall bc grantcd to Mcmbcrs ol rcgular
armcd lorccs who prolcss allcgiancc to a govcrnmcnt or authority not rccognizcd
by thc ctaining Powcr (Articlc (A) ()). Altcr Junc acca thc hostilitics taking
placc in various parts ol Alghanistan can bc qualicd as a nonintcrnational armcd
conict, as cxplaincd lurthcr bclow. Tc samc rcasoning may bc applicd to thc war
345 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
armcd conict bctwccn statcs and nonstatc armcd groups bccausc statcs havc
not bccn willing to accord nonstatc armcd groups thc privilcgcs cnjoycd by
mcmbcrs ol rcgular armcd lorccs. Tc cxccption is an armcd conict providcd lor
in Articlc .() ol thc First Additional Protocol. Howcvcr, as is wcll known, thc
inclusion ol such conicts in thc Protocol is onc rcason why somc countrics havc
not raticd that trcaty.
To say that onc is witncssing a global, intcrnational war against groups such
as Al Qacda would mcan that undcr thc laws ol war thcir lollowcrs could and
should bc considcrcd cqual in rights and obligations to mcmbcrs ol armcd
lorccs, i.c. lawlul combatants. !t was alrcady clcar in . that no nation would
contcmplatc cxcmpting mcmbcrs ol nonstatc armcd groups lrom criminal pros
ccution undcr domcstic law lor acts that arc lawlul undcr intcrnational humani
tarian law. Tis immunity is, as prcviously notcd, thc crux ol combatant/prisoncr
ol war status. Tc draltcrs ol thc Gcncva Convcntions, which grant combatant
and prisoncr ol war status undcr strictly spccicd conditions, wcrc lully awarc ol
thc political and practical rcalitics ol intcrnational armcd conict and craltcd thc
trcaty provisions accordingly.
Tc war on tcrrorism can also takc thc lorm ol a nonintcrnational armcd
conict, such as thc onc taking placc in parts ol Alghanistan sincc thc convcn
ing ol thc Loya Jirga and thc cstablishmcnt ol thc ncw intcrnationally rccognizcd
Alghan govcrnmcnt in Junc acca. Tis conict, involving thc Alghan authori
tics supportcd by a coalition ol allicd Statcs against a varicty ol nonstatc armcd
groups (among thcm rcmnants ol thc Taliban and Al Qacda), is nonintcrna
tional in charactcr bccausc it is bcing wagcd with thc conscnt and support ol thc
Alghan govcrnmcnt and docs not involvc two opposing Statcs.
Tc ongoing hostilitics in Alghanistan arc thus govcrncd by humanitarian
law rulcs applicablc to nonintcrnational armcd conicts, lound in both trcaty law
(only Articlc common to thc Gcncva Convcntions sincc ncithcr Alghanistan
nor thc US arc party to Additional Protocol !!) and customary humanitarian law.
Tis body ol rulcs would apply in othcr situations whcrc a dcnablc nonstatc
armcd actor (or scvcral ol thcm) is party to an armcd conict and in which thc
lcvcl ol violcncc has rcachcd that ol an armcd conict.
Tc qucstion rcmains ol whcthcr thc totality ol tcrrorist acts carricd out in
various parts ol thc world (outsidc situations ol armcd conict such as Alghanistan
or !raq) constitutc onc and thc samc armcd conict in thc lcgal scnsc. Can it bc
said, in othcr words, that thc bombings in Madrid, London, 8ali, Ncw clhi, and
in !raq, which was initially an intcrnational armcd conict (March acc), but can
bc qualicd as a nonintcrnational armcd conict altcr thc Junc acc UN Sccurity
Council rcsolution which dctcrmincd that intcrnational lorccs wcrc continuing
to opcratc in !raq with thc conscnt ol thc !raqi authoritics. Scc Sccurity Council
Rcsolution .6 (acc), S/RS/.6 (acc). Scc also Knut ocrmann and Laurcnt
Colassis, !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law in thc !raq Conict, Gcrman Ycarbook
ol !ntcrnational Law, \olumc ,, acc, pp. aa.
346 Jelena Pejic
othcr locations arc attributablc to onc and thc samc party: Can it, in addition, bc
claimcd that thc lcvcl ol violcncc involvcd in cach incidcnt has rcachcd that ol an
armcd conict: n both counts, it would appcar not.
As rcgards thc cxistcncc ol a party to thc conict, it is dicult to scc how a
looscly conncctcd, clandcstinc nctwork ol cclls, and cvcn morc so scparatc groups
with no link to othcr groups cxccpt pcrhaps a sharcd idcology, could qualily as a
party to an armcd conict in thc law ol war scnsc. 8oth lcgally and in practicc,
partics to an armcd conict arc armcd lorccs or armcd groups with a ccrtain lcvcl
ol organization, command structurc and capacity to implcmcnt humanitarian
law rulcs. 8ascd on availablc lactual cvidcncc, it is submittcd that thc tcrrorist
acts bcing pcrpctratcd at gcographically distant points across thc globc cannot bc
attributcd to a party as a mattcr ol law.
:
Rcgarding thc rcquisitc lcvcl ol violcncc, it is similarly dicult to scc how
thc violcncc, which has bccn pcrpctratcd scparatcly, could bc considcrcd to havc
lactually rcachcd thc thrcshold ol an armcd conict. Morcovcr, thc way in
which thc authoritics in thc various victim Statcs dcalt with thc rcspcctivc situ
ations showcd that thcy did not considcr thcmsclvcs to bc in an armcd conict,
cithcr de jure or de facto.
8y way ol cxamplc, thc Spanish authoritics did not apply conduct ol hos
tilitics rulcs in dcaling with thc Madrid train bombing suspccts in March acc,
which thcy would havc bccn cntitlcd to do il thcy had implcmcntcd an armcd
conict paradigm. Humanitarian law rulcs would havc pcrmittcd thcm to dircctly
targct thc suspccts (who had holcd up in a rcsidcntial building on thc outskirts ol
thc city), and cvcn to causc collatcral damagc to civilians and civilian objccts in
thc proccss as long as thc incidcntal damagc was not cxccssivc in rclation to thc
valuc ol thc suspccts as military objcctivcs. !nstcad, thcy applicd law cnlorcc
mcnt rulcs and proccdurcs. Tcy attcmptcd to capturc thc suspccts lor latcr trial
and took carc to cvacuatc ncarby buildings in ordcr to avoid harm to pcrsons
living ncarby and to ncighboring buildings and objccts.
o
thcr Statcs havc dcalt
with tcrrorist acts in a similar manncr and will likcly continuc to do so.
To summarizc, cvcry situation ol organizcd armcd violcncc arising lrom or
in rcsponsc to tcrrorism must bc cxamincd on a cascbycasc basis. Tc circum
a An unnamcd scnior Vcstcrn ocial who monitors thc activity ol tcrrorist groups
told thc Ncw York Timcs that thc thrcads bctwccn thc London, Madrid and 8ali
attacks wcrc not organizational. Tcy arc thrcads ol thc mind. Quotcd lrom
Raymond 8onncr, No Qacda Link Sccn in 8ali Suicidc 8ombings, Ncw York
Timcs, ctobcr ,, acc, at www.nytimcs.com/acc/.c/c,/intcrnational/asia/c,bali.
html. 8onncrs lcad rcads: !ndoncsias countcrtcrrorism lorccs say thc suspcctcd sui
cidc bombcrs who carricd out thc attack in 8ali last Saturday appcar to havc bccn
a small group with no prior criminal rccord or link to a largc organization likc Al
Qacda, giving thc casc cchocs ol thc London subway bombings in July.
c Scc 88C Ncws Madrid Suspccts Killcd in 8last at: www.ncws.bbc.co.uk/!/hi/
world/curopc/,.stm.
347 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
stanccs ol cach will dctcrminc whcthcr it lcgally and lactually mccts thc qualily
ing conditions as an armcd conict (intcrnational or nonintcrnational). No onc
sizc ts all lcgal approach to tcrrorism, particularly as to thc juridical naturc ol
thc situation and thc classication ol suspcctcd tcrrorists, is, or has provcn to bc,
lcasiblc in practicc.
An additional point in rclation to thc lcgal qualication ol thc war on tcr
rorism is that it has bccn suggcstcd in public discoursc, as wcll as in lcgal writing,
that this war is a ncw typc ol intcrnational armcd conict, govcrncd not by
thc rulcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law, but by thc principlcs ol thc Gcncva
Convcntions or by customary intcrnational law.
+

Tis analysis poscs gravc risks lor all thosc potcntially involvcd in, as wcll
as lor thosc acctcd by, acts ol tcrrorist violcncc. Tc Gcncva Convcntions arc
among thc most widcly raticd intcrnational trcatics (.a partics to datc) and arc
thcmsclvcs considcrcd largcly to rccct customary law. To maintain that thc war
on tcrrorism is govcrncd by principlcs or customary law rulcs which arc ncc
cssarily rathcr broad in lormulation and about which thcrc is disagrccmcnt is to
introducc a lcvcl ol unccrtainty about thc applicablc lcgal lramcwork that cannot
bc dccmcd acccptablc lrom a practical or humanitarian point ol vicw.
vcn il, lor thc sakc ol argumcnt, onc tricd to cnvisagc thc principlcs or
rulcs that would govcrn a nontrcaty intcrnational war, thcy could not bc dicr
cnt lrom thc currcnt humanitarian law rcgimc unlcss onc wcrc prcparcd to coun
tcnancc a rcturn to what would csscntially bc lawlcssncss. Tcrclorc, thc principlc
ol distinction and othcr rulcs on thc conduct ol hostilitics would havc to bc
rcspcctcd, as would many alrcady cxisting intcrnational humanitarian law trcaty
standards on thc rights and trcatmcnt ol pcrsons in thc hands ol thc advcrsary.
B Detention under the La.s and Customs of !ar
Tc sccond componcnt ol thc dcnition ol cncmy combatant is that it pcrtains
to pcrsons who could propcrly bc dctaincd undcr thc laws and customs ol war.
Tis bcgs thc qucstion ol what is thc scopc and contcnt ol thc cxprcssion laws
and customs ol war.
Vhatcvcr scopc and contcnt wcrc intcndcd, thc application ol thc laws and
customs ol war to thc dctcntion ol cncmy combatants is prcmiscd on a lcgal
. Scc Villiam K. Lictzau, Combating Tcrrorism: Law nlorccmcnt or Var: in
Tcrrorism and !ntcrnational Law, Challcngcs and Rcsponscs, Michacl N. Schmitt
and Gian Luca 8cruto (cds.), !ntcrnational !nstitutc ol Humanitarian Law and
Gcorgc C. Marshall uropcan Ccntcr lor Sccurity Studics, acc, at p. c. (!n making
thcsc and rclatcd dccisions about thc trcatmcnt accordcd our tcrrorist cncmics, wc
arc rcmindcd daily that thc currcnt intcrnational law tcmplatcs do not providc guid
ancc clcarly applicablc to prcscnt circumstancc. Simply put, wc arc opcrating in arcas
not addrcsscd by applicablc trcatics and thus arc participating in thc dcvclopmcnt ol
customary intcrnational law.).
348 Jelena Pejic
intcrprctation according to which thc totality ol thc war on tcrrorism is an
armcd conict in thc lcgal scnsc. As suggcstcd abovc, thc war on tcrrorism can
involvc intcrnational and/or nonintcrnational armcd conict or countcrtcrror
ism mcasurcs that lall outsidc armcd conict as such. !t is submittcd that thc
status and rights ol dctainccs capturcd in thc ght against tcrrorism should bc
dctcrmincd accordingly.
Detention in international armed conict. As notcd, thc dctcntion ol prisoncrs ol
war undcr thc rclcvant rulcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law docs not rcquirc
administrativc or judicial rcvicw whilc thc intcrnational armcd conict in rclation
to which thcy wcrc dctaincd is ongoing. Prisoncrs ol war may bc dctaincd until
thc cnd ol activc hostilitics in an intcrnational armcd conict, but arc thcn cnti
tlcd to rclcasc,
:
cxccpt lor thosc against whom criminal procccdings arc pcnd
ing.

!n thc lattcr casc, a prisoncr ol war may bc hcld through complction ol thc
criminal procccdings and, il applicablc, until any scntcncc has bccn scrvcd.

Undcr thc rclcvant provisions ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, protcctcd
pcrsons undcr that Convcntion may bc subjcct to intcrnmcnt (or assigncd rcsi
dcncc) only il thc sccurity ol thc ctaining Powcr makcs it absolutcly ncc
cssary.

Tosc so dctaincd must bc rclcascd as soon as thc rcasons which

ncccssitatcd intcrnmcnt no longcr cxist.
6
!ntcrnmcnt shall ccasc as soon as pos
siblc altcr thc closc ol hostilitics.

A protcctcd pcrson who has bccn intcrncd is cntitlcd to havc his or hcr
intcrnmcnt rcconsidcrcd as soon as possiblc by an appropriatc court or admin
istrativc board.
8
!l thc intcrnmcnt is maintaincd, thc court or board shall pcri
odically, and at lcast twicc ycarly, rcvicw thc casc with a vicw to lavourablc
amcndmcnt ol thc initial dccision il circumstanccs pcrmit.

!t should bc strcsscd that thc automatic pcriodic rcvicw rclcrrcd to in thc
Fourth Convcntion is intcndcd to providc an additional salcguard lor pcrsons
intcrncd oncc thcir initial rcqucst lor rclcasc considcration has bccn rcjcctcd. !t
assumcs that, as conrmcd by thc Fundamcntal Guarantccs provisions ol Articlc
, () ol thc First Additional Protocol, thc pcrson has bccn inlormcd ol thc rca
sons lor intcrnmcnt
o
and has bccn aordcd a right to rcqucst rcconsidcration.
a GC !!!, articlc ...
GC !!!, articlc ...
!bid.
GC !\, articlcs . and a. !n occupicd tcrritory intcrnmcnt is govcrncd by GC !\,
Articlc ,.
6 GC !\, articlc .a.
, GC !\, articlc ..
GC !\, articlc .
!bid.
c AP !, articlc , ().
349 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
!n any casc, thc proccdurc providcd lor is a minimum, it will advantagcous il
bcttcr salcguards, such as cxamination ol cascs at morc lrcqucnt intcrvals or thc
sctting up ol a highcr appcals court, arc providcd lor by thc ctaining Powcr.
+

nc such salcguard not mcntioncd in thc Convcntion would bc thc provision ol
lcgal counscl to pcrsons appcaling thc original intcrnmcnt dccision or undcrgo
ing pcriodic rcvicw.
Pcrsons who may bc intcrncd pursuant to thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion
lor rcasons ol sccurity cncompass, as notcd abovc, bclligcrcnts who do not qualily
lor prisoncr ol war status, as wcll as civilians intcrncd bccausc thcy arc dccmcd to
posc a sccurity risk. Tcsc includc pcrsons who havc dircctly participatcd in hos
tilitics without bcing authorizcd to do so (unlawlul combatants), providcd thcy
lull thc nationality critcria ol thc Fourth Convcntion.
:
Undcr dcncd con
ditions, somc ol thc rights and privilcgcs ol such pcrsons may bc curtailcd il
thcir cxcrcisc would bc prcjudicial to thc ctaining Powcrs sccurity,

but thcy
rcmain, in all circumstanccs, protcctcd by thc Fundamcntal Guarantccs provi
sions ol Additional Protocol ! as a mattcr ol customary law,

as wcll as by othcr
rulcs ol customary law.
Tosc who do not mcct thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntions nationality cri
tcria arc, at a minimum, cntitlcd to thc Fundamcntal Guarantccs ol Additional
Protocol !

and to thc protcction ol othcr rulcs ol customary intcrnational law.
Vhilc thc proccdurc govcrning thc intcrnmcnt ol this catcgory ol pcrsons is not
spccicd in thc rclcvant trcatics, a corc ol proccdural principlcs and salcguards
that govcrn thc intcrnmcnt ol this and othcr catcgorics ol pcrsons cxists.
6
!t is almost supcruous to rcitcratc that pcrsons who takc a dircct part in
hostilitics without bcing cntitlcd to do so may bc criminally chargcd and tricd
undcr thc domcstic law ol thc dctaining statc lor such participation. Provisions
rcgulating thc lair trial rights ol intcrnccs subjcct to criminal procccdings arc laid
out in thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion,

and in thc rclcvant provisions ol thc

Articlc , ol Additional Protocol !.
8
. Commcntary !\, articlc , p. a6..
a GC !\, articlc .
GC !\, articlc .
AP !, articlc ,.
!bid.
6 For a morc dctailcd prcscntation ol what thosc standards might bc scc Jclcna Pcjic
Proccdural Principlcs and Salcguards lor !ntcrnmcnt/Administrativc ctcntion in
Armcd Conict and thcr Situations ol \iolcncc, !ntcrnational Rcvicw ol thc Rcd
Cross, Junc acc, \ol. ,. No. , pp. ,..
, GC !\, articlc .a6.
AP !, articlc , ().
350 Jelena Pejic
Detention in non-international armed conict. !ntcrnational humanitarian law
applicablc in nonintcrnational armcd conict docs not spccily thc distinc
tion bctwccn intcrnmcnt and dctcntion ol pcrsons whosc libcrty has bccn
rcstrictcd.
Givcn that intcrnmcnt is a dcprivation ol libcrty associatcd only with armcd
conict, it may bc intcrprctcd as thc dcprivation ol libcrty lor sccurity rcasons,
without thc pcrson involvcd bcing subjcct to criminal chargcs (i.c. cquivalcnt to
pcacctimc administrativc dctcntion). ctcntion, on thc othcr hand, also includcs
thc dcprivation ol libcrty ol pcrsons subjcct to criminal chargcs (prctrial dctcn
tion). Tis distinction is cmploycd lor thc purposcs ol this articlc.
Vhilc intcrnational humanitarian law trcatics do not rcgulatc thc procc
durc applicablc to intcrnmcnt in nonintcrnational armcd conict in any dctail,
thcrc is no doubt that both customary intcrnational humanitarian law and intcr
national human rights law prohibit unlawlul/arbitrary dcprivation ol libcrty.

Vhcthcr a dcprivation ol libcrty is lawlul or not must bc judgcd on thc basis ol
thc grounds lor thc dctcntion and on thc proccdurc lollowcd. A valid rcason lor
thc dcprivation ol libcrty must cxist with rcgard to both thc initial dcprivation
and its continuation.
Vhcn a pcrson is intcrncd in rclation to a nonintcrnational armcd con
ict, hc or shc must, as a minimum, bc inlormcd promptly, in a languagc hc
or shc undcrstands, ol thc rcasons lor which thc mcasurc was takcn.
o
!n addi
tion, intcrnmcnt should bc subjcct to thc ccctivc control ol an indcpcndcnt and
impartial judicial body bclorc which intcrnccs may, in particular, challcngc thc
lawlulncss ol thcir intcrnmcnt and obtain rclcasc il lound unlawlul.
+

Tc right to challcngc thc lawlulncss ol oncs dctcntion (habcas corpus)
is rccognizcd in most, il not all, domcstic lcgal systcms and considcrcd to bc
nondcrogablc as a mattcr ol human rights jurisprudcncc.
:
Furthcr, intcrnational
human rights instrumcnts and jurisprudcncc providc lor thc right to lcgal assist
Tus, unlawlul conncmcnt ol civilians is a gravc brcach ol thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion (articlc .,). Tc lcmcnts ol Crimcs lor thc !ntcrnational Criminal
Court statc that unlawlul conncmcnt may bc in rclation to any pcrson protcctcd
undcr onc ol thc Gcncva Convcntions and not only in rclation to civilians (lcmcnts
ol Crimcs ol articlc (a)(a)(vii)). Tc right to libcrty and sccurity ol pcrson is a lun
damcntal right providcd lor in articlc ol thc !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and
Political Rights (!CCPR), and is also guarantccd by thc rcgional human rights trca
tics.
c Inter alia !CCPR, articlc (a), 8ody ol Principlcs lor thc Protcction ol All Pcrsons
undcr Any Form ol ctcntion or !mprisonmcnt, Principlcs .c and . (UN GA rcs.
/., ol cccmbcr .). (Hcrcinaltcr 8oP).
. Inter alia !CCPR, articlc (), 8oP, Principlc a. Also, UN Human Rights
Committcc, Gcncral Commcnt No. a, Statcs ol mcrgcncy (Articlc ), CCPR/
C/a./Rcv../Add..., . August acc., para. .6.
a !bid.
351 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
ancc in any procccdings involving thc lawlulncss ol dcprivation ol libcrty.

Tc
right to counscl is particularly csscntial in circumstanccs ol prolongcd or incom
municado dctcntion.
Although intcrnational humanitarian law trcatics do not spccily thc pcr
missiblc duration ol intcrnmcnt during nonintcrnational armcd conict,
somc inlcrcnccs bascd on thc provisions outlincd abovc may bc madc. Givcn
that intcrnmcnt is a mcasurc takcn lor sccurity rcasons, thcrc is an cxpcctation,
cxprcsscd in thc Sccond Additional Protocol,

that thc authoritics in powcr will

considcr granting thc broadcst possiblc amncsty to pcrsons who havc partici
patcd in thc conict oncc it is ovcr (such an amncsty may not, ol coursc, includc
pcrsons suspcctcd ol having committcd war crimcs or othcr crimcs undcr intcr
national law).

!l intcrnmcnt is maintaincd bcyond thc cnd ol thc armcd conict,

a strong casc lor unlawlul dctcntion could bc madc rcgarding thosc not rclcascd
or criminally chargcd lairly soon altcr thc conict has ccascd.
!ntcrnational humanitarian law rcgulatcs thc lair trial rights ol pcrsons sub
jcct to criminal proccss lor ocnccs rclatcd to a nonintcrnational armcd conict
in somc dctail. Tc basic principlcs arc providcd lor in Articlc common to thc
Gcncva Convcntions and arc claboratcd in thc lair trial guarantccs ol thc Sccond
Additional Protocol, considcrcd to rccct customary intcrnational law.
6
To thc
cxtcnt that thcsc provisions arc insucicntly dctailcd to providc guidancc on all
aspccts ol thc right to a lair trial, thcy should bc supplcmcntcd with thc applica
blc provisions ol intcrnational human rights law. !ntcrnational humanitarian law,
including its lair trial rights, is nondcrogablc.
Detention outside of armed conict. Administrativc dctcntion without criminal
chargc rcmains controvcrsial whcn undcrtakcn outsidc ol an armcd conict situ
ation. Vhilc not cxprcssly prohibitcd undcr intcrnational human rights law, it is
subjcct to important salcguards. Tc argumcnt can bc madc that administrativc
dctcntion would rcquirc a statc party to dcrogatc lrom its obligations undcr thc
!ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights.

Undcr thc tcrms ol that

trcaty, a dcrogation can bc triggcrcd by a public cmcrgcncy thrcatcning thc lilc
ol thc nation, a high standard. crogation must comply with thc principlcs ol
ncccssity and proportionality, and may not involvc discrimination solcly on thc
grounds ol racc, colour, scx, languagc, rcligion or social origin.
8

Inter alia 8oP, Principlc .. (.).
Tc US is not a party to Additional Protocol !!.
AP !!, articlc 6 ().
6 AP !!, articlc 6.
, !CCPR, articlc (.). Scc Rcport ol thc Vorking Group on Arbitrary ctcntion,
Commission on Human Rights, /CN./acc6/,, .a cccmbcr acc, ar para. ,..
!bid.
352 Jelena Pejic
Tc Covcnant prohibits any dcrogations lrom ccrtain statc obligations,
such as thosc pcrtaining to thc right to lilc, lrccdom lrom torturc and othcr
crucl, inhuman or dcgrading trcatmcnt or punishmcnt and thc principlc ol non
rctroactivity ol criminal law. Tc proccdural rcquircmcnts providcd lor in thc
Covcnant must likcwisc bc lulllcd. Tcsc includc thc statcs obligation to notily
othcr Statcs Partics through thc UN SccrctaryGcncral ol thosc provisions lrom
which it has dcrogatcd and its rcasons lor doing so.
Nontrcaty human rights standards and jurisprudcncc both intcrnational
and rcgional havc considcrably cxpandcd thc scopc ol nondcrogablc rights.
Tus, as mcntioncd, it is wcll acccptcd that administrativc dctcntion may only bc
ordcrcd lor rcasons, and in accordancc with a proccdurc, providcd lor by domcstic
law.

Tc pcrson involvcd must bc inlormcd promptly, in a languagc which hc or

shc undcrstands, ol thc rcasons lor which thc mcasurc was takcn.
6o
!n addition,
dctcntion must bc subjcct to thc ccctivc control ol an indcpcndcnt and impar
tial judicial body bclorc which thc dctcntions lawlulncss may bc challcngcd and
which can dircct rclcasc il thc dctcntion is lound to bc unlawlul.
6+
ctainccs arc
likcwisc cntitlcd to thc assistancc ol lcgal counscl
6:
and, subjcct to rcasonablc
conditions and rcstrictions, havc thc right to communicatc with thcir lamilics.
6
Tc logic undcrlying thc lcw provisions that govcrn administrativc dctcn
tion undcr human rights law is that it is an cxccptional mcasurc. A strong casc
can bc madc that prolongcd administrativc dctcntion without thc application ol
all thc ncccssary salcguards would amount to arbitrary dctcntion prohibitcd by
human rights law.
Human rights law provisions on thc prctrial dctcntion ol thosc suspcctcd
ol criminal ocnscs arc cvcn morc stringcnt. Tcy havc gcncratcd wcllcstab
lishcd intcrprctations lrom a rangc ol rcgional human rights courts and monitor
ing bodics.
6
Succ it to mcntion hcrc that only pcrsons chargcd with a criminal
ocnsc havc thc right to cithcr rclcasc or trial within a rcasonablc timc. Tosc
brought to trial arc cntitlcd to thc lull rangc ol lair trial guarantccs providcd lor
in thc !CCPR and othcr intcrnational human rights law instrumcnts.
!CCPR, articlc (a).
6c Inter alia !CCPR, articlc (a), 8oP, Principlcs .c and ..
6. Scc inter alia UN Human Rights Committcc, Gcncral Commcnt No. a, notc .
abovc, para. .6.
6a 8oP, Principlcs .,, . and a.
6 !bid, Principlc ..
6 For a good ovcrvicw scc, cc ol thc UN High Commissioncr lor Human Rights,
Human Rights in thc Administration ol Justicc, A Manual on Human Rights lor
Judgcs, Prosccutors and Lawycrs, Unitcd Nations, acc, Chaptcr .
353 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
C Te Scope of Persons Considered Enemy Combatants
Tc cncmy combatant classication in thc ralt Joint octrinc includcs both
mcmbcrs ol organizations dcsignatcd as tcrrorist (including pcrsons aliatcd to
thosc organizations) and pcrsons with no aliation il dcsignatcd as such. !t is
submittcd that implcmcntation ol such a scparatc classication ol cncmy com
batants in practicc, with, pcrhaps, cvcntual codication in domcstic lcgislation
would cndangcr thc intcrnational law lramcwork lor dcaling with thc protcction
ol pcrsons that has bccn outlincd.
First, pcrsons dctaincd in rclation to an intcrnational armcd conict and
dcsignatcd as cncmy combatants would bc dcprivcd ol thc status and protcc
tions dcpcnding on thc circumstanccs to which thcy would bc cntitlcd undcr
cithcr thc Tird or Fourth Gcncva Convcntion or customary law such as that
rccctcd in Articlc , ol Additional Protocol !. !t would, lor cxamplc, succ that
a party to an intcrnational armcd conict dcsignatcs mcmbcrs ol a militia or vol
untccr corps ghting on bchall ol thc opposing sidc as mcmbcrs ol a tcrrorist
organization in ordcr to dcny thcm prisoncr ol war status. As was mcntioncd,
mcmbcrs ol such lorccs, providcd thcy mcct thc lour conditions providcd lor in
Articlc A (a) ol thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion arc cntitlcd to prisoncr ol war
status upon capturc. Vithdrawal ol Tird Gcncva Convcntion status and rights
bascd not on that trcatys rulcs, but on unilatcral dccisions by onc party (that an
advcrsc party is likcly to considcr as nonlcgally motivatcd), would undcrminc
thc rclcvancc and crcdibility ol thc Convcntion.
Sccond, an cncmy combatant classication would havc thc samc ccct on
thc rclcvancc and crcdibility ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion. Undcr thc lcgal
rcading suggcstcd carlicr, a pcrson who dircctly participatcs in hostilitics without
bcing cntitlcd to do so is covcrcd by thc Fourth Convcntion il hc or shc lulls thc
nationality critcria. For cxamplc, a national ol a party to thc conict, who is not a
mcmbcr ol thc armcd lorccs, but takcs a dircct part in thc hostilitics as a mcmbcr
ol an intclligcncc organization, would bc cntitlcd, upon capturc, to bc considcrcd
a protcctcd pcrson undcr thc Fourth Convcntion. Tc cncmy combatant clas
sication would prccludc that outcomc il thc organization to which thc pcrson
bclongcd was classicd as tcrrorist. ncc again, thc gcncral schcmc ol humani
tarian law would bc rcndcrcd obsolctc.
Tird, il thc cncmy combatant (mcaning tcrrorist) dcsignation is applicd
to pcrsons taking part in a nonintcrnational armcd conict, thc alrcady lragilc
cdicc ol humanitarian law govcrning intcrnal armcd conicts could crumblc.
A major challcngc to intcrnational humanitarian law in thc war on tcr
rorism contcxt has bccn thc tcndcncy ol statcs to labcl as tcrrorist all acts ol
warlarc committcd by opposition armcd groups during nonintcrnational armcd
conicts. Sincc thc launching ol thc war on tcrrorism, statcs cngagcd in such
conicts havc almost univcrsally labcllcd acts committcd by domcstic insurgcnts
354 Jelena Pejic
as tcrrorism, cvcn though, undcr humanitarian law, thcy may havc bccn lawlul
(c.g. attacks against military pcrsonncl or installations).
Nonintcrnational armcd conicts thus also lic at thc ccntrc ol thc dclicatc
balancc that nccds to bc maintaincd bctwccn thc logic and structurc ol intcrna
tional humanitarian law, on thc onc hand, and antitcrrorism mcasurcs, on thc
othcr. Vhilc acts ol violcncc against military objcctivcs in intcrnal armcd con
icts rcmain subjcct to domcstic criminal law, thc tcndcncy to dcsignatc thcm
as tcrrorist complctcly undcrmincs whatcvcr inccntivc armcd groups havc to
rcspcct intcrnational humanitarian law.
Humanitarian law attcmpts to providc such an inccntivc by cncouraging
statcs to grant thc broadcst possiblc amncsty to pcrsons who havc participatcd
in thc armcd conict
6
at thc cnd ol hostilitics (cxcluding war crimcs and othcr
crimcs undcr intcrnational law). !l all pcrsons who took up arms against thc gov
crnmcnt arc labcllcd tcrrorists, it is unlikcly that a govcrnmcnt would or cvcn
could considcr amncsty. Tc stiing ccct on national rcconciliation, usually
ncccssary altcr thc cnd ol a civil war, is obvious.
Rcmoving thc protcction ol intcrnational humanitarian law lrom pcrsons
dctaincd in rclation to an intcrnal armcd conict by dcsignating thcm domcs
tically as tcrrorists cvcn whcn thcy havc abidcd by thc laws ol war could
also posc gravc conscqucnccs lor thc individuals involvcd. As is wcll known, thc
lair trial guarantccs ol Articlc common to thc Gcncva Convcntions
66
and ol
Additional Protocol !!
6
arc nondcrogablc, which is not ncccssarily thc casc
undcr domcstic law or cvcn as a mattcr ol intcrnational human rights law.
Finally, dcsignating a pcrson who is capturcd outsidc ol any armcd conict
as an cncmy combatant subjcct to thc laws and customs ol war risks dcpriving
him or hcr ol rights that arc guarantccd undcr both human rights and domcs
tic law. As notcd, undcr humanitarian law thc tcrm combatant is a lcgal status
associatcd with intcrnational armcd conict only. !t implics that such a pcrson
is targctablc undcr rulcs on thc conduct ol hostilitics and that hc or shc may bc
dctaincd until thc cnd ol activc hostilitics. Tcsc norms wcrc dcsigncd lor thc
spccic circumstanccs ol intcrnational armcd conict, not lor situations outsidc
ol armcd conict in which dicrcnt rulcs govcrn what constitutcs lawlul usc ol
lcthal lorcc and pcrmissiblc dcprivation ol libcrty. To apply law ol armcd conict
rulcs to pcrsons not involvcd in an armcd conict would prcjudicc thc protcction
ol human lilc and libcrty and, ultimatcly, thc rulc ol law.
6 AP !!, articlc 6 ().
66 Common articlc (.) (d).
6, AP !!, articlc 6.
355 1l Unla.fulEnemy Combatants: Interpretations and Consequences
Concluding Remarks
Rcspcct lor intcrnational humanitarian law, as with any othcr branch ol intcrna
tional law, dcpcnds to a grcat cxtcnt on a sharcd undcrstanding at lcast among
thosc callcd upon to apply it ol its structurc and kcy lcgal notions.
Tc notions that havc bccn cxamincd in this articlc combatant, unlawlul
combatant and cncmy combatant could bc visually rcprcscntcd by a down
ward slidc. Vhilc thc tcrm combatant has a gcncrally acccptcd lcgal mcaning,
as cvidcnccd by its prcscncc in trcaty law, thc cxprcssion unlawlul combatant
is morc complcx, as cxplaincd abovc. !t would appcar that divcrgcncc ariscs not
ovcr thc qucstion ol who is an unlawlul combatant, but with rcgard to thc lcgal
protcction that must bc aordcd.
!t has bccn submittcd that thc tcrm cncmy combatant, as currcntly uscd,
has no spccic lcgal mcaning. !t cncompasscs both individuals who arc involvcd
in armcd conict, as that tcrm is undcrstood in intcrnational humanitarian law,
and pcrsons whosc actions arc unrclatcd to an armcd conict. Tc issuc ol what
lcgal lramcwork applics to cncmy combatants is similarly pcrplcxing. Tcy
appcar to bc covcrcd by thc principlcs ol thc Gcncva Convcntions, but not by
thc Convcntions thcmsclvcs (although thcy arc cxpcctcd to comply with vcry
spccic intcrnational humanitarian law rulcs
68
). At thc samc timc, thcrc is no
indication that thcy may bcnct lrom thc protcction ol othcr bodics ol law, such
as human rights or domcstic law. Until grcatcr clarity and bcttcr rcasoning is
ocrcd in rcsponsc to thcsc and othcr qucstions, a sharcd undcrstanding ol thc
tcrm cncmy combatant will rcmain clusivc.
6 Scc, lor cxamplc, Crimcs and lcmcnts lor Trial by Military Commission, Fcdcral
Rcgistcr, \ol. 6 , No. .a6, July ., acc, pp. . ,, at: http://aa,.g.akamaitcch.
nct/,/a,/aaa/.maracc.ccc/cdockct.acccss.gpo.gov/acc/pdl/c.6.pdl.
Chapter 14
Ghosts in thc Machinc: Somc Lcgal !ssucs
Conccrning US Military Contractors in !raq
.ril McDonald
! would likc to say how dclightcd and honourcd ! lccl to havc bccn invitcd by thc
cditors to participatc in this Fcstschrilt cclcbrating thc lilc and work ol onc ol thc
giants ol intcrnational law, including intcrnational humanitarian law, Prolcssor
Yoram instcin. As somconc who has dcmandcd and adhcrcd to thc most rigor
ous standards ol analytical inquiry, Prolcssor instcin has throughout his carccr
scrvcd as an inspiration and mcntor to anyonc who has studicd thc jus in bello and
ad bellum. !t is dicult to ocr any piccc ol rcscarch that would mcct his cxacting
standards, and it is thcrclorc with considcrablc trcpidation, il with grcat acction
and rcspcct, that ! ocr this papcr on a subjcct that is ol growing importancc and
intcrcst. As prcliminary rcscarch into a topic that thc author intcnds to study in
morc dcpth, it attcmpts to ocr an ovcrvicw ol somc ol thc most important lcgal
issucs raiscd in conncction with thc usc ol military contractors (locusing on thc
casc ol !raq), a practicc with potcntially lar rcaching signicancc.
I Te Shadow Armed Iorce Military Contractors in Iraq
!n tcrms ol thcir total numbcr, individual military and sccurity contractors rcp
rcscnt thc Unitcd Statcs ol Amcricas (US) sccond biggcst partncr in !raq,
+
and
it is clcar that pcration !raqi Frccdom and military opcrations carricd out sincc
thc cnd ol major hostilitics in !raq in acc could not havc bccn wagcd with
out thcm. Yct such is thc opacity surrounding thcir usc that not cvcn thc US
appcars to know cxactly how many ol thcm arc working in thcatrc. stimations
. Vith morc bodics on thc ground than thc US main Coalition partncr, thc UK. !an
Traynor, Tc privatisation ol war, Te Guardian, .c cccmbcr acc, http://www.
guardian.co.uk/intcrnational/story/c,6c,..c66,cc.html, anna Harman, Firms
tap Latin Amcricans lor !raq, Te Christian Science Monitor, March acc, http://
www.csmonitor.com/acc/cc/pc6scawoam.html, cborah Avant, Te Market for
Force: Te Consequences of Pri.ati.ing Security (Cambridgc, Cambridgc Univcrsity
Prcss acc) p. .
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. ,-,c:.
358 .ril McDonald
put thc numbcr ol privatc individuals cmploycd on contingcncy contracts lor thc
Coalition Forccs in !raq at anywhcrc lrom ac,cccc,ccc.
:

Tc usc ol individual contractors in !raq to pcrlorm kcy sccurity and mil
itary rolcs lor thc coalition partncrs and thcir agcncics rcprcscnts thc largcst
cvcr rcliancc by armcd lorccs on privatc labour during a major armcd conict in
modcrn timcs and rcccts thc cxtcnt to which thc US armcd lorccs, in particu
lar, havc comc to dcpcnd on privatc contractors to carry out lunctions prcviously
pcrlormcd by military pcrsonncl. A acc invcstigation by 8ritains Te Guardian
ncwspapcr lound that thc proportion ol contractcd sccurity pcrsonncl in thc
ring linc |in !raq| is .c timcs grcatcr than during thc rst Gull war. !n .., lor
cvcry privatc contractor, thcrc wcrc about .cc scrviccmcn and womcn, now thcrc
arc .c.

Lcst it bc assumcd that thcsc individuals arc salcly dcploycd bchind thc
lront lincs and that thc activitics thcy cngagc in do not involvc thcir dircct par
ticipation in hostilitics, it should bc pointcd out that, irrcspcctivc ol thc tcrms ol
thcir contracts, somc individual contractors arc pcrlorming csscntial lront linc
rolcs in military opcrations,

opcrating vcry closc to or at thc socallcd tip ol thc

spcar.

a Scc Anthony workin, Sccurity contractors in !raq: armcd guards or privatc sol
dicrs, Crimcs ol Var Projcct, ac April acc, http://www.crimcsolwar.org/onncws/
ncwssccurity.html, Pctcr 8rownlcld, Military contractors shouldcr hcavy burdcn
in !raq, Fox Ncws, . April acc, http://www.loxncws.com/story/c,a,..,a,cc.
html, Avant, ibid, ana Pricst and Mary Pat Flahcrty, Undcr rc, sccurity rms
lorm an alliancc, Te !ashington Post, April acc, http://www.inlormationclcar
inghousc.inlo/articlc6ca6.htm, Matthcw Quirk, Privatc military contractors: A
buycrs guidc, Te tlantic Monthly, Scptcmbcr acc, http://www.thcatlantic.com/
doc/prcm/accc/quirk, Mcrccnary strcngth rcachcs high in !raq, UP!, April
acc, http://ncwsminc.org/archivc/warontcrror/unitcdstatcs/privatcarmy/mcr
ccnarystrcngthrcachcshighiniraq.txt.
Traynor, supra n. .. !n 8osnia,thc ratio ol contractors to Amcrican soldicrs has
rangcd lrom onc in .c to ncarly onctoonc, according to various dclcnsc analysts,
Laura Pctcrson, Privatizing combat, thc ncw world ordcr, Tc Ccntcr lor Public
!ntcgrity, Vashington .C., . May acc, http://www.publicintcgrity.org/bow/
rcport.aspx:aid-.. Scc also avid !scnbcrg, Corporatc Mcrccnarics, Part .: Prot
comcs at a pricc, Asia Timcs onlinc, . May acc, http://www.atimcs.com/atimcs/
Middlc_ast/F.Akc..html, cborah Avant, Vhat arc thosc contractors doing
in !raq: Te !ashington Post, May acc, http://www.cmjournal.pwp.blucyondcr.
co.uk/aamayc.c.html.
Scc Lourdcs A. Castillo, Vaging war with civilians: Asking thc unanswcrcd qucs
tions, erospace Po.er Journal (Fall accc), http://www.airpowcr.maxwcll.al.mil/air
chroniclcs/apj/apjcc/lalcc/castillo.htm, cborah Avant, Tc Risc ol thc Privatc
Sccurity Companics, Foreign Policy, . Junc acc, http://www.corpwatch.org/articlc.
php:id-.a.
Scc P.V. Singcr, Corporate !arriers: Te Fise of the Pri.ated Military Industry (!thaca
and London, Corncll Univcrsity Prcss acc) pp. ., cborah Avant, supra n. ., pp.
.6aa.
359 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
Tc individual contractors working in !raq lor thc Coalition Forccs arc
not cmploycd dircctly by thcm but arc cngagcd on shorttcrm contracts by a
host ol companics, including largc, divcrsicd, multinational corporations such
as Haliburton, and its subsidiary Kcllogg, 8rown, and Root, \inncll, 8cchtcl
Corporation, ynCorp, Global Risk Managcmcnt, Military Prolcssional
Rcsourccs !nc. (MPR!), 8lackwatcr Sccurity Consulting, CAC! !nc., Titan, and
rinys !ntcrnational. !t is cstimatcd that thcrc arc wcll ovcr .cc contractor com
panics in !raq
6
ocring a widc rangc ol scrviccs to both statc and nonstatc clicnts.
Tc scrviccs thcy arc contractcd to providc and thc activitics thcy actually cngagc
in vary widcly: providing pcrsonal sccurity |among othcrs lor thc lormcr Hcad
ol thc Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) L.P. 8rcmcr

and a widc rangc

ol military and civilian clicnts|, sccurity lor important buildings and lacilitics
(including military objcctivcs) within and outsidc thc Grccn Zonc,
8
lorcc pro
tcction,

rcscuc opcrations lor US lorccs,

+o
combat and combat scrvicc support,
++

dcvcloping, maintaining and opcrating wcapons systcms,
+:
including rcmotcly
controllcd droncs,
+
and othcr logistics and combat lunctions,
+
intcrrogation at
6 Contractors: !raq, Vindlalls ol Var, Tc Ccntcr lor Public !ntcgrity, . May acc,
http://www.publicintcgrity.org/wow/bio.aspx:act-pro&l-!Q.
, Sccurity rms says its workcrs wcrc lurcd into !raqi ambush, Te Ne. York Times,
April acc, http://www.lrccrcpublic.com/locus/lncws/....../posts.
ana Pricst, Privatc guards rcpcl attack on U.S. hcadquartcrs, Te !ashington Post,
6 April acc6, http://www.sandlinc.com/hotlinks/Vash_PostPrivatc_guards.html.
An advcrtiscmcnt lor PMCs to ll a contract ol up to s.cc,ccc to guard thc Grccn
Zonc statcd: Tc currcnt projcctcd thrcat and rcccnt history ol attacks against
Coalition Forccs, and thinly strctchcd military lorcc, rcquircs a commcrcial sccu
rity lorcc that is dcdicatcd to providc Forcc Protcction Sccurity. avid 8arstow,
Sccurity companics: Shadow soldicrs in !raq, Te Ne. York Times, . April acc.
.c Vhcn thc US hcadquartcrs in Najal was attackcd by !raqi insurgcnts in April acc,
privatc contractors working lor 8lackwatcr Sccurity rcpcllcd thc attackcrs and rcs
cucd a US marinc who had bccn woundcd. Pricst, supra n. .
.. Scc P.V. Singcr, utsourcing thc war: Vith morc privatc contractors dying and
disappcaring in !raq, somc bcgin to qucstion thc rulcs ol cngagcmcnt, Salon, .6
April acc, http://www.salon.com.
.a !scnbcrg, supra n. .
. Vhcn Amcrica launchcd its invasion in March, thc battlcships in thc Gull wcrc
manncd by US navy pcrsonncl. 8ut alongsidc thcm sat civilians lrom lour compa
nics opcrating somc ol thc worlds most sophisticatcd wcapons systcms. Vhcn thc
unmanncd Prcdator droncs, thc Global Hawks, and thc 8a stcalth bombcrs wcnt
into action, thcir wcapons systcms, too, wcrc opcratcd and maintaincd by nonmili
tary pcrsonncl working lor privatc companics. Traynor, supra n. ., Phillip van Nickcrk,
Making a killing: thc busincss ol war, Tc Ccntcr lor Public !ntcgrity, Vashington,
.C., . May acc, http://www.publicintcgrity.org/bow/rcport.aspx:aid-.,.
. Scc Craig A. Simonds, Tc rolc ol civilians during thc rst Gull Var: pcration
cscrt Storm lorcshadowcd todays rcliancc on civilian logistics on thc battlc
cld, rmy Logistician, JanFcb. acc, Contract support lor pcration nduring
360 .ril McDonald
prisons, most notoriously Abu Ghraib,
+
intclligcncc,
+6
driving, translation, intcr
prctation and linguistics,
+
training thc !raqi army and policc,
+8
maintcnancc ol
military supply chains and guarding military convoys, computcr and tcchnolog
ical support, procurcmcnt, catcring, and so lorth.
+
Tc individual contractors
cmploycd by thcsc rms arc nationals ol various countrics, including thc US, thc
UK, Australia, South Alrica, Algcria, !sracl, Fiji, l Salvador, Ukrainc, Ncpal
and !raq.
:o
Givcn that thc individual contractors arc not pcrmancnt cmployccs
cvcn ol thc privatc military and sccurity rms that contract thcm out
:+
which
maintain databascs ol availablc contractor pcrsonncl, almost likc a tcmp agcncy
prima facie thcrc appcars to bc no agcncy or company with lull control ovcr or
rcsponsibility lor thc actions ol individual contractors.
!t is important to notc that a grcat varicty ol somctimcs highly divcrsicd
companics, providing a rangc ol scrviccs to all sorts ol clicnts,
::
could looscly bc
groupcd undcr thc umbrclla ol privatc military or sccurity companics and that
thc usc ol onc or othcr appcllation to dcscribc thc companics docs not ncccs
sarily accuratcly rccct thc typc ol scrviccs that a particular company providcs.
Tc tcrm privatc military companics rathcr than privatc sccurity companics or
dclcncc contractors is thcrclorc uscd hcrc not to dcscribc thc companics, to
lcgally charactcrisc thcm, or to suggcst that militarytypc scrviccs arc thc only
scrviccs thcy providc, but purcly lor convcnicncc. Tis contribution is cxclusivcly
Frccdom, rmy Logistician, MarchApril acc, http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/
issucs/MarAprc/MS,.htm.
. Scc Tc !nspcctor Gcncral, US Army, ctaincc pcrations !nspcction, rcport datcd
a. July acc, Anncx , p. .c6 (Taguba Rcport), AR .6 !nvcstigation ol thc Abu
Ghraib dctcntion lacility and acth military intclligcncc brigadc, Major Gcncral
Gcorgc R. Fay !nvcstigating ccr, a August acc (Fay Rcport).
.6 Scc Jonathan Vcrvc, Contractors writc thc rulcs: Army policy govcrning usc ol
contractors omits intclligcncc rcstrictions, Vindlalls ol Var, Tc Ccntcr lor Public
!ntcgrity, . May acc, http://www.publicintcgrity.org/wow/rcport.aspx:aid-.
., !scnbcrg, supra n. .
. Scc Avant, supra n. ., at p. ..
. Scc Michacl N. Schmitt, Humanitarian law and dircct participation in hostilitics
by privatc contractors or civilian cmployccs, Chicago Journal of International La.
(Vintcr acc) pp. .. at .a., Castillo, supra n. .
ac 8rownlcld, supra n. a, Harman, supra n. ., !scnbcrg, supra n. , Privatc military com
panics paying big bucks lor clitc soldicrs in !raq, Vorld Tribunc.com, http://a.6.a6.
.6.6a/acc/mc_iraq_.c_..html.
a. Scc avid !scnbcrg, Corporatc Mcrccnarics, Part a: Myth and mystcry, ac May
acc, Asia Timcs nlinc, http://www.atimcs.com/atimcs/Middlc_ast/FacAkca.
html.
aa As Avant has notcd, somc privatc sccurity companics (thc tcrm shc prclcrs) locus on
particular arcas ol cxpcrtisc, lor cxamplc, providing on sitc sccurity, whilc othcrs arc
involvcd in a rangc ol activitics, including military training. Scc supra n. . at Tablc
...., pp. .c..
361 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
conccrncd with outsourcing by thc military (and othcr statc agcncics) ol military
and quasimilitary lunctions to privatc contractors.
Until April acc, whcn contractor pcrsonncl cmploycd by 8lackwatcr
Sccurity !nc. wcrc ambushcd in Fallujah, bcatcn to dcath and thcir bodics dcs
ccratcd,
:
thc prcscncc ol so many privatc contractor individuals in !raq was a
lact littlc known to thc Amcrican or intcrnational public. !ndccd, it has bccn
obscrvcd that among thc rcasons motivating thc rcliancc ol US armcd lorccs
on individual contractors in !raq is thc lact that thcir dcaths arc not rccordcd in
ocial US latality gurcs,
:
and arc subjcct to lcss public scrutiny.
:
!t has also
bccn suggcstcd that: Privatc military companics allow govcrnmcnts to pursuc
policics in tough corncrs ol thc world with thc distancc and comlort ol plausiblc
dcniability.
:6
Tcy also makc possiblc thc usc ol military might abroad without
congrcssional ovcrsight or limitations on troops.
:
Vith thc broadcasting on tclcvision ol imagcs ol thc 8lackwatcr contrac
tors horric murdcrs, thc rcality ol contracting out military and sccurity scrviccs
by statcs in a war zonc, including thc cnormous risks thcsc individuals lacc,
:8
was
immcdiatcly brought homc to a widc audicncc. !t provokcd intcnsc mcdia and
a 8odics mutilatcd in !raq attack, 88C Ncws, . March acc, http://ncws.bbc.
co.uk/a/hi/middlc_cast/,6.stm, High payand high riskslor contractors in
!raq, CNN.com, a April acc, http://cdition.cnn.com/acc/VRL/mcast/c/c./
iraq.contractor/, ana Pricst and Mary Pat Flahcrty, Slain contractors wcrc in !raq
working sccurity dctail, !ashington Post, a April acc, p. A.6.
a Robcrt Fisk and Scvcrin Carrcll, ccupicrs spcnd millions on privatc army ol sccu
rity mcn, Te Independent, a March acc, !scnbcrg, supra n. .
a !t is cstimatcd that ovcr acc subcontractors havc bccn killcd in !raq as ol January
acc and hundrcds injurcd. Scc Joscph Nc and Jay Pricc, !raq: Courts to rcsolvc
contractors dcaths, Te Ne.s and Obser.er, January acc. Tc US military docs
not track subcontractors dcaths or injurics and can only cstimatc thc numbcrs lrom
thc claims madc lor compcnsation undcr thc clcnsc 8asc Act, which providcs
workcrs compcnsation to pcrsons who work undcr national or intcrnational govcrn
mcnt contracts. Scc Kirstcn Scharnbcrg, !raq: Contractor dcath total unclcar, Te
Chicago Tribune, a Fcbruary acc. Tat using contractors is lcss transparcnt was also
rcvcalcd in a statcmcnt by Charlcs Snydcr, US cputy Sccrctary ol Statc lor Alrican
Aairs madc in rclation to US policy in quatorial Guinca: Vc can scc somc mcrit
in using an outsidc contractor, bccausc wcrc not using U.S. unilorms and bodics.
Pctcrson, supra n. , Rcnac Mcrlc, Contract workcrs arc wars lorgottcn !raq dcaths
crcatc subculturc ol loss, Te !ashington Post, . July acc.
a6 van Nickcrk, supra n. .. Scc also Joshua Kurlantzick, utsourcing thc dirty work
thc military and its rcliancc on hircd guns, Te merican Prospect, . May acc.
a, Lcslic Vaync, Amcricas lorprot sccrct army, Te Ne. York Times, . ctobcr
acca.
a Scc avid !scnbcrg, Fistful of Contractors: Te Case for a Pragmatic ssessment of
Pri.ate Military Companies in Iraq, 8ritish Amcrican Sccurity !nlormation Council,
Rcscarch Rcport acc., Scptcmbcr acc, Appcndix .: PMC Casualtics in !raq,
avid Lcvinsky, !raq: Sccurity contractors lacc grcat dangcr, Burlington County
Times (US), ., May acc.
362 .ril McDonald
acadcmic intcrcst in thc rolc ol thc contractors in !raq and in thc subjcct ol out
sourcing morc gcncrally.
:

Vhilc statcs and thcir agcncics arc by no mcans thc only clicnts lor thc
scrviccs providcd by contractors,
o
this papcr conccntratcs on thc usc by statcs ol
contractors to pcrlorm military and quasi military lunctions which cithcr lcads
or may lcad to thcir dircct participation in hostilitics.
+
!t is this contingcncy
that givcs risc to thc most intcrcsting lcgal qucstions, somc ol which will bc
addrcsscd hcrc: Arc privatc contractors mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs ol a party
to an armcd conict, which would makc thcm combatants: How is mcmbcrship
ol thc armcd lorccs dctcrmincd, lunctionally or by law, and, il thc lattcr, by intcr
national humanitarian law or national law: !s it lawlul and appropriatc lor statcs
to outsourcc military and quasi military lunctions that may or will involvc a con
tractors dircct participation in hostilitics: Can statcs csscntially crcatc a paramil
itary unit without such a unit and its mcmbcrs bcing assimilatcd into thc armcd
lorccs: Can statcs avoid lcgal rcsponsibility lor thc unlawlul actions ol individual
contractors working on thcir bchall:
!raq providcs a usclul lcns through which to analysc thc subjcct ol military
outsourcing bccausc it is thc rst tcst bcd lor thc rcally largcscalc usc ol individ
ual contractors in lullling lunctions that wcrc lormcrly pcrlormcd by thc armcd
lorccs. !t is thcrc that both thc advantagcs and disadvantagcs ol rclying on con
tractcd labour to pcrlorm military and sccurity lunctions arc bcing manilcstcd.
!n particular, thc problcmatic lcgal status ol individual contractors is bccom
ing clcarcr in thc contcxt ol !raq, as is thc ncccssity ol satislactorily rcsolving
thc mattcr without blurring thc principlc ol distinction bctwccn combatants and
civilians or wcakcning thc protcction lrom attack cnjoycd by civilians, including
contractors, taking no dircct part in thc hostilitics.
:

a For an cxtcnsivc discussion in thc public domain, scc Contractors lacc !raq combat,
P8S Ncwshour with Jim Lchrcr, 6 April acc, transcript availablc at http://www.
pbs.org/ncwshour/bb/middlc_cast/janjuncc/contractors_6.html.
c Gcncrally spcaking and particularly in thc contcxt ol !raq, othcr clicnts lor thc scr
viccs ol individual contractors, particularly thosc providing sccurity scrviccs, includc
intcrnational and nongovcrnmcntal organisations and multinational and national
companics, inter alia.
. vcn il thc armcd lorccs arc not actually onc ol thc contractual partncrs. !n thc con
tcxt ol !raq, lor cxamplc, many contractor individuals havc bccn hircd by thc US
cpartmcnts ol Statc and thc !ntcrior, thc Ccntral !ntclligcncc Agcncy (C!A) and
thc US Agcncy lor !ntcrnational cvclopmcnt (USA!). Scc supra n. , Scc 8arry
Ycoman, Soldicrs ol good lortunc, Mother Jones, May/Junc acc, http://www.bar
ryycoman.com/articlcs/soldicrslortunc.html. CAC!, onc ol two PMCs implicatcd
in prisoncr abuscs in thc Taguba Rcport, was hircd to supply computcr scrviccs to
thc US cpartmcnt ol thc !ntcrior. Scc !nquiry into intcrrogation rm, 88C Ncws
Vorld dition, a, May acc, http://ncws.bbc.co.uk/a/hi/busincss/a,6.stm.
a workin, supra n. a, Pricst and Flahcrty, supra n. a.
363 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
Tc articlc will addrcss thc abovcmcntioncd lcgal issucs according to thc
lollowing structurc. Part !! ocrs a capsulc history ol thc lall lrom gracc and
rcturn to lavour ol individuals and companics ocring privatc military and sccu
rity scrviccs. !t thcn dcscribcs thc usc ol contractors by thc US armcd lorccs, cul
minating in thcir massivc dcploymcnt to !raq bcginning in acc.
Part !!! addrcsscs thc lcgal status ol contractors both thc individuals and thc
companics that hirc thcm. Part !\ tacklcs thc issuc ol thc criminal and civil liabil
ity ol privatc contractor individuals and companics. Part \ addrcsscs thc qucstion
whcthcr statcs can bc considcrcd rcsponsiblc lor thc actions ol contractors and,
il so, in which circumstanccs. Somc tcntativc conclusions arc sct out in part \!.
As thc ovcrwhclming majority ol individual contractors dcploycd in military and
quasi military rolcs in !raq arc working lor thc US,

this contribution rcstricts thc

analysis to thc lcgal and lactual situation surrounding thcsc contractors.
As lor thc applicablc law, givcn that this papcr is conccrncd primarily with
thc usc ol privatc contractors to pcrlorm mainly military, but also sccurity lunc
tions, in a country whcrc thcrc has at all rclcvant timcs bccn an armcd conict,
thc law ol armcd conict (LAC), othcrwisc known as intcrnational humanitar
ian law (!HL),

applics as thc lex specialis. Part !.A bclow providcs a bricl discus
sion rcgarding what parts ol thc LAC can bc considcrcd to bc applicablc.
thcr aspccts ol intcrnational law may likcwisc bc rclcvant, lor cxamplc, thc rulcs
prohibiting mcrccnary activitics. !n thc contcxt ol thc discussion ol contractor
liability lor wrongdoing, intcrnational criminal law and thc domcstic criminal
laws ol thc US and !raq constitutc thc applicablc law. Givcn that intcrnational
civil law hardly cxists outsidc ol statc rcsponsibility law, thc civil liability ol indi
vidual contractors and contractor companics shall bc asscsscd by rclcrcncc to
national civil law. Finally, thc law ol statc rcsponsibility is rclcvant in thc contcxt
ol thc discussion whcthcr statcs can bc hcld as rcsponsiblc lor thc wronglul acts
ol contractor individuals or companics.
Te Nature of the Conict in Iraq and the pplicable LOC
From thc momcnt ol thc rst air strikcs against !raq by thc US and its coali
tion partncrs on ac March acc, thc law applicablc in intcrnational armcd con
ict applicd, thc conict bcing an intcrnational armcd conict bctwccn two or
morc statcs.

Tc US and !raq arc partics to thc Fourth Haguc Convcntion on

8arstow, supra n. .
Tcsc tcrms shall bc uscd intcrchangcably in this papcr. Hcrc is hardly thc placc to
cntcr into thc discussion ol thc rclcvant mcrits ol thcsc two tcrms, and thc author
thcrclorc cxprcsscs no vicws on thc subjcct, cxccpt to point out that thc tcrm intcr
national humanitarian law is nothing il not mislcading to thosc unlamiliar with thc
substancc ol thc law.
Articlc a Fourth Gcncva Convcntion. Rcprintcd in Adam Robcrts and Richard
Gucl, Documents on the La.s of !ar, a
nd
cdn. (xlord, Clarcndon Prcss .) pp.
364 .ril McDonald
thc Laws and Customs ol Var on Land ol .c,
6
and its anncxcd Rcgulations
Rcspccting thc Laws and Customs ol Var on Land

and to thc Fourth Gcncva

Convcntion ol .,
8
all ol which applicd lor thc duration ol thc intcrnational
armcd conict. Ncithcr statc is a party to Additional Protocol ! ol .,,, but many
ol its rulcs would havc bccn applicablc as a mattcr ol customary law.

ccupation law,
o
namcly, thc rclcvant parts ol thc Haguc Rcgulations
anncxcd to thc Fourth Haguc Convcntion ol .c, and thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion ol ., bccamc applicablc as thc US stcadily gaincd ccctivc con
trol ovcr thc tcrritory ol !raq.
+
Michacl Kclly, who scrvcd in thc cc ol thc
Gcncral Counscl ol thc CPA, has opincd that thc law ol occupation was in
ccct throughout !raq by thc cnd ol April acc.
:
Michacl Schmitt and Charlcs
Garraway havc notcd that somc rcsistancc continucd altcr thc lall ol thc Saddam
Husscin rcgimc on April, but that on .6 April, Coalition Commandcr, Gcncral
Franks, issucd a Mcssagc ol Frccdom to thc !raqi Pcoplc. Tc CPA gcncrally uscs
this datc in its policy instrumcnts as a rclcrcncc point lor countrywidc occupa
a,. ct scq.
6 Rcprintcd in Adam Robcrts and Richard Gucl, Documents on the La.s of !ar, a
nd

cdn. (xlord, Clarcndon Prcss .) p. .
, !bid., at p. .
!bid., at p. a,a.
Tc !CRCs rcccntly publishcd study on Customary !ntcrnational Humanitarian
Law idcntics a grcat numbcr ol customary rulcs, particularly conccrning thc con
duct ol hostilitics, applicablc in both intcrnational and nonintcrnational armcd
conict. JcanMaric Hcnckacrts and Louisc oswald8cck, Customary International
Humanitarian La., \olumc !: Rulcs (Gcncva, !CRC/Cambridgc, Cambridgc
Univcrsity Prcss acc) (hcrcaltcr, C!HL). Scc also JcanMaric Hcnckacrts, Study
on customary intcrnational humanitarian law: A contribution to thc undcrstanding
and rcspcct lor thc rulc ol law in armcd conict, International Fe.ie. of the Fed
Cross No. ,, p. .,.
c Articlc a ol thc Haguc Rcgulations anncxcd to thc Fourth Haguc Convcntion ol
.c, providcs that: Tcrritory is considcrcd occupicd whcn it is actually placcd undcr
thc authority ol thc hostilc army. Tc occupation only cxtcnds to thc tcrritory whcrc
such authority has bccn cstablishcd and can bc cxcrciscd.
. Michacl Kclly has notcd that: Tis is a law that cbbs and ows in thc cddics ol thc
battlc spacc. !ts application crccps lorward as thc lorward cdgc ol thc battlc (hcrcal
tcr, F8A) movcs lorward. Vhilc thc law docs not apply in thc F8A, it comcs to
lruition as a lorcc acquircs or dcvclops thc capacity to cxcrcisc control ol capturcd
tcrritory away lrom thc combat action and thcrclorc it may bc dcscribcd as thc law
ol thc sccond cchclon. Michacl J. Kclly, !raq and thc law ol occupation: ncw tcsts
lor an old law, 6 YIHL (acc) pp. .a, at .a.
a !bid., at p. .c.
365 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
tion.

Two wccks latcr, on . May, Prcsidcnt 8ush dcclarcd that major combat
opcrations in !raq havc cndcd.

For our purposcs, thc two main qucstions arc (.) whcn did thc occupation
cnd, and (a) whcn did thc intcrnational armcd conict cnd : !l onc or both is now
cndcd, thcn only Articlc common to thc Gcncva Convcntions and customary
humanitarian law applicablc in nonintcrnational armcd conicts applics, as nci
thcr !raq nor thc US is a party to Additional Protocol !!.
Ncithcr Haguc nor Gcncva Law is cntircly clcar rcgarding whcn an occupa
tion cnds. Tc Haguc Rcgulations say nothing on thc qucstion, whilc Articlc 6 ol
thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion is addrcsscd to whcn thc Convcntion ccascs to
apply, providing that: !n casc ol occupicd tcrritory, thc application ol thc prcscnt
Convcntion shall ccasc onc ycar altcr thc gcncral closc ol military opcrations.
Articlc (b) ol Additional Protocol ! is not much morc hclplul, stating simply
that thc application ol thc Convcntions and thc Protocol ccascs, in thc casc ol
occupicd tcrritorics, upon thc tcrmination ol thc occupation.
sscntially, an occupation cnds whcn thc ccupying Powcr no longcr cxcr
ciscs military or administrativc control ovcr thc occupicd tcrritory or whcn a
national authority is rcstorcd. According to thc 8ritish Military Manual:
ccupation ccascs as soon as thc occupying powcr is drivcn out or cvacuatcs
thc arca. ccupation will also ccasc whcn ccctivc control translcrs to a dicr
cnt authority, such that thc tcrritory ccascs to bc undcr thc authority ol cxtcrnal
military lorccs.

cially, thc !raq occupation cndcd on c Junc acc with thc handovcr
ol authority lrom thc CPA to thc !ntcrim !raqi Govcrnmcnt,
6
cvcn though
thcrc was no withdrawal ol Coalition Forccs at that timc. !ndccd, ccctivc mili
tary control ovcr thc country was still bcing cxcrciscd by thc Coalition Forccs at
thc timc ol writing (cccmbcr acc). !l onc acccpts that !raqi sovcrcignty was
rcstorcd with thc clcction ol an intcrim !raqi govcrnmcnt on c Junc acc, thcn
thc US and thc UK no longcr constitutcd ccupying Powcrs lrom this datc as
thcy rcmaincd in !raq with thc agrccmcnt ol thc !raqi !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt.
Rcgarding thc ccssation ol thc intcrnational armcd conict, although !raq
was almost lully undcr occupation by .6 April or at thc latcst . May acc, thc
intcrnational armcd conict continucd, albcit at a lowcr lcvcl, altcr this datc and
lor thc duration ol thc occupation as thc country was not cntircly pacicd and
Michacl N. Schmitt and Charlcs H.8. Garraway, ccupation policy in !raq and
intcrnational law, International Peacekeeping (acc) pp. a, at a.
Gcorgc V. 8ush, Rcmarks lrom thc USS braham Lincoln, . May acc, http://www.
whitchousc.gov/ncws/rclcascs/acc/c/iraq/accc...htm.
Te Manual of the La. of rmed Conict, UK Ministry ol clcncc (xlord, xlord
Univcrsity Prcss acc) p. a,,, part ...,.
6 As agrccd in thc Agrccmcnt ol . Novcmbcr acc bctwccn thc Govcrning Council
and thc CPA on thc Timeline to a So.ereign, Democratic and Secure Iraq, http://iraq
coalition.org/govcrnmcnt/AgrccmcntNov..pdl.
366 .ril McDonald
thc coalition sought to quash thc rcmaining pockcts ol rcsistancc. Tcrclorc, mil
itary opcrations conductcd within thc contcxt ol thc intcrnational armcd conict
and thc occupation would havc coincidcd, as would thc ccssation ol both thc
intcrnational armcd conict and thc occupation.
Tc gcncral vicw is that thc closc ol military opcrations signals a com
plctc ccssation ol hostilitics. Tc Rapportcur ol Committcc !!! at thc Gcncva
iplomatic Conlcrcncc ol . statcd that thc gcncral closc ol military opcrations
was whcn thc last shot has bccn rcd.

According to thc !CRC Commcntary

to thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion: Vhcn thc strugglc takcs placc bctwccn two
Statcs thc datc ol thc closc ol hostilitics is lairly casy to dccidc: it will dcpcnd
cithcr on an armisticc, a capitulation or simply on dcbcllatio. n thc othcr hand,
whcn thcrc arc scvcral Statcs on onc or both ol thc sidcs, thc qucstion is hardcr to
scttlc. !t must bc agrccd that in most cascs thc gcncral closc ol military opcrations
will bc thc nal cnd ol all ghting bctwccn all thosc conccrncd.
8
Tis raiscs a
qucstion in thc casc ol !raq, whcrc ncithcr thc bcginning nor thc cnd ol thc occu
pation coincidcd with thc last shot bcing rcd or thc cnd ol ghting.
!t docs appcar that at lcast lrom c Junc acc thc lcgal naturc ol thc hostili
tics changcd, and with it, thc applicablc law. Most likcly, thc intcrnational armcd
conict continucd until thc changc ol sovcrcignty and thc handovcr ol powcr to
thc intcrim !raqi govcrnmcnt on c Junc acc. !t is dicult to show that thc con
ict continuing altcr this datc is an intcrnational armcd conict, cvcn though in
somc rcspccts this conict sccms to mcrcly bc thc continuation or rcsiduc ol thc
lormcr intcrnational armcd conict. Political powcr has changcd hands, altcr
ing thc lcgal status ol thosc ghting. Now it is !raq ghting thc insurgcnts with
thc hclp ol its allics, thc Coalition Forccs. Tc nonstatc party rcmains largcly
thc samc: inter alia 8aathist rcmnants, othcr pcrsons opposcd to thc prcscncc ol
thc Coalition Forccs, and !slamic jihadists. Tc prcscncc ol lorcign ghtcrs alonc
would not bc sucicnt to rcndcr thc conict intcrnational in charactcr whcrc
thcy do not rcprcscnt a lorcign statc. Howcvcr, arguably thc conict can bc con
sidcrcd as an intcrnationaliscd nonintcrnational armcd conict, givcn thc cnor
mous lorcign military prcscncc that rcmains in !raq and thc prcscnsc ol lorcign
clcmcnts on thc insurgcnts sidc. Tc approach takcn by thc US armcd lorccs lor
opcrational purposcs at lcast

is to crr on thc sidc ol caution and trcat thc conict

sincc Junc acc as bcing intcrnational.
, Final Rccord ol thc iplomatic Conlcrcncc ol Gcncva ol ., \ol. !!A, p. ..
Yvcs Sandoz, Christophc Swinarski and 8runo Zimmcrmann, cds., Commentary on
the Protocol dditional to the Gene.a Con.entions of z,,, and relating to the Protection of
!ictims of Non-International rmed Conicts (Protocol II) (Gcncva, !CRC/Martinus
Nijho .,) p. 6a.
Tc US armcd lorccs continuc to apply all ol intcrnational humanitarian law to
its military opcrations in !raq, pointing out thc nccd lor consistcncy ol approach
and lcgal ccrtainty on thc part ol troops, according to V. Hays Parks, US cc ol
367 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
Tc lcgal qualication ol thc conict may havc no rcal bcaring in practicc
on thc qucstion ol whcn it would bc lcgal to targct (and kill) a contractor who
is taking a dircct part in hostilitics. Providcd hc is not a mcmbcr ol thc armcd
lorccs (which would makc him targctablc at all timcs), hc can bc targctcd only
whcn hc is taking a dircct part in hostilitics, whcthcr that bc in intcrnational or
nonintcrnational armcd conict. Tis raiscs thc qucstion ol thc duration ol such
participation.
As lor rulcs on thc dctcntion ol capturcd pcrsons, as only common Articlc
ol thc Gcncva Convcntions and thc rclcvant rulcs ol customary humanitarian
law applicablc in nonintcrnational armcd conict continuc to apply,
o
thc Tird
and Fourth Gcncva Convcntion would not govcrn thc dctcntion ol any pcrson
capturcd altcr c Junc acc. 8ut, as Tony Rogcrs has rightly obscrvcd, pcrsons
who, bclorc that datc acquircd protcction undcr thc law ol war, lor cxamplc, as
prisoncrs ol war or intcrnccs, would continuc to bcnct lrom that protcction
until nal rclcasc or rcpatriation.
+
From that datc, all contractors, whcthcr or not
thcy havc takcn a dircct part in hostilitics would, upon capturc, cnjoy thc protcc
tions ol common Articlc and ol Additional Protocol !! as customary law.
II Te Iall and Rise of Military and Security Contracting
n Historical Perspecti.e
!t is only in modcrn timcs that thc tcrm mcrccnary has comc to acquirc a ncga
tivc connotation. Military history rccords thc important and rcspcctablc rolc ol
thc mcrccnary in bolstcring statcs armics in Grcck and Roman timcs and in thc
Middlc Agcs in Francc, thc UK and !taly. Until thc ninctccnth ccntury mcrcc
narics wcrc a staplc part ol thc armcd lorccs ol statcs and cmpircs.
:

Gcncral Counscl, cpartmcnt ol clcnsc, in an cmail corrcspondcncc with thc
author. n lc with thc author.
c As thc !CTY pointcd out in its jurisprudcncc, customary intcrnational law appli
cablc in nonintcrnational armcd conict docs rccognisc somc rulcs rcgulating thc
conduct ol hostilitics. Te Prosecutor v. Duko Tadi, ccision on thc clcncc Motion
lor !ntcrlocutory Appcal on Jurisdiction, a ctobcr ., Casc No. !T.AR,a.
Tis obscrvation is conrmcd by thc !CRCs C!HL, supra n. .
. A.P.\. Rogcrs, Uncqual combat and thc laws ol war, in , YIHL (acc) lorthcom
ing.
a For thc rolc ol mcrccnarics in conict historically scc avid Shcarcr, utsourcing
Var (mcrccnary organizations), Foreign Policy (Fall .), http://www.lsa.ulaval.
ca/pcrsonncl/vcrnag/ch/l/cons/lccturcs/mcrccnarics.htm. Scc also ugcnc 8.
Smith, Tc Ncw Condotticri and US Policy: Tc Privatization ol Conict and
its !mplications, Parameters (Vintcr accaacc) p. .c, Martin van Crcvcld, Te
Transformation of !ar (Ncw York ct al, Tc Frcc Prcss ..) pp. , ,c, Michacl
Lcc Lanning, Mercenaries (Ncw York, 8allantinc 8ooks acc), Frcd Roscn, Contract
368 .ril McDonald
Mcrccnarism bcgan its dcsccnt into inlamy with thc consolidation ol thc
nation statc as thc basic political unit in intcrnational rclations, thc statcs asscr
tion ol thc monopoly on violcncc, and thc risc ol thc conccpt ol nationalism.

As national pridc and thc dcsirc ol statcs to discouragc dcpcndcncc on privatc
military lorccs grcw, so too did thc willingncss ol nationals to ght on bchall ol
thcir statc lor littlc rcward othcr than lovc ol country and glory. Conscript and
prolcssional armics grcw to rcplacc thc dcpcndcncc on hircd guns.
!t was only in .,, with Additional Protocol ! to thc Gcncva Convcntions
that statcs movcd to criminalisc mcrccnarism undcr thc law ol armcd conict.
Subscqucntly, in ., an !ntcrnational Convcntion was adoptcd to ban thc prac
ticc.

ach trcaty takcs a somcwhat dicrcnt approach to dcning mcrccnarics,

with thc Mcrccnarics Convcntion adopting a broadcr dcnition that docs not
rcquirc dircct participation in hostilitics.
As statcs wcrc taking stcps to prohibit mcrccnarism undcr convcntional
intcrnational law, two phcnomcna could bc obscrvcd. First, dcspitc bcing typccast
as socallcd dogs ol war

and criminaliscd, mcrccnarics ncvcr disappcarcd. n

thc contrary, thcy wcrc rathcr activc in a widc rangc ol conicts, particularly in
postcolonial Alrica, during thc Cold Var and subscqucntly.
6
To bc surc, many
wcrc unscrupulous individuals with a tastc lor blood and advcnturc, but, on thc
plus sidc, mcrccnarics also hclpcd poor, unstablc statcs lacking strong militarics
to dclcat murdcrous rcbcl groups and, somctimcs, prccipitatcd thc cnd ol armcd
conict.

Sccond, as statcs wcrc mccting to adopt thc Mcrccnarics Convcntion,

thc Cold Var was cnding, with conscqucnccs that would lorcc statcs to think
!arriors: Ho. Mercenaries Changed History and the !ar on Terrorism (Ncw York ct
al, Alpha 8ooks acc).
Scc Tomas Adams, Tc Ncw Mcrccnarics and thc Privatization ol Conict,
Paramctcrs (Summcr .) pp. .c..6.
!ntcrnational Convcntion against thc Rccruitmcnt, Usc, Financing and Training
ol Mcrccnarics, RS//, cccmbcr .. !t cntcrcd into lorcc on ac ctobcr
acc..
As immortaliscd by Frcdcrick Forsythc in a book ol thc samc namc, which was pub
lishcd in .. by Random Housc.
6 For a thorough discussion ol mcrccnary activitics ovcr thc past dccadcs scc Singcr,
supra n. , Lanning, supra n. and Roscn, supra n. a.
, For cxamplc, whcn thc dcmocratically clcctcd govcrnmcnt ol Prcsidcnt Kabbah
was ovcrthrown in Sicrra Lconc, thc govcrnmcnt callcd to thc rcscuc Sandlinc
!ntcrnational, which shippcd tons ol 8ulgarianmadc AK,s rics, a hclicop
tcr and providcd logistical support to hclp rcstorc Kabbahs govcrnmcnt. uncan
Campbcll, Markcting thc ncw dogs ol war, Making a Killing: Tc busincss ol war,
An invcstigation by thc Ccntcr lor Public !ntcgrity, . May acc, http://www.pub
licintcgrity.org/bow/rcport.aspx:aid-.. Scc also Tim McCormack, Tc Sandlinc
Aair: Papua Ncw Guinca rcsorts to mcrccnarism to cnd thc 8ougainvillc conict,
. YIHL (.) p. aa.
369 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
again about thc utility ol rclying on paid privatc labour to pcrlorm military
tasks.
Vith thc cnd ol thc Cold Var, armcd lorccs around thc world wcrc drasti
cally rcduccd, as thc pcrccivcd military thrcat rcccdcd. Tc downsizing ol mili
tarics rcsultcd in many highly traincd military pcrsonncl bcing madc rcdundant,
crcating an cnormous pool ol military cxpcrtisc. Tc privatc scctor absorbcd
much ol this manpowcr, but it nccdcd largc clicnts. Tc biggcst customcrs lor
privatc individuals with military cxpcrtisc and a ycn lor action turncd out to bc
not lailing Alrican and Asian statcs, but thc armcd lorccs ol thc worlds most
tcchnologically advanccd militarics, in particular, thc US. Many soldicrs who lclt
thc armcd lorccs through thc lront door rcturncd through thc back door, only
out ol unilorm, apparcntly bcyond military command and control and on much
lattcr pay chccks.
B Contracting by the US rmed Forces
Vhilc thc notion ol a privatc military company, and cvcn thc tcrm itscll, may bc
rcccnt,
8
thc practicc ol cmploying civilians dircctly and ol contracting out ccrtain
lunctions to civilians is as old as thc US armcd lorccs thcmsclvcs, with civilians
routincly accompanying thc armcd lorccs in thc cld.

Vhat is ncw is thc scalc

and scopc ol thcir involvcmcnt and thc cxtcnt ol thc dcpcndcncc on thcir scrv
iccs,
6o
as !raq amply dcmonstratcs.
Scc Campbcll, ibid.
!ndccd, thc US cpartmcnt ol thc Army has notcd that: Contractors havc sup
portcd military lorccs throughout history. cpartmcnt ol thc Army, Army Matcrial
Command Pamphlct No. ,ccc, . January accc, Logistics Civil Augmcntation
Program (LGCAP). lscwhcrc, thc US cpartmcnt ol thc Army has notcd:
Historically, civilians havc playcd an important rolc in thc conduct ol U.S. military
opcrations. Morc rcccntly, Army civilians havc cstablishcd thcmsclvcs as an intc
gral and vital part ol Amcricas Army tcam. Vith distinction, thcy pcrlorm critical
dutics in virtually cvcry lunctional lacct ol Combat Support and Combat Scrvicc
Support, both at homc and abroad. Scrving bcsidc thcir dcploycd unilormcd com
patriots thcy also providc thc critical skills ncccssary to assurc thc availability ol
csscntial combat systcms and wcaponry, thcrcby maximizing thc ghting capabil
ity ol thc combat soldicr and succcss ol thc Army wartimc and cmcrgcncy mission.
US cpartmcnt ol thc Army Pamphlct 6c,, Civilian Pcrsonncl, A Civilian
mploycc cploymcnt Guidc, Hcadquartcrs ol thc Army, . Novcmbcr ..
6c According to onc authority: Contractor support is an csscntial, vital part ol our lorcc
projcction capabilityand incrcasing in its importancc. Gordon L. Campbcll, Unitcd
Statcs Army Combincd Arms Support Command, Contractors on thc 8attlccld:
Tc thics ol Paying Civilians to ntcr Harms Vay and Rcquiring Soldicrs to
cpcnd upon Tcm, A papcr prcparcd lor prcscntation to thc Joint Scrviccs
Conlcrcncc on Prolcssional thics accc Springcld, \A, January a,a, accc.
370 .ril McDonald
vcn morc than othcr statcs, sincc thc cnd ol thc Cold Var thc US military
has bccn scvcrcly downsizcd, losing about a third ol its worklorcc.
6+
Tis shortlall
in pcrsonncl has bccn madc up by massivc outsourcing ol military lunctions to
thc privatc scctor. A . rcport ol thc clcnsc Scicncc 8oard, a standing com
mittcc that adviscs thc Pcntagon on tcchnological, scicntic, and othcr issucs,
suggcstcd that thc Pcntagon could savc up to s6 billion annually by acca il it
contractcd out all ol its support lunctions to privatc vcndors, cxccpt thosc that
dcal dircctly with war ghting.
6:
Tis vision has largcly bccn rcaliscd. A twoycar
invcstigation by thc !ntcrnational Consortium ol !nvcstigativc Journalists (!C!J)
lor thc Ccntcr lor Public !ntcgrity lound that:
Sincc ., thc U.S. clcnsc cpartmcnt has cntcrcd into ,c6. contracts with
.a ol thc a U.S.bascd PMCs idcnticd by !C!J, a rcvicw ol govcrnmcnt doc
umcnts showcd. Pcntagon rccords valucd thosc contracts at morc than scc
billion. Morc than a,,cc ol thosc contracts wcrc hcld by just two companics:
Kcllogg 8rown & Root and 8ooz Allcn Hamilton. 8ccausc ol thc limitcd
inlormation thc Pcntagon providcs and thc brcadth ol scrviccs ocrcd by somc
ol thc largcr companics, it was impossiblc to dctcrminc what pcrccntagc ol
thcsc scrviccs was lor training, sccurity or logistical scrviccs.
6
Civilians subcontractcd to thc US military lulll a widc rangc ol lunctions, as
shown abovc in thc casc ol !raq. !t has bccn obscrvcd that: Tc privatc scctor is
so cmbcddcd in combat, occupation and pcacckccping dutics that thc phcnom
cnon may havc rcachcd thc point ol no rcturn: thc US military would strugglc to
wagc war without it.
6
i Forccs riving utsourcing by thc Military
Tc lorccs driving thc incrcascd dcpcndcncc on contractcd labour includc thc
abovcmcntioncd shortagc ol military pcrsonncl duc to downsizing, its pcrccivcd
cost ccicncy, tcchnological changcs in thc mcthods and mcans ol warlarc
(including incrcascd dcpcndcncc on civilians in thc cld ol wcapons dcvclop
mcnt and opcration), and thc prolilcration ol unstablc statcs. Tcrc is also thc
incrcasing dcmand on US and othcr lorccs to takc part in smallcr scalc pcacc and
sccurity opcrations in othcr countrics, cvcn though both thc rcquisitc troops and
thc political will to scnd thcm abroad arc lacking.
As lar as thc cost lactor is conccrncd, it should bc notcd that it has yct to
bc provcn that contractors rcally arc morc cost ccctivc than military pcrsonncl.
6. 8rownlcld, supra n. a, Ycoman, supra n. ..
6a Pctcrson, supra n. .
6 !bid.
6 Traynor, supra n. ., Ycoman, supra n. ..
371 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
!t is wcll known that contractor pcrsonncl arc highly paid, with annual salarics
at s.cc,ccc or morc and somc cmployccs taking homc s.,ccc a day lor short
tcrm projccts,
6
lar in cxccss ol what military pcrsonncl carn.
66
Morcovcr, whilc
thc military may appcar to savc moncy by avoiding rclatcd costs such as hous
ing, hcalthcarc, insurancc and training lor contractors who can bc cmploycd on
tcmporary, cxiblc tcrms, thus avoiding thc nccd lor job bcncts or rcdundancy
paymcnts in casc ol layos thc wisdom ol not invcsting in contractor train
ing at lcast can bc qucstioncd. Contractor pcrsonncl arc hircd prcciscly bccausc
ol thcir cxpcrtisc and supposcd battlc rcadincss and, as a rcsult, bclorc bcing
dcploycd do not rcccivc thc samc lcvcl ol training
6
in military or lcgal mattcrs
as military pcrsonncl.
68
Contractor individuals may also lack thc ncccssary spc
cialiscd training to carry out thcir appointcd tasks. For cxamplc, thc rcport ol
thc US Army !nspcctor Gcncral (Taguba Rcport) into thc !raqi prisoncr abusc
scandal notcd that pcrccnt ol thc intcrrogators providcd by CAC! !nc. did not
havc any lormal training in military intcrrogation policics and tcchniqucs.
6
!l
lack ol spccialiscd training mcans that contractors cannot always pcrlorm thcir
jobs propcrly, Avant has pointcd out that thc vauntcd savings on training arc also
ovcrstatcd, givcn that most individual contractors wcrc mcmbcrs ol thc armcd
lorccs at somc stagc ol thcir carccr.
o
Tus, thc military has had to invcst in thcir
cducation and training whilc thcy wcrc mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs, only to wit
ncss a brain drain latcr on as thc prospcct ol morc moncy lurcs thcm into thc pri
vatc scctor.
+
Vhilc it is lully in thc spirit ol thc agc wc livc in to hirc individuals
6 !t is intcrcsting to notc, howcvcr, that not all contractors arc cqual whcn it comcs to
carnings. Vhilc US and uropcan nationals attain thc highcst wagcs, nationals ol
dcvcloping countrics, such as l Salvador, rcccivc considcrably lcss (lrom s.,accc to
s,ccc pcr month). Harman, supra n. ..
66 Jamic Vilson, Privatc sccurity rms call lor morc rcpowcr in combat zonc:
Coalition Forccs do littlc to hclp as bodyguards protccting lorcign workcrs arc tar
gctcd by dcadly insurgcnts, Te Guardian, ., April acc, http://www.guardian.co.uk/
!raq/Story/c,a,6,..,.,cc.html.
6, Scc !scnbcrg, supra n. a..
6 Tc cxpcricnccs ol !raq sccm to havc lorccd a rcthink ol thc wisdom ol clcmcnts
ol this policy. Scc Schmitt, supra n. ., p. .. !t was rcportcd that thc Pcntagon
plans to train contractors in how to survivc insurgcncy attacks. Training is going
to bc cxpandcd bcyond thc military to o contractors and civilian pcrsonncl,
o cputy Assistant Sccrctary ol clcnsc Jcrry Jcnnings was rcportcd as saying.
Scc utsourcing thc war, a Novcmbcr acc. Vcbsitc ol thc !ntcrnational Pcacc
pcrations Association, http://www.ipoaonlinc.org/ncws_dctailhtml.asp.
6 Taguba Rcport, supra n. ..
,c cborah Avant, Tink Again: Mcrccnarics, Foreign Policy ( July/August acc),
http://www.lorcignpolicy.com/uscrs/rcgistcr.php:story_id-a,,&rcgistcrcd_
only-.&URL-http://www.lorcignpolicy.com/story/cms.php:story_id-a,,.
,. 8arstow, supra n. , Privatc military companics paying big bucks lor clitc soldicrs
in !raq, supra n. ac, scc also Tc 8aghdad 8oom, Te Economist, a March acc,
372 .ril McDonald
on shorttcrm contracts, with no job sccurity or bcncts, thcrc may bc a hiddcn
cost involvcd. !t may bc too much to cxpcct a pcrson who is trcatcd as lrcclancc
and dispcnsablc to havc any sort ol loyalty or commitmcnt toward an institu
tion that hircs him according to its tcmporary nccds. Vhcrcas a lack ol institu
tional loyalty may not bc a signicant problcm in thc casc ol somconc working
lor a call ccntrc, it would sccm to bc a rcquisitc lor somconc pcrlorming military
lunctions lor armcd lorccs.
:
Vithout somc scnsc ol bclonging to, or mcmbcr
ship in, an armcd group, it is cxtrcmcly dicult to maintain group cohcsion and
military ccctivcncss. Furthcrmorc, as thc markct lor privatc contractors grows,
and compctition lor thcir scrviccs incrcascs, thc tcmptation to apply loosc hiring
standards incrcascs. As thc dcmand lor contractor pcrsonncl in !raq has grown, it
has bccn obscrvcd that standards havc lallcn and incrcasingly thcrc is insucicnt
vctting to wccd out unqualicd or unscrupulous individuals.

Vhcrcas both warriors and thosc making possiblc thcir cngagcmcnt in

combat wcrc combatants, bccausc ol incrcasing tcchnological sophistication,
cspccially that rcsulting lrom thc prcvalcncc ol acrial warlarc, ghting today can
bc carricd out by a rclativcly small numbcr ol combatants. 8ut thcy rcquirc an
cnormous support systcm, which civilians incrcasingly providc. Tc military has
bccomc cvcr morc dcpcndcnt on civilian cxpcrtisc in critical arcas such as wcap
ons dcvclopmcnt, maintcnancc and opcration. Tc US military outsourccs most
ol its wcapons dcvclopmcnt to thc privatc scctor and is no longcr rcsponsiblc lor
thc daytoday opcration ol a numbcr ol csscntial wcapons systcms.

Tc samc
is truc lor logistics.

Today contractor logistics support is routincly imbcddcd in

most major systcms maintcnancc and support plans.
6
Givcn how critical many
contractors arc to military opcrations, thc linc bctwccn thosc who mcrcly sup
port opcrations and thosc who takc a dircct part in hostilitics is incrcasingly dil
cult to draw.
http://www.sandlinc.com/hotlinks/conomist8aghdad.html, Morgan, C!A laccs
spy shortagc as stacrs go privatc, Rcutcrs, c Scptcmbcr acc, http://www.lrc
crcpublic.com/locus/lncws/.6a,/posts.
,a nc ol thc rcquisitcs lor building an ccctivc military lorcc is to instill an esprit de
corps, mcaning that an individual loscs his individual idcntity to somc cxtcnt and
bccomcs a mcmbcr ol a group, whosc rst loyalty is thc group rathcr than to himscll.
Scc Chaptcr 6 ol Te Foots of Beha.iour in !ar (Gcncva, !CRC acc) pp. c.
, 8arstow, supra n. .
, Scc Avant, supra n. . at p. ..
, !bid., p. ac.
,6 Contractor Support in thc Tcatcr ol pcrations, cskbook Supplcmcnt, a March
acc., http://akss.dau.mil/docs/AacSuppac(KracSuppacinacTcatcr)
(Maracc.).doc.
373 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
III Te Iegal Status of Military Contractors
Te Legal Status of Pri.ate Military Companies
Privatc military companics havc no status undcr intcrnational law. Tcy arc not
subjccts ol intcrnational law as thcy arc not statcs, intcrnational organisations,

individuals or any othcr cntity with lull or limitcd intcrnational lcgal pcrsonality.
As yct, thcrc is no rcgulation ol PMCs at thc intcrnational lcvcl, and thcrc sccms
to bc nothing in intcrnational law or indccd thc domcstic law ol most statcs to
prohibit thc cstablishmcnt ol privatc military or sccurity companics per se.
For thc most part, PMCs arc companics rcgistcrcd undcr thc applicablc
domcstic company law. As PMCs arc incorporatcd in statcs, thcy arc subjcct to
all ol thc rclcvant national law (company law, tax law, contract law, ctc.) rathcr
than intcrnational law. Howcvcr, this docs not mcan that thcir activitics and thc
actions ol thosc thcy cmploy cannot bc subjcct to intcrnational law whcrc rcl
cvant. For cxamplc, in statcs that arc partics to thc Mcrccnarics Convcntion or
Additional Protocol !, activitics ol PMCs that could bc dccmcd mcrccnary would
bc prohibitcd.
B Te Legal Status of the Contractor Personnel
Tcrc arc two principal qucstions, which shall bc considcrcd in thc lollowing scc
tion: (.) Vhat is thc lcgal status ol contractor pcrsonncl: Arc thcy combatants or
noncombatants (civilians): (a) !l thcy arc thc lattcr, in what circumstanccs and
lor how long might thcy losc thc immunity lrom attack which all civilians arc
prcsumcd to cnjoy: Tc qucstion ol whcthcr contractors arc mcrccnarics shall bc
considcrcd latcr.
i Arc !ndividual Contractors Combatants or Noncombatants:
!n ordcr to dctcrminc whcthcr contractors (including but not only thosc who
takc a dircct part in hostilitics) arc combatants or civilians it is ncccssary to rst
considcr whcthcr thcy arc mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs ol a party to thc con
ict,
8
in this casc, thc US. !l so, thcy can bc considcrcd combatants undcr thc
,, Privatc military companics arc not and could ncvcr bc considcrcd intcrnational
organisations, as that tcrm is currcntly undcrstood. Tcy lack thc two kcy charactcr
istics ol intcrnational organisations, namcly, an association ol statcs and thc ability to
cxcrcisc lcgal powcrs on thc intcrnational planc. Scc !an 8rownlic, Principles of Public
International La.,
th
cdn. (xlord, xlord Univcrsity Prcss .) pp. 6,6c.
, According to Articlc (.) ol .,, Additional Protocol !:
Tc armcd lorccs ol a Party to a conict consist ol all organizcd armcd lorccs,
groups and units which arc undcr a command rcsponsiblc to that Party lor thc
conduct ol its subordinatcs, cvcn il that Party is rcprcscntcd by a govcrnmcnt
374 .ril McDonald
dcnition providcd lor in Articlc ol Additional Protocol !, pursuant to which
all mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs with thc cxccption ol chaplains and mcdical
pcrsonncl arc combatants,

and only mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs arc combat

ants.
8o
Tc qucstions that must thcrclorc bc addrcsscd arc (.) who can bc con
sidcrcd a mcmbcr ol thc armcd lorccs, and (a) how docs an individual bccomc
a mcmbcr. !s it a de jure or a de facto status: !n ordcr to bc considcrcd a mcmbcr,
docs an individual havc to bc lormally admittcd into thc armcd lorccs (a de jure
status) or can an individual bc considcrcd a de facto mcmbcr by virtuc ol thc lunc
tions in which hc cngagcs on bchall ol thc armcd lorccs: () Vhich law is dctcr
minativc in this rcspcct, intcrnational humanitarian law or domcstic law:
At thc outsct it should bc notcd that it is not casy or straightlorward to
answcr thcsc qucstions and spacc docs not pcrmit thc in dcpth inquiry that thcy
mcrit. Morcovcr, thc answcrs that intcrnational law providcs could bc at variancc
with thosc providcd by thc national law ol a statc utilising contractcd labour, such
as thc US. vcn il an individual contractor wcrc to bc considcrcd a mcmbcr ol
thc armcd lorccs undcr intcrnational humanitarian law, hc or shc might not bc
rccogniscd as such by thc statc that has contractcd lor his or hcr scrviccs, rcsult
ing in grcat unccrtainty and grcatcr potcntial lor violation ol thc law, lor both thc
statc, thc contractor and thc opposing party.
Somc arguc that mcmbcrship in armcd lorccs undcr Articlc ol Additional
Protocol ! is lunctionally dctcrmincd and docs not dcpcnd on somc lormal proc
css ol incorporation, cithcr at an individual or group lcvcl.
8+
Tis vicw is prob
or an authority not rccognizcd by an advcrsc Party. Such armcd lorccs shall
bc subjcct to an intcrnal disciplinary systcm which, inter alia, shall cnlorcc
compliancc with thc rulcs ol intcrnational law applicablc in armcd conicts.
Tc !CRC Study on Customary !ntcrnational Law considcrs this to bc a rulc ol
customary intcrnational humanitarian law applicablc in intcrnational armcd con
ict and articulatcs thc customary rulc (Rulc ) thus: Tc armcd lorccs ol a party to
thc conict consist ol all organiscd armcd lorccs, groups and units which arc undcr
a command rcsponsiblc to that party lor thc conduct ol its subordinatcs. For pur
poscs ol thc principlc ol distinction, it may also bc applicablc to Statc armcd lorccs
in nonintcrnational armcd conict. Supra n. , p. .. As thc !CRCs Commcntary
to Articlc notcs, thc Protocol subordinatcs cvcry combatant, cvcn combatants
bclonging to a rcsistancc movcmcnt, to a Party to thc conict, which is not thc casc
in thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion, in Articlc (A)(a). Supra n. , p. ..
, According to Articlc (a) Additional Protocol !: Mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs ol a
Party to thc conict (othcr than mcdical pcrsonncl and chaplains covcrcd by Articlc
ol thc Tird Convcntion) arc combatants, that is to say, thcy havc thc right to par
ticipatc dircctly in hostilitics. According to thc !CRC, this is a rulc ol customary
intcrnational law in intcrnational armcd conicts. C!HL, supra n. , p. ...
c !CRC Commcntary on Protocol !, supra n. , p. ..
. uring thc sccond cxpcrt mccting on ircct Participation in Hostilitics cohostcd
by thc !CRC and thc TMC Asscr !nstitutc and hcld in Tc Haguc in ctobcr
acc, onc cxpcrt, Louisc oswald8cck, cxprcsscd thc vicw that mcmbcrship in
armcd lorccs docs not dcpcnd on thc tcchnicalitics ol national law. ccisivc arc thc
375 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
lcmatic lor scvcral rcasons. Although it is truc that lormal incorporation is not a
stipulatcd rcquircmcnt lor lorccs, units and groups undcr Articlc (.), it may bc
implicitly rcquircd. !ndividuals hircd undcr contract by thc armcd lorccs through
a privatc military company arc gcncrally not considcrcd by statcs, including thc
US, to bc mcmbcrs ol thcir armcd lorccs, nor arc thcy considcrcd to bc mcm
bcrs ol groups that could bc assimilatcd to armcd lorccs, and thcy arc not incor
poratcd into thc armcd lorccs but work alongsidc thcm. !ndccd, it is prcciscly
bccausc contractors arc not considcrcd to bc mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs that
statcs scc ccrtain advantagcs in using thcm, as notcd in part .. At thc domcstic
lcvcl, in ordcr lor an individual to bccomc a mcmbcr ol thc armcd lorccs, a lormal
proccss ol incorporation is usually rcquircd thc individual has to cithcr volun
tarily join thc armcd lorccs or bc conscriptcd. !n doing so, hc bccomcs a combat
ant and loscs his civilian immunity lrom attack
8:
on a continuous basis until such
timc as hc bccomcs hors de combat.
Signicantly, individual contractors, at lcast de jure undcr domcstic law,
arc not considcrcd as lalling undcr military command.
8
Tcy cannot bc disci
plincd by a commanding occr, which is an cxplicit rcquircmcnt ol Articlc (.).
!nstcad, thcir bchaviour is rcgulatcd through thc tcrms ol thc contract (with thc
onus on thc contractor company to disciplinc thcm) and, in somc cascs, undcr thc
domcstic law ol thc host or thc scnding statc.
!t is not clcar il a lunctional approach to mcmbcrship ol armcd lorccs should
covcr only civilians taking a dircct part in hostilitics or all civilians, including all
civilian contractors, working on bchall ol thc armcd lorccs. Vhilc logic might
dictatc that it would apply across thc board, particularly givcn thc incrcascd
dcpcndcncc ol a limitcd and shrinking numbcr ol combatants on thc csscntial
logistical support providcd by civilians working in combat support scrviccs, most
rcquircmcnts ol intcrnational law and whom thcsc pcrsons actually appcar to ght
lor in thc cycs ol thc cncmy. !n tcrms ol GC !!!, il Articlc A |.| GC !!! docs not
covcr thcsc contractors, Articlc A |a| GC !!! probably would. Tc nccd lor lormal
unilorms is lcss important today and contractors arc still sucicntly distinguish
ablc by thcir cquipmcnt and outts. As all othcr critcria arc lulllcd, thcy can bc
attackcd. Summary Rcport ol thc Sccond xpcrt Mccting on ircct Participation
in Hostilitics undcr !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law, Tc Haguc, a a6 ctobcr
acc, p. .a (hcrcaltcr, Summary Rcport), availablc at www.wihl.nl. l coursc, thc
qucstion whcthcr thcy can bc attackcd is scparatc lrom whcthcr thcy arc actually
combatants. oswald8cck also statcd: !n tcrms ol AP !, contractors arc lullling
govcrnmcntal lunctions and thcrclorc clcarly lall within thc scopc ol thc notion ol
armcd lorccs according to Articlc AP !. Tis is not climinatcd by thc obliga
tion ol notication in Articlc || AP !, which is not a constitutivc rcquircmcnt.
Summary Rcport, p. .a.
a A.P.\. Rogcrs, La. on the Battleeld, a
nd
cdn. (Manchcstcr, Manchcstcr Univcrsity
Prcss acc) p. ..
Scc Contractors on thc 8attlccld, US Ficld Manual No. .cc.a., January acc, p.
.,.
376 .ril McDonald
not involving or rcquiring dircct participation in hostilitics,
8
thc practical impli
cations ol a widcsprcad application ol thc lunctional approach would bc dirc.
!ndccd, il a lunctional approach to mcmbcrship ol thc armcd lorccs was adoptcd,
it would ol ncccssity havc to bc rcstrictcd to contractors and civilian cmployccs
taking a dircct part in hostilitics and pcrlorming csscntial military lunctions, oth
crwisc cvcn contractors taking no part in hostilitics would losc thcir protcction
and bc cxposcd to attack. !t would rcvcrsc thc currcnt prcsumption that contrac
tors arc civilians who should not takc a dircct part in hostilitics and who cnjoy
protcction lrom attack, and in particular cxposc thosc contractors who do not
takc part in hostilitics, or who do so only occasionally, to incrcascd and unncc
cssary dangcr. !t also brings us back to having to makc casc by casc dctcrmina
tions ol who is and who is not taking a dircct part in hostilitics (morc prcciscly
what lunctions lulllcd by contractors rcquirc or pcrmit dircct participation in
hostilitics) and thc duration ol that participation an cxcrcisc that in any cvcnt
probably cannot bc avoidcd. Tcrc is, howcvcr, mcrit in thc idca ol incorporating
contractors who takc a dircct part in hostililitics into thc armcd lorccs and rccog
nising thcm as combatants,
8
as discusscd infra in part \!.
vcn il contractors working lor thc US cpartmcnt ol clcncc (o)
arc not mcmbcrs ol thc US armcd lorccs, could thcy bc considcrcd as voluntccrs
ghting lor a party to thc conict without joining it, cithcr as individuals or
lormcd groups: According to Tony Rogcrs: !l thosc individuals or groups comc
undcr command ol a party to conict, in thc scnsc ol acccpting and carrying out
thc ordcrs ol that party, it can bc argucd that thcy arc lawlul combatants, unlcss
thcy arc mcrccnarics. !l thcy arc mcrccnarics or thcy arc not undcr command,
thcy arc not lawlul combatants and thc party on whosc bchall thcy participatc
should takc all stcps in its powcr to cxpcl thcm.
86
!n this casc, howcvcr, as notcd,
contractors do not comc undcr thc de jure command ol a party to thc conict,
!n this scnsc, thc conccpt ol thc armcd lorccs as an cntity dcpcndcnt primarily on
combatants is arcanc. Vhilc it is truc that according to Articlc ol Additional
Protocol !, thc armcd lorccs consist only ol combatants and all mcmbcrs ol thc
armcd lorccs arc combatants, this docs not takc account ol thc cnormous numbcr ol
civilian pcrsonncl (both pcrmancnt cmployccs ol thc military and contractors) who
incrcasingly makc possiblc thc running ol thc armcd lorccs. !n this rcspcct, Articlc
docs not sccm to lully rcalisc a sccnario whcrc somc armcd lorccs would bccomc
complctcly dcpcndcnt on civilians and thc implications lor thc lattcrs protcction as
a rcsult ol thcir lunctions on bchall ol thc armcd lorccs.
A civilian who is incorporatcd in an armcd organization such as that mcntioncd in
|Art. | paragraph ., bccomcs a mcmbcr ol thc military and a combatant through
out thc duration ol thc hostilitics (or in any casc, until hc is pcrmancntly dcmobi
lizcd by thc rcsponsiblc command rclcrrcd to in paragraph .), whcthcr or not hc is
in combat, or lor thc timc bcing armcd. Commcntary Additional Protocol !, supra
n. , p. ..
6 Rogcrs, supra n. a, p. a.
377 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
cvcn il in somc cascs military commandcrs may cxcrcisc de facto command ovcr
thcm.
Pcrhaps thc most larrcaching conscqucncc ol rccognising individual con
tractors as combatants according to thc lunctional approach is that thcy would
havc a right undcr intcrnational humanitarian law to takc a dircct part in hos
tilitics at all timcs. !t could producc thc lollowing highly undcsirablc rcsult: an
individual contractor who is not rccogniscd by thc armcd lorccs on whosc bchall
hc acts as a combatant, who is not subjcct to military command (as a mattcr
ol national, il not intcrnational, law), and who may cvcn bc prohibitcd undcr
thc national law ol a statc lrom ghting, would ncvcrthclcss havc a right undcr
intcrnational humanitarian law to takc a dircct part in hostilitics. Such asymmc
try bctwccn national and intcrnational law would lcad to opcrational chaos and
would makc it cxtrcmcly dicult lor an opposing party to obscrvc thc principlc
ol distinction,
!l thc lunctional approach to mcmbcrship was lollowcd, contractors, as com
batants, would bc bound to comply with thc principlc ol distinction,
8
including
ordinarily by wcaring military unilorms
88
and carrying thcir arms opcnly. Tcy
would also havc to bc commandcd by a pcrson rcsponsiblc lor his subordinatcs
and conduct thcir opcrations in accordancc with thc laws and customs ol war.
8

As thcy arc currcntly gcncrally considcrcd to bc civilians, contractors do not havc
to comply with thc principlc ol distinction, and thcy do not wcar military uni
lorms or distinguishing insignia,
o
although thc contractors on thc ground in !raq
, According to Articlc Additional Protocol !: !n ordcr to promotc thc protcction
ol thc civilian population lrom thc cccts ol hostilitics, combatants arc obligcd to
distinguish thcmsclvcs lrom thc civilian population whilc thcy arc cngagcd in an
attack or in a military opcration prcparatory to an attack. Rccognizing, howcvcr, that
thcrc arc situations in armcd conicts whcrc, owing to thc naturc ol thc hostilitics an
armcd combatant cannot so distinguish himscll, hc shall rctain his status as a com
batant, providcd that, in such situations, hc carrics his arms opcnly:
(a) during cach military cngagcmcnt, and
(b) during such timc as hc is visiblc to thc advcrsary whilc hc is cngagcd in a mili
tary dcploymcnt prcccding thc launching ol an attack in which hc is to partici
patc.
Although as notcd in thc Commcntary to Articlc : Vcaring or not a unilorm
or outt is not a dccisivc critcrion lor thc status ol thc individual conccrncd,.
vcn though thc command must rcquirc, subjcct to ccrtain cxccptions, that it bc
worn. Supra n. , pp. .a.. Scc also Scc Frits Kalshovcn and Licsbcth Zcgvcld,
Constraints on the !aging of !ar (Gcncva, !CRC acc.) p. ,.
Articlc (.) Additional Protocol !, Articlc . Haguc Rcgulations.
c Michacl Schmitt has argucd that: Sincc civilian cmployccs and privatc contractors
do not wcar unilorms dcnoting combatant status, scldom lall undcr thc lormal com
mand ol military pcrsonncl, and gcncrally lic bcyond thc rcach ol military disciplinc
that thc armcd lorccs usc to cnlorcc adhcrcncc to thc laws and customs ol war, it
would bc strctch to stylc thcm mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs. Supra n. ., at p. a6.
378 .ril McDonald
can casily bc spottcd wcaring unilorms that arc somctimcs cvcn morc militaristic,
and oltcn indistinguishablc, lrom thosc worn by soldicrs.
+
!l thcy carry arms at
all,
:
thcy may not ncccssarily do so opcnly.

To avoid cxposing contractors not

taking part in thc hostilitics to dangcr, thc lunctional approach to mcmbcrship
would rcquirc any unilorm worn to bc distinguishablc lrom a military unilorm.
Tosc not wcaring onc would havc to cxcrcisc sartorial rcstraint by wcaring civil
ian clothcs to avoid conlusing thc cncmy. Tis might bc good advicc to lollow in
any cvcnt, as in !raq thc insurgcnts trcat unilormcd contractors indistinguishably
lrom combatants. !n thcir cycs, thcy arc all sccn as part ol a Vcstcrn occupying
army.

Articlc () ol Additional Protocol ! rcquircs partics that incorporatc a

paramilitary or armcd law cnlorccmcnt agcncy into thcir armcd lorccs to notily
thc othcr partics. Howcvcr, as thcy do not considcr individual contractors to bc
paramilitarics or pcrsons who havc bccn incorporatcd into or arc part ol thc
armcd lorccs, statcs using contractors, such as thc US, do not lormally notily par
tics to a conict ol thcir cxistcncc. Vhilc paragraph docs not spccically rclcr
to contractors, ghting contractors could bc considcrcd a paramilitary lorcc and
notication would bc rcquircd.

Rathcr than vicwing contractors (or at lcast thosc who takc a dircct part in
hostilitics) as lunctional mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs, as mcmbcrs ol paramili
. Philip Cartcr, Hircd guns: what to do about military contractors run amok, Slatc,
April acc, http://www.slatc.com/id/ac,./, Michacl uy, Vhcn privatc armics
takc to thc lront lincs, Timc magazinc onlinc, http://www.sandlinc.com/hotlinks/
TimcPrivatc_armics.html.
a US Army Ficld Manual .cca., Contractors on thc 8attlccld, a6 March accc,
dcncs thrcc conditions that must bc mct bclorc contractor pcrsonncl can carry rc
arms. nc, thc rclcvant commandcr in thc arca ol opcrations must givc his approval.
Two, thc contractor company policy must pcrmit its cmployccs to carry arms, and
thrcc, thc individual contractor cmploycc must agrcc to carry a rcarm. Availablc
at http://www.gcocitics.com/tominclpaso/armymanual.htm. Scc Lcslic Vaync,
Amcricas lorprot sccrct army, Te Ne. York Times, . ctobcr acca, http://www.
commondrcams.org/hcadlincsca/.c.c..htm. According to onc sourcc, only about
6,ccc ol thc privatc sccurity contractors in !raq arc armcd, and thcn only with small
arms. Vilson, supra n. 66, Pricst and Flahcrty, supra n. a, Mary Pat Flahcrty and
ana Pricst, Morc limits sought lor privatc sccurity rms, Te !ashington Post, .
April acc, http://www.washingtonpost.com/aca/wpdyn/A66.aaccApr.a:langu
agc-printcr.
Scc Singcr, supra n. ...
Scc 8arstow, supra n. .
!n any cvcnt, thc !CRC Commcntary notcs that it would bc dcsirablc lor thc vari
ous Partics to a conict to inlorm cach othcr complctcly rcgarding thc composition
ol thcir rcspcctivc armcd lorccs, cvcn il this wcrc only donc through thc communica
tion ol thc laws and rcgulations which thcy havc had to adopt to cnsurc compliancc
with thc Protocol, as providcd lor in Articlc (Fules of application). Supra n. , p.
.6.
379 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
tary or othcr armcd groups or as voluntccrs ghting on bchall ol a party, any ol
which would makc thcm combatants, it sccms prclcrablc to considcr privatc indi
viduals cmploycd undcr contract by privatc military and sccurity companics and
contractcd out to thc military, rcgardlcss ol thc activitics thcy arc hircd to pcr
lorm and actually cngagc in, as othcr than combatants. Arguably, thcy could not
bccomc combatants without bcing lormally incorporatcd into thc armcd lorccs or
somc auxiliary lorcc. National law ol thc statc cmploying thcm and not humani
tarian law would sccm to bc thc control as lar as mcmbcrship ol thc armcd lorccs
is conccrncd. Tus, contractors must bc considcrcd noncombatants (civilians)
undcr humanitarian law. Tis conclusion is supportcd by rclcrcncc to humanitar
ian law itscll, which cxplicitly alludcs to thc lcgal status ol contractors. According
to both Haguc
6
and Gcncva law,

thcy arc considcrcd civilians accompanying

thc armcd lorccs. US cpartmcnt ol clcnsc !nstruction Numbcr cac.. statcs
that whcrc thcy accompany thc armcd lorccs in thc cld, contractors shall bc
considcrcd as civilians accompanying thc lorcc, so long as such pcrsonncl havc
bccn dcsignatcd as such by thc lorcc thcy accompany and arc providcd with
thc appropriatc idcntication card undcr thc provisions ol thc . Gcncva
Convcntion Rclativc to thc Trcatmcnt ol Prisoncrs ol Var
8
According to thc
!CRCs C!HL study, civilians accompanying thc armcd lorccs arc not mcm
bcrs ol thc armcd lorccs by dcnition.

Vhcthcr or not thcy cnjoy PV status

is a scparatc qucstion, thc answcr to which dcpcnds on whcthcr thcy carry thc
appropriatc idcntilying card. vcn thosc capturcd without idcntication cards
must bc trcatcd humancly, as civilian dctainccs according to thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion. Contractors who do not accompany thc armcd lorccs into thc cld
arc also civilians, although thc qucstion ol thcir PV status will not usually
6 Articlc . ol thc Haguc Rcgulations providcs: !ndividuals who lollow an army with
out dircctly bclonging to it, such as ncwspapcr corrcspondcnts and rcportcrs, sutlcrs
and contractors, who lall into thc cncmys hands and whom thc lattcr thinks cxpc
dicnt to dctain, arc cntitlcd to bc trcatcd as prisoncrs ol war, providcd thcy arc in
posscssion ol a ccrticatc lrom thc military authoritics ol thc army which thcy wcrc
accompanying.
, Articlc (A)() Tird Gcncva Convcntion rccogniscs as PVs, Pcrsons who
accompany thc armcd lorccs without actually bcing mcmbcrs thcrcol, such as civil
ian mcmbcrs ol military aircralt crcws, supply contractors, mcmbcrs ol labour
units or ol scrviccs rcsponsiblc lor thc wcllarc ol thc armcd lorccs, providcd thcy
havc rcccivcd authorization lrom thc armcd lorccs which thcy accompany, who
shall providc thcm lor that purposc with an idcntity card ... Tc !CRC Study on
Customary !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law points out that civilians accompany
ing armcd lorccs arc not mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs by dcnition. CIHL, supra
n. , p. ..
US cpartmcnt ol clcnsc !nstruction, Numbcr cac.., Contractor Pcrsonncl
Authorizcd to Accompany thc U.S. Armcd Forccs, ctobcr , acc, p. 6.
C!HL, supra n. , p. ..
380 .ril McDonald
arisc.
+oo
Tc main coalition partncrs in !raq, namcly, thc US and thc UK, ccrtainly
takc thc vicw that individual contractors arc civilians. Tcir military manuals stip
ulatc that contractors shall not takc a dircct part in hostilitics and shall activcly
bc protcctcd lrom attack. !n lact, it is prcciscly bccausc individual contractors arc
not rccogniscd by thc US as combatants that thc US Army Ficld Manual rcc
ommcnds that thcy rcccivc adcquatc protcction in thc cld.
+o+
Likcwisc, thc UK
Military Manual statcs that civilians who accompany thc armcd lorccs in thc
cld, so lar as possiblc, should not bc dcploycd to placcs whcrc thcy arc liablc to
comc undcr cncmy rc or to bc capturcd.
+o:
Tc rcality, ol coursc, is quitc dicr
cnt, as !raq dcmonstratcs. At lcast during military opcrations, Coalition armcd
lorccs in !raq do not assumc any rcsponsibility lor contractors working alongsidc
thcm nor providc thcm with adcquatc protcction.
+o
Contractors havc bccn lclt to
thcir own dcviccs, thcy gcncrally cannot rcly on military assistancc.
+o
!n scvcral
incidcnts, cmployccs ol PMCs havc callcd in vain lor military backup, having to
ght thcir own way out whcn undcr attack.
+o
Morcovcr, thcy arc actually provid
ing protcction in somc cascs to thc armcd lorccs, an activity which is considcrcd
to bc dircct participation in hostilitics (scc bclow).
+o6
Tcy havc bccn dcploycd
to onc ol thc most dangcrous placcs in thc world, whcrc thc chanccs ol coming
.cc Givcn that thcy arc outsidc thc zonc ol hostilitics in a traditional scnsc, thcrc is littlc
likclihood ol thcm bcing capturcd, although it is not an impossibility. Vhilc it is
gcncrally considcrcd that !HL only applics within thc tcrritory whcrc thc conict is
taking placc, such a vicw is incrcasingly out ol stcp with thc naturc ol somc contcm
porary hostilitics, whcrc a hostilc act bcgun in onc country or contincnt (rcmovcd
lrom thc tcrritory whcrc thc conict is physically occurring) may bc complctcd in
anothcr.
.c. Contractor cmployccs, bccausc ol thcir status as civilians authorizcd to accompany
thc armcd lorccs in thc cld, bring with thcm an inhcrcnt nccd lor lorcc protcc
tion. Contractors on the Battleeld, FM .cc:a. (.cca.), January acc, Hcadquartcrs
cpartmcnt ol thc Army, p. 6. (para. 6).
.ca UK Military Manual, supra n. at p. c, para. ..,.
.c Scc 8arstow, supra n. . Howcvcr, thc cxpcricnccs in !raq appcarcd to bc pcrsuading
thc Pcntagon to rcthink this policy. o cputy Assistant Sccrctary ol clcnsc
Jcrry Jcnnings was rcportcd as saying that thc Pcntagon would trcat US contractors
as soldicrs and dclcncc pcrsonncl, and that it would cxpcnd all rcsourccs, cncrgy
and timc on cnsuring that wc bring thcm back. Vcll lcavc no onc bchind. Scc
utsourcing thc war, supra n. 6.
.c Vhcn military subcontractors go missing or gct into troublc, thcrc is no dcncd rolc
lor thc military in assisting thcm. Contractors in !raq complain that thcy lack mili
tary backup whcn undcr attack, and arc not adcquatcly armcd to ght scrious mili
tary thrcats.Vilson, supra n. 66, Pricst and Flahcrty, supra n. a.
.c ana Pricst and Flahcrty, ibid.
.c6 !bid.
381 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
undcr rc or bcing capturcd is cxtrcmcly high, particularly whcn thcy arc provid
ing sccurity lor military objcctivcs.
+o

!ntcrnational humanitarian law dcscribcs contractors as civilians and sccms
to assumc that individual contractors who arc authoriscd to accompany thc
armcd lorccs in thc cld will not takc a dircct part in hostilitics. !l thcy do, cithcr
bccausc it is an implicit rcquircmcnt ol thcir lunction or bccausc circumstanccs
lorcc thcm to, how docs this acct thc protcction that thcy arc prcsumcd as civil
ians to cnjoy: Clcarly, taking a dircct part in thc hostilitics docs not convcrt thcm
into combatants. Tcrclorc, thcir lcgal status docs not changc. Howcvcr, thcy losc
thc protcction that civilians normally cnjoy and can bc attackcd during thcir par
ticipation. Tc kcy qucstion, as discusscd bclow, is thcrclorc thc tcmporal dura
tion ol thcir participation, and whcthcr it is limitcd or ongoing. !l it is ongoing,
thcn thcy arc to all cxtcnts and purposcs indistinguishablc lrom combatants, and
lor thcir own protcction, as wcll as thc sakc ol obscrvancc ol thc principlc ol dis
tinction by all partics, thcy should propcrly bc accordcd combatant status.
!l thcy arc capturcd during an intcrnational armcd conict, appropriatcly
accrcditcd contractor pcrsonncl accompanying thc armcd lorccs may still bc cnti
tlcd to PV status, but in any cvcnt will bcnct lrom thc protcction ol thc
Fourth Convcntion.
ii Arc Contractors Mcrccnarics:
Vhcrc individual contractors clcarly do takc a dircct part in hostilitics, cithcr in
lact or by virtuc ol thc tcrms ol thc contract pursuant to which thcy arc hircd,
an important qucstion is whcthcr thcy can bc considcrcd mcrccnarics. nc ol
thc indicators ol mcrccnary activity is dircct participation in hostilitics, at lcast
as lar as Additional Protocol ! is conccrncd. Tc answcr on its lacc sccms clcar:
individual contractors hircd by statcs could not usually bc considcrcd mcrccnar
ics cithcr undcr thc Additional Protocol ! dcnition
+o8
or cvcn thc broadcr dc
nition ol Articlc . ol thc Mcrccnarics Convcntion. Most individual contractors
.c, nc PMC cxccutivc statcd: Civilian contractors arc working in and amongst thc
morc hostilc parts ol a conict or postconict sccnario, Quotcd in 8arstow, supra n.
. A mcasurc ol thc lcvcl ol dangcr is thc cxtcnt ol compcnsation claims lor dcaths
and injurics: Sincc thc start ol acc, contractors havc lcd claims lor dcaths and
.,.6 injurics. For all ol acc. and acca, by contrast, contractors rcportcd .c dcaths
and injurics. Labor cpartmcnt ocials said an ovcrwhclming majority ol thc
cascs sincc acc wcrc lrom !raq. 8arstow, ibid.
.c Articlc , ol .,, Additional Protocol ! to thc . Gcncva Convcntions statcs that
a mcrccnary is a pcrson who:
(a) is spccially rccruitcd locally or abroad in ordcr to ght in an armcd conict,
(b) docs, in lact, takc a dircct part in thc hostilitics,
(c) is motivatcd to takc part in thc hostilitics csscntially by thc dcsirc lor privatc gain
and, in lact, is promiscd, by or on bchall ol a Party to thc conict, matcrial compcn
382 .ril McDonald
arc not spccically rccruitcd to ght (although onc should rcmcmbcr that dircct
participation in hostilitics docs not ncccssarily involvc actual ghting), nor do
thcy usually takc a dircct part in hostilitics. Morcovcr, thcy arc not ncccssarily
motivatcd primarily by a dcsirc lor privatc gain, although thcy do rcccivc salarics
lar in cxccss ol thosc paid to thc rcgular armcd lorccs. !n any cvcnt, whcrc thc
party cmploying thcm is ol thc samc nationality, thcy would not satisly thc dc
nition ol a mcrccnary in Articlc , ol Additional Protocol ! or Articlc . ol thc
Mcrccnarics Convcntion.
Vhilc thc critcrion ol nationality is an csscntial clcmcnt ol thc dcnition
ol a mcrccnary, its limitations bccomc clcar whcn applicd to most individual
contractors. !n rcality, thc kcy issuc is not a contractors nationality (as discusscd,
contractors ol a rangc ol nationalitics arc working lor thc Coalition Forccs in
!raq), but thc naturc ol thc scrviccs providcd and thc dcpcndcncc ol thc clicnt
statc on thosc scrviccs. !n somc cascs, contractors may bc ol a dicrcnt national
ity than thc clicnt statc, whilc in othcrs not. Givcn that thc csscntial naturc ol thc
scrviccs providcd may not dicr in cithcr sccnario, it sccms unlair, as wcll as incl
cacious, to usc nationality to dctcrminc thc lcgality ol thc scrviccs providcd and
thc lcgal status ol thc pcrson involvcd. !t would mcan that nationals could cscapc
thc mcrccnary dcsignation, whilc nonnationals would comc closc to bcing indis
tinguishablc lrom mcrccnarics.
C cti.ities Engaged in by Contractors Constituting Direct
Participation in Hostilities and the Temporal Duration of
Teir Participation
!ntcrnational humanitarian law docs not prohibit dircct participation in hostili
tics by civilians but mcrcly stipulatcs that thcy shall losc protcction lrom attack
il thcy do so. Still, givcn thc prcsumption that civilian contractors will not takc
a dircct part in hostilitics, somc contractors in !raq may not bc awarc that thcir
activitics constitutc dircct participation or rcalisc thc potcntial risks thcy arc run
ning. Vhilc lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol thc contractor pcrsonncl it may makc no
practical dicrcncc, as in !raq thcy may bc rcgardcd by insurgcnts as lair gamc,
lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol thc cncmy, it makcs a hugc dicrcncc. To thc cxtcnt that
contractor pcrsonncl arc dircctly participating in hostilitics, it is not a violation ol
humanitarian law to attack thcm.
sation substantially in cxccss ol that promiscd or paid to combatants ol similar ranks
and lunctions in thc armcd lorccs ol that Party,
(d) is ncithcr a national ol a party to thc conict nor a rcsidcnt ol tcrritory controllcd
by a Party to thc conict,
(c) is not a mcmbcr ol thc armcd lorccs ol a Party to thc conict, and
(l ) has not bccn scnt by a Statc which is not a Party to thc conict on ocial duty
as a mcmbcr ol its armcd lorccs.
383 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
Tis papcr cannot providc any mcaninglul clucidation ol thc complcx notion
ol dircct participation in hostilitics. !t succs to point out that thc gcncrally
acccptcd mcaning is cngaging in attacks, or acts prcparatory to attacks, on cncmy
pcrsonncl or objccts during a situation ol armcd conict,
+o
although this hardly
bcgins to shcd light on thc rangc ol activitics that could bc covcrcd. nc ol thc
most problcmatic aspccts ol thc notion, with scrious implications lor contractor
pcrsonncl, is its tcmporal duration. Should contractors who arc hircd by thc mili
tary or anothcr statc agcncy to ll positions that lunctionally rcquirc cithcr occa
sional or continuous dircct participation in hostilitics bc considcrcd as dircctly
participating only during cach spccic act ol participation (howcvcr long that
pcriod is), or should thcy bc trcatcd as combatants, who arc basically targctablc
on an ongoing basis, unlcss thcy ccasc participation: Tc lattcr, socallcd mcm
bcrship approach, would assimilatc thc contractors status with that ol a ghtcr
during a nonintcrnational armcd conict who bclongs to an armcd opposi
tion group and who is considcrcd targctablc as long as hc docs not somchow
rcnouncc mcmbcrship. !t is notcworthy that during thc Tird xpcrt Mccting
on thc Notion ol ircct Participation in Hostilitics, hcld in Gcncva lrom a to
a ctobcr acc, thcrc was somc support lor such an approach, or variations ol
it. A numbcr ol cxpcrts backcd a limitcd mcmbcrship approach, which would
basc loss ol protcction not only on mcmbcrship but also on thc lunction lulllcd
by thc individual working within thc group. !l that lunction rcquircd a pcrson to
takc a dircct part in hostilitics on a rcgular or continuous basis, thcn that pcrson
would losc protcction against dircct attack lor as long as that lunction was bcing
lulllcd. A numbcr ol cxpcrts, howcvcr, cxprcsscd rcscrvations about a mcmbcr
ship or limitcd mcmbcrship approach .is--.is individual contractors.
++o
Asidc lrom rcsolving thc tcmporal qucstion, it will also bc important to
cstablish, with as much accuracy as possiblc, which lunctions lulllcd by contrac
tors cithcr do or may involvc thcir dircct participation in hostilitics. Somc ol thc
abovcmcntioncd activitics cngagcd in by contractor pcrsonncl, such as provid
ing sccurity lor civilian pcrsonncl, driving, catcring, ctc., do not constitutc dircct
participation, although contractors in thc proximity ol military objcctivcs cxposc
thcmsclvcs to dcath or injury arising lrom a lawlul attack on thosc objcctivcs.
+++

.c Scc lurthcr Avril Mconald, Tc lcgal status ol military and sccurity subcontrac
tors, in International Humanitarian La. and the :zst Centurys Conicts, Robcrta
Arnold and PicrrcAntoinc Hildbrand, cds., (Lausannc, 8crnc, Lugano, ditions
intcrunivcrsitaircs suisscs acc) pp. a. at acaa.
..c Scc Summary Rcport ol thc Tird xpcrt Mccting on ircct Participation in
Hostilitics undcr !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law, Gcncva, aa ctobcr acc,
availablc at www.wihl.nl.
... Scc Yoram instcin, Te Conduct of Hostilities in International rmed Conicts
(Cambridgc, Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss acc) p. a,, A.P.\. Rogcrs and P. Malhcrbc,
Model Manual on the La. of rmed Conict (Gcncva, !CRC .) p. .a, Kalshovcn
and Zcgvcld, supra n. , p. .c..
384 .ril McDonald
Asidc lrom dircct involvcmcnt in combat opcrations a clcar cut casc ol partici
pation contractor pcrsonncl might bccomc lawlul targcts il thcy cngagc inter
alia in thc lollowing activitics: guarding a military objcctivc or military pcrsonncl,
ccrtain typcs ol intclligcncc activitics, ccrtain rcscuc opcrations, and opcration ol
wcapons systcms.
!n many cascs, contractors arc uscd to guard and dclcnd military objcc
tivcs. !ntcrnational humanitarian law pcrmits somc civilians to carry arms and, in
cxccptional circumstanccs, usc thcm during armcd conicts. Military contractors
arc allowcd to bc armcd and usc lorcc in pcrsonal sclldclcncc, but it is clcar that
thc lattcr should bc intcrprctcd narrowly. According to Charlcs Garraway: pri
vatc sccurity contractors can act to protcct thcmsclvcs and othcrs without taking
a dircct part in hostilitics.
++:
Michacl Schmitt has statcd that individuals simply
maintaining pcrsonal sccurity lor civilians or gcncral sccurity against traditional
crimc would not bc dircctly participating any morc than policc occrs do.
++

Tc qucstion is whcn docs pcrmissiblc dclcnsivc usc ol lorcc bccomc dircct
participation in hostilitics: clcnsivc usc ol lorcc in protcction ol combatants,
military objcctivcs or prcdictablc targcts would constitutc dircct participation.
++

!n a lcttcr to US Sccrctary ol clcnsc onald Rumslcld, Scnator Jack Rccd, a
mcmbcr ol thc US Armcd Scrviccs Committcc, statcd: Sccurity in a hostilc rc
arca is a classic military mission. clcgating this mission to privatc contractors
raiscs scrious qucstions.
++

As lar as intclligcncc gathcring is conccrncd, a contractor who gathcrs
intclligcncc in cncmy controllcd tcrritory is taking a dircct part in hostilitics,
++6

although according to instcin: Tcrc is a disparity bctwccn thc lattcr and a
civilian who rctricvcs intclligcncc data lrom satcllitcs or listcning posts, working
in tcrminals locatcd in his homc country.
++
8ut arguably thc lattcr may also bc
taking a dircct part in hostilitics il his actions arc critical to thc dircct application
ol violcncc against thc cncmy. Michacl Schmitt has argucd, corrcctly, it is sub
mittcd, that: an individual pcrlorming an indispcnsablc lunction in making pos
siblc thc application ol lorcc against thc cncmy is dircctly participating. !n othcr
words, thc appropriatc tcst is whcthcr that individual is an intcgral part ol thc
unintcrruptcd proccss ol dclcating thc cncmy.
++8
..a Quotcd in workin, supra n. a.
.. !bid.
.. !bid.
.. Rcportcd in 8arstow, supra n. .
..6 instcin, supra n. ....
.., !bid. pp. a,a.
.. Michacl Schmitt, ircct participation in hostilitics and a.
st
ccntury conicts, in
Crisis Management and Humanitarian Protection: Festschrift fur Dieter Fleck, Horst
Fischcr ct al cds. (8crlin, 8V\ acc) at pp. c. at c.
385 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
As rcgards rcscuc opcrations, thc US Air Forcc Commandcrs Handbook
statcs that rcscuc ol military airmcn downcd on land is a combatant activity
that is not protcctcd undcr intcrnational law. Civilians cngagcd in thc rcscuc
and rcturn ol cncmy aircrcw mcmbcrs arc thcrclorc subjcct to attack. Tis would
includc, lor cxamplc, mcmbcrs ol a civilian air auxiliary, such as thc US Civil Air
Patrol, who cngagc in military scarch and rcscuc activity in wartimc.
++
Howcvcr,
thc Handbook notcs that thc carc ol thc woundcd on land and thc rcscuc ol pcr
sons downcd at sca or shipwrcckcd arc protcctcd activitics undcr intcrnational
law.
Tc opcration ol wcapons systcms by contractors, cithcr dircctly or indi
rcctly, is a clcarcut casc ol dircct participation in hostilitics. As notcd abovc,
civilian contractors in !raq havc bccn involvcd in both maintaining and opcrat
ing wcapons systcms.
Tis author agrccs with instcin that |a| civilian may convcrt himscll into
a combatant,
+:o
but disagrccs that hc can do so mcrcly by taking a dircct part
in hostilitics.
+:+
vcn il a civilian takcs a dircct part in hostilitics, hc rctains his
status as a civilian, but loscs his protcction lrom attack. Tcrclorc, a contractor
could only bccomc a combatant through bcing incorporatcd into an armcd lorcc
ol a party to thc conict and not through his dircct participation in hostilitics.
Howcvcr, whcrc a civilian contractor, through his lunction, takcs a dircct part in
hostilitics on an ongoing basis, cvcn il de jure hc rcmains a civilian, his de facto
status is assimilatcd to that ol a combatant in so lar as thc tcmporal duration ol
his participation would bc considcrcd to bc opcn cndcd unlcss hc spccically
withdrcw lrom it and hc would bc constantly targctablc in thc samc way as is
a combatant. As instcin points out, a pcrson cannot (and is not allowcd to) bc
both a combatant and a civilian at thc samc timc, nor can hc constantly shilt lrom
onc status to thc othcr.
+::
!l a mcmbcrship or limitcd mcmbcrship approach was
adoptcd, a civilian contractor who was not considcrcd to bc a mcmbcr ol thc
armcd lorccs, but who took a dircct part in hostilitics on an ongoing basis would
rcmain a civilian, but that would bc a complctcly cmpty dcsignation as hc would
ccctivcly bc trcatcd as a combatant, without cnjoying all thc bcncts ol com
batancy. !n lact, hc would ccctivcly bc a combatant (de facto) and a civilian (de
jure) at thc samc timc, and unlcss hc was targctablc at all timcs, cvcn whilc not
cngagcd in hostilc activitics, hc would bc ablc to switch bctwccn catcgorics. Tc
only solution to this untcnablc situation appcars to bc cithcr complctc avoidancc
.. US Air Forcc Commandcrs Handbook (.c) paras. a.
.ac instcin, supra n. ..., p. a,.
.a. According to instcin, a combatant in an intcrnational armcd conict is cithcr a
mcmbcr ol thc armcd lorccs ol a bclligcrcnt part, or any othcr pcrson who takcs an
activc part in thc hostilitics. |C|ivilians arc not allowcd to participatc activitcly in
thc ghting: il thcy do, thcy losc thcy status as civilians, ibid., p. a,.
.aa !bid.
386 .ril McDonald
ol thc usc ol civilian contractors in activitics involving dircct participation in hos
tilitics or, morc rcalistically, lcgal rccognition that contractors who takc a dircct
part in hostilitics on an ongoing basis arc in lact combatants, who should bcar thc
risks and cnjoy thc bcncts ol combatancy.
IV Iiability of Contractors
nc ol thc problcms associatcd with thc usc ol individual contractors by thc
armcd lorccs or othcr statc agcncics is thc contractors pcrccivcd lack ol account
ability, and that ol thc PMCs cmploying thcm, in casc thcy commit violations
ol thc law. Vhilst military pcrsonncl who commit crimcs or civil wrongs, cithcr
at homc or in thc cld, arc subjcct to a wclldcncd codc ol military disciplinc,
individual contractors arc not. Gcncrally spcaking, thcir bchaviour is rcgulatcd
through thc tcrms ol thc contract (with thc onus on thc contractor to disciplinc
thcm)
+:
and, in somc cascs, undcr thc domcstic law ol thc host or thc scnding
statc. Tc disparity in thc trcatmcnt ol mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs and individ
ual contractors accuscd ol wrongdoing has bccn illustratcd in !raq. Lowranking
military pcrsonncl accuscd ol abusc ol dctainccs hcld at thc Abu Ghraib prison,
lor cxamplc, wcrc subjcctcd to military courtsmartial, cvcn il thc rcsulting scn
tcnccs wcrc vcry low.
+:
At thc timc ol writing, no criminal prosccutions against
contractors implicatcd in wrongdoing had bccn initiatcd cithcr bclorc civilian or
military courts, dcspitc rcports ol abusc ol !raqi civilians by contractors.
+:
Criminal Liability
Vhilc thc Unilorm Codc ol Military Justicc (UCMJ),
+:6
thc principal lcgislation
conccrning military disciplinc applics at all timcs to mcmbcrs ol thc US armcd
lorccs, it applics to pcrsons accompanying thc armcd lorccs only in timcs ol war.
+:

US Ficld Manual No. .cc.a. cxplains that thc rclcrcncc to war covcrs only cascs
.a According to US Ficld Manual No. .cc.a., supra n. : Managing disciplinc ol thc
contractor cmployccs is thc rcsponsibility ol thc contractors managcmcnt structurc,
not thc military chain ol command. . . . !t is thc contractor who must takc rcsponsi
bility and dircct action lor his cmployccs conduct.
.a Scc A look at convictions in Abu Ghraib cascs, Associatcd Prcss, a6 Scptcmbcr
acc.
.a Scc Lisa Mcycrs, U.S. contractors in !raq allcgc abuscs: Four mcn say thcy witncsscd
brutality, ., Fcbruary acc, N8C Ncws, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6,,.
.a6 .c USC c.6 (accc).
.a, Articlc a(.c) ol thc UCMJ providcs that thc Codc applics to, inter alia, !n timc ol
war, pcrsons scrving with or accompanying an armcd lorcc in thc cld.
387 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
ol dcclarcd war.
+:8
Tis mcans that it docs not covcr contractors who accompany
US armcd lorccs in !raq, pcration !raqi Frccdom not bcing a dcclarcd war.
+:

Tat lcavcs two othcr main possibilitics lor thc cxcrcisc by thc US ol criminal
jurisdiction ovcr contractor pcrsonncl who commit crimcs in !raq thc Military
xtratcrritorial Jurisdiction Act (MJA) ol accc
+o
and thc Var Crimcs Act ol
.6.
++

Tc MJA covcrs criminal acts by, inter alia, pcrsons cmploycd by or accom
panying thc armcd lorccs outsidc thc US, including a pcrson cmploycd as a civilian
cmploycc ol thc cpartmcnt ol clcnsc as a cpartmcnt ol clcnsc contrac
tor (including a subcontractor at any ticr), or as an cmploycc ol a cpartmcnt ol
clcnsc contractor (including a subcontractor at any ticr) providcd thcy arc not
a national or rcsidcnt in thc host statc.
+:
As thc pcrson must bc cmploycd by or
accompanying thc armcd lorccs outsidc thc US, it would not covcr contractors
who rcmain in thc US. Tc tcrm cmploycd by thc Armcd Forccs outsidc thc
US mcans cmploycd as a civilian cmploycc ol o, as a o contractor or as
an cmploycc ol a o contractor, who is prcscnt or rcsiding outsidc thc US in
conncction with such cmploymcnt, and is not a national ol or ordinarily rcsidcnt
in thc host nation. Tc tcrm accompanying thc Armcd Forccs outsidc thc US
mcans a lamily mcmbcr ol a mcmbcr ol thc Armcd Forccs, a civilian cmploycc ol
thc o, a o contractor or an cmploycc ol a o contractor, not a national
ol or ordinarily rcsidcnt in thc host nation.
+
According to Ficld Manual No. .cc.a., thc MJA should only bc uscd
whcrc intcrnational agrccmcnts or thc host statcs laws do not takc prcccdcncc.
+

As thc CPA issucd Public rdcr No. ., cxcmpting contractor and othcr civilians
accompanying Coalition Forccs, inter alia, lrom thc jurisdiction ol !raqi laws and
courts, unlcss thc immunity is waivcd by thc scnding statc,
+
!raqs law would
.a Supra n. .
.a vcn though it was a congrcssionally approvcd conict. Scc H.J. Rcs. .., .6 ctobcr
acca.
.c . USC, a6.a6, (accc). For a dctailcd discussion ol thc Act as it rclatcs
to contractor pcrsonncl scc Joscph R. Pcrlak, Tc Military xtratcrritorial
Jurisdiction Act ol accc: !mplications lor Contractor Pcrsonncl, 6 Military La.
Fe.ie. (acc.) p. a. Scc also Andrcw . Fallon and Tcrcsa A. Kccnc, Closing thc
lcgal loopholc: Practical implications ol thc Military xtratcrritorial Jurisdiction
Act ol accc civilians accompanying thc Armcd Forccs, ir Force La. Fe.ie.
(Spring, acc.).
.. US Codc, . a..
.a Tc Military xtratcrritorial Jurisdiction Act ol accc, Scc. a6,.
. Contractor Support in thc Tcatcr ol pcrations, cskbook Supplcmcnt, a March
acc., scct. .a..
. Supra n. .
. CPA rdcr Numbcr ., (rcviscd), Status ol thc Coalition Provisional Authority,
MNF !raq, Ccrtain Missions and Pcrsonncl in !raq, CPA/R/a, Junc acc.
388 .ril McDonald
not takc prcccdcncc. Tc rcviscd ordcr outlivcs thc CPA and will rcmain in lorcc
until rcscindcd or amcndcd by lcgislation ol thc !raqi govcrnmcnt.
Pcrsons lalling undcr thc Act arc subjcct to lcdcral criminal prosccution.
sscntially, thc Act applics to anyonc who cngagcs in conduct outsidc thc US
that would constitutc an ocnsc punishablc by imprisonmcnt lor morc than .
ycar, thc samc as il thc ocnsc had bccn committcd within thc jurisdiction ol thc
US.
+6
Acts lalling undcr thc MJA includc not only thc most scrious crimcs,
such as war crimcs, but also lcsscr ocnccs providcd thcy attract a scntcncc ol at
lcast onc ycar.
Tc MJA, howcvcr, hardly covcrs all possiblc criminal wrongdoing by con
tractors in !raq bccausc it contains scvcral gaping loopholcs. As it docs not covcr
criminal wrongdoing by pcrsons who arc nationals ol or rcsidcnt in thc host statc,
it would not capturc criminal wrongdoing by !raqi nationals cmploycd as con
tractors by thc o. Nor would it covcr pcrsons who arc not cmploycd by o,
lor cxamplc, thosc working in !raq cmploycd through thc US cpartmcnts ol
Statc or !ntcrior, or thc C!A. Givcn thc Acts stipulation that thc pcrson must
bc cmploycd by or accompanying thc armcd lorccs outsidc thc US, it would also
not covcr individual contractors who arc not actually dcploycd outsidc thc US,
but arc bascd in thc US or clscwhcrc, cvcn though thcy may bc involvcd in !raq
war opcrations. Such pcrsons could includc thosc contractors, lor cxamplc, who
maintain or opcratc wcapons systcms that involvc thc rcmotc usc ol lorcc, such
as long rangc droncs.
Vhcrc criminal wrongdoing by contractors rcachcs war crimc lcvcl, thcy
could potcntially bc prosccutcd undcr thc .6 Var Crimcs Act. According to
Ficld Manual No. .cc.a: Subcontractors accuscd ol crimcs could bc prosc
cutcd undcr US Fcdcral law, which makcs all US citizcns criminally liablc lor war
crimcs committcd abroad (Var Crimcs Act .6). So lar, no contractor work
ing in !raq or clscwhcrc has bccn prosccutcd undcr this lcgislation, or, indccd,
undcr thc MJA. Tis is troubling bccausc cvcn though allcgations ol criminal
wrongdoing by individual contractors havc not bccn widcsprcad, thcy do cxist.
Tc Taguba Rcport on dctaincc abusc in Abu Ghraib namcd thrcc contractors
implicatcd in thosc cvcnts. US clcnsc Sccrctary onald Rumslcld was latcr
rcportcd as saying that thcrc wcrc (in May acc) , civilian contractors working
at Abu Ghraib, mostly as intcrrogators or translators. Signicantly, in tcrms ol
thc rcsponsibility ol thc US lor thc actions ol contractors, discusscd bclow, hc was
rcportcd as having told Scnators, Tcyrc rcsponsiblc to military intclligcncc who
hirc thcm and havc thc rcsponsibility lor supcrvising thcm.
+

.6 Contractor Support in thc Tcatcr ol pcrations, supra n. ,6, scct. .a..
., Quotcd in Jamcs Roscn, Contractors status in !raq hits grcy arca, Tc Sacramcnto
8cc, a May acc, http://www.sacbcc.com/contcnt/ncws/vprint/story/a,p
.ca6c.html.
389 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
Tcrc appcars to bc only onc prcccdcnt lor thc ling ol criminal chargcs
against a contractor, working not lor thc o, but lor thc C!A in Alghanistan.
Mr. avid Passaro was chargcd on ., Junc acc undcr thc acc. Patriot Act
+8
with
two counts cach ol assault and assault with a dangcrous wcapon in conncction
with thc a. Junc acc dcath ol Mr. Abdul Vali. Tc lattcr had dicd two days altcr
bcing intcrrogatcd and bcatcn by Passaro at a dctcntion ccntrc in Alghanistan.
+

Tc casc is ol grcat signicancc bccausc, il a guilty vcrdict is rcturncd, it will scrvc
as a prcccdcnt lor luturc actions, including potcntially against contractors sup
porting thc US mission in !raq. Howcvcr, somc critics considcr thc charging ol
Mr. Passaro undcr thc Patriot Act to bc a casc ol jurisdictional ovcrrcach.
+o
!n principlc thcrc is nothing undcr intcrnational law to stop a civilian con
tractor bcing prosccutcd lor a war crimc, cithcr bclorc an intcrnational lorum
having jurisdiction
++
or bclorc a compctcnt national court, including onc that
would cxcrcisc univcrsal jurisdiction. As lound by thc !ntcrnational Criminal
Tribunal lor Rwanda in thc kayesu casc, thc laws ol war must apply cqually to
civilians as to combatants in thc traditional scnsc.
+:
l coursc, ccrtain clcmcnts
arc rcquircd to hold a civilian (or indccd anyonc) liablc lor a war crimc, most lun
damcntally, a link bctwccn thc accuscds acts and thc armcd conict
+
and thc
rcquisitc mens rea.
Criminal wrongdoing by contractors could also potcntially givc risc to supc
rior rcsponsibility on thc part ol thosc individuals cxcrcising de facto il not de jure
command and control ovcr thcm. vcn il contractors arc not considcrcd to bc
part ol thc armcd lorccs ol a statc, and arc not part ol thc chain ol command or
tcchnically subjcct to military ordcrs, in practicc somc do lall undcr thc control
and rcsponsibility ol military or civilian supcriors.
. Public Law No: .c,6.
. Scharnbcrg, supra n. a. His trial had bccn schcdulcd to bcgin in ctobcr acc
bclorc a US lcdcral court in North Carolina but was postponcd by thc Judgc to
allow both sidcs morc timc to lc motions. !l convictcd, thc accuscd laccs up to
c ycars imprisonmcnt and a s. million nc. Judgc grants dclay in Passaro trial,
Associatcd Prcss, a Scptcmbcr acc, http://rdu.ncws..com/contcnt/hcadlincs/
:Ar!-,c.a&Scc!-a.
.c Scc avid Kravcts, C!A contractor is chargcd undcr thc Patriot Act, . Junc acc,
http://www.usatoday.com/ncws/nation/accc6.pat.actchargc_x.htm.
.. Tc jurisdiction ol thc Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals is rcstrictcd to thc lormcr
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, rcspcctivcly. Tc !raqi Spccial Tribunal only has juris
diction ovcr !raq nationals or rcsidcnts ol !raq with rcspcct to crimcs within thc
Tribunals jurisdiction committcd bctwccn ., July .6 and . May acc (Articlc .(b)
ol thc Statutc). Ncithcr thc US nor !raq is a party to thc Statutc ol thc !ntcrnational
Criminal Court.
.a Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul kayesu, Casc No. !CTR6T, Judgcmcnt, a Scptcmbcr
., para. 6.
. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadi aka Dule, Casc No. !T.T, pinion and Judgmcnt, ,
May .,, para. ac,.
390 .ril McDonald
B Ci.il Liability
Civil liability ol PMCs or individual contractors could arisc in at lcast two situa
tions. First, a victim ol wrongdoing committcd by an individual contractor could
suc that individual and/or thc PMC that hircd him or hcr. Sccond, an individual
contractor or his ncxt ol kin could bring an action against a PMC lor its wrong
doing.
Tc Unitcd Statcs is uniquc in having thc Alicn Tort Claims Act (ATCA),
which allows nonnationals to bring an action in tort against an individual, a statc
or a corporation which has committcd an actionablc tort abroad. Tc ATCA,
cnactcd as part ol thc First Judiciary Act ol .,,
+
includcd a grant ol subjcct
mattcr jurisdiction to thc lcdcral courts ovcr all causcs whcrc an alicn sucs lor a
tort only, committcd in violation ol thc law ol nations or a trcaty ol thc Unitcd
Statcs.
+
Sincc thc .c casc ol Filartiga v. Pena-Irala

,
+6
U.S. courts havc hcld
that thcrc is univcrsal jurisdiction ovcr such acts as |gcnocidc, war crimcs and
crimcs against humanity| pcrmitting thc Unitcd Statcs to providc a rcmcdy lor
violations ol intcrnational law through its courts, cvcn whcrc thc conduct com
plaincd ol took placc cntircly outsidc thc Unitcd Statcs.
+
n Junc acc a suit pursuant to thc ATCA on bchall ol cight !raqis
dctaincd in Abu Ghraib was lcd in a San icgo Fcdcral istrict Court against
two US dclcncc contractors, CAC! !nc., bascd in Arlington, \irginia, and Titan
!nc., bascd in San icgo, implicatcd in thc Abu Ghraib scandal and namcd in
thc Taguba and Fay
+8
rcports.
+
Tc suit is highly signicant in thc contcxt ol
thc PMC dcbatc as it attcmpts to cstablish a link bctwccn thc motivation ol thc
companics, namcly prot, and thc pcrpctration ol abuscs, including rapc and
clcctrocution ol thc gcnitals ol dctainccs. !t accuscd thcm ol cngaging in a con
spiracy with unnamcd govcrnmcnt ocials to torturc and humiliatc !raqi prison
crs in ordcr to boost thcir prots.
. US Statutcs at Largc . (.,) p. ,.
. As currcntly codicd at a U.S.C. .c it rcads: Tc district courts shall havc origi
nal jurisdiction ol any civil action by an alicn lor a tort only, committcd in violation
ol thc law ol nations or a trcaty ol thc Unitcd Statcs. G.8. 8orn, International Ci.il
Litigation in United States Courts: Commentary . Materials, rd cdn. (Tc Haguc,
Kluwcr Law !ntcrnational .6) p. .
.6 6c F.ad ,6 (ad Cir..c) ILF ,,, p. .6.
., P.H.F. 8ckkcr, Tc cmocratic Rcpublic ol thc Congo rcqucsts thc Vorld Court to
ordcr 8clgium to annul thc arrcst warrant issucd against thc Congos lorcign minis
tcr, AS!L !nsight, ctobcr accc, http://www.asil.org/insigh.htm.
. Supra n. ..
. T. Christian Millcr, !raqi abusc victims suc contractor, Los ngeles Times, .c Junc
acc.
391 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
n a, July acc a sccond complaint was lcd against CAC! !nc., and Titan
!nc., and thrcc ol thcir civilian cmployccs
+o
on bchall ol vc !raqis dctaincd at thc
Abu Ghraib prison.
++
!t allcgcd that lour ol thc complainants wcrc unlawlully
torturcd by agcnts or cmployccs ol thc two companics working at thc jail. Tc
lth plainti is thc widow ol an !raqi who allcgcdly dicd at thcir hands. Tc com
panics dcnicd thc chargcs. Tc suit, brought undcr thc Alicn Tort Claims Act, as
wcll as thc Rackctccr !nucnccd and Corrupt rganizations Act (R!C),
+:
was
lcd in thc US istrict Court lor thc istrict ol Colombia.
+

An unrcsolvcd qucstion, which is particularly important givcn thc risks that
contractor pcrsonncl lacc in thcir linc ol work, conccrns thc lcgal rcsponsibilitics
ol privatc military and sccurity companics towards thc contractors thcy cmploy.
Vhcn a contractor is injurcd or killcd in thc linc ol duty, or takcn hostagc, docs
hc or his lamily havc any lcgal rcmcdics against thc PMC: An answcr may soon
bc givcn in a casc currcntly bclorc a US court. Tc lamilics ol thc lour sub
contractors ambushcd and killcd in Fallujah lcd a suit against thcir cmploycr,
8lackwatcr Sccurity Scrviccs, lor lraud and wronglul dcath bclorc Vakc County
Supcrior Court. !n April acc, sccking to limit thc rcmcdics against 8lackwatcr
that would bc availablc bclorc thc Statc Court, thc dclcndants succccdcd in
having thc casc translcrrcd to thc North Carolina istrict Court (a Fcdcral
Court),
+
North Carolina bcing 8lackwatcrs principal placc ol busincss. Vhilc
thc substantivc lcgal issucs raiscd in this casc had yct to bc dctcrmincd at thc
timc ol writing, thc complainants had alrcady sccurcd a prcliminary lcgal victory
on a jurisdictional mattcr. n . August acc, thc North Carolina istrict Court
grantcd thc lamilics motion to rcmand thc casc back to thc Statc Court, whcrc
thc lamilics could continuc to scck all availablc rcmcdics without limitation, and
dcnicd thc dclcndants motions to dismiss thc casc.
+
Tc Court rcjcctcd thc
dclcndants contcntion that thc clcnsc 8asc Act, a lcdcral law limiting dcath
bcncts lor contractors working ovcrscas, complctcly prccmptcd all statc law.
Tc dccision on thc mcrits in this suit, thc rst ol its kind cvcr to bc lcd
in a US court, will bc closcly scrutiniscd. Tc outcomc may, howcvcr, turn on
.c Namcly, Stcphcn Stcphanowicz ol CAC! and John !sracl and Adcl Nakhla ol Titan.
Tc thrcc mcn wcrc all namcd in thc Taguba rcport, supra n. ..
.. cborah Hastings, !raqi prisoncrs claiming abusc sccking U.S. justicc, Associatcd
Prcss, a ctobcr acc.
.a US Codc ., .6..
. Scc Shaun Vatcrman, clcnsc contractors lacc !raqi torturc suit, Unitcd Prcss
!ntcrnational, a, July acc, http://www.washtimcs.com/upibrcaking/accc,a,
c,a,,r.htm.
. mcry P. alcsio, Fcdcral judgc scnds lawsuit ovcr 8lackwatcr dcaths to N.C. court,
Associatcd Prcss, . August acc, http://abcncws.go.com/US/wircStory:id-.cc,.
. Fcdcral Court Rulcs in Favor ol thc Familics ol Amcrican Sccurity Contractors
xccutcd in !raq, . August acc, PRNcwswirc, http://www.prncwswirc.com/cgibin/
storics.pl:ACCT-.c&STRY-/www/story/c.acc/cccc6&AT-.
392 .ril McDonald
narrow issucs ol US contract law rathcr than shcd light on thc widcr qucstion ol
thc rcsponsibility ol contractors gcncrally towards thcir (tcmporary) cmployccs
undcr national or intcrnational law. Undcr thc tcrms ol thc contract, contrac
tors arc madc awarc ol and assumc thc risks ol thcir job. !t is prcciscly bccausc
thcy willingly sign up lor such risky assignmcnts that thcy arc so wcll paid.
Furthcrmorc, thc contract in this casc includcd a rclcasc clausc undcr which thc
contractors signcd away thcir and thcir lamilics right to suc thc company in casc
ol dcath, cvcn il thc dcaths wcrc thc rcsult ol 8lackwatcrs ncgligcncc or gross
ncgligcncc.
+6
!n ordcr to succccd, thc applicants would havc to show that thc
company actcd rccklcssly or dclibcratcly cxposcd its pcrsonncl to dangcr. !n this
casc, thc lamilics arc allcging that thc mcn wcrc not propcrly armcd or traincd,
+

issucs which dircctly conccrn thc prcparcdncss ol contractors to opcratc in a war
zonc and thc unsatislactory situation rcgarding thcir lcgal status.
V State Responsibility for the Unlawful Acts of PMCs and
Contractor Personnel
No claim ol statc rcsponsibility lor thc wronglul acts ol contractors has cvcr bccn
brought, and !raq is unlikcly to producc onc. !t is noncthclcss important to con
sidcr thc thcorctical possibility ol a casc whcrc thc wrongdoing ol a contractor
is attributcd to thc statc lor which hc works, and thc possiblc circumstanccs in
which statc rcsponsibility lor thc actions ol contractors could arisc. Givcn thc
cvcr dccpcning dcpcndcncc on contractors, statcs nccd to bc ablc to rccognisc
thcir rcsponsibilitics undcr intcrnational law and thc limitations on thc usc ol
contractors bclorc rcsponsibility ariscs.
Tc lcgal basis lor claiming that statcs arc not rcsponsiblc lor thc wronglul
acts ol contractors is that contractors arc ncithcr cmploycd by nor arc mcmbcrs
ol thc armcd lorccs and arc not cmpowcrcd to act as agcnts ol thc statc. Tcy
do not opcratc undcr thc command or dircction ol thc statc. Tis contrasts with
mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs or civilian cmployccs ol thc armcd lorccs lor whosc
actions thc US and othcr statcs arc lcgally rcsponsiblc undcr thc principlc ol
agcncy.
+8
As long as contractors arc not considcrcd cithcr mcmbcrs ol thc armcd
lorccs or civilian cmployccs ol thc armcd lorccs, or ol anothcr statc agcncy, thcy
.6 Scc Joscph Nc and Jay Pricc, !raq: Courts to rcsolvc contractors dcaths, Te Ne.s
and Obser.er, January acc, http://www.corpwatch.org/articlc.php:id-..,..
., Scharnbcrg, supra n. a.
. According to thc Commcntarics to thc Articlcs on thc Rcsponsibility ol Statcs lor
!ntcrnationally Vronglul Acts, thc gcncral rulc is that thc only conduct attributcd
to thc Statc at thc intcrnational lcvcl is that ol its organs ol govcrnmcnt, or ol othcrs
who havc actcd undcr thc dircction, instigation or control ol thosc organs, i.c., as
agcnts ol thc Statc. xtract lrom thc Rcport ol thc !ntcrnational Law Commission
on thc work ol its Filtythird scssion, Ocial Fecords of the General ssembly, Fifty-
sixth session, Supplement No. zc (A/6/.c), chp.!\..a, Novcmbcr acc., p. c.
393 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
would not bc considcrcd mcmbcrs ol an organ ol thc statc undcr Articlc (.) ol
thc Articlcs on thc Rcsponsibility ol Statcs lor !ntcrnationally Vronglul Acts.
Articlc (a) providcs that an organ ol a statc is dctcrmincd according to national,
rathcr than intcrnational law,
+
bcgging thc qucstion whcthcr mcmbcrs ol thc
organ arc also to bc dctcrmincd according to national law. !l so, a lunctional
approach to thc dctcrmination ol a contractors status would not succ lor thc
attribution ol statc rcsponsibility, cvcn il it was acccptcd lor thc purposc ol dccid
ing thc qucstion ol mcmbcrship ol armcd lorccs undcr intcrnational humanitar
ian law. Howcvcr, this would allow statcs using contractors to dccidc whcthcr or
not to bc rcsponsiblc lor thcm and cncouragc thcm to avoid taking rcsponsibility
by avoiding incorporation, cvcn whcrc contractors clcarly pcrlormcd war ght
ing lunctions.
Howcvcr, thc actions ol contractors may bc attributablc to a statc cvcn il
contractors arc not agcnts ol thc statc. !n thc Youmens claim (.a6), thc Unitcd
StatcsMcxican Claims Commission lound that: vcn thc conduct ol privatc
pcrsons is attributablc to a Statc whcn such pcrsons arc acting on bchall ol thc
Statc without having acquircd thc status ol Statc organs or ol othcr cntitics
cmpowcrcd to cxcrcisc govcrnmcntal authority.
+6o
Vhcrc thc conduct ol a pri
vatc pcrson or ol a group can bc rcgardcd as an act ol a statc organ, such conduct
can bc considcrcd an act ol statc.
Tc !ntcrnational Law Commissions Articlcs on thc Rcsponsibility ol Statcs
lor !ntcrnationally Vronglul Acts cncapsulatc this rulc ol attribution in Chaptcr
!!.
+6+
Articlc ol thc Articlcs conccrning Conduct ol pcrsons or cntitics cxcrcis
ing clcmcnts ol govcrnmcntal authority
+6:
sccms rclcvant to thc casc ol contrac
tors. Somc contractors might appcar to bc cxcrcising clcmcnts ol govcrnmcntal
authority, particularly il thcy havc csscntial military rolcs. Tc Commcntarics to
thc Articlcs indicatc that: Tc articlc is intcndcd to takc account ol thc incrcas
ingly common phcnomcnon ol parastatal cntitics, which cxcrcisc clcmcnts ol
govcrnmcntal authority in thc placc ol Statc organs, as wcll as situations whcrc
. An organ includcs any pcrson or cntity which has that status in accordancc with thc
intcrnal law ol thc Statc.
.6c FI (.a6) p. ..c. Scc also R. Vollrum, !ntcrnationally Vronglul Act, in .c
Encyclopedia of Public International La., (Amstcrdam/Ncw York/xlord, North
Holland .,) pp. a,. at a,a,.
.6. Articlc a. Availablc onlinc at http://lcil.law.cam.ac.uk/!LCSR/.
.6a Tc conduct ol a pcrson or cntity which is not an organ ol thc Statc undcr articlc
but which is cmpowcrcd by thc law ol that Statc to cxcrcisc clcmcnts ol thc govcrn
mcntal authority shall bc considcrcd an act ol thc Statc undcr intcrnational law, pro
vidcd thc pcrson or cntity is acting in that capacity in thc particular instancc. Articlc
, gocs on to providc that: Tc conduct ol an organ ol a Statc or ol a pcrson or cntity
cmpowcrcd to cxcrcisc clcmcnts ol thc govcrnmcntal authority shall bc considcrcd
an act ol thc Statc undcr intcrnational law il thc organ, pcrson or cntity acts in that
capacity, cvcn il it cxcccds its authority or contravcncs instructions.
394 .ril McDonald
lormcr Statc corporations havc bccn privatizcd but rctain ccrtain public or rcgu
latory lunctions.
+6
Tc Commcntarics spccically alludc to contractors as cnti
tics that may cxcrcisc govcrnmcntal authority: For cxamplc, in somc countrics
privatc sccurity rms may bc contractcd to act as prison guards and in that capac
ity may cxcrcisc public powcrs such as powcrs ol dctcntion and disciplinc pur
suant to a judicial scntcncc or to prison rcgulations.
+6
!t would sccm that it is
thc PMCs, rathcr than thc contractor individuals, that arc thc parastatal cnti
tics cxcrcising govcrnmcntal authority. PMCs providing contractors cngagcd in
csscntial military rolcs, including thc usc ol lorcc, would pcrlorcc bc parastatal
cntitics cxcrcising govcrnmcntal authority. Altcr all, thc usc ol lorcc is gcncrally
considcrcd to bc thc lundamcntal statc prcrogativc and thc quintcsscntial cxam
plc ol a statc lunction.
+6
Tc qucstion ol whcthcr a statc could bc hcld rcsponsiblc lor thc actions ol a
PMC or an individual contractor cxcrcising clcmcnts ol govcrnmcntal authority
turns not only on what an clcmcnt ol govcrnmcntal authority is, but also on what
cxactly is mcant by thc wording cmpowcrcd by thc law ol that Statc to cxcrcisc
that authority. !s thc involvcmcnt ol a contractor in a lunction csscntial to kccp
ing thc military machinc running an cxcrcisc ol an clcmcnt ol govcrnmcntal
authority: !s thc lawlul hiring ol a contractor by a statc through a PMC tanta
mount to cmpowcring that individual or PMC to carry out an csscntial govcrn
mcnt lunction: !n thc abscncc ol conlcrring spccic powcrs at thc national lcvcl,
mcaning an actual lcgal dclcgation ol statc lunctions, can statcs bc said to havc
cmpowcrcd PMCs to, lor cxamplc, wagc war on thcir bchall lor thc purposcs ol
statc rcsponsibility: !n this rcspcct, it is signicant that thc Commcntarics to thc
Articlcs notc that: For thc purposcs ol articlc , an cntity is cmpowcrcd to act
cvcn il its cxcrcisc ol authority involvcs an indcpcndcnt discrction or powcr to
act, thcrc is no nccd to show that thc conduct was in lact carricd out undcr thc
control ol thc Statc. Still, statcs might ccrtainly disputc that thcir hiring through
PMCs ol individual contractors to pcrlorm military and quasi military rolcs is
tantamount to conlcrring on thosc PMCs any typc ol parastatal status.
Anothcr possibility lor holding statcs rcsponsiblc lor thc actions ol contrac
tors is providcd in Articlc ol thc Articlcs on conduct dircctcd or controllcd by a
statc.
+66
nc could imaginc a situation whcrc a contractor could lall undcr thc de
.6 Commcntarics to thc Articlcs, supra n. ., p. a.
.6 !bid.
.6 Tc sociologist Max Vcbcr considcrcd thc cxcrcisc ol lcgitimatc violcncc to bc a
corc lunction ol a statc, a vicw which has bccn widcly acccptcd. Scc his Te Teory of
Social and Economic Organi.ation (Ncw York, Frcc Prcss .6).
.66 Articlc providcs: Tc conduct ol a pcrson or group ol pcrsons shall bc considcrcd
an act ol a Statc undcr intcrnational law il thc pcrson or group ol pcrsons is in lact
acting on thc instructions ol, or undcr thc dircction or control ol, that Statc in car
rying out thc conduct. n thc qucstion ol thc rcsponsibility ol statcs lor privatc
actors gcncrally scc Jamcs Crawlord and Simon llcson, Tc naturc and lorms ol
395 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
facto il not de jure rcsponsibility ol a military or civilian commandcr, who himscll
or hcrscll is an organ ol thc statc. !l thc contractor acts on ordcrs ol an organ ol
thc statc or undcr thc dircction or control ol a de facto, il not de jure, supcrior, it
might bc possiblc to considcr his or hcr conduct an act ol statc. Articlc sccms
spccically dcsigncd to covcr such situations. Tc rclcvant Commcntarics notc
that it addrcsscs two lactual circumstanccs:
Tc rst involvcs privatc pcrsons acting on thc instructions ol thc Statc in car
rying out thc wronglul conduct. Tc sccond dcals with a morc gcncral situa
tion whcrc privatc pcrsons acts undcr thc Statcs dircction or control. 8caring
in mind thc important rolc playcd by thc principlc ol ccctivcncss in intcr
national law, it is ncccssary to takc into account in both cascs thc cxistcncc
ol a rcal link bctwccn thc pcrson or group pcrlorming thc act and thc Statc
machincry. Most commonly cascs ol this kind will arisc whcrc Statc organs
supplcmcnt thcir own action by rccruiting or instigating privatc pcrsons or
groups who act as auxiliarics whilc rcmaining outsidc thc ocial structurc ol
thc Statc. Tcsc includc, lor cxamplc, individuals or groups ol privatc individu
als who, through not ocially commissioncd by thc Statc and not lorming part
ol its policc or armcd lorccs, arc cmploycd as auxiliarics or arc scnt as volun
tccrs to ncighbouring countrics, or who arc instructcd to carry out particular
missions abroad.
+6
Tc applicability ol thc Articlc rulc ol attribution will in practicc dcpcnd on
whcthcr thc contractor actually actcd undcr thc dircction or control ol a statc.
Tc Commcntarics statc, rcccting thc dccision ol thc !CJ in thc Nicaragua casc
that Such conduct will bc attributablc to thc Statc only il it dircctcd or control
lcd thc spccic opcration and thc conduct complaincd ol was an intcgral part ol
that opcration. Tc principlc docs not cxtcnd to conduct which was only incidcn
tally or pcriphcrally associatcd with an opcration and which cscapcd lrom thc
Statcs control or dircction.
+68
Tc Nicaragua casc shows that a statc must cxcrcisc ccctivc control ovcr
nonstatc actors lor thcir conduct to bc attributablc to it. !t would in principlc
havc to bc provcd that thc Statc had ccctivc control ol thc military or paramili
tary opcrations in thc coursc ol which thc allcgcd violations wcrc committcd.
+6
Tc ndings ol thc !CJ in thc Nicaragua casc sccm particularly appositc to
thc casc ol military contractors opcrating in !raq. !n that casc, Nicaragua claimcd
intcrnational rcsponsibility, chaptcr . ol International La., Malcolm . vans, cd.,
(xlord, xlord Univcrsity Prcss acc) pp. 6,.
.6, Commcntarics to thc Articlcs, supra n. ., p. .c.
.6 Commcntarics to thc Articlcs, supra n. ., p. .c.
.6 Military and Paramilitary Activitics in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States of merica), Judgcmcnt ol a, Junc .,, Mcrits, para. ...
396 .ril McDonald
that thc contras arc no morc than bands ol mcrccnarics which havc bccn rccruitcd,
organizcd, paid and commandcd by thc Govcrnmcnt ol thc Unitcd Statcs. 8ut,
as thc Commcntarics to thc Articlcs notc: only in ccrtain individual instanccs
wcrc thc acts ol thc contras thcmsclvcs hcld attributablc to it |thc US|, bascd
upon actual participation ol and dircctions givcn by thc Statc.
+o

A lcss oncrous and morc cxiblc dcgrcc ol control was rcquircd by thc
!ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor thc Formcr Yugoslavia (!CTY) in thc Tadi
casc:
Tc rcquircmcnt ol intcrnational law lor thc attribution to Statcs ol acts
pcrlormcd by privatc individuals is that thc Statc cxcrciscs control ovcr thc
individuals. Tc degree of control may, howcvcr, vary according to thc lactual
circumstanccs ol cach casc. Tc Appcals Chambcr lails to scc why in cach and
cvcry circumstancc intcrnational law should rcquirc a high thrcshold lor thc
tcst ol control.
++

!t should bc rcmcmbcrcd that thc !CJ and thc !CTY cxcrcisc dicrcnt jurisdic
tion, thc lormcr locusing on thc lcgal rights and rcsponsibilitics ol statcs, thc
lattcr on thc criminal rcsponsibility ol individuals. As thc body with cxclusivc
compctcncc to adjudicatc intcrstatc disputcs, thc !CJs morc oncrous tcst should
bc considcrcd thc authoritativc onc in rclation to qucstions ol statc rcsponsibil
ity, cvcn il a morc cxiblc tcst is acccptcd lor thc purposcs ol individual criminal
rcsponsibility.
!t thus sccms that whilc a casc ol statc rcsponsibility lor thc actions ol
contractors cannot bc rulcd out, it would havc to mcct scvcral oncrous lactual
rcquircmcnts. !t would havc to bc shown that thc act complaincd ol was in lact
an act violating intcrnational law and giving risc to statc rcsponsibility and that
thc statc cithcr dircctcd thc action or cxcrciscd such control ovcr thc actor(s) in
rclation to that action as to assumc rcsponsibility lor it. ach casc will dcpcnd on
its own lacts, in particular thosc conccrning thc rclationship bctwccn thc instruc
tions givcn or thc dircction or control cxcrciscd and thc spccic conduct com
plaincd ol. !n thc tcxt ol articlc , thc thrcc tcrms instructions, dircctionsand
control arc disjunctivc, it is sucicnt to cstablish any onc ol thcm. At thc samc
timc it is madc clcar that thc instructions, dircctions or control must rclatc to thc
conduct which is said to havc amountcd to an intcrnationally wronglul act.
+:

Tc Commcntarics also alludc to actions going bcyond a statcs authorisa
tion, whcrc in carrying out a lawlul authoriscd action a nonstatc actor commits
an act that contravcncs his original ordcrs or dircctions and thc intcrnational
obligations ol thc statc.
.,c Commcntarics to thc Articlcs, supra n. ., p. .c6.
.,. Tadi jurisdiction dccision, supra n. c, para. ..,.
.,a Commcntarics to thc Articlcs, supra n. ., p. .c.
397 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
Such cascs can bc rcsolvcd by asking whcthcr thc unlawlul or unauthorizcd
conduct was rcally incidcntal to thc mission or clcarly wcnt bcyond it. !n gcn
cral a Statc, in giving lawlul instructions to pcrsons who arc not its organs, docs
not assumc thc risk that thc instructions will bc carricd out in an intcrnation
ally unlawlul way. n thc othcr hand, whcrc pcrsons or groups havc committcd
acts undcr thc ccctivc control ol a Statc thc condition lor attribution will still
bc mct cvcn il particular instructions may havc bccn ignorcd.
+
Finally, Articlc ol thc ralt Articlcs sccms to ocr only limitcd possibilitics
lor holding statcs rcsponsiblc lor thc actions ol somc contractors bccausc it dcals
with a vcry narrow sct ol circumstanccs.
+
According to thc Commcntarics:
Articlc dcals with thc cxccptional casc ol conduct in thc cxcrcisc ol clcmcnts
ol thc govcrnmcntal authority and without any actual authority to do so. Tc
cxccptional naturc ol thc circumstanccs cnvisagcd in thc articlc is indicatcd by
thc phrasc in circumstanccs such as to call lor. Such cascs occur only rarcly,
such as during rcvolution, armcd conict or lorcign occupation, whcrc thc rcgu
lar authoritics dissolvc, arc disintcgrating, havc bccn supprcsscd or arc lor thc
timc bcing inopcrativc. Tcy may also covcr cascs whcrc lawlul authority is bcing
gradually rcstorcd, c.g., altcr lorcign occupation.
+

!n conclusion, thc gcncral principlcs ol statc rcsponsibility prcscnt two main
options lor holding statcs rcsponsiblc lor thc actions ol contractors: (.) pursu
ant to Articlc ol thc Articlcs, whcrc cithcr PMCs or contractor pcrsonncl can
bc considcrcd pcrsons or cntitics cxcrcising clcmcnts ol govcrnmcntal authority,
and (a) pursuant to Articlc ol thc Articlcs, whcrc thc conduct giving risc to thc
claim ol rcsponsibility is carricd out undcr thc dircction or control ol thc statc.
!t is clcar that thc morc dccply cntwincd contractors bccomc in thc military
machinc, thc morc dicult it will bc lor statcs to claim that contractors arc not
acting as thcir agcnts, cithcr de jure or de facto, and to avoid rcsponsibility lor thcir
actions. Qucstions ol statc rcsponsibility asidc, it is arguablc that statcs hiring
contractors arc obligcd to cnsurc that at lcast military contractors act rcsponsi
bly and comply with intcrnational law, including intcrnational humanitarian law.
Tis mcans that statcs havc a duty to cnsurc that such pcrsons arc adcquatcly
prcparcd and traincd lor thcir missions, arc cmploycd in positions lor which thcy
arc qualicd and traincd, and do not cngagc in illcgal acts.
., Commcntarics to thc Articlcs, supra n. ., pp. .c.c.
., Articlc providcs: Tc conduct ol a pcrson or group ol pcrsons shall bc considcrcd
an act ol a Statc undcr intcrnational law il thc pcrson or group ol pcrsons is in lact
cxcrcising clcmcnts ol thc govcrnmcntal authority in thc abscncc or dclault ol thc
ocial authoritics and in circumstanccs such as to call lor thc cxcrcisc ol thosc clc
mcnts ol authority.
., Commcntarics to thc Articlcs, supra n. ., p. .c.
398 .ril McDonald
Vhcrc a statc dclcgatcs an csscntial compctcncc, such as war ghting, to
privatc actors, it should not bc ablc to cscapc intcrnational lcgal rcsponsibility
lor thc actions ol thcsc quasistatc actors by hiding bchind a contract concludcd
undcr its national law. !l military contractors arc not acting on bchall ol a statc,
thcn thcy arc acting purcly on thcir own bchall, lor pcrsonal gain, and thcrc
is littlc il anything to distinguish thcm lrom mcrccnarics savc thc lact that in
somc cascs thcy might havc thc samc nationality as thc statc indircctly cmploy
ing thcm.
VI Conclusions
Tis articlc has shown that thcrc arc a numbcr ol unrcsolvcd qucstions conccrn
ing thc status and accountability ol individual military contractors and PMCs
and rcgarding statcs rcsponsibility lor criminal or civil wrongdoing by thcm.
Tcsc qucstions urgcntly rcquirc answcrs.
Tcrc arc scvcral lunctions that contractors pcrlorm that could bc rcgardcd
as constituting dircct participation in hostilitics. vcn il thcir job dcscription
docs not spccily involvcmcnt in combat (howcvcr that is intcrprctcd), it may in
lact rcquirc it or circumstanccs may draw contractor pcrsonncl into combat rolcs
lor which thcy arc inadcquatcly prcparcd or armcd, as !raq as shown.
vcn il onc wcrc to considcr contractors who takc a dircct part in hostili
tics as combatants undcr intcrnational humanitarian law bascd on a lunctional
approach and it has bccn shown that thcrc arc problcms with such an approach
statcs which usc thcm do not considcr thcm mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs or
cvcn civilian cmployccs ol thc military. !nstcad, thcy tcnd to rcgard thcm as con
tractcd labour, lor which ncithcr thcy nor any ol thcir agcnts bcar any rcsponsi
bility. As contractors arc not considcrcd to bc part ol thc armcd lorccs, de facto or
de jure, thcy arc not considcrcd to lall undcr military command and thcy cannot
bc controllcd or disciplincd through thc military chain ol command. Howcvcr,
it has bccn suggcstcd that whcrc contractors who commit crimcs lall undcr de
facto military or civilian command, thcir military or civilian commandcrs could
in somc instanccs bc hcld criminally rcsponsiblc undcr thc doctrinc ol command
rcsponsibility. Still, whilc criminal rcsponsibility ol a supcrior could thcorctically
arisc undcr cithcr intcrnational or national law, nding a lorum ablc and willing
to cxcrcisc criminal jurisdiction would not bc casy.
vcn il contractors could not bc considcrcd mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs,
+6

in ccrtain circumstanccs whcrc thc acts ol a contractor cithcr a PMC or an indi
.,6 Tat statcs arc rcsponsiblc lor thc actions and omissions ol thcir armcd lorccs is a wcll
cstablishcd principlc ol customary intcrnational law. According to Schwarzcnbcrgcr,
thc principlc ol compcnsation as statcd in thc rst scntcncc ol Articlc ol thc .c,
Haguc Rcgulations anncxcd to thc Fourth Haguc Convcntion was dcclaratory ol
intcrnational customary law as it stood in .c,. G. Schwarzcnbcrgcr, International
399 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
vidual could bc attributcd to a statc or whcrc a PMC can bc considcrcd a para
statal organ, it might bc possiblc to hold statcs lcgally rcsponsiblc to othcr statcs
(although probably not to individuals) lor intcrnational wrongdoing. Admittcdly,
this possibility rcmains purcly thcorctical.
Clarication ol thc lcgal qucstions raiscd hcrcin is highly dcsirablc and will
bccomc incrcasingly ncccssary as statcs contract out cvcr morc csscntial military
and sccurity lunctions. !t sccms thc US did not think through all ol thc possiblc
lcgal and opcrational ramications whcn it downsizcd its military and dccidcd
to start larming out ccrtain kcy lunctions to contractors.. Nor did it considcr
thc growing tcchnological sophistication ol warlarc and thc blurring ol support
and csscntial war lunctions. !t is incrcasingly dicult to dclincatc with a rcason
ablc dcgrcc ol accuracy thc distinction bctwccn dircct participation in hostilitics
by civilians lrom thcir provision ol support lunctions. Tis is duc, in part, to thc
cvcr changing mcthods by which war is wagcd, and particularly thc incrcasing
dcpcndcncc on tcchnological cxpcrtisc which thc military docs not ncccssarily
posscss. Tc incrcasing rcliancc by militarily sophisticatcd statcs likc thc US on
war ghting mcthods which can and arc bcing pcrlormcd by pcoplc who arc not
mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs prompts an cxamination ol lundamcntal qucstions
which might bc considcrcd to bc scttlcd but in lact rcmain opcn to argumcnt.
Tis articlc locuscd in part on thc qucstion ol who is a mcmbcr ol thc armcd
lorccs, adopting thc vicw that Articlc providcs an answcr. As a mattcr ol law
this is truc, but as a mattcr ol lact, it is no longcr thc casc, at lcast as lar as thc US
is conccrncd. Lcaving asidc strictly lcgal qucstions rcgarding thc naturc ol mcm
bcrship, thc lact is that thc US armcd lorccs arc today a systcm that by no mcans
rclics solcly on mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs. As shown in this articlc, without
thc csscntial support providcd by contractors and othcr civilians, thc military
would grind to a halt. !n that scnsc, military contractors, along with othcr civilian
cmployccs ol thc military, arc truly thc ghosts in thc machinc.
!l thc trcnd towards civilianisation ol thc military continucs, grcatcr par
ticipation by civilians in hostilitics can lully bc cxpcctcd. According to thc lcgal
argumcntation sct lorth, thc phcnomcnon ol outsourcing by US armcd lorccs
rcsults in thc lollowing lcgal situation: a mcmbcr ol thc armcd lorccs, cvcn il hc
docs not takc a dircct part in hostilitics or lulll an csscntially military lunction,
is a combatant, targctablc at all timcs, who cnjoys thc bcncts ol PV status
upon capturc. A civilian contractor is ncvcr a mcmbcr ol thc armcd lorccs and is
a civilian, cvcn il hc takcs a dircct part in hostilitics. Hc is targctablc only during
his participation, i.c., only whilc actually cngagcd in an attack or acts prcparatory
to an attack, or whcn rcturning lrom an attack. Hc may also bc considcrcd a quasi
combatant (or what instcin would dccm an unlawlul combatant), mcaning a
civilian who has somchow, inlormally, crosscd thc linc to bcing a combatant. Tc
La. as pplied by International Courts and Tribunals, vol. !!: Te La. of rmed
Conict (London, Stcvcns .6) p. .
400 .ril McDonald
problcm with instcins acccptancc as a combatant ol |a|ny othcr pcrson who
takcs an activc part
+
in hostilitics,
+8
is that it would havc thc unintcndcd ccct
ol wcakcning thc protcction providcd to civilians by thc law ol armcd conict, to
no good ccct.
!l thc lundamcntal impulsc inlorming thc law is to maximisc protcction ol
thosc not taking a dircct part in thc hostilitics whilc at thc samc timc not impcd
ing military ccctivcncss,
+
thcn it makcs no scnsc to considcr as combatants
thosc whosc dircct or activc participation in hostilitics might only bc occasional,
unlcss thc purposc ol targcting is to inict punishmcnt on thosc who havc ccascd
participating. At thc samc timc, thc law must takc cognisancc ol a rcality in
which many individuals othcr than mcmbcrs ol armcd lorccs may takc a dircct
part in hostilitics on a vital and ongoing basis. Tcy includc not only contractors
but othcr actors, such as robots in thc rolc ol ghtcrs, whosc prcscncc on thc bat
tlccld in a combatant rolc will bccomc incrcasingly apparcnt.
+8o

!t may bc ncccssary to rccxaminc somc kcy conccpts, including thc notion
ol thc statc having a monopoly on violcncc and thc rclationship ol this notion
with thc conccpt ol sovcrcignty, what it mcans (and should mcan) to bc a mcmbcr
ol a statcs armcd lorccs, and whcthcr thc conccpt ol combatancy is or should bc
mainly contingcnt on dircct participation in hostilitics.
!ntcrnational humanitarian law, as alrcady mcntioncd, docs not prohibit an
individual lrom taking a dircct part in hostilitics, mcaning that a statc would not
bc complicit in an intcrnational crimc by hiring or pcrmitting civilians to takc a
dircct part in hostilitics. Tcrclorc, thc main qucstion that nccds to bc answcrcd
philosophical as much as lcgal is whcthcr individual contractors can bc hircd
by a govcrnmcnt through PMCs to conduct hostilitics or pcrlorm othcr csscn
tial military lunctions without bccoming irrcgular armcd lorccs or paramili
tary groups that must bc lormally incorporatcd into thc armcd lorccs, with such
.,, Tc dicrcncc bctwccn dircct and activc participation may bc only marginal and
cannot in any cvcnt bc cntcrtaincd hcrc. Tc jurisprudcncc ol thc !ntcrnational
Criminal Tribunal lor Rwanda at lcast indicatcs that thcrc is hardly any substan
tivc dicrcncc. !n Prosecutor v. kayesu, a Trial Chambcr statcd that thc tcrms dircct
and activc should bc cmploycd synonymously. Casc No. !CTR6A, Judgcmcnt,
. Junc acc., paras. 6,. instcin has uscd thc tcrms intcrchangcably, scc supra n.
..., p. .a.
., !bid., p. a,.
., As instcin notcs, intcrnational humanitarian law docs not scck to diminish com
mandcrs military advantagc but is intcndcd to minimizc human sucring without
undcrmining thc ccctivcncss ol military opcrations. !bid., p. .,.
.c Scc Stcphan M. Shakcr and Alan Visc, Men !ithout !ar: Fobots on the Future
Battleeld (Vashington: Pcrgamon8rasscys .), 8attlccld Robots Lcap
From Scicncc Fiction to Rcality, National Geographic Ne.s, . July acc, http://
ncws.nationalgcographic.com/ncws/acc/c,/c,c._cc,c._armyrobot.html, Vill
Scgways bccomc battlccld bots: CNN.com, a cccmbcr acc, http://cdition.cnn.
com/acc/TCH/ptcch/.a/ca/scgway.military.ap/.
401 14 Some Legal Issues Concerning US Military Contractors in Iraq
incorporation noticd to thc othcr partics. !t sccms unacccptablc to havc a largc
and growing numbcr ol pcoplc whosc jobs may rcquirc thcm to bchavc likc com
batants, but who arc lcgally civilians rathcr than combatants. Such pcoplc havc
lought lor statcs throughout thc ccnturics (c.g., as mcrccnarics and privatccrs
+8+
),
and havc always bccn lcgitimiscd by thc statc on whosc bchall thcy wcrc acting.
Tat is thc vcry purposc ol combatancy and its cxtcnsion to all groups ghting
on thc statcs bchall.
Tc answcr is not to crcatc a third catcgory, or to rcvivc thc lawlul/unlaw
lul combatant discussion. To do so would jcopardisc thc wholc cdicc upon
which humanitarian law has bccn robustly constructcd and, with thc Additional
Protocols, rcinlorccd. Nor is it to considcr contractors who takc a dircct part in
hostilitics as lunctional (il not ncccssarily lawlul) mcmbcrs ol armcd lorccs, or
as unlawlul combatant per se. Tc bcttcr approach would bc to rcgard contractors
who arc or will bc involvcd in activitics that might amount to dircct participation
in hostilitics as lawlul combatants lor thc duration ol thcir participation (mcan
ing as long as thcy arc undcr contract to thc armcd lorccs) and givc thcm thc
lull protcction and obligations ol thc law. Tis could bc achicvcd through thcir
lormal incorporation into thc armcd lorccs or an auxiliary unit, or through othcr
lormal combatant dcsignation madc undcr domcstic law, with lull notication
givcn to any rclcvant partics.
Tis solution would not appcar to posc any problcms undcr Articlc ol
Additional Protocol !. Howcvcr, dctcrmining which individuals should acquirc
a combatant status still rcquircs clarication ol what is mcant by thc notion ol
dircct participation and which lunctions it covcrs. Vhat is important is not so
much whcthcr a lunction is privatc or public, but rathcr thc activitics an indi
vidual cngagcs in and his importancc lor thc conduct ol military opcrations. Tis
would also clcar up any doubts rcgarding a statcs rcsponsibility lor wrongdoing
by contractors. Contractors could rcvcrt to civilian status as soon as thc hostilitics
cndcd or thcy wcrc dcmobiliscd. Contractors who do not takc part in hostiltics
would continuc to bc rcgardcd as civilians, cnjoying thc prcsumption ol lull pro
tcction ol intcrnational humanitarian law. Anothcr possibility, which spacc has
not pcrmittcd discussion ol, is to rccognisc PMCs as armcd groups, making indi
vidual contractors mcmbcrs ol such armcd groups.
Vhat is obvious, hopclully, is thc nccd lor grcatcr clarity rcgarding thc
dcgrcc ol protcction lrom attack cnjoycd by civilian contractors, and wcll as lor a
dccpcr cxamination ol thc implications ol outsourcing lor thc conccpt and rcality
ol a military. Tis is ncccssary lor thc sakc ol cnsuring thc maximum protcction
that thc law pcrmits lor contractors thcmsclvcs, particularly thosc not taking a
dircct part in hostilitics, but also in ordcr to cnsurc that all partics to armcd con
icts can comply with thc principlc ol distinction.
.. Rcgarding thc lattcr, scc instcin, supra n. ... p. a.
Chapter 15
Lcadcrs, Courticrs and Command
Rcsponsibility in Shakcspcarc
Teodor Meron
! am happy to contributc this cssay to a Fcstschrilt in honor ol Yoram instcin,
a brilliant lawycr and a closc lricnd. !n addition to his cxccptional crudition and
scholarship in many clds ol intcrnational law, instcin has an unusual intcr
cst and command ol history and litcraturc, and his knowlcdgc ol thc works ol
Shakcspcarc is truly amazing. !n this cssay, ! addrcss somc issucs ol prolcssional
and cthical rcsponsibility through thc locus ol Shakcspcarcs plays. !nstcad ol
discussing tcchnical qucstions ol command rcsponsibility in thc modcrn law ol
war, ! draw on thc writings ol thc grcatcst nglish poct, whosc sophistication and
wisdom providc guidancc to thosc in thc corridors ol powcr to this vcry day.
+
8cn Jonson said that Shakcspcarc was a man not ol an agc, but lor all timc.
Tis cssay will suggcst somc ways in which that is ccrtainly truc ol Shakcspcarcs
pcnctrating dcpictions ol lcadcrs who commit crimcs. Vc scc in his work thc
intcllcctual and moral compromiscs madc by lcgal advisors laccd with a national
lcadcrs dctcrmination to undcrtakc acts ol dubious lcgality. Shakcspcarc bcars
opcn thc lragility ol thc principlc undcr strcss. ! will try to conncct thcsc thcmcs
to contcmporary currcnts in thc intcrnational jurisprudcncc ol thc law ol war
lrom Nurcmburg to thc !ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor thc lormcr
Yugoslavia.
rawing parallcls lrom Shakcspcarcs plays, ! will discuss somc ol thc ovcr
rcaching thcmcs that havc long ariscn in considcrations ol lcadcrs rcsponsibility
lor crimcs and ol thc subtlc syncrgy bctwccn thc lcadcr and thc soldicr. nc such
thcmc ! wish to cxplorc in somc dctail: thc tcndcncy ol lcadcrs bcnt on violat
ing thc law, throughout history, to crcatc barricrs ol dcniability bctwccn thcm
sclvcs and thc cxccutioncrs, claiming, lor cxamplc, that thcy did not ordcr, did not
approvc, did not know. Tis rclationship bctwccn supcriors and thcir supporting
occrs or rankandlc cxccutioncrs thc subtlc dancc ol blamc shilting, com
pulsion, and inucncc has provcd vcxing sincc timc immcmorial.
. Scc Tcodor Mcron, Hcnrys Vars and Shakckspcarcs Laws (.), 8loody
Constraint: Var and Chivalry in Shakcspcarc (.).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. ,c-,zz.
404 Teodor Meron
8ut rst, bricy, a bit on thc rolc ol thc adviscr and his corts to justily
thc lcadcrs rcsort to hostilitics, or to provc thc justncss ol thc rcsulting war,
or to advancc a particular application or intcrprctation ol thc rulcs. !n thc .
th

Ccntury Book of Fayttes of rmes and of Chy.alrye, Christinc dc Pisan, onc ol thc
rst lcminist writcrs, urgcd that a princc consult impartial adviscrs bclorc dccid
ing whcthcr thc war undcr considcration was just. Humanists, cspccially Tomas
Morc, barcd opcn thc adviscrs dilcmma. Tc tcmptation to cntcr into a princcs
scrvicc was grcat thcn as it is now thc humanists aspircd to rclorm thc politi
cal systcm by cducating rulcrs and thus could justily thcir actions by what thcy
pcrccivcd to bc an obligation ol scrvicc. 8ut thc dangcr, as onc ol Morcs pro
tagonists, Raphacl, warns in Utopia, is that thc indcpcndcnt cxpcrt is bound to
losc his indcpcndcncc, that thc advanccmcntoricntcd councilor is bound to tcll
thc princc what hc wants to hcar, that hc is likcly to sink into sycophancy, and
that tampcring with truth is thc vcry condition ol scrvicc in thc councils ol thc
mighty.
Vc ccrtainly scc it in Shakcspcarcs Archbishop ol Cantcrbury, whosc dcsirc
to plcasc King Hcnry \ and thcrcby protcct thc intcrcsts ol thc Church lcd him to
makc catcgorical, though patcntly dubious, advicc to Hcnry that his claim to thc
crown ol Francc was just and was not barrcd by thc Salic law, which disqualicd
womcn and thc lcmalc linc. Hc tclls Hcnry that his jus ad bellum claim is unim
pcachablc. And as is wcllknown, many lcgal acadcmics in Nazi Gcrmany wcrc
only too cagcr to dcvclop torturcd argumcnts justilying Hitlcrs actions undcr
intcrnational law. !ndccd, throughout history, and all thc way to thc prcscntday,
thc rcsponsibility ol adviscrs lor unprinciplcd advicc on thc law govcrning rcsort
to war and thc conduct ol war has bccn a hcavy onc.
l coursc, thc lcadcr oltcn nccds littlc prompting. Lady Macbcth rcminds
hcr husband that his supcrior lorccs ocr amplc protcction lrom accountability:
Vhat nccd wc lcar who knows it whcn nonc can call our powcr to account:
And King Lcars Goncril makcs thc ultimatc claim ol thc absolutc rulcr: Tc
laws arc minc, not thinc. Vho can arraign mc lor it:
8ut in Shakcspcarc, compcting with such considcrations ol rcalpolitik is
thc awarcncss ol monarchs that thcy bcar a spccial rcsponsibility lor what occurs
on thcir watch. !n thc grcat pocm thc Fape of Lucrece, Lucrccc plcads in vain
with Tarquinus, invoking his spccial rcsponsibility as a lcadcr. For princcs arc
thc glass, thc school, thc book / whcrc subjccts cycs do lcarn, do rcad, do look
Vilt thou bc glass whcrcin it shall disccrn / authority lor sin, warrant lor blamc:
Rcsponsibility is a major thcmc clscwhcrc in Shakcspcarc as wcll, both Clcopatra
and cspccially Hcnry \ (in his lamous soliloquy Upon thc King) cngagc in royal
scllpity, railing against thcir spccial rcsponsibility. And thc soldicr, Villiams,
warns Hcnry on thc cvc ol Agincourt that, whcn lcading his mcn to battlc, il
thc causc bc not good, thc King himscll will havc a hcavy spiritual rcckoning to
makc. So thc rcmcdy lor thc violation ol jus ad bellum hcrc lics in thc spiritual,
not tcmporal rcsponsibility ol thc lcadcrs.
405 13 Leaders, Courtiers and Command Fesponsibility in Shakespeare
Tc lcadcrs awarcncss ol that basic political lact lcads to wholc arrays ol
stratcgics lor avoiding accountability and diusing rcsponsibility. Trying to
absolvc himscll ol rcsponsibility lor thc cataloguc ol atrocitics, including rapc,
pillagc and murdcr, with which hc thrcatcns thc bcsicgcd population ol Harcur,
Hcnry \ claims that his troops will bc uncontrollablc with blood lust altcr thc
coming victory, and that conscqucntly thc lcadcrs ol Harcur, bccausc ol thcir
rclusal to surrcndcr, will bcar thc truc rcsponsibility lor thcir pcoplcs sucring:
Tcrclorc, you mcn ol Harcur, / takc pity ol your town and ol your pcoplc /
whilc yct my soldicrs arc in my command. Comparc this scllscrving disclaimcr
with Hcnrys strict instructions to his troops to rcspcct thc rights ol populations
in occupicd Francc and his ordcr to cxccutc 8ardolph lor thc war crimc ol stcal
ing a rcligious objcct lrom a Church. !n that casc, Hcnry sang quitc a dicr
cnt tunc: Vc would havc all such ocndcrs so cut o, and wc hcrc givc cxprcss
chargc that in our marchcs through thc country thcrc bc nothing compcllcd lrom
thc villagcs, nothing takcn but paid lor, nonc ol thc Frcnch upbraidcd or abuscd
in disdainclul languagc. !l Hcnry was strong cnough to insist that 8ardolph bc
hangcd lor thclt in ordcr to sct an cxamplc lor othcrs and cnsurc humanitarian
trcatmcnt ol thc Frcnch population, surcly hc could havc thrcatcncd to punish
his troops in Harcur scvcrcly il thcy lailcd to maintain disciplinc.
Hcnrys thrcat to thc lcadcrs ol Harcur was not just wartimc propaganda.
Hc was pcrlcctly capablc ol countcnancing vilc actions whcrc it scrvcd his pur
posc. At thc battlc ol Agincourt, Hcnry ordcrcd his mcn to kill cvcry singlc
Frcnch prisoncr, hc uscd no cuphcmisms, codc words, or cvasions in issuing this
ordcr: vcry soldicr kill his prisoncrs. Givc thc word through. Scvcral thousand
Frcnch prisoncrs wcrc killcd, thc owcr ol thc Frcnch nobility was dcstroycd.
vcn today, killings on such a scalc would bc rcgardcd as a major atrocity. Pcrhaps
his dircctncss camc bccausc hc considcrcd thc ordcr justicd as a rcprisal lor
thc Frcnch armys killing ol thc boys who wcrc guarding thc rcar cncampmcnt.
(Although ! think thc attack on thc rcar cncampmcnt was justiablc undcr thc
laws ol war.) Pcrhaps it was bccausc Hcnry lcarcd that thc Frcnch wcrc rcgroup
ing lor anothcr attack and outnumbcrcd as thc nglish troops wcrc, hc bclicvcd
that thc killing was an act ol sclldclcncc and military ncccssity. Tc lattcr claim
was a rcal onc. Vhatcvcr thc casc, thc mcn in his lorccs kncw lull wcll that this
action was not onc ol which thcy or thc King should bc proud: Pistol, who is
not a knight, calls it throatcutting, and Gowcr says sarcastically that thc King
most worthily hath causcd cvcry soldicr to cut his prisoncrs throat. tis a gal
lant king. !t is worth noting that thc court chroniclcr ol thc rcal lilc Hcnry docs
not cvcn mcntion thc ordcr to kill thc prisoncrs, but dcscribcs thc killing almost
as an act ol naturc.
406 Teodor Meron
I Orders and Ixecutions
Lct mc now turn to thc rcsponsibility lor and thc articulation ol an ordcr to
commit an act that thc participants rccognizc as a crimc. Tc nccd to communi
catc thc murdcrous purposc has always clashcd with thc ancicnt dcsirc to avoid
a rccord ol illcgal ordcrs. vcn thc Nazi lcadcrs rcsortcd to cuphcmisms in rclcr
ring to thc Holocaust. No cxplicit writtcn ordcr lrom Hitlcr to carry out thc nal
solution has cvcr bccn lound. At thc hcight ol thcir powcr, thc Nazis trcatcd data
on thc killing ol Jcws as top sccrct.
Tc rst Shakcspcarcan illustration ! will discuss is King Johns ordcr to his
scrvant Hubcrt to climinatc Princc Arthur, who prcscnts a risk to Johns cntitlc
mcnt to thc crown ol ngland. !n cnlisting Hubcrt, King John tclls him that
Arthur is a vcry scrpcnt in my way who mcrits dcath. 8ut whcn Hubcrt rcports
to thc King that hc has killcd Arthur, John, charactcristically lor Shakcspcarcs
kings, disowns thc ordcr, complaining that it is thc cursc ol kings to bc
attcndcd / by slavcs that takc thcir humours lor a warrant and thus rcsort to kill
ing. Hypocritically to bc surc, but vcry signicantly, King John tclls Hubcrt that
had hc adviscd him not to procccd with his murdcrous dcsign, hc would havc
dcsistcd lrom his murdcrous purposc.
8y dcnying his own rolc, thc King lorccs Hubcrt to show him thc warrant ol
cxccution bcaring thc Kings signaturc. Lcgal lorms arc thus adhcrcd to. Typically
lor thc ambivalcncc ol Shakcspcarcs kings, John docs not rcward Hubcrt but
banishcs him lrom thc Court.
!t is worth obscrving, as a sidc notc, that in Shakcspcarcs play, Hubcrt takcs
pity on Arthur and docs not actually kill him (though hc tclls Richard that hc
has donc so). Particularly intcrcsting is thc cxchangc bctwccn Hubcrt and Arthur
during thcir cncountcr, in which Hubcrt invokcs thc nccd to comply with ordcrs
cvcn il thcy arc unlawlul, whilc Arthur argucs that ordcrs to commit murdcr
may not bc obcycd, and that ordcrs ol cxccution arc only valid whcn issucd in
compliancc with both thc substancc and thc lorm ol law. !n an cxchangc sct in
thc Middlc Agcs, Shakcspcarc thus squarcly anticipatcs thc ac
th
ccntury dcbatcs
about thc Nurcmbcrg clcnsc.
Takc this cpisodc lrom Fichard III. Richard tclls his primc ministcr, Lord
8uckingham, rst indircctly, to rid him ol thc two princcs, thc sons ol King
dward !\. 8uckingham lcigns not to undcrstand what is involvcd. Richard
turns to blunt languagc, accusing 8uckingham ol dullncss: Shall ! bc plain: !
wish thc bastards dcad, and ! would havc it suddcnly pcrlormd. 8uckingham,
trics again to avoid commitmcnt and asks lor timc to rccct. A courticr obscrvcs:
thc King is angry, and 8uckingham is awarc ol thc dangcrs ol not support
ing thc King all thc way. Richard thcn turns to hircd murdcrcrs to assassinatc
thc princcs. 8uckinghams qualms ol conscicncc arc, howcvcr, short livcd. Hc
rcturns to thc King ocring his conscnt in cxchangc lor thc carldom that had
407 13 Leaders, Courtiers and Command Fesponsibility in Shakespeare
bccn promiscd to him, but Richard stccrs thc convcrsation to othcr subjccts. Hc
alrcady lound othcr mcans to carry out his dcsircs.
8uckinghams tcmporary vacillation about assisting Richard in killing thc
sons ol dward !\ causcs Richard to losc condcncc in him and thrcatcn his lilc.
8y this timc, 8uckinghams hands arc alrcady dirty. l coursc, 8uckingham is a
courticr who can no longcr bc trustcd and who knows too much. His complaccnt
immcrsion in thc cvil doings ol a tyrannical rcgimc, triggcrcd by both promiscs
ol wcalth and powcr and by tcrror and intimidation, makc him too dangcrous to
bc ignorcd.
Lct us turn to anothcr cpisodc in Fichard III. 8rackcnbury, thc Licutcnant
ol thc Towcr ol London, is givcn a writtcn ordcr to hand ovcr thc imprisoncd
ukc ol Clarcncc to thc hircd thugs ol Richard. Tc submissivc 8rackcnbury
chooscs not to qucstion thc purposc ol thc ordcr, but cngagc in a dclibcratc scll
dcccption. Famously, hc says, ! will not rcason what is mcant hcrcby, 8ccausc !
will bc guiltlcss ol thc mcaning.
vcn in thc tcrrilying murdcr sccnc, Clarcncc invokcs protcction ol both
thc sccular and thc rcligious law, but thc murdcrcrs claim authority rcsulting
lrom thc Kings warrant.
Can 8rackcnbury bc comparcd to anothcr typc ol collaborator, lor cxamplc
a nonGcrman policcman in occupicd uropc cxccuting writtcn Nazi ordcrs to
round up Jcws and dclivcr thcm lor dcportation to an unspccicd but ominous
dcstination: Rcscttlcmcnt, lorccd labour, or worsc: Hc, too, chooscs not to qucs
tion thc ordcrs and thus to rcmain guiltlcss ol thc mcaning. 8y agonizing ovcr
his guiltlcssncss, 8rackcnbury shows awarcncss ol his moral dilcmma, which
thc strcngth ol his lcgal dclcnsc ol supcrior ordcrs cannot rcsolvc. Tc lailurc ol
8rackcnbury to qucstion thc ordcr appcars morally rcprchcnsiblc as dclibcratc
sclldcccption. 8rackcnburys options wcrc morc limitcd than thosc ol thc policc
man, as noncompliancc would bring about his own dcath. Ncvcrthclcss, undcr
thc absolutist thcory ol moral rcsponsibility, murdcr can ncvcr bc allowcd. Undcr
thc utilitarian vicw ol moral rcsponsibility, on thc othcr hand, 8rackcnbury may
bc justicd in turning ovcr thc kcys. !l hc rcluscs, Clarcncc will bc killcd anyway
and hc will dic as wcll.
Considcr thc dilcmma ol racn rdcmovi, a soldicr in thc army ol
Rcpublika Srpska who participatcd in a ring squad during thc mass cxccutions
ol 8osnian Muslims at Srcbrcnica. Hcrc is his durcss plca bclorc an !CTY trial
chambcr:
Your Honour, ! had to do this. !l ! had rcluscd, ! would havc bccn killcd
togcthcr with thc victims. Vhcn ! rcluscd, thcy told mc: !l you arc sorry lor
thcm, stand up, linc up with thcm and wc will kill you too. ! am not sorry lor
myscll but lor my lamily, my wilc and son who thcn had ninc months, and !
could not rclusc bccausc thcy would havc killcd mc.
408 Teodor Meron
!n thc abscncc ol cvidcncc supporting thc claim ol cxtrcmc ncccssity, thc Trial
Chambcr did not acccpt rdcmovis claim. Tc Appcals Chambcr rcjcctcd
durcss as a lcgal dclcnsc lor crimcs against humanity and war crimcs involving
thc killing ol innoccnt pcrsons, but rccognizcd it as mitigation. Following a plca
agrccmcnt which took into account thc mitigating circumstanccs, rdcmovi
was scntcnccd to just vc ycars imprisonmcnt.
Shakcspcarc also uscs thc murdcr ol thc ukc ol Clarcncc to cmphasizc
thc tcnsion that can arisc bctwccn lcgal justication on thc onc hand, and thc
dcmands ol pcrsonal conscicncc on thc othcr. Vhcn hiring thc two murdcrcrs
to kill Clarcncc, Richard is conccrncd that thcy might havc sccond thoughts,
instructing thcm to hurry and to rclrain lrom any discussion with Clarcncc. Hc is
promptly rcassurcd by onc ol thc murdcrcrs: 8c assurcd, / wc go to usc our hands
and not our tongucs. Latcr, howcvcr, onc ol thc murdcrcrs docs hcsitatc: lcar
ing, hc says, not to kill him, having a warrant, but to bc damncd lor killing him,
lrom which no warrant can dclcnd mc. Clarcncc attcmpts to draw out prcciscly
this scnsc ol privatc morality, cxhorting thc murdcrcrs to think ol thc prohibition
ol murdcr in thc tcn commandmcnts, rathcr than cnlorcing an cdict ol thc rulcr.
His appcal, ol coursc, is to no avail.
Now considcr thc killing ol Richard !!. Forccd to abdicatc in lavor ol Hcnry
8olingbrokc, who bccomcs Hcnry !\, thc imprisoncd Richard, likc all dcposcd
monarchs, prcscnts a dangcr as long as hc brcathcs. Hcnry wants him assas
sinatcd by Sir Picrs xton. Tc ordcr to kill is ncvcr cxplicitly statcd. !t is thc
courticrs who translorm Hcnrys dcsirc into an opcrational ordcr. xton: id
thc King not say havc ! no lricnd will rid mc ol this living lcar Comc, lcts go. /
! am thc Kings lricnd, and will rid his loc. Shakcspcarc makcs Hcnrys words
rcscmblc thc statcmcnt attributcd by oral tradition to Hcnry !! in ..,c bclorc thc
murdcr ol Tomas a 8cckct in thc Cantcrbury Cathcdral: Vill no onc rid mc
lrom this turbulcnt pricst:
Tc most intriguing aspcct ol this cpisodc is King Hcnrys rcaction whcn
xton and his mcn arrivc with Richards body and xton claims crcdit lor his
dccd. Hcnry disowns thc act and punishcs xton with cxilc.
xtons latc is rcminisccnt ol thc complaint voiccd by thc Sccond Knight,
onc ol thc murdcrcrs ol Archbishop Tomas a 8cckct in T.S. liots Murder in the
Cathedral: King Hcnry God blcss him will havc to say, lor rcasons ol statc,
that hc ncvcr mcant this to happcn, and at thc bcst wc shall havc to spcnd thc
rcst ol our livcs abroad.
II Command Responsibility
! turn now to thc ovcrlapping issucs ol rcsponsibility lor acts ol subordinatcs
and lor actions a lcadcr had thc powcr to prcvcnt. ! discuss thc lollowing cpisodc
lrom ntony and Cleopatra, which Shakcspcarc borrowcd lrom Plutarchs Parallel
Li.es. Tc triumvirs ol Romc: Mark Anthony, ctavius Cacsar and Lcpidus
409 13 Leaders, Courtiers and Command Fesponsibility in Shakespeare
arc dining and drinking hcavily on thc boat ol thcir lormcr compctitor, Scxtus
Pompcy. Tc sccnc prcscnts an unparallcd opportunity lor assassination ol thc
triumvirs, and Mcnas, Pompcys lricnd, urgcs him to lct Mcnas kill thc visiting
lcadcrs and bccomc thc rulcr ol Romc. Pompcy dcsircs nothing morc than to
rcmovc thc triumvirs, providcd that his honor is not soilcd, and his rcsponsibil
ity is not involvcd. 8ut oncc hc is appriscd ol thc plot, his chivalry lorccs him to
lorbid thc assassination: 8cing donc unknown, ! should havc lound it altcrwards
wcll donc, but must condcmn it now. Hc lcavcs his lricnd with a mcssagc lor
ncxt timc, howcvcr: |T|his thou should havc donc / and not havc spokc ont.
!n mc it would havc bccn a vilc act, in you, good scrvicc. Rcpcnt, Pompcy says
in csscncc, not lor having considcrcd thc murdcr, but lor having told mc ol your
intcnt.
Pompcys cpisodc illustratcs thc conccpt ol command rcsponsibility or thc
Yamashita principlc. Yamashita, thc commandcr ol thc Japancsc lorccs in thc
Philippincs, was chargcd altcr thc Sccond Vorld Var with having lailcd to prc
vcnt his soldicrs lrom committing massacrcs, murdcr, pillagc, and rapc. Vhilc
hc protcstcd that hc had not pcrsonally dircctcd thc commission ol thcsc atroci
tics, and that hc lost control ovcr his troops, thc US Suprcmc Court hcld that
commandcrs must bc rcsponsiblc lor thcir subordinatcs il thcy lail to cmploy
duc diligcncc to prcvcnt such war crimcs. Tc Yamashita principlc was thc rst
authoritativc articulation ol thc modcrn rulc ol command rcsponsibility: il a
supcrior kncw, or had inlormation that would havc cnablcd him to concludc,
that his subordinatcs wcrc about to commit, or had alrcady committcd, a brcach
ol thc law ol war, and il thc supcrior did not act accordingly, taking all lcasiblc
mcasurcs to prcvcnt or punish thc brcach, hc would bc dccmcd rcsponsiblc lor his
subordinatcs crimcs. Pompcy is both thc host and thc commandcr ol thc troops
on board. Sincc Mcnas inlorms him ol his criminal purposc, Pompcy is put on
noticc, and acquicsccncc would makc him criminally rcsponsiblc.
Tc Yamashita doctrinc was not incorporatcd in thc Gcncva Convcntions ol
.a August . but was codicd as what appcars to bc a duc diligcncc standard in
Articlc 6(a) ol thc Additional Protocol ! to thc Gcncva Convcntions and in thc
statutcs ol thc ad hoc intcrnational criminal tribunals lor thc lormcr Yugoslavia
and Rwanda. Tc casc law ol thc Tribunals has lurthcr claricd thc placc ol thc
Yamashita principlc in intcrnational law. !n thc lcading casc ol Cclibici, which
involvcd thc qucstion ol thc rcsponsibility ol lcadcrs ol a conccntration camp in
8osnia/Hcrzcgovina, thc Appcals Chambcr drcw on thc Nurcmbcrg jurispru
dcncc, Yamashita, thc US Army Ficld Manual and Additional Protocol ! to con
cludc that thc principlc ol supcrior rcsponsibility cncompasscs not only scnior
military occrs but also political lcadcrs and othcr civilian supcriors in positions
ol authority, that thc tcrm supcrior includcs authority bascd on dc lacto powcrs,
and that command rcsponsibility is not a lorm ol strict liability. Rcsonating with
Mcnas statcmcnt to Pompcy, thc Appcals Chambcr concludcd that thc tcst ol
had rcasons to know lor cstablishing thc rcsponsibility ol thc supcrior mcant
410 Teodor Meron
that criminal liability would attach only il inlormation was availablc to him which
would havc put him on noticc ol ocnccs committcd by subordinatcs. Tc trium
virs arc gucsts on Pompcys boat and hc is both thc host and thc commandcr ol
thc troops aboard. Conscnt or cvcn acquicsccncc would makc Pompcy acccssory
to thc crimc or a party to thc conspiracy to commit a crimc. 8y prcvcnting thc
murdcr, hc mccts his lcgal obligations. 8ut his rcadincss to applaud thc crimc as
long as hc has not hcard about it bclorchand is morally objcctionablc.
Tc casc ol Gcncral Radislav Krsti illustratcs somc ol thc complcxitics, and
thc pitlalls, ol command rcsponsibility. Tc Gcncral, who bccamc commandcr
ol thc rina Corps ol thc 8osnian Scrb Army on thc cvc ol Srcbrcnica, had
knowlcdgc ol thc gcnocidal intcnt ol somc ol thc mcmbcrs ol thc Main Sta, but
thcrc was no cvidcncc that hc sharcd thcir gcnocidal intcnt, that hc ordcrcd any
ol thc murdcrs, or that hc dircctly participatcd in thcm. Tc cvidcncc cstablishcd
only that Krsti kncw thc murdcrs wcrc occurring but noncthclcss pcrmittcd thc
Main Sta to usc pcrsonncl and rcsourccs undcr his command to lacilitatc thcm.
n thc basis ol thcsc ndings, thc Appcals Chambcr rcvcrscd thc Gcncrals con
viction as a participant in a joint criminal cntcrprisc to commit gcnocidc, and
cntcrcd, instcad, a conviction lor thc lcsscr crimc ol aiding and abctting gcno
cidc.
Tc rcasons why thc Appcals Chambcr did not cntcr a conviction bascd on
thc Gcncrals command rcsponsibility arc notcworthy. Tc Chambcr lound that
thc most Krsti could havc donc was to rcport thc usc ol his asscts in lacilitat
ing thc killings to thc Main Sta and to his supcrior, Gcncral Mladi thc vcry
pcoplc who allcgcdly ordcrcd thc cxccutions and allcgcdly wcrc activc partici
pants in thcm. Although Krsti could havc tricd to punish his subordinatcs lor
thcir participation, it is unlikcly hc would havc had thc support ol his supcriors
lor doing so. Tc lcasibility ol prcvcntion and punishmcnt is thus ccntral to thc
command rcsponsibility casc law ol thc Tribunal.
A comparison bctwccn Shakcspcarcs dcpictions ol lcadcrsubordinatc
intcraction and modcrn cascs dcaling with command rcsponsibility, suggcsts thc
cxtcnt to which thc cxistcncc and basic lorm ol ccrtain principlcs ol humanitar
ian law havc long bccn apprcciatcd, by advisors, soldicrs, and cvcn lcadcrs intcnt
on doing somcthing that runs aloul ol thcsc laws. !ndccd, thc prcscnt systcm ol
humanitarian law, which has thc Haguc and thc Gcncva Convcntions as its basc,
which was cnlorccd in Nurcmbcrg, and which is now cnlorccd at Tc Haguc, is
dcrivcd lrom thc mcdicval rulcs ol chivalry, with thcir cmphasis on honor as an
undcrlying valuc and as a guarantcc ol rcspcct lor thc rulcs. Tis is thc idcal artic
ulatcd in Shakcspcarcs dramas. !n thc Middlc Agcs, thc locus ol Shakcspcarcs
Historics, chivalry was thc principal normativc systcm providing a codc ol bchav
ior lor knights, nobility and thc cntirc warring class in thc cndcmic wars in which
thcy wcrc involvcd. !t was, ol coursc, closcly linkcd to thc Church. Yct, as wc havc
sccn in thc cpisodc with thc triumvirs, Shakcspcarc importcd chivalric notions
into plays sct outsidc thc Middlc Agcs, dcpicting cvcn Romans, Grccks and
411 13 Leaders, Courtiers and Command Fesponsibility in Shakespeare
Trojans as knights. !n thc chivalric systcm, honor and shamc playcd an impor
tant rolc in thc cnlorccmcnt ol thc rulcs, thc sanction ol dishonor lor thc knight
who violatcd his knightly dutics, thus bccoming a traitor to chivalry and to his
knightly vow, was oltcn quitc ccctivc. 8ut as nowadays, thc applicability ol thc
protcctivc norms was oltcn cvadcd.
Lct mc givc an cxamplc lrom thc nglish conqucst ol Limogcs, lcd by
dward, thc 8lack Princc, during thc Hundrcd Ycars Var. 8ccausc thc 8ishop
ol Limogcs, who had bccn dwards adviscr, had turncd thc city ovcr to thc
Frcnch, dward ordcrcd that thc city bc takcn by assault, that tcrms lor sur
rcndcr bc rcluscd, and that quartcr bc dcnicd. Vhat lollowcd stands out as onc
ol thc most horriblc slaughtcrs ol Frcnch civilians, cvcn in thc contcxt ol thc
crucl AngloFrcnch wars, justicd by thc nglish as a situation ol trcachcrous
rcbcllion. Howcvcr, Froissard, thc lamous Frcnch chroniclcr, rcports that in a
battlc bctwccn a group ol Frcnch knights and nglish noblcs, thc Frcnch knights
cxplicitly invokcd thc law ol arms and thc right ol quartcr, which was promptly
grantcd. No such rights wcrc givcn thc towns populacc.
Tc chivalric systcm ol humanitarian law workcd rcasonably wcll in
Christian uropc, but its scopc was narrow. !t did not protcct pcasants or com
moncrs. Knights or gcntlcmcn wcrc carclul not to surrcndcr to commoncrs,
bccausc thcy cxpcctcd no mcrcy, nor did thcy givc any to capturcd commoncrs.
!ntcrnationally, thc systcm did not apply in thc rclations bctwccn Christian and
nonChristian statcs, or bctwccn Christians and othcrs. !t was a crimc to dcny
quartcr to a Christian knight. !t was a crimc to rapc a Christian woman. 8ut it
was not a crimc to massacrc and to rapc thc cntirc Muslim and Jcwish population
ol Jcrusalcm during thc First Crusadc.
Vith painlul slowncss, this idca ol norms govcrning conict cvcntually
attaincd univcrsality. 8ut now, in a rcvcrsion to thc moral parochialism ol prc
modcrn uropc, this univcrsality is bcing challcngcd, not so much by sovcrcign
statcs, but by mcmbcrs ol transnational tcrrorist nctworks visavis thosc whom
thcy rcgard as nonbclicvcrs.
Vc havc comc lull circlc. Vc arc back to thc sclcctivc application ol thc
rulcs which charactcrizcd thc Middlc Agcs. Tc ncw challcngcrs rcjcct all ol
thc lundamcntal rulcs ol humanitarian law. Can intcrnational law pcrlorm in
such asymmctrical situations: Vhcn tcrrorists proclaim and practicc disrcgard
lor humanitarian rulcs, thcy wcakcn thc inccntivc lor othcrs to comply with thc
law. To protcct thc rulcs wc must addrcss thc undcrlying problcm ol thc lack ol
sharcd valucs. ducation, training, pcrsuasion and cmphasis on valucs that lic
outsidc thc law, in addition to law cnlorccmcnt, must bc pursucd il valucs ol
humanity arc to rcgain dominancc. Tis rcquircs unity, timc, and paticncc. How
long will wc nccd to rcstorc thc univcrsality ol intcrnational humanitarian law:
Chapter 16
Civilian ctcntions in !raq
ndru E. !all
!t is a trcmcndous honor to contributc an cssay to this volumc commcmorating
Prolcssor Yoram instcin on thc occasion ol his scvcnticth birthday. Vc rst mct
whcn Prolcssor instcin hcld thc Charlcs H. Stockton Chair ol !ntcrnational
Law at thc US Naval Var Collcgc. 8cing a young military lawycr and aspiring
scholar, ! was naturally cnthrallcd by thc brcath and dcpth ol his cxpcrtisc on
intcrnational law. Taking timc that lcw in his position would, Prolcssor instcin
graciously mcntorcd mc: paticntly cxplaining nuanccs in thc law ol armcd con
ict with a passion that cvidcnccd both his lovc lor thc law and commitmcnt to
it. ! am honorcd to call him a mcntor and lricnd.
uring Novcmbcr acc, ovcr cight hundrcd mcn in thc small larming vil
lagc ol Ar Rabit in thc al Anbar Provincc ol wcstcrn !raq wcrc rouscd lrom thcir
homcs and dctaincd by US and !raqi military lorccs. According to thc Ncw York
Timcs, thc mcn wcrc oltcn dctaincd bascd on littlc morc cvidcncc than thc word
or gcsturc ol a singlc inlormant.
+
vcr thrcc hundrcd ol thc mcn wcrc scnt to thc
inlamous Abu Ghraib prison on thc outskirts ol 8aghdad.
Tc Marinc commandcr ovcrsccing thc opcration, Coloncl Stcphcn V.
avis, justicd thc dctcntions with a dismissivc |w|clcomc to thc insurgcncy, hc
cxplaincd thc usc ol condcntial inlormants with cvcry rcalists lavoritc maxim:
thc cncmy ol my cncmy is my lricnd.
:
Tc inlormants camc lrom a local mili
tia callcd thc cscrt Protcctors who ocrcd thcir scrviccs to Coalition Forccs,
ostcnsibly at lcast, to hclp rid thcir rcgion ol insurgcnts. l coursc, whcthcr a
lovc ol dcmocracy or tribal vcndcttas was thcir primary motivation will likcly
ncvcr bc known.
How could such sccmingly capricious dctcntions bc lawlul in acc: Vhilc
it is wcll cstablishcd that thc law ol armcd conict allows bclligcrcnts, includ
Tc vicws prcscntcd hcrcin arc thc authors and not ncccssarily thosc ol thc US gov
crnmcnt.
. Kirk Scmplc, U.S. Forces Fely on Local Informants In Ferreting Febels in !est Iraq,
Nvw Yovx Ti:vs, cc. .c, acc, at A..
a Id.
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. ,z-,8.
414 ndru E. !all
ing occupicrs, to conduct battlccld dctcntions, wasnt sovcrcignty translcrrcd to
thc !raqi pcoplc in Junc ol acc: Not only did dctcntions in !raq continuc altcr
thc translcr ol sovcrcignty, but thcy skyrockctcd lrom around ,ccc dctain
ccs in thc custody ol Coalition Forccs in thc spring ol acc to ovcr ..,c lcss
than onc ycar latcr.

8y cccmbcr acc ovcr .,ccc dctainccs wcrc bcing hcld

by Coalition Forccs and a day scldom passcd without a prcss rclcasc issucd by
thc MultiNational Forcc in !raq (MNF!) announcing a military opcration in
which tcrror suspccts wcrc capturcd. Vhat was thc lcgal basis lor thcsc dctcn
tions: Vhat cvidcntiary standard applicd: Vhat, il any, duc proccss salcguards
wcrc in placc to cnsurc innoccnt mcn wcrc not dcprivcd ol thcir lrccdoms: And
whcn, il cvcr, would thcsc dctainccs bc rclcascd:
Tcsc arc thc qucstions this articlc will answcr. !t locuscs solcly on thc lcgal
ity ol civilian dctcntions and thc rcvicw ol thosc dctcntions rcquircd by intcrna
tional law. !t docs not addrcss thc opcrational and intclligcncc aspccts ol dctaincc
opcrations, nor will it addrcss standards ol carc lor dctainccs (including thc sala
cious dctails ol thc Abu Ghraib abusc scandal). Tosc issucs havc alrcady bccn
addrcsscd in countlcss invcstigations and articlcs.

I ening the ebate
As an cntirc book could casily bc writtcn on thc conduct and lcgality ol dctcntion
opcrations during pcration !raqi Frccdom, thc scopc ol this articlc must ncccs
sarily bc rcncd and limitcd.
Occupation, Post-Transfer of So.ereignty, or the Transitional Period?
As this articlc is bcing writtcn in latc acc, thc situation in !raq continucs to
cvolvc lrom a wartimc purcly law ol armcd conict paradigm to onc ol pcacctimc
law cnlorccmcnt. Tc lcgal basis and implcmcntation ol dctcntion opcrations in
8radlcy Graham, U.S to Expand Prison Facilities in Iraq, V~snixc:ox Pos:, May
.c, acc, at A..
Scc, c.g., Scan . Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States Felating to
International La.: Executi.e Branch Memoranda on Status and Permissible Treatment
of Detainees, A:vvic~x Jouvx~i ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w ac (ctobcr, acc),
Final Feport of the Independent Panel to Fe.ie. DoD Detention Operations (Aug. a,
acc) |hcrcinaltcr Schlcsingcr Rcport|, Major Gcncral Fay, !nvcstigating ccr, F
z-o In.estigation of the bu Ghraib Prison and :c
th
Military Intelligence Brigade (Aug.
a, acc) |hcrcinaltcr Fay Rcport|, Major Gcncral Taguba, AR .6 !nvcstigation ol
thc cc
th
Military Policc 8rigadc (a, May acc) |hcrcinaltcr Taguba Rcport|. Tc
Schlcsingcr and Fay rcports arc availablc on thc US cpartmcnt ol clcnsc wcbsitc
at http://www.dclcnsclink.mil, whilc vcrsions (rcdactcd, classicd, and dcclassicd)
ol thc Taguba Rcport arc availablc on numcrous othcr !ntcrnct wcbsitcs.
415 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
!raq will bc considcrcd in two phascs: thc occupation and thc transitional pcriod.

Tcsc pcriods cncompass thc lall ol Husscins govcrnmcnt in April acc to thc
translcr ol govcrning authority lrom thc Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
to thc !raqi !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt (!!G) on Junc a, acc, and thcn lrom Junc a,
acc to cccmbcr acc whcn !raqs ncw parliamcnt was clcctcd, rcspcctivcly.
6

B !ho re Coalition Forces?
Vhilc thc Unitcd Statcs lcd thc invasion to topplc Saddam Husscin and install
dcmocracy in !raq, dozcns ol othcr countrics contributcd ground lorccs to thc
cort. As such, prcss rclcascs, ocial pronounccmcnts, and military ordcrs all
rclcrrcd to thc collcctivc Coalition Forccs. Altcr thc translcr ol sovcrcignty in
Junc acc, Coalition Forccs includcd mcmbcrs ol thc !raqi sccurity apparatus
local and national policc and thc !raqi National Guard. Vhilc thc political bcn
ct ol thc Amcrican dccision to rclcr to all opcrations in !raq undcr thc collcctivc
Coalition Forccs is apparcnt, thc cmbracc ol that tcrm by this author is solcly lor
rcasons ol simplicity and clarity.
Tc Combincd Forcc Land Componcnt Commandcr (CFLCC) lcd coali
tion ground lorccs during thc invasion ol !raq through Junc acc, whcn it was
rcplaccd by thc Combincd Joint Task Forcc , (CJTF,), which was in turn
succccdcd by thc MultiNational Forcc !raq (MNF!) prior to thc translcr
ol sovcrcignty in Junc acc. As thcy compriscd thc ovcrwhclming majority ol
Coalition Forccs, Amcrican soldicrs and Marincs capturcd thc vast majority ol
dctainccs, howcvcr, othcr Coalition Forccs also dctaincd !raqis and, il warrantcd
undcr applicablc rcgulations, translcrrcd thc dctainccs to a Coalition Tcatcr
!ntcrnmcnt Facility. As such, whcn this papcr addrcsscs thc lcgal basis and
implcmcnting policics lor dctaincc opcrations by Coalition Forccs, it is rclcrring
to opcrations conductcd undcr thc command and control ol CFLCC, CJTF,
or MNF!. Any rcstrictions placcd on individual Coalition Forcc mcmbcrs by
thcir countrys law or rcgulations, or any policics applicablc to lorccs not undcr
thc command and control ol CFLCC, CJTF, or MNF!, arc bcyond thc pur
vicw ol this articlc.
As an intcrcsting asidc, in Junc acc US govcrnmcnt and MNF! ocials and
documcntation spokc ol thc translcr ol sovcrcignty lrom thc Coalition Provisional
Authority to thc !raqi !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt. Morc rcccntly, US ocials spcak and
writc ol thc cvcnt as a transition ol govcrnancc authority. Tis rcvision in tcrmi
nology was intcndcd to cmphasisc that Coalition Forccs had no dcsigns ol owncr
ship upon !raq and wcrc simply carctakcrs, viccsovcrcigns, in bctwccn thc lall ol
Husscin and cstablishmcnt ol a ncw !raqi govcrnmcnt.
6 Altcrnativcly, thcsc pcriods could bc vicwcd as occupation and postoccupation, but
sincc thc USlcd coalition in !raq rcluscd to uttcr thc word occupation, its argu
ably lcgally obtusc but nonocnding and politically corrcct phrascology will bc
cmploycd hcrc.
416 ndru E. !all
C Combatants and EP!s
Tc right ol armics to capturc and hold cncmy combatants as prisoncrs ol war
until thc tcrmination ol activc hostilitics is wcll cstablishcd. Tis right is groundcd
in customary intcrnational law and codicd in thc Gcncva Convcntion Rclativc
to thc Trcatmcnt ol Prisoncrs ol Var ol August .a, . (GC !!!).

n thc rarc
occasions altcr thc lall ol Saddam Husscin whcn capturcd individuals invokcd
thcir right to trcatmcnt as an cncmy prisoncr ol war (PV), Coalition Forccs
conductcd a tribunal in accordancc with thc provisions ol Articlc ol GC !!!.
Altcr thc translcr ol sovcrcignty, Coalition Forccs rctaincd vcry lcw PVs in
thcir custody. PVs wcrc cithcr rclcascd, translcrrcd to thc lcgal custody ol thc
!raqi !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt (!!G) lor prosccution lor criminal ocnscs unrclatcd
to thcir combatant status, or hcld as sccurity intcrnccs il indcpcndcnt lacts cstab
lishcd thc individual poscd a thrcat to thc sccurity ol Coalition Forccs. !l a lormcr
mcmbcr ol thc !raqi Army, including a lormcr prisoncr ol war who had bccn
rclcascd, was dctaincd lor acts against thc sccurity ol Coalition Forccs, hc was
trcatcd as a sccurity intcrncc including potcntial criminal prosccution by thc
Ccntral Criminal Court ol !raq.
8

D Former Fegime Elite, EP!s or !ar Criminals?
Tc dctaincd lormcr highranking mcmbcrs ol Saddam Husscins rcgimc wcrc
gcncrally classicd as cithcr cncmy prisoncrs ol war or suspcctcd war criminals:
thc lormcr il thcy scrvcd in thc !raqi armcd lorccs or in thc military chain
olcommand, and thc lattcr il thcy wcrc outsidc thc military command struc
turc but noncthclcss suspcctcd ol gravc brcachcs ol thc Gcncva Convcntions
or crimcs against humanity. Tc Gcncva Convcntions and customary intcrna
tional law providcd thc basis lor thcsc dctcntions. All statc partics to thc Gcncva
Convcntions arc obligatcd to scarch lor pcrsons allcgcd to havc committcd, or
to havc ordcrcd to bc committcd, gravc brcachcs ol thc Gcncva Convcntions
and shall prosccutc such individuals in thcir own courts or hand thcm ovcr to
, Prisoncrs ol war shall bc rclcascd and rcpatriatcd without dclay altcr thc ccssation
ol activc hostilitics. Gcncva Convcntion Rclativc to thc Trcatmcnt ol Prisoncrs ol
Var, Aug. .a, . |hcrcinaltcr GC !!!|, , U.N.T.S. ., ocu:vx:s ox :nv L~ws
ov V~v a, a (Adam Robcrts & Richard Gucl cds., d cd., accc).
Tis practicc was consistcnt with customary intcrnational law, which providcs that
whcn an ccupying Powcr disbands or dcmobilizcs thc military ol thc occupicd
country, lormcr mcmbcrs ol that military, including rclcascd prisoncrs ol war, arc
convcrtcd to civilian status and arc not thcrcaltcr gcncrally cntitlcd to trcatmcnt as
prisoncrs ol war. Howard S. Lcvic, Pvisoxvvs ov V~v ix !x:vvx~:iox~i Av:vb
Coxviic: 66 (.,)(\ol. , US Naval Var Collcgc !ntcrnational Law Studics).
Tis issuc was raiscd at thc . iplomatic Conlcrcncc, which only wcnt so lar as
to cxtcnd continucd cntitlcmcnt to prisoncr ol war status il thc statc was not com
plctcly occupicd. Scc Articlc (8)(.), GC !!!, supra notc ,.
417 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
thc courts ol anothcr High Contracting Party lor prosccution.

Customary intcr
national law long ago outlawcd crimcs against humanity, which wcrc dcncd
by thc Nurcmbcrg Tribunal in .
+o
and morc rcccntly in thc statutc ol thc
!ntcrnational Criminal Court.
++
Altcr thc translcr ol sovcrcignty, thcsc individu
als wcrc translcrrcd to thc lcgal custody ol thc !!G and hcld undcr !raqi indict
mcnt as criminal suspccts.
E Legal Custody .. Physical Control
!n an attcmpt to guarantcc sccurity and cnsurc accountability whilc simultanc
ously assisting thc !!G in rccstablishing thc rulc ol law in !raq, thc U.S. national
contingcnt ol Multinational Forcc!raq (USMNF!) cxccutcd a Mcmorandum
ol Undcrstanding (MU) with thc Ministry ol Justicc ol thc !!G rcgarding
Custodial Support For Criminal Suspccts in Junc acc. Tis MU invokcd
thc nccd to hold individuals suspcctcd ol committing atrocitics and war crimcs
accountablc as mandatcd in Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council Rcsolution .6
(acc). Tc partics agrccd that thc !!G and any succcssor would havc lcgal
authority ovcr criminal suspccts awaiting trial who wcrc placcd undcr thc phys
ical custody ol USMNF! undcr thc tcrms ol thc MU. !n othcr words, indi
viduals suspcctcd ol war crimcs, crimcs against humanity, or othcr atrocitics wcrc
GC !!! Art. .a, .c, supra notc ,, and Articlc .6 ol Gcncva Convcntion Rclativc to
thc Protcction ol Civilian Pcrsons in Timc ol Var, Aug. .a, . |hcrcinaltcr GC !\|,
Robcrts & Gucl, supra notc ,, at c., 6. GC !\ Articlc ., rcads: Gravc brcachcs
to which thc prcccding Articlc rclatcs shall bc thosc involving any ol thc lollowing
acts, il committcd against pcrsons or propcrty protcctcd by thc prcscnt Convcntion:
willlul killing, torturc or inhuman trcatmcnt, including biological cxpcrimcnts, will
lully causing grcat sucring or scrious injury to body or hcalth, unlawlul dcportation
or translcr or unlawlul conncmcnt ol a protcctcd pcrson, compclling a protcctcd
pcrson to scrvc in thc lorccs ol a hostilc Powcr, or willlully dcpriving a protcctcd
pcrson ol thc rights ol lair and rcgular trial prcscribcd in thc prcscnt Convcntion,
taking ol hostagcs and cxtcnsivc dcstruction and appropriation ol propcrty, not justi
cd by military ncccssity and carricd out unlawlully and wantonly.
.c |M|urdcr, cxtcrmination, cnslavcmcnt, dcportation, and othcr inhumanc acts com
mittcd against a civilian population, bclorc or during thc war, or pcrsccutions on
political, racial or rcligious grounds in cxccution ol or in conncction with any crimc
within thc jurisdiction ol thc Tribunal, whcthcr or not in violation ol thc domcs
tic law ol thc country whcrc pcrpctratcd. Tvi~i ov :nv M~,ov V~v Cvi:ix~is
nvvovv :nv !x:vvx~:iox~i Miii:~vv Tvinux~i, Nurcmbcrg, vol. XX!!, !MT
Sccrctariat, Nurcmbcrg, . pp. ... For a discussion ol whcthcr thc Nurcmbcrg
war conncction rcquircmcnt rcmains in customary intcrnational law, scc M.
Chcril 8assioni, Te Normati.e Frame.ork of International Humanitarian La. .,
(Michacl N. Schmitt, cd., accc)(\ol. ,, US Naval Var Collcgc !ntcrnational Law
Studics).
.. Articlc , ol thc Romc Statutc ol thc !ntcrnational Criminal Court (.), reprinted
in Robcrts & Gucl, supra notc ,, at 66,, 6,.
418 ndru E. !all
translcrrcd to thc lcgal control ol thc !raqis whilc rcmaining undcr thc physical
control ol US lorccs.
Tis MU crcatcd morc than a lcgal ction, howcvcr, as it rcquircd thc !!G
to prcscnt MNF! with writtcn rcqucsts and arrcst warrants lor all individu
als translcrrcd undcr thc MU. Tc primary rolc rctaincd by MNF! includcd
cxclusivc discrction rcgarding all mattcrs ol sccurity, cnsuring that criminal
suspccts rcprcscntcd by counscl wcrc not qucstioncd without thcir counscl bcing
prcscnt, and providing acccss and coopcration to thc !ntcrnational Committcc
ol thc Rcd Cross. Signicantly, thc MU providcd:
8oth partics hcrcby acknowlcdgc that thc translcr to !raqi criminal jurisdic
tion ol a dctaincc who had prcviously bccn hcld in prisoncr ol war captivity by
MNF!, shall constitutc rclcasc lrom prisoncr ol war captivity and tcrmination
ol prisoncr ol war status, notwithstanding thc lact that MNF! maintains cus
tody ol thc dctaincc at thc rcqucst ol thc MJ in accordancc with this MU.
Tus, with a strokc ol thc pcn and cxchangc ol papcrwork, lormcr rcgimc clitc
mcmbcrs hcld in thc custody ol Coalition Forccs mutatcd lrom cncmy prison
crs ol war or war crimcs dctainccs to criminal suspccts in thc lcgal custody ol thc
!raqi govcrnmcnt.
+:
F Ci.ilians, Illegal Combatants, Security Internees or Detainees?
Vhat do you call somconc who takcs up arms in an intcrnational conict with
out complying with thc customary prcrcquisitcs lor bclligcrcnt immunity: Morc
importantly, is this pcrson a combatant undcr thc Tird Gcncva Convcntion, a
civilian undcr thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, or do thcy lall into a lcgal lacuna
bctwccn thc two: Tcsc qucstions rcmain at thc hcart ol a lundamcntal and con
tinuing dcbatc ovcr thc applicability ol thc intcrnational law ol armcd conict
to thc global war on tcrror. !t also cxposcs considcrablc dicrcnccs bctwccn thc
Unitcd Statcs and many ol its allics in thc global war on tcrror, not to mcntion
sparking passionatc dcbatcs among acadcmics and practitioncrs ol intcrnational
humanitarian law. A considcrablc numbcr ol law rcvicw articlcs havc dcbatcd
thcsc qucstions.
+

.a Tis cnsurcd compliancc with GC !!!, which rcquircs rclcasc ol prisoncrs ol war
altcr thc closc ol hostilitics (Art. ..) unlcss thcy havc bccn indictcd lor criminal
ocnscs (Art. ..).
. See, c.g., Murphy, supra notc , Yoram instcin, Unla.ful Combatancy, a !sv~vi
Yv~vnoox ov Hu:~x Ricn:s a,,c (acca), Yoram instcin, Jus in Bello Issues
rising in the Hostilities in Iraq in :cc, !sv~vi Yv~vnoox ov Hu:~x Ricn:s ..
(acc), Silvia 8orclli, Casting light on the legal black hole: International la. and deten-
tions abroad in the .ar on terror, , !x:vvx~:iox~i Rvvivw ov :nv Rvb Cvoss
(acc), and Michacl H. Homan, Fescuing the La. of !ar: !ay For.ard in an Era
419 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
Tc position ol thc Unitcd Statcs is, quitc simply, that customary intcrna
tional law rcquircs compliancc with thc lour critcria codicd in thc .c, Haguc
Convcntion !\ on Land Varlarc and Articlc ol GC !!! in ordcr lor thc indi
vidual to carn thc privilcgcs ol a lawlul bclligcrcnt, most importantly combatant
immunity and cntitlcmcnt to prisoncr ol war status. !l an individual takcs up
arms without complying with thcsc rcquircmcnts lor lawlul bclligcrcncy (othcr
than in rarc cxccptions such as a le.ee en masse), thcn that pcrson is not cntitlcd
to thc protcctions ol GC !!!. !n othcr words, il an individual wants thc privilcgcs
ol combatant immunity and prisoncr ol war status, hc must comply with thc lour
rcquircmcnts, which arc intcndcd to protcct civilians and minimizc unncccssary
sucring. Howcvcr, il thc individual partook in an intcrnational armcd conict,
hc cannot bc dccmcd a civilian (a protcctcd pcrson) in thc scnsc ol GC !\
cspccially sincc GC !\ aords, in somc rcspccts, cvcn morc rights than thosc
aordcd to prisoncrs ol war undcr GC !!! (c.g., a PV may bc hcld until thc
cnd ol thc conict, whilc a civilian may only bc hcld il and lor as long as hc is a
sccurity thrcat).
+

of Global Terrorism, P~v~:v:vvs . (US Army Var Collcgc Quartcrly)(Summcr
acc).
. See Murphy, supra notc . Vhilc thc dcbatc ovcr thc applicability ol GC !\ is
somcwhat undcrstandablc, thc argumcnt that GC !!! should apply irrcspcctivc ol
compliancc with thc lour critcria is bcwildcring as it is contrary to thc historic undcr
standing and application ol thc laws ol war. Scc, e.g., Richard R. 8axtcr, Unpri.ileged
Belligerency, a 8vi:isn Yv~vnoox ov !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w a (..), and Richard
R. 8axtcr, Te La. of !ar, Rv~bixcs ix !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w vvo: :nv N~v~i
V~v Coiivcv Rvvivw ac, a.6, (Richard 8. Lillich & John Norton Moorc, cds.,
.c)(\ol. 6a, US Naval Var Collcgc !ntcrnational Law Studics):
Tc rcquircmcnt ol trcating individuals in arms as prisoncrs ol war applics
only to mcmbcrs ol thc rcgular armcd lorccs and to mcmbcrs ol rcsistancc
movcmcnts who arc commandcd by a rcsponsiblc pcrson, wcar a xcd
distinctivc sign, carry arms opcnly, and conduct thcir opcrations in accordancc
with thc law ol war.
Just as thc US position is not ncw, ncithcr is (or was) it uniquc to thc Unitcd Statcs.
Scc, e.g., thc 8ritish Armys manual Tnv L~w ov V~v ox L~xb (.). Courts in
Singaporc, Malaysia, and !sracl, to providc just thrcc cxamplcs, havc applicd thc lour
critcria to thc qucstion ol whcthcr irrcgular bclligcrcnts arc cntitlcd to trcatmcnt as
prisoncrs ol war undcr GC !!!. Scc Stanislaus Krolan & Aor. \. Public Prosccutor
(Singaporc Fcdcral Court, ct. .66), .c Miii:~vv L~w Rvvivw 6 (.6),
Public Prosccutor v. ic Hcc Koi (Privy Council, cc. .6,), a !x:vvx~:iox~i
L~w Rvvivw . (.,.) |thc Privy Council ol thc 8ritish Housc ol Lords was thc
court ol last rcsort ol thc Fcdcration ol Malaysia|, and Tc Military Prosccutor v.
mar Mahmud Kasscm and thcrs (!sracli Military Court, Ramallah, . April
.6), , !x:vvx~:iox~i L~w Rvvivw ,c (.,.). Tc 8ritish manual and rclcvant
cxccrpts ol thcsc cascs arc also rcprintcd in ocu:vx:s ox Pvisoxvvs ov V~v
6 (Howard S. Lcvic, cd., .,)(\ol. 6c, US Naval Var Collcgc !ntcrnational
Law Studics).
420 ndru E. !all
Tc argumcnt against thc US position is simply that thcrc cannot bc a gap
in covcragc bctwccn GC !!! and GC !\: you arc cithcr a combatant undcr GC
!!! or a civilian undcr GC !\.
+
To arguc, howcvcr, that rclusal to apply cithcr
GC !!! or GC !\ as a mattcr ol law lcavcs thc pcrson without lcgal protcction,
cxposcs a prolound misundcrstanding ol thc laws ol war. Customary intcrna
tional law, cpitomizcd by thc socallcd Martcns Clausc, still applics thcrc is no
arca outsidc thc purvicw ol thc humanitarian dictatcs ol customary intcrnational
law.
+6
Vhat arc strippcd away by thc inapplicability ol GC !!! and GC !\ arc
many ol thc lormalistic, anachronistic rcquircmcnts that had as thcir inspiration
world war bctwccn Vcstcrn powcrs.
!n any cvcnt, during thc pcriods at issuc hcrc, thc ovcrwhclming major
ity ol individuals dctaincd by Coalition Forccs wcrc not privilcgcd combatants
cntitlcd to protcction as prisoncrs ol war undcr GC !!!. Vhilc thc US govcrn
mcnt prcscrvcd its lcgal right (cxcrciscd rarcly) to hold an Articlc tribunal and
dctcrminc an individual was an illcgal combatant, thc gcncral policy and prac
ticc was to trcat all dctainccs as sccurity intcrnccs undcr GC !\.
+
As such, thc
tcrms sccurity intcrncc or dctaincc will bc uscd intcrchangcably hcrc and thc
usc ol thc tcrms should not bc intcrprctcd as an asscrtion or implication that
thc individual was not cngagcd in hostilc acts against Coalition Forccs. Tc usc
ol thc tcrms civilian dctcntion or civilian dctaincc simply mcans thc dctaincc
. . Uhlcr and H. Coursicr (cds.), Gvxvv~ Coxvvx:iox vvi~:ivv :o :nv
Pvo:vc:iox ov Civiii~x Pvvsoxs ix Ti:v ov V~v: Co::vx:~vv . (!CRC,
Gcncva)(.c), Prosecutor .. Delalic et al, Judgmcnt ol thc !CTY, !T6a.T, para.
a,. (.6 Novcmbcr .). Scc also Silvia 8orclli, Casting light on the legal black hole:
international la. and detentions abroad in the .ar on terror, supra, notc ..
.6 !van Shcarcr, Fules of Conduct During Humanitarian Inter.ention, Lvc~i ~xb
:nic~i Lvssoxs ov NATs Kosovo C~:v~icx ,., ,a (Andru . Vall, cd.,
acca)(\ol. ,, US Naval Var Collcgc !ntcrnational Law Studics). Vhat has comc
to bc known as thc Martcns Clausc rst appcarcd in thc Prcamblc to thc . Haguc
Convcntion !! on land warlarc:
Until a morc complctc codc ol thc laws ol war is issucd, thc high contracting
Partics think it right to dcclarc that in cascs not includcd in thc Rcgulations
adoptcd by thcm, populations and bclligcrcnts rcmain undcr thc protcction
and cmpirc ol thc principlcs ol intcrnational law, as thcy rcsult lrom thc usagcs
cstablishcd bctwccn civilizcd nations, lrom thc laws ol humanity, and thc
rcquircmcnts ol thc public conscicncc.
Robcrts & Gucl, supra notc ,, at . Tc .c, Haguc convcntions, cach ol thc lour
Gcncva Convcntions ol ., as wcll as thc .,, Additional Protocol ! to thc Gcncva
Convcntions also includc this clausc.
., Tis was a policy dccision and was not madc out ol scnsc ol lcgal obligation. Lcgally,
Coalition Forccs (or at lcast thc US clcmcnt) bclicvcd illcgal combatants wcrc not
cntitlcd to thc protcctions ol cithcr GC !!! or GC !\, howcvcr, to prcvcnt thc opcr
ational complcxity ol dicrcnt duc proccss systcms lor dicrcnt catcgorics ol dctain
ccs, thc policy dccision was madc to providc all dctainccs wcrc thc lcvcl ol rcvicw
rcquircd by GC !\.
421 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
was not cntitlcd to thc protcctions ol GC !!! and, as such, thc lcgal standards or
principlcs applicd by Coalition Forccs wcrc containcd in GC !\ and customary
intcrnational law.
G International or Non-International Conict?
According to thc !ntcrnational Committcc ol thc Rcd Cross (!CRC), thc trans
lcr ol sovcrcignty to thc !raqi !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt on Junc a, acc cndcd thc
statc ol intcrnational armcd conict that cxistcd bctwccn Coalition Forccs and
!raq.
+8
Tus, thc translcr ol sovcrcignty also shiltcd thc controlling body ol law
lrom thc intcrnational law ol armcd conict to thc law govcrning nonintcrna
tional armcd conicts. Tc position ol MNF! was that no such shilt in control
ling norms occurrcd.
+

Common Articlc a ol thc lour Gcncva convcntions ol . providcs that it
applics to all cascs ol armcd conict bctwccn two or morc partics. Tc !CRCs
ocial commcntary on this articlc statcs: |a|ny dicrcncc bctwccn two Statcs
and lcading to thc intcrvcntion ol mcmbcrs ol thc armcd lorccs is an armcd con
ict within thc mcaning ol Articlc a.
:o
vcn Protocol !! limits nonintcrnational
armcd conicts to thosc that takc placc in thc tcrritory ol a High Contracting
Party bctwccn its armcd lorccs and dissidcnt armcd lorccs.
:+
Tc !CRCs coun
tcrargumcnt is that whcn thc lorcign troops arc prcscnt with thc pcrmission ol
thc host statc and subjcct to its control (charactcristics applicablc to Coalition
Forccs altcr thc translcr ol sovcrcignty), thcn thcy arc agcnts ol thc host statc and
thc intcrnational charactcr ol thc conict is crascd.
Notwithstanding thc translcr ol complctc sovcrcignty lrom thc Coalition
Provisional Authority to thc !raqi !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt and subscqucntly to thc
!raqi Transitional Govcrnmcnt (altcr thc clcctions in January acc), Coalition
. Scc Iraq post :8 June :cc,: protecting persons depri.ed of freedom remains a priority,
!CRC. Availablc at thc !CRC wcbsitc, http://www.icrc.org/Vcb/ng/sitccngc.nsl/
html/6KKJ (visitcd in cccmbcr acc).
. Furthcrmorc, it is US policy to apply thc intcrnational law ol armcd conict to non
intcrnational armcd conicts as a mattcr ol policy (in othcr words, lor rcasons ol
ccacy, not out ol a scnsc ol lcgal obligation). o ircctivc .cc.,,, o L~w ov
V~v Pvocv~:, para. . ( July .c, .,), Tnv Co::~xbvvs H~xbnoox ox :nv
L~w ov N~v~i vvv~:ioxs, para. 6...a (.).
ac Pictct (cd.), Co::vx:~vv ox :nv . Gvxvv~ Coxvvx:iox Rvi~:ivv :o :nv
Tvv~::vx: ov Pvisoxvvs ov V~v aaa (.6c).
a. Protocol Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August ., and Rclating
to thc Protcction ol \ictims ol Non!ntcrnational Armcd Conicts (Protocol !!),
Robcrts & Gucl, supra notc ,, at , . MNF!s position is also strcngthcncd
considcrably by thc lact that it is statcs that crcatc customary intcrnational law
not nongovcrnmcntal organizations. So il cvcn this issuc is a gray arca in thc law,
MNF! can point to its statc practicc as cvidcncc ol, at a minimum, a dcvcloping
customary norm.
422 ndru E. !all
Forccs continucd to carry out major combat opcrations in !raq against insurgcnts
and tcrrorists, including socallcd lorcign ghtcrs.
::
Activc hostilitics continucd
into acc6. Lcavc it to lawycrs to arguc that thc prcscncc ol ovcr .6c,ccc lorcign
troops carrying out major combat opcrations in a country is somcthing othcr
than an intcrnational armcd conict. Vhilc it is dicult to conccivc a brightlinc
shilt lrom intcrnational to nonintcrnational armcd conict, at a minimum onc
would cxpcct ccssation ol activc or ocnsivc hostilitics and that lorcign troops, il
prcscnt at all, would scrvc littlc morc than minor supporting rolcs ccrtainly that
thcy would bc outnumbcrcd by thc host countrys own lorccs. !n thc abscncc ol a
clcar shilt and thc prcscncc ol statc practicc to thc contrary, this papcr will apply
thc norms ol thc intcrnational law ol armcd conict to its analysis ol dctcntion
opcrations in !raq, as thcsc wcrc thc norms applicd by Coalition Forccs.
:

II Civilian etentions during the Occupation of Iraq
Tc vast majority ol individuals dctaincd by Coalition Forccs during pcration
!raqi Frccdom wcrc not cncmy prisoncrs ol war. !n lact, by May acc, no morc
than a lcw hundrcd PVs rcmaincd in thc custody ol Coalition Forccs.
:
Most
dctainccs wcrc only hcld in thc cld lor a lcw hours or days, but by thc cnd ol thc
occupation, Coalition Forccs hcld ovcr ,ccc dctainccs.
aa Tc tcrm lorcign ghtcrs was uscd by Coalition Forccs to dcscribc individuals lrom
countrics outsidc !raq who illcgally cntcrcd !raq lor thc purposc ol waging jihad
against Coalition Forccs, to includc !raqi sccurity lorccs. Tc vast majority ol thcsc
lorcign ghtcrs wcrc lrom Syria, Saudi Arabia and northcrn Alrica.
a Tc !CRC post rclcrcnccd in notc . statcs that a shilt lrom intcrnational to non
intcrnational armcd conict would rcquirc that pcrsons arrcstcd bclorc a Junc
|acc| and currcntly intcrncd by thc MNF! should cithcr bc rclcascd, chargcd and
tricd or placcd within anothcr lcgal lramcwork that rcgulatcs thcir continucd intcrn
mcnt. Howcvcr, thc law ol nonintcrnational armcd conicts rcmains rclativcly
undcvclopcd, rclying primarily on common Articlc ol thc Gcncva Convcntions and
customary intcrnational law. Tc rcspcctcd !ntcrnational !nstitutc ol Humanitarian
Law in San Rcmo, !taly publishcd a proposcd Cobv ov Coxbuc: vov Miii:~vv
vvv~:ioxs buvixc Nox!x:vvx~:iox~i Av:vb Coxviic:, which rccognizcd
thc right to intcrn or dctain pcrsons lor rcasons rclatcd to thc hostilitics. Vhilc thc
Codc docs not purport to bc a complctc rcstatcmcnt ol thc law ol nonintcrnational
armcd conict, it docs asscrt thc bclicl that it rcccts thc kcy principlcs ol that body
ol law. Tc Codc is availablc onlinc at http://www.michaclschmitt.com (acccsscd in
cccmbcr acc).
a Fay Rcport, supra notc , at .
423 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
Te Legal Basis for Detention
i Sccurity !ntcrnccs undcr GC !\
As a gcncral rulc, civilians may not bc intcrncd during intcrnational armcd con
icts.
:
GC !\ providcs cxccptions to this rulc whcn dctcntion ol civilians is
mandatcd by thc sccurity nccds ol thc ctaining Powcr or whcn ncccssary to
protcct thc individual.
:6
GC !\ attcmpts to strikc a balancc bctwccn a civil
ians civil libcrtics and an armys nccd to occasionally control civilian movcmcnt.
Articlc . providcs that il lcsscr mcans ol control arc inadcquatc, thcn a civil
ian may bc intcrncd.
:
!n nonoccupicd arcas, intcrnmcnt is only pcrmissiblc il
thc sccurity ol thc ctaining Powcr makcs it absolutely necessary.
:8
ccupying
powcrs may intcrn civilians lor imperati.e reasons of security.
:
GC !\ also imposcs slightly dicrcnt standards ol rcvicw dcpcnding on
whcthcr thc intcrnmcnt is conductcd by a ctaining Powcr undcr Articlcs .
or by an ccupying Powcr undcr Articlc ,. Articlc , simply mandatcs that
ccupying Powcrs makc dccisions rcgarding intcrnmcnt according to a rcgular
proccdurc, which includcs a right ol appcal and pcriodic rcvicw (il possiblc
cvcry six months) by a compctcnt body sct up by said Powcr. Articlcs .
arc somcwhat morc spccic in rcquiring that thc basis lor thc intcrnmcnt by
ctaining Powcrs bc rcvicwcd both initially (as soon as possiblc) and at lcast
cvcry six months thcrcaltcr. Such rcvicws must bc conductcd by an appropriatc
court or administrativc board dcsignatcd by thc ctaining Powcr lor thc pur
posc. !l intcrnmcnt is maintaincd, thc rcvicwing authority shall pcriodically,
and at lcast twicc ycarly, givc considcration to his or hcr casc, with a vicw to thc
lavorablc amcndmcnt ol thc initial dccision, il circumstanccs pcrmit. GC !\
rcquircs that individuals dctaincd by an ccupying Powcr bc rclcascd as soon as
possiblc altcr thc closc ol hostilitics, howcvcr, GC !\ continucs to apply so long
as thcy rcmain dctaincd.
o
a GC !\ Art. ,, Robcrts & Gucl, supra notc ,, at a,.
a6 Articlc allows lor thc dcrogation ol protcctions whcn thc individual is suspcctcd
ol acts hostilc to thc sccurity ol thc Statc, Articlc a, includcs a gcncral rccognition
ol thc right ol partics to takc control and sccurity mcasurcs ovcr protcctcd pcrsons
as ncccssitatcd by thc conict, Articlcs . allow lor intcrnmcnt whcn absolutcly
ncccssary lor rcasons ol sccurity or control, Articlc 6 allows lor thc intcrnmcnt or
imprisonmcnt ol pcrsons who commit ocnscs intcndcd to harm thc ccupying
Powcr, and Articlc , rccognizcs thc right ol ccupying Powcrs to intcrn protcctcd
pcrsons lor impcrativc rcasons ol sccurity. Id.
a, Id. at ..
a Articlc a, Id., at . (cmphasis addcd).
a Articlc ,, Id. at a, (cmphasis addcd).
c Articlc ., Id. at ,.
424 ndru E. !all
Vhilc Articlcs . sccm to sct a somcwhat highcr standard lor intcrn
mcnt than that applicablc to ccupying Powcrs, including a rcquircmcnt to look
lor lavorablc amcndmcnt to thc intcrnmcnt dccision, thc standards lor rcvicw
cstablishcd by Coalition Forccs during thc occupation appcar dcsigncd to cnsurc
compliancc with this highcr standard. 8ccausc ol thc logistical and proccdural
challcngcs inhcrcnt in maintaining numcrous classcs ol dctaincd individuals,
Coalition Forccs gcncrally applicd GC !\ to all dctainccs as a mattcr ol policy
(cxccpt prisoncrs ol war and criminal suspccts). !t must bc undcrstood that this
dccision was lor policy rcasons and not out ol any scnsc ol lcgal obligation.
+
ii ccupation Law
Prior to thc translcr ol govcrning authority to thc !!G on Junc a, acc, Coalition
Forccs wcrc rcquircd by thc .c, Haguc Convcntion !\ on thc Laws ol Land
Varlarc to takc all thc mcasurcs in |thcir| powcr to rcstorc, and cnsurc, as lar
as possiblc, public ordcr and salcty, whilc rcspccting, unlcss absolutcly prcvcntcd,
thc laws in lorcc in thc country.
:
Tis provision, as a principlc ol customary
intcrnational law, providcd additional justication lor thc dctcntion ol civilians
who poscd a thrcat to thc sccurity ol Coalition Forccs.

B Implementing the La.

8ctwccn April acc and Junc acc, Coalition Forccs wcrc authorizcd to dctain
civilians whom thcy rcasonably bclicvcd cithcr poscd a thrcat to thcir sccurity
or mission, or wcrc suspcctcd ol committing a scrious crimc. Tc standard rca
sonably bclicvcd was dcncd as undcr thc circumstanccs that cxist at thc timc,
sucicnt lacts upon which a rcasonablc pcrson would rcly to makc a dccision.
Tc dcnition ol poscd a thrcat was intcrprctcd broadly and includcd individu
als who wcrc a thrcat to thc sccurity ol coalition lorccs, or its mission, or wcrc
ol intclligcncc valuc. Tis includcd pcrsons dctaincd lor committing ocnscs
(including attcmpts) against Coalition Forccs, mcmbcrs ol ccrtain nongovcrn
. For cxamplc, GC !\ only applics to civilians who lall into thc hands ol a powcr ol
which thcy arc not nationals: this would, as a mattcr ol law, cxcludc any Amcrican
citizcns dctaincd by Amcrican lorccs in !raq. Also, GC !\ docs not apply to nation
als ol ncutral countrics with which thc dctaining powcr has normal diplomatic
rclations. So whilc Coalition Forccs gcncrally applicd GC !\ to lorcign ghtcrs
capturcd in !raq as a mattcr ol policy and ccacy, thcrc was no corrcsponding lcgal
obligation to do so.
a Robcrts & Gucl, supra notc ,, 6, ..
For morc on thc law ol occupation, scc Michacl N. Schmitt and Charlcs H.8.
Garraway, Occupation Policy in Iraq and International La., !x:vvx~:iox~i
Pv~cvxvvvixc: Tnv Yv~vnoox ov !x:vvx~:iox~i Pv~cv vvv~:ioxs a,6.
(acc).
425 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
mcntal organizations or thc statc inlrastructurc, or any pcrson accuscd ol com
mitting war crimcs or crimcs against humanity.
Tc dctcntion ol criminal suspccts was dictatcd undcr occupation law givcn
that thcrc was oltcn no lunctioning !raqi law cnlorccmcnt or judiciary mccha
nism in placc. Civilians could bc dctaincd il thcrc was probablc causc to bclicvc
thcy had committcd a scrious crimc, including !raqion!raqi crimc, but thcy had
to bc turncd ovcr to !raqi authoritics as soon as rcasonably practicablc i.c., thcy
wcrc not hcld as sccurity intcrnccs.

Scrious crimc was dcncd as any lclony

undcr US law, including murdcr, rapc, robbcry, arson, assault, burglary, or lar
ccny. Tc cvidcntiary standard lor criminal dctcntions was dcscribcd as probablc
causc: a rcasonablc ccrtainty that a crimc has bccn committcd or is bcing com
mittcd and that thc pcrson to bc dctaincd has committcd, is committing or is
aiding anothcr to commit thc ocnsc. An important distinction was thus madc,
although oltcn lost in its application, bctwccn a standard ol rcasonablc bclicl lor
sccurity intcrnmcnts, and a probablc causc standard lor dctcntion ol criminal
suspccts.
C Fe.ie. by the Detaining Commander
Gcncrally, thc dccision on whcthcr to dctain a civilian was madc by thc scnior
Coalition Forcc soldicr or Marinc on thc sccnc. As thc dctaincc was proccsscd
lurthcr to thc rcar (military jargon that also mcans highcr up thc chainolcom
mand), supcrior commands routincly rcvicwcd thc dctcntion dccision. As thc
occupation cstablishcd itscll and dctcntion mcchanisms wcrc put in placc, tcm
porary holding lacilitics wcrc usually locatcd at thc brigadc and division lcvcls,
whcrc military lawycrs wcrc involvcd in thc rcvicw proccss. Strict timc limits
wcrc placcd on how long lowcr lcvcl units could hold civilians bclorc translcr to
highcr authority or rclcasc. Tc initial timc limit ol twcntyonc days was lowcrcd
to lourtccn days in acc. !l a subordinatc command wantcd to hold a dctaincc
bcyond that timc limit, thcy had to bricl thcir supcriors and obtain an cxtcnsion
lrom CJTF,/MNF!.
8y latc in acc, Coalition Forccs dcvclopcd morc sophisticatcd proccdurcs
lor rcvicw ol dctcntion dctcrminations at thc thcatcr lcvcl. Takc, lor cxamplc, thc
typical casc whcrc Coalition Forccs stoppcd an !raqi malc at a trac chcckpoint
and during thc cnsuing scarch ol thc !raqis vchiclc, a rockctpropcllcd grcnadc
launchcr and vc grcnadcs wcrc discovcrcd. As thc posscssion ol such wcapons
violatcd CPA rdcr Vcapons Control,

thc !raqi malc would bc dctaincd. !l

thcrc was a lunctioning !raqi criminal court in thc localc ol thc ocnsc and thc
judgc was willing to handlc prosccutions lor wcapons violations (rarc), thcn thc
CPA Mcmorandum , Scction (.), a, Junc acc.
Coalition Provisional Authority Numbcr (Rcviscd)(Amcndcd), availablc at http://
www.iraqcoalition.org/rcgulations (acccsscd in cccmbcr acc).
426 ndru E. !all
individual would bc turncd ovcr to thc local authoritics lor prosccution. !n thc
most common sccnario, thc unit that dctaincd him would intcrvicw thc dctaincc
and thcn proccss him through to thc brigadc lcvcl. 8y this point a dctcntion
packagc was asscmblcd that includcd, at a minimum, a Coalition Provisional
Authority Apprchcnsion lorm and sworn statcmcnts lrom two individuals attcst
ing to thc basis lor thc dctcntion. !dcally, photographs ol thc dctaincc with thc
wcapons would also bc includcd. A military lawycr normally rcvicwcd thc pack
agc at thc brigadc lcvcl and, assuming hc lound a rcasonablc basis lor continucd
dctcntion, lorwardcd thc dctaincc and packagc on to thc division lcvcl whcrc
a military lawycr again rcvicwcd thc casc. Finally, thc dctaincc and supporting
packagc wcrc transportcd to Abu Ghraib.
D Headquarters Fe.ie. and Internment
REVIEW &
RELEASE
BOARD
MP MI JA
Appellate
Review Panel
MP MI JA
Six-Month
Review Panel
MP MI JA
RELEASE
72 HOUR
REVIEW
MAGISTRATE
CELL
ART. 78
APPEAL
S
C
R
E
E
N
I PF
CCCI
BCF
RELEASE
INTERN
CAPTURING
UNIT
IZ COURT
14 DAYS
Vithin scvcntytwo hours ol a dctainccs arrival at thc 8aghdad Conncmcnt
Facility (8CF) at Abu Ghraib, a military magistratc (judgc advocatc) dctcrmincd
whcthcr a lcgal basis lor dctcntion cxistcd. !l thc dctaining unit had a rcason
427 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
ablc basis lor concluding thc dctaincc poscd a thrcat to thc sccurity ol Coalition
Forccs, which thcy ccrtainly would in thc casc ol thc wcapons posscssion hypo
thctical, and thc dctaining unit providcd documcntation to support thc dctcrmi
nation (thc apprchcnsion lorm, two statcmcnts, and any othcr cvidcncc), thcn
thc ctcntion Rcvicw Authority would nd a rcasonablc basis lor dctcntion
cxistcd.
Tc Magistratcs Ccll (consisting ol a military magistratcs lunctioning as
ctcntion Rcvicw Authoritics, a lcw supporting paralcgals and two intcrprct
crs) thcn noticd thc dctaincc ol thcir status (cithcr sccurity intcrncc or crimi
nal suspcct) and thc basis lor thc dctcrmination. Tc Status Notications wcrc
translatcd into Arabic and includcd a noticc ol thc right to appcal thcir dctcntion
undcr Articlc , ol GC !\. Ncarly all dctainccs lcd appcals, which wcrc thcn
translatcd into nglish.
An Appcllatc Rcvicw Pancl compriscd ol thrcc occrs military policc,
military intclligcncc, and judgc advocatc thcn rcvicwcd thc sccurity intcrn
ccs complctc lc. Again, dctcntion was rccommcndcd only il thc pancl lound
a rcasonablc basis to bclicvc thc dctainccs intcrnmcnt was ncccssary lor impcr
ativc rcasons ol sccurity ol Coalition Forccs. Tc dctaincc was adviscd ol thc
nding. !n accordancc with Articlc , ol GC !\, cach dctaincc lc was thcn
rcvicwcd at lcast cvcry six months thcrcaltcr to dctcrminc il thc basis lor intcrn
mcnt rcmaincd. !nitially, criminal dctainccs wcrc cxcludcd lrom thc Articlc ,
rcvicw proccss, howcvcr, as thc insurgcncy grcw and dclays wcrc cncountcrcd in
cncrgizing thc !raqi criminal justicc systcm, criminal suspccts wcrc includcd in
thc Articlc , rcvicw proccss.
!l cithcr thc ctcntion Rcvicw Authority, thc Appcllatc Rcvicw Pancl, or thc
SixMonth Rcvicw Pancl lound that no rcasonablc basis lor intcrnmcnt cxistcd
or that continucd intcrnmcnt was no longcr warrantcd, thcn thc dctainccs casc
lc was lorwardcd to thc Rcvicw and Appcal 8oard. Tc Rcvicw and Appcal
8oard was compriscd ol thc CJTF, Ca (8rigadicr Gcncral 8arbara Fast, who
was thc scnior intclligcncc occr lor Coalition Forccs), thc Commandcr cc
th

Military Policc 8rigadc (8rigadicr Gcncral Janis Karpinski) who was in chargc
ol all dctaincc opcrations lrom about April acc through thc spring acc), and
thc CJTF, Sta Judgc Advocatc (a US Army Coloncl and thc scnior military
lawycr). Tc CJTF, Ca scrvcd as Prcsidcnt ol thc board and madc all nal dcci
sions on rclcasc.
As thc numbcr ol dctainccs swcllcd, thc Rcvicw and Appcal 8oard was
rcplaccd by thc Rcvicw and Rclcasc 8oard, which consistcd ol thrcc occrs ol
cld gradc or highcr rank onc military policc, onc military intclligcncc, and
onc judgc advocatc. Tc 8oard madc a nal rccommcndation on whcthcr rcason
ablc grounds lor continucd intcrnmcnt cxistcd or whcthcr thc dctaincc should
bc rclcascd. Proccdurcs wcrc in placc to coordinatc communication bctwccn thc
rcvicwing authoritics and thc dctaining unit, which was providcd opportuni
tics to lorward additional inlormation lrom thc cld. Tc cputy Commanding
428 ndru E. !all
Gcncral ol CJTF, (and its succcssor MNF!) madc thc nal dctcrmination on
intcrnmcnt or rclcasc, although in somc minor cascs that authority was dclcgatcd
to thc Rcvicw and Rclcasc 8oard.
III etention of Civilians after the Transfer of Sovereignty
vcr scvcral months during thc spring ol acc, a whirlwind ol controvcrsy accom
panicd thc rclcasc ol shocking photos ol dctaincc abusc at Abu Ghraib. Tc lall
out lrom that scandal and thc shilting lcgal loundation as sovcrcignty was passcd
lrom thc Coalition Provisional Authority to thc !raqi !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt lcd
to signicant changcs in thc opcrational command structurc ol dctcntion opcra
tions and minor adjustmcnts in thc proccdurcs govcrning dctcntion rcvicw. !n
actuality, thc cntirc dctaincc opcrations rcvicw and rclcasc proccss was in con
stant cvolution. Coalition Forccs did not adcquatcly plan lor thc dctcntion ol
signicant numbcrs ol civilians and, thus, wcrc constantly trying to gct ahcad ol
thc inhcrcnt challcngcs.
6
From thc bcginning, this was a Sisyphcan task.
Te Legal Basis for Detention
i Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council Rcsolution .6 (acc)
n Junc ., acc, thc Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council, acting undcr Chaptcr
\!!, unanimously adoptcd Rcsolution .6, which wclcomcd a ncw phasc in
!raqs transition to a dcmocratically clcctcd govcrnmcnt and lookcd lorward to
thc cnd ol thc occupation and thc assumption ol lull rcsponsibility and author
ity by a lully sovcrcign and indcpcndcnt !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt ol !raq.

Tc
rcsolution anncxcd two lcttcrs lrom US Sccrctary ol Statc Colin Powcll and thc
Prcsidcnt ol thc !raqi !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt, r. Ayad Allawi.
Tc pcrsistcnt ncccssity lor civilian intcrnmcnts was cxprcssly asscrtcd in
Sccrctary Powclls lcttcr to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council, which statcd
that MNF! would:
|C|ontinuc to undcrtakc a broad rangc ol tasks to contributc to thc maintc
nancc ol sccurity and to cnsurc lorcc protcction. Tcsc includc activitics ncccs
sary to countcr ongoing sccurity thrcats poscd by lorccs sccking to inucncc
!raqs political luturc through violcncc. Tis will includc combat opcrations
against mcmbcrs ol thcsc groups, internment .here this is necessary for impera-
6 See, gcncrally, Schlcsingcr Rcport, supra notc . Tc invasion plan did not cvcn call
lor thc military policc unit that was assigncd primary rcsponsibility lor dctcntion
opcrations to arrivc in thcatcr until about thirty days altcr thc invasion.
, Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council Rcsolution .6 (acc).
429 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
ti.e reasons of security, and thc continucd scarch lor and sccuring ol wcapons
that thrcatcn !raqs sccurity |cmphasis addcd|.
Prcsidcnt Allawis lcttcr rcqucstcd a Sccurity Council mandatc lor MNF! that
includcd thc tasks and arrangcmcnts sct out in thc lcttcr lrom Sccrctary ol Statc
Colin Powcll to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council.
8
!n Rcsolution .6, thc
Sccurity Council grantcd thc rcqucstcd mandatc and spccically dccidcd that
thc multinational lorcc shall havc thc authority to takc all ncccssary mcasurcs to
contributc to thc maintcnancc ol sccurity and stability in !raq in accordancc with
thc lcttcrs anncxcd to this rcsolution.

Tus, thc dctcntion or intcrnmcnt ol

civilians, groundcd in thc customary law ol armcd conict, rcccivcd thc blcssings
ol a Sccurity Council Chaptcr \!! mandatc.
o
Tc only limitation or dcning
paramctcr lor thc dctcntions was that thcy bc ncccssary lor impcrativc rcasons
ol sccurity.
+
Vhilc Coalition Forccs bclicvcd that GC !\ did not apply as a mattcr ol
law to dctcntions that occurrcd altcr Junc a, acc, thcy continucd to apply thc
principlcs ol GC !\ to sccurity intcrnccs dctaincd undcr thc UNSCR .6 man
datc. !n this rcgard, Coalition Forccs wcrc in agrccmcnt with thc !CRC, although
lor dicrcnt rcasons. Tc !CRC bclicvcd GC !\ no longcr applicd bccausc thc
conict bccamc a nonintcrnational armcd conict altcr thc lull rcsumption ol
sovcrcignty by thc !!G. Coalition Forccs bclicvcd it rcmaincd an intcrnational
armcd conict, but that thc UNSCR .6 mandatc supplantcd GC !\, as cvi
dcnccd in part by thc usc ol languagc lrom occupation law (GC !\ Art. ,s tcrm
impcrativc thrcat to sccurity) and application ol that languagc outsidc ol an
occupation. !n many scnscs, Coalition Forccs wcrc crcating ncw customary intcr
national law taking thc UN Sccurity Councils gcncral authorization ol dctcn
tions, and dcning thc spccic paramctcrs and stricturcs ol thosc dctcntions by
drawing lrom thc customary intcrnational law ol armcd conict and thc basic
principlcs ol thc Gcncva Convcntions.
ii !raqi omcstic Law
Coalition Provisional Authority Mcmorandum Numbcr (Rcviscd), which
bccamc part ol !raqi domcstic law pursuant to thc Transitional Administrativc
Id. at Anncx.
Id. Notably, thc rcsolution providcd that thc mandatc would cxpirc upon thc com
plction ol thc political proccss sct out in paragraph lour abovc i.c. thc adoption
ol a pcrmancnt constitution lcading to a constitutionally clcctcd govcrnmcnt by .
cccmbcr acc.
c Vhcn acting undcr Chaptcr \!!, thc Sccurity Council can csscntially lcgislatc, as
rcsolutions adoptcd undcr Chaptcr !\ arc lcgally binding on all mcmbcr statcs.
. Sccrctary Powclls lcttcr, supra notc ,.
430 ndru E. !all
Law, authorizcd Coalition Forccs to dctain individuals bclicvcd to havc com
mittcd criminal acts. Such pcrsons wcrc to bc handcd ovcr to !raqi authoritics
as soon as practicablc, but could rcmain undcr thc physical control ol Coalition
Forccs il so rcqucstcd by !raqi authoritics lor sccurity or capacity rcasons.
B Under Fesponsible Command
As scvcral invcstigations idcnticd dccicncics in thc command and control ol
dctaincc opcrations, thc cputy Commanding Gcncral ol MNF! was namcd
thc Commandcr, MNF! Task Forcc . (ctaincc pcrations). Vhilc hc
rcmaincd a cputy Commanding Gcncral ol MNF!, his primary duty was thc
command and control ol all dctaincc opcrations in !raq. Tc rst commandcr
choscn lor this challcnging assignmcnt was Major Gcncral Gcorcy Millcr, a
handson, toughtalking, nononscnsc, hardcharging Tcxan who madc a namc
lor himscll and ccmcntcd his rclationships with US Sccrctary ol clcnsc onald
Rumslcld and lcllow Tcxan Prcsidcnt Gcorgc V. 8ush during his prcccding tour
as Commanding Gcncral ol thc dctcntion lacility at Guantanamo 8ay, Cuba. A
dccisivc lcadcr who did not sucr lools lightly, Gcncral Millcr immcdiatcly took
stcps to, in his words, rcstorc Amcricas honor.
Tc changcs institutcd by Gcncral Millcr includcd strongcr command and
control (i.c., accountability) throughout thc dctcntion proccss, improvcd dctcn
tion lacilitics, unicd and strcngthcncd corts to assist !raqi courts in prosccut
ing tcrrorists, and numcrous improvcmcnts to thc dctaincc rcvicw and rclcasc
proccss. Signicantly, Gcncral Millcr lclt no qucstion that hc was in chargc ol
dctaincc opcrations. Hc was a constant prcscncc at Abu Ghraib (in contrast to
thc prcvious gcncral ovcrsccing Abu Ghraib, 8rigadicr Gcncral Janis Karpinski,
who rarcly visitcd) and cvcry Saturday cvcning hc tourcd thc dctcntion camps
and spokc with dctainccs.
:
Tcy oltcn raiscd qucstions rcgarding thc status ol
thcir cascs and appcalcd dircctly to Gcncral Millcr, who thcn taskcd his sta with
rcvicwing and bricng him on thc cascs. !l thc basis lor dctcntion was wcak or
contrivcd, thc dctaincc would bc proccsscd lor cxpcditcd rclcasc.
C Implementing the Mandate
!n rcsponsc to thc basis lor dctcntion articulatcd in Sccrctary Powclls lcttcr
and incorporatcd into thc UN Sccurity Council mandatc, guidancc was prom
ulgatcd to Coalition Forccs pcrmitting dctcntion only lor impcrativc rcasons
ol sccurity. Noncxclusivc cxamplcs ol sccurity impcrativcs includcd: attacks
a Coalition Forcc hcadquartcrs wcrc at Camp \ictory, which was adjaccnt to thc
8aghdad !ntcrnational Airport. Abu Ghraib is a small town on thc outskirts ol
8aghdad: it was about a vc minutc hclicoptcr ridc and twcnty minutc drivc lrom
Camp \ictory to thc Abu Ghraib prison complcx.
431 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
on Coalition Forccs, intcrlcrcncc with thc mission accomplishmcnt or movc
mcnt ol Coalition Forccs, cntcring or attcmpting to cntcr a rcstrictcd arca, illc
gal wcapons posscssion, or committing, attcmpting, conspiring, thrcatcning or
soliciting anothcr to commit/aid/abct thc commission ol a scrious crimc against
Coalition Forccs. Additionally, mcmbcrs ol tcrrorist organizations or insurgcnt
groups known to carry out attacks on Coalition Forccs could also bc dctaincd lor
impcrativc rcasons ol sccurity.

cially, individuals could bc dctaincd lor thcir intclligcncc valuc lor no

morc than ,a hours, howcvcr, anccdotal cvidcncc suggcstcd that longcr intclli
gcncc dctcntions wcrc common. Tc argumcnt in lavor ol intclligcncc dctcntions
was that, lor cxamplc, il an individual kncw who was rcsponsiblc lor carrying out
attacks on Coalition Forccs and did not providc this inlormation to Coalition
Forccs, thcn withholding it constitutcd an impcrativc thrcat to thc sccurity ol
Coalition Forccs, as thcy would rcmain vulncrablc to immincnt attack. (Tis was
morc than a mcrc hypothctical lor many Coalition Forcc units opcrating in small
villagcs whcrc all thc !raqi locals kncw cach othcr.) Tc argumcnt against such
dctcntions was that thc individual himscll did not posc an impcrativc sccurity
thrcat and it was typically too dicult to rcasonably cstablish what an individual
kncw. Furthcrmorc, dctaining individuals on thc basis ol what thcy wcrc bclicvcd
to know could bc a slippcry slopc lcading to mass, unwarrantcd dctcntions, which
would ultimatcly bc countcrproductivc to thc cstablishmcnt ol dcmocracy and
thc rulc ol law in !raq.
D From Initial Detention to bu Ghraib
Vhilc dctaining units continually rcncd thcir proccsscs, thc initial stagcs ol
rcvicw that immcdiatcly lollowcd a civilians dctcntion rcmaincd csscntially
unchangcd lrom thosc in placc during thc occupation. ctainccs wcrc rst trans
portcd to a brigadc intcrnmcnt lacility (8!F) whcrc thcy could bc hcld lor up to
,a hours. !l thc 8!F ctcntion Rcvicw Authority dctcrmincd that probablc causc
to dctain cxistcd, thc dctaincc was translcrrcd to a division intcrnmcnt lacil
ity (!F). Tc dctaincc could bc kcpt lor up to lourtccn days lor intcrrogation
at thc !F. uring thc initial ,a hours at thc !F, thc !F ctcntion Rcvicw
Authority conductcd anothcr rcvicw to dctcrminc whcthcr thcrc was probablc
causc to dctain thc individual. !l thc !F ctcntion Rcvicw Authority dctcr
mincd that continucd dctcntion was appropriatc, writtcn documcntation ol such
was includcd with thc dctaincc lc lor lorwarding to thc thcatcr intcrnmcnt
lacility (T!F) at Abu Ghraib. Until thc dctaincc was lorwardcd to thc T!F, thc
cognizant commandcr (brigadc or division) could authorizc a dctainccs rclcasc.
ncc thc dctaincc arrivcd at thc T!F, only thc Commandcr Task Forcc . could
gcncrally authorizc a dctainccs rclcasc.
Tc list ol such organizations and groups is not publicly availablc.
432 ndru E. !all
E Te GC I! Fe.ie. and Felease Process
8ctwccn Junc acc and cccmbcr acc, Task Forcc . opcratcd thcatcr intcrn
mcnt lacilitics at Abu Ghraib, Camp 8ucca in thc dcscrt ol southcrn !raq, Camp
Susc north ol 8aghdad, and Camp Croppcr ncar thc 8aghdad !ntcrnational
Airport. All dctainccs wcrc inproccsscd through Abu Ghraib and thcn trans
lcrrcd to whichcvcr lacility sccurity nccds and military ncccssity dictatcd. Tc
plan, announccd by Prcsidcnt 8ush in his Statc ol thc Union Addrcss in January
acc, was to cxpand Camp 8ucca and closc thc inlamous dctcntion camp at Abu
Ghraib. Howcvcr, with thc dctaincc population on a continuous upward trcnd,
thcrc was ncvcr cnough cxccss capacity to closc Abu Ghraib.
Tc dctainccs rst stop at Abu Ghraib was thc inproccssing lacility. Tcrc
hc was photographcd and ngcrprintcd, his pcrsonal propcrty was catalogcd
and storcd (including any cvidcncc that accompanicd him to Abu Ghraib), and
433 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
hc undcrwcnt a mcdical cxamination.

Vithin scvcntytwo hours ol a dctain

ccs arrival at Abu Ghraib, a military magistratc rcvicwcd his casc to dctcrminc
whcthcr thcrc was a rcasonablc basis to bclicvc thc dctaincc poscd an impcra
tivc thrcat to thc sccurity ol Coalition Forccs. 8cginning in carly acc, thc mili
tary magistratc also assigncd a sccurity thrcat lcvcl classication to thc dctaincc:
low, mcdium, high, or cxtrcmc risk.

Tc Magistratcs Ccll thcn noticd sccu

rity intcrnccs ol thcir status, thc basis lor intcrnmcnt, and thc right to appcal
undcr Articlc ,.
6
Tis notication was providcd as soon as practicablc, howcvcr,
during pcriods ol mass dctcntions (such as during thc sccond battlc lor Fallujah
in Novcmbcr acc whcn hundrcds ol dctainccs wcrc inproccsscd at Abu Ghraib
on ncarly a daily basis ovcr a twotothrcc wcck pcriod), many days could pass
bclorc thc noticc was dclivcrcd to thc dctaincc.
Tc ncxt stop lor thc dctainccs lc was thc Ccntral Criminal Court ol !raq
Liaison cc at Abu Ghraib. Tcrc thc lc was rcvicwcd with an cyc towards
possiblc criminal prosccution. !l thc basis lor dctcntion was an ocnsc also pun
ishablc undcr !raqi criminal law, such as assault on Coalition Forccs or illcgal
wcapons posscssion, and thc lc containcd sucicnt cvidcncc to cnsurc thc
!raqi cquivalcnt ol an indictmcnt (sworn statcmcnts lrom two cycwitncsscs
to thc crimc was thc absolutc minimum and photos or physical cvidcncc wcrc
rcquircd in thc casc ol wcapons posscssion), thc lc was lorwardcd to thc Ccntral
Criminal Court ol !raq lor prosccution.

8y cccmbcr acc, about a ol cascs

wcrc bcing rclcrrcd lor prosccution. !l thc basis lor dctcntion was not punishablc
undcr !raqi criminal law (c.g., mcmbcrship in a tcrrorist organization known to
cngagc in attacks on Coalition Forccs) or thc lc did not contain sucicnt cvi
Tc provisions ol Articlc , ol GC !\ wcrc complicd with, including giving dctain
ccs a rcccipt lor any rctaincd propcrty.
Tcsc classications wcrc implcmcntcd in an attcmpt to quantily thc lcvcl ol sccurity
thrcat lor individual dctainccs. Tcrc was a practical impctus to this: il thc numbcr ol
dctainccs cxcccdcd capacity and Coalition Forccs nccdcd to quickly idcntily scvcral
hundrcd dctainccs lor rclcasc, thcn thcy could chosc thosc classicd at thc lowcst risk
lcvcl. Tcrc was also a public aairs aspcct in that thcsc classications could bc uscd
to justily continucd dctcntion. vcr , ol dctainccs wcrc classicd as cithcr high
risk or cxtrcmc risk and lcss than onc pcrccnt wcrc classicd as low risk. Vhcthcr
thcsc classications accuratcly rccctcd thc risk poscd by individual dctainccs, or
whcthcr thc magistratcs classicd at a high or cxtrcmc risk lcvcl to justily thc actions
ol Coalition Forccs is dicult to objcctivcly judgc. Most disturbing to this author is
that thc sccurity risk classications wcrc conductcd by military lawycrs with littlc or
no training in intclligcncc or countcrinsurgcncy opcrations. !n othcr words, lawycrs
wcrc making opcrational rathcr than lcgal asscssmcnts ol sccurity risk dctcrmina
tions.
6 vcn altcr thc cnd ol thc occupation, thc noticc ol right to appcal continucd to rcl
crcncc Articlc , rathcr than Articlc .
, Tc Ccntral Criminal Court ol !raq and its prosccution ol dctainccs is discusscd
in grcatcr dctail in Andru . Vall, Prosecuting Insurgents and Terrorists in Iraq, 6
!sv~vi Yv~vnoox ov Hu:~x Ricn:s ..ac (acc6).
434 ndru E. !all
dcncc to rclcr thc casc lor prosccution (c.g., circumstantial cvidcncc, which thc
CCC! gcncrally wouldnt considcr, or statcmcnts lrom condcntial inlormants
who would not tcstily), thcn thc lc was lorwardcd to thc Combincd Rcvicw
and Rclcasc 8oard.
Tc Combincd Rcvicw and Rclcasc 8oard (CRR8) was crcatcd in thc
summcr ol acc.
8
!ts mcmbcrship consistcd ol ninc board mcmbcrs: thrcc
MNF! occrs (military policc, military intclligcncc, and a judgc advocatc) and
six rcprcscntativcs lrom thc !raqi govcrnmcnt (two rcprcscntativcs cach lrom
thc ministrics ol Human Rights, !ntcrior and Justicc). Tc CRR8 was rcsponsi
blc lor rcvicwing cach dctaincc lc at lcast cvcry six months in accordancc with
Articlc ol GC !\. !l a casc was rclcrrcd lor prosccution but no action was
takcn to indict thc dctaincc within six months, thcn thc CRR8 rcvicwcd thc lc
and madc a dctcrmination on continucd intcrnmcnt just to cnsurc compliancc
with GC !\.
ncc a dctainccs casc was dockctcd with thc CRR8, thc dctaining unit
was noticd and providcd an opportunity to providc supplcmcntary cvidcncc or
argumcnt justilying continucd dctcntion. Tc CRR8 mct rcgularly, initially two
to thrcc and thcn up to scvcn timcs a wcck, and rcvicwcd on avcragc wcll ovcr
.cc cascs a day. A military attorncy lrom thc Task Forcc . lcgal occ vcrbally
summarizcd cach lc, an intcrprctcr orally translatcd this summary into Arabic,
and thc board mcmbcrs wcrc thcn providcd a bricl opportunity to ask qucstions
and dcbatc thc mcrits ol dctcntion. Tc CRR8 could rccommcnd .) continucd
dctcntion, a) rclcasc with a guarantor,

or ) unconditional rclcasc. All rccom

mcndations wcrc by majority votc. 8ctwccn August acc and Novcmbcr acc,
thc CRR8 votcd to rclcasc .a, ca dctainccs and continuc intcrnmcnt lor ,c.
Tc rcsults ol thc CRR8 hcaring wcrc providcd to thc dctaining units,
which thcn had scvcn days to submit commcnt i.c., concur or nonconcur. !l
thc dctaining unit (or a supcrior in its chainolcommand) did not concur with a
CRR8 rccommcndation lor rclcasc, that lact and any supporting basis was docu
mcntcd in thc dctainccs lc and it was rcturncd to thc CRR8 lor lurthcr con
sidcration. Rccommcndations lor unconditional rclcasc or rclcasc with guarantor
wcrc lorwardcd to thc Commandcr, Task Forcc . lor approval. Vhilc Gcncral
Millcr (and his succcssor Major Gcncral Villiam 8randcnburg) rctaincd nal
rclcasc authority, CRR8 rccommcndations to rclcasc wcrc lollowcd ovcr ol
thc timc.
A sccond CRR8 was crcatcd in May acc in ordcr to kccp pacc with thc incrcasing
rcvicw workload.
Rclcasc with a guarantor csscntially involvcd a tribal lcadcr or othcr community
lcadcr vouching lor thc dctaincc and guarantccing thc dctaincc would not cngagc
in antiCoalition Forcc activity.
435 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
IV A Model for the Iuture?
Against thc backdrop ol thc Abu Ghraib abusc scandal, thc idca that thc conduct
ol dctcntion opcrations in !raq could providc a tting modcl lor thc intcrnmcnt
ol civilians in luturc conicts probably strikcs most as prcpostcrous. Ncvcrthclcss,
il thc scandal is placcd in propcr pcrspcctivc,
o
a picturc ol cvolving, ordcrly duc
proccss in thc midst ol an uttcrly disordcrly conict slowly bcgins to cmcrgc.
Considcrablc thought was givcn to thc spirit and lcttcr ol thc law throughout thc
dctcntion rcvicw proccss. Magistratcs grapplcd with lairncss, cvidcntiary stand
ards, undcrstanding thc contcxt ol thc dctcntions (cvidcncc collcction in a hos
tilc wartimc cnvironmcnt docs not involvc ycllow tapc and cxtcnsivc lorcnsic
analysis) and thc mcaning ol rcasonablcncss in dctcrmining whcthcr somconc
poscd an impcrativc thrcat to thc sccurity ol Coalition Forccs. 8oard mcmbcrs
wcrc hauntcd by thc conicting cvils ol dctaining an innoccnt pcrson and rclcas
ing a tcrrorist to attack and kill. Policy makcrs continually ncgotiatcd with, prod
dcd and cajolcd !raqi govcrnmcnt ocials to assumc cvcrgrcatcr rcsponsibility
lor and jurisdiction ovcr thc dctcntion proccss all in lurthcrancc ol thc goal
ol rcplacing wartimc sccurity dctcntions with pcacctimc criminal accountability
and thc rulc ol law.
Is a Ten-Second Fe.ie. Feally Procedural Due Process?
Pcrhaps thc grcatcst criticism this author can lodgc against thc lcgal aspccts ol
dctaincc opcrations in !raq rclatcs to thc actual conduct ol thc rcvicw and rclcasc
boards, spccically thc Combincd Rcvicw and Rclcasc 8oard.
+
Articlc ol GC
!\ simply mandatcs that any protcctcd pcrson who has bccn intcrncd shall
bc cntitlcd to havc such action rcconsidcrcd as soon as possiblc by an appropriatc
court or administrativc board dcsigncd by thc ctaining Powcr lor that purposc.
!l dctcntion is continucd, thc board must givc considcration to thc dctainccs
casc at lcast cvcry six months. Sincc dctailcd implcmcnting guidclincs lor rccon
sidcrcd and givc considcration arc not providcd, thc lcvcl ol thoroughncss
ncccssary to comply with thc spirit ol GC !\ is admittcdly opcn to somc intcr
prctation. !s a thorough rcvicw rcquircd, or passing thought sucicnt:
Likc cvcry othcr lunction within dctaincc opcrations in !raq, thc CRR8 was
consistcntly trying to catch up with thc continual ood ol ncw dctainccs. 8y
January acc, thc CRR8 was mccting at lcast thrcc timcs a wcck lor allday scs
c Tc dcspicablc actions ol a lcw inucnccd pcrhaps by a lack ol clcar guidancc on
propcr intcrrogation tcchniqucs.
. Tis author docs not minimizc thc cvil ol thc Abu Ghraib abusc scandal or thc othcr
allcgations ol dctaincc abusc, but chooscs not to commcnt hcrc on thcsc issucs as
thcy arc bcyond thc purvicw ol this papcr and havc bccn addrcsscd, along with rcc
ommcndcd rcmcdial mcasurcs, in thc invcstigations rclcrcnccd in notc .
436 ndru E. !all
sions. uring a typical scssion, thc board considcrcd wcll ovcr .cc cascs i.c., it
spcnt no morc than a couplc minutcs on cach casc. Two Task Forcc . military
lawycrs (who split thc workload) rcvicwcd thc dockctcd cascs thc prcccding day
and prcparcd two or thrcc scntcncc summarics, which thcy briclcd to thc board
and a translator orally convcycd in Arabic. Tc dctaincc lc was thcn passcd
around lrom onc board mcmbcr to thc ncxt lor cach to inscribc thcir votc on a
shcct attachcd to thc lc. 8y thc timc thc lc was passcd to thc third or lourth
board mcmbcr, a ncw dctaincc lc was usually bcing briclcd.
thcr barricrs to truc rcvicw wcrc obscrvcd. !nitially, thc MNF! occrs
on thc board rcgistcrcd thcir votcs rst. Howcvcr, it appcarcd thc !raqi boardcd
mcmbcrs tcndcd to votc with thc military board mcmbcrs to a dcgrcc that sug
gcstcd lack ol indcpcndcnt considcration. Tus, thc ordcr ol voting was rcvcrscd,
which rcsultcd in lcwcr unanimous votcs and morc ol an !raqi lcad in rclcasc rcc
ommcndations. !t was also obscrvcd that thc !raqi board mcmbcrs tcndcd to stcr
cotypc to a dcgrcc incompatiblc with Vcstcrn notions ol lairncss. For cxamplc,
!raqi board mcmbcrs routincly citcd such lacts as thc dctainccs tribal or rcligious
aliations as thc basis lor thcir votc to dctain. Vhcn thcsc lacts wcrc omittcd or
abscnt lrom thc lc, !raqi board mcmbcrs wcrc obscrvcd looking at thc dctainccs
photo and ovcrhcard commcnting in Arabic words to thc ccct oh, ycs, hcs a
tcrrorist and thcn voting to dctain.
Arguably, morc rcsourccs should bc assigncd to rcvicw boards such as thc
CRR8. Tis is not to suggcst that thcy should bccomc mini courts with rights to
appcar and thc right to counscl, but pcrhaps board mcmbcrs should spcnd morc
than a lcw scconds individually rcvicwing cach lc bclorc making thc dccision to
dcprivc somconc ol thcir lrccdom.
B GC III, GC I!, or E.ol.ing Customary International La.?
From thc standpoint ol thc dcvclopmcnt ol customary intcrnational law, schol
ars will strugglc with thc conicting cxamplcs ol statc practicc prcscntcd by thc
Unitcd Statcs. uring pcration nduring Frccdom in Alghanistan, thc Unitcd
Statcs asscrtcd its bclicl that unlawlul combatants wcrc cntitlcd to thc protcc
tions ol ncithcr GC !!! nor GC !\, dcciding instcad to hold unlawlul combatants
until thc cnd ol an intcrminablc conict whilc simultancously dcpriving thcm ol
thc privilcgcs accordcd prisoncrs ol war or dctaincd civilians. uring pcration
!raqi Frccdom thc Unitcd Statcs clung to this position in principlc, but in prac
ticc (with rarc cxccption) gcncrally aordcd unlawlul combatants thc duc proccss
protcctions ol GC !\.
:
Tc dctaincc rcvicw and rclcasc proccdurcs implcmcntcd
by Coalition Forccs altcr thc translcr ol sovcrcignty csscntially uscd thc rcquirc
mcnts ol GC !\, spccically thosc lound in Articlcs . (initial rcvicw as soon
as possiblc and subscqucnt rcvicws at lcast cvcry six months), as a basclinc lor thc
a Scc lootnotc ., and accompanying tcxt.
437 16 Ci.ilian Detentions in Iraq
dcvclopmcnt ol duc proccss and humanitarian salcguards in thc implcmcntation
ol UN Sccurity Council Rcsolution .6.
nc wondcrs il, with thc bcnct ol cxpcricncc and hindsight, policymakcrs
rcalizcd thcy could accomplish thcir goals ol prcvcnting dctainccs lrom rcturning
to thc ght against thc Unitcd Statcs, whilc simultancously avoiding a cacoph
ony ol criticism lrom thc intcrnational community. A tting cxamplc ol how
thcsc twin objcctivcs wcrc mct in !raq is thc handling ol dctaincd lorcign ght
crs.

Vhilc comprising lcss than .c ol thc insurgcnts or tcrrorists ghting

Coalition Forccs in !raq, lorcign ghtcrs wcrc rcsponsiblc lor thc most dramatic
and bloody attacks. Tcy typically distinguishcd thcmsclvcs lrom ordinary !raqi
ghtcrs in that thcy ncithcr gavc nor rcqucstcd quartcr thcy lought crccly to
thc dcath (onc rcason why thcy compriscd lcss than ol thc dctaincc popula
tion). Ncvcrthclcss, by cccmbcr acc, scvcral hundrcd lorcign ghtcrs wcrc in
thc custody ol Coalition Forccs.
Rccognizing that at somc point activc hostilitics and thc dctcntion ol sccu
rity intcrnccs would cnd, Coalition Forccs and thc !raqi govcrnmcnt cstablishcd
protocols lor thc turnovcr ol lorcign ghtcrs to thc !raqi govcrnmcnt lor prosccu
tion. Prosccution and conviction was surprisingly simplc undcr what was csscn
tially a strict liability policy: mcrc prcscncc in !raq without a valid passport cntry
(which no onc had) cqualcd an illcgal boardcr crossing undcr !raqi law. Sincc
thc vast majority ol thc lorcign ghtcrs (bcing truc bclicvcrs) admittcd thcy
cntcrcd !raq illcgally lor thc purposc ol waging jihad against thc indcl Coalition
Forccs (again, not a lcgal rcason lor cntry undcr !raqi law), thc !raqi judgcs ol
thc Ccntral Criminal Court ol !raq gcncrally lound mitigating circumstanccs to
bc lacking and adjudicatcd scntcnccs ranging lrom vc to scvcn ycars imprison
mcnt. !l thc lorcign ghtcr was capturcd during a rcght with Coalition Forccs,
or othcrwisc in posscssion ol illcgal wcapons, an additional vc ycars could bc,
and typically was, tackcd on to thc !raqi passport violation conviction.
Tc contrast bctwccn dctcntions in Alghanistan and !raq is stark. Tc lor
cign ghtcrs capturcd in Alghanistan and transportcd to Guantanamo 8ay,
Cuba, wcrc dcnicd protcction undcr cithcr GC !!! or GC !\, thus gcncrating
widcsprcad intcrnational criticism. Tcy havc bccn hcld in dctcntion lor lour
ycars now, absorbing considcrablc rcsourccs and gcncrating incrcasing criticism
with cach passing day. Vhat was gaincd by this policy: !n practical tcrms, it only
addcd thc ability to rcmovc thc dctainccs lrom Alghanistan a practicc prohib
itcd by Articlc ol GC !\.

Tc lorcign ghtcrs in !raq, on thc othcr hand, wcrc

As mcntioncd in scction !!, GC !\ docs not apply to nationals ol ncutral countrics
with which thc dctaining powcr has normal diplomatic rclations. So whilc Coalition
Forccs gcncrally applicd GC !\ to lorcign ghtcrs capturcd in !raq as a mattcr ol
policy and ccacy, thcrc was no corrcsponding lcgal obligation to do so.
!n lact, unlawlul dcportation or translcr ol a pcrson protcctcd undcr GC !\ is a
gravc brcach undcr Articlc .,.
438 ndru E. !all
gcncrally aordcd thc duc proccss protcctions ol GC !\, which provcd no rcal
impcdimcnt to intclligcncc collcction, consumcd lcss rcsourccs than thc Alghan
dctainccs (cxact gurcs arc not publicly availablc, but thc costs would sccmingly
bc considcrably lcss lor thc !raqi dctcntions), and, most importantly, thcy wcrc
convictcd undcr !raqi law by !raqi judgcs and scntcnccd to vc to twclvc ycar
prison tcrms in an !raqi prison. !l you wcrc a policymakcr, which modcl would
you chosc in luturc conicts:
Chapter 17
Translormativc Military ccupation:
Applying thc Laws ol Var and Human Rights
dam Foberts
Vithin thc cxisting lramcwork ol intcrnational law, is it lcgitimatc lor an occu
pying powcr, in thc namc ol crcating thc conditions lor a morc dcmocratic and
pcacclul statc, to introducc lundamcntal changcs in thc constitutional, social, cco
nomic and lcgal ordcr within an occupicd tcrritory: Tis is thc ccntral qucstion
addrcsscd hcrc. To put it in othcr ways, is thc body ol trcatybascd intcrnational
law rclating to occupations, somc ol which is morc than a ccntury old, appro
priatc to conditions somctimcs laccd today: !s it still rclcvant to cascs ol trans
lormativc occupation i.c. thosc whosc statcd purposc (whcthcr or not actually
achicvcd) is to changc statcs that havc lailcd, or havc bccn undcr tyrannical rulc:
!s thc ncwcr body ol human rights law applicablc to occupations, and can it
providc a basis lor translormativc acts by thc occupant: Can thc UN Sccurity
Council modily thc application ol thc law in particular cascs: Finally, has thc
body ol trcatybascd law bccn modicd by custom:
Tcsc qucstions havc ariscn in a numbcr ol conicts and occupations
sincc . including in thc tragic situation in !raq sincc thc USlcd invasion
ol MarchApril acc. Tcy havc ariscn bccausc ol thc cautious, cvcn rcstrictivc
assumption in thc laws ol war (also callcd intcrnational humanitarian law or,
traditionally, jus in bello) that occupying powcrs should rcspcct thc cxisting laws
and cconomic arrangcmcnts within thc occupicd tcrritory, and should thcrclorc,
by implication, makc as lcw changcs as possiblc. Tis conscrvationist principlc in
thc laws ol war is in potcntial conict with thc translormativc goals ol ccrtain
occupations.
Tis survcy suggcsts that thc law on occupations rcmains both viablc and
usclul, and has provcd rcasonably cxiblc in practicc. Tc articlc cxplorcs two
particular ways in which potcntial conicts bctwccn thc conscrvationist principlc
on thc onc hand, and translormativc goals on thc othcr, may bc mitigatcd. nc
is thc application ol intcrnational human rights law, which ocrs principlcs and
Tis chaptcr is a product ol rcscarch conductcd undcr thc auspiccs ol thc xlord
Lcvcrhulmc Programmc on thc Changing Charactcr ol Var. A vcrsion appcarcd in
merican Journal of International La., Vashington C, vol. .cc, no. , July acc6.
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. ,,-,,.
440 dam Foberts
proccdurcs that can hclp to dcnc thc mcans and cnds ol an occupation. Anothcr
is thc involvcmcnt ol intcrnational organizations, cspccially thc Unitcd Nations,
that can assist in sctting or lcgitimizing ccrtain translormativc policics during an
occupation.
Tc cxistcncc ol a possiblc lcgal justication lor pursuing translormativc
projccts in military occupations might bc thought to havc two conscqucnccs, but
ncithcr ol thcm lollows automatically lrom it. Firstly, it is no basis lor gcncral
optimism about translormativc occupations. Law may allow lor ccrtain possiblc
courscs ol action, but that docs not mcan that translormativc goals arc always
dcsirablc or attainablc. nly in cxccptional circumstanccs arc occupations likcly
to bring about a succcsslul dcmocratic transition in a socicty. Tcrc is amplc
ground lor sccpticism about thc propositions that dcmocracy can bc sprcad by
thc sword, and that thc holding ol multiparty clcctions is in itscll cvidcncc that
a socicty is moving bcyond authoritarianism.
+
Sccondly, a lcgal lramcwork lor a translormativc projcct undcr thc jus in
bello docs not mcan that, undcr thc jus ad bellum, thcrc can bc said to bc any
thing approaching a gcncral right ol statcs to invadc othcr sovcrcign statcs with
thc statcd purposc ol rclorming thcir political systcms in a dcmocratic dircction.
Sincc at lcast thc timc ol thc Frcnch Rcvolution ol ., thcrc havc bccn many
visions and projccts ol dcmocratic translormativc conqucst. !n contcmporary
intcrnational law a translormativc political purposc is not on its own a justicd
causc lor intcrvcntion.
Tc qucstion ol whcthcr thcrc can bc a justication ol intcrvcntion on trans
lormativc grounds ovcrlaps with thc longstanding and contcntious qucstion ol
humanitarian intcrvcntion. Tcrc is a strong tradition ol sccpticism among intcr
national lawycrs about whcthcr, in thc abscncc ol a spccic UN Sccurity Council
authorization, thcrc can bc said to bc any right ol humanitarian intcrvcntion.
:

Howcvcr, thcrc is scopc lor a nuanccd vicw that allows lor somc possibility ol
humanitarian intcrvcntion cvcn without spccic Sccurity Council authorization.
!n such a vicw, it is ncithcr logical nor hclplul to lramc thc considcration ol
intcrvcntions in humanitarian criscs in tcrms ol a gcncral right ol humanitar
ian intcrvcntion. Rathcr, humanitarian intcrvcntion is an occasional ncccssity,
in which thc lcgal issucs on both sidcs arc ncly balanccd, and in which statcs
taking military action must acccpt a dcgrcc ol lcgal risk. !l it wcrc to bc acccptcd
along such lincs that on rarc occasions intcrvcntion on humanitarian grounds
might bc justiablc, cvcn without cxplicit UN Sccurity Council authorization,
. n thc distinction bctwccn thc cxtcrnal trappings ol dcmocracy, and political sys
tcms in which lrccdom is dccply cntrcnchcd, scc cspccially Farccd Zakaria, Te
Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and broad (Ncw York: V.V. Norton,
acc).
a Yoram instcin has bccn charactcristically consistcnt, clcar and uncquivocal in
dcnying thc cxistcncc ol such a right. Scc instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence,

th
cdn. (Cambridgc: Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss, acc), pp. ,c, c. and ..
441 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
any individual casc ol intcrvcntion would nccd to bc bascd on vcry carclul con
sidcration ol thc particular lactual situation and thc lcgal issucs involvcd.

Tc qucstion as to whcthcr an occupant is cntitlcd to havc translormativc

goals is in principlc distinct lrom thc qucstion ol thc original rcason lor thc
intcrvcntion. Tc distinction is cspccially important bccausc, at lcast in somc
cascs, an occupation may bc initiatcd primarily as a rcsponsc to thc intcrnational
conduct ol thc targct statc such as its ocnsivc military opcrations, or its viola
tions ol intcrnational commitmcnts on any ol a widc rangc ol mattcrs. !n such
cascs thc translormativc purposc ol an occupation may bc at bcst a sccondary
rcason lor invading, or may cmcrgc as a goal only altcr thc armcd conict and/or
thc rcsulting occupation has commcnccd. Yct thcrc is an clcmcnt ol articiality
in thc proposition that translormativc goals may bc acccptablc, but only as a by
product ol military action, not as its rcal justication.
Scvcral cpisodcs, including in thc dclcatcd Axis countrics post. and
!raq sincc acc, indicatc that a translormativc political purposc can oltcn arisc in
occupations, and also in somc othcr situations rcscmbling occupations in ccrtain
rcspccts (such as UN administrations ol postconict tcrritorics). !n thc cascs
whcrc occupation law is applicablc, thc lawlulncss, or lack ol it, ol such a pur
posc has to bc asscsscd partly as a qucstion rclating to thc lawlul powcrs ol an
occupant.
Tis survcy, which locuscs mainly on thc jus in bello qucstion ol what should
bc thc limits ol thc powcrs ol an occupant, is dividcd into lour main parts. (!)
Tc rst part looks at ccrtain undcrlying rulcs ol thc laws ol war that sct a lramc
work ol minimal altcration ol thc cxisting ordcr in thc occupicd tcrritory, and
considcrs ccrtain challcngcs to thcm. (!!) Tc sccond part discusscs thc qucstion
ol thc applicability ol thc intcrnational law ol human rights to military occupa
tions. 8ccausc this is a rclativcly ncw and controvcrsial issuc, this part includcs
not only a gcncral discussion, but also bricl rclcrcncc to ccrtain occupations, and
analogous situations, in which this qucstion has ariscn. (!!!) Tc third part looks
at post. lorcign military prcscnccs with a lundamcntally translormativc pur
posc, and considcrs, inter alia, what thc implications ol such a purposc arc lor thc
law govcrning occupations. Tis part locuscs particularly on thc rolc ol intcrna
tional organizations (cspccially thc UN), and on !raq sincc acc. (!\) Tc lourth
part suggcsts somc gcncral conclusions about translormativc military prcscnccs,
looking mainly at thc challcngcs to, and continuing rclcvancc ol, thc laws ol war
and also human rights law.
For claboration ol such a vicw, scc Adam Robcrts, Tc SoCallcd Right ol
Humanitarian !ntcrvcntion, Yearbook of International Humanitarian La., vol. ,
accc (Tc Haguc: T.M.C. Asscr Prcss, acca), pp. ..
442 dam Foberts
I Te Iaws of War
Tc assumption that, thc occupants rolc bcing tcmporary, any altcration ol thc
cxisting ordcr in occupicd tcrritory should bc minimal, has bccn at thc hcart ol
thc provisions on military occupation in thc laws ol war. Trcc aspccts ol thc
law rclating to occupicd tcrritorics cxcmplily this rcquircmcnt: thc prohibition
ol anncxation, thc rulcs rcgarding thc occupants structurc ol authority, and thc
rulcs rcgarding thc maintcnancc ol cxisting lcgislation in occupicd tcrritory. Tc
rst, thc prohibition on anncxation, has survivcd, battcrcd but unbowcd. Tc
sccond and third arc undcr much grcatcr prcssurc. ach is considcrcd in turn.
All thrcc ol thcsc rulcs arc rclatcd to thc undcrstanding ol occupation as a
concomitant ol war, and a tcmporary statc ol aairs pcnding a pcacc agrccmcnt.
!n this scnsc thcsc rulcs t wcll within thc main strcam ol jus in bello. Howcvcr,
it has long bccn acccptcd that occupation is not always a mcrc tcmporary phasc
during a war. For cxamplc, thcrc is a tradition ol thought about post-debellatio
occupation, which occurs whcn at thc cnd ol a war a country is so complctcly
dclcatcd that it has virtually ccascd to cxist as a statc.

Modcrn translormativc
occupations arc distinct lrom post-debellatio occupation, but thcy do bcar ccrtain
similaritics to it. !n thc pcriod sincc . scvcral occupations havc cndurcd long
altcr thc hostilitics that causcd thcm: thc !sraclioccupicd tcrritorics, northcrn
Cyprus and !raq arc cascs in point. Tis phcnomcnon has givcn risc to thought
lul considcration by somc writcrs as to whcthcr occupation law laccs a crisis ol
rclcvancc. At thc most gcncral lcvcl, thc qucstion has bccn raiscd as to whcthcr
occupation law should bc vicwcd as coming undcr a ncw umbrclla labcllcd jus
post bellum, but such suggcstion is tcmpcrcd by awarcncss ol thc importancc ol
ccctivc implcmcntation ol thc cxisting body ol occupation law, which is sccn as
rcmaining rclcvant to many problcms raiscd in modcrn occupations.

Prohibition of nnexation
Tc rulc ol intcrnational customary law that prohibits unilatcral anncxation ol
tcrritory, at lcast whilc a conict is still continuing, is a ncccssary loundation lor
thc wholc idca that occupation is subjcct to a distinct rcgulatory lramcwork. Tc
rulc is a rcmindcr ol thc limits imposcd on an occupying powcr limits that
might also havc implications lor translormativc occupations. Although anncxa
tion and translormation arc conccptually and lcgally vcry dicrcnt, thcy do havc
Adam Robcrts, Vhat is a Military ccupation:, British Year Book of International
La. z,8,, p. a, at p. a6,.
anicl Turcr and Malcolm MacLarcn, !us Post 8cllum in !raq: A Challcngc
to thc Applicability and Rclcvancc ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law:, in Klaus
ickc et al. (cds.), !eltinnenrecht: Liber amicorum Jost Delbruck (8crlin: unckcr &
Humblot, acc), pp. ,a.
443 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
onc thing in common thcy tcnd to involvc cxtcnding to thc occupicd tcrritory
thc typc ol political systcm to which thc occupying powcr adhcrcs.
Many acts ol anncxation havc bccn dclcndcd by usc ol thc rhctoric ol trans
lormation. Tus, whcn in Scptcmbcr ... !taly prcscntcd an ultimatum to thc
ttoman Govcrnmcnt, it complaincd that Tripoli and Cyrcnaica had bccn lclt
in a statc ol disordcr and ncglcct, insisting that thcsc rcgions should bc allowcd
to cnjoy thc samc progrcss as that attaincd by othcr parts ol Northcrn Alrica.
Tis translormation, which is rcquircd by thc gcncral cxigcncics ol civilization,
constitutcs, so lar as !taly is conccrncd, a vital intcrcst !n Novcmbcr ... !taly
dccrccd that Tripolitana and Cyrcnaica wcrc undcr complctc !talian sovcrcignty.
Many saw this anncxation as illcgal. As Sir Tomas 8arclay wrotc, shortly altcr:
!l anncxation could bc dccrccd by an invadcr without thc conscnt ol thc
invadcd Powcr thc wholc population ol thc anncxcd tcrritory might at oncc bc
madc to pass undcr thc allcgiancc ol thc invading sovcrcign, its lcgitimatc acts
ol dclcncc bc madc rcbcllious and punishablc as such and thc troops opposcd
to thc invadcr bc madc to lorlcit thcir right to bc trcatcd as bclligcrcnt. Tis is
a reductio ad absurdum ol any such proposition.
6
Modcrn practicc, which nds cxprcssion in scvcral intcrnational agrccmcnts,
dcnics thc right in most circumstanccs to unilatcrally anncx occupicd tcrritory
i.c. to changc its lcgal status to that ol a componcnt part ol thc occupants sov
crcign statc. vcn il thc wholc country is occupicd, and thc lcgitimatc govcrn
mcnt gocs into cxilc and docs not participatc activcly in military opcrations, thc
occupant docs not havc any right to anncxation.

!l thc ccupying Powcr docs (illcgally) anncx thc wholc or part ol thc occu
picd tcrritory, thc population must not by that act bc dcprivcd ol thc bcncts ol
thc . Gcncva Convcntion !\.
8
Kuwait providcs an cxamplc ol thc intcrna
tional community obscrving this principlc in rcsponsc to an attcmptcd anncxa
tion. n a August .c !raq occupicd Kuwait. n thc samc day thc UN Sccurity
Council dcmandcd that !raq withdraw immcdiatcly and unconditionally, and
6 Sir Tomas 8arclay, Te Turco-Italian !ar and its Problems (London: Constablc,
..a), p. . n thc strong intcrnational Muslim lccling about this conqucst scc thc
additional chaptcr by thc Rt. Hon. Amccr Ali at pp..c.. Tcxts ol !talys ultima
tum ol a6 Scptcmbcr ... and its ccrcc ol Anncxation ol Novcmbcr ... arc at pp.
.c.. and ....
, Tc prohibition on anncxations is part ol customary law, and nds cxprcssion in thc
UN Chartcr, Art. a(), and in thc cclaration on Principlcs ol !ntcrnational Law
conccrning Fricndly Rclations and Coopcration among Statcs in accordancc with
thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations, approvcd in GA Rcs. a6a (XX\) ol a ct. .,c.
Scc also Gcorg Schwarzcnbcrgcr, Tc Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation: 8asic !ssucs,
Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Fet z,oc, p. .c, at pp. .a..
. Gcncva Conv. !\, Art. ,.
444 dam Foberts
on 6 August, dcclaring itscll dctcrmincd to bring thc invasion and occupation
ol Kuwait by !raq to an cnd, it imposcd cconomic sanctions on !raq.

n
August Saddam Husscin announccd thc mcrgcr ol Kuwait with !raq i.c. anncx
ation. n thc lollowing day thc UN Sccurity Council dccidcd that anncxation
ol Kuwait by !raq undcr any lorm and whatcvcr prctcxt has no lcgal validity, and
is considcrcd null and void.
+o
Tc Council subscqucntly statcd cxplicitly that thc
Fourth Gcncva Convcntion applics to Kuwait.
++
Tus, in this casc at lcast, thc
most drastic lorm ol translormation ol a tcrritory and its political ordcr namcly
incorporation into anothcr statc was vicwcd as clcarly contrary to intcrnational
law and thc rulcs govcrning occupations rcmaincd a valid bcnchmark by which
thc actions ol an occupant wcrc to bc judgcd.
thcr cascs ol anncxation or quasianncxation dcmonstratc that thc pro
hibition ol anncxations, whilc crystal clcar in thcory, is by no mcans as straight
lorward in practicc. A principal problcm is that many cascs ol anncxation or
attcmptcd anncxation havc bccn in circumstanccs whcrc thc original status ol thc
anncxcd tcrritory was itscll lcss than onc ol lull sovcrcignty. Tc Chincsc invasion
ol Tibct (.c), thc !ndian invasion ol Goa (.6a), and thc !ndoncsian invasion ol
ast Timor (.,) arc all cascs in point. nly thc last ol thcsc thrcc actions was
cvcntually rcvcrscd, in .acca.
Anncxation has oltcn bccn sccn, quitc naturally, as linkcd to aggrcssion.
Many intcrnational lawycrs havc propoundcd thc principlc that unilatcral acts
inconsistcnt with lundamcntal rulcs ol intcrnational law should bc vicwcd as null
and void, and no prcscriptivc rights should cvolvc in lavour ol thc aggrcssor. Tus,
anncxation rcsulting lrom aggrcssion should not bc rccognizcd. Yoram instcin
raiscs thc intcrcsting qucstion ol how ccctivc thc lcgal principlc ol nonrccog
nition can bc in thc long tcrm. !l thc de facto control ol thc tcrritory anncxcd by
thc aggrcssor continucs unintcrruptcd lor gcncrations, thc nonprcscription rulc
may havc to givc way in thc cnd. !ntcrnational law must not bc divorccd lrom
rcality.
+:
Vhat il an occupation ariscs, not lrom an act ol aggrcssion, but lollowing
a dclcnsivc war, in which a statc dclcnding its tcrritory occupics ncighbouring
lands: Tis is onc lactually wcllgroundcd vicw ol thc position ol !sracl in rcspcct
ol thc tcrritorics occupicd sincc .6,. !n ccrtain parts ol thcsc tcrritorics (thc
Golan Hcights, and ast Jcrusalcm with cxtcndcd boundarics) thcrc havc bccn
subscqucnt acts ol anncxation or quasianncxation, taking mainly thc lorm ol
SC Rcs. 66c ol a Aug. .c, and SC Rcs. 66. ol 6 Aug. .c. Tc tcxts ol thcsc
and all othcr Sccurity Council and ccrtain Gcncral Asscmbly rcsolutions and othcr
UN documcnts mcntioncd in this survcy arc availablc at http://www.un.org/docu
mcnts~.
.c SC Rcs. 66a ol Aug. .c.
.. SC Rcs. 6,c ol a Scpt. .c, and SC Rcs. 6, ol a ct. .c
.a Yoram instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence, th cdn. (supra notc a), p. .,..
445 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
applying !sracli law to thcm. Tc ovcrwhclming tcndcncy ol statcs and intcrna
tional bodics has bccn not to rccognisc thcsc purportcd anncxations, but rathcr to
vicw thc law on occupation as rcmaining applicablc to thc situation. Tc gcncral
prohibition on anncxation, in othcr words, continucs to bc sccn as a kcy principlc,
cvcn il it is undcr prcssurc.
!mportant as thc problcm ol anncxation is, it is by no mcans thc only way
in which lundamcntal and lasting changc may bc brought about in a tcrritory.
nc ol thc common ways in which occupying lorccs changc thc political ordcr
in occupicd tcrritory is whcn thcy attcmpt, not an act ol anncxation, but othcr
changcs: lor cxamplc, in thc composition ol thc govcrnmcnt, and in thc constitu
tional or lcgal systcm. Such changcs may bc aimcd at achicving what is in ccct
thc oppositc ol anncxation: thc lull rcsumption ol sovcrcignty by thc tcrritory
conccrncd. Tcrc is nothing ncw about such practiccs. As Sharon Korman has
writtcn in hcr study ol Te Fight of Conquest, thc Frcnch rcvolutionarics post.,
bclicvcd that thcy had rcplaccd thc oldlashioncd right ol conqucst with a ncw
principlc thc right ol pcoplcs to dctcrminc lrccly thcir political aliations:
Tus, in accordancc with thc principlc ol no conqucsts which it had pro
claimcd in .,c, rcvolutionary Francc dcclincd to invokc thc right ol conqucst
in thc countrics to which its arms wcrc supposcdly bringing libcrty. 8ut il it
no longcr substitutcd its own sovcrcignty directly in thc occupicd tcrritorics, it
did so in an indirect manncr. Judging that thc pcoplc wcrc thc solc sovcrcign, it
ovcrthrcw thc ancicnt sovcrcignty ol usurpcr kings, only to cstablish in thcir
placc popular authoritics which it placcd undcr thc rcvolutionary guidancc ol
Francc.
+
Tis cpisodc scrvcs as a usclul rcmindcr that translormativc occupations havc a
long history. Tcy arc, arguably, an outgrowth ol thc disapproval ol anncxations,
but thcy arc not in all rcspccts thcir oppositcs. !ndccd, in many cascs, lrom thc
Frcnch Rcvolution down to Gcrmany, Japan, and twcntyrst ccntury !raq, trans
lormativc occupation may bc considcrcd to havc cmcrgcd as a morc honourablc,
but still dccply controvcrsial, succcssor to thc discrcditcd notion ol anncxation.
B Te Occupants Structure of uthority
Tc occupant, including such occupying lorccs or occrs as arc mcntioncd in thc
convcntions, usually cxcrciscs authority by virtuc ol its ccctivc lactual control,
. Sharon Korman, Te Fight of Conquest: Te cquisition of Territory by Force in
International La. and Practice (xlord: xlord Univcrsity Prcss, .6), p. .aa. For
a historical pcrspcctivc on translormativc occupations scc also Nchal 8huta, Tc
Antinomics ol Translormativc ccupation, European Journal of International La.,
vol. .6, no. (Scptcmbcr acc), pp. ,a.c.
446 dam Foberts
rathcr than by virtuc ol any lcgal cntitlcmcnt. Tat lactual authority is accordcd
a dcgrcc ol rccognition in thc convcntions, which rccct thc assumption that thc
occupant has a structurc ol authority and cxtcnsivc rcsponsibilitics in thc occu
picd tcrritory. Translormation, which ncccssarily involvcs handing ovcr powcr to
authoritics coming lrom within thc tcrritory, thrcatcns this assumption.
Vhat is an occupation administration supposcd to look likc: Tc .c, Haguc
Rcgulations rclcr variously to thc hostilc army, thc occupant, a commandcr
inchicl , thc commandcr in thc locality occupicd, an army ol occupation, and
thc occupying Statc as thc cntitics cxcrcising authority in occupicd tcrritory.
+

Tcrc is a clcar implication ol a wcll ordcrcd chain ol military command and lcgal
rcsponsibility coming down lrom thc govcrnmcnt ol thc occupying statc: and
indccd most occupation administrations havc had such a charactcr.
Tc . Gcncva Convcntion !\ rclcrs throughout to thc ccupying Powcr
as thc body with authority in occupicd tcrritory.
+
Tis tcrm applics csscntially to
thc ccntral govcrnmcnt ol thc statc whosc lorccs havc carricd out thc invasion
and occupation. Nothing is said in this Convcntion about thc prccisc adminis
trativc lorm ol thc occupation rcgimc. Tc .,, Additional Protocol ! also uscs
thc tcrm ccupying Powcr without dcning it or suggcsting thc administra
tivc lorms it might assumc.
+6
Tus thc Gcncva strcam ol law cstablishcs that thc
govcrnmcnt ol thc occupying statc bcars rcsponsibility lor thc action takcn in
occupicd tcrritory, but it docs not claboratc on thc bricl rclcrcnccs in thc Haguc
Rcgulations as to who cxcrts this authority on thc spot.
Many writcrs, propcrly strcssing thc idca ol tcmporary trustccship which is
at thc hcart ol much occupation law, havc indicatcd that thcrc arc limits to thc
constitutional changcs which an occupying powcr may bring about. Pictct, com
mcnting on . Gcncva Convcntion !\, Articlc ,, has cxprcsscd this vicw:
uring thc Sccond Vorld Var ccupying Powcrs intcrvcncd in thc occupicd
countrics on numcrous occasions and in a grcat varicty ol ways, dcpcnding on
thc political aim pursucd, cxamplcs arc changcs in constitutional lorms or in
thc lorm ol govcrnmcnt, thc cstablishmcnt ol ncw military or political organi
zations, thc dissolution ol thc Statc, or thc lormation ol ncw political cntitics.
!ntcrnational law prohibits such actions, which arc bascd solcly on thc
military strcngth ol thc ccupying Powcr and not on a sovcrcign dccision
by thc occupicd Statc. l coursc thc ccupying Powcr usually tricd to givc
somc colour ol lcgality and indcpcndcncc to thc ncw organizations, which
. . and .c, Haguc Rcgs., Arts. a, , , , ., a, , and .
. !n . Gcncva Conv. !\ thc tcrm ccupying Powcr appcars in Arts. 6, c, ,6.,
6, ,c,, , and .. A continuing rolc lor thc authoritics ol thc occupicd tcrrito
rics is implicitly cnvisagcd in Arts. 6 and ,.
.6 !n .,, Additional Prot. !, thc tcrm ccupying Powcr appcars in Arts. ., ., 6, 6,
6, and . Tc samc tcrm is uscd in thc . Cultural Propcrty Conv., Art. .
447 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
wcrc lormcd in thc majority ol cascs with thc coopcration ol ccrtain clcmcnts
among thc population ol thc occupicd country, but it was obvious that thcy
wcrc in lact always subscrvicnt to thc will ol thc ccupying Powcr. Such prac
ticcs wcrc incompatiblc with thc traditional conccpt ol occupation (as dcncd
in Articlc ol thc Haguc Rcgulations ol .c,) according to which thc occu
pying authority was to bc considcrcd as mcrcly bcing a de facto administra
tor.
+
Pictcts undcrlying idca, that thc occupying powcr normally has thc rolc ol de
facto administrator, is indccd justicd. Howcvcr, in thc swccping lorm in which
it is prcscntcd, his condcmnation ol political intcrvcntions by occupying powcrs
is opcn to challcngc. ccupants oltcn attcmpt to disguisc or limit thcir own rolc
by opcrating indircctly: by sctting up somc kind ol quasiindcpcndcnt puppct
rcgimc, by opcrating through thc cxisting systcm ol govcrnmcnt, which rcmains
in post within occupicd tcrritory, by cstablishing an intcrnational administra
tion ol thc tcrritory, or by introducing a ncw constitutional systcm. Somctimcs
thcy may scck to justily such actions as stcps towards crcating a ncw dcmocratic
systcm ol govcrnmcnt in thc occupicd tcrritory. Tcrc can bc particularly strong
rcasons lor doing so il a war is concludcd and thcrc is no prospcct ol thc tcrritory
simply rcvcrting to its lormcr rulcrs.
+8
Although many ol thc widc varicty ol govcrnmcntal arrangcmcnts imposcd
by occupying powcrs undoubtcdly dicr lrom what is cnvisagcd in thc Haguc
Rcgulations and Gcncva Convcntion !\, statcs havc bccn rcluctant to concludc
that in cvcry casc such practiccs arc unlawlul. Tcrc is particular rcluctancc to
condcmn in principlc thc introduction ol constitutional dcmocracy in thc occu
picd tcrritory. Howcvcr, thc cmcrgcncc ol a lcgitimatc govcrnmcnt incvitably
modics thc rcsponsibilitics and structurc ol authority ol thc occupant.
C Existing Legislation of the Occupied Territory
Vhat arc thc rulcs undcr occupation law that govcrn thc naturc and cxtcnt ol
changcs that can bc introduccd within occupicd tcrritory: n thc lacc ol it, thcy
arc straightlorward. Tcir basics arc cnshrincd in thc muchquotcd words ol thc
.c, Haguc Rcgulations:
., Jcan Pictct, Commentary on Gene.a Con.ention I! (Gcncva: !CRC, .), p. a,.
Availablc at http://www.icrc.org/ihl~.
. Tus in rcgard to !sracls rolc in thc Vcst 8ank, thc tcrm trustcc occupation was
proposcd by Allan Gcrson in .,. Hc suggcstcd that sincc this occupation had ccr
tain spccial lcaturcs, not all thc provisions ol thc law on occupations nccd ncccssarily
apply. Hc himscll conccdcd that !sracl had not in thc cnd assumcd thc rolc ol trustcc
occupant. Allan Gcrson, Israel, Te !est Bank and International La. (London: Frank
Cass, .,), pp. ,6a.
448 dam Foberts
rticle ,
Tc authority ol thc lcgitimatc powcr having in lact passcd into thc hands ol
thc occupant, thc lattcr shall takc all thc mcasurcs in his powcr to rcstorc, and
cnsurc, as lar as possiblc, public ordcr and salcty, whilc rcspccting, unlcss abso
lutcly prcvcntcd, thc laws in lorcc in thc country.
+
Tis articlc prcscnts somc problcms. Tc assumption that thc prcvious rulcr ol a
tcrritory was a lcgitimatc powcr is not casy to squarc with U.S. or indccd many
othcr vicws ol Adoll Hitlcr or Saddam Husscin. Tc articlcs implication that thc
laws in lorcc in thc country wcrc basically satislactory has oltcn bccn callcd into
qucstion by cvcnts. Tc lctout clausc, unlcss absolutcly prcvcntcd, has providcd
a basis lor introducing ccrtain changcs to thc laws ol occupicd tcrritorics.
Tc basic rcquircmcnt to rcspcct thc cxisting lcgal lramcwork ol a tcrritory
has long bccn undcr prcssurc, lor a varicty ol rcasons. Tis apparcntly straightlor
ward rulc nccds intcrprctation in light ol thc particular lacts ol a situation, and
thc particular naturc ol ccrtain laws. !n practicc, ccrtain typcs ol law (c.g. laws
rclating to military conscription, or to national clcctions) arc oltcn suspcndcd
during occupations.
:o
Morcovcr, in occupations ol countrics that had bccn undcr
dictatorial or cxtrcmist rulc, numcrous othcr laws may bc suspcndcd. !n thc Allicd
occupation ol parts ol !taly and Gcrmany towards thc cnd ol thc Sccond Vorld
Var, thc Allics abolishcd Fascist laws. Tcy did so right lrom thc start, during thc
bclligcrcnt occupation phasc bclorc thc !talian armisticc and thc Gcrman sur
rcndcr. Tis might havc appcarcd to transgrcss thc lcttcr ol Articlc . Howcvcr,
many writcrs indicatcd that thc naturc ol thc Axis rcgimcs and thcir laws was
such as to absolutcly prcvcnt thc Allics lrom acccpting thcir continuation.
:+
Against this background, in thc ncgotiations lcading to thc . Gcncva
Civilians Convcntion thcrc was naturally discussion about thc cxtcnt to which an
. . and .c, Haguc Rcgs., Art. . Scc also .c, Rcgs., Art. a(h). For a usclul dis
cussion ol Articlc and its cxibility in practicc scc Marco Sassli, Lcgislation
and Maintcnancc ol Public rdcr and Civil Lilc by ccupicrs, European Journal of
International La., vol. .6, no. (Scptcmbcr acc), pp. 66..
ac Unitcd Statcs, cpartmcnt ol thc Army, Te La. of Land !arfare, Ficld Manual No.
a,.c (Vashington C: . July .6), p. ., Unitcd Kingdom, Var cc, Manual
of Military La., Part !!!, Te La. of !ar on Land (London: HMS, .), p. .. !ts
succcssor, thc UK triscrvicc manual publishcd in acc, statcs that thc occupant may
suspcnd or amcnd cxisting laws ol thc occupicd tcrritory in ccrtain dcncd circum
stanccs. UK Ministry ol clcncc, Te Manual of the La. of rmed Conict (xlord:
xlord Univcrsity Prcss, acc), pp. a, and a.
a. C.R.S. Harris, llied Military dministration of Italy z,,z,, (London: HMS,
.,), p. ., F.S.\. onnison, Ci.il airs and Military Go.ernment: North-!est
Europe z,,,,o (London: HMS, .6.), pp. .a and ,,, and L. ppcnhcim,
International La.: Treatise, vol. a, Disputes, !ar and Neutrality, ,th cdn., cd. H.
Lautcrpacht (London: Longmans Grccn, .a), pp. 6,, UK, Manual of Military
La.: La. of !ar on Land, p. ..
449 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
occupying powcr can lcgitimatcly altcr thc laws in lorcc in occupicd tcrritory. Tc
statcs conccrncd cvcntually agrccd on a modcst modication ol Articlc ol thc
Haguc Rcgulations, allowing a littlc morc scopc lor changcs to thc cxisting local
laws. Tis is Articlc 6 ol thc Civilians Convcntion:
Tc pcnal laws ol thc occupicd tcrritory shall rcmain in lorcc, with thc cxccption
that thcy may bc rcpcalcd or suspcndcd by thc ccupying Powcr in cascs whcrc
thcy constitutc a thrcat to its sccurity or an obstaclc to thc application ol thc
prcscnt Convcntion. Subjcct to thc lattcr considcration and to thc ncccssity lor
cnsuring thc ccctivc administration ol justicc, thc tribunals ol thc occupicd tcr
ritory shall continuc to lunction in rcspcct ol all ocnccs covcrcd by thc said laws.
Tc ccupying Powcr may, howcvcr, subjcct thc population ol thc occu
picd tcrritory to provisions which arc csscntial to cnablc thc ccupying Powcr
to lull its obligations undcr thc prcscnt Convcntion, to maintain thc ordcrly
govcrnmcnt ol thc tcrritory, and to cnsurc thc sccurity ol thc ccupying Powcr,
ol thc mcmbcrs and propcrty ol thc occupying lorccs or administration, and
likcwisc ol thc cstablishmcnts and lincs ol communication uscd by thcm.
::
Tc ncgotiation in . that prcccdcd this tcxt includcd a numbcr ol proposals
that would havc acknowlcdgcd morc cxplicitly thc right ol thc occupying powcr
to changc thc laws. Tc US dclcgatc, Mr Ginnanc, proposcd rcplacing thc dralt
ol what bccamc thc abovcquotcd Articlc 6 with a much shortcr, simplcr and
(lor thc occupying powcr) morc pcrmissivc tcxt:
Until changcd by thc ccupying Powcr thc pcnal laws ol thc occupicd tcrri
tory shall rcmain in lorcc and thc tribunals thcrcol shall continuc to lunction
in rcspcct ol all ocnccs covcrcd by thc said laws.
:
Tc Sovict dclcgatc, Mr Morosov, spottcd thc obvious problcm with this proposal,
that it gavc thc ccupying Powcr an absolutc right to modily thc pcnal lcgisla
tion ol thc occupicd tcrritory. Such a right grcatly cxcccdcd thc limitcd right laid
aa . Gcncva Conv. !\, Art. 6. !n thc . UK Manual it was implicd that an occu
pant may also rcpcal or suspcnd laws il in thc occupicd tcrritory thcrc is no adcquatc
lcgal systcm in conlormity with gcncrally rccognizcd principlcs ol law. UK, Manual
of Military La.: La. of !ar on Land, p. .. !n similar spirit, its acc succcssor statcs:
Tc occupying powcr should makc no morc changcs to thc law than arc absolutcly
ncccssary, particularly whcrc thc occupicd tcrritory alrcady has an adcquatc lcgal
systcm. UK, Manual of the La. of rmed Conict, p. a.
a Final Fecord of the Diplomatic Conference of Gene.a of z,,, (8crnc: Fcdcral Political
cpartmcnt, n.d.), vol. !!A, p. 6,c and vol. !!!, p. ., Amcndmcnt a. Tc dralt tcxt
ol Art. that thc U.S. sought to rcplacc is in vol. !!A, p. . A usclul rcport on Art.
appcars on p. . Tcsc ncgotiations on thc tcxt ol thc Civilians Convcntion wcrc
conductcd in thc conlcrcnccs Committcc !!!.
450 dam Foberts
down in thc Haguc Rcgulations .
:
Lcss powcrlul but no lcss pcrccptivc, thc
distinguishcd Frcnch intcrnational lawycr Mr. dc Gcourc dc la Pradcllc, rcprc
scnting Monaco, suggcstcd that, in thc particular casc ol occupicd Gcrmany altcr
thc Sccond Vorld Var, U.S. modication ol thc laws ol thc country was acccpt
ablc, but such modication did not providc thc basis lor a gcncral rulc:
Vhat would bc thc position in thc oppositc casc, that ol an invadcr othcr
than a dcmocratic Powcr, who cxcrciscd that right: Undcr thc Unitcd Statcs
amcndmcnt thc invadcr could changc thc pcnal lcgislation ol thc occupicd tcr
ritory. Tc Committcc should think vcry carclully bclorc amcnding thc word
ing ol thc Convcntion in thc way suggcstcd.
:
!n thc discussion that lollowcd, Mcxico suggcstcd thc adoption ol a wording to
thc ccct that thc ccupying Powcr could only modily thc lcgislation ol an occu
picd tcrritory il thc lcgislation in qucstion violatcd thc principlcs ol thc Univcrsal
cclaration ol thc Rights ol Man .
:6
Tis solitary rclcrcncc to a human rights
bcnchmark was not lollowcd up at thc conlcrcncc.
:
Yct in thc long run, thc issuc
ol human rights was to havc a prolound ccct on thc rulcs govcrning occupa
tions. !t was to providc onc basis lor altcring thc laws ol thc occupicd tcrritory.
vcrall, thc rulc that thc laws in lorcc in thc country should bc rcspcctcd
continucs to providc an important bcnchmark lor occupants. Howcvcr, thcrc
havc bccn many cascs in which occupants, lor a widc varicty ol rcasons, havc
changcd laws in thc occupicd tcrritory without incurring intcrnational criti
cism. Translormativc occupations incrcasc thc prcssurc lor changing thosc laws.
As a rcsult, il Articlc 6 ol . Gcncva Convcntion !\ wcrc bcing rcwrittcn
today thcrc would bc prcssurc to providc lor laws ol thc occupicd tcrritory to bc
rcpcalcd or suspcndcd in two additional typcs ol circumstancc whcrc thcy arc
an obstaclc to thc cxcrcisc by thc inhabitants ol lundamcntal human rights, and
to thc implcmcntation ol translormativc purposcs approvcd by thc UN Sccurity
Council.
!n thc Civilians Convcntion, onc othcr provision might at rst sight sccm
rclcvant to translormativc occupations, but actually illustratcs a lailurc to gct to
grips with thcm. !n Articlc 6, which addrcsscs occupations that continuc lor
morc than a ycar altcr thc cnd ol a war, and cnvisagcs an occupant progrcssivcly
handing ovcr thc lunctions ol govcrnmcnt, it is statcd:
a Final Fecord, vol. !!A, p. 6,c.
a Final Fecord, vol. !!A, p. 6,..
a6 Final Fecord, vol. !!A, p. 6,..
a, Scc thc lurthcr discussion, Final Fecord, vol. !!A, p. 6,a, and thc rcport back lrom thc
ralting Committcc, p. ,,.. !n thc indcx ol contcnts ol thc lour volumcs ol thc Final
Fecord thcrc is no cntry lor human rights or lor Univcrsal cclaration.
451 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
!n thc casc ol occupicd tcrritory, thc application ol thc prcscnt Convcntion
shall ccasc onc ycar altcr thc gcncral closc ol military opcrations, howcvcr, thc
ccupying Powcr shall bc bound, lor thc duration ol thc occupation, to thc
cxtcnt that such Powcr cxcrciscs thc lunctions ol govcrnmcnt in such tcrritory,
by thc provisions ol thc lollowing Articlcs ol thc prcscnt Convcntion: . to .a,
a,, a to , ,, , ., a, , , 6. to ,,, ..
:8
Tis indicatcs that il thc occupant is still in chargc onc ycar altcr a war, Articlc
6 with its modcratc conscrvationist thrust is among thc many that would still
apply. Howcvcr, Articlc 6 providcs no othcr guidancc on thc cxtcnt to which an
occupant pursuing longtcrm translormativc goals may makc changcs to cxisting
lcgislation. !n any casc thc onc ycar altcr rulc is widcly sccn as ol littlc or no rcl
cvancc to actual occupations, and it has bccn ccctivcly rcscindcd by a provision
ol .,, Additional Protocol !, as bctwccn statcs partics to thc lattcr.
:
cspitc its
limitations, Articlc 6 is a rcmindcr ol thc old and important lact that not all occu
pations can bc subjcct to cxactly thc samc rulcs.
II Te International Iaw of Human Rights
Traditionally, thc laws ol war rulcs havc bccn sccn as thc main cvcn thc only
branch ol intcrnational law applicablc to occupations. Howcvcr, thcrc is no a
priori rcason why multilatcral convcntions on othcr mattcrs should not bc appli
cablc to occupicd tcrritorics. Tcrc is incrcasing cvidcncc that onc othcr body ol
law may bc cspccially rclcvant: human rights law. Sctting out as it docs to spcll out
ccrtain lundamcntal human rights, it is not spccically tailorcd to thc situation
considcrcd hcrc military occupation. Likc thc law on crimcs against humanity,
its scopc ol application is widcr than thc laws ol war: it applics in pcacctimc, and
it applics within statcs, accting lor cxamplc thc rclations bctwccn govcrnmcnts
and thcir own subjccts.
Human rights law dcvclopcd lrom custom ovcr a long pcriod. A kcy docu
mcnt in its codication was thc . Univcrsal cclaration ol Human Rights.
Adoptcd by thc UN Gcncral Asscmbly, this did not takc thc lorm ol a lcgally bind
ing instrumcnt, and thcrc is not thc normal machincry whcrcby statcs can bccomc
partics to it. Rathcr, it has thc status ol an authoritativc guidc to thc rclcvant parts
ol thc UN Chartcr. Vhatcvcr its prccisc status, it was lollowcd by thc conclusion
ol a largc numbcr ol human rights trcatics, lour lcading cxamplcs ol which arc:
.c uropcan Convcntion on Human Rights
.66 !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights
.66 !ntcrnational Covcnant on conomic, Social and Cultural Rights
. UN Convcntion on Torturc.
a . Gcncva Conv. !\, Articlc 6().
a .,, Additional Prot. !, Articlc (b).
452 dam Foberts
Somc havc vicwcd such instrumcnts as thc . Univcrsal cclaration and thc
two .66 covcnants as togcthcr constituting an !ntcrnational 8ill ol Human
Rights which is an authoritativc intcrprctation ol thc UN Chartcrs human rights
clauscs and is hcncc binding on all statcs, cstablishing a human rights standard ol
univcrsal applicability.
o
Tis vicw, as indicatcd bclow, is contcstcd.
Tc application ol intcrnational human rights law has bccn urgcd in rcspcct ol
scvcral occupations sincc thc mid.6cs. Howcvcr, cxpcricncc has shown that thcrc
can bc considcrablc problcms rcgarding thc application ol intcrnational human
rights law in this way. 8clorc ccrtain grounds lor caution arc addrcsscd, thc ovcrall
rclationship bctwccn this branch ol law and thc laws ol war nccds to bc cxamincd.
Felationship bet.een Human Fights La. and the La.s of !ar
!ntcrnational human rights law is in somc rcspccts a ncw body ol law, which has
bccn cvolving quitc rapidly sincc thc cnd ol thc Sccond Vorld Var. !t is thcrc
lorc not surprising that thc rclationship ol human rights law to armcd conict in
gcncral, or to occupations in particular, should bc still in nccd ol cxploration.
+
Tat thcrc is indccd somc conncction bctwccn human rights law on thc onc
hand, and thc problcm ol war and military occupation on thc othcr, is indicatcd
by thc origins ol thc modcrn movcmcnt lor human rights law. !t can bc said to
havc bcgun with thc intcrnational conccrn about thc disrcgard lor human rights
shown in many occupicd countrics, as wcll as in thc tcrritory ol Gcrmany itscll
and that ol its allics, during thc Sccond Vorld Var. As Villiam 8ishop wrotc:
Tc grcatcst impctus lor Unitcd Nations action lor intcrnational protcction ol
human rights grcw out ol thc almost univcrsal rcaction against thc Gcrman
Nazi opprcssions ol pcrsons in Gcrmany and in thc tcrritorics occupicd by
Gcrmany during Vorld Var !!.
:
Tis conccrn not only contributcd to thc dcvclopmcnt ol thc human rights body
ol law, but also had its ccct on intcrnational agrccmcnts on thc laws ol war.
Tis is cvidcnt in thc tcrms ol thc lour . Gcncva Convcntions. As ictrich
Schindlcr has writtcn, with that tingc ol optimism that occasionally marks his
commcntary on thc convcntions:
c Frank C. Ncwman, Tc !ntcrnational 8ill ol Human Rights: ocs it xist:, in
Antonio Casscsc (cd.), Current Problems of International La.: Essays on UN La. and
on the La. of rmed Conict (Milan: Giur, .,), pp. .c,.6.
. Many works on human rights law makc littlc or no rclcrcncc to thc problcms ol
armcd conict and military occupation. Scc, c.g., Paul Sicghart, Te La.ful Fights of
Mankind: n Introduction to the International Legal Code of Human Fights (xlord:
xlord Univcrsity Prcss, .).
a Villiam V. 8ishop Jr., International La.: Cases and Materials, rd cdn. (8oston:
Littlc 8rown, .,.), p. ,c.
453 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
A tcndcncy may bc dctcctcd in thc Gcncva Convcntions ol . lor thcir pro
visions to bc considcrcd not only as obligations to bc dischargcd by thc High
Contracting Partics but as individual rights ol thc protcctcd pcrsons.

Tc .,, Additional Protocol ! on intcrnational armcd conict ovcrlaps with

human rights law much morc dircctly than thc . Convcntions that it sup
plcmcnts. Articlc ,a spccics that thc provisions outlincd in that particu
lar scction ol thc Protocol arc additional not only to thc rulcs in . Gcncva
Convcntion !\, but also to othcr applicablc rulcs ol intcrnational law rclating to
thc protcction ol lundamcntal human rights during intcrnational armcd conict.
Morcovcr, Articlc , (on lundamcntal guarantccs) is dircctly dcrivcd lrom thc
.66 !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights. !n thc .,, Additional
Protocol !! on nonintcrnational armcd conict, Articlc 6 (on pcnal prosccu
tions) is similarly dcrivcd lrom thc samc .66 covcnant. Truc, thc various instru
mcnts ol human rights law arc not mcntioncd by namc in .,, Gcncva Protocols
! and !!: but thcir prcscncc is thcrc noncthclcss.
Furthcr cvidcncc ol a conncction bctwccn human rights law and thc laws
ol war is thc lact that it was a UN conlcrcncc on human rights (hcld in .6 in
Tchran) which markcd thc rst occasion whcn thc UN showcd rcal intcrcst in
thc lurthcr dcvclopmcnt ol thc laws ol war. Tis contributcd to thc diplomatic
proccss which lcd, inter alia, to thc conclusion ol .,, Gcncva Protocols ! and
!!.

UN committccs and conlcrcnccs havc oltcn discusscd laws ol war issucs

undcr thc hcading ol rcspcct lor human rights in armcd conicts.

Vritcrs on thc law ol armcd conict wcrc not all cqually alcrt to thc pos
siblc signicancc ol human rights law in occupicd tcrritorics. Truc, in . rnst
Fracnkcl, in Military Occupation and the Fule of La., did urgc that an intcrna
tional bill ol rights should apply to an occupation rcgimc at lcast altcr thc purcly
military phasc ol thc occupation has cndcd.
6
Howcvcr, in works publishcd in thc
.cs thc wholc qucstion rcccivcd only modcst attcntion. Tcrc was no spccic
rclcrcncc to human rights law in Gcrhard von Glahns Te Occupation of Enemy
ictrich Schindlcr, Tc !ntcrnational Committcc ol thc Rcd Cross and Human
Rights, International Fe.ie. of the Fed Cross, no. ac, Jan.Fcb. .,, p. , at p. ,.
n thc various lactors lcading to thc ncgotiations which wcrc ultimatcly to rcsult
in .,, Gcncva Prots. ! and !!, scc particularly Frits Kalshovcn, Rcarmation and
cvclopmcnt ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Applicablc in Armcd Conicts:
Tc Conlcrcncc ol Govcrnmcnt xpcrts, a May .a Junc .,., Netherlands Yearbook
of International La. z,,z, pp. 6c.
Scc c.g. thc twovolumc survcy prcparcd by thc UN Sccrctariat, Fespect for Human
Fights in rmed Conicts: Existing Fules of International La. Concerning the
Prohibition or Festriction of Use of Specic !eapons, UN oc.A/a., , Nov. .,.
6 rnst Fracnkcl, Military Occupation and the Fule of La. (Ncw York: xlord
Univcrsity Prcss, .), pp. ac6.
454 dam Foberts
Territory, publishcd in .,.

Tc 8ritish Manual of Military La., publishcd in

., rclcrrcd to human rights only in vcry gcncral tcrms.
8
Gradually thcrc was a changc whcrcby writcrs camc to rccognizc thc potcn
tial applicability ol human rights in occupicd tcrritorics. Morris Grccnspan, in
his major work Te Modern La. of Land !arfare, publishcd in ., madc somc
bricl rclcrcnccs to human rights accords notably thc . Univcrsal cclaration,
and thc .c uropcan Convcntion and cvidcntly acccptcd thcir applicability.

Martin and Joan Kyrc, in a study ol US policy on military occupations publishcd
in .6 notcd thc signicancc ol thc Univcrsal cclaration ol Human Rights lor
military occupations, but rcgrcttcd a shilt in mood within thc Unitcd Statcs away
lrom intcrnationalism which had rcstrictcd thc U.S. rolc in hclping to dcvclop
thc intcrnational law ol human rights.
o
Tc rclation bctwccn human rights law and thc laws ol war bcgan to attract
intcrnational attcntion in thc latc .6cs and carly .,cs. Tis was duc in part to
thc adoption ol thc two intcrnational human rights covcnants in .66, to intcr
national conccrn ovcr various wars ol thc pcriod, including in \ictnam, and to
thc !sracli occupation ol ccrtain Arab tcrritorics in thc .6, war. Many writcrs
indicatcd that thcrc is a rclationship bctwccn thc two bodics ol law, cvcn il it is
not a simplc onc. G.!.A.. rapcr wrotc in .,.:
Human Rights do not dissolvc in timc ol war or public cmcrgcncy accting
thc lilc ol thc nation, but arc subjcct to a controllcd and limitcd dcrogation
lrom spccic Human Rights to bc justicd by thc cxtcnt ol that cmcrgcncy.
Tc prccisc rclation bctwccn thc law ol war and thc rcgimcs ol Human
Rights has not yct bccn claboratcd.
+
Prolcssor rapcr also said, in an articlc publishcd in .,. in thc Israel Yearbook on
Human Fights:
, Howcvcr, scc von Glahns articlc, Tc Protcction ol Human Rights in Timc ol
Armcd Conicts, Israel Yearbook on Human Fights z,,z, vol. ., p. ac, at pp. a..,
whcrc hc acccpts thc applicability, in timc ol armcd conicts, ol lundamcntal human
rights.
UK, Manual of Military La.: La. Of !ar On Land, p. .. !ts acc succcssor
includcs rclcrcncc to thc applicability ol human rights law. Manual of the La. of
rmed Conict, p. aa.
Morris Grccnspan, Te Modern La. of Land !arfare (8crkclcy: Univcrsity ol
Calilornia Prcss, .), lootnotcs on pp. .6., a,, ac and c. Scc also Grccnspan,
Tc Protcction ol Human Rights in Timc ol Varlarc, Israel Yearbook on Human
Fights z,,z, vol. ., p. aa, at p. aa, whcrc hc statcs that human rights instrumcnts
apply in war as wcll as in pcacc.
c Martin and Joan Kyrc, Military Occupation and National Security (Vashington C:
Public Aairs Prcss, .6), p. ,.
. G.!.A.. rapcr, Tc Status ol Combatants and thc Qucstion ol Gucrilla Varlarc,
British Year Book of International La. z,,z, p. .,, at p. a..
455 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
Tc csscntial ncxus bctwccn thc law ol war and thc rcgimc ol human rights has
bccn madc in thcory, viz., that thc lormcr is an csscntial part ol thc lattcr. Tc
law ol war is a dcrogation lrom thc normal rcgimc ol human rights ...
:
Tc idca that thc law ol war could bc sccn, in largc mcasurc, as onc impor
tant body ol rulcs and principlcs lor salcguarding human rights in situations ol
armcd conict and occupation was supportcd by many othcr writcrs. instcin,
in an articlc in .,, also in thc Israel Yearbook, cntitlcd Tc !ntcrnational Law ol
8clligcrcnt ccupation and Human Rights, actually wrotc almost cntircly about
thc rulcs laid down in thc laws ol war. Tis approach lollowcd quitc naturally
lrom thc lact that hc was prcoccupicd with thc problcm ol bclligcrcnt occupa
tion, cspccially that ol thc !sraclioccupicd tcrritorics, and not with translorma
tivc occupation, as thc lollowing passagc indicatcs:
Tc govcrnmcnt ol an occupicd tcrritory by thc occupant is not thc samc as a
Statcs ordinary govcrnmcnt ol its own tcrritory: a military occupation is not
tantamount to a dcmocratic rcgimc and its objcctivc is not thc wcllarc ol thc
local population. Most pcacctimc human rights arc suspcndcd in timc ol bcl
ligcrcnt occupation.

!n a work publishcd in .c cxploring thc rclation ol human rights law to thc

laws ol war, Aristidis CalogcropoulosStratis strcsscd thc applicability in timc
ol armcd conict ol ccrtain human rights instrumcnts.

!n a . study spcci
cally dcvotcd to military occupations, yal 8cnvcnisti rcachcd a morc nuanccd
conclusion, which is ol considcrablc rclcvancc to cascs ol translormativc occupa
tions:
!n thc intcrplay bctwccn thc conicting intcrcsts, thc law ol occupation con
ccdcs that ccrtain civil and political rights will lrom timc to timc bc subjcctcd
to othcr conccrns. Ultimatcly, as in othcr cascs, thc occupant is rcquircd to bal
ancc its intcrcsts against thosc ol thc occupicd community. Tus, as hostilitics
subsidc, and sccurity intcrcsts can pcrmit, thc occupant could bc cxpcctcd to
a G.!.A.. rapcr, Tc Rclationship 8ctwccn thc Human Rights Rcgimc and thc
Law ol Armcd Conicts, Israel Yearbook on Human Fights z,,z, vol. ., p. .., at p.
ac6.
Yoram instcin, Tc !ntcrnational Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation and Human
Rights, Israel Yearbook on Human Fights z,,8, vol. , p. .c, at p. ..6. Scc also instcin,
Human Rights in Armcd Conict: !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law, in Tcodor
Mcron (cd.), Human Fights and International La.: Legal and Policy Issues (xlord:
Clarcndon Prcss, .), pp. 6.
Aristidis S. CalogcropoulosStratis, Droit Humanitaire et Droits de l Homme: La
Protection de la Personne en Periode de Conit rme (Gcncva: !nstitut Univcrsitairc dc
Hautcs tudcs !ntcrnationalcs, .c).
456 dam Foberts
rcstorc civil and political rights. Undcr such circumstanccs, thc human rights
documcnts may wcll scrvc as guidancc lor rccstablishing civil and political
rights in thc occupicd tcrritory.

!n acc Kcnncth Vatkin suggcstcd that, in gcncral, thc usc ol lorcc in armcd
conict is incrcasingly asscsscd through human rights law as wcll as intcrnational
humanitarian law. !n bricy considcring thc spccic casc ol military occupation
hc indicatcd that both normativc rcgimcs may comc into play, but that thc usc ol
lorcc within occupicd tcrritory (lor cxamplc against an insurgcncy) is not always
amcnablc to a human rights lramcwork.
6
n spccic issucs, cspccially thosc rclating to individual libcrty and politi
cal lrccdoms, thcrc is an clcmcnt ol tcnsion bctwccn human rights law and thc
law on occupations. For cxamplc, thc .66 !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and
Political Rights, Articlc , prohibits arbitrary dctcntion, and rcquircs that anyonc
who is arrcstcd shall bc promptly inlormcd ol any chargcs against him. 8y
contrast, thc . Gcncva Convcntion !\, Articlc ,, paragraph ., says: !l thc
ccupying Powcr considcrs it ncccssary, lor impcrativc rcasons ol sccurity, to
takc salcty mcasurcs conccrning protcctcd pcrsons, it may, at thc most, subjcct
thcm to assigncd rcsidcncc or to intcrnmcnt. vcn though such mcasurcs must
bc madc according to a rcgular proccdurc, this is morc draconian than thc .66
Covcnants provisions. Tc tcnsion bctwccn thcsc two approachcs is mitigatcd by
thc lact that, in timc ol public cmcrgcncy thrcatcning thc lilc ol thc nation, statcs
may dcrogatc lrom ccrtain obligations undcr thc .66 Covcnant, whcrcas thc
Gcncva Convcntion !\ has to bc considcrcd thc lex specialis lor occupations.
!n many occupations onc basis lor asscrting thc applicability ol human
rights law may bc its ncarunivcrsal charactcr, as a body ol law subscribcd to
cqually by thc occupying statc and by thc occupicd statc. Howcvcr, in a numbcr
ol occupations thc qucstion has ariscn as to whcthcr ccrtain spccic obligations
undcr human rights law ol thc occupying powcr cxtcnd to tcrritorics that it occu
pics. An cxamplc is thc application ol thc .c uropcan Convcntion on Human
Rights (which ocrs not mcrcly a statcmcnt ol principlcs, but also an unusually
strong lcgal proccdurc lor obtaining rcdrcss) in tcrritorics outsidc thosc ol statcs
partics to thc Convcntion.
Tc ovcrall qucstion ol whcthcr human rights trcatics apply cxtratcrritori
ally is still contcstcd. Michacl cnnis ol thc US Statc cpartmcnt, in a gcncral
survcy ol thc subjcct, gocs so lar as to concludc:
yal 8cnvcnisti, Te International La. of Occupation (Princcton, Ncw Jcrscy:
Princcton Univcrsity Prcss, .), p. ..
6 Kcnncth Vatkin (cputy Judgc Advocatc Gcncral/pcrations, Canadian Forccs),
Controlling thc Usc ol Forcc: A Rolc lor Human Rights Norms in Contcmporary
Armcd Conict, merican Journal of International La., vol. , no. . ( January acc),
p. ., at pp. .a, a6.
457 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
Tc obligations assumcd by statcs undcr thc main intcrnational human rights
instrumcnts wcrc ncvcr intcndcd to apply cxtratcrritorially during pcriods ol
armcd conict. Nor wcrc thcy intcndcd to rcplacc thc lex specialis ol intcrna
tional humanitarian law. xtcnding thc protcctions providcd undcr intcrna
tional human rights instrumcnts to situations ol intcrnational armcd conict
and military occupation ocrs a dubious routc toward incrcascd statc compli
ancc with intcrnational norms.

Tis conclusion is bascd on scrious considcrations, including a strict intcrprcta

tion ol Articlc a(.) ol thc !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights,
undcr which a statc is obligcd to cnsurc thc Covcnants rights to all individu
als within its tcrritory and subjcct to its jurisdiction. Tc corc ol cnniss argu
mcnt is that both thcsc conditions must bc mct. Yct it rcmains unconvincing to
arguc that human rights law cannot apply at all to situations that arisc in a mili
tary occupation. Tcrc is a nccd to draw a clcarcr distinction than cnnis docs
bctwccn armcd conict (whcrc thc application ol human rights law is morc prob
lcmatic) and occupation, and also a lurthcr distinction bctwccn occupation in
gcncral, and thc holding ol ccrtain spccic pcrsons by outsidc lorccs. !n thc lattcr
situation thc application ol human rights law may bc particularly appropriatc.
Such distinctions havc not always bccn clcarly drawn in addrcssing qucstions ol
cxtratcrritorial application ol human rights norms. Vhcrc a tcrritory is indccd
occupicd i.c. undcr thc control ol thc occupying powcr thcrc is a strongcr
prima facie casc that human rights law should apply than thcrc is in situations ol
armcd conict. Vhcrc thcrc arc prisoncrs or intcrnccs undcr thc dircct control
ol thc occupant, thc casc may bc strongcr still. To thc cxtcnt that an occupying
powcr cxcrciscs control, which it ccrtainly should do in its own prisons, it has thc
kind ol administrativc apparatus that is ncccssary to makc human rights protcc
tion ccctivc.
8
Tc implcmcntation ol human rights law may bc advocatcd as a mattcr ol
lcgal obligation, or as a mattcr ol choicc irrcspcctivc ol thc qucstion ol whcthcr,
as a mattcr ol law, thc occupant is rcquircd to implcmcnt it. Such advocacy ol
implcmcntation may comc lrom intcrcstcd partics lrom two dicrcnt pcrspcc
tivcs:
Tc inhabitants, or outsidc bodics claiming to act on thcir bchall, may invokc
human rights standards in ordcr to bring prcssurc to bcar on thc occupant
c.g. to cnsurc thc human rights ol inhabitants, intcrnccs and othcrs.
, Michacl J. cnnis (cc ol thc Lcgal Adviscr, U.S. cpartmcnt ol Statc),
Application ol Human Rights Trcatics xtratcrritorially in Timcs ol Armcd
Conict and Military ccupation, merican Journal of International La., vol. , no.
. ( January acc), p. .., at p. ... Tis articlc is part ol Agora: !CJ Advisory pinion
on Construction ol a Vall in thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory.
Scc also thc lurthcr discussion ol cnnis articlc as it rclatcs to thc !sraclioccupicd
tcrritorics and !raq (infra tcxt at notcs 6a and 6).
458 dam Foberts
An occupant with a translormativc projcct may vicw human rights norms
as comprising part ol thc bcnccicnt political ordcr bcing introduccd into
thc tcrritory. As lar as !raq lrom acc onwards has bccn conccrncd, this has
bccn thc U.S. position in thc UN Sccurity Council, but it is not clcar how
lar it has pcrcolatcd through thc US govcrnmcnt.
Tc rclation bctwccn human rights law and thc laws ol war is not just a simplc
conlrontation bctwccn a lex generalis ol human rights and a lex specialis ol laws
ol war. !n occupations, somc practical issucs can arisc (such as discrimination in
cmploymcnt, discrimination in cducation, and thc importation ol cducational
matcrials), which arc addrcsscd in considcrablc dctail in ccrtain human rights
agrccmcnts, and arc not so addrcsscd in thc law on occupations. r human rights
law may ocr proccdurcs lor individual complaint and rcdrcss that arc not prcscnt
in thc laws ol war. !n rcspcct ol such issucs, intcrnational human rights standards
may not mcrcly ll out gaps in thc laws ol war, but providc proccdurcs lor assist
ing in implcmcntation ol kcy provisions ol thosc laws.
!n short, thc rclation bctwccn thc laws ol war and human rights law undcr
conditions ol occupation is cxtraordinarily complcx. Morc than any writings or
thcorics, it was to bc cvcnts that would rcvcal thc complcxity ol thc intcrrcla
tions, thc dicrcnt pcrspcctivcs on thcm, and thcir importancc in translormativc
occupations.
B pplication of Human Fights La. to Particular Occupations
Tc gcncral principlc that human rights law can apply to military occupations is
now widcly, but by no mcans univcrsally, acccptcd. vidcncc lor this proposition
can bc lound in statcmcnts sincc thc mid.6cs by intcrnational, and in somc
cascs, national bodics ol various typcs.
i Unitcd Nations Rolc
Tc Unitcd Nations has playcd a major part in urging thc application ol human
rights rulcs to occupations. l thc various organs ol thc UN it has bccn thc
Gcncral Asscmbly that has playcd thc most promincnt (and oltcn contcntious)
rolc in this rcgard. Starting in .6, it has urgcd thc importancc ol obscrving
human rights law in armcd conicts and military occupations gcncrally.

!t has
also donc so, not always with pcrlcct cvcnhandcdncss, in rcspcct ol particular
occupations. Tc occupation which has had most attcntion lrom thc Gcncral
Asscmbly, both in gcncral and as rcgards thc application ol human rights, is
Scc c.g. GA Rcs. a (XX!!!) ol . cc. .6 (adoptcd unanimously), Rcspcct lor
Human Rights in Armcd Conicts.
459 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
!sracls ol thc tcrritorics takcn ovcr in .6,: thc application ol human rights law to
thc tcrritorics occupicd by !sracl has bccn urgcd in numcrous UN rcsolutions.
o
Although thc UN Sccurity Council has lrcqucntly urgcd rcspcct lor human
rights in armcd conict gcncrally, lor a long timc it did not addrcss thc morc
spccic issuc ol human rights in occupations to thc samc cxtcnt as thc Gcncral
Asscmbly. Tis has bcgun to changc. Vhcrc UN bodics cstablishcd by thc
Sccurity Council havc had a major rolc in administcring postconict tcrritorics,
as in Kosovo and ast Timor (situations in somc ways comparablc to occupa
tions), thcsc bodics havc placcd cmphasis on human rights law, whilc kccping
silcnt about thc application ol thc laws ol war.
+
Following thc commcnccmcnt
ol thc USlcd occupation ol !raq in acc thc Sccurity Council cmphasizcd thc
importancc ol human rights law as wcll as thc laws ol war.
:
ii Namibia: .,. !CJ Advisory pinion
Scvcral occupicd tcrritorics havc bccn vicwcd by intcrnational tribunals as sub
jcct to human rights law. Vith rcspcct to Namibia, it may havc bccn partly with
human rights law in mind (as wcll as thc humanitarian laws ol war) that thc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, in its .,. Advisory pinion, pointcd to thc appli
cability ol ccrtain gcncral convcntions such as thosc ol a humanitarian charac
tcr.

iii Czcchoslovakia altcr .6: Chartcr ,,

Tc rangc ol circumstanccs in which human rights law may bc rclcvant is
cxtrcmcly widc, but thc classic situation to which such law applics is in thc rcla
tions bctwccn thc govcrnmcnt ol a statc and its own citizcns. Tis situation can
arisc in somc occupations in which an indigcnous govcrnmcnt has bccn lclt in
post or a ncw onc has bccn put in placc. !n such instanccs which might bc vicwcd
by somc as occupations, but whcrc that status is strongly contcstcd by somc or
all ol thc partics conccrncd, human rights law may bc ol spccial importancc. For
cxamplc, thc indigcnous govcrnmcnt may rcjcct thc pcjorativc labcl ol occupa
c UN Gcncral Asscmbly rcsolutions spccically urging thc application ol human
rights in thc !sraclioccupicd tcrritorics includc GA Rcs. a (XX!!!) ol . cc.
.6, GA Rcs. a6 (XX!\) ol .. cc. .6, GA Rcs. a,a, ol . cc. .,c, and
thc subscqucnt annual rcsolutions cntitlcd Rcport ol thc Spccial Committcc to
!nvcstigatc !sracli Practiccs Accting thc Human Rights ol thc Population ol thc
ccupicd Tcrritorics.
. n thc loundational rcgulations ol thc Kosovo and ast Timor administrations, scc
infra, notcs .c, and .c.
a Scc infra, tcxt at notcs 6, ... and .a.
Advisory pinion ol a. Junc .,., ICJ Feports z,,z, para. .aa. Notc also thc rclcrcnccs
to human rights law in paras. a and ...
460 dam Foberts
tion, but it may acccpt thc application ol human rights standards. nc such casc
was Czcchoslovakia lollowing thc lormal cntry into lorcc in .,6 ol that countrys
ratication ol thc two .66 UN human rights covcnants. 8oth thc communist
govcrnmcnt (grudgingly) and its critics acccptcd in principlc that intcrnational
human rights instrumcnts wcrc applicablc. Tc idca ol thc Chartcr ,, movcmcnt
was conccivcd on thc day .. Novcmbcr .,6 whcn an ocial ordinancc was
publishcd in Praguc rclating to Czcchoslovakias acccssion to thcsc two convcn
tions. \ladimir Kusin rccords a convcrsation in a Czcch homc on that day:
Vc stood in thc kitchcn door and shc said Somcthing ought to bc donc about
it and madc thrcc morc stcps and turncd on thc tap to makc watcr run ovcr
our voiccs Tc day was Tursday, .. Novcmbcr .,6, whcn thcy bcgan scll
ing Collection of La.s No. a which containcd among othcr things thc Forcign
Ministcrs ordinancc ol .c May .,6, numbcrcd .ac and bcaring a titlc lull ol
hopc: !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights and !ntcrnational
Covcnant on conomic, Social and Cultural Rights.

!n thc latc .,cs and .cs, human rights law providcd onc lramcwork lor dia
loguc both within castcrn uropcan statcs and bctwccn thcm and thc Vcst.
Tc ., Hclsinki Final Act ol thc Conlcrcncc on Sccurity and Coopcration
in uropc (not a lcgally binding documcnt as such), and thc diplomatic procc
durcs cstablishcd undcr it playcd a part in this proccss. Tosc involvcd in rcsisting
thc occupation ol Czcchoslovakia and its conscqucnccs wcrc lclt with no doubt
about thc signicancc ol human rights principlcs.
iv Northcrn Cyprus sincc .,: Rolc ol thc uropcan Convcntion
Rcgarding thc arcas ol northcrn Cyprus occupicd by thc armcd lorccs ol Turkcy
in .,, thc uropcan Commission ol Human Rights and thc uropcan Court
ol Human Rights havc conrmcd thc gcncral principlc ol thc applicability ol
human rights law. !n thrcc dccisions in .,, ., and .6 in cascs brought by
Cyprus against Turkcy, thc Commission rulcd applications by thc Govcrnmcnt
ol Cyprus in rcspcct ol thc Turkish occupation admissiblc.

Tc cascs conccrncd
\ladimir Kusin, From Dubcek to Charter ,,: Study of Normalisation in C.echoslo.akia
z,o8,8 (dinburgh: Q Prcss, .,), p. c. n thc rolc ol human rights accords in
thc Chartcr ,, movcmcnt scc also \aclav Havcl et al., Te Po.er of the Po.erless
(London: Hutchinson, .), pp. 6,. Tc tcxt ol thc original Chartcr ,, dcclara
tion, publishcd at thc bcginning ol January .,,, and rclcrring cxtcnsivcly to intcrna
tional human rights agrccmcnts, is at pp. a.,a..
ur. Comm. Human Rights, Decisions and Feports, vol. a, p. .a (Casc No. 6,c/,
and 6c/,, ccision ol a6 May .,), Decisions and Feports, vol. ., p. (Casc No.
cc,/,,, ccision ol .c July .,), and Decisions and Feports, vol. 6A, p. .c (Casc
No. a,./, ccision ol a Junc .6).
461 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
thc application ol thc uropcan Convcntion on Human Rights, Articlc . ol
which statcs that thc High Contracting Partics shall sccurc ccrtain rights and
lrccdoms to cvcryonc within thcir jurisdiction. Tc Commission lound (in thc
words ol its dccision in thc sccond casc): Tis tcrm is not cquivalcnt to or lim
itcd to within thc national tcrritory ol thc High Contracting Party conccrncd
... thc High Contracting Partics arc bound to sccurc thc said rights and lrccdoms
to all pcrsons undcr thcir actual authority and rcsponsibility, not only whcn that
authority is cxcrciscd within thcir own tcrritory but also whcn it is cxcrciscd
abroad.
6
!n thc third ol thcsc cascs arising lrom northcrn Cyprus, and thc rst
ol thcm to bc rclcrrcd to thc uropcan Court ol Human Rights, thc Court rcal
rmcd carlicr dccisions ol thc Commission, and indicatcd that Turkcy has cxtcn
sivc rcsponsibilitics arising lrom thc uropcan Convcntion on Human Rights.
Tis also conrmcd thc Courts carlicr dccisions in thc Loi.idou .. Turkey casc.

Tcsc conclusions did not mcan that thc law ol armcd conict was sup
plantcd by human rights law. n thc contrary, whcn in thc rst ol thcsc cascs a
qucstion arosc conccrning thc dctcntion ol Grcck military pcrsonncl in Turkcy,
thc uropcan Commission ol Human Rights rulcd that thc spccic law rclat
ing to prisoncrs ol war, . Gcncva Convcntion !!!, was applicablc, and thcrc
lorc thcy did not nccd to cxaminc thc qucstion ol a brcach ol Articlc ol thc
uropcan Convcntion on Human Rights with rcgard to pcrsons accordcd thc
status ol prisoncrs ol war.
8
v !sraclioccupicd tcrritorics:
acc !CJ Advisory pinion in thc Vall casc
Tc application ol human rights norms to thc !sraclioccupicd tcrritorics is a
muchcontcstcd mattcr. !n a numbcr ol statcmcnts thc !sracli authoritics havc
dcnicd that human rights law is lormally applicablc to thc tcrritorics occupicd
sincc .6,. Tc qucstion has bccn cxplorcd in dcpth in many writings, and in
dccisions ol thc Suprcmc Court ol !sracl.

Tis cxtcnsivc body ol cxpcricncc ol

6 ur. Comm. Human Rights, Decisions and Feports, vol. ., at p. .. (Casc No. cc,/,,,
ccision ol .c July .,.).
, ur. Court Human Rights, Feports of Judgments and Decisions, acc.!\, p. ., at pp.
aa6. (Casc No. a,./, Judgmcnt ol .c May acc..). n Loi.idou, scc Feports of
Judgments and Decisions, ., Scrics A, no. .c, p. ., at p. a. (Casc No. c/.//.,
Judgmcnt ol a March . on Prcliminary bjcctions.). Also Feports of Judgments
and Decisions, .6\!, p. aa.6, at pp. aa. ( Judgmcnt ol . cccmbcr .6 on
Mcrits.).
Eur. Human Fights Feports, vol. , .a, p. a, at pp. and . (ur. Comm. Human
Rights, Applications 6,c/, and 6c/,, pinion ol .c July .,6.).
Scc almost all issucs ol Israel Yearbook on Human Fights, sthcr Cohcn, Human Fights
in the Israeli-occupied Territories z,o,z,8: (Manchcstcr: Manchcstcr Univcrsity Prcss,
.), and Adam Robcrts, Prolongcd Military ccupation: Tc !sraclioccupicd
462 dam Foberts
problcms rclating to thc application ol human rights norms in occupicd tcrrito
rics is bcyond thc scopc ol this articlc.
Howcvcr, thc Advisory pinion ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc in thc
!all casc in acc mcrits attcntion hcrc bccausc it is so dcnitc, so widcrang
ing in its scopc, and so controvcrsial. Tc !CJ concludcd that thc !ntcrnational
Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights is applicablc in rcspcct ol acts donc by a
Statc in thc cxcrcisc ol its jurisdiction outsidc its own tcrritory.
6o
!n thc occupicd
tcrritorics, thcrclorc, !sracl was dccmcd to bc bound by its tcrms. Tis lorthright
conclusion, likc othcr parts ol this Advisory pinion, appcars to bc wcakcncd by
somc shaky lcgal rcasoning.
6+
Michacl cnnis has criticizcd this part ol thc opin
ion on thc grounds that thc Court: (a) placcd a qucstionablc intcrprctation on thc
prcparatory work lor thc !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights,
(b) paid rcmarkably littlc attcntion to thc rolc ol thc Palcstinian Authority as a
body that may havc rcsponsibilitics to implcmcnt human rights law in thc arcas
undcr its control, and (c) assumcd too casily that thc law ol armcd conict had
only limitcd application to thc situation on account ol thc (highly contcstablc)
argumcnt that, undcr thc onc ycar altcr thc gcncral closc ol military opcrations
rulc in Articlc 6 ol thc . Gcncva Civilians Convcntion, ccrtain provisions ol
thc convcntion no longcr applicd to thc tcrritorics occupicd in .6,.
6:
Tcsc and
othcr spccic criticisms ol thc !CJ Advisory pinion arc scrious, and suggcst that
thc !CJ has donc lcss than it may havc thought to advancc thc vicw that human
rights law docs apply in at lcast somc circumstanccs in occupicd tcrritorics.
vi !raq: UK Court ol Appcal in acc
Tc promotion ol human rights was proclaimcd as onc purposc ol thc occupa
tion ol !raq in two UN Sccurity Council rcsolutions passcd in May acc and
Junc acc with thc support ol thc US and UK.
6
Curiously, in somc Amcrican
discussion ol thc application ol human rights law to thc USlcd coalitions occu
Tcrritorics Sincc .6,, merican Journal of International La., vol. , no. ., January
.c, p. , csp. at pp. ,c,.
6c !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, Legal Consequence of the Construction of a !all in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory pinion ol July acc, para. .... Tc Court
locuscd particularly on thc !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights,
Art. .a, guarantccing lrccdom ol movcmcnt.
6. For a rangc ol vicws on thc !CJ Advisory pinion on thc sccurity barricr, scc thc
ninc contributions in Agora: !CJ Advisory pinion on Construction ol a Vall in
thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory, merican Journal of International La., vol. ,
no. . ( January acc), pp. ....
6a Michacl J. cnnis, Application ol Human Rights Trcatics xtratcrritorially (supra
notc ,), pp. .aa,.
6 UN Sccurity Council Rcsolutions . ol aa May acc and .6 ol Junc acc (infra
tcxt at notcs ... and .a rcspcctivcly).
463 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
pation ol !raq, including thc articlc by Michacl cnnis citcd abovc, this lact has
bccn ignorcd.
6
Yct thcrc havc bccn important qucstions raiscd about whcthcr thc
actions ol USlcd coalition lorccs could bc govcrncd by human rights law as wcll
as by thc laws ol war.
Tc lact that a situation, or an individual, is within thc control and authority
ol an outsidc powcr was a kcy considcration in a UK Court ol Appcal dccision
in cccmbcr acc arising lrom thc prcscncc ol coalition lorccs in !raq lrom acc
onwards. Tc l-Skeini casc was brought on bchall ol !raqi lamilics who claimcd
that six dcccascd rclativcs had bccn mistrcatcd and killcd by 8ritish troops in
southcrn !raq, and that such acts wcrc violations ol thc uropcan Convcntion on
Human Rights and thc national lcgislation bascd on that convcntion, namcly thc
UK Human Rights Act .. Fivc ol thc rclativcs had dicd as a rcsult ol incidcnts
rcsulting lrom thc activitics ol 8ritish Army patrols. Tc sixth, Mr. 8aha Mousa,
dicd altcr having bccn takcn into thc custody ol 8ritish lorccs. Tcsc incidcnts
all happcncd bctwccn August and Novcmbcr acc. Tc kcy issuc in thc casc was
thc cxtcnt ol applicability ol 8ritish and uropcan human rights norms. As Lord
Justicc 8rookc statcd in his lcading judgmcnt, thc casc:
is about acts donc by thc soldicrs ol an army which, with othcrs, has ovcr
thrown thc govcrnmcnt ol a sovcrcign statc and is tcmporarily in occupation ol
thc tcrritory ol that statc pcnding thc cstablishmcnt ol a ncw national govcrn
mcnt. Tis is why it is bcing contcndcd that thc Unitcd Kingdom was obligcd
to sccurc to thc citizcns ol that part ol !raq which its lorccs occupicd thc rights
and lrccdoms dcncd in thc CHR bccausc, it is said, thosc citizcns wcrc tcm
porarily within this countrys jurisdiction.
6
Hc drcw a distinction bctwccn thc applicability ol laws ol war and human rights
rulcs to thc ovcrall situation in southcrn !raq, stating !n my judgmcnt it is quitc
impossiblc to hold that thc UK, although an occupying powcr lor thc purposcs
ol thc Haguc Rcgulations and Gcncva !\, was in ccctivc control ol 8asrah City
lor thc purposcs ol CHR jurisprudcncc at thc matcrial timc.
66
Hc continucd:
!t would indccd havc bccn contrary to thc Coalitions policy to maintain a
much morc substantial military lorcc in 8asrah City whcn its ovcrarching
policy was to cncouragc thc !raqis to govcrn thcmsclvcs. To build up an altcr
nativc powcr basc capablc ol dclivcring all thc rights and pcrlorming all thc
obligations rcquircd ol a contracting statc undcr thc CHR at thc vcry timc
6 Michacl J. cnnis, Application ol Human Rights Trcatics xtratcrritorially (supra
notc ,), p. .ac and n. ..
6 Casc ol l-Skeini and others, Court ol Appcal, Civil ivision, dccision ol a. cc. acc,
para. , at http://www.hmcourtsscrvicc.gov.uk/HMCSJudgmcnts/Scarch.do~.
66 !bid., para. .a.
464 dam Foberts
whcn thc !GC had bccn lormcd, with CPA cncouragcmcnt, as a stcp towards
thc lormation by thc pcoplc ol !raq ol an intcrnationally rccognizcd rcprcscnt
ativc Govcrnmcnt , would havc run right against thc grain ol thc Coalitions
policics.
6
Tc conclusion ol thc casc was as lollows: Tc UK did not posscss Articlc l juris
diction in rclation to thosc killcd in thc rst vc incidcnts with which wc arc
conccrncd, and that thc appcals ol thc rst vc claimants must bc dismisscd. Tc
casc ol thc sixth pcrson, 8aha Mousa, was dicrcnt. Tc UK Govcrnmcnt, altcr
initially taking thc oppositc vicw, had conccdcd that it was cxcrcising cxtratcr
ritorial jurisdiction lor uropcan Convcntion on Human Rights purposcs in thc
casc ol 8aha Mousa. Tc Court thcrclorc had only to considcr whcthcr thc UK
Human Rights Act applicd to this casc. !t did so dccidc, and thcrclorc concludcd
that thc casc on bchall ol Mr. Mousa is justiciablc in UK courts.
68
!n thc judg
mcnts on this casc, including thc scparatc opinions ol Lord Justicc Scdlcy and
Lord Justicc Richards, it was rccognizcd that thc issucs wcrc complcx and would
nccd lurthcr considcration by thc Housc ol Lords.
6
As lar as thc application ol
human rights law is conccrncd, thc Court ol Appcal has drawn a vital distinction
bctwccn situations whcrc an individual is plainly undcr thc control ol UK lorccs
(c.g. bccausc ol bcing in custody) and thosc whcrc, cvcn il thcrc is an occupation,
individuals arc not undcr such control.
C Human Fights La.: Criteria for ssessment
A rangc ol cxpcricncc in thc ycars sincc . lcads to thc conclusion that human
rights law is widcly, but not yct univcrsally, sccn as applicablc in occupicd tcr
ritorics, and that in many cascs thc rcsponsibility lor application ol thc law lics
with thc occupant. Howcvcr, thc prccisc rclcvancc ol human rights law in timc
ol lorcign military occupation nccds to bc carclully cxamincd in any particular
instancc. Vhat lollows is a rst attcmpt at critcria lor asscssmcnt ol thc rclcvancc
and applicability ol human rights law in circumstanccs ol occupation.
8clorc considcring critcria that might point to thc rclcvancc ol human
rights law it is ncccssary to lay out plainly ccrtain grounds lor caution. Fivc in
particular stand out:
(a) Tcrc havc bccn dicrcnt vicws ol whcthcr thc scopc ol application ol
human rights agrccmcnts cspccially thc .66 !ntcrnational Covcnants
cncompasscs occupicd tcrritorics.
o
6, !bid., para. .a.
6 !bid., paras. .a, ., .,.
6 !bid., paras. ., (8rookc), ac6 (Scdlcy), a.c (Richards).
,c Tcsc dicrcnccs ol vicw, which arc not ncw, rcsurlaccd ovcr !raq postacc. Tc
strongcst critiquc ol thc proposition that human rights law is applicablc in timc
465 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
(b) Many human rights convcntions pcrmit partics to makc dcrogations lrom
somc ol thcir provisions, lor cxamplc, in timc ol public cmcrgcncy thrcatcn
ing thc lilc ol thc nation. Somc military occupations occur in circumstanccs
(which may wcll includc a continuing armcd conict) that could bc vicwcd
by at lcast onc party as constituting such an cmcrgcncy.
(c) Morc statcs arc partics to thc lour . Gcncva Convcntions (and with
lcwcr dcclarations and rcscrvations) than to thc trcatics in rcspcct ol human
rights. No lcss than . statcs virtually all arc partics to thc lour .
Gcncva Convcntions, and .6 to thcir .,, Additional Protocol !.
+
8y con
trast, thc two .66 !ntcrnational Covcnants on Civil and Political Rights,
and on conomic, Social and Cultural Rights, havc .6 and . partics
rcspcctivcly, and thc . Convcntion against Torturc has ...
:
Tis mcans
that thcrc is lurthcr scopc lor dcbatc as to whcthcr a particular human rights
trcaty is applicablc in thc cvcnt that cithcr thc occupying powcr is not a
party to thc trcaty, or thc powcr which prcviously hcld thc tcrritory is not
or at any ratc was not whcn thc occupation bcgan. cbatc on this is not
likcly to bc cntircly climinatcd by claims that human rights law is binding
on all statcs.
(d) Human rights agrccmcnts wcrc not drawn up with thc spccic circum
stanccs ol armcd conict and occupation primarily in mind. Tc Univcrsal
cclaration ol Human Rights docs not spccically rclcr in any ol its pro
visions to thc qucstion ol human rights in armcd conict.

!ndccd, somc
human rights agrccmcnts lor cxamplc thc .66 Covcnant on conomic,
Social and Cultural Rights havc morc thc charactcr ol a programmc than
a binding sct ol dctailcd rulcs. No human rights agrccmcnt draws distinc
tions bctwccn dicrcnt catcgorics ol individuals in thc way that thc laws ol
war do.
(e) vcr a widc rangc ol issucs, thc laws ol war rulcs rcgarding military occupa
tions, as laid down in thc Haguc Rcgulations and thc Gcncva Convcntions,
may ocr morc cxtcnsivc, dctailcd and rclcvant guidancc than can thc gcn
cral human rights trcatics, and thcir supcrvisory machincry, although allow
ing lcss room lor lcgal rcdrcss than do somc human rights trcatics, may bc
morc appropriatc to thc circumstanccs.
ol occupation is cnnis, Application ol Human Rights Trcatics xtratcrritorially
(supra notc ,), pp. ....
,. Figurcs ol statcs partics to Gcncva Convcntions lrom !CRC at http://www.icrc.
org~ (visitcd a. July acc6).
,a Figurcs ol statcs partics to human rights trcatics lrom UN at http://untrcaty.
un.org/nglish/acccss.asp~ (visitcd a May acc6).
, Schindlcr, !ntcrnational Committcc ol thc Rcd Cross and Human Rights,
International Fe.ie. of Te Fed Cross, Jan.Fcb. ., (supra notc ), p. ,.
466 dam Foberts
cspitc thcsc considcrations, human rights trcatics can bc important in
somc situations that cithcr constitutc occupations, or closcly rcscmblc occupa
tions in ccrtain kcy rcspccts. Tcy may imposc lormal obligations on partics,
bc important in political dcbatc, as a basis lor asscssing thc actions ol cxtcrnal
powcrs and local actors, providc lcgal proccdurcs lor taking action, or providc onc
basis lor pursuing translormativc goals. Tcsc trcatics can bc particularly rclcvant
in thc lollowing instanccs:
z. !t is claimcd lor cxamplc on thc basis ol a statusollorccs agrccmcnt, a
purportcd mandatc to act as libcrator, and thc cxistcncc ol an indigcnous
govcrnmcnt that thcrc is no occupation at all. Tis could wcll bc thc casc
with somc translormativc projccts in thc wakc ol military intcrvcntions.
Vhcthcr or not such a dcnial ol thc cxistcncc ol occupation is lcgally dclcn
siblc in thc circumstanccs, it may suggcst that human rights law is thc most
usclul sct ol standards to which to appcal.
:. vcn il an occupation is dccmcd to continuc in somc lorm, an indigcnous
govcrnmcnt is in post, and problcms rcvolvc around thc rclations bctwccn
individual citizcns and thcir own govcrnmcnt. !n such a casc many issucs
conccrning thc rclations bctwccn inhabitants and thcir own govcrnmcntal
authoritics could propcrly bc considcrcd as human rights mattcrs.
. Tc provisions ol a human rights instrumcnt havc bccn incorporatcd into
thc domcstic law ol thc occupicd tcrritory and/or ol thc occupying powcr.
,. Somc individuals or groups ol pcoplc in occupicd tcrritory (c.g. ccrtain tcr
rorist suspccts) arc considcrcd by thc dctaining powcr not to lall within thc
various broad catcgorics ol protcctcd pcrsons as laid down in, say, thc lour
. Gcncva Convcntions and thc .,, Protocols, but thcrc may bc human
rights protcctions that rclatc to thcir situation.
. Somc human rights instrumcnts dcal with subjcctmattcr that lls gaps in
thc laws ol war provisions on occupations c.g. importing ol cducational
matcrials. Partly bccausc ol thc broad subjcctmattcr covcragc, thcy may bc
citcd particularly oltcn in occupations which continuc lor a long timc, cvcn
into somcthing approximating to pcacctimc, and which prcscnt problcms
dicrcnt lrom thosc addrcsscd in thc laws ol war.
o. Human rights agrccmcnts contain proccdurcs lor dcaling with an issuc, lor
cxamplc cnabling individuals to raisc a mattcr dircctly with somc outsidc
institution. Tc rolc ol thc uropcan Court ol Human Rights in a numbcr
ol situations involving thc usc ol lorcc is cvidcncc ol possibilitics in this
rcgard.
,. A spccic issuc arising in an occupation conccrns violations ol thosc parts
ol human rights law which arc not dcrogablc in timc ol crisis.

r, altcrna
, Nondcrogablc provisions includc: .c uropcan Conv. on Human Rights, Arts. a,
, (.) and ,, and .66 !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights, Arts. 6,
,, (.) and (a), .., ., .6 and ..
467 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
tivcly, thc powcr against which a claim is madc has not madc a dcrogation
in rcspcct ol thc occupation.

8. Tc occupant, and/or intcrnational bodics, may rclcr to human rights law as

providing a lcgal basis lor changing ccrtain laws ol thc occupicd tcrritory, or
cvcn as sctting goals lor a translormativc occupation. For cxamplc, thc tcxt
ol Articlc . ol both ol thc .66 intcrnational human rights covcnants has
possiblc implications lor political arrangcmcnts undcr occupations: All pco
plcs havc thc right ol sclldctcrmination. 8y virtuc ol that right thcy lrccly
dctcrminc thcir political status ...
!n such instanccs human rights convcntions can rcinlorcc thc idca that thcrc arc
somc important basic rulcs to bc applicd, and principlcs to shapc thc conduct ol
thc statcs and individuals involvcd. ach ol thc cight instanccs listcd abovc could
arisc in a translormativc occupation.
III Post-r| Occupations with a Transformative Purpose
Many intcrvcntions and occupations sincc . havc bccn morc than mcrc by
products ol war: thcir basic purposc has oltcn bccn to acct thc political ordcr in
thc tcrritory conccrncd. Cascs during thc Cold Var ycars includc, lor cxamplc,
Czcchoslovakia altcr .6, northcrn Cyprus altcr .,, Cambodia altcr .,, and
Grcnada in ..
Tis part looks sclcctivcly at ccrtain lorcign military prcscnccs aiming at a
lundamcntal dcmocratic translormation, and considcrs thcir possiblc implica
tions lor thc law on occupations. Put crudcly, thc traditional assumption ol thc
laws ol war is that bad (or potcntially bad) occupants arc occupying a good coun
try (or at lcast onc with a rcasonablc lcgal systcm that opcratcs lor thc bcnct ol
thc inhabitants). !n rcccnt ycars, cspccially in somc Vcstcrn dcmocratic statcs,
thcrc havc bccn various schools ol thought that havc bccn bascd on thc oppositc
idca, crudcly summarizcd as good occupants occupying a bad country (or at lcast
onc with a bad systcm ol govcrnmcnt and laws).
8oth ol thcsc crudc vicws ol occupations arc qucstionablc. Tc sccond vicw
ol thc occupant as thc bringcr ol progrcss can lcad to a dangcrous mix ol cru
sading, scllrightcousncss, and sclldclusion. Yct this vicw is thc product ol scri
ous considcrations bascd on actual cvcnts, including thc postSccond Vorld Var
occupations, thc cascs ol intcrvcntion sincc thc cnd ol thc Cold Var, and !raq.
ach will bc considcrcd in turn.
, For cxamplc, thc UK did not makc a dcrogation in rcspcct ol thc uropcan
Convcntion on Human Rights in conncction with thc occupation ol !raq lrom acc
onwards. !n gcncral, it might bc hard to arguc that thcrc was a thrcat to thc lilc ol
thc nation arising lrom occupation ol a distant country.
468 dam Foberts
Post-surrender Occupations at the End of the Second !orld !ar
Tc Allicd occupations ol Gcrmany and Japan altcr thc Sccond Vorld Var pro
vidc clcar cxamplcs ol postsurrcndcr occupations, and also ol rcluctancc to bc
lormally bound by thc Haguc Rcgulations. Hcrc, as wcll as clscwhcrc, thc victors
dcsircd to cxcrcisc thcir powcr lrccly, and in particular to makc drastic political
and othcr changcs in thc dclcatcd statcs. Tc basic charactcr ol thcsc occupations
raiscd issucs to which rclativcly littlc attcntion had bccn paid by intcrnational
lawycrs. Prcviously, it had somctimcs bccn assumcd that thc normal conscqucncc
ol a statcs surrcndcr was its subjugation or possibly cvcn anncxation by thc victor,
but this did not happcn in thc bulk ol Gcrman or Japancsc tcrritory at thc cnd
ol thc Sccond Vorld Var, nor in a numbcr ol othcr instanccs at that timc ol
postsurrcndcr occupations. Vhat took placc instcad, cspccially in Gcrmany and
Japan, wcrc occupations which wcnt bcyond thc lcttcr ol thc Haguc Rcgulations,
yct lcll short ol anncxation or assumption ol sovcrcignty.
Vith rcspcct to thc occupation ol Gcrmany which bcgan in ., a lcgal
mcmorandum to thc UK Forcign cc in March . sct out thc basic problcm:
Tc truth is that thc Allics arc dcaling with a situation without prcvious paral
lcl, thcy arc proposing to cxcrcisc thcir authority with rcspcct to Gcrmany in
ordcr to cxpcl thc Nazi systcm and its manilcstations complctcly and uttcrly,
and to continuc this proccss indcnitcly until it has succccdcd. Tcsc objccts,
lar ranging as thcy arc, do not ncccssarily amount to anncxation and to thc
positivc and complctc translcr ol sovcrcignty whcthcr by ccssion or by con
qucst. 8ut thcy do undoubtcdly go lar bcyond thc cxcrcisc ol military occu
pation as limitcd by prcvious intcrnational law. Looking, thcrclorc, at thc
mattcr broadly, wc cannot rcgard thc intcrnational law which will apply to thc
casc now in prospcct as limiting thc right ol thc Allics to thosc attaching to a
mcrc military occupation unlcss thcrc is a positivc assumption ol sovcrcignty
as a wholc.
6
Altcr thc Gcrmans acccptcd unconditional surrcndcr on , May ., Gcrmany
was complctcly occupicd by thc Allics. Vhat thcn was thc position so lar as
thc application ol thc Haguc Rcgulations was conccrncd:

n this point R.Y.

,6 pinion ol thc Lord Chanccllor and thc Law ccrs ol thc Crown, March .,
Public Rccord cc (now National Archivcs) F ,./c, (U .). n thc 8ritish
discussion about thc lcgal status ol Gcrmany, scc F.S.\. onnison, Ci.il airs and
Military Go.ernment: Central Organi.ation and Planning (London: HMS, .66),
pp. .a6.
,, Tc position bclorc , May . is widcly vicwcd as onc ol normal bclligcrcnt occupa
tion. Howcvcr, as somc antiNazi mcasurcs takcn carly in thc bclligcrcnt phasc show,
thcrc was not a complctcly sharp distinction bctwccn thc two stagcs ol thc occupa
tion ol Gcrmany.
469 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
Jcnnings, in an authoritativc articlc in .6, argucd pcrsuasivcly that thc law ol
bclligcrcnt occupation had bccn dcsigncd to scrvc two purposcs: rst, to pro
tcct thc sovcrcign rights ol thc lcgitimatc govcrnmcnt ol thc occupicd tcrritory,
and sccondly, to protcct thc inhabitants ol thc occupicd tcrritory lrom bcing
cxploitcd lor thc prosccution ol thc occupants war. Ncithcr ol thcsc purposcs
had much bcaring on thc situation thc Allics laccd:
Tus thc wholc raison dtre ol thc law ol bclligcrcnt occupation is abscnt in thc
circumstanccs ol thc Allicd occupation ol Gcrmany, and to attcmpt to apply it
would bc a manilcst anachronism.
8
Vollgang Fricdmann adoptcd a vcry similar position:
Nor could cvcn thc widcst intcrprctation ol thc rulcs ol warlarc bring thc
powcrs claimcd and cxcrciscd by thc allics in Gcrmany within thc scopc ol bcl
ligcrcnt occupation ... vcn thc most clastic intcrprctation could not bring thc
wholcsalc abolition ol laws, thc dcnazication proccdurc, thc arrcst ol thou
sands ol individuals, thc introduction ol swccping social rclorms, thc cxpro
priation ol industrics, and abovc all thc swccping changcs in thc tcrritorial and
constitutional structurc ol Gcrmany within thc rights ol bclligcrcnt occupa
tion. Tcsc arc symbols ol sovcrcign govcrnmcnt, yct it is ol thc csscncc ol bcl
ligcrcnt occupation that it docs not claim such powcrs.

!t is not ... surprising that !ntcrnational Law inadcquatc to copc with

many problcms ol our days should not bc lully cquippcd to dcal with an
cntircly unprcccdcntcd situation.

A curious aspcct ol thc lcgal arrangcmcnts lor thc postSccond Vorld Var occu
pations was Articlc .c, ol thc UN Chartcr. !t statcd, in lull:
Nothing in thc prcscnt Chartcr shall invalidatc or prccludc action, in rclation
to any statc which during thc Sccond Vorld Var has bccn an cncmy ol any
signatory to thc prcscnt Chartcr, takcn or authorizcd as a rcsult ol that war by
thc Govcrnmcnts having rcsponsibility lor such action.
Articlc .c, can bc sccn as a way ol kccping thc Allicd occupations ol Gcrmany
and Japan outsidc thc control ol thc UN Sccurity Council. !t was also a spiritual
prccursor ol an approach which has somctimcs surlaccd in thc thinking ol thc
, R.Y. Jcnnings, Govcrnmcnt in Commission, British Year Book of International La.
z,,o, p. ..a, at p. .6.
, Vollgang Fricdmann, Te llied Military Go.ernment of Germany (London: Stcvcns,
.,), pp. 6 and 6,.
470 dam Foberts
US govcrnmcnt, which sccs ccrtain govcrnmcnts (and particularly that ol thc
USA) as cntitlcd to takc action intcrnationally with only a rcstrictcd rolc lor thc
UN Sccurity Council. Following thc acc UN Vorld Summit, Articlc .c, may
bc in proccss ol bcing consigncd to lcgal oblivion, but its unilatcralist spirit is not
cntircly dcad.
8o
Altcr thc cntry into lorcc ol thc . Gcncva Convcntions, it bccamc
doubtlul whcthcr a claim could cvcr again bc madc that an occupation was out
sidc thc lramcwork ol thc laws ol war, or could complctcly ignorc ccrtain conscr
vationist provisions. Tc scopc ol application ol thc Convcntions, as outlincd in
common Articlc a, was to all cascs ol partial or total occupation ol thc tcrritory
ol a High Contracting Party. Although thc . Civilians Convcntion, Articlc 6,
did allow lor thc ccssation ol ccrtain rulcs onc ycar altcr thc gcncral closc ol mili
tary opcrations, thc occupant (il still cxcrcising govcrnmcntal lunctions) would
havc rcmaincd bound by many conscrvationist rulcs.
8+
B International Military ctions since the End of the Cold !ar
Sincc thc cnd ol thc Cold Var, intcrnational circumstanccs havc crcatcd strong
prcssurcs, and also opportunitics, lor military action to hclp bring about changc
in ccrtain statcs. Tc intcrnational problcms that havc lcd to this tcndcncy havc
includcd:
!ntcrnal rcprcssion within statcs, in many cascs lcading to largc numbcrs ol
intcrnally displaccd pcrsons and rclugccs.
Civil wars within statcs. Tcsc may causc conccrn on humanitarian grounds,
bccausc ol thcir capacity to sprcad, and also bccausc ol thcir tcndcncy to
causc rclugcc ows.
Tolcration by ccrtain statcs ol tcrrorist activitics aimcd at targcts abroad.
Tcsc problcms arc scrious, and a complctc rclusal by thc intcrnational commu
nity to tacklc thcm is not an option. l thc many cccts ol intcrnational intcr
vcntions sincc ., onc ol thc most striking is thc tcndcncy to rcsult in thc rcturn
ol rclugccs in largc numbcrs. Anothcr is thc attcmpt madc to bring about politi
cal changc in thc tcrritory conccrncd not always with succcss.
Tcrc has bccn a strong tcndcncy in many postCold Var military actions
to avoid vicwing thcm as occupations, or cvcn thinking about thc application ol
occupation law in thcsc cascs. A possiblc rationalc lor this approach is that in
most cascs in which thcrc has bccn a lorcign military prcscncc with a translorma
c !n thc UN Vorld Summit utcomc documcnt ol .6 Scpt. acc, para. .,,, thc UNs
mcmbcr statcs dcclarcd that wc rcsolvc to dclctc rclcrcnccs to cncmy statcs in
Articlcs , ,, and .c, ol thc Chartcr. UN doc. A/RS/6c/. ol a ct. acc, p. .
. . Gcncva Conv. !\, Arts. a and 6. n thc mcaning and status ol Art. 6, scc supra
tcxt at notcs a and a.
471 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
tivc purposc and somc involvcmcnt in govcrnmcntal lunctions, its prcscncc in thc
country conccrncd has bccn with a dcgrcc ol lormal conscnt lrom thc govcrn
mcnt ol that country. xamplcs ol such lorcign prcscncc with conscnt includc:
.. Haiti (.accc and lrom acc onwards)
a. 8osnia and Hcrzcgovina (lrom cccmbcr . onwards)
. Albania (MarchJunc .,)
. Kosovo (lrom Junc . onwards)
. ast Timor (ctobcr .May acca)
6. Alghanistan (lrom cccmbcr acc. onwards)
Furthcr lactors in all thcsc cascs wcrc that thcrc was (although not always lrom
thc start) lormal UN Sccurity Council authorization lor thc lorcign military prcs
cncc in thc tcrritory conccrncd, that thc lorcign prcscncc had a multinational
charactcr, that thc intcrvcntion was prcccdcd by UN Sccurity Council cxprcs
sions ol conccrn ovcr thc humanitarian situation in thc tcrritory, and that human
rights wcrc cmphasizcd as onc kcy conccrn ol thc intcrvcning lorccs.
Ncithcr thc lact ol lormal conscnt ol thc govcrnmcnt ol thc country, nor
lormal UN authorization, makcs it impossiblc lor thc law on occupations to bc
considcrcd applicablc to thcsc cascs. Vhcn troops lrom abroad intcract with thc
population ol anothcr country, thcrc must always bc a strong casc lor vicwing thc
law on occupations as a ncccssary salctynct. Howcvcr, it is cvidcnt that thc law
on occupations is not thc only lcns through which onc can cxaminc this widc
rangc ol intcrvcntionist activity.
8:
l thcsc six cascs, thc onc most similar to !raq postacc is thc U.S.lcd
cxtcrnal involvcmcnt in Alghanistan. !n Alghanistan thc Unitcd Statcs had a clcar
translormativc purposc, thcrc, as in !raq, thc major U.S.lcd military action was
cxplicitly to dcposc thc ruling rcgimc ol thc country, and thc dcposition did not
cnd all armcd opposition. A main dicrcncc is that in Alghanistan thcrc was no
ncccssity to cstablish a lorcign military occupation rcgimc. Altcr thc lall ol thc
Taliban rcgimc and thc acccssion to powcr ol thc Alghan !ntcrim Authority on aa
cccmbcr acc., thc coalitions rolc was csscntially that ol aiding thc govcrnmcnt.
C Iraq since :cc
Tcrc was a prcccdcnt, ol sorts, in !raq: thc salc havcn cstablishcd in north
crn !raq in ... Tc USlcd military intcrvcntion that bcgan on ., April ..,
rcsulting in thc cstablishmcnt ol thc zonc, did not havc spccic authorization
ol thc UN Sccurity Council, nor, initially, thc conscnt ol thc !raqi govcrnmcnt,
whosc lorccs had only a lcw months bclorc bccn rcpulscd lrom Kuwait. Altcr
a A usclul study ol cascs ol intcrnational administration sincc . is Richard Caplan,
International Go.ernance of !ar-Torn Territories: Fule and Feconstruction (xlord:
xlord Univcrsity Prcss, acc).
472 dam Foberts
thc initial phasc, northcrn !raq was protcctcd lrom !raqi govcrnmcnt incursions
almost cntircly through thc cstablishmcnt ol a USinitiatcd air cxclusion zonc.
Tc history ol this protcctcd zonc illustratcs ccrtain translormativc possibilitics
ol lorcign military involvcmcnt. Howcvcr, thc zonc ncvcr assumcd thc charac
tcr ol anything approaching a lull occupation rcgimc. !nitiatcd to cnablc largc
numbcrs ol rclugccs lrom thc rcgion to rcturn homc, it rcsultcd in thc applica
tion ol cnough coalition military prcssurc to kccp Saddam Husscins lorccs out
ol northcrn !raq, thcrcby cnabling thc !raqi Kurds to dcvclop thcir own admin
istrativc structurcs in thc rcgion. Hcrc indccd was a translormation lacilitatcd by
a lorcign military rolc: but that rolc assumcd thc lorm ol a shorttcrm military
prcscncc on thc ground, lollowcd by a morc rcmotc onc in thc air that could not
bc vicwcd as an occupation.
i Translormation as nc 8asis ol thc ccision to Usc Forcc in !raq
Tc military opcrations which wcrc launchcd in !raq on .ac March acc raiscd
numcrous issucs rclating to thc jus ad bellum. Tcsc arc not rcvicwcd hcrc, partly
bccausc ol thc lamiliar principlc that thc laws ol war apply irrcspcctivc ol thc
lcgality or othcrwisc ol an original rcsort to lorcc. Howcvcr, onc qucstion must
bc bricy addrcsscd. !s translormation a lcgitimatc rcason lor rcsorting to lorcc:
Tis is distinct lrom thc qucstion as to whcthcr translormation is a lcgitimatc
goal oncc lorcc has (lor whatcvcr rcason) bccn uscd.
Tc casc ol !raq conrms that thcrc may bc a complcx mixturc ol politi
cal motivcs lor intcrvcning, and a no lcss complicatcd mixturc ol lcgal and othcr
justications. Tc U.S.lcd invasion lollowcd a prolongcd and conluscd lcgal
cumpolitical dcbatc, in which thc statcd purposcs ol intcrvcntion varicd not just
ovcr timc, but also within and bctwccn dicrcnt US agcncics and participating
statcs.
n ac March acc thc Unitcd Statcs madc a statcmcnt to thc UN sccking
to justily thc military opcrations that had just commcnccd. Tc purposc ol thc
military action was spccicd vcry prcciscly: Tcsc opcrations arc ncccssary in
vicw ol !raqs continucd matcrial brcachcs ol its disarmamcnt obligations undcr
rclcvant Sccurity Council rcsolutions, including Rcsolution .. (acca). Tc
opcrations arc substantial and will sccurc compliancc with thosc obligations. As
to thc basis ol authority to usc lorcc, thc statcmcnt madc a claim ol continuing
or rcvivcd authority on thc basis ol carlicr rcsolutions: Tc actions bcing takcn
arc authorizcd undcr cxisting Council rcsolutions, including its rcsolutions 6,
(.c) and 6, (..).
8
Tcrc was no mcntion at all ol a politically translormativc
purposc, nor ol thc prcvcntion ol tcrrorism.
Lcttcr datcd ac March acc lrom thc Pcrmancnt Rcprcscntativc ol thc USA to thc
UN addrcsscd to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council. UN doc. S/acc/. ol a.
March acc.
473 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
!n rcality, thc idca ol political translormation had long bccn onc signicant
clcmcnt in US dcbatcs about !raq. As carly as ., thc joint houscs ol thc U.S.
Congrcss, in passing thc !raq Libcration Act, had callcd lor thc US to support
corts to rcmovc thc rcgimc hcadcd by Saddam Husscin lrom powcr in !raq and
to promotc thc cmcrgcncc ol a dcmocratic govcrnmcnt to rcplacc that rcgimc.
Howcvcr, this clarion call lor translormation did not cxist in a vacuum, sincc
it was bascd on complaints about !raqs conduct, including violations ol intcr
national rulcs. Tc Act citcd !raqs conduct in thc war against !ran .c, its
invasion and occupation ol Kuwait .c., its orchcstration ol a lailcd plot to
assassinatc Prcsidcnt Gcorgc H. V. 8ush in ., its rcprcssion ol thc Kurds, its
violation ol thc disarmamcnt conditions ol thc .. ccascrc, and its dcnial ol
dcmocracy.
8
!n subscqucnt U.S. dcbatcs and dccisionmaking, rcgimc changc
lcaturcd not simply as a likcly conscqucncc ol intcrvcntion, but a principal pur
posc ol it. !t was claimcd that cnlorccd rcgimc changc would lcad to substantial
bcnccial conscqucnccs both within !raq and in thc rcgion gcncrally.
!n 8ritain thcrc was no signicant body ol opinion that supportcd thc idca
that translormation howcvcr dcsirablc in principlc it might bc was in itscll a
justication lor going to war in !raq. !n April acca, whcn hc mct with Prcsidcnt
8ush at Crawlord, Tcxas, Primc Ministcr 8lair said that thc UK would support
military action to bring about rcgimc changc, providcd that ccrtain conditions
wcrc mct: corts had bccn madc to construct a coalition/shapc public opinion,
thc !sracl/Palcstinc Crisis was quicsccnt, and thc options lor action to climi
natc !raqs VM through thc UN wcapons inspcctors had bccn cxhaustcd. Tc
mcmorandum ol a. July acca which rccordcd this also statcd: US vicws ol intcr
national law vary lrom that ol thc UK and thc intcrnational community. Rcgimc
changc per se is not a propcr basis lor military action undcr intcrnational law. 8ut
rcgimc changc could rcsult lrom action that is othcrwisc lawlul.
8
Tony 8lair
subscqucntly statcd that rcgimc changc and wcapons ol mass dcstruction wcrc
linkcd in thc scnsc that it was thc rcgimc that was producing thc VM.
86
!n thc
Housc ol Commons dcbatc just bclorc thc war hc statcd: ! havc ncvcr put thc
justication lor action as rcgimc changc. Vc havc to act within thc tcrms sct out
in Rcsolution .. that is our lcgal basc. 8ut it is thc rcason why ! say lrankly
Rcsolution ol thc two houscs ol thc U.S. Congrcss (H.R. 6), passcd by thc Housc
ol Rcprcscntativcs on ct. . and thc Scnatc on , ct. ..
Conditions lor Military Action, Sccrct Cabinct cc papcr, a. July acca. Partially
lcakcd in Sunday Times, London, . May acc, and publishcd in lull in thc Sunday
Times, London, .a Junc acc. Availablc at http://www.downingstrcctmcmo.com/
cabinctocctcxt.html~.
6 Sccrct owning Strcct mcmo ol thc Primc Ministcrs mccting, a July acca, rcl. S
./ca. Publishcd in thc Sunday Times, London, . May acc. Availablc at http://
www.inlormationclcaringhousc.inlo/articlc,c.htm~.
474 dam Foberts
that il wc do act, wc should do so with a clcar conscicncc and a strong hcart.
8

Tc main thrust ol public prcscntations ol govcrnmcnt policy was about allcgcd
!raqi noncompliancc with disarmamcnt obligations. !n a sccrct mcmorandum to
thc Primc Ministcr on thc lcgality ol military action against !raq, datcd , March
acc, thc Attorncy Gcncral, Lord Goldsmith, dcvclopcd thc argumcnt that a
violation ol !raqs obligations undcr rcsolution 6, which is sucicntly scrious to
undcrminc thc basis ol thc ccascrc can rcvivc thc authorisation to usc lorcc in
rcsolution 6,. Tc nal paragraph ol thc mcmorandum cxprcsscd ncrvousncss
about political translormation as a rationalc lor thc usc ol lorcc. !t did so in thc
contcxt ol a discussion ol proportionality which, lamously, is a mattcr that con
stitutcs a link bctwccn jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Tc paragraph rcads:
Proportionality
6. Finally, ! must strcss that thc lawlulncss ol military action dcpcnds not only
on thc cxistcncc ol a lcgal basis, but also on thc qucstion ol proportionality.
Any lorcc uscd pursuant to thc authorisation in rcsolution 6, (whcthcr or not
thcrc is a sccond rcsolution):
must havc as its objcctivc thc cnlorccmcnt |ol | thc tcrms ol thc ccascrc
containcd in rcsolution 6, (.c) and subscqucnt rclcvant rcsolutions,
bc limitcd to what is ncccssary to achicvc that objcctivc, and
must bc a proportionatc rcsponsc to that objcctivc, i.c. sccuring compli
ancc with !raqs disarmamcnt obligations.
Tat is not to say that action may not bc takcn to rcmovc Saddam Husscin
lrom powcr il it can bc dcmonstratcd that such action is a ncccssary and pro
portionatc mcasurc to sccurc thc disarmamcnt ol !raq. 8ut rcgimc changc
cannot bc thc objcctivc ol military action. Tis should bc bornc in mind in
considcring thc list ol military targcts and in making public statcmcnts about
any campaign.
88
instcin dcvclopcd a justication lor thc usc ol lorcc against !raq that was simi
lar to that ol Lord Goldsmith, but with ccrtain dicrcnccs. cploring thc conlu
sion in rationalcs lor thc !raq action, and noting that thc political considcrations
rcsulting in intcrvcntion wcrc broadcr than thc lcgal oncs, instcin sought to
rcducc thc chaos ol argumcnts about thc lcgal basis ol thc acc action against
!raq to somc kind ol ordcr. Hc argucd that thc original .. coalition usc ol
lorcc ovcr Kuwait had bccn lawlul not only bccausc it had bccn authoriscd in
, Tony 8lair, statcmcnt opcning thc dcbatc on !raq, Hansard, Housc ol Commons,
. March acc, col. ,,a. Availablc at http://www.parliamcnt.uk/hansard/hansard.
clm~.
Lord Goldsmith, Attorncy Gcncral, !raq: Rcsolution .., Sccrct Mcmorandum
to thc Primc Ministcr, , March acc. Rclcascd on a April acc, paras. , and 6, at
http://www.numbcr.c.gov.uk/lcs/pdl/!raqacRcsolutionac...pdl~.
475 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
Sccurity Council Rcsolution 6, ol a Novcmbcr .c, but also bccausc it was
a lawlul cxcrcisc ol collcctivc sclldclcncc lollowing thc attack on Kuwait. Hc
thcn wcnt on to suggcst that thc lcgal basis ol thc acc hostilitics was a rcvival
ol thc Coalitions right to usc lorcc against !raq conscqucnt upon thc !raqi matc
rial brcach ol thc ccascrc that had bccn concludcd bctwccn !raq and thc coali
tion in ...
8
Hc did not dcvotc attcntion to thc US cmphasis on rcgimc changc
as a rcason lor usc ol lorcc, but was critical ol US notions ol prcvcntivc scll
dclcncc. Comparcd with Goldsmiths argumcnt, this analysis was lcss dcpcndcnt
on Sccurity Council rcsolutions, and put morc cmphasis on a continuing right ol
sclldclcncc as a basis lor rcsponding to violations ol thc .. ccascrc tcrms.
Tc lcgal justications ol thc acc !raq intcrvcntion advanccd by Goldsmith
and instcin arc strongcr than most. Howcvcr, likc all vicws ol thc !raq intcr
vcntion, thcy arc by no mcans lrcc ol problcms. 8oth ol thcsc justications rclicd
hcavily on thc propositions that !raq had cngagcd in major violations ol thc
ccascrc tcrms, and that thcsc had bccomc vcry scrious by acc, and that thc
crisis was so scvcrc as to justily thc latclul stcp ol invasion and rcgimc changc, as
distinct lrom continuing and adapting thc policy ol containmcnt.
Tcrc wcrc, and arc, many grounds lor rcscrvations ovcr thc Coalition gov
crnmcnts asscssmcnts in acca ol cvidcncc ol !raqi brcachcs ol thc ccascrc
tcrms. !t is truc that thcsc asscssmcnts wcrc largcly sharcd by othcr govcrnmcnts
and thcir intclligcncc scrviccs. Yct it was not, and is not, obvious that thcrc was a
crisis ovcr !raqi wcapons in March acc ol such gravity as to justily withdrawing
thc inspcctors and rcsorting to lullscalc invasion. Hans 8lix, chargcd with thc
task ol inspccting in !raq, had doubts about thc asscssmcnts madc about !raq in
Vashington and London in March acc.
o
Tc dcbatc about !raq in thc ycars bclorc thc outbrcak ol war in March acc
rcvcalcd a dicrcncc ol vicw bctwccn thc UK and thc US about whcthcr thc
political translormation ol !raq, or ol thc rcgion morc broadly, could bc a rcason
lor intcrvcntion. Tc UK had a strongcr scnsc that, on its own, rcgimc changc
was an insucicnt rcason in intcrnational law. Tc projcct ol political translor
mation ol !raq, and ol thc Arab world morc gcncrally, was particularly strong in
thc USA lor ycars bclorc acc to thc point whcrc it constitutcd a signicant part
ol thc rationalc lor intcrvcntion pcrhaps morc important in thc minds ol somc
policymakcrs than thc disarmamcnt issuc. To many advocatcs ol translormativc
intcrvcntion, thcrc was somcthing articial about a situation in which thc law is
such that a rcal rcason lor intcrvcntion turning a dictatorship into a dcmocracy
could play at bcst a minimal part in thc dcbatc about thc lcgal justication ol
military action.
Yoram instcin, Tc Gull Var, .cacc (and Still Counting), Israel Yearbook on
Human Fights :cc, vol. , p. ., at p. .
c Hans 8lix, Disarming Iraq: Te Search for !eapons of Mass Destruction (London:
8loomsbury, acc).
476 dam Foberts
ii Translormativc ccupation ol !raq lrom April acc
Sincc thc initial USlcd invasion and subscqucnt military prcscncc was obviously
without thc agrccmcnt ol thc govcrnmcnt ol Saddam Husscin, and involvcd
dircct rcsponsibility lor running thc country, thc rcsulting situation was much
closcr to a military occupation than in most cascs ol lorcign military prcscncc in
countrics sincc thc cnd ol thc Cold Var. Naturally, a widc rangc ol laws ol war
issucs arosc, in light ol which thc policics ol thc coalition authoritics wcrc thc
subjcct ol cxtcnsivc justication and critical scrutiny.
+
Tc occupation ol !raq was not wcll planncd. As carly as July acca a UK
govcrnmcnt mcmorandum had notcd: Tcrc was littlc discussion in Vashington
ol thc altcrmath altcr military action.
:
Somc scnior occrs in thc Pcntagon
with lcgal cxpcrtisc wcrc told not to bothcr thcmsclvcs with plans lor thc occu
pation, and a Statc cpartmcnt study prcparatory to thc occupation was ignorcd.
Tcrc was also conccptual conlusion, cspccially in thc Unitcd Statcs. !n thc public
dcbatc on thc mattcr in Vashington C in thc rst lcw months ol acc, somc
policymakcrs madc thc basic crror ol asscrting that, bccausc this was a libcration
ol !raq, it was not an occupation at all. A typical commcnt was that by Mr Paul
Vollowitz, cputy US Sccrctary ol clcnsc and a lcading advocatc ol thc intcr
vcntion. !n Fcbruary acc, shortly bclorc thc military action, hc said: Vcrc not
talking about thc occupation ol !raq. Vcrc talking about thc libcration ol !raq ...
Tcrclorc, whcn that rcgimc is rcmovcd, wc will nd thc |!raqi population| basi
cally wclcoming us as libcrators.

Tcrc wcrc countlcss similar statcmcnts lrom

US ocials.
Tis vicw was accompanicd by a US tcndcncy not conncd to thc govcrn
mcnt to ignorc or downplay ccrtain laws ol war rulcs.

Tis lcd to somc cor

rcctivc statcmcnts lrom intcrnational lawycrs. instcin wrotc:
. Two asscssmcnts ol thc !raq occupation in rclation to thc laws ol war, which addrcss
many issucs not tacklcd hcrc, arc Michacl N. Schmitt and Charlcs H.8. Garraway,
ccupation Policy in !raq and !ntcrnational Law, in International Peacekeeping: Te
Yearbook of International Peace Operations, vol. , :cc, (Lcidcn: Nijho, acc), pp.
a,6., and Turcr and MacLarcn, !us Post 8cllum in !raq (supra notc ).
a Sccrct owning Strcct mcmo ol thc Primc Ministcrs mccting, a July acca (supra
notc 6).
Paul Vollowitz, National Public Radio, . Fcb. acc, at http://www.dclcnsclink.
mil/transcripts/acc/tcaacacc_tca.npr.html~. Sixtccn months latcr, this intcrvicw
was citcd critically by Scnator Hillary Rodham Clinton whcn Vollowitz gavc tcsti
mony to U.S. Scnatc Armcd Scrviccs Committcc on thc Transition in !raq, Vashington
C, a Junc acc. Availablc at thc Pcntagon wcbsitc: http://www.dclcnsclink.mil/
spccchcs/acc/spaccc6adcpsccdclc..html~.
Tcrc was no rclcrcncc at all to thc laws ol war rulcs on occupation in an othcr
wisc thoughtlul study ol !raq by two US nongovcrnmcntal institutions in which
intcrnational lawycrs wcrc strongly rcprcscntcd. Scc Establishing a Stable Democratic
Constitutional Structure in Iraq: Some Basic Considerations, prcparcd by thc Public
477 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
Tc Coalition was vcry cagcr to prcscnt its lorccs in !raq as an army ol libcra
tion. 8ut notwithstanding thc lact that thc ovcrthrow ol thc Saddam Husscin
rcgimc brought libcration to thc !raqi pcoplc, it must bc apprcciatcd that
pursuant to intcrnational law thc lcgal status ol thc Coalition lorccs in !raq
is not that ol libcrators but that ol bclligcrcnt occupants.

!t was undcrstandablc that, in thc Middlc ast whcrc conccrn about thc !sracli
occupicd tcrritorics is widcsprcad, thc US should wish to avoid thc odium accom
panying thc tcrm occupation. Howcvcr, it was a lcgal and political mistakc to
countcrposc libcration and occupation as oppositcs, and thcrcby to imply that
thc law govcrning occupations was ol littlc rclcvancc. !t would havc bccn lcgally
soundcr, and havc clicitcd lcss political scorn, to havc statcd lrom thc start that
thc Unitcd Statcs, whilc its intcntion was to libcratc !raq, acccptcd that onc main
body ol intcrnational rulcs that should govcrn thc conduct ol thcir lorccs was
that pcrtaining to occupations. vcntually, altcr thc main combat phasc in !raq
was ovcr, thc Unitcd Statcs and its coalition partncrs did adopt this position.
UN Sccurity Council Rcsolution . ol aa May acc, mcntioncd lurthcr bclow,
markcd thcir acccptancc that occupation law applicd to thcir prcscncc in !raq,
whilc at thc samc timc rcccting thcir intcntion to achicvc a lundamcntal trans
lormation ol thc constitution and laws ol thc country.
Vhilc thc intcrvcntion was still in its major combat opcrations phasc, thcrc
wcrc conccrns in somc parts ol thc coalition govcrnmcnts that thc translorma
tivc projcct lor !raq might violatc thc lcgal norms govcrning occupations. n a6
March acc, in a dctailcd mcmorandum spclling out his advicc to thc 8ritish
Cabinct on thc samc day, Lord Goldsmith, thc UK Attorncy Gcncral, statcd:
!n short, my vicw is that a lurthcr Sccurity Council rcsolution is nccdcd to
authorisc imposing rclorm and rcstructuring ol !raq and its Govcrnmcnt. !n
thc abscncc ol a lurthcr rcsolution, thc UK (and U.S.) would bc bound by thc
provisions ol intcrnational law govcrning bclligcrcnt occupation, notably thc
Fourth Gcncva Convcntion and thc .c, Haguc Rcgulations.
Tc Attorncy Gcncral wcnt on to notc in particular that thc imposition ol major
structural cconomic rclorms would not bc authoriscd by intcrnational law. n
a scparatc point, hc statcd that a lurthcr complicating lactor lor thc Unitcd
Kingdom is thc cxtcnt to which thc CHR |uropcan Convcntion on Human
Rights| and othcr intcrnational human rights instrumcnts arc likcly to apply to
!ntcrnational Law & Policy Group, and thc Ccntury Foundation, May acc, 6 pp.
Availablc at http://www.pilpg.org~.
Yoram instcin, Jus in Bello !ssucs Arising in thc Hostilitics in !raq in acc, Israel
Yearbook on Human Fights :cc,, vol. , p. ., at p. .a.
478 dam Foberts
any tcrritory ol which thc UK is thc ccupying Powcr. ! am advising thc Ministry
ol clcncc scparatcly on thc cxtcnt ol our CHR obligations in !raq.
6
Following this mcmorandum, thc UK govcrnmcnt did publicly cmphasisc thc
lramcwork ol Haguc and Gcncva law. !n a statcmcnt in thc Housc ol Commons
on . April acc outlining plans lor !raqs rcconstruction, Primc Ministcr 8lair
said: !n thc rst phasc, thc coalition and thc cc ol Rcconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistancc will havc rcsponsibility undcr thc Gcncva and Haguc
convcntions lor cnsuring that !raqs immcdiatc sccurity and humanitarian nccds
arc mct. Hc also strcsscd that thc UN would havc a vital rolc. Hc did not usc
thc tcrm occupation: instcad, hc said, optimistically: !raq is a nation with a crca
tivc pcoplc, potcntially wcalthy, with a dynamic and prospcrous luturc ahcad ol
it. Tcy do not nccd to bc run lrom thc outsidc by thc US, thc UK or thc UN,
and thcy will not bc.

Tc occupation had alrcady bcgun during thc coursc ol thc ghting, whcn
progrcssivcly morc arcas ol !raq camc undcr coalition control. Although in par
ticular placcs and phascs it could bc dicult to dctcrminc cxactly whcn occupa
tion bcgan, thcrc appcars to havc bccn no disputc in principlc about thc status
ol thcsc arcas as occupicd tcrritory. Tc usc ol this tcrm in a Sccurity Council
rcsolution ol a March conrmcd this.
8
Tc countrywidc occupation administration is dcscribcd in somc ocial
documcnts as having bcgun on .6 April acc. Tis was onc day altcr a mccting
ol various !raqi lactions, hcld at a makcshilt US air basc ncar Ur, which agrccd a
.point plan (including as Point .c thc dissolution ol thc 8aath Party) lor stccr
ing !raq to a dcmocratic luturc.

Tis was sccn by thc US and coalition part

ncrs as providing somc kind ol mandatc lor cmbarking on drastic changc. Tc
ncxt day Gcncral Tommy Franks, Commandcr ol thc Coalition Forccs, issucd a
Frccdom Mcssagc to thc !raqi Pcoplc. Vhilc not using thc word occupation, hc
announccd: ! am crcating thc Coalition Provisional Authority to cxcrcisc powcrs
ol govcrnmcnt tcmporarily. !n this mcssagc hc also announccd a rangc ol trans
lormativc policy mcasurcs, including thc discstablishmcnt ol thc 8aath Party.
ddly, this manilcsto lor thc translormation ol an cntirc country a documcnt
6 Lord Goldsmith, !raq: Authorisation lor an !ntcrim Administration, Mcmorandum
ol a6 March acc, publishcd in Ne. Statesman, London, aa May acc.
, Tony 8lair, Statcmcnt on !raq, Housc ol Commons, . April acc. Scc Hansard,
Housc ol Commons, . April acc, cols. 6.6,.
SC Rcs. .,a ol a March acc on !raq statcd in thc prcamblc: Noting that undcr
thc provisions ol Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion to thc lullcst cxtcnt
ol thc mcans availablc to it, thc ccupying Powcr has thc duty ol cnsuring thc lood
and mcdical supplics ol thc population, it should, in particular, bring in thc ncccssary
loodstus, mcdical storcs and othcr articlcs il thc rcsourccs ol thc occupicd tcrritory
arc inadcquatc. Tc word humanitarian lcaturcs . timcs in this rcsolution.
Tcxt ol thc .point plan ol . April acc availablc at http://www.guardian.co.uk/
!raq/Story/c,a,6,,6,cc.html~.
479 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
latcr bricy claimcd by thc CPA to bc loundational in charactcr was littlc notcd
at thc timc and has bccn hard to locatc subscqucntly.
+oo
Tc samc day, .6 April,
was also thc datc ol a mcssagc issucd by Gcncral Franks, !nstructions to thc
Citizcns ol !raq, containing downtocarth advicc aimcd at cnsuring thc salcty
ol thc population and thc coalition lorccs, which was also littlc notcd.
+o+

Tcrc was somc carly conlusion about which pcrson, and indccd organization,
was in chargc. Tc occupation was initially pcrccivcd as bcing undcr Gcncral Jay
Garncr, ircctor ol thc cc ol Rcconstruction and Humanitarian Assistancc
(RHA), which had bccn sct up within thc cpartmcnt ol clcnsc in January
to mcct thc challcngcs ol rcconstructing !raq. Hc had bccn prcscnt at thc mcct
ing ncar Ur on . April, and arrivcd in 8aghdad on ac April. Vithin lcss than
thrcc wccks hc was sidclincd. n 6 May, in a statcmcnt that madc no rclcrcncc
to thc Coalition Provisional Authority, Prcsidcnt 8ush appointcd Ambassador
L. Paul 8rcmcr as U.S. Prcsidcntial nvoy to !raq, stating that as thc scnior
Coalition ocial in !raq, hc would bc rcsponsiblc lor ovcrsccing rcconstruc
tion and institutionbuilding corts, whilc Gcncral Franks would rctain com
mand ol Coalition military pcrsonncl in thc arca.
+o:
n May Prcsidcnt 8ush
gavc 8rcmcr thc lormal lcttcr ol appointmcnt as Prcsidcntial nvoy with lull
authority ovcr all U.S. govcrnmcnt pcrsonncl, activitics and lunds thcrc. Shortly
thcrcaltcr Rumslcld dcsignatcd him as Administrator ol thc CPA.
+o
n .a May
8rcmcr arrivcd in 8aghdad, and lor thc lollowing . months hc was ccctivcly
in chargc, but undcr an arrangcmcnt whcrcby powcr was dividcd bctwccn thc
.cc Gcncral Tommy R. Franks, Frccdom Mcssagc to thc !raqi Pcoplc, datcd .6 April
acc. Tcrc is a qucstion rcgarding its status. !t was rclcrrcd to as an important loun
dational documcnt in ccrtain latcr statcmcnts, including in CPA rdcr No. a ol
a May acc (infra, tcxt at notc ..). An Arabic tcxt ol thc Frccdom Mcssagc was
probably dclivcrcd by air ovcr !raq. Howcvcr, thc mcssagc docs not appcar to havc
bccn mcntioncd in thc main daily prcss conlcrcnccs givcn by thc U.S. military at
that timc, nor in thc nglishlanguagc intcrnational prcss. !ts tcxt is hard to locatc
on thc intcrnct: it was not on thc CPA, Pcntagon, Statc cpartmcnt or rclatcd wcb
sitcs whcn scarchcd in MarchMay acc6. !t was not notcd at all in a study ol thc
basic CPA lramcwork, L. lainc Halchin, Te Coalition Pro.isional uthority (CP):
Origin, Characteristics, and Institutional uthorities (Vashington C: Congrcssional
Rcscarch Scrvicc, updatcd 6 Junc acc). Nor is its cxistcncc notcd in many latcr
books about thc acc !raq Var. Howcvcr, it can bc lound (in nglish), rclcrcncc no.
!Z C., on thc Acrial Propaganda Lcact atabasc ol thc wcbsitc ol thc PsyVar
Socicty, at http://www.psywar.org/apdscarchlorm.php~.
.c. Gcncral Tommy R. Franks, !nstructions to thc Citizcns ol !raq: Coalition Provisional
Authority ircctivc, datcd .6 April acc. An nglishlanguagc tcxt, rclcrcncc no.
!Z C., can bc lound on thc wcbsitc mcntioncd in thc prcccding lootnotc.
.ca Statcmcnt by thc Vhitc Housc Prcss Sccrctary, 6 May acc. Availablc at http://
www.whitchousc.gov/ncws/rclcascs/acc/c/acccc6.html~.
.c L. Paul 8rcmcr with Malcolm McConncll, My Year in Iraq: Te Struggle to Build a
Future of Hope (Ncw York: Simon and Schustcr, acc6), pp. .a..
480 dam Foberts
Administrator and CPA on thc onc hand, and thc military chain ol command on
thc othcr, both rcporting to thc Sccrctary ol clcnsc.
+o
Tc tcrm Coalition Provisional Authority only camc into promincncc
lrom May onwards. n that day, without mcntioning thc word occupation,
thc U.S. and UK inlormcd thc Prcsidcnt ol thc UN Sccurity Council: Tc Statcs
participating in thc Coalition will strictly abidc by thcir obligations undcr intcr
national law, including thosc rclating to thc csscntial humanitarian nccds ol
thc pcoplc ol !raq. Tcy statcd that thcy had crcatcd thc Coalition Provisional
Authority, which includcs thc cc ol Rcconstruction and Humanitarian
Assistancc, to cxcrcisc powcrs ol govcrnmcnt tcmporarily, and, as ncccssary, cspc
cially to providc sccurity, to allow thc dclivcry ol humanitarian aid, and to climi
natc wcapons ol mass dcstruction.
+o
!n thc rst Rcgulation ol thc CPA, which hc signcd on .6 May acc, Paul
8rcmcr outlincd its basis ol authority and goals in its opcning words:
Pursuant to my authority as Administrator ol thc Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA), rclcvant U.N. Sccurity Council rcsolutions, including
Rcsolution . (acc), and thc laws and usagcs ol war,
! hcrcby promulgatc thc lollowing:
Section r: Te Coalition Provisional Authority
.) Tc CPA shall cxcrcisc powcrs ol govcrnmcnt tcmporarily in ordcr to
providc lor thc ccctivc administration ol !raq during thc pcriod ol tran
sitional administration, to rcstorc conditions ol sccurity and stability, to
crcatc conditions in which thc !raqi pcoplc can lrccly dctcrminc thcir
own political luturc, including by advancing corts to rcstorc and cstab
lish national and local institutions lor rcprcscntativc govcrnancc and
lacilitating cconomic rccovcry and sustainablc rcconstruction and dcvcl
opmcnt.
a) Tc CPA is vcstcd with all cxccutivc, lcgislativc and judicial authority
ncccssary to achicvc its objcctivcs, to bc cxcrciscd undcr rclcvant U.N.
Sccurity Council rcsolutions, including Rcsolution . (acc), and thc
laws and usagcs ol war. Tis authority shall bc cxcrciscd by thc CPA
Administrator.
+o6
.c For an intclligcnt and historically inlormcd account ol thc structurc and rolc ol thc
CPA by a constitutional adviscr to it, scc Noah Fcldman, !hat !e O.e Iraq: !ar and
the Ethics of Nation-building (Princcton: Princcton Univcrsity Prcss, acc).
.c Lcttcr ol May acc lrom thc Pcrmancnt Rcprcscntativcs ol thc Unitcd Statcs ol
Amcrica and thc Unitcd Kingdom ol Grcat 8ritain and Northcrn !rcland to thc
Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council, UN doc. S/acc/.
.c6 CPA Rcgulation No. ., .6 May acc.
481 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
!n its rclcrcncc to a kcy UN Sccurity Council rcsolution, and in thc cncompass
ing ol cxccutivc, lcgislativc and judicial authority, this is virtually idcntical to thc
cquivalcnt Rcgulation No. . in two cascs ol intcrnational administration that
wcrc not considcrcd to bc occupations: thosc issucd by thc UN Administration in
Kosovo in .,
+o
and by thc Transitional Administration in ast Timor in thc
samc ycar.
+o8
A notablc dicrcncc is that, whcrcas thcsc Rcgulations lor Kosovo
and ast Timor had rclcrrcd to intcrnationally rccognizcd human rights stand
ards, thc CPA Rcgulation rclcrs to thc laws and usagcs ol war. Tis rcccts thc
vicw that Kosovo and ast Timor wcrc not occupations, whcrcas !raq was.
Tc proccss by which thc CPA had cmcrgcd was morc obscurc than in
thcsc two carlicr cascs: it has givcn risc to thrcc basic qucstions.
(.) Vhcn was thc CPA cstablishcd: Tc simplc answcr would bc .6 April acc,
thc datc ol Gcncral Frankss Frccdom Mcssagc and his CPA ircctivc.
Howcvcr, thcrc is littlc cvidcncc ol thc cxistcncc ol thc CPA as an actual
administrativc body in April. As notcd, thc lcttcr ol May rclcrs to it as an
alrcady cxisting body. !t appcars to havc gradually comc into cxistcncc, and
to havc assumcd a lorm distinct lrom thc military chain ol command in
!raq, in thc rst hall ol May.
(a) Vhat was thc CPAs status in US law: Tis was not cntircly clcar. Vhilc
it had closc conncctions with thc cpartmcnt ol clcnsc, it may not havc
bccn a lcdcral agcncy.
+o
!t was a mainly but not cxclusivcly Amcrican cntity,
constituting thc administrativc arm ol a USlcd multinational coalition,
but its cxact status in US law rcmains unclcar.
() id thc UN Sccurity Council providc a lcgal lramcwork lor thc CPAs work:
Tc CPAs rst Rcgulation, issucd on .6 May, twicc rclcrrcd to Sccurity
Council Rcsolution . as providing a guiding lramcwork, cvcn pcrhaps a
dcgrcc ol lcgal authorization. Howcvcr, Rcsolution . was actually passcd
by thc Sccurity Council only on aa May six days altcr thc Rcgulation that
invokcd its namc. Tis is odd. Howcvcr, thc principal tcrms ol Rcsolution
. had bccn on thc tablc two wccks in advancc, whcn thc UK and Spain
submittcd a dralt tcxt.
++o
.c,

n thc Authority ol thc !ntcrim Administration in Kosovo, UNM!K/Rcg/./.

ol a July ., Scction .. Availablc at http://www.unmikonlinc.org/rcgulations/
indcx.htm~.
.c n thc Authority ol thc Transitional Administration in ast Timor, UNTAT/
Rcg/./. ol a, Novcmbcr ., Scction .. Availablc at http://www.un.org/pcacc/
ctimor/ctimor.htm~.
.c Halchin, Coalition Pro.isional uthority (supra notc .cc), pp. a passim.
..c Alrcady by thc morning ol May acc thc 88C and ncws agcncics had a dralt tcxt
ol what was to bccomc, thirtccn days latcr and altcr lurthcr amcndmcnt, SC Rcs.
.. Full tcxt on lc with author.
482 dam Foberts
As cvcntually passcd on aa May, Rcsolution . notcd thc abovcmcntioncd
lcttcr ol May lrom thc USA and UK, and thcn uscd thc tcrm occupying powcrs
whcn it rclcrrcd to thc spccic authoritics, rcsponsibilitics, and obligations undcr
applicablc intcrnational law ol thcsc statcs as occupying powcrs undcr unicd
command (Tc Authority). !mmcdiatcly thcrcaltcr, it notcd that othcr Statcs
that arc not occupying powcrs arc working now or in thc luturc may work undcr
thc Authority: this raiscd thc intcrcsting possibility that, in an occupation with
translormativc purposcs, somc countrics involvcd may collaboratc with thc occu
pying powcrs without thcmsclvcs bcing so labcllcd. Howcvcr, this docs not imply
a complctc cscapc lrom thc law on occupation. Tc rcsolution wcnt on to statc
that thc Council:
. Calls upon all conccrncd to comply lully with thcir obligations undcr
intcrnational law including in particular thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .
and thc Haguc Rcgulations ol .c,,
Rcsolution . also proclaimcd ccrtain objcctivcs lor thc occupation. Tcsc arc
mainly to bc lound in thc prcamblc, and in paragraph which is about thc rolc
ol thc UN Spccial Rcprcscntativc lor !raq. Tc Spccial Rcprcscntativc was man
datcd, in coordination with thc CPA, to assist thc pcoplc ol !raq through:
(c) working intcnsivcly with thc Authority, thc pcoplc ol !raq, and othcrs
conccrncd to advancc corts to rcstorc and cstablish national and local
institutions lor rcprcscntativc govcrnancc, including by working togcthcr
to lacilitatc a proccss lcading to an intcrnationally rccognizcd, rcprcscnt
ativc govcrnmcnt ol !raq,

(g) promoting thc protcction ol human rights,

(i) cncouraging intcrnational corts to promotc lcgal and judicial
rclorm,
+++
Takcn as a wholc, thc purposcs ol thc occupation as outlincd in Rcsolution .
wcnt bcyond thc conncs ol thc Haguc Rcgulations and Gcncva Convcntion
!\. Yct thc rcsolution did not cxplain thc rclation bctwccn thc translormativc
purposcs ol this occupation and thc morc conscrvativc purposcs ol thc cxisting
body ol law on occupations. Tcsc two things wcrc sct out scparatcly. Subscqucnt
rcsolutions, rcarming thc translormativc purposcs ol thc occupation, did not
addrcss this disjunction bctwccn occupation law and translormativc purposc.
++:
... SC Rcs. . ol aa May acc, passcd by a votc ol . to c. Syria was abscnt lrom thc
mccting.
..a Scc c.g. SC Rcs. ... ol .6 ctobcr acc.
483 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
!n latc acc avid Schccr, noting thc signicancc ol Rcsolution .,
obscrvcd that it rcstcd uncomlortably within occupation law and that thc lattcr
was ncvcr dcsigncd lor such translorming cxcrciscs. Conccrncd about thc
cmcrging conlusion in !raq, hc suggcstcd: Tc lcgal cnvironmcnt in !raq would
bc bcttcr rationalizcd with a lrcsh UN mandatc sctting lorth thc rcsponsibilitics
and mission objcctivcs ol thc military powcrs opcrating in !raq and by cstablish
ing UN civilian administrativc lunctions that would assumc powcrs hcld by thc
Authority undcr Rcsolution ..
++
Somc havc argucd that, lrom thc start ol thc occupation ol !raq, thc US
should havc sought an cvcn morc ccntral rolc lor thc UN. Grcgory Fox, who
is sccptical about thc translormativc projcct, and shows rcspcct lor thc conscr
vationist principlc, suggcsts that a strongcr and clcarcr Sccurity Council man
datc would havc bccn nccdcd to buttrcss a drastic scrics ol rclorms such as that
attcmptcd in !raq. Such a mandatc would havc supcrscdcd thc conscrvationist
principlc by invoking a supcrior intcrnational obligation and could havc providcd
an opportunity to makc clcar that a conscnsus within thc Unitcd Nations sup
portcd rclorm in !raq.
++
Such argumcnts lor a morc ccntral UN Sccurity Council rolc in thc trans
lormation ol !raq arc not pcrsuasivc. Altcr thc bittcr divisions in thc Council
on thc usc ol lorcc in thc months lcading up to thc outbrcak ol war, it is hardly
imaginablc that thc Council could havc givcn morc cxtcnsivc support lor thc
rclorm cort in !raq than it actually did, and thc cxtcnt ol that mandatc, as indi
catcd abovc, was imprcssivc. Tcrc is no prcvious casc in which thc Council was
so closcly involvcd in sctting thc lramcwork lor an occupation at all lct alonc by
cxplicitly backing somc ol thc occupants translormativc projccts.
Tc actual conduct ol thc occupation was, lrom thc start, scriously awcd.
++

!t had bcgun badly in April with thc conspicuous lailurcs to carry out a basic
duty ol occupying lorccs: thc prcvcntion ol looting. Sincc thcrc was still somc
ghting going on, prcvcntion ol looting may not havc bccn thc top priority ol
thc coalition lorccs, but thc cpisodc was an carly indication ol a lack ol prcparcd
.. avid Schccr, 8cyond ccupation Law, merican Journal of International La.,
vol. ,, no. (ct. acc), p. a, at pp. , and . His cxccllcnt discussion ol
thc rclation bctwccn translormativc and conscrvationist objcctivcs in !raq is part ol
Agora: Futurc !mplications ol thc !raq Conict.
.. Grcgory H. Fox, Tc ccupation ol !raq, Georgeto.n Journal of International La.,
vol. 6, no. a (Vintcr acc), p. ., at p. a6.
.. Usclul accounts ol thc !raq cvcnts drawing attcntion to thc limitations ol thc plans
and activitics ol RHA and CPA includc Anthony H. Cordcsman, Te Iraq !ar:
Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons (Vcstport, CT: Pracgcr, acc), csp. at pp.
.6, avid L. Phillips, Losing Iraq: Inside the Post.ar Feconstruction Fiasco (8ouldcr,
C: Vcstvicw Prcss, acc), csp. at pp. .a.6, and Michacl Gordon and 8crnard
Trainor, Cobra II: Te Inside Story of the In.asion and Occupation of Iraq (London:
Atlantic 8ooks, acc6), csp. at pp. .a6.
484 dam Foberts
ncss. !t indicatcd that, whcrcas it had provcd possiblc to do invasionlitc in !raq,
occupationlitc was not an option. Troops wcrc nccdcd on thc ground lor public
ordcr and guard dutics, and thcy wcrc not availablc. Astonishingly, cvcn nuclcar
lacilitics wcrc lclt unprotcctcd.
++6
Subscqucntly thcrc wcrc cascs involving a pattcrn ol maltrcatmcnt ol pris
oncrs in coalition hands a problcm which lcd to numcrous rcports and a numbcr
ol trials. !n addition, thc undcrstandablc US cmphasis on lorcc protcction had
thc incvitablc conscqucncc that thc livcs ol !raqi citizcns wcrc somctimcs takcn
il thcrc was cvcn a possibility that thcy, or thcir locations, poscd a thrcat to thc
occupation lorccs. Tc rcsult ol such lactors was that what was intcndcd as a lib
cration lookcd vcry dicrcnt to many !raqis.
!n thc occupation ol !raq, thc incvitablc lcgal intcrplay bctwccn thc con
tcnding impcrativcs ol conscrvation and rclorm playcd out mainly in lavour ol
drastic changc. Somc changc was ncccssary and ccctivc, such as thc introduc
tion ol a ncw currcncy. Howcvcr, somc policics ol thc CPA causcd considcr
ablc controvcrsy. Trcc muchcriticizcd CPA rdcrs illustratc thc point.
++
All
could bc sccn as in tcnsion with thc conscrvationist assumptions ol thc law ol
thc Haguc Rcgulations and Gcncva Convcntion !\. Tcy also raiscd a qucstion
about thc prudcncc ol thc ambitious translormativc policy ol thc CPA, and in
particular about thc wisdom ol a dccisionmaking proccdurc which (paradoxi
cally lor a body supposcdly imposing libcral valucs) allowcd littlc room lor scri
ous intcrnal discussion or consultation with allics.
Tc rst such cxamplc is CPA rdcr No. ., on thc c8aathication ol
!raqi Socicty, issucd on .6 May acc. !mplcmcnting thc announccmcnt in thc
Frccdom Mcssagc ol .6 April that had discstablishcd thc 8aath Party ol !raq,
it wcnt on to spccily that lour catcgorics ol scnior party mcmbcrs wcrc banncd
lrom luturc cmploymcnt in thc public scctor.
++8
Tis major dccision was not thc
product ol consultations, and took no account ol thc morc subtlc approach to
8aath Party mcmbcrs that had bccn takcn in thc ycars sincc .. in thc Kurdish
run arcas ol northcrn !raq.
Tc sccond such cxamplc is CPA rdcr No. a, on issolution ol ntitics,
issucd on a May acc. Rcconrming thc Frccdom Mcssagc ol .6 April, it
announccd thc abolition, as ol .6 April, ol: Ministry ol clcncc, Ministry ol
!nlormation, Ministry ol Statc lor Military Aairs, !raqi !ntclligcncc Scrvicc,
National Sccurity 8urcau, ircctoratc ol National Sccurity, Spccial Sccurity
rganization, Saddam Husscins bodyguards, Army, Air Forcc, Navy, Air
..6 !an Traynor, Nuclcar Looting Alarms UN Vatchdog, Te Guardian, London, .
May acc, p. .6.
.., Tcsc thrcc CPA rdcrs wcrc downloadcd lrom thc CPA wcbsitc at http://
www.cpairaq.org/=~. Altcr thc cnd ol thc CPAs rolc on a Junc acc thc wcbsitc
rcmaincd opcn lor historical purposcs.
.. CPA rdcr No. ., .6 May acc.
485 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
clcncc Forcc, and twclvc othcr rcgular military, paramilitary and othcr organ
izations. Paul 8rcmcr has sought to justily thc abolition ol thc army on thc
grounds that many units had disbandcd in thc wakc ol thc invasion anyway, and
to havc rccallcd thcm would havc bccn to cnd up with a largcly Sunni lorcc.
++

Yct this was a drastic stcp, lcaving a vast cadrc ol uncmploycd and cmbittcrcd
military pcrsonncl.
Tc third such cxamplc is CPA rdcr No. , on Forcign !nvcstmcnt, issucd
on . Scptcmbcr acc with (in thcory) immcdiatc ccct. Tis allowcd lorcign
invcstors to own !raqi companics lully with no rcquircmcnts lor rcinvcsting prol
its back into thc country, somcthing that had prcviously bccn rcstrictcd by thc
!raqi constitution to citizcns ol Arab countrics. !n thc lollowing months this did
not havc thc intcndcd ccct ol opcning !raq up to lorcign invcstmcnt, mainly
bccausc thc insurgcncy, which thc rdcr can havc donc nothing to chcck, madc
outsidcrs cautious. Tc rdcrs swccping tcrms raiscd conccrns within thc
CPA, and insidc and outsidc !raq that thc translormation bcing imposcd was
morc cxtcnsivc than thc law pcrmittcd and thc situation warrantcd. Tis dramatic
act ol cconomic translormation, unlikc thc political changcs, had no convincing
mandatc cithcr in human rights law or in Sccurity Council rcsolutions.
Vithin thrcc months ol thc cnd ol major combat opcrations, announccd by
Prcsidcnt 8ush on USS braham Lincoln on . May acc, a major insurgcncy dcvcl
opcd. Somc cvidcncc suggcsts that thc insurgcncy was prcplanncd by thc !raqi
authoritics, wcll bclorc thc USlcd invasion ol March acc as Paul 8rcmcr has
asscrtcd.
+:o
Tc prcscncc ol a lorcign military lorcc in a rcgion whcrc thcrc arc long
mcmorics ol colonialism, war and lorcign occupation was always likcly to causc
tcnsion. Tc cmcrgcncc ol rcsistancc illustratcs a potcntial hazard, and vulncrabil
ity, ol translormativc occupations. Any attcmpt at a major rcstructuring ol a soci
cty was likcly to provokc opposition, cspccially whcn a largc scgmcnt ol socicty
in this casc thc Sunni Muslim population saw rclorms as thrcatcning a long
cstablishcd pattcrn ol political and cconomic dominancc. Tc spccdy dismissal ol
hugc numbcrs ol ocials and thc wholcsalc disbanding ol thc !raqi Army addcd to
thc risks. Tc insurgcncy was mainly ccntrcd in thrcc ol !raqs cightccn provinccs
but had cccts throughout thc country. Using tactics that wcrc a nightmarc invcr
sion ol thc notions ol combat cnshrincd in thc laws ol war, thc insurgcncy madc
thc achicvcmcnt ol translormation vcry much morc dicult. 8y attacking a widc
rangc ol outsidcrs soldicrs, UN ocials, !CRC pcrsonncl, civilians, and aid work
crs thc insurgcnts discouragcd thc outsidc world lrom scnding troops or othcr
pcrsonncl to !raq. Tc UN Spccial Rcprcscntativc lor !raq, Scrgio \icira dc Mcllo,
was assassinatcd in an attack in 8aghdad on . August acc which dcstroycd much
.. CPA rdcr No. a, a May acc, and 8rcmcr, My Year in Iraq, pp. .
.ac 8rcmcr, My Year in Iraq, pp. .a6,.
486 dam Foberts
ol thc UN hcadquartcrs thcrc.
+:+
Tis was a clcar sign that thc insurgcnts in !raq
wcrc aiming at vulncrablc targcts, and sought to stop intcrnational assistancc lor
thc translormation projcct. 8y using suicidc bombcrs who wcrc indistinguishablc
in appcarancc lrom civilians, thc insurgcnts incrcascd thc tcnsion bctwccn coalition
pcrsonncl and ordinary !raqis, any ol whom might posc a hiddcn thrcat.
Tc U.S. Administration, with its scllgcncratcd illusions about libcration
and translormation, had not anticipatcd such a sustaincd insurgcncy. Prcsidcnt
8ush, whcn askcd in cccmbcr acc whcthcr hc now acknowlcdgcd that thc
mission had not gonc as originally planncd, and in particular that thc U.S. lorccs
had not bccn wclcomcd as libcrators, gavc this charactcristic rcply, which will
mcrit inclusion in a lcxicon ol 8ushisms: ! think wc arc wclcomcd. 8ut it was not
a pcacclul wclcomc.
+::
US public support lor thc intcrvcntion in !raq dcclincd
sharply bctwccn March acc and summcr acc lor two rcasons: rst, thc changc
ol objcctivc lrom rcstraining !raqs wcapons capability to participation in an
intcrnal political strugglc, and sccond, thc high human cost and halting progrcss
ol thc occupation.
+:
Grantcd thc circumstanccs ol insurgcncy, it is rcmarkablc that a signicant
dcgrcc ol political translormation was achicvcd in !raq. Tc movcmcnt toward
!raqi scllrulc, though lacing dicult problcms and subjcct to constant criticism,
was brisk. Tc Govcrning Council ol !raq, cstablishcd undcr thc wing ol thc CPA,
hcld its rst mccting on . July acc. Tcrc was a notably high votcr turnout in
thc clcctions lor thc Transitional National Asscmbly in January acc, in thc rcl
crcndum on thc ncw Constitution in ctobcr acc, and in thc clcctions lor thc
National Asscmbly in cccmbcr acc. Tis was cvidcncc that thc translormativc
projcct, awcd as it may havc bccn, struck a chord with !raqis. Finally, on a. May
acc6, altcr many dclays, thc National Asscmbly approvcd a ncw national unity
govcrnmcnt. Mcanwhilc, thc hugc rclugcc ows out ol !raq (mainly to Syria and
Jordan) conrmcd thc limits ol what had bccn achicvcd.
Tc proccss by which thc !raq occupation had lormally cndcd on a Junc
acc illustratcs a problcm ol translormativc occupations.
+:
Vhilc all such occu
.a. Tc attack on thc UN hcadquartcrs in 8aghdad was vc days altcr SC Rcs. .cc ol
. Aug. acc, cstablishing thc UN Assistancc Mission lor !raq. (Tc votc was . in
lavour, with Syria abstaining.) Altcr thc bombing, UNAM! was unablc to lunction
as planncd in !raq. SC Rcs. .6 ol Junc acc cautiously providcd lor thc rcsump
tion ol its activitics as circumstanccs pcrmit.
.aa Prcsidcnt Gcorgc V. 8ush, intcrvicw on N8C with 8rian Villiams, .a cc. acc.
Availablc at http://www.msnbc.msn.com~.
.a Tis is thc conclusion ol thc most thorough asscssmcnt ol thc subjcct, Richard
C. ichcnbcrg, \ictory Has Many Fricnds: U.S. Public pinion and thc Usc ol
Military Forcc, ..acc, International Security, vol. c, no. . (summcr acc), p. .c,
at p. .,6.
.a For a lullcr cxposition, complctcd at thc timc ol thc translcr ol authority in Junc
acc, scc Adam Robcrts, Tc nd ol ccupation: !raq acc, International and
487 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
pations aim to cstablish a political ordcr bascd on thc principlc ol scllgovcrn
mcnt, it is gcnuincly dicult to dctcrminc at what point onc can say that thc
translormation has bccn achicvcd, and thc govcrnmcnt ol thc occupicd tcrritory
is in a position to cxcrcisc thc powcrs ol sovcrcignty. Tis qucstion is much casicr
to answcr whcn a morc convcntional occupation cnds in a morc traditional way,
cithcr as a rcsult ol rcconqucst ol thc tcrritory by its original rulcr, or as part ol
thc tcrms ol a pcacc agrccmcnt. Vhcrc what is involvcd is a gradual translcr ol
powcrs to thc indigcnous authoritics as thcir capacity is built up, thcrc is bound
to bc an arbitrary clcmcnt in xing on a singlc datc as thc symbolic cnding ol
occupation. !n this casc thcrc was political controvcrsy as wcll, with critics vicw
ing thc lormal cnding as conccaling what was sccn as continucd US dominancc
ol a puppct govcrnmcnt.
At thc UN, thc cnding ol thc occupation, within a lramcwork laid down by
thc US govcrnmcnt, was providcd lor in Sccurity Council Rcsolution .6 ol
Junc acc. Tis bcgan:
!elcoming thc bcginning ol a ncw phasc in !raqs transition to a dcmocratically
clcctcd govcrnmcnt, and looking for.ard to thc cnd ol thc occupation and thc
assumption ol lull rcsponsibility and authority by a lully sovcrcign and indc
pcndcnt !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt ol !raq by c Junc acc.
+:
Tc rcsolution rcarmcd thc right ol thc !raqi pcoplc lrccly to dctcrminc thcir
own political luturc and control thcir own natural rcsourccs. !t laid down a
dctailcd road map lor !raqs luturc political dcvclopmcnt, including thc hold
ing, bclorc . January acc at latcst, ol dcmocratic clcctions to thc Transitional
National Asscmbly. (Tcsc wcrc in lact hcld on c January acc.) Tc rcsolution
wclcomcd thc lact that !raqi sccurity lorccs arc rcsponsiblc to appropriatc !raqi
ministcrs, and that thcrc is to bc lull partncrship bctwccn !raqi sccurity lorccs
and thc multinational lorcc. !t containcd cxtcnsivc provisions on thc rolcs ol thc
multinational lorcc and ol thc !raqi govcrnmcnt, both ol which wcrc cnvisagcd as
taking a widc rangc ol sccurity mcasurcs. !t rclcrrcd thrcc timcs to thc promotion
ol human rights in !raq as a kcy goal.
Tc ncw situation altcr a Junc acc was not just an occupation by anothcr
namc. Tcrc wcrc rcal dicrcnccs, including thc lact that thc !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt
Comparati.e La. Quarterly, London, vol. , no. . ( Jan. acc), pp. a,.
.a SC Rcs. .6 ol Junc acc, passcd unanimously. Tis was a substantially rcviscd
vcrsion ol carlicr dralts, thc rst ol which had bccn prcscntcd at thc UN on a May
acc. Scc also thc dctailcd listing ol thc broad rangc ol tasks ol thc MNF (includ
ing cvcn intcrnmcnt), and thc assurancc about continucd lullmcnt ol obligations
undcr thc law ol armcd conict, containcd in thc lcttcr ol Junc acc lrom thc US
Sccrctary ol Statc to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council. Tis is anncxcd to thc
rcsolution.
488 dam Foberts
had an cxplicitly rccognizcd right to dcmand withdrawal ol thc USlcd lorccs in
!raq. As thc Sccurity Council put it in thc samc rcsolution:
thc mandatc lor thc multinational lorcc shall bc rcvicwcd at thc rcqucst ol thc
Govcrnmcnt ol !raq or twclvc months lrom thc datc ol this rcsolution and
|thc Council| dcclarcs that it will tcrminatc this mandatc carlicr il rcqucstcd
by thc Govcrnmcnt ol !raq.
+:6
Yct thc prospcct that thcrc would bc continuing signicant similaritics with an
occupation lound rccction in ccrtain provisions ol thc rcsolution about thc
application ol intcrnational rulcs. Tc rcsolution containcd a prcambular clausc,
inscrtcd lairly latc in thc long ncgotiations ovcr its tcxt, that rccognizcd thc con
tinucd application ol intcrnational humanitarian law:
Noting thc commitmcnt ol all lorccs promoting thc maintcnancc ol sccurity
and stability in !raq to act in accordancc with intcrnational law, including obli
gations undcr intcrnational humanitarian law, and to coopcratc with rclcvant
intcrnational organizations.
+:
Tc inclusion ol this clausc can bc intcrprctcd as onc way ol conccding that, cvcn
il thc occupation was thcorctically ovcr, thcrc wcrc still likcly to bc uscs ol lorcc,
pcrhaps cvcn cxcrciscs ol administrativc authority, that closcly rcscmblcd a situ
ation ol occupation. Tis ol coursc has bccn playcd out, rcpcatcdly, in thc two
ycars sincc thc occupation notionally cndcd. !ndccd, many continucd to usc thc
tcrm occupation in rcspcct ol !raq and will no doubt do so as long as thcrc arc
coalition lorccs prcscnt and cxcrcising signicant inucncc in thc managcmcnt
ol thc country.
!n addition, thc rst opcrativc paragraph ol Rcsolution .6 conrmcd thc
incomplctc naturc ol thc translcr ol sovcrcignty lor which thc rcsolution pro
vidcd. !t statcd that thc Sccurity Council:
.. Endorses thc lormation ol a sovcrcign !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt ol !raq, as prc
scntcd on . Junc acc, which will assumc lull rcsponsibility and author
ity by c Junc acc lor govcrning !raq whilc rclraining lrom taking any
actions accting !raqs dcstiny bcyond thc limitcd intcrim pcriod until an
.a6 SC Rcs. .6 ol Junc acc, opcrativc paragraphs and .a. Scc also thc tcxt ol lct
tcrs (both datcd Junc acc) lrom thc Primc Ministcr ol thc !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt
ol !raq and thc US Sccrctary ol Statc to thc Prcsidcnt ol thc Sccurity Council. Tcsc
lcttcrs arc anncxcd to thc rcsolution.
.a, Tcrc had bccn no cquivalcnt clausc in thc dralt ol SC Rcs. .6 prcscntcd at thc
UN by thc US and UK on a May acc. Tc rcviscd dralt prcscntcd on . Junc had
includcd thc clausc in a shortcr vcrsion than thc nal onc. nly thc nal tcxt, which
was rst circulatcd on , Junc, containcd thc phrasc including obligations undcr
intcrnational humanitarian law.
489 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
clcctcd Transitional Govcrnmcnt ol !raq assumcs occ as cnvisagcd in
paragraph lour bclow,
Tis important constraint on taking any actions accting !raqs dcstiny bcyond
thc limitcd intcrim pcriod was rcportcdly thc rcsult ol prcssurc lrom a numbcr ol
!raqi groups, anxious that thc position ol Kurds, Shiitcs or othcrs might bc undcr
mincd irrcvocably by actions takcn by thc sovcrcign !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt. Tis
constraint mcant that thc !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt was, paradoxically, in a position
analogous to that ol an occupying powcr. Tc CPA intcrprctcd this constraint
as limiting thc !ntcrim Govcrnmcnts powcr to concludc trcatics. Tc constraint
has obvious similaritics to thc obligations on occupying powcrs to rclrain lrom
making lundamcntal changcs to thc lcgal systcm ol thc occupicd tcrritory, and to
bchavc gcncrally in a trustcclikc manncr. Tc lact that thc tcrm carctakcr gov
crnmcnt was oltcn uscd with rclcrcncc to thc !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt conrmcd
this. Tus, ironically, a translormativc occupation challcnging thc vcry lounda
tions ol thc law ol thc Haguc Rcgulations and Gcncva Convcntion !\ had thc
ccct ol lcading to a rcasscrtion ol thc conscrvativc principlcs that undcrlic occu
pation law cvcn at thc momcnt whcn thc occupation was dccmcd to bc at an
cnd.
IV Conclusions: Te Relevance of the Iaws of
War and of Human Rights
Tc idca ol achicving thc translormation ol a socicty through a military intcrvcn
tion is lar lrom ncw. !t was a kcy clcmcnt in much uropcan colonialism and in
Franccs wars altcr thc rcvolution ol .,. Tc Unitcd Statcs, with its longhcld
vision ol itscll as rclormcr ol a corrupt intcrnational systcm, has bccn particu
larly attractcd by thc idca, but has dcvotcd surprisingly littlc attcntion both to thc
chcqucrcd history ol translormativc intcrvcntions and to thc prcscriptivc qucs
tion ol how thcy should bc conductcd.
+:8
Tc nccd lor lorcign military prcscnccs with translormativc political pur
poscs is not going to disappcar. Tc US Govcrnmcnt bclatcdly rccognizcd this
(and implicitly rccognizcd that mistakcs had bccn madc in !raq), whcn in acc
it cstablishcd an cc ol thc Coordinator lor Rcconstruction and Stabilization.
8ascd in thc Statc cpartmcnt, this was cstablishcd to lcad US Govcrnmcnt
civilian capacity to prcvcnt or prcparc lor postconict situations, and to hclp
stabilizc and rcconstruct socictics in transition lrom conict or civil strilc so thcy
.a nc postacc US attcmpt to look at thc mattcr, which it docs lrom a policy
rathcr than a lcgal pcrspcctivc, is avid M. dclstcin, ccupational Hazards: Vhy
Military ccupations Succccd or Fail, International Security, vol. a, no. . (summcr
acc), pp. ..
490 dam Foberts
can rcach a sustainablc path toward pcacc, dcmocracy and a markct cconomy.
+:

Similarly, in cccmbcr acc thc UN cstablishcd a Pcaccbuilding Commission,
an advisory body to assist in postconict pcaccbuilding and rccovcry.
+o
Translormativc military prcscnccs may bc attcmptcd by statcs, coalitions, and
intcrnational bodics, including thc UN. Vhilc thc managcmcnt ol such projccts
is largcly a mattcr ol thc prudcnt and inlormcd conduct ol policy, thc laws ol war
and ol human rights continuc to rcgulatc thc conduct ol thosc cngagcd in thcm.
!n thc light ol thc cxpcricnccs ol translormativc military prcscnccs, thc lollowing
conclusions can bc ocrcd about thc law rclating to thcsc cntcrpriscs.
Jus Post 8cllum
Undcrlying all considcration ol translormativc occupation is thc lact that thc
situation is not onc ol tcmporary wartimc occupation, liablc to bc cndcd by thc
lortuncs ol war or by a pcacc agrccmcnt. Rathcr, it is typically a situation that
ariscs after a war whcthcr civil or intcrnational and/or altcr a lorcign mili
tary intcrvcntion, and it is likcly to cnd in a dicrcnt way, as stablc govcrnmcnt
cmcrgcs in thc tcrritory itscll. !n such circumstanccs thc jus in bello is unlikcly to
bc a pcrlcct t. !t might cvcn bc tcmpting to invokc an cmcrging or luturc jus post
bellum as a bcttcr basis lor handling such situations.
Tc idca ol military intcrvcntion with a translormativc purposc is in tcnsion
with thc cxisting systcm ol intcrnational law as it applics to statcs. Undcr thc jus
ad bellum a translormativc goal is not a valid basis lor rcsorting to lorcc. As lor
thc jus in bello, at lcast somc aspccts ol thc laws ol war as thcy addrcss occupations
arc in conict with thc translormativc intcntions ol outsidc powcrs. Sobcring
cvidcncc ol this conict is that two ol thc most succcsslul translormativc occupa
tions ol thc twcnticth ccntury thosc ol Gcrmany and Japan lrom . onwards
wcrc cxplicitly conductcd outsidc thc lramcwork ol thc Haguc Rcgulations,
with thcir assumption that thc occupant has a largcly conscrvationist rolc.
B Occupation Not a Completely Distinct Category
!n thc postCold Var intcrnational systcm, dcmocratic translormation has bccn
a dcclarcd goal ol many lorcign military and administrativc prcscnccs ol thcorcti
cally distinct typcs. Tcsc includc somc (such as thosc in Kosovo and ast Timor
.a Prcsidcntial ircctivc cstablishing thc cpartmcnt ol Statc, cc ol thc Coordinator
lor Rcconstruction and Stabilization, issucd , cccmbcr acc. Availablc at http://
www.statc.gov/s/crs/~.
.c Tc cstablishmcnt ol thc Pcaccbuilding Commission was rccommcndcd in thc
Scptcmbcr acc Vorld Summit utcomc documcnt (supra notc c), paras. ,.c,
and implcmcntcd on ac cccmbcr acc in concurrcnt rcsolutions ol thc Gcncral
Asscmbly and thc Sccurity Council GA Rcs. 6c/.c, SC. Rcs. .6 and SC Rcs.
.66.
491 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
in .) that havc not bccn considcrcd to bc occupations partly, it would appcar,
bccausc thcrc was a dcgrcc ol conscnt lrom thc statc conccrncd and/or lrom
thc population ol thc arca whcrc thc troops and administrations wcrc dcploycd,
and pcrhaps also bccausc thc administrations wcrc UNlcd rathcr than U.S.lcd.
Vhilc thc lorcign military prcscncc in !raq lrom May acc onwards was similar
in its powcrs and dcclarcd purposcs to somc ol thcsc othcr cascs, it was cxplicitly
vicwcd as an occupation lor thc good rcason that it was plainly without conscnt
ol thc govcrnmcnt ol thc statc conccrncd. Yct cvcn altcr thc rcsumption ol !raqi
sovcrcignty on a Junc acc thc situation continucd to havc ccrtain lcaturcs com
parablc to thosc ol an occupation. !n gcncral, thc similarity ol dicrcnt situations
somc vicwcd as occupations, somc not raiscs a qucstion about thc cxtcnt to
which military occupation is a distinct catcgory, and points to thc conclusion that
thc law govcrning occupations may havc application to ccrtain situations not spc
cically callcd occupations. !n addition, human rights law can apply to occupa
tions as wcll as to a rangc ol comparablc situations.
Tcsc conclusions suggcst that in all military intcrvcntions, howcvcr labcllcd,
thcrc is a casc lor dcvcloping a common lcgal approach involving a propcr bal
ancc bctwccn thc laws ol war and human rights law. Stcvcn Ratncr has argucd
that thc casc lor achicving such a balancc is particularly strong in translormativc
occupations.
++
C Human Fights La.
Human rights norms arc incrcasingly rccognizcd as applicablc in military occu
pations, and also in situations that rcscmblc military occupations in a numbcr ol
ways yct arc distinct lrom thc classic casc ol occupation. Tcir application, by no
mcans lrcc ol diculty, ocrs somc important opportunitics cspccially in cascs
whcrc thc inhabitants arc within thc powcr ol thc outsidc lorccs. Tcsc oppor
tunitics includc:
individuals can prcss cascs in ccrtain rcgional intcrnational courts (spcci
cally thc uropcan Court ol Human Rights and !ntcrAmcrican Court ol
Human Rights) in ways that do not cxist in thc laws ol war.
occupying powcrs can justily ccrtain translormativc policics on thc basis
that thcsc arc thc bcst way to mcct ccrtain goals and principlcs cnshrincd in
intcrnational human rights law, including thc right ol sclldctcrmination.
.. Stcvcn R. Ratncr, Forcign ccupation and !ntcrnational Tcrritorial Administration:
Tc Challcngcs ol Convcrgcncc, European Journal of International La., vol. .6, no.
(Scptcmbcr acc), pp. 6,..
492 dam Foberts
D Illusions of !elcome as Liberators
Two propositions havc contributcd to thc vicw that thc laws ol war arc ol limitcd
rclcvancc to translormativc occupations. Tc rst is that libcration and occupa
tion arc in somc way oppositcs whcn in rcality libcrators, to bc ccctivc, may
nccd to obscrvc rulcs ol rcstraint that apply to occupying lorccs. Tc sccond is
that a translormativc projcct imposcd by outsidcrs is likcly to bc, and to rcmain,
univcrsally wclcomcd by thc inhabitants whcn in rcality troublc is likcly to
rcsult whcn thc outsidcrs arc ol a dicrcnt rcligion and culturc, and arc intcr
vcning in a socicty that is alrcady dccply lracturcd, in a part ol thc world with
cxtcndcd cxpcricncc ol lorcign domination and occupation. An apprcciation ol
thc limits ol thcsc propositions points to thc continucd rclcvancc ol thc laws ol
war.
E Compatibility bet.een Existing La. and Transformati.e Purposes
Tc scriousncss and cxtcnt ol any laultlinc bctwccn thc conscrvationist thrust ol
thc law and thc translormativc naturc ol somc occupations should not bc cxag
gcratcd. Tc rcquircmcnt in thc Haguc Rcgulations that thc occupant rcspcct
thc laws in lorcc in thc tcrritory unlcss absolutcly prcvcntcd docs not crcatc a
rigid straitjackct. !t was modicd slightly in . though much lcss than thc
USA had naivcly sought. Undcr thc Haguc rulc, thus modicd, ccrtain occupants
and not only thosc with a gcncrally translormativc purposc havc bccn ablc to
givc cogcnt rcasons why thcy wcrc indccd absolutcly prcvcntcd lrom maintain
ing cach and cvcry part ol thc cxisting lcgal systcm. For cxamplc, in thc !sracli
occupicd tcrritorics thcrc wcrc somc signicant changcs to laws, including thc
abolition ol thc dcath pcnalty.
!n addition, cxpcricncc suggcsts that cvcn ovcrtly translormativc occupants
would bc wisc to rccognisc thc strcngth and continuing validity ol thc law on
occupations in gcncral and thc conscrvationist principlc in particular. Numcrous
crrors in thc occupation ol !raq that startcd in acc arosc lrom a lailurc to rcc
ognizc that thc laws ol war can play a valuablc rolc in locusing attcntion on ccr
tain pcrcnnial problcms ol armcd conicts and occupations such as looting
and thc managcmcnt ol cconomic lilc and do so in a scnsiblc and constructivc
way. !ronically, in Sccurity Council Rcsolution .6 ol Junc acc thc US had to
acccpt a conscrvationist rolc lor thc ncw sovcrcign !ntcrim Govcrnmcnt ol !raq,
which was obligcd to rclrain lrom taking any actions accting !raqs dcstiny.
Vhcrc, altcr an occupation has commcnccd, thcrc arc clashcs bctwccn thc
conscrvationist principlc and a pcrccivcd nccd lor translormation, thc occupant
could scck spccic authorization lrom intcrnational bodics. Tc UN Sccurity
Council has playcd such a rolc in !raq, as wcll as supporting translormativc
projccts in ccrtain postconict situations that arc, in somc rcspccts at lcast, anal
ogous to occupations. !n somc instanccs it may bc impossiblc to rcach agrccmcnt
493 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
in thc Sccurity Council, in which casc thc qucstion ol whcthcr othcr global or
rcgional bodics can providc a substitutc will rcmain a mattcr ol contcntion.
F Distinguishing bet.een Particular Transformati.e Projects
Tc lact ol having a translormativc purposc docs not mcan that it is scnsiblc to
translorm numcrous aspccts ol a socicty at thc samc timc. Tc !raqi casc induccs
caution about proposals lor suddcn and largcscalc translormations. !t suggcsts
that on a widc rangc ol mattcrs, including thc cconomic structuring ol socicty,
lundamcntal dccisions should bc madc by thc sovcrcign institutions ol a statc
altcr a systcm ol rcprcscntativc govcrnmcnt is in placc, and cannot bc imposcd in
a hurry by diktat lrom outsidc. An occupant, cvcn onc with translormativc aims,
nccds to givc priority to gctting thc basic inlrastructurc ol socicty to work. n
such mattcrs, thc dcmands ol thc conscrvativc clcmcnt in thc laws ol war, and ol
thcir humanitarian provisions, may coincidc with thc dictatcs ol prudcncc.
l all thc clcmcnts ol a translormativc projcct, thc oncs likcly to havc thc
strongcst appcal includc thc introduction ol an honcst clcctoral systcm as part
ol a multiparty dcmocracy. !t is truc that in !raq thc introduction ol dcmoc
racy ncccssarily involvcd contcntious constitutional changc on such lundamcntal
mattcrs as whcthcr thc structurc ol thc statc was to bc lcdcral in charactcr, and
il so on what modcl, and thc imposition ol such changc may havc contributcd
to thc strcngth ol thc insurgcncy. Tc circumstanccs in which such changc is
imposablc lrom outsidc arc rarc. Yct thcrc is a scrious casc lor such an approach
rcccting as it docs thc scnsc that dcmocracy and sclldctcrmination, lor all thc
dicultics ol dcning and applying thcm, arc not only an important part ol thc
human rights packagc, but also an acccptablc mcans ol hastcning thc cnd ol an
occupation. To thc cxtcnt that a ncw and ccctivc govcrnmcnt cmcrgcs through
such a proccss, an occupation may ladc away progrcssivcly, rathcr than disappcar
ing suddcnly at a sct datc.
Tc lact that dcmocratic translormation has strong appcal docs not mcan
that it is a univcrsal panacca, or that occupants havc a gcncral cntitlcmcnt to lacil
itatc it. !l an occupant invadcs part ol a country to libcratc, say, an cthnic group
inhabiting that arca, thc lact that thc inhabitants arc ocrcd a dcmocratic path
will not assuagc thc sccpticism ol statcs about such projccts, nor will it dispcl sus
picions that powcrpolitical as wcll as idcalistic motivcs may havc inlormcd thc
action. !n othcr cascs, thcrc may bc lcars that thc suddcn imposition ol dcmoc
racy may rcsult in chaos, civil war or dictatorship.
A lurthcr hazard ol any gcncral advocacy ol translormativc occupation is
that dcmocracy is lar lrom bcing thc only translormativc projcct on ocr in thc
intcrnational markctplacc ol idcas. !n thc postCold Var cra, thc prcdominant
translormativc projccts havc bccn bascd on libcral and dcmocratic idcas, but
othcr possiblc candidatcs cxist.
494 dam Foberts
G T.o Possible Legal pproaches to Transformation
Many dcvclopmcnts in practicc, and in dccisions ol intcrnational bodics, sug
gcst that thcrc has bccn a signicant cvolution ol custom in rcspcct ol thc law on
occupations. Howcvcr, this cvolution docs not amount to a gcncral rccognition ol
thc validity ol translormativc policics on thc part ol occupants. A morc modcst
conclusion lollows that any cxpansion ol thc purposcs ol occupations bcyond
thc conncs ol cxisting occupation law could in principlc bc addrcsscd by cithcr
ol two lcgal approachcs.
Tc rst approach is csscntially ad hoc, and lollows somc (but by no mcans
all) aspccts ol practicc ovcr !raq. !t is to sccurc a variation in thc application ol
thc law by obtaining a rcsolution lrom thc UN Sccurity Council (or othcr major
intcrnational body) sctting out thc goals ol thc occupation. Such authorization
can pcrlorm an important lunction. 8y giving at lcast somc mcasurc ol lcgitimacy
to ccrtain actions and goals, and by strcssing thc application ol human rights law
as wcll as humanitarian law, it can givc law an important clcmcnt ol cxibility in
rcsponsc to cxccptional situations, and it can rcducc thc intcnsity ol intcrnational
criticism ol thc occupants actions. Tis raiscs thc qucstion ol thc cxtcnt to which
thc Sccurity Council has a lrcc hand to vary thc application ol cvcn quitc lunda
mcntal rulcs ol intcrnational law including, in this casc, both jus ad bellum and
jus in bello. !n light ol thc powcrs vcstcd in thc Council, it is hard to dcny that it
has thc capacity to act in such a way cspccially in a casc whcrc what is at issuc
is rcconciling divcrgcnt principlcs ol intcrnational law on a spccic and limitcd
mattcr rclating to thc maintcnancc ol pcacc and sccurity. Tis is vcry dicrcnt
lrom waiving thc rulcs in somc morc gcncral way.
Tc second approach would bc to attcmpt to sccurc a lormal modication ol
thc Haguc rcgulations and Gcncva Convcntion !\ to makc allowanccs lor trans
lormativc occupations, cspccially in thc light ol human rights law. Tc casc lor
attcmpting to dcvisc ncw law in this way is wcak. Tc hcart ol occupation law
rcmains a scnsiblc and csscntially conscrvationist sct ol rulcs to covcr a typc ol
cmcrgcncy situation that lrcqucntly ariscs in war. Vhcrc thcrc is a translormativc
intcnt, thcrc should bc timc to scck authorization lrom intcrnational bodics. A
lurthcr rcason lor caution about making an allowancc in gcncral tcrms lor trans
lormativc occupation is that thcrc arc grounds lor sccpticism about thc cxtcnt
to which lorcign armcd lorccs, arriving suddcnly in a socicty with dccpscatcd
problcms, arc rcally capablc ol bringing about lundamcntal changc in that socicty.
Tis has to bc an cxccptional situation rathcr than a norm. Military occupation
rcmains a contcntious issuc on which it is incvitablc that thcrc will bc dicrcnccs
ol pcrspcctivc and opinion, including on thc cxtcnt to which translormativc goals
arc lcgitimatc. Tc status ol any givcn occupation .is--.is thc principlc ol non
usc ol lorcc, and thc right ol sclldctcrmination, is ncccssarily problcmatical. An
attcmpt to rcvisc thc laws ol war provisions on occupations to accommodatc thc
spccial and important casc ol translormativc occupations would bc opcn to criti
495 17 Transformati.e Military Occupation: pplying the La.s of !ar and HF
cism and likcly to lail. !t is simply not worth going down that road whcn othcr
rcmcdics lor any claimcd dclccts ol thc law on occupations arc at hand in thc
lorm ol human rights law, UN Sccurity Council authorizations, and cvolving
custom about how thc intcrnational community can propcrly assist translorma
tion in damagcd socictics.
Chapter 18
Tc Adcquacy ol !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Rulcs on
8clligcrcnt ccupation: To Vhat xtcnt May
Sccurity Council Rcsolution 1483 8c Considcrcd
a Modcl lor Adjustmcnt:
Fudiger !olfrum
I Introduction
Although bclligcrcnt occupation is not an isolatcd phcnomcnon, only rarcly has
thc gcncral qucstion ol whcthcr thc cxisting rulcs ol intcrnational laws govcrn
ing bclligcrcnt occupation arc still adcquatc bccn raiscd.
+
8clligcrcnt occupation
placcs de facto ruling authority in thc hands ol thc occupant.
:
Traditionally, intcr
national law rulcs on bclligcrcnt occupation arc undcrstood to covcr a transi
tional pcriod only, i.c., until thc govcrnmcnt ol thc occupicd statc has rcorganizcd
itscll.

De jure sovcrcignty rcsts with thc rcspcctivc statc whosc tcrritory has bccn
occupicd. uring this transitional pcriod, rulcs issucd by thc occupant arc mcant
to strikc a balancc bctwccn thc sccurity intcrcsts ol thc occupying powcr and thc
prcsumcd intcrcsts ol thc occupicd statcs population by prcscrving thc status quo
ante with rcgard to thc unity ol thc rcspcctivc statc and maintcnancc ol its cxist
ing lcgal ordcr. !ntcrnational law, in principlc, docs not lcgitimizc thc introduc
. Yoram instcin touchcs on this qucstion in Lcgislation undcr articlc ol thc
Haguc Rcgulations: 8clligcrcnt ccupation and Pcaccbuilding, ccasional Papcr
Scrics No ., Fall acc, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conict Rcscarch,
Harvard Univcrsity. Scc also . 8cnvcnisti, Tc !ntcrnational Law ol ccupation,
., a.a ct scq.
a Scc Tc Manual ol thc Law ol Armcd Conict, UK Ministry ol clcncc, acc,
a, ct scq., A. Robcrts, Vhat is a Military ccupation:, 8Y!L (.), a ct
scq., C. McCarthy, Tc Paradox ol thc !ntcrnational Law ol Military ccupation:
Sovcrcignty and thc Rclormation ol !raq, Journal ol Conict & Sccurity Law .c
(acc), ct scq. (). n bclligcrcnt occupation, scc in gcncral . 8cnvcnisti, Tc
Sccurity Council and thc Law on ccupation: Rcsolution . on !sracl in Historical
Pcrspcctivc, !sracl clcnsc Forccs Law Rcvicw . (acc), . ct scq.
Tis point is cmphasizcd by Yoram instcin. Scc Jus in bcllo issucs arising in thc
hostilitics in !raq acc, !sracl Ycarbook on Human Rights, , .. at .. Hc also
cmphasizcs that thc coalition lorccs arc bound by thc rulcs ol occupation cvcn il thcy
claim to bc libcrators.
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. ,,,-c8.
498 Fudiger !olfrum
tion ol lundamcntal political changcs going bcyond this pcriod.

Such changcs
in rcspcct ol thc occupicd Statc arc rcscrvcd to a luturc govcrnmcnt rcprcscnting
thc rcspcctivc population. Yoram instcin, to whom this contribution is dcdi
catcd, has pointcd out that in cascs ol prolongcd occupation it may bc ncccssary
to rcconsidcr thc lunctions to bc cxcrciscd by thc occupant.

Qucstions about thc currcnt adcquacy ol intcrnational law rulcs on bcllig

crcnt occupation dcrivc lrom this limitation on thc occupants powcr to activcly
rcstructurc thc occupicd Statc. !s it, considcring thc signicancc ol thc prcscr
vation ol pcacc undcr intcrnational law, still appropriatc to dcny thc occupying
powcr thc right to modily thc political systcm ol a Statc il that systcm was onc
ol thc root causcs ol thc war:
6
Tc samc qucstion may bc raiscd lrom a human
rights pcrspcctivc. !s it appropriatc that an occupying powcr bc obligcd to rcspcct
a domcstic lcgal ordcr that is in agrant violation ol intcrnational human rights
standards:

II Belligerent Occupation
pplicable La.
Tc intcrnational law govcrning bclligcrcnt occupation is codicd in Articlcs a
6 ol thc .c, Haguc Rcgulations,
8
thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, particularly
instcin, (notc ) at .a., rightly points out that in thc casc ol Gcrmany altcr thc
Sccond Vorld Var, thc Gcncva Convcntion had not yct bccn produccd.
Notc . at .
6 !t should bc that with rcgard to !raq, thc Coalition Provisional Authority had
dcncd its task: Tc ultimatc goal lor !raq is a durablc pcacc lor unicd and stablc,
dcmocratic !raq that is undcrpinncd by ncw and protcctcd lrccdoms and a grow
ing markct cconomy. Coalition Provisional Authority, An Historic Rcvicw ol CPA
Accomplishmcnts, , at http://www.cpairaq.org (availability cndcd in Junc acc).
, Tcsc qucstions havc bccn raiscd in particular by Grcgory H. Fox, Tc ccupation
ol !raq, 6 Gcorgctown Journal ol !ntcrnational Law (acc), . ct scq.
Anncx to thc Convcntion Rcspccting thc Laws and Customs ol Var on Land ol
. ctobcr .c, (authcntic tcxt Frcnch), rcprintcd in: . Schindlcr/J. Toman, Tc
Laws ol Armcd Conicts, ., 6 ct scq. Tc !ntcrnational Military Tribunal ol
Nurcmbcrg statcd that thc Haguc Rcgulations constitutcd customary intcrnational
law, cl. Trial ol thc Major Var Criminals bclorc thc !ntcrnational Military Tribunal,
Nurcmbcrg, \ol. XX!!, ,.
499 18 Te dequacy of IHL Fules on Belligerent Occupation
Articlcs a, and ,,,

and Additional Protocol !.

+o
!t is also lound in custom
ary intcrnational law.
++
Tc rcspcctivc rulcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law
apply whcncvcr a bclligcrcnt Statc occupics thc advcrsarys tcrritory, or a part
thcrcol.
+:
Tc applicability ol intcrnational humanitarian law docs not dcpcnd
upon whcthcr thc military occupation was in conlormity with intcrnational law
(as, lor cxamplc, in thc casc ol sclldclcnsc) or not. !n addition to intcrnational
humanitarian law, intcrnational human rights standards also apply during an
occupation.
According to Articlc a ol thc Haguc Rcgulations, a tcrritory is considcrcd
occupicd whcn it is actually placcd undcr thc authority ol thc hostilc army.
+
No
proclamation ol occupation is rcquircd. Rathcr, thc dccisivc critcrion is that thc
lormcr govcrnmcnt has bccn rcndcrcd incapablc ol publicly cxcrcising its author
ity in thc rcspcctivc arca and thc occupying powcr is in a position to substitutc its
own authority. Tc lormcrly disputcd issuc whcthcr thc rulcs ol military occupa
tion apply only during thc coursc ol actual warlarc has bccn rcsolvcd by Articlc 6
ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, according to which ccrtain Convcntion obli
Articlc . Fourth Gcncva Convcntion statcs that it complcmcnts thc Haguc
Rcgulations. Tis is undcrlincd by M. Grccnspan, Tc Modcrn Law ol Land Varlarc,
., (a.), whcrcas H.P. Gasscr, in . Flcck (cd.), Handbook ol Humanitarian Law in
Armcd Conict, ., statcs that thc dominant law is thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion
(a.). For a comparison ol thc provisions ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion and thc
Haguc Rcgulations, scc J. Pictct, Commcntary !\ Gcncva Convcntion Rclativc to
thc Protcction ol Civilian Pcrsons in thc Timc ol Var, ., 6..
.c Protocol Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August ., and rclating to
thc Protcction ol \ictims ol !ntcrnational Armcd Conicts (Protocol !), Junc .,,,
!LM .6 (.,,), .. ct scq.
.. Undcr thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, thc mcaning ol thc notion ol occupation
is widcr than undcr thc Haguc Rcgulations. According to articlc a ol thc Haguc
Rcgulations, it is csscntial that an occupicd tcrritory is actually placcd undcr thc
authority ol thc hostilc army, whcrcas undcr articlc a (a) ol thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion, thc rulcs ol bclligcrcnt occupation also apply in cascs whcrc thc occu
pation mccts no armcd rcsistancc. Tc broadcncd ambit ol bclligcrcnt occupation
mcans no intcrmcdiatc pcriod bctwccn what might bc rclcrrcd to as thc invasion
phasc and thc inauguration ol a stablc military occupation cxists. Situations in which
thc occupation is not in lact thc outcomc ol a military conlrontation arc also cov
crcd.
.a C. Grccnwood, Tc Administration ol ccupicd Tcrritorics in !ntcrnational
Law, in: . Playlair (cd.), !ntcrnational Law and thc Administration ol ccupicd
Tcrritorics, .a, a. ct scq. (a).
. Scc articlc a ol thc Haguc Rcgulations. Tis provision is supplcmcntcd by articlc a,
ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion. A. Robcrts, Tc nd ol ccupation: !raq acc,
!CLQ (acc), a, ct scq. (c.), indicatcs that in thc political statcmcnts madc by
thc U.S. and thc U.K. govcrnmcnts thc word occupation was avoidcd, whcrcas it
was uscd in S/RS/. (acc) ol aa May acc.
500 Fudiger !olfrum
gations continuc to apply to thc occupicd tcrritory dcspitc thc gcncral closc ol
military opcrations in a conict.
+

B Obligations of the Belligerent Occupant
Articlc ol thc Haguc Rcgulations providcs Tc authority ol thc lcgitimatc
powcr having in lact passcd into thc hands ol thc occupant, thc lattcr shall takc
all mcasurcs in his powcr to rcstorc, and cnsurc, as lar as possiblc, public ordcr
and salcty, whilc rcspccting, unlcss absolutcly prcvcntcd, thc laws in lorcc in thc
country.
+
Yoram instcin suggcsts that Articlc ol thc Haguc Rcgulations
distinguishcs bctwccn obligations to bc pcrlormcd by thc cxccutivc (to rcstorc
and cnsurc, as lar as possiblc, public ordcr and salcty in thc occupicd tcrritory)
and thosc to bc implcmcntcd by thc lcgislativc powcr (to rcspcct thc laws in lorcc
in thc occupicd tcrritory, unlcss absolutcly prcvcntcd).
+6
Although it is ncccssary
to idcntily thc locus ol cach ol thc two parts ol thc articlc, it is doubtlul whcthcr
such a clcar cut division is sustainablc. For instancc, undcr a lcgal systcm bascd
upon thc rulc ol law, rcstoring and cnsuring public ordcr rcquircs both lcgislativc
and cxccutivc action. Morcovcr, both branchcs ol govcrnmcnt must rcspcct thc
cxisting law. Tus, thc two componcnts ol Articlc should bc rcad togcthcr.
Articlcs a, and 6 ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion supplcmcnt and
amplily Articlc . Articlc a, statcs that thc occupying powcr may takc such
mcasurcs ol control and sccurity as arc ncccssary as a rcsult ol thc war. No lurthcr
spccications arc providcd, thcrcby lcaving it to thc discrction ol thc occupying
powcr to dctcrminc which mcasurcs to adopt. Howcvcr, Articlc a, docs contain
ccrtain rcstrictions implcmcnting thc gcncral obligation ol humanc trcatmcnt.
Additional rcstrictions, conccrning thc trcatmcnt ol intcrnccs, arc sct lorth in
Articlcs . to , , and , to . ol thc Convcntion.
Tc bclligcrcnt occupants main obligation is rcstoring and maintaining, as
lar as possiblc, public ordcr and salcty, a point madc clcar in thc US Armys
Ficld Manual a,.c.
+
Tis rcsponsibility cntails policc lunctions dcsigncd to pro
tcct, lor cxamplc, muscums, hospitals, thc public inlrastructurc, public buildings,
. Rudigcr Vollrum, !raq lrom 8clligcrcnt ccupation to !raqi xcrcisc ol
Sovcrcignty: Forcign Powcr vcrsus !ntcrnational Community !ntcrlcrcncc, Max
Plank UNY8 (acc) . at 6.
. Tc authcntic Frcnch tcxt rcads dicrcntly: Lautorit du pouvoir lgal ayant pass
dc lait cntrc lcs mains dc loccupant, ccluici prcndra toutcs lcs mcsurcs qui dpcn
dant dc lui cn vuc dc rtablir ct dassurcr, autant quil cst possiblc, lordrc ct la vic
publics cn rcspcctant, saul cmpcchcmcnt absolu, lcs lois cn vigucur dans lc pays.
.6 Notc . at .
., Tc UK Manual ol thc Law ol Armcd Conict (notc a) docs not rclcr to this vcry
basic principlc.
501 18 Te dequacy of IHL Fules on Belligerent Occupation
and diplomatic lacilitics against looting or dcstruction.
+8
Tc occupant, on thc
othcr hand, is not rcsponsiblc lor thc cccts ol tcrrorist attacks, as long as adc
quatc prccautionary mcasurcs wcrc takcn. !n that rcspcct, onc may arguc that law
cnlorccmcnt mcasurcs which dicr lrom thosc applicablc to ghting pockcts ol
rcsistancc (whcrc thc laws ol armcd conict apply) should bc guidcd by thc .,
UN Codc ol Conduct lor Law nlorccmcnt cials and thc .c UN 8asic
Principlcs on thc Usc ol Forcc and Fircarms by Law nlorccmcnt cials.
+
As indicatcd, a bclligcrcnt occupant must as a mattcr ol principlc rclrain
lrom intcrlcring in thc lcgal ordcr or govcrnmcntal structurc ol thc occupicd
tcrritory, unlcss its sccurity intcrcsts dcmand othcrwisc.
:o
Tc kcy provision gov
crning this issuc is Articlc 6 ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion. !t contains two
parts, thc rst dcaling with pcnal law, thc sccond with thc lcgal ordcr in gcncral.
Tc undcrlying rationalc ol Articlc 6 is not totally clcar.
As lar as pcnal law is conccrncd, thc articlc stipulatcs that thc occupicd tcrri
torys pcnal laws shall rcmain in lorcc, thus giving cxprcssion to thc gcncral prin
ciplc ol thc law ol occupation rclcrrcd to abovc. !t scts lorth two cxccptions. Pcnal
laws may bc rcpcalcd or suspcndcd by thc occupying powcr in cascs whcrc thcy
thrcatcn its sccurity or constitutc obstaclcs to thc application ol thc Convcntion.
Vhilc thc rst cxccption is scllcxplanatory and straightlorward, thc sccond hcr
alds a gcncral principlc. !t cnablcs thc occupying powcr to abrogatc any law not
in conlormity with thc human rights standards cnshrincd in thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion
:+
or to which it alludcs, namcly rulcs that advcrscly acct racial or
rcligious minoritics (Articlc a,), or arc incompatiblc with thc rcquircmcnt ol
humanc trcatmcnt. !t is a principlc lurthcr amplicd in thc Haguc Rcgulations,
as wcll as clscwhcrc in thc Gcncva Convcntions. A lcw cxamplcs arc usclul to
morc lully illustratc this point.
According to Articlc a (h) ol Haguc Rcgulations, thc right ol inhabitants
ol an occupicd tcrritory to takc lcgal action in thc local courts must bc prcscrvcd.
Tc occupicd tcrritorys courts rctain jurisdiction ovcr cascs that arc ncithcr mili
tary in naturc nor acct thc sccurity ol thc occupying lorccs. Tc lattcr arc to
. Rcgulations issucd by thc occupying powcr lalling undcr this catcgory includc
amongst othcrs rcgulations conccrning child wcllarc, labor, lood, hygicnc and public
hcalth, cl. Pictct (notc ), ,.
. Tc lact that bclligcrcnt occupation docs not rcsult in a translcr ol sovcrcignty was
highlightcd by thc Sccurity Council in rcspcct to !raq whcn it rclcrrcd to thc tcr
ritorial intcgrity and sovcrcignty ol !raq. S/RS/.,a (acc) ol a March acc, .cc
(acc) ol . August acc, ... (acc) ol .6 ctobcr acc.
ac Scc Pictct (notc ), who dicrs obviously lrom 8cnvcnisti (notc a), c. Hc bascs his
argumcnt prcdominantly on thc lact that thc Frcnch tcxt ol articlc ol thc Haguc
Rcgulations (Lordrc ct la vic public) is broadcr than public ordcr and salcty.
!n no casc, though, would thc Frcnch wording covcr larrcaching rcorganizational
mcasurcs which dctcrminc thc luturc ol thc occupicd statc.
a. mphasizcd in thc UK Manual ol thc Law ol Armcd Conict (notc a), aa.
502 Fudiger !olfrum
bc dcalt with by thc occupying lorccs.
::
Tc Haguc Rcgulations also ban collcc
tivc punishmcnt.
:
Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion prohibits thc
occupying powcr lrom translcrring civilians in thc occupicd tcrritory to anothcr
country. Articlc ., ol thc samc convcntion lists unlawlul dcportation or translcr
or unlawlul conncmcnt ol protcctcd pcrsons as a gravc brcach.
:
ach ol thcsc
cxamplcs, all ol which rccct customary intcrnational law, may, de facto, limit thc
occupying lorccs mcans lor supprcssing intcrnal rcsistancc.
Tc occupying powcr is lurthcr rcsponsiblc lor cnsuring hygicnc and public
hcalth,
:
as wcll as lood and mcdical supply.
:6
!n that rcspcct, it has to coopcratc
with local and national authoritics. !l such authoritics cithcr collapscd or havc
bccn dissolvcd by thc occupying powcr, thcir rcsponsibilitics dcvolvc upon thc
occupant. Quitc simply, thc morc an occupying powcr intcrlcrcs with thc admin
istration ol an occupicd tcrritory, thc grcatcr its rcsponsibilitics lor thc wcllbcing
ol thc population.
Tc sccond paragraph ol Articlc 6 ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion
which is linkcd to thc rst by thc cavcat howcvcr allows thc occupant to
subjcct thc population ol thc occupicd tcrritory to provisions which arc csscn
tial to cnablc thc ccupying Powcr to lulll its obligation undcr thc |Fourth
Gcncva| Convcntion and to maintain thc ordcrly govcrnmcnt ol thc tcrritory.
Tc phrasc subjcct thc population indicatcs that thc occupant may takc lcgis
lativc actions to achicvc thcsc objcctivcs. !n cascs ol prolongcd occupation, such
lcgislativc activitics will ncccssarily cxpand (rcgardlcss ol thc lcgitimacy, or lack
thcrcol, ol thc occupation). Tis tcxt must bc rcad in conjunction with Articlc
ol thc Haguc Rcgulations, which obligcs occupants to rcstorc and cnsurc, as lar
as possiblc, lordrc ct la vic publics. Such tasks clcarly rcquirc both cxccutivc and
lcgislativc actions.
Lcgislativc mcasurcs adoptcd by thc occupant may bc justicd, according
to Yoram instcin,
:
by thc lattcrs sccurity intcrcsts, to implcmcnt its obliga
tions undcr thc Gcncva Convcntions, or to comply with its rcsponsibility to
aa UK Manual ol thc Law ol Armcd Conict (notc a), a.
a Scc articlc c ol thc Haguc Rcgulations ol .c, (notc ), which providcs: No gcncral
pcnalty, pccuniary or othcrwisc, shall bc inictcd upon thc population on account
ol thc acts ol individuals lor which thcy cannot bc rcgardcd as jointly and scvcrally
rcsponsiblc.
a Y. instcin (notc .) at a cmphasizcs that onc has to distinguish bctwccn thc trans
lcr ol thc population lrom thc occupicd tcrritory into anothcr country, which accord
ing to articlc ., ol thc Fourth Gcncva constitutcs a gravc brcach, and thc translcr
ol population by thc occupying powcr into thc occupicd tcrritorics. Tc lattcr has
bccomc a gravc brcach only through articlc , paragraph ol Additional Protocol !,
which was subscqucntly strcngthcncd by articlc , paragraph a, ol thc !CC Statutc.
a Articlc 6 Fourth Gcncva Convcntion.
a6 Articlc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion.
a, Notc . at 6 ct scq.
503 18 Te dequacy of IHL Fules on Belligerent Occupation
cnsurc thc ordcrly govcrnmcnt ol thc occupicd tcrritorics. Howcvcr, thc occu
pants powcrs arc not unlimitcd, particularly with rcgard to thc third justication.
Yoram instcin has craltcd two tcsts dcsigncd to cstablish whcthcr thc occupant
has actcd appropriatcly.
:8
! would add a third.
Has thc occupant shown similar conccrns lor its own population and has it
rcactcd in a comparablc manncr.
o thc changcs introduccd to thc political inlrastructurc or thc lcgal rcgimc
rcach bcyond thc pcriod ol occupation.
:
!s it possiblc dc lacto to rcpcal such changcs:
Tc viability ol thcsc tcsts can bc illustratcd with rcgard to thc occupation ol
!raq.
C Te Fole of the Coalition in the Political Festructuring of Iraq
Tc occupying powcrs havc introduccd signicant changcs in thc !raqi systcm,
o

changcs which go lar bcyond what is anticipatcd in intcrnational humanitarian
law. Undcr thc hcadlinc c8aathication, thc Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA) rcstructurcd thc countrys cntirc political inlrastructurc,
+
including thc
judiciary. For instancc, thc CPA disbandcd thc !raqi military, crcating in its
stcad ncw armcd lorccs with a ncw command structurc. A ncw Codc ol Military
isciplinc was also promulgatcd. Furthcr, two sccurity scrviccs wcrc cstablishcd.
vcn morc larrcaching wcrc cconomic rclorms. Tc banking and taxation sys
tcms wcrc rcviscd, and thc lormcrly statccontrollcd cconomy was translormcd
into a markctoricntcd onc. Forcign invcstmcnt acquircd rcmarkablc inucncc.
:

a Notc . at .c.
a Tis should not bc undcrstood to mcan that an armativc answcr provcs thc lcgiti
macy ol thc lcgislativc action in qucstion. n this issuc, scc T. Mcron, Applicability
ol Multilatcral Convcntions to ccupicd Tcrritorics, AJ!L ,a (.,), a at ct
scq. !t should lurthcr not bc undcrstood to insinuatc that thc occupant may lcg
islatc in thc occupicd tcrritorics as it docs in its own. Articlc 6 Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion makcs it clcar that thc powcrs ol thc occupant arc limitcd in this rcspcct
(as a litcral intcrprctation ol this provision clcarly cstablishcs). Tc lattcr paragraph
ol articlc 6 Fourth Gcncva Convcntion is phrascd as an cxccption to thc rst, such
rulcs arc only mcant to maintain thc ordcrly govcrnmcnt during thc pcriod ol occu
pation.
c !t should bc notcd that thc U.S. !raq Libcration Act ol . (Public Law .c
ct. ., .), in Scction , alrcady providcd: !t should bc thc policy ol thc Unitcd
Statcs to support corts to rcmovc thc rcgimc hcadcd by Saddam Husscin lrom
powcr in !raq and to promotc thc cmcrgcncc ol a dcmocratic govcrnmcnt to rcplacc
that rcgimc.
. Coalition Provisional rdcr No. . CPA/R/.6 May acc/c., .6 May acc.
a For dctails scc Fox (notc ,), a.c ct scq.
504 Fudiger !olfrum
Apart lrom rcvisions in thc human rights systcm in accordancc with Articlc
6 ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, it is morc than doubtlul whcthcr such
stcps mcct thc thrccprong tcst. Tcy clcarly cxtcnd bcyond thc pcriod ol occu
pation and it is unlikcly thcy can bc rcpcalcd de facto. !t is cvcn unclcar whcthcr
thc !raqis would othcrwisc tolcratc such a dominant inucncc by lorcign invcs
tors, cspccially in arcas vital to thc national cconomy. qually dramatic arc thc
institutional changcs. Although it is a truism to say that Articlc , ol thc Fourth
Gcncva Convcntion protccts humans and not institutions,

this docs not dimin

ish thc lact that undcr thc principlc ol sclldctcrmination, a principlc also pro
tcctcd undcr intcrnational humanitarian law, it is lor thc population itscll to
dccidc on its institutional and lcgal lramcwork.
Tc introduction ol such larrcaching modications has bccn thc topic ol
substantial scholarly rccction. icrcnt proposals havc bccn procrcd to jus
tily broadcning thc mandatc ol thc occupying powcr. Morris Grccnspan argucs
that whcrc wars arc lought to achicvc a changc ol a particular political rcgimc, as
was thc casc in Vorld Var !!, thc military occupant cannot bc undcr an obliga
tion to rctain thc rcgimc against which it lought. Tis is, in his vicw, particularly
truc whcrc a changc ol rcgimc ocrs thc only ccctivc mcans to sccurc pcacc.
n that basis, a widcr intcrprctation ol Articlc ol thc Haguc Rcgulations has
bccn suggcstcd.

Such an intcrprctation, howcvcr, would dcprivc Articlc ol

its mcaning, making it dcpcndcnt upon thc objcctivcs pursucd by thc occupant
upon cntcring thc war. As much as it may havc bccn lcgitimatc to ovcrthrow thc
totalitarian govcrnmcnt ol Gcrmany and introducc thc rulc ol law and dcmoc
racy, thcrc arc now dcnitc limits in intcrnational humanitarian law which prc
cludc thc occupant lrom lrccly and unilatcrally changing thc occupicd statcs
structurc and political systcm. Tosc limits arc spccicd in thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion.

Morc rcccntly, scvcral suggcstions havc bccn madc to bring intcrnational
humanitarian law in linc with thc goal ol making possiblc sustainablc pcacc by
changing thc political structurc ol a statc. Tcy rangc lrom charactcrizing intcr
national humanitarian law as obsolctc, to rcintcrprcting thc rulcs ol bclligcrcnt
!CRC Commcntary, !\ Gcncva Convcntion, at a,.
Grccnspan (notc ) a.,.
J.J. Paust, Tc Unitcd Statcs as ccupying Powcr ovcr Portions ol !raq and Spccial
Rcsponsibilitics undcr thc Laws ol Var, Suolk Transnational Law Rcvicw .,
(acc), . (.6 ct scq.). Scc also H.H. Pcrritt, Jr., Structurcs and Standards lor Political
Trustccship, Univcrsity ol Calilornia !ntcrnational Law and Forcign Aairs
(acc), ct scq. ( ct scq.), who argucs that thc Allicd ccupation ol Gcrmany
and ol Japan was bascd on a political trustccship cquivalcnt to thc mandatc or thc
trustccship systcm ol thc Lcaguc ol Nations and thc Unitcd Nation, rcspcctivcly.
Howcvcr, this is not thc placc to dcal with thc military administration ol Gcrmany
and Japan.
505 18 Te dequacy of IHL Fules on Belligerent Occupation
occupation on thc basis ol ncccssity
6
or human rights.

!t would go bcyond thc

objcctivc ol this contribution to dcal with thcsc approachcs in dcpth.
8
8ut, gcncr
ally spcaking, thcy tcnd to sucr thc samc dccicncy, an attcmpt to dcsign a xcd
lcgal rcgimc to covcr all bclligcrcnt occupations, whcn a morc cxiblc rcgimc
tailorcd to thc particular casc at hand might provc morc ccicnt. nc option is
to usc cxisting intcrnational humanitarian law, with all its inhcrcnt rcstrictions
takcn litcrally, as an appropriatc starting point which thc Sccurity Council may
modily as thc situation dcmands. Tis ncccssitatcs acccptancc ol thc prcmisc that
thc Sccurity Council has lcgislativc powcr, a prcmisc somc havc rcjcctcd.

D Security Council Fesolution z,8 and Its Impact on the Fole of the
Coalition Forces as Belligerent Occupants
!t has bccn argucd that thc Sccurity Council has no lcgislativc powcr and cannot,
thcrclorc, modily cxisting or prcscribc intcrnational law. Rcality indicatcs othcr
wisc. Tc Sccurity Council has on scvcral occasions assumcd lcgislativc lunctions
to which Statcs, including thc Unitcd Statcs, havc conscntcd.
o
Primc cxamplcs
includc thc Sccurity Council Rcsolutions against tcrrorism and thc prolilcration
ol wcapons ol mass dcstruction.
+

Sccurity Council Rcsolution . is thc product ol corts by thc Unitcd
Statcs and thc Unitcd Kingdom to acquirc intcrnational lcgitimization lor thcir
intcrim administration ol !raq, a point apparcnt in thc May acc lcttcr ol thc
two countrics to thc Sccurity Council.
:
8cyond sccking lcgitimacy lor thcir bcl
ligcrcnt occupation ol !raq, thcy sought to sccurc thc authority to govcrn and
administcr !raq lor an cxtcndcd pcriod ol timc, rcconstruct it politically and cco
nomically, lilt thc cconomic sanctions, and tcrminatc thc il lor Food Program.
Tc two govcrnmcnts achicvcd somc, pcrhaps most, but not all ol thcsc
objcctivcs. thcr mcmbcrs ol thc Sccurity Council wcrc particularly carclul to
avoid providing lor an ex post lcgitimization ol thc invasion. Tcy also rclraincd
6 Mcmorandum lrom thc Right Hon. Lord Goldsmith, QC, to thc Primc Ministcr,
rcprintcd in John Kamplncr, 8lair Told !t Vould 8c !llcgal to ccupy !raq, Ncw
Statcsman, May a6, acc, .6.,.
, Tis sccms to bc thc dominant argumcnt advanccd by Fox (notc ,) at aa ct scq.
qually, thc contribution will not dcal with thc qucstion whcthcr thc !raqi !ntcrim
Govcrnmcnt conscntcd to thc introduccd changcs, scc on this Fox (notc ,) at a, ct
scq.
Zimmcrmann/lbcrling, Grcnzcn dcr Lcgislativbclugnissc dcs Sichcrhcitsratcs,
\N acc, ,. ct scq.
c For dctails, scc Rudigcr Vollrum, cr Kampl gcgcn cinc \crbrcitung von Masscn
vcrnichtungswacn: inc ncuc Rollc lur dcn Sichcrhcitsrat, Libcr Amicorum Jost
clbruck, acc, 6 ct scq.
. S/RS/.c (acc), a April acc.
a oc. S/acc/.
506 Fudiger !olfrum
lrom giving thc Coalition a totally lrcc hand in thc rcorganization ol !raq.
Rcsolution ., abovc all, lcavcs room lor intcrprctation.
Tc rcsolution givcs thc Coalition thc mandatc to administcr !raq and work
towards its political and cconomic rcorganization.

Tis mandatc gocs bcyond

thc powcrs cnjoycd by a bclligcrcnt occupant undcr intcrnational humanitarian
law. Tis is particularly truc in rcspcct ol political rcorganization. Tc Sccurity
Councils broadcning ol thc Coalitions mandatc may havc bccn bascd on its lrc
qucnt accusations that !raq had violatcd Sccurity Council rcsolutions and thus
was in brcach ol intcrnational law.

Apart lrom that, in Rcsolution .. (acca)

thc Sccurity Council had rclcrrcd to Rcsolution 6 (..). Tc lattcr statcd that
opprcssion ol thc !raqi pcoplc constitutcd onc ol thc major thrcats poscd by
Saddam Husscins rcgimc. n that basis, thc mandatc lor a political rcorgani
zation rcprcscnts a contribution towards rcstoration and prcscrvation ol pcacc
in thc rcgion. Tis mandatc cxtcnds to dissolution ol thc 8aath party and thc
cradication ol its inucncc in !raqi socicty. !t lurthcr addrcsscs dissolution and
rcplaccmcnt ol thc armcd lorccs and rcstructuring ol thc govcrnmcnt, including
thc judiciary. Finally, thc mandatc cndorscs thc strcngthcning ol !raqi lcdcralism.
ach ol thcsc stcps would havc othcrwisc cxcccdcd thc powcrs ol a bclligcrcnt
occupant undcr intcrnational humanitarian law.
Although thc powcrs ol thc Coalition wcrc cxpandcd, Rcsolution . also
cstablishcs somc limits, thc cxact scopc ol which can only bc cstablishcd indi
rcctly. pcrativc paragraph calls on all conccrncd to comply with thcir obli
gations undcr intcrnational law, including thc Gcncva Convcntions and Haguc
Rcgulations. Tis indicatcs that thc rcsolution was not mcant to ovcrridc intcr
national humanitarian law complctcly, but rathcr must bc intcrprctcd in thc con
tcxt ol thc law. !n particular thc rcsolution rcarms thc right ol thc !raqi pcoplc
to sclldctcrmination,

thcrcby cmphasizing that thc proccss ol rcstructuring

must ultimatcly lcad to a truly rcprcscntativc and dcmocratically clcctcd govcrn
Para. ol S/RS/. (acc) ol aa May acc rcads: Calls upon thc Authority, con
sistcnt with thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations and othcr rclcvant intcrnational law,
to promotc thc wcllarc ol thc !raqi pcoplc through thc ccctivc administration ol
thc tcrritory, including in particular working towards thc rcstoration ol conditions
ol sccurity and stability and thc crcation ol conditions in which thc !raqi pcoplc can
lrccly dctcrminc thcir own political luturc. For a morc rcstrictivc intcrprctation scc
T. Marauhn, Koniktbcwaltigung statt Lcgalisicrung, \crcintc Nationcn . (acc),
.. ct scq. (..,), T. 8ruha, !rakKricg und \crcintc Nationcn, A\R . (acc), a
ct scq. (..), H.H. Pcrritt, Jr., !raq and thc Futurc ol Unitcd Statcs Forcign Policy:
Failurcs ol Lcgitimacy, Syracusc Journal ol !ntcrnational Law and Commcrcc .
(acc), . (.a), spcaks ol a political trustccship, dicrcnt Fox (notc ,) at a6c.
As to thc intcrprctation ol Sccurity Council rcsolutions in gcncral, scc M.C. Vood,
Tc !ntcrprctation ol Sccurity Council Rcsolutions, Max Planck UNY8 a (.),
, ct scq.
Prcamblc.
507 18 Te dequacy of IHL Fules on Belligerent Occupation
mcnt.
6
Tis is lurthcr acccntuatcd by thc lact that thc Coalition is callcd upon to
assist thc !raqi pcoplc,

a clcar signal that thc !raqis arc to play a lcading rolc. To

put it dicrcntly, thc Coalition must not imposc its vision ol a rcorganizcd !raq
on thc rcspcctivc !raqi institutions, nor imposc prcjudgmcnts that might limit
thc lrccdom ol !raqi organs in thc shaping a ncw lcgal ordcr. Tus, thc Sccurity
Council grantcd thc Coalition lccway to build a truly rcprcscntativc govcrnmcnt,
but without compromising on thc ultimatc objcctivc.
!n particular, thc rclcrcncc to thc intcgrity ol thc statc ol !raq cxcludcs any
attcmpt to scction thc country. Tis rulcs out promoting, or prcparing lor, scccs
sion by thc prcdominantly Kurdish populatcd arcas. !t docs not, howcvcr, cxcludc
thc cstablishmcnt ol a lcdcral systcm vcsting thc Kurdish rcgion with autonomy,
cvcn autonomy cxcccding that which had prcviously cxistcd, at lcast in thcory.
Furthcr, Rcsolution . docs not compromisc on thc tcmporary naturc ol
thc Coalitions administrativc powcrs. Although thc Sccurity Council did not
sct a timc lramc in which govcrnmcntal powcrs wcrc to bc translcrrcd back to
!raqi organs, paragraph cxprcsscs its support lor thc crcation ol a transitional
!raqi administration. Tis, at lcast, indicatcs that thc Sccurity Council cxpcctcd a
proccdurc to bc sct into motion that would providc lor a stcpbystcp rcturn ol
govcrnmcntal authority to an !raqi administration.
8
Although not thc samc as a
clcarcut timclinc lor thc lull rcturn ol govcrnmcntal powcr, it indicatcs that thc
bclligcrcnt occupation has to bc transitional.
Tc Coalitions dcclarcd intcnt to rcstructurc and, in particular, rccstablish
thc !raqi sccurity lorccs conlorms to thc basic principlcs ol intcrnational humani
tarian law, namcly that it is lor thc population ol thc tcrritory undcr occupation
to rcorganizc itscll and cstablish thc ncccssary institutions lor thc prcscrvation
ol intcrnal pcacc and sccurity. Tc Sccurity Council unqualicdly cndorscd thc
Coalitions corts in this rcgard.
Finally, paragraph lit. (c) ol Sccurity Council Rcsolution . providcs
that thc UN Spccial Rcprcscntativc lor !raq should work intcnsivcly with thc
Coalition and thc !raqi pcoplc to rcstorc and cstablish national and local institu
tions ol rcprcscntativc govcrnancc. Tis principlc has not bccn lully implcmcntcd,
lor thc inucncc ol thc UN Spccial Rcprcscntativc rcgarding thc composition ol
thc !ntcrim Govcrning Council and thc subscqucnt !ntcrim !raqi Govcrnmcnt
was, in lact, limitcd.
6 S/RS/. (acc) ol aa May acc, scc opcrativc paras , lit. (c), , this concurs
with thc approach advocatcd in thc prcscntation by F.L. Kirgis, Sccurity Council
Rcsolution . on thc Rcbuilding ol !raq, AS!L !nsights (acc), availablc at www.
asil.org/insights.htm~.
, S/RS/. (acc) ol aa May acc, opcrativc paras . and .
For a highly critical commcnt on paragraph , scc M. Hmoud Tc Usc ol Forcc
against !raq: ccupation and Sccurity Council Rcsolution ., Corncll !ntl L. J.
6 (acc), and scq. Hmoud intcrprcts it as giving thc Coalition unlimitcd powcr
lor an unlimitcd pcriod ol timc. Tis intcrprctation has bccn ovcrtakcn by cvcnts.
508 Fudiger !olfrum
All changcs introduccd in thc cconomic scctor by thc bclligcrcnt occu
pant ol !raq contradict intcrnational law. Tcy clcarly cxcccd thc mandatc ol thc
bclligcrcnt occupant undcr articlc Haguc Rcgulations and articlc 6 Fourth
Gcncva Convcntion and thcy arc not covcrcd by thc mandatc ol Sccurity Council
Rcsolution ..

III Conclusion
Sccurity Council Rcsolution . modicd thc intcrnational humanitarian law
on bclligcrcnt occupation applicablc in !raq by lcgalizing thc Coalitions corts
to rcstructurc !raq politically. oing so is in accordancc with Articlc .c ol thc
UN Chartcr.
o
Tc Councils authority to modily intcrnational humanitarian law
dcrivcs lrom its powcrs undcr Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr.
Apart lrom thc importancc ol thc modication ol intcrnational humanitar
ian law in this particular casc, it would appcar that thc Sccurity Council has now
produccd a modcl lor luturc bclligcrcnt occupations. !t is a main lcaturc ol this
modcl to cntrust particular statcs with postconict managcmcnt rcsponsibilitics.
Tus, in principlc, it adopts thc coalition ol thc willing systcm uscd during thc
.. war against !raq that was mandatcd by Sccurity Council Rcsolution 6, ol
a Novcmbcr .c.
+
Tis modcl appcars quitc promising as an attcmpt to rcdcnc thc cxist
ing rulcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law. !t should not bc ignorcd that thcsc
rulcs arc mcant to protcct thc rcspcctivc population against an occupying powcr
that might act in its own national intcrcst whilc claiming to act in thc intcrcst
ol intcrnationally cndorscd principlcs, such as thc protcction ol human rights,
dcmocracy or thc libcralization ol tradc. Tc involvcmcnt ol thc Sccurity Council
or a rcgional intcrnational organization is morc ccctivc in prcvcnting thc abusc
ol such powcrs than a watcrcddown intcrnational humanitarian law that mcrcly
cxpands thc discrctionary powcrs ol a bclligcrcnt occupant.
For dctails scc Vollrum (notc .), at aa.
c Scc .J. Schccr, 8cyond ccupation Law, AJ!L , (acc), a ( ct scq.).
Articlc .c ol thc UN Chartcr constitutcs a conict ol laws rulc rathcr than a hicr
archy. Scc R. 8crnhardt, Art. .c, margin notc 6, in: 8. Simma (cd.), Tc Chartcr ol
thc Unitcd Nations, a
nd
cdition, acca.
. pcrativc para. a rclcrs to McmbcrStatcs coopcrating with thc Govcrnmcnt ol
Kuwait.
Chapter 19
Tc Scparation Fcncc in thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc
and thc High Court ol Justicc:
Commonalitics, icrcnccs and Spccics
Fania Domb
Introduction
Tc lcgality ol thc scparation lcncc (also callcd barricr and wall
+
) constructcd
by !sracl on thc Vcst 8ank as a mcans ol prcvcnting tcrrorist acts committcd by
thc Palcstinians has bccn cxamincd by two dicrcnt Courts. Trcc dicrcnt dcci
sions havc bccn dclivcrcd in rcgard to it:
a) thc Advisory pinion dclivcrcd by thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc (!CJ)
on July , acc, at thc rcqucst ol thc UN Gcncral Asscmbly,
:
on thc qucstion
ol thc lcgal conscqucnccs arising lrom thc construction ol thc wall bcing
built by !sracl, thc occupying Powcr, in thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory,
including in and around ast Jcrusalcm (hcrcinaltcr: ICJ),

b) thc dccision in thc Beit Surik Case, dclivcrcd on Junc c, acc, by thc Suprcmc
Court ol !sracl sitting as thc High Court ol Justicc (HCJ) (hcrcinaltcr: Beit
Surik),

c) thc dccision in thc lfei Menashe Case, also dclivcrcd by thc HCJ, on
Scptcmbcr ., acc (hcrcinaltcr: lfei Menashe).

. Tc structurc is callcd lcncc by thc Suprcmc Court ol !sracl, it is callcd barricr

by thc UN SccrctaryGcncral, and wall by thc UN Gcncral Asscmbly as wcll as by
thc !CJ. As obscrvcd by thc !CJ, ncithcr ol thcsc tcrms is accuratc in tcrms ol thc
structurc (infra notc , para. 6,). n thc rclcvant tcrminology see N. Strapatsas, Casc
Notc on thc !CJ Advisory pinion on thc Lcgal Conscqucnccs ol thc Construction
ol thc Vall in ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory, Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. a., n. a (acc).
a n thc background lor thc rcqucst lor thc Advisory pinion, see ibid., a.aa.
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, Advisory pinion on thc Lcgal Conscqucnccs ol thc
Construction ol a Vall in thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory (acc), I.L.M. .cc
(acc), http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/idockct/imwp/imwplramc.htm.
H.C. (High Court) ac6/c, 8cit Sourik Casc, () Piskei Din (Rcports ol thc !sracl
Suprcmc Court, hcrcinaltcr: P.D.) c,, summary in nglish in Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts.
c (acc).
H.C. ,,/c, Maraabc Casc, (not yct publishcd), summary in 6 Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts.
(acc6, lorthcoming).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. c,-,z.
510 Fania Domb
All thrcc dccisions dicr in thcir conclusions. Tc !CJ concludcd that thc wholc
scparation lcncc, insolar as it was constructcd on thc occupicd tcrritory ol thc
Vcst 8ank, violatcd intcrnational humanitarian and human rights law. !n con
trast, thc HCJ rulcd in Beit Surik whcrc onc scgmcnt ol thc lcncc passing
northwcst to Jcrusalcm was discusscd that thc construction ol thc lcncc was
lcgitimatc bascd on militarysccurity grounds, but invalidatcd most ol its routc
on thc grounds ol thc disproportionatc harm causcd to thc Palcstinian inhabit
ants ol thc arca. !n lfei Menashe, thc HCJ conrmcd its prcvious ruling on thc
lcgality ol thc construction ol thc lcncc, but ordcrcd an altcration ol its routc
around thc !sracli scttlcmcnt ol Allci Mcnashc (locatcd on thc Vcst 8ank, ncar
thc town ol Qalqiliya), so as to lcavc thc vc pctitioning Palcstinian villagcs (or
part ol thcm) outsidc thc lcncc, on thc grounds that thc cnclavc crcatcd by thc
lcncc causcd thcm cxtcnsivc injury.
!n lfei Menashe, thc HCJ also rcspondcd to thc !CJs Advisory pinion on
scvcral points, dctcrmining that although it will grant lull wcight to thc rulcs ol
intcrnational law as statcd by thc !CJ, thc Advisory pinion is not res judicata
and docs not obligatc thc HCJ to rulc that all scgmcnts ol thc lcncc violatc intcr
national law. Tc HCJ opincd that thc dicrcnccs in thc conclusions rcachcd by
it and thc !CJ stcmmcd mainly lrom thc dicrcnt lactual bascs laid bclorc cithcr
Court: whilc thc !CJ was mainly providcd with inlormation rcgarding thc injury
that thc lcncc causcd to thc Palcstinian rcsidcnts ol thc arca in disputc (lollow
ing !sracls rclusal to participatc in thc Advisory pinion procccdings
6
), thc HCJ
also had bclorc it lactual data on !sracls sccuritymilitary nccds that it uscd in
its conclusions.
Yct, thc HCJ pointcd out in lfei Menashe that dcspitc thc dicrcnt out
comcs ol thc !CJs Advisory pinion and thc Beit Sourik Case, thc basic norma
tivc loundation upon which thc !CJ and thc Suprcmc Court in Beit Sourik bascd
thcir dccisions was a common onc on a numbcr ol issucs, including: thc status
ol thc Vcst 8ank, anncxation ol an occupicd tcrritory, application ol thc .c,
Haguc Rcgulations

and thc . Fourth Gcncva Convcntion,

8
application ol
Articlcs 6 and a ol thc Haguc Rcgulations and Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion, application ol human rights convcntions to thc occupicd tcrritory,
inlringcmcnt ol thc Palcstinian rcsidcnts rights by thc construction ol thc lcncc,
and application ol thc cxccptions ol military ncccssity, national sccurity rcquirc
mcnts, or public ordcr (para. ,). Ncvcrthclcss, somc commcntators havc asscrtcd
6 Vrittcn Statcmcnt ol thc Govcrnmcnt ol !sracl on Jurisdiction and Propricty, c
Jan. acc: http://www.icjcij.org/icjwww/idockct/imwp/imwplramc.htm.
, Haguc Rcgulations Anncxcd to thc .c, Haguc Convcntion !\ Rcspccting thc
Laws and Customs ol Var on Land, in Te La.s of rmed Conicts 6 (. Schindlcr
& J. Toman,
rd
cd., .).
Gcncva Convcntion Rclativc to thc Protcction ol Civilian Pcrsons in Timc ol Var,
., , U.N.T.S. a,.
511 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
that thc dicrcnccs bctwccn thc opinions |cxprcsscd by thc !CJ and thc HCJ|
outwcigh thc similaritics.

Tc purposc ol this articlc to is cxaminc thc commonalitics, dicrcnccs and

spccics involvcd in thcsc thrcc dccisions. Tis will bc donc by rclcrcncc rst to
thc common issucs discusscd by both Courts (with cmphasis on thc commonali
tics and dicrcnccs), and latcr by rclcrcncc to thc spccic issucs discusscd.
I Common Issues iscussed by Both Courts
Legal Status of the !est Bank Belligerent Occupation
According to thc HCJ in lfei Menashe, both Courts rulcd that thc status ol
thc tcrritory undcr discussion, namcly, thc occupicd Palcstinian tcrritory in thc
!CJs tcrminology, and thc Vcst 8ank (or Judca and Samaria) in thc HCJs
tcrminology, is onc ol bclligcrcnt occupation (para. ,).
Tc !CJ lormulatcd this conclusion as lollows:
Tc tcrritorics situatcd bctwccn thc Grccn Linc
+o
and thc lormcr cast
crn boundary ol Palcstinc undcr thc Mandatc wcrc occupicd by !sracl in .6,
during thc armcd conict bctwccn !sracl and Jordan. Undcr customary intcr
national law, thcsc wcrc thcrclorc occupicd tcrritorics in which !sracl had thc
status ol occupying Powcr. (para. ,).
Tc !CJ addcd that subscqucnt cvcnts in thcsc tcrritorics (including thc adop
tion by !sracl in .c ol thc Basic La.: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, thc signing in
. ol thc Pcacc Trcaty bctwccn !sracl and Jordan, and thc agrccmcnts signcd
sincc . bctwccn !sracl and thc Palcstinc Libcration rganization (PL)),
discusscd bclow, havc donc nothing to altcr this situation. Tus, all thcsc tcrri
torics (including ast Jcrusalcm) rcmain occupicd tcrritorics. !n thc samc gcn
cral spirit, thc HCJ statcd in Beit Sourik that thc point ol dcparturc ol all partics
which is also our point ol dcparturc is that !sracl holds thc Arca |ol Judca
and Samaria| in bclligcrcnt occupation (occupatio bellica) and that in thc Arcas
rclcvant to thc pctition, a military administration, hcadcd by thc military com
mandcr, continucs to apply (para. a).
R. Vatson, Tc Vall ccision in Lcgal and Political Contcxt, .J.I.L. 6, a
(acc).
.c Tc armisticc dcmarcation linc cstablishcd by thc . Rhodcs Armisticc Agrccmcnt
bctwccn !sracl and Jordan, 66 U.N.T.S. c. For an cxplanation, see R. Sabcl, Tc
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc ccision on thc Scparation 8arricr and thc Grccn
Linc, Isr. L. F. .6, aa et seq. (acc).
512 Fania Domb
i Tc Status ol Jcrusalcm
Tc conscnsus ol both Courts on thc Vcst 8anks status as bcing undcr !sracls
bclligcrcnt occupation sccms inapplicablc to ast Jcrusalcm. Vhilc thc !CJ
cxprcssly includcs ast Jcrusalcm in tcrritory undcr bclligcrcnt occupation,
thc HCJ docs not rclcr to ast Jcrusalcm. Tis silcncc cannot bc intcrprctcd as
including ast Jcrusalcm in thc Judca and Samaria Rcgion, bccausc !sracl has
cxprcssly raiscd sovcrcignty claims ovcr ast Jcrusalcm sincc .6,
++
and trcatcd
it dicrcntly lrom thc rcst ol thc Vcst 8ank. !n .6,, !sracl applicd !sracli law,
jurisdiction and administration
+:
to ast Jcrusalcm, and in .c it cnactcd thc
Basic La.: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel,
+
which proclaims in its rst Scction that
Jcrusalcm, complctc and unitcd, is thc capital ol !sracl (as quotcd by thc !CJ in
para. ,). Following thc adoption ol thc 8asic Law, Prolcssor instcin notcd that
unlikc thc rcst ol thc Vcst 8ank, ast Jcrusalcm is trcatcd by !sracl as il it wcrc
a part ol its own domain.
+
Robcrts charactcrizcd thc Law as lormal anncxa
tion ol ast Jcrusalcm.
+

Tc status ol ast Jcrusalcm was discusscd by thc HCJ in thc Fabah Case,
+6

whcrc thc pctitioncrs claimcd that application ol !sracli law to ast Jcrusalcm
was illcgal undcr intcrnational law. Tc Court rulcd that thc law, jurisdiction and
administration ol thc Statc wcrc lawlully applicd to ast Jcrusalcm according to
intcrnal !sracli law and that il intcrnal !sracli lcgislation was incompatiblc with
customary intcrnational law, thcn !sracli domcstic law prcvailcd.
+
!t lollows that
.. M. Hirsch, Tc Lcgal Status ol Jcrusalcm Following thc !CJ Advisory pinion
on thc Scparation 8arricr, Isr. L F. a, acc (acc). See also on !sracli
claims ol sovcrcignty ovcr Jcrusalcm thc ocial sitc ol thc !sracl Ministry ol
Forcign Aairs: http://www.mla.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchivc/.c_././/
TcacStatusacolac.
.a n thc lcgislativc proccss involvcd in this application, see Y. instcin, International
La. and the State .a (Hcbrcw, .,.).
. La.s of the State of Israel ac (.c).
. Y. instcin, Tc !sracl Suprcmc Court and thc Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation:
Rcunication ol Familics, . Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. ., (.).
. A. Robcrts, Prolongcd Military ccupation: Tc !sracliccupicd Tcrritorics
Sincc .6,, .J.I.L. , (.c). For a similar vicw on thc anncxation ol ast
Jcrusalcm in thc contcxt ol thc lcncc, see N. Lubcll, Tc !CJ Advisory pinion
and thc Scparation 8arricr: A Troublcsomc Routc, Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. a,, a
(acc).
.6 H.C. a6/c., 6(a) P.D. c, summary in a Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. 6 (acca).
., Tc Court rclicd on a trcatisc ol Prolcssor instcin in which hc statcd that rulcs
ol customary intcrnational law automatically bccamc part ol !sracli law, providcd
that thcy do not contradict any provision ol statutory law. !l that was thc casc, thcn
thc domcstic law would takc prcccdcncc ovcr a rulc ol customary intcrnational law.
Supra notc .a, at ..6.
513 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
ast Jcrusalcm is not considcrcd by thc HCJ as bcing undcr bclligcrcnt occupa
tion. Tis contrasts with thc position takc by thc !CJ.
ii Pcculiarity ol thc Common Ruling
Tc common ruling on thc Vcst 8ank as bcing undcr bclligcrcnt occupation
is pcculiar bccausc it actually rccognizcs that such occupation may cxist in thc
abscncc ol a statc ol bclligcrcncy bctwccn thc occupying and occupicd Statcs.
8clligcrcncy bctwccn !sracl and Jordan cndcd in . pursuant to thc conclu
sion ol thc Pcacc Trcaty bctwccn thcm. Yct, according to thc ., Camp avid
Framcwork Agrccmcnt
+8
and thc slo pcacc proccss
+
which wcrc intcndcd
to cstablish an autonomous rcgimc lor thc Palcstinian pcoplc in thc Vcst 8ank
(and thc Gaza Strip) thc Pcacc Trcaty providcd in Articlc (a) that thc intcrna
tional boundary bctwccn both Statcs cstablishcd thcrcin was without prcjudicc
to thc status ol any tcrritory that camc undcr !sracli military govcrnmcnt control
in .6,.
As alrcady mcntioncd, thc !CJ cxprcssly statcd that conclusion ol thc Pcacc
Trcaty bctwccn !sracl and Jordan had not altcrcd thc status ol thc tcrritory as
subjcct to bclligcrcnt occupation. Prolcssor instcin cxprcsscd a dicrcnt opin
ion on this issuc in ..
|!sracl| is not bclligcrcnt and it cannot bc bclligcrcnt, in light ol thc combincd
ccct ol thc gyptian!sracli Trcaty ol Pcacc ol .,, thc Jordanian!sracli
Trcaty ol Pcacc ol ., and thc scrics ol agrccmcnts with thc Palcstinians.
Tcrc is simply no room lor bclligcrcnt occupation in thc abscncc ol bclligcr
cncc, namcly, war.
:o

Altcr rcjccting thc possibility ol thc status ol pacic occupation (applying in
cascs ol takcovcr ol a tcrritory in circumstanccs whcrc thc occupant is not at war
with thc lcgitimatc sovcrcign), Prolcssor instcin opincd that thc bcst tcrm lor
thc ncw situation crcatcd in thc Vcst 8ank altcr thc !sracliJordan Pcacc Trcaty
and thc agrccmcnts with thc Palcstinians is postbclligcrcnt occupation.
:+
Also pcculiar is thc normativc ground upon which thc !CJ bascd its conclu
sion that Palcstinc is undcr !sracli occupation. As quotcd abovc, thc !CJ rclicd
. A Framcwork lor Pcacc in thc Middlc ast, .,, ., I.L.M. .66 (.,), lor com
mcnts see M. Gabay, Lcgal Aspccts ol thc Camp avid Framcwork lor Pcacc in
Rclation to thc Autonomy Proposal, in Models of utonomy a, a6 (Y. instcin &
M. Tabory cds., ..).
. n thc conncction bctwccn thc ., Camp avid Framcwork and thc slo pcacc
proccss, see Y.Z. 8lum, From Camp avid to slo, a Isr. L. Fe.. a.., a. (.).
ac Y. instcin, Tc !ntcrnational Lcgal Status ol thc Vcst 8ank and thc Gaza Strip
., a Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. ,, at .a (.).
a. Ibid., a.
514 Fania Domb
on customary intcrnational law (as rccctcd in Articlc a ol thc .c, Haguc
Rcgulations),
::
according to which a tcrritory is considcrcd occupicd whcn it is
actually placcd undcr thc authority ol a hostilc army. Tc occupation cxtcnds only
to thc tcrritory whcrc such authority has bccn cstablishcd and can bc cxcrciscd
(para. ,). Tis critcrion docs not apply to all ol thc Vcst 8ank bccausc !sracl had
translcrrcd powcrs and rcsponsibilitics ovcr largc parts ol it to thc Palcstinian
Council undcr thc . !sracliPalcstinian !ntcrim Agrccmcnt.
:
As pointcd out
by Prolcssor instcin, in Arcas A and 8 whcrc thc Palcstinian Council has
acquircd tcrritorial jurisdiction thc !sracli postbclligcrcnt occupation must bc
dccmcd tcrminatcd.
:
!n thc samc vcin, Sabcl opincs that thc arcas undcr thc
control ol thc Palcstinian Authority arc no longcr undcr thc control ol thc !sracl
Military Administration, which is thc situation, lor cxamplc, in Jcricho, whcrc
thcrc arc no !sracli courts, military lcgislation, policc, prisons or taxcs.
:
Tc only
ground on which thc continucd status ol bclligcrcnt occupation ol thc cntirc
Vcst 8ank can bc bascd is thc . !ntcrim Agrccmcnt, according to which
!sracl rctains rcsponsibility lor dclcncc against cxtcrnal thrcats as wcll as thc
rcsponsibility lor ovcrall sccurity ol !sraclis and Scttlcmcnts.
:6
8ut this ground
is substantivcly dicrcnt lrom thc critcrion ol ccctivc control providcd lor in
Articlc a ol thc .c, Haguc Rcgulations on which thc !CJ bascd its conclusion
rcgarding thc Vcst 8anks status.
B Illegality of nnexation
Tc HCJ statcd in lfei Menashe that both Courts cxprcsscd a common position
according to which an occupying Statc is not pcrmittcd to anncx thc occupicd
tcrritory (para. ,). Although this indccd was thc position ol both Courts, cach
cxprcsscd it in a dicrcnt contcxt and bascd it on cntircly dicrcnt grounds.
i Tc !CJ
Tc !CJ linkcd thc issuc ol anncxation, raiscd by thc PL against thc lcgality ol
thc construction ol thc lcncc, to two intcrnational principlcs which it lound rcl
cvant to thc lcgality ol thc lcncc: (.) thc inadmissibility ol thc acquisition ol tcr
ritory by war, and (a) thc principlc ol sclldctcrmination.
aa Supra notc ,.
a !sraclPL, !ntcrim Agrccmcnt on thc Vcst 8ank and thc Gaza Strip, ., 6
I.L.M. ,, hcrcinaltcr: thc . !ntcrim Agrccmcnt.
a instcin, supra notc ac, at .
a Sabcl, supra notc .c, at a.aa.
a6 Supra notc a, Articlc X!!(.).
515 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
As lor thc rst, thc !CJ rccallcd Articlc a() ol thc UN Chartcr, providing
lor thc prohibition ol thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc in intcrnational rclations,
:
as wcll
as thc Fricndly Rclations cclaration adoptcd by thc UN Gcncral Asscmbly in
.,c,
:8
which cmphasizcs that no tcrritorial acquisition rcsulting lrom thc thrcat
or usc ol lorcc shall bc rccognizcd as lcgal. Subscqucntly, thc !CJ citcd its judg
mcnt in thc Nicaragua Case,
:
according to which thc principlcs as to thc usc ol
lorcc incorporatcd in thc Chartcr rccct customary intcrnational law, and rulcd
that thc samc is truc ol its corollary cntailing thc illcgality ol tcrritorial acquisi
tion rcsulting lrom thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc (para. ,).
Vith rcgard to thc principlc ol sclldctcrmination ol pcoplcs, thc Court
pointcd out that it has bccn cnshrincd in thc UN Chartcr, rcarmcd by thc
Gcncral Asscmbly in thc Fricndly Rclations cclaration, and sct lorth in Arti
clc . common to thc !ntcrnational Covcnant on conomic, Social and Cultural
Rights
o
(!CSCR) and thc !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political
Rights
+
(!CCPR), which obligc Statcs partics to promotc thc rcalization ol
that right and to rcspcct it, in conlormity with thc provisions ol thc UN Chartcr.
Tc Court concludcd by stating that thc right ol pcoplcs to sclldctcrmination is
today erga omnes (para. ).
Applying both principlcs to thc issuc ol thc construction ol thc lcncc, thc
!CJ rccallcd that both thc Gcncral Asscmbly and Sccurity Council havc rclcrrcd,
with rcgard to Palcstinc, to thc customary rulc ol thc inadmissibility ol thc
acquisition ol tcrritory by war, armcd in Sccurity Council Rcsolution aa ol
.6, (para. ..,). As rcgards thc principlc ol thc right ol pcoplcs to sclldctcrmi
nation, thc Court obscrvcd that thc cxistcncc ol a Palcstinian pcoplc has bccn
rccognizcd by !sracl, along with that pcoplcs lcgitimatc rights,
:
which includc
a, Articlc a() ol thc UN Chartcr stipulatcs as lollows:
All Mcmbcrs shall rclrain in thcir intcrnational rclations lrom thc thrcat or usc
ol lorcc against thc tcrritorial intcgrity or political indcpcndcncc ol any Statc,
or in any othcr manncr inconsistcnt with thc Purposcs ol thc Unitcd Nations.
a cclaration on Principlcs ol !ntcrnational Law Conccrning Fricndly Rclations and
Coopcration among Statcs in accordancc with thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd Nations,
.,c, G.A. Rcs. a6a (XX\), I.L.M. .aa (.,c), hcrcinaltcr: Fricndly Rclations
cclaration.
a Casc Conccrning Military and Paramilitary Activitics in and Against Nicaragua,
|.6| I.C.J. Fep., paras. .,.c, hcrcinaltcr: Nicaragua Case.
c !ntcrnational Covcnant on conomic, Social and Cultural Rights, .66, U.N.T.S.
, hcrcinaltcr: !CSCR.
. !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights, .66, U.N.T.S. .,., hcrcin
altcr: !CCPR.
a Tc !CJ rclics in this mattcr on thc cxchangc ol lcttcrs ol Scptcmbcr . bctwccn
Mr. Aralat and Mr. Rabin and on thc . !ntcrim Agrccmcnt (supra notc a) whilc
!sracl had alrcady rccognizcd thc lcgitimatc rights ol thc Palcstinian pcoplc in thc
., Camp avid Framcwork (Articlc A(.)(c)), supra notc .. n this rccognition, see
Y. instcin, Autonomy, in Models of utonomy, supra notc ., at a., a.
516 Fania Domb
thc right to sclldctcrmination (para. ..). Tc !CJ concludcd its cxamination ol
thc issuc ol anncxation by stating:
Vhilst taking notc ol thc assurancc givcn by !sracl that thc construction ol thc
wall docs not amount to anncxation and that thc wall is ol a tcmporary naturc,
thc Court ncvcrthclcss considcrs that thc construction ol thc wall and its asso
ciatcd rgimc crcatc a lait accompli on thc ground that could wcll bccomc
pcrmancnt, in which casc, and notwithstanding thc lormal charactcrization ol
thc wall by !sracl, it would bc tantamount to de facto anncxation (para. .a.).
Although thc !CJ did not rulc that thc wall amounts to anncxation, it concludcd
that it scvcrcly impcdcs thc cxcrcisc by thc Palcstinian pcoplc ol its right to
sclldctcrmination (para. .aa), and is thcrclorc a brcach ol !sracls obligation to
rcspcct that right.
ii Tc HCJ
!n Beit Sourik, thc HCJ discusscd thc pctitioncrs argumcnt that thc lcncc crcatcd
a de facto anncxation in thc contcxt ol thc authority ol a military commandcr in
an occupicd tcrritory, ruling that:
thc military commandcr cannot ordcr thc construction ol thc scparation
lcncc il his rcasons arc political. Tc scparation lcncc cannot bc motivatcd by a
dcsirc to anncx tcrritorics to thc statc ol !sracl. Tc purposc ol thc scparation
lcncc cannot bc to draw a political bordcr (para. a.).
Tc HCJ rclcrrcd to its dccisions in thc Elon Moreh case,

whcrc it hcld that

thc scizurc ol land in thc Judca and Samaria Arca lor thc purposc ol building a
Jcwish town, and not lor thc sccurity ol thc Arca, was illcgal and that a military
commandcr is not pcrmittcd to takc thc national, cconomic, or social intcrcsts ol
his country into account. Tc Court also rclcrrcd to its dccision in thc Cooperati.e
Society case,

whcrc it rulcd that thc military administration is not pcrmittcd to

plan and cxccutc a systcm ol roads in an arca undcr bclligcrcnt occupation il thc
objcctivc is only to construct a scrvicc road lor its own country, rathcr than lor
military rcasons or lor thc wcllarc ol thc local population. Tc Court rcasoncd
that thc military commandcrs authority is inhcrcntly tcmporary, as is bclligcrcnt
occupation, and thcrclorc pcrmancnt arrangcmcnts arc not within his purvicw.
!t lollows that, indccd, both Courts ultimatcly rulcd thc anncxation ol an
arca undcr bclligcrcnt occupation to bc illcgal.
H.C. c/,, wcikat (lon Morch) Casc, (.) P.D. ., summary in Isr. Y.B. Hum.
Fts. (.,).
H.C. /a, ,() P.D. ,, summary in . Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. c. (.).
517 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
iii Commcnts on thc Common Ruling on !llcgality ol Anncxation
Tc common position ol both Courts rcgarding anncxation is in linc with wcll
cstablishcd intcrnational law rulcs (that cmcrgcd bclorc thc prohibition ol war
and apply rcgardlcss ol which Statc is thc aggrcssor) undcr which bclligcr
cnt occupation, by itscll, cannot producc a translcr ol titlc ovcr tcrritory to thc
occupying Statc, and no tcrritory undcr bclligcrcnt occupation can bc validly
anncxcd by thc occupying powcr acting unilatcrally.

According to gcncral
intcrnational law, anncxation can only takc placc by conclusion ol a pcacc trcaty
which providcs lor thc ccssion ol an occupicd tcrritory to thc occupying Statc, or
as a rcsult ol debellatio
6
, i.c. thc disintcgration ol an cncmy Statc.

!n contrast to thc rulc on thc illcgality ol unilatcral anncxation, thc rulc on
thc inadmissibility ol acquisition ol tcrritory by mcans ol war, invokcd by thc !CJ,
cmcrgcd in thc wakc ol thc prohibition ol thc thrcat or usc ol lorcc in intcrna
tional rclations as lormulatcd in Articlc a() ol thc UN Chartcr. !t was bascd on
thc principlc ex injuria jus non oritur, mcaning that hc who acts contrary to thc
law cannot acquirc rights as a rcsult ol his transgrcssion.
8
!n thc contcxt ol acqui
sition ol tcrritory through war, this principlc rcquircs a distinction bctwccn thc
aggrcssor Statc (acting contrary to thc law) and thc Statc which was thc victim
ol aggrcssion. Vhilc thc rst may not acquirc tcrritory as thc rcsult ol its viola
tion ol thc law, thc sccond may do so bccausc it was cngagcd in a lawlul war ol
rcsponsc to aggrcssion. Tis distinction, lavorcd by scholars,

was adoptcd by thc

.6 \icnna Convcntion on thc Law ol Trcatics,
o
through thc combincd ccct
ol Articlc a (invalidating trcatics imposcd by an aggrcssor Statc) and , (prcscrv
ing thc validity ol a trcaty in lavor ol thc victim Statc).
+
Howcvcr, bcginning with
thc notorious Sccurity Council Rcsolution aa adoptcd in .6, in rcsponsc to thc
Six ay Var, thc UN has complctcly rcjcctcd thc admissibility ol acquisition ol
Y. instcin, !ar, ggression and Self-Defence .6.6 (th cd., acc).
6 n thc thrcc basic paramctcrs ol debellatio, see ibid., .
, R.L. 8indschcdlcr, Anncxation, . Encyclopedia of Public International La. .6, .,c
(R. 8indschcndlcr cd., .a).
See Q. Vright, Tc utlawry ol Var and thc Law ol Var, , .J.I.L. 6, ,c,.
(.).
See . Lautcrpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places a (.6), S.M. Schwcbcl, Vhat
Vcight to Conqucst, 6 .J.I.L. 6 (.,c).
c \icnna Convcntion on thc Law ol Trcatics, .6, .. U.N.T.S. ..
. Art. a ol thc \icnna Convcntion (ibid.) stipulatcs as lollows:
Art. , stipulatcs that:
Tc provisions ol thc prcscnt Convcntion arc without prcjudicc to any
obligation in rclation to a trcaty which may arisc lor an aggrcssor Statc in
conscqucncc ol mcasurcs takcn in conlormity with thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd
Nations with rclcrcncc to that Statcs aggrcssion.
n thc ccct ol both Articlcs, see instcin, supra notc , at ,.
518 Fania Domb
tcrritory by war, without dicrcntiating bctwccn thc aggrcssor and thc victim.
Tis position latcr lound cxprcssion in thc .,c Fricndly Rclations cclaration
(rclicd on by thc !CJ, as notcd abovc). Stonc criticizcd this approach as absurd
bccausc it guarantccs that an aggrcssor Statc will ultimatcly rcgain tcrritory it
loscs through its own aggrcssion.
:
Contrariwisc, thc !CJ was on rm customary intcrnational law ground
whcn it asscrtcd that thc principlc ol sclldctcrmination prccludcd thc possibil
ity ol anncxation ol an occupicd tcrritory. Tc customary charactcr ol thc right
ol sclldctcrmination ol pcoplcs had bccn rccognizcd by thc .,cs.

Prolcssor
instcin notcd its implication lor anncxation ol occupicd tcrritory in acc., whcn
hc opincd that il thc local pcoplc is truly at libcrty to dctcrminc its political
status, a postdebellatio anncxation by thc victorious Statc must clcarly bc prc
cludcd.

As thc lcgitimatc rights ol thc Palcstinian pcoplc wcrc rccognizcd by

!sracl in thc ., Camp avid Framcwork,

thcir right to sclldctcrmination is

no longcr an issuc, a lact that prccludcs thc possibility ol unilatcral anncxation ol
thc Vcst 8ank by !sracl.
C pplication of the La. of Belligerent Occupation
According to thc HCJ in lfei Menashe, both Courts agrccd that in an occupicd
tcrritory thc occupying Statc must act according to thc Haguc Rcgulations and
thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion (para. ,).
Tc !CJ rclcrs to both instrumcnts in thc contcxt ol intcrnational human
itarian law, thcrcby conrming Prolcssor instcins position that no distinc
tion should bc drawn bctwccn Haguc Law and Gcncva Law (as thc principal
humanitarian law) bccausc Haguc Law docs not ignorc humanitarian considcra
tions.
6

Although both Courts rclcr solcly to thcsc two instrumcnts as rclcvant to
thc issuc undcr discussion, it should bc mcntioncd that thc Gcncva Law was
supplcmcntcd in .,, by two Additional Protocols,

which arc not rclcrrcd to by

cithcr Court bccausc !sracl is not a contracting Party and thcir customary naturc
is not gcncrally rccognizcd. !t should also bc mcntioncd that thcrc arc additional
a J. Stonc, Israel and Palestine, ssaults on the La. of Nations a (..).
Y. instcin, Non-State International La. .6 (Hcbrcw, .,).
instcin, supra notc , at .6.
Supra notc ..
6 Y. instcin, Te La.s of !ar aa, a (.).
, Protocol Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions ol .a August ., and Rclating to
thc Protcction ol \ictims ol !ntcrnational Armcd Conicts (Protocol !), Protocol
Additional to thc Gcncva Convcntions and Rclating to thc Protcction ol \ictims
ol Non!ntcrnational Armcd Conicts (Protocol !!), tcxts in Te La.s of rmed
Conicts, supra notc ,, at 6a., 6.
519 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
instrumcnts ol intcrnational law applicablc to occupicd tcrritorics,
8
such as thc
. Haguc Convcntion lor thc Protcction ol Cultural Propcrty in thc vcnt
ol Armcd Conict,

to which !sracl is a contracting Party. Gcncrally, thc laws

applying to occupicd tcrritorics lorm part ol thc jus in bello, namcly, thc rulcs
which apply in thc coursc ol war (as distinct lrom thc jus ad bellum, including
laws rclating to thc bcginning ol war, its ccssation and tcrmination).
o
i Tc .c, Haguc Rcgulations
8oth Courts conccdcd that thc application ol thc Haguc Rcgulations to thc Vcst
8ank dcrivcs lrom thcir customary naturc, as !sracl is not a party to thc Fourth
Haguc Convcntion ol .c,, to which thc Rcgulations arc anncxcd.
Rclying on thc Judgmcnt ol thc !ntcrnational Military Tribunal ol
Nurcmbcrg dclivcrcd in .6, thc !CJ cxprcssly rulcd that thc provisions ol thc
Haguc Rcgulations havc bccomc part ol customary law, as is in lact rccognizcd by
all thc participants in thc procccdings bclorc thc Court (para. ).
Tc HCJ has lully rccognizcd thc dcclaratory naturc ol thc Haguc
Rcgulations at lcast lrom .,,, whcn it rulcd in thc Beit El Case
+
that it is
acccptcd that thc Haguc Convcntion lorms part ol customary intcrnational law,
rclying on Prolcssor instcins articlc pointing to thc customary naturc ol thc
Rcgulations according to thc Nurcmbcrg Judgmcnt.
:
8cing part ol customary
intcrnational law, thc Rcgulations lorm part ol thc !sracli lcgal systcm, which
automatically adopts customary intcrnational law.

Tc HCJ has sincc applicd

thc Haguc Rcgulations in dozcns ol pctitions rclating to thc Vcst 8ank.

!t lollows that both Courts arc in complctc agrccmcnt as to thc applicability
ol thc Haguc Rcgulations to that bclligcrcnt occupation.
ii Tc . Fourth Gcncva Convcntion
From .6,, !sracl has takcn thc position that it docs not rccognizc thc de jure
applicability ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion to thc Vcst 8ank (bccausc it has
M. 8othc, ccupation, 8clligcrcnt, Encyclopedia of Public International La. ,6
(.,).
a U.N.T.S. ac.
c instcin, supra notc 6, at ...
. H.C. 6c6/,, (a) P.D. .., summary in Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. , (.,).
a Y. instcin, Tc Judgmcnt in thc Pithat Raah Casc, Tel .i. Uni.. L. Fe.. ,
(Hcbrcw, .,,).
As rulcd by thc HCJ in C.A. ,ca/, dclson Casc, .(.) P.D. 6a, 6c, by rcliancc
on instcin, supra notc .a.
See thc trcatisc ol . Krctzmcr, Te Occupation of Justice, Te Supreme Court of Israel
and the Occupied Territories (acca).
520 Fania Domb
ncvcr rccognizcd thc rights ol Jordan to any part ol Palcstinc

). Howcvcr, !sracl
has ocially dcclarcd that it will act de facto in accordancc with thc humanitarian
provisions ol thc Convcntion.
6
Tis position has bccn criticizcd by thc UN, thc
!CRC, Statcs and scholars.

Tc !CJ joincd this gcncral linc ol opposition to thc !sracli position by unc
quivocally stating:
thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion is applicablc in thc Palcstinian tcrritorics
which bclorc thc .6, conict lay to thc cast ol thc Grccn Linc and which,
during that conict, wcrc occupicd by !sracl, thcrc bcing no nccd lor any
cnquiry into thc prccisc prior status ol thosc tcrritorics (para. .c.).
Tc Court rcasoncd that both !sracl and Jordan had raticd thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion and arc contracting Partics thcrcto and that, according to thc rst
paragraph ol Articlc a, thc Convcntion applics whcn two conditions arc lulllcd,
namcly that an armcd conict cxists (whcthcr or not a statc ol war has bccn
rccognizcd), and that thc conict has ariscn bctwccn two contracting partics. Tc
!CJ notcd that this intcrprctation rccctcd thc draltcrs intcntion to protcct civil
ians who nd thcmsclvcs, in whatcvcr way, in thc hands ol an occupying Powcr,
rcgardlcss ol thc status ol thc occupicd tcrritorics, that thc Convcntions tra.aux
preparatoires conrm it, and that it was approvcd by thc Statcs partics to thc
Fourth Gcncva Convcntion at thcir Conlcrcncc on . July ., as wcll as by thc
!CRC, thc UN, Gcncral Asscmbly and Sccurity Council.
Tc HCJ statcd in lfei Menashe that thc qucstion ol thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntions applicability did not arisc in Beit Sourik duc to thc Statcs con
scnt to de facto application ol thc humanitarian provisions ol thc Convcntion.
Rcsponding to thc !CJs conclusion on this issuc, thc HCJ notcd:
Vc arc awarc that thc Advisory pinion ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc
dctcrmincd that thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion applics in thc Judca and
Samaria Arca, and that its application is not conditional upon thc willing
ncss ol thc Statc ol !sracl to uphold its provisions. As mcntioncd, sincc thc
Govcrnmcnt ol !sracl acccpts that thc humanitarian aspccts ol thc Fourth
See . 8cnvcnisti, Te International La. of Occupation .c.c (.).
6 For this dcclaration, madc by thc AttorncyGcncral in .,., at a Symposium on
Human Rights hcld at Tcl Aviv Univcrsity, see M. Shamgar, Tc bscrvancc ol
!ntcrnational Law in thc Administcrcd Tcrritorics, . Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. a6a, a66
(.,.).
, 8cnvcnisti, supra notc 6, at .c..c. Prol. instcin asscrts that this position is bascd
on dubious lcgal grounds, considcring that thc Fourth Convcntion docs not makc
its applicability conditional on rccognition ol titlcs, Y. instcin, Tc !ntcrnational
Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation and Human Rights, Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. .c, .c,
(.,).
521 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
Gcncva Convcntion apply in thc arca, wc arc not ol thc opinion that wc must
takc a stand on that issuc in thc pctition bclorc us.
Prolcssor instcin cxamincd thc application ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion
to thc Vcst 8ank in ., lormulating lourtccn points.
8
Apart lrom thosc alrcady
mcntioncd (that thc Convcntion is lully binding on !sracl bccausc it is a con
tracting party and, although dcnying its de jure applicability, !sracl has dccidcd to
act de facto in accordancc with its humanitarian provisions), Prolcssor instcin
adds that:
(iv) Sincc cvcry provision ol thc Convcntion is by dcnition humanitarian
(thc cntirc Convcntion lorming part ol what is usually callcd humanitar
ian law

), !sracl is supposcd to apply cvcry scction ol thc Convcntion.

!n thc othcr points, Prolcssor instcin notcd that, as a rulc, thc !sracli mili
tary govcrnmcnt in thc occupicd tcrritorics obscrvcd thc Convcntion strictly and
rigorously, that bccausc thc Kncssct has not incorporatcd thc Convcntion into
!sracli law it was impossiblc to rcly on it in pctitions to thc Suprcmc Court, and
that thc Suprcmc Court has bccn willing at all timcs to tcst thc lcgality ol thc
acts and lcgislation ol thc military govcrnmcnt in thc occupicd tcrritorics against
customary intcrnational law.
6o
cspitc thc lormal position ol !sracl on thc de jure nonapplicability ol thc
Fourth Gcncva Convcntion to thc Vcst 8ank, and pursuant to its conscnt to thc
Convcntions de facto application, thc HCJ has routincly applicd thc Convcntion
to a widc rangc ol issucs. Tcsc havc includcd, intcr alia, scizurc ol land, rcunica
tion ol lamilics, applicability ol thc local law, lrccdom ol movcmcnt, administra
tivc arrcsts, dcmolition ol houscs, and dcportations.
6+
!t lollows that both Courts
sharc common ground in thcir position rcgarding thc applicability ol thc Fourth
Gcncva Convcntion to thc Vcst 8ank.
iii Application ol Spccic Provisions
Although both Courts agrcc that thc Haguc Rcgulations and thc Fourth Gcncva
Convcntion apply to thc Vcst 8ank, thcy divcrgc ovcr application ol spccic
provisions ol thcsc instrumcnts.
Supra notc ac, at .
n thc mcaning ol this phrasc, see Y. instcin, !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law,
in International Human Fights La.: Teory and Practice ac, acac6 (!. Cotlcr & F.P.
liadis cds., .a).
6c Supra notc ac, at .
6. See Krctzmcr, supra notc .
522 Fania Domb
Vhilc thc HCJ rclicd on Articlc a(g) ol thc Haguc Rcgulations
6:
as a
lcgal basis lor scizurc ol land lor construction ol thc lcncc (as wcll as on Articlc
a ol thc Haguc Rcgulations and Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion,
discusscd bclow), thc !CJ rulcd that Articlc a(g) is not pcrtincnt bccausc only
Scction !!! ol thc Haguc Rcgulations (dcaling with military authority ovcr thc
tcrritory ol thc hostilc Statc) is currcntly applicablc to thc Vcst 8ank (and not
Scction !!, which is applicablc during hostilitics).
!n lfei Menashe, thc HCJ rcspondcd by making thc lollowing points:
a) Tc !CJs approach docs not dctract lrom thc HCJs vicw rcgarding thc
military commandcrs authority to takc posscssion ol land on which to con
struct thc lcncc, as this authority is lurthcr anchorcd in Articlcs and a ol
thc Haguc Rcgulations and Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion.
b) Altcrnativcly, thcrc is a vicw (supportcd by Pictct
6
and by Schwarzcnbcrgcr
6
)
that thc scopc ol application ol Articlc a(g) can bc cxtcndcd, by way ol
analogy, to covcr bclligcrcnt occupation as wcll.
c) Tc situation in thc tcrritory undcr bclligcrcnt occupation is oltcn uid.
Pcriods ol tranquility and calm translorm into dynamic pcriods ol combat.
Vhcn combat activitics arc taking placc in an arca undcr bclligcrcnt occu
pation, thc rulcs applicablc to bclligcrcnt occupation, as wcll as thc rulcs
applicablc to combat activitics apply, including Articlc a(g).
Notwithstanding thcsc rcmarks, thc HCJ statcd that it would discuss this issuc
in dcpth at a latcr opportunity.
xamining thc lcgality ol thc lcncc in light ol thc Haguc Rcgulations, cspc
cially Articlc 6, thc !CJ concludcd that thc construction ol thc wall has lcd to
thc dcstruction or rcquisition ol propcrtics undcr conditions which contravcnc
thc rcquircmcnts ol Articlcs 6 and a ol thc Haguc Rcgulations ol .c, and ol
Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion (para..a). Articlc 6 providcs that
privatc propcrty must bc rcspcctcd and cannot bc conscatcd.
6

Rcsponding to thc !CJ, in lfei Menashe thc HCJ strcsscd that thc construc
tion ol thc lcncc is not bascd on cxpropriation or conscation ol land, as thcy arc
prohibitcd by Rcgulation 6. !t also notcd that construction ol thc lcncc docs not
involvc translcr ol owncrship ovcr thc land upon which it is built. Construction
occurs by taking tcmporary posscssion ol land, lollowcd by paymcnt ol com
6a Supra notc ,. Articlc a providcs that it is cspccially lorbiddcn:
(g) To dcstroy or to scizc thc cncmys propcrty, unlcss such dcstruction or
scizurc bc impcrativcly dcmandcd by thc ncccssitics ol war, .
6 !CRC, Commentary, Gene.a Con.ention (I!) Felati.e to the Protection of Ci.ilian
Persons in Time of !ar c. ( J.S. Pictct cd., .).
6 G. Schwarzcnbcrgcr, International La. s pplied by International Courts and
Tribunals: Te La. of rmed Conict . (.6).
6 Supra notc ,.
523 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
pcnsation lor damagc causcd (para. .6). Tis charactcrization madc Articlc 6
invokcd by thc !CJ irrclcvant to thc issuc ol construction ol thc lcncc.
As thc HCJ statcd in lfei Menashe, both Courts agrccd that thc lcgality
ol thc lcncc shall bc dctcrmincd, inter alia, by Articlc 6 and a ol thc Haguc
Rcgulations and Articlc ol thc Gcncva Convcntion (para. ,).
Articlc a authorizcs, within ccrtain limits, rcquisitions in kind and scrviccs
lor thc nccds ol thc army ol occupation,
66
whilc Articlc prohibits dcstruction
ol propcrty, individual or rcal, cxccpt whcrc such dcstruction is rcndcrcd abso
lutcly ncccssary by military opcrations.
6

As alrcady mcntioncd, thc !CJ concludcd that thc construction ol thc wall
lcd to thc dcstruction or rcquisition ol propcrty contrary to Articlc a and Articlc
. !t addcd that thc rcquisition and dcstruction wcrc illcgal bccausc thcy wcrc
not justicd by military nccds and not absolutcly ncccssary by military opcra
tions. Howcvcr, by rclcrring to Articlc a in thc contcxt ol land rcquisition, thc
!CJ actually agrccd with thc HCJ that it applics to scizurc ol immovablc propcrty,
dcspitc thc lact that Articlc a docs not mcntion immovablcs. Tc HCJ rclicd on
Articlc a by cndorsing Schwarzcnbcrgcrs intcrprctation that thc cmphasis in
scizurc and rcquisition is on movablcs but, in thc casc ol rcquisition, thc wording
ol Articlc a is sucicntly widc to includc immovablcs.
68

Contrary to thc !CJ, thc HCJ rclicd in Beit Sourik on Haguc Articlc a and
Gcncva Articlc as lcgal bascs lor lawlul scizurc ol privatc land lor construc
tion ol thc lcncc, altcr qualilying it as lalling within thc nccds ol thc army.
Tc HCJ rulcd that, bascd on Articlc a, thc military commandcr is authorizcd
to takc posscssion ol land lor military purposcs, providcd compcnsation is paid
lor thc usc ol thc land. !t rccallcd that Articlc a ol thc Haguc Rcgulations and
Articlc ol thc Gcncva Convcntion providcd a lcgal basis lor thc lcgality ol
taking posscssion ol land and structurcs lor various military nccds: constructing
military lacilitics, paving ol dctour roads, building lcnccs around outposts, tcm
porarily housing soldicrs, cnsuring ol unimpaircd trac on thc roads ol thc arca,
constructing civilian administration occs, or scizing buildings lor thc dcploy
mcnt ol military lorcc. Tc HCJ strcsscd that thc military commandcr must also
considcr thc nccds ol thc local population. Howcvcr, il this condition is mct, hc
may takc posscssion ol land in arcas undcr his control. Tc HCJ hcld that thc
66 Supra notc ,. Tc rst paragraph ol Articlc a rcads as lollows:
Rcquisitions in kind and scrviccs shall not bc dcmandcd lrom municipalitics
or inhabitants cxccpt lor thc nccds ol thc army ol occupation.
6, Supra notc . Articlc providcs as lollows:
Any dcstruction by thc ccupying Powcr ol rcal or pcrsonal propcrty bclonging
individually or collcctivcly to privatc pcrsons or to thc Statc, or to othcr public
authoritics, or to social or coopcrativc organizations, is prohibitcd, cxccpt whcrc
such dcstruction is rcndcrcd absolutcly ncccssary by military opcrations.
6 Schwarzcnbcrgcr, supra notc 6, at a, a6.
524 Fania Domb
scparation lcncc lalls within this lcgal lramcwork bccausc military ncccssity jus
ticd rcplacing military opcrations with physically blocking tcrrorist inltration
into !sracli population ccntcrs (para. a).
!t lollows that both Courts lound Articlc a ol thc Haguc Rcgulations and
Articlc ol thc Gcncva Convcntion rclcvant to thc qucstion ol thc lcnccs lcgal
ity. 8ut whilc thc HCJ rulcd that its construction was justicd by thc armys
nccds, thc !CJ concludcd that thc rcquisition and dcstruction ol thc propcrty
involvcd could not bc justicd by military cxigcncics.
xamining thc lcgality ol thc lcncc in light ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion,
thc !CJ distinguishcd bctwccn provisions applying during military opcrations
lcading to occupation and thosc that rcmaincd applicablc throughout thc cntirc
pcriod ol occupation. Rclying on Articlc 6 ol thc Convcntion
6
(providing thc
oncycar rulc according to which thc application ol thc Convcntion shall ccasc
onc ycar altcr thc gcncral closc ol military opcrations), thc !CJ rulcd that:
Sincc thc military opcrations leading to the occupation of the !est Bank in z,o,
cndcd a long timc ago, only thosc Articlcs ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion
rclcrrcd to in Articlc 6, paragraph rcmain applicablc in that occupicd tcrri
tory. (c.a.)
Tc dccision to limit thc application ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion to thc
obligations cnumcratcd in Articlc 6 by rcstricting thc condition ol gcncral closc
ol military opcrations to military opcrations lcading to thc occupation ol thc
Vcst 8ank in .6, has bccn widcly criticizcd as crroncous in tcrms ol both law
and its undcrlying policy.
o
!t has cvcn bccn callcd absurd,
+
lor it rcsults in a
partial application ol thc Convcntion (thus rcducing thc rcsponsibilitics ol thc
occupying Statc) dcspitc thc military activitics that arc taking placc. Tc com
monly agrccd corrcct intcrprctation ol Articlc 6 is that cvcn il military opcra
6 Supra notc . Articlc 6() ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion providcs as lollows:
!n thc casc ol occupicd tcrritory, thc application ol thc prcscnt Convcntion
shall ccasc onc ycar altcr thc gcncral closc ol military opcrations, howcvcr,
thc ccupying Powcr shall bc bound, lor thc duration ol thc occupation, to the
extent that such Po.er exercises the functions of go.ernment in such territory, by thc
provisions ol thc lollowing Articlcs ol thc prcscnt Convcntion: . to .a, a,, a to
, ,, , ., a, , , 6. to ,,, . (c.a.).
,c . 8cnNaltali, la Fecherche du Temps Perdu: Rcthinking Articlc 6 ol thc Fourth
Gcncva Convcntion in thc Light ol thc Lcgal Conscqucnccs ol thc Construction ol
a Vall in thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory Advisory pinion, Isr. L. Fe.. a..,
a.a et seq. (acc).
,. A. !mscis, Critical Rccctions on thc !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Aspccts ol
thc !CJ !all Advisory pinion, .J.I.L. .ca, .c, (acc).
525 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
tions arc oncc dccmcd closcd, thcy may rcopcn at a latcr datc thus triggcring
thc rcncwcd opcration ol Gcncva Convcntion !\ in toto.
:

Sincc thc HCJ did not invokc thc oncycar rulc ol Articlc 6 in Beit Sourik
or in any casc sincc .,c,

it apparcntly takcs thc position that in vicw ol thc

ongoing military activitics on thc Vcst 8ank thcrc is no room lor curtailing
!sracls rcsponsibilitics as an occupying Statc undcr thc Convcntion. Howcvcr,
attcntion should also bc paid to thc condition in Articlc 6 which providcs that
thc ccupying Powcr shall bc bound, lor thc duration ol thc occupation, by thc
Articlcs cnumcratcd thcrcin only to thc cxtcnt that such Powcr cxcrciscs thc
lunctions ol govcrnmcnt in such tcrritory. Tcrclorc, insolar as !sracl translcrrcd
thc lunctions ol govcrnmcnt in ccrtain arcas to thc Palcstinian Authority undcr
thc . !ntcrim Agrccmcnt, !sracl is no longcr bound by thc rcmaining Articlcs
ol thc Gcncva Convcntion listcd in Articlc 6().

D pplication of Human Fights Con.entions

!n lfei Menashe thc HCJ statcd as lollows:
Tc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc dccidcd that in addition to thc humanitar
ian law, thc convcntions on human rights apply in thc occupicd tcrritory. Tis
qucstion did not arisc in thc 8cit Sourik Casc. For thc purposcs ol this casc, wc
assumc that thcsc convcntions indccd apply.
Tc rcsult is that both Courts agrccd that human rights convcntions arc appli
cablc to thc Vcst 8ank (in addition to thc Haguc Rcgulations and thc Fourth
Gcncva Convcntion).
i Tc !CJ
Tc !CJ hcld that thc human rights convcntions to which !sracl is a party
namcly, thc .66 !ntcrnational Covcnant on Civil and Political Rights (!CCPR),
thc .66 !ntcrnational Covcnant on conomic, Social and Cultural Rights
(!CSCR), and thc . Convcntion on thc Rights ol thc Child (!CRC)

arc applicablc to thc Vcst 8ank (paras. .....). Howcvcr, thc !CJs rcasoning
with rcgard to application ol thcsc instrumcnts is problcmatic.
As lor thc !CCPR, thc !CJ hcld that it is applicablc in rcspcct ol acts donc
by a Statc in thc cxcrcisc ol its jurisdiction outsidc its own tcrritory, basing its
,a instcin, supra notc ac, at .
, . Krctzmcr, Tc Advisory pinion: Tc Light Trcatmcnt ol !ntcrnational
Humanitarian Law, .J.I.L. , ., n. a (acc).
, instcin, supra notc ac, at .
, a I.L.M. ., (.).
526 Fania Domb
conclusion on Articlc a(.) ol thc !CCPR, according to which cach Statc Party
undcrtakcs to rcspcct and to cnsurc to all individuals within its tcrritory and
subjcct to its jurisdiction thc rights rccognizcd in thc Covcnant. Although
thc ordinary mcaning ol Articlc a(.) indicatcs, prima facie, that a Statc Party is
rcquircd to cnsurc thc rights ol thc Covcnant only to individuals who arc both
within its tcrritory and subjcct to its jurisdiction, thc !CJ rclicd on thc intcrprcta
tion ol this Articlc adoptcd by thc Human Rights Committcc in cascs involving
arrcsts carricd out by Uruguayan agcnts in 8razil or Argcntina
6
and conscation
ol a passport by an Uruguayan consulatc in Gcrmany.

Tcsc cascs hcld that thc

Covcnant is applicablc whcrc thc Statc cxcrciscs its jurisdiction on lorcign tcr
ritory. Tc !CJ also hcld that thc tra.aux preparatoires conrm thc Committccs
intcrprctation, which actually crcatcs a disjunctivc conjunction bctwccn thc two
conditions ol Articlc a(.).
Tis rcasoning may casily bc contradictcd.
8
Tc cascs citcd by thc !CJ
involvcd cxccptional circumstanccs whcrc Uruguayan Statc agcnts actually
abductcd Uruguayan citizcns living abroad to bring thcm back to Uruguay and
conscatcd a passport lrom a citizcn. Sincc thc Committccs dccisions wcrc
intcndcd to cnsurc thc cnjoymcnt ol thc Covcnants rights by a Statcs citizcns
abroad, thcy arc thus irrclcvant to bclligcrcnt occupation.
Tc !CCPRs tra.aux preparatoires actually conict with thc !CJs position.
Tc dralt ol Articlc a as lormulatcd in .c includcd only thc rcquircmcnt ol
bcing within its jurisdiction lor cnjoymcnt ol Covcnant rights. Tc addition
ol thc condition within its tcrritory was madc upon thc rcqucst ol thc Unitcd
Statcs to prccludc an obligation to cnsurc Covcnant rights to citizcns ol coun
trics undcr Unitcd Statcs occupation. Morcovcr, in thc dccisions rcndcrcd by
thc Human Rights Committcc, Committcc mcmbcr Tomuschat cxprcssly citcd
occupation ol lorcign tcrritory as a situation which thc draltcrs ol thc Covcnant
had in mind whcn thcy conncd thc obligation ol Statcs partics to thcir own tcr
ritory.

As lor thc !CSCR, thc !CJ hcld that in thc cxcrcisc ol thc powcrs ol an
occupying Statc, !sracl is bound by its provisions and undcr an obligation not to
raisc any obstaclc to thc cxcrcisc ol such rights in thosc clds whcrc compctcncc
has bccn translcrrcd to Palcstinian authoritics (para. ..a).
Givcn that thc !CSCR contains no provision on thc scopc ol its appli
cation, this issuc must bc rcsolvcd by rccoursc to customary law as rccctcd in
Articlc a ol thc \icnna Convcntion on thc Law ol Trcatics: unlcss a dicrcnt
,6 Casc No. a/,, Lpcz 8urgos v. Uruguay, Casc No. 6/,, Cclibcrti dc Casaricgo v.
Uruguay.
,, Casc No. .c6/., Montcro v. Uruguay.
, See M.J. cnnis, Application ol Human Rights Trcatics xtratcrritorially in Timcs
ol Armcd Conict and Military ccupation, .J.I.L. .., .aa.a, (acc).
, Ibid., .a.a.
527 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
intcntion appcars lrom thc trcaty or is othcrwisc cstablishcd, a trcaty is bind
ing upon cach party in rcspcct ol its cntirc tcrritory. Howcvcr, thc !CJ con
cludcd that thc Covcnant applics cxtratcrritorially to thc Vcst 8ank by rclying
on Articlc ., which providcs lor transitional mcasurcs in cascs whcrc a Statc,
whcn bccoming a Party, has not bccn ablc to sccurc in its mctropolitan tcr
ritory or othcr tcrritorics undcr its jurisdiction compulsory primary cducation,
lrcc ol chargc. Yct, it lollows lrom thc tra.aux preparatoires that this Articlc
was intcndcd to cnsurc application ol thc Covcnant to dcpcndcnt tcrritorics ovcr
which thc contracting Statcs cxcrciscd sovcrcignty
8o
and obviously not to arcas
undcr military occupation, ovcr which thc occupying Statc docs not posscss cvcn
onc atom ol sovcrcignty.
8+

!n its conclusion, on application ol thc !CRC to thc ccupicd Palcstinian
Tcrritory, thc !CJ rclicd only on Articlc a, which obligatcs Statcs Partics to
rcspcct and cnsurc thc rights sct lorth in thc Convcntion to cach child within
thcir jurisdiction. Howcvcr, Articlc ol thc !CRC
8:
obligatcs Statcs to cnsurc
thc application ol rulcs ol intcrnational humanitarian law which arc rclcvant to
thc child in accordancc with thcir obligations undcr intcrnational humanitarian
law to protcct thc civilian population in armcd conict. Tus, thc !CRC obvi
ously applics to thc civilian population in thc tcrritory ol thc Statc Party.
8

ii Tc HCJ
As mcntioncd, in lfei Menashe thc HCJ agrccd with thc !CJ on thc applicabil
ity ol human rights convcntions to thc Vcst 8ank (in addition to thc Haguc
Rcgulations and thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion). Latcr, thc HCJ hcld that it
did not nccd to takc a position on thc issuc ol applicability ol thcsc convcntions
in thc Arca (nor on thc issuc ol thc rclationship bctwccn intcrnational humani
tarian and human rights law) to rcspond to thc pctition bclorc it. All it statcd
on this issuc was that thc military commandcrs authority to cnsurc thc public
ordcr and salcty must bc cxcrciscd taking into account considcrations ol Statc
sccurity, sccurity ol thc army, and thc pcrsonal sccurity ol thosc who arc prcscnt
in thc Arca on thc onc hand, and thc human rights ol thc local Arab population,
on thc othcr (para. a,).
!t lollows that whilc thc !CJ concludcd that human rights convcntions to
which !sracl is a party arc applicablc to thc Vcst 8ank, thc HCJ is prcparcd to
apply thcm only as part ol thc law ol bclligcrcnt occupation, not as an indcpcnd
cnt body ol intcrnational law. Such an approach makcs thc application ol thc
c Ibid., .a.
. As statcd by ppcnhcim, quotcd in instcin, supra notc ac, at .c6.
a n Articlc , see J. Frowcin, Tc Rclationship 8ctwccn Human Rights Rcgimcs
and Rcgimcs ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation, a Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. ., ,, n. . (.).
cnnis, supra notc ,, at .a.
528 Fania Domb
human rights rccognizcd thcrcin subjcct to thc rcstriction ol military ncccssity, to
which most humanitarian norms arc subjcct.
8
Howcvcr, in thc accc Kt.iot
8
and
Marab cases
86
thc HCJ cxamincd thc lawlulncss ol thc conditions and pcriods ol
administrativc dctcntion ol Palcstinians during pcration clcnsivc Shicld in
light ol Articlcs .c, and . ol thc !CCPR, in addition to intcrnational humani
tarian law.
iii Commcnts
!t sccms that thc !CJs conclusion on thc applicability ol thc Covcnants and
!CRC to !sracli conduct in thc Vcst 8ank is primarily bascd on thc unusual
circumstanccs ol !sracls prolongcd occupation, as thc !CJ itscll obscrvcd that
thc tcrritorics occupicd by !sracl havc lor ovcr , ycars bccn subjcct to its tcr
ritorial jurisdiction as thc occupying Powcr (para. ..a). !ndccd, application ol
human rights convcntions to thc tcrritorics occupicd by !sracl had prcviously
bccn suggcstcd by 8cnvcnisti,
8
Mcron
88
and Robcrts.
8
Howcvcr, thcsc asscrtions
wcrc raiscd bclorc thc slo proccss, during which !sracl translcrrcd most ol its
powcrs and rcsponsibilitics to thc Palcstinian Authority.
o
!n all mattcrs which
camc undcr thc control ol thc Palcstinian Authority, it is thc Authority which
bcars rcsponsibility lor obscrvancc ol intcrnational human rights, although obvi
ously only thosc rccognizcd undcr customary intcrnational law.
+

E !iolation of Specic Fights of the Palestinians
Tc HCJ notcd in lfei Menashe that both Courts lound that construction ol
thc lcncc rcsultcd in thc inlringcmcnt ol a numbcr ol rights ol thc Palcstinian
inhabitants (para. ,). Howcvcr, whilc thc !CJ invokcd spccic rights undcr intcr
national humanitarian law and thc human rights convcntions, thc HCJ did not
spccily which rights had bccn violatcd.
Y. instcin, Military Ncccssity, Encyclopedia of Public International La. (R.
8crnhardt cd., .,).
H.C. ./ca, ,(.) P.D. c, summary in Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. cc (acc).
6 H.C. a/ca, ,(a) P.D. , summary ibid., c,.
, . 8cnvcnisti, Tc Applicability ol Human Rights Convcntions to !sracl and to thc
ccupicd Tcrritorics, a6 Isr. L. Fe.. a, (.a).
T. Mcron, Vcst 8ank and Gaza: Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in thc
Pcriod ol Transition, Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. .c6, .. (.,).
Robcrts, supra notc ., at ,a,.
c See instcin, supra notc ac, at et seq.
. F. omb, Tc Gaza and Jcricho Autonomy and Human Rights, a Isr. Y.B. Hum.
Fts. a., a et seq. (.).
529 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
i Tc !CJ
As discusscd, thc !CJ concludcd that thc lcnccs construction violatcd scvcral
spccic provisions ol intcrnational humanitarian law (mainly Articlcs 6 and a
ol thc Haguc Rcgulations and Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion).
8ascd on its nding rcgarding thc applicability ol human rights convcntions
to thc Vcst 8ank, thc !CJ spccicd thc rights that had bccn violatcd by construc
tion ol thc lcncc (in paras. .a.., and .):
.) !CCPR
:
thc right to privacy (Articlc .,(.)) and thc right to lrccdom ol
movcmcnt (Articlc .a(.)).
a) !CSCR

thc right to work (Articlcs 6 and ,), protcction and assistancc

accordcd to thc lamily and to childrcn and young pcrsons (Articlc .c), thc
right to an adcquatc standard ol living, including adcquatc lood, clothing
and housing, and thc right to bc lrcc lrom hungcr (Articlc ..), thc right to
hcalth (Articlc .a), and thc right to cducation (Articlcs . and .).
) !CRC

thc provisions ol Articlcs .6, a, a, and a, corrcsponding to thc

alorcmcntioncd provisions in thc !CSCR.
Following thc mcthodology adoptcd with rcspcct to intcrnational humanitar
ian law, thc !CJ cxamincd whcthcr human rights violatons may bc justicd by
pcrmissiblc dcrogations or by othcr provisions qualilying or rcstricting thc rights
cstablishcd in thc human rights convcntions. !t answcrcd this qucstion in thc
ncgativc. Tc Court concludcd that:
Tc wall, along thc routc choscn, and its associatcd rcgimc gravcly inlringc a
numbcr ol rights ol Palcstinians rcsiding in thc tcrritory occupicd by !sracl,
and thc inlringcmcnts rcsulting lrom that routc cannot bc justicd by mili
tary cxigcncics or by thc rcquircmcnt ol national sccurity or public ordcr (para.
.,).

Conscqucntly, thc !CJ hcld that construction ol thc lcncc brcachcd various obli
gations undcr thc applicablc intcrnational humanitarian law and human rights
instrumcnts.
ii Tc HCJ
As mcntioncd, both in Beit Sourik and in lfei Menashe, thc HCJ ordcrcd thc
altcration ol thc routc ol thc lcncc on thc grounds that it causcd cxtcnsivc injury
a Supra notc ..
Supra notc c.
Supra notc ,.
530 Fania Domb
to thc local Palcstinian inhabitants disproportionatc to thc sccurity advantagc
gaincd by !sracl.
!n Beit Sourik, thc HCJ dcscribcd thc various lorms ol harm inictcd on
Palcstinian rcsidcnts which lcd it to canccl land scizurc ordcrs rclating to lorty
kilomctcrs ol thc lcnccs routc. !t did so within thc lramcwork ol its spccic
cxamination ol cach land scizurc ordcr rclating to a particular scgmcnt ol thc
lcncc. Rclcrring primarily to thc scparation ol local inhabitants lrom thcir agri
cultural lands and to thc dicultics ol acccss to land through spccial gatcs, thc
HCJ rulcd that thc lcnccs routc scvcrcly impaircd thcir rights undcr intcrna
tional humanitarian law.
!n lfei Menashe, thc HCJ cxamincd at lcngth complaints rcgarding allcgcd
injury causcd by thc lcncc to thc daily lilc ol thc rcsidcnts ol thc villagcs in thc
cnclavc in mattcrs such as cducation, hcalth, cmploymcnt, movcmcnt and social
tics. Concluding that thc lcncc scvcrcly injurcd thc cntirc labric ol lilc, thc Court
ordcrcd thc Statc to nd an altcrnatc routc which could cnsurc sccurity whilc
rcmoving thc cnclavc villagcs lrom thc !sracli sidc ol thc lcncc.
As alrcady mcntioncd, in both cascs thc HCJ cxamincd thc injurics causcd
by thc lcncc to local inhabitants in vicw ol thc principlc ol proportionality (dis
cusscd bclow), which rcquircs a propcr balancc bctwccn sccurity nccds and
humanitarian considcrations.
II Specic Issues iscussed by Iach Court
Legality of Israeli Settlements
i Tc !CJ
Although thc issuc ol !sracli scttlcmcnts on thc Vcst 8ank was not dircctly
raiscd in thc qucstion submittcd to thc !CJ lor an Advisory pinion, thc Court
ncvcrthclcss statcd its position in thc contcxt ol thc PLs plca against !sracls de
facto anncxation ol tcrritorics locatcd wcst ol thc lcncc.

Tc !CJ obscrvcd that thc routc ol thc lcncc includcd thc grcat major
ity ol thc !sracli scttlcmcnts in thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory (including
ast Jcrusalcm) (para. ..). As rcgards thcsc scttlcmcnts, thc Court notcd that
Articlc (6) ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion providcs that thc ccupying
Powcr shall not dcport or translcr parts ol its own civilian population into thc
tcrritory it occupics. Tc !CJ intcrprctcd this provision as prohibiting not only
Prol. Lapidoth opincs that as thc !CJ rulcd that all thc scgmcnts ol thc lcncc situatcd
on thc tcrritorics occupicd by !sracl in .6, arc illcgal, without making a distinction
bctwccn thosc that protcct !sracl propcr and thosc that protcct thc scttlcmcnts, thc
discussion ol thc lcgality ol thc scttlcmcnts was not ncccssary, and thus is only an
obiter dictum. See R. Lapidoth, Tc Advisory pinion and thc Jcwish Scttlcmcnts,
Isr. L. Fe.. aa, a (acc).
531 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
dcportations or lorccd translcrs ol populations such as thosc carricd out during
thc Sccond Vorld Var, but any mcasurcs takcn by an occupying Powcr to organ
izc or cncouragc translcrs ol parts ol its own population into thc occupicd tcrri
tory.
6
!t thcn concludcd that thc !sracli scttlcmcnts in thc ccupicd Palcstinian
Tcrritory (including ast Jcrusalcm) havc bccn cstablishcd in brcach ol intcrna
tional law. Tc !CJ also notcd that thc routc choscn lor thc wall givcs cxprcssion
in loco to thc illcgal mcasurcs takcn by !sracl with rcgard to Jcrusalcm and thc
scttlcmcnts, and that thc dcparturc ol Palcstinians lrom thc wcstcrn arcas ol thc
lcncc, couplcd with thc cstablishmcnt ol !sracli scttlcmcnts, tcndcd to altcr thc
dcmographic composition ol thc Vcst 8ank (paras. .aa and .). Tc conclusion
rclatcd to dcmographic changcs is rcgardcd by scholars as thc main rcason lor thc
Courts opinion on thc illcgality ol !sracli scttlcmcnts.

Vith this conclusion, thc !CJ joincd thc position ol ccrtain intcrnational
bodics, Statcs partics to thc . Gcncva Convcntions and many acadcmic writ
crs on thc illcgality ol !sracli scttlcmcnts.
8

ii Rcsponsc ol thc HCJ
!n lfei Menashe, thc HCJ rcspondcd to thc !CJs ruling on thc illcgality ol !sracli
scttlcmcnts and thc construction ol thc lcncc (insolar as thcy wcrc aimcd at pro
tcction ol thc scttlcrs), by making thc lollowing points:
a) Tc military commandcrs authority to cnsurc public ordcr and salcty pur
suant to Articlc ol thc Haguc Rcgulations is dircctcd towards thc pro
tcction ol thc lilc and salcty ol all pcrsons in thc arca undcr bclligcrcnt
occupation.
b) Tcrclorc, thc military commandcr is authorizcd to construct a scparation
lcncc in thc arca lor thc purposc ol dclcnding thc lilc and salcty ol cvcry
pcrson crcatcd in Gods imagc (para. .).
c) vcn il a pcrsons prcscncc in thc arca is illcgal, hc is not outlawcd. Tcrclorc,
it is unncccssary to cxaminc whcthcr !sracli scttlcmcnts arc lcgal or illcgal
undcr intcrnational law.
d) vcn il thc military commandcr actcd contrary to thc law ol bclligcrcnt
occupation whcn hc agrccd to thc cstablishmcnt ol thc scttlcmcnts (an issuc
which is not bclorc thc Court and on which it cxprcsscs no opinion), thc
commandcr is not rclcascd lrom his duty undcr thc law ol bclligcrcnt occu
pation to prcscrvc thc lilc, salcty, and dignity ol cvcry !sracli scttlcr.
6 For a criticism ol this intcrprctation, as contrary to thc wholc spirit ol Articlc ,
dcaling with dcportations and translcr within thc mcaning ol nonvoluntary movc
mcnt ol pcoplc, see Lapidoth, ibid., aa6.
, See Lapidoth, ibid., a, see also Krctzmcr, supra notc ,, at .
Ibid., .
532 Fania Domb
c) !sraclis living in thc arca arc !sracli citizcns, and thc Statc ol !sracl has a
duty to protcct thcir livcs, salcty, and wcll bcing. Tc constitutional rights
which thc !sracli lcgal systcm grants cvcry pcrson in !sracl arc also cnjoycd
by !sraclis living in a tcrritory undcr !sracli bclligcrcnt occupation. Tis is
cspccially truc whcn many ol thosc living in thc arca do so with thc cncour
agcmcnt and blcssing ol thc !sracli govcrnmcnt.
Tc HCJ lurthcr obscrvcd that according to thc . !ntcrim Agrccmcnt thc
qucstion ol thc !sracli scttlcmcnts in thc Arca will bc discusscd in nal status
ncgotiations and that, in thc mcantimc, !sracl bcars rcsponsibility lor thc ovcrall
sccurity ol !sraclis and ol thc scttlcmcnts.

!t lollows lrom this rcmark that thc

HCJ considcrs it impropcr lor thc !CJ to havc rulcd on thc lcgality ol thc !sracli
scttlcmcnts.
+oo

B Self-Defense ccording to rticle z of the UN Charter
i Tc !CJ
Altcr concluding that thc walls construction violatcd various intcrnational lcgal
obligations, thc !CJ rclcrrcd to !sracls contcntion (asscrtcd by !sracls Pcrmancnt
Rcprcscntativc to thc Unitcd Nations), that it was a mcasurc takcn in thc cxcr
cisc ol sclldclcnsc as cnshrincd in Articlc . ol thc Chartcr. Hc had also said
that bccausc Sccurity Council Rcsolutions .6 (acc.) and ., (acc.)
+o+
rccog
nizcd thc right ol Statcs to usc lorcc in sclldclcnsc against tcrrorist attacks,
this surcly implicd rccognition ol thc right to usc nonlorciblc mcasurcs in scll
dclcnsc (para. .).
!n rcsponsc, thc !CJ citcd Articlc .,
+o:
and rcjcctcd thc rst contcntion:
Supra notc a, Articlc X!! (.).
.cc Tc HCJ actually cndorscd Prolcssor Lapidoths vicw, arguing that thc issuc ol sct
tlcmcnts was irrclcvant lor thc !CJ s Advisory pinion bccausc according to thc
. !ntcrim Agrccmcnt thc problcm ol thc scttlcmcnts should bc solvcd during
ncgotiations on thc pcrmancnt status, see Lapidoth, supra notc , at aa.
.c. UN S.C. Rcs. .6 (acc.), c I.L.M. .a,,, UN S.C. Rcs. ., (acc.), ibid., .a,. 8oth
Rcsolutions had bccn adoptcd lollowing thc Scptcmbcr .. tcrrorist attack on thc
US, thc rst on Scpt. .a ((Rcs. .6), and thc sccond on Scpt. a (Rcs. .,). Rcs. .6
rccognizcd thc inhcrcnt right ol individual or collcctivc sclldclcncc in accordancc
with thc Chartcr, and Rcs. ., (providing lor a scrics ol stcps to bc takcn by Statcs
with a vicw to combating intcrnational tcrrorism) armcd this right in its Prcamblc.
n both Rcsolutions, see M. Schmitt, CountcrTcrrorism and thc Usc ol Forcc in
!ntcrnational Law, a Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. , 6c6. (acca).
.ca Articlc . rcads in its rst part as lollows:
Nothing in thc prcscnt Chartcr shall impair thc inhcrcnt right ol individual
or collcctivc sclldclcncc il an armcd attack occurs against a Mcmbcr ol thc
533 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
Articlc . ol thc Chartcr thus rccognizcs thc cxistcncc ol an inhcrcnt right ol
sclldclcncc in thc casc ol armcd attack by onc Statc against anothcr Statc.
Howcvcr, !sracl docs not claim that thc attacks against it arc imputablc to a
lorcign Statc (para. .).
Tc !CJ also rcjcctcd thc sccond contcntion, noting that !sracl cxcrciscs control
in thc ccupicd Palcstinian Tcrritory and that, as !sracl itscll statcs, thc thrcat
which it rcgards as justilying thc construction ol thc wall originatcs within, and
not outsidc, that tcrritory (para. .). Tc !CJ concludcd that bccausc thc situa
tion dicrs lrom that contcmplatcd by Sccurity Council Rcsolutions .6 (acc.)
and ., (acc.), !sracl could not invokc thosc rcsolutions in support ol its claim
to bc cxcrcising sclldclcnsc. Tc !CJ opincd that Articlc . ol thc Chartcr has
no rclcvancc in this casc (para. .).
ii Rcsponsc ol thc HCJ
Tc HCJ did not rclcr to Articlc . ol thc Chartcr in Beit Sourik, lor it rulcd on
thc lcgality ol thc lcncc and its routc in light ol thc military commandcrs author
ity undcr thc law ol bclligcrcnt occupation and thc principlc ol proportionality
(scc bclow). Yct, in lfei Menashe, thc Court rcspondcd to thc !CJs ruling on
Articlc . by stating:
Tc approach ol thc !ntcrnational Court ol Justicc |on thc sclldclcnsc issuc|
is hard lor us. !t is not rcquircd by thc languagc ol Articlc . ol thc Chartcr
ol thc Unitcd Nations. !t is doubtlul whcthcr it ts thc nccds ol dcmocracy in
its strugglc against tcrrorism. From thc point ol vicw ol a Statcs right to scll
dclcnsc, what dicrcncc docs it makc il a tcrrorist attack against it comcs lrom
anothcr country or lrom a tcrritory which is undcr bclligcrcnt occupation:
And what will bc thc position ol intcrnational tcrrorism which pcnctratcs into
a tcrritory undcr bclligcrcnt occupation, whilc bcing launchcd lrom that tcrri
tory by intcrnational tcrrorisms local agcnts:
Tc HCJ did not cxprcss its own stancc on thc sclldclcnsc issuc. !t lclt it lor
a luturc opportunity on thc grounds that Articlc ol thc Haguc Rcgulations
alrcady authorizcs thc military commandcr to takc all ncccssary action to prc
scrvc sccurity and that acts which scll dclcnsc pcrmits arc surcly includcd within
such action.
Unitcd Nations, until thc Sccurity Council has takcn mcasurcs ncccssary to
maintain intcrnational pcacc and sccurity.
534 Fania Domb
iii Commcnts on thc !CJs Conclusion Rcgarding Articlc .
Tc !CJs conclusion on thc irrclcvancc ol Articlc . and its rcasoning appcars to
bc controvcrsial. !t has bccn criticizcd by Judgc Higgins
+o
and Judgc Kooijmans
+o

who wcrc in thc majority, and by Judgc 8ucrgcnthal,
+o
who was not. All cxprcsscd
conccrn that thc Courts rcquircmcnt that thc armcd attack must originatc lrom
anothcr Statc is abscnt in thc wording ol Articlc .. Tc issuc is also controvcrsial
in lcgal litcraturc, with somc scholars criticizing and othcrs lavoring it. Among
thc critics arc Vcdgwood,
+o6
Murphy,
+o
and Pomcrancc,
+o8
whilc Scobbic
+o
and
!mscis
++o
supportcd it.
Addrcssing thc !CJs conclusion that Articlc . is irrclcvant, Vcdgwood
notcd that lorcign Statc lunding and sponsorship ol Palcstinian tcrrorist organ
izations has bccn widcly rcportcd (cspccially !ranian support lor Hamas and
Saddam Husscins policy ol awarding compcnsation to thc lamilics ol suicidc
bombcrs), that thc Chartcrs languagc docs not link thc right to sclldclcnsc
to thc particular lcgal pcrsonality ol thc attackcr (bccausc in a dicrcnt agc onc
might not havc imagincd that nonstatc actors could mimic thc lorcc availa
blc to nationStatcs), and that thc originating locus ol thc attack |launchcd
lrom a tcrritory undcr !sracli control| docs not diminish a right ol sclldclcnsc.
Vcdgwood concludcd that it would indccd bc pcculiar il Statcs wcrc lcgally
unablc to protcct thcir civilians against rcpcatcd acts ol tcrrorism, whcn thcy can
usc lorcc against convcntional armics attacking convcntional targcts.
+++
Murphy contcndcd that thc !CJs position on Articlc . conicts with thc
languagc ol thc UN Chartcr, its tra.aux preparatoires, thc practicc ol Statcs and
intcrnational organizations, and common scnsc. Hc pointcd out that thc !CJ
itscll rccognizcd in thc Nicaragua Case that Articlc . prcscrvcd an inhcrcnt right
ol sclldclcnsc which cxistcd in customary intcrnational law prior to . (as
cxprcsscd in thc ., Caroline incidcnt), that prior to thc adoption ol thc UN
Chartcr govcrnmcnts invokcd thc right ol sclldclcnsc against thc acts ol indi
.c Scparatc pinion ol Judgc Higgins, supra notc .
.c Scparatc pinion ol Judgc Kooijmans, supra notc .
.c cclaration ol Judgc 8ucrgcnthal, supra notc , para. 6.
.c6 R. Vcdgwood, Tc !CJ Advisory pinion on thc !sracli Sccurity Fcncc and thc
Limits ol Scllclcnsc, .J.I.L. a (acc).
.c, S.. Murphy, Scllclcnsc and thc !sracli !all Advisory pinion: An Ipse Dixit
lrom thc !CJ:, .J.I.L. 6a (acc).
.c M. Pomcrancc, Tc !CJs Advisory Jurisdiction and thc Crumbling Vall 8ctwccn
thc Political and thc Judicial, .J.I.L. a6 (acc).
.c !. Scobbic, Vords My Mothcr Ncvcr Taught Mc !n clcnsc ol thc !ntcrnational
Court, .J.I.L. ,6, ,, (acc).
..c !mscis, supra notc ,..
... Vcdgwood, supra notc .c6, at .
535 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
viduals, such as scizurc ol vcsscls cngagcd in smuggling, and that Statc practicc
supportcd thc pcrmissibility ol rcsponding in sclldclcnsc to an attack by a non
Statc actor, as dcmonstratcd in thc contcxt ol thc Scptcmbcr .. tcrrorist attacks,
which originatcd in tcrritory undcr US control.
++:

n thc othcr hand, Scobbic supportcd thc !CJs approach to Articlc . on
thc grounds that:
A statcs right to takc mcasurcs to protcct its citizcns lrom tcrrorist attacks is
ncithcr lcgally cquivalcnt nor idcntical to thc right to rcsort to sclldclcnsc
undcr Articlc . ol thc UN Chartcr.
++
Scobbics approach is thc right onc. Vhilc a Statc obviously has thc right and
duty to protcct its citizcns lrom tcrrorist attacks and an occupying Statc has thc
right and duty to maintain public ordcr within occupicd tcrritory (as argucd by
Vcdgwood), thc lcgal sourcc ol thcsc rights and dutics stcms lrom thc laws ol
bclligcrcnt occupation, not lrom Articlc .. Tc !CJs position rcstricting Articlc
. to intcrStatc usc ol lorcc appcars to lollow thc position takcn by Prolcssor
instcin, who rcads Articlc . in conjunction with Articlc a(). According to
him:
Tc provision ol Articlc . has to bc rcad in conjunction with Articlc a() ol
thc Chartcr. Articlc a() promulgatcs thc gcncral obligation to rclrain lrom
thc usc ol intcrStatc lorcc. Articlc . introduccs an cxccption to this norm
by allowing Mcmbcr Statcs to cmploy lorcc in sclldclcncc in thc cvcnt ol an
armcd attack.
++
Tcrclorc, Articlc . was as irrclcvant to thc issuc as Articlc a() ol thc Chartcr,
which was invokcd by thc !CJ in thc contcxt ol thc principlc ol inadmissibility ol
acquisition ol tcrritory by war as a bar to anncxation ol conqucrcd tcrritory (scc
abovc). As soon as thc !CJ (likc thc HCJ) hcld that thc status ol thc Vcst 8ank
was that ol occupicd tcrritory, it cngagcd in thc jus in bello rclativc to occupicd
tcrritory and had to rcjcct any argumcnt bascd on thc jus ad bellum ol Articlc ..
As wc shall scc, thc law ol bclligcrcnt occupation docs contain a lcgal basis lor
lcgitimatc sclldclcnsc mcasurcs by an occupying Statc.
C Legality of the Fence in Light of the La.s of Belligerent Occupation
!n thc contcxt ol anncxation, thc HCJ rulcd on thc lcgality ol construction ol
scgmcnts ol thc lcncc and thcir routc in Beit Sourik and lfei Menashe according
..a Murphy, supra notc .c,, at 6a,c.
.. Scobbic, supra notc .c, at ,,.
.. instcin, supra notc , at .,,.
536 Fania Domb
to thc laws ol bclligcrcnt occupation, couplcd with thc principlc ol proportion
ality.
!n Beit Sourik, it strcsscd that thc military commandcr is prohibitcd lrom
constructing a scparation lcncc lor political rcasons or out ol a dcsirc to anncx
tcrritorics. Tc HCJ notcd that thc bclligcrcnt occupation ol thc Arca had gonc
on lor many ycars and that this lact acctcd thc scopc ol thc military command
crs authority. Ncvcrthclcss, thc passagc ol timc did not cxtcnd thc military com
mandcrs authority so as to allow him to takc into account lactors that arc bcyond
thc propcr administration ol thc Arca.
Subscqucntly, thc HCJ rulcd that a military commandcr is authorizcd by
thc laws ol bclligcrcnt occupation namcly, Articlcs a(g) and a ol thc Haguc
Rcgulations and Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion to takc posscs
sion ol land il ncccssary lor thc nccds ol thc army. l coursc, in cxccution ol this
authority, thc military commandcr must considcr thc nccds ol thc local popula
tion. 8ut assuming that this condition is mct, thcrc is no doubt that thc military
commandcr may takc posscssion ol land in arcas undcr his control.
Tc HCJ applicd this lcgal lramcwork to thc scparation lcncc, ruling that
to thc cxtcnt its construction was a military ncccssity, it was pcrmittcd by intcr
national law. Givcn that thc lcncc is intcndcd to rcplacc combat opcrations by
physically blocking tcrrorist inltration into !sracli population ccntcrs, it is mili
tarily ncccssary and, thcrclorc, within thc authority ol thc military commandcr
(para. a).
!n lfei Menashe thc HCJ cxprcssly strcsscd that a military commandcr pos
scsscs thc authority undcr thc law ol bclligcrcnt occupation to construct a scpara
tion lcncc lor sccurity and military rcasons, including:
a) Protcction ol thc army in thc tcrritory undcr bclligcrcnt occupation,
b) clcnsc ol thc Statc ol !sracl itscll,
c) Protcction ol thc livcs and salcty ol !sraclis living in !sracli scttlcmcnts in
thc Judca and Samaria Arca (as discusscd abovc),
d) Protcction ol cvcry pcrson prcscnt in thc tcrritory undcr bclligcrcnt occupa
tion.
Tc HCJ rationalc is bascd on Articlc 6(b) ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion,
which dcals with thc pcnal lcgislation ol an occupicd tcrritory and providcs that
thc occupying Statc may subjcct thc population to provisions which arc csscntial
to cnsurc thc sccurity ol thc ccupying Powcr, ol thc mcmbcrs and propcrty
ol thc occupying lorccs or administration, and likcwisc ol thc cstablishmcnts
and lincs ol communication uscd by thcm.
++
All thc othcr rcasons arc bascd
on thc military commandcrs gcncral authority undcr Articlc ol thc Haguc
.. See commcntary on Articlc 6 in !CRC, Commentary, Gene.a Con.ention (I!)
Felati.e to the Protection of Ci.ilian Persons in Time of !ar c. ( J.S. Pictct cd., .),
see also instcin, supra notc ac, at .., R.T. Yingling & R.V. Ginnanc, Tc Gcncva
537 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
Rcgulations to cnsurc public ordcr and salcty.
++6
Commcnting on this author
ity,
++
thc HCJ opincd that it is not rcstrictcd to situations ol combat and applics
as long as thc bclligcrcnt occupation continucs. Morcovcr, it applics not only to
protcctcd pcrsons within thc mcaning ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, but
rathcr to all rcsidcnts, without distinction bascd on idcntity: Jcws, Arabs, or lor
cigncrs.
++8
Tc HCJ strcsscd that thc military commandcrs duty to protcct thcir
livcs and thcir human rights dcrivcs lrom thc vcry lact ol thcir prcscncc in an
arca undcr his control.
Howcvcr, thc military commandcr is not lrcc to pcrlorm any activity on
militarysccurity grounds, as his authority is limitcd by thc duty to takc into
account humanitarian considcrations rclating to thc wcllarc ol thc local pop
ulation. Tcrclorc, cvcn il thc construction ol thc lcncc is justicd by sccurity
rcasons, its spccic routc must ncvcrthclcss considcr thc nccds ol thc local popu
lation. !n thc words ol thc HCJ:
Tc law ol bclligcrcnt occupation rccognizcs thc authority ol thc military com
mandcr to maintain sccurity in thc Arca and to protcct thc sccurity ol his
country and hcr citizcns. Howcvcr this authority must bc propcrly balanccd
against thc rights, nccds, and intcrcsts ol thc local population (para. ).
Tc HCJ cndorscd Prolcssor instcins opinion that thc laws ol war usually
crcatc a dclicatc balancc bctwccn two magnctic polcs: military ncccssity on
thc onc hand, and humanitarian considcrations on thc othcr.
++
Tc HCJ also
rclicd on thc humanitarian provisions cmbodicd in Articlc 6 ol thc Haguc
Convcntions ol ., 6 .J.I.L. , aa (.a), suggcsting that Articlc 6 is an clab
oration ol Articlc ol thc Haguc Rcgulations.
..6 Supra notc ,. Articlc rcads as lollows:
Tc authority ol thc lcgitimatc powcr having in lact passcd into thc hands
ol thc occupant, thc lattcr shall takc all thc mcasurcs in his powcr to rcstorc,
and cnsurc, as lar as possiblc, public ordcr and salcty, whilc rcspccting, unlcss
absolutcly prcvcntcd, thc laws in lorcc in thc country.
.., Y. instcin, Tc !sracl Suprcmc Court and thc Law ol 8clligcrcnt ccupation:
Articlc ol thc Haguc Rcgulations, a Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. ., .a.6 (.).
.. Tc HCJ rclics in this mattcr on its casclaw: H.C. ,a/6, Tzalum Casc, .(.) P.D.
a, a, summary in . Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. ,. (.), H.C. a,.,/6, Vala Casc, c(a)
P.D. , 6, summary in c Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. c (accc), H.C. a./ca, Gusin
Casc, 6() P.D. 6c, 6.., summary in a Isr. Y.B. Hum. Fts. , (acca).
.. Y. instcin, Lcgislativc Authority in thc Administcrcd Tcrritorics, a Tel .i.
Uni.. L. Fe.. c, c (Hcbrcw, .,).
538 Fania Domb
Rcgulations
+:o
and in Articlc a, ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion,
+:+
concluding
that thcy imposc a doublc obligation upon thc military commandcr: a ncgativc
obligation to rclrain lrom action that injurcs thc local inhabitants and a posi
tivc obligation to takc action in ordcr to cnsurc that thc local inhabitants shall
not bc injurcd. !n addition to thcsc lundamcntal provisions, additional provisions
dcal with spccics, such as thc scizurc ol land (Articlc a(g) and a ol thc Haguc
Rcgulations, Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion). Tcsc norms crcatc a
singlc tapcstry that rccognizcs both human rights and thc nccds ol thc local pop
ulation, as wcll as sccurity nccds lrom thc pcrspcctivc ol thc military commandcr.
As thcsc norms may oltcn clash, a balancc must bc lashioncd bctwccn thcm. Tc
propcr balancc is bascd on thc principlc ol proportionality.
D Te Principle of Proportionality
Tc HCJ adopts proportionality as a balancing principlc bctwccn thc nccds ol
thc local population and thc sccurity nccds ol thc occupying Statc bccausc it is
a basic principlc in intcrnational law in gcncral and in thc law ol bclligcrcnt
occupation in particular, and bccausc ol its rolc as a ccntral standard in !sracli
administrativc law, which applics to thc acts ol thc !sracli military commandcr
in thc Vcst 8ank.
Tc HCJ obscrvcs that thc principlc ol proportionality has oltcn bccn
applicd by thc Court as a standard rcstricting thc powcr ol thc military com
mandcr in many mattcrs, including: assignmcnt ol a placc ol rcsidcncc, surround
ing towns and posting chcckpoints on acccss roads in ordcr to prcvcnt tcrrorist
acts, injury to thc propcrty ol rcsidcnts duc to combat activitics ol thc !F,
dcclaration ol an arca as a closcd military arca, thc mcans uscd to protcct wor
shippcrs and thcir acccss to holy placcs, thc dcmolition ol houscs lor opcrational
nccds and lor dctcrrcncc purposcs, thc living conditions ol dctainccs in thc Arca,
arrcsts lor invcstigation and dcnial ol mccting a lawycr, thc sicgc ol thosc hiding
in holy placcs, and thc rcgulation ol thc rccording and idcntication ol rcsidcnts
ol thc Arca.
.ac Supra notc ,. Articlc 6 providcs as lollows:
Family honour and rights, thc livcs ol pcrsons, and privatc propcrty, as wcll as
rcligious convictions and practicc, must bc rcspcctcd. Privatc propcrty cannot
bc conscatcd.
.a. Supra notc . Articlc a, providcs that:
Protcctcd pcrsons arc cntitlcd, in all circumstanccs, to rcspcct lor thcir pcrsons,
thcir honour, thcir lamily rights, thcir rcligious convictions and practiccs, and
thcir manncrs and customs. Tcy shall at all timcs bc humancly trcatcd, and
shall bc protcctcd cspccially against all acts ol violcncc or thrcats thcrcol .
Howcvcr, thc Partics to thc conict may takc such mcasurcs ol control and
sccurity in rcgard to protcctcd pcrsons as may bc ncccssary as a rcsult ol thc
war.
539 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
i Tc Mcaning ol Proportionality and its SubTcsts
According to thc principlc ol proportionality, thc dccision ol an administrativc
body is lcgal only il thc mcans uscd to achicvc it arc in propcr proportion to
thc objcctivc. Tc spccic contcnt ol thc gcncral principlc ol proportionality is
dcncd by thrcc subtcsts:
+::

.) Tc suitablc mcans (or rational mcans) tcst providcs that thc mcans must
bc rclatcd to thc objcctivc, i.c., thc mcans uscd by an administrativc body
must rationally lcad to thc rcalization ol thc objcctivc.
a) Tc lcast injurious mcans tcst rcquircs that thc mcans uscd by an admin
istrativc body bc calibratcd so as to inict thc lcast possiblc injury, i.c., lrom
among thc mcans that may bc uscd to achicvc an objcctivc, thc lcast injuri
ous must bc cmploycd.
) Tc proportionatc mcans tcst (or proportionality in thc strict scnsc)
rcquircs that thc damagc causcd to an individual by thc mcans uscd in ordcr
to achicvc an objcctivc must bc in propcr proportion to thc bcnct gaincd by
that mcans. Tis tcst is commonly applicd in an absolutc manncr, whcrcby
thc bcnct ol an administrativc act is dircctly comparcd to thc damagc that
rcsults lrom it. Howcvcr, it is also possiblc to apply thc tcst in a rclativc
manncr, mcaning that an administrativc act is tcstcd visavis an altcrna
tivc act, whosc bcnct will bc somcwhat smallcr. Tus, thc original admin
istrativc act will bc considcrcd disproportionatc (in thc strict scnsc) il a
ccrtain rcduction in thc bcnct gaincd by choosing thc altcrnativc cnsurcs a
substantial rcduction in thc injury causcd.
Tc HCJ rulcd that thc mcans uscd by an administrativc authority arc propor
tionatc only il thc thrcc subtcsts arc cumulativcly satiscd.
ii Application ol thc Proportionality Tcsts to thc
Routc ol thc Fcncc
Tc HCJ rulcd in Beit Sourik and lfei Menashe that thc principlc ol proportion
ality also applics to thc cxcrcisc ol authority by a military commandcr in an arca
undcr bclligcrcnt occupation and, thcrclorc, applics to thc cxamination ol thc
lcgality ol thc scparation lcncc.
Following thc conclusion that thc lcncc is intcndcd to rcalizc a sccurity
objcctivc which thc military commandcr is authorizcd to achicvc, thc qucstion
ariscs whcthcr thc lcnccs routc is proportionatc. Tc HCJ opincd in both cascs
.aa For commcnts on thcsc subtcsts, see M. Cohcnliya, Tc Formal and thc
Substantivc Mcanings ol Proportionality in thc Suprcmc Courts ccision Rcgarding
thc Sccurity Fcncc, Isr. L. Fe.. a6a, a,6a (acc).
540 Fania Domb
that proportionality ol thc lcncc must bc asscsscd in light ol thrcc qucstions,
which rccct thc thrcc subtcsts ol proportionality:
.) ocs a rational conncction cxist bctwccn thc routc ol thc lcncc and thc goal
ol thc construction ol thc scparation lcncc:
a) From among thc various routcs which would achicvc thc objcctivc ol thc
scparation lcncc, is thc choscn mcans thc lcast injurious onc:
) ocs thc lcnccs routc injurc thc local inhabitants to thc cxtcnt that thcrc
is no propcr proportion bctwccn thc injury and thc sccurity bcnct dcrivcd
lrom thc lcncc:
According to thc rclativc application ol thc tcst, thc lcncc will bc lound dispro
portionatc il an altcrnatc routc (cnsuring a smallcr advantagc in tcrms ol sccurity
than thc routc choscn by thc rcspondcnt) is proposcd, providcd that thc altcrnatc
routc causcs signicantly lcss damagc than thc original onc.
Applying thcsc subtcsts, thc HCJ disqualicd lorty kilomctcrs ol various
scgmcnts ol thc lcncc cxamincd in Beit Sourik bccausc thcy did not mcct thc
third strict proportionality tcst. !n lfei Menashe, thc routc ol thc lcncc crcat
ing thc cnclavc complicd with thc rst proportionality tcst, but lailcd thc sccond
bccausc thc objcctivc ol sccuring Allci Mcnashc could bc achicvcd by an altcr
natc routc that would pass closcr to thc scttlcmcnt and lcavc thc Palcstinian vil
lagcs outsidc.
III Summary and Conclusion
Tc commonalitics, dicrcnccs and spccics involvcd in thc dccisions rcgarding
thc scparation lcncc may bc summarizcd as lollows:
.) 8oth Courts hcld that thc lcgal status ol thc Vcst 8ank is that ol bclligcrcnt
occupation. Howcvcr, whilc thc !CJ includcd ast Jcrusalcm in this status,
thc HCJ did not.
a) 8oth Courts hcld that an occupying Statc is not pcrmittcd to lorcibly anncx
an occupicd tcrritory, but thcy bascd this conclusion on dicrcnt grounds.
) 8oth Courts rulcd that thc .c, Haguc Rcgulations lorm part ol customary
intcrnational law and arc thcrclorc pcrtincnt in thc Vcst 8ank.
) 8oth Courts hcld that thc . Fourth Gcncva Convcntion is pcrtincnt to
thc Vcst 8ank. Howcvcr, whilc thc !CJ rulcd on its de jure application, thc
HCJ applicd it de facto, lollowing !sracls conscnt to such application.
) Vhilc thc HCJ rclicd on Articlc a(g) ol thc Haguc Rcgulations, thc !CJ
hcld that it is applicablc only during hostilitics, and thus not pcrtincnt to thc
Vcst 8ank.
6) Vhilc thc !CJ rulcd that thc construction ol thc lcncc lcd to conscation ol
propcrty contrary to Articlc 6 ol thc Haguc Rcgulations, thc HCJ rcplicd
that thc propcrty was only tcmporarily rcquisitioncd and was lollowcd by
paymcnt ol compcnsation.
541 19 Te Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ
,) 8oth Courts invokcd Articlc ol thc Fourth Gcncva Convcntion as rcl
cvant to dcstruction or rcquisition ol propcrty. Howcvcr, whilc thc !CJ con
cludcd that such acts wcrc not justicd by military cxigcncics, thc HCJ rulcd
that thcy had bccn justicd by military ncccssity.
) Vhilc thc !CJ rulcd that thc human rights convcntions to which !sracl is a
party arc applicablc to thc Vcst 8ank, thc HCJ agrccd to thcir application
to thc lcncc issuc as part ol thc applicablc law ol bclligcrcnt occupation.
) 8oth Courts concludcd that construction ol thc lcncc inlringcd various
rights ol thc Palcstinian inhabitants. Howcvcr, whilc thc !CJ spccicd thc
rights involvcd undcr intcrnational humanitarian and human rights law,
thc HCJ concludcd that thc lcncc injurcd thc Palcstinian inhabitants to a
dcgrcc that was disproportionatc to its sccurity objcctivc.
.c) Vhilc thc !CJ statcd that !sracli scttlcmcnts on thc Vcst 8ank wcrc illcgal,
thc HCJ did not cxprcss any position on thc issuc bccausc it rcgardcd thc
qucstion as irrclcvant to thc lcgality ol thc lcncc and its routc.
..) Vhilc thc !CJ discusscd and rcjcctcd as irrclcvant !sracls plca ol sclldclcnsc
undcr Articlc . ol thc UN Chartcr, thc HCJ did not discuss it bccausc it
was not raiscd in thc pctitions brought bclorc thc Court.
.a) Vhilc thc HCJ cxamincd thc lcnccs lcgality and routc in light ol thc scopc
ol a military commandcrs authority in an arca undcr bclligcrcnt occupation
and by application ol thc principlc ol proportionality, this approach was not
sharcd by thc !CJ.
!n conclusion, this articlc indicatcs an undisputablc point that thc !CJs Advisory
pinion on thc scparation lcncc is controvcrsial. !t is thcrclorc doubtlul whcthcr
it will bc widcly acccptcd as a corrcct statcmcnt, application and intcrprctation ol
thc rclcvant intcrnational law.
Chapter 20
8cncvolcnt Tird Statcs in !ntcrnational Armcd Conicts:
Tc Myth ol thc !rrclcvancc ol thc Law ol Ncutrality
!ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
Introduction
uring thc coursc ol pcration !raqi Frccdom (!F) Unitcd Statcs lorccs
uscd thcir bascs and installations on Gcrman tcrritory with thc conscnt ol thc
Govcrnmcnt ol thc Fcdcral Rcpublic ol Gcrmany. Mcmbcrs ol US armcd lorccs,
wcapons and othcr military cquipmcnt, as wcll as supplics, wcrc transportcd to
!raq via Gcrman tcrritory. Morcovcr, thc Gcrman Govcrnmcnt conscntcd to thc
usc ol Gcrman airspacc by US lorccs and Gcrman armcd lorccs wcrc ordcrcd to
guard US military installations in Gcrmany. Lastly, contingcnts ol thc Gcrman
Navy dcploycd to thc Mcditcrrancan (pcration Activc ndcavour) and to thc
sca o thc cast Alrican coastlinc (pcration nduring Frccdom) continucd to
cscort US vcsscls transporting troops and military cquipmcnt to thc thcatrc ol
war.
Tc Gcrman Govcrnmcnt tirclcssly cmphasizcd that it was mcrcly contrib
uting to sccuring thc Alliancc, but that it was not, and would ncvcr, contributc
to thc US warghting cort.
+
Vhilc maintaining that Gcrmany was not a party
to thc conict, thc Govcrnmcnt was anxious to avoid any rclcrcncc to ncutrality.
Tc cnsuing discussion in Gcrmany locuscd on thc allcgcd illcgality ol thc
attack on !raq and on whcthcr Gcrman conduct could bc charactcrizcd as assist
ing an intcrnationally wronglul act.
:
!n a rcccnt judgmcnt, howcvcr, thc Fcdcral
Administrativc Tribunal also cxamincd thc Govcrnmcnts position bascd on thc
. Scc thc statcmcnt by lormcr Gcrman Forcign Ministcr Fischcr in: Franklurtcr
Rundschau ol cccmbcr ., acca, at p. a. n March aa, acc, thc Fcdcral Govcrnmcnt
dcclarcd: Should Turkcy bccomc a party to thc conict a ncw situation would cxist
that would, according to thc position wc havc takcn lor months, rcsult in thc rcmoval
ol Gcrman occrs lrom NATs AVACS aircralt, scc http://www.auswacrtigcs
amt.dc/www/dc/inloscrvicc/prcssc/prcssc_archiv:archiv_id-a6 (last visitcd on
cccmbcr ., acc).
a Scc, inter alia, M. Bothe, cr !rakkricg und das volkcrrcchtlichc Gcwaltvcrbot, in: .
Archiv dcs \olkcrrcchts aa,. (acc).
M.N. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring the Faultlines
C :cc, Koninklijke Brill B!. Printed in Te Netherlands. ISBN ,,8 ,cc,z, :8 . pp. ,-o8.
544 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
law ol ncutrality.

Tc Tribunal concludcd that thc Gcrman Govcrnmcnt had not

only assistcd in an illcgal attack on !raq but had, morcovcr, violatcd its obligations
undcr thc law ol ncutrality.
Tc Fcdcral Administrativc Tribunals position would appcar to bc unloundcd
il onc takcs into account that Gcrmanys attitudc towards !F closcly rcscmblcd
that ol a numbcr ol third Statcs visavis postVorld Var !! intcrnational armcd
conicts. Statc practicc sincc . sccms to justily thc conclusion that thc law ol
ncutrality is now obsolctc duc to dcrogation, or applics only il thcrc is a statc ol
war propcr, or il a third Statc not activcly participating in hostilitics has lormally
dcclarcd its ncutrality. As a rcsult, third Statcs would in thc majority ol intcrna
tional armcd conicts bc allowcd to bcncvolcntly lavor onc ol thc partics to thc
conict, i.c. bc considcrcd nonbclligcrcnt.
Tc prcscnt contribution aims to show that allcgations ol dcrogation ol thc
law ol ncutrality arc, to say thc lcast, prcmaturc and that thcrc is no basis lor con
ccpts such as bcncvolcnt ncutrality or nonbclligcrcncy. Tis is not to say that
postVorld Var !! Statc practicc has bccn without ccct on this body ol law,
only that thc modication has not rcsultcd in a lcgal vacuum pcrmitting Statcs
to act at will.
I Non-Belligerency and Neutrality in International Iaw
Until thc bcginning ol thc ac
th
ccntury thc jus ad bellum rccognizcd thc sovcr
cign right ol Statcs to rcsort to war and to continuc political commcrcc by othcr
mcans, i.c. by usc ol military lorcc. uring that timc it was bcyond doubt, at lcast
in thcory, that third Statcs could only choosc bctwccn ncutrality and bclligcrcncy.
Statcs not taking part in an ongoing war wcrc considcrcd to bc bound by Haguc
Convcntions \ and X!!! ol .c,.

Howcvcr, thc intcrnational systcm changcd

considcrably with thc lounding ol thc Lcaguc ol Nations and thc adoption ol thc
Kcllogg8riand Pact. !n light ol thcsc dcvclopmcnts, a growing numbcr ol intcr
national lawycrs bcgan to claim that thcrc was no room lor strict ncutrality. !t
was said that third Statcs wcrc cithcr cntitlcd to activcly assist a victim ol aggrcs
sion or wcrc, at a minimum, obligcd to dicrcntiatc bctwccn thc bclligcrcnts by
adopting a bcncvolcnt position towards thc victim Statc.

Fcdcral Administrativc Tribunal, Judgmcnt 8\crwG a V .a.c ol Junc aa, acc,

availablc in Gcrman at http://www.bvcrwg.dc.
Printcd in: ocumcnts on thc Laws ol Var, at , and .a,
rd
cd., . Foberts and F.
Guel (cds.) (xlord acc.).
. Ca.aglieri, 8clligcrcnza, Ncutralita c Positioni Giuridichc !ntcrmcdic, Rivista di
iritto !ntcrnazionalc . (Scr. !! \ol. , ..), at ., a6a, , .S. de Bustamente
y Sir.en, roit !ntcrnational Public, Tomc , at . ct scq. (Paris .,), T. Komarnicki,
RdC c (z,: I), ., at . l., scc also IL, 8udapcst Articlcs ol !ntcrprctation ol
thc 8riandKcllogg Pact, !LA Rcport th Conlcrcncc, 8udapcst ., 66 ct scq.
545 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
Altcr a short pcriod ol initial cuphoria
6
thc numbcr ol thosc advocating
nonbclligcrcncy as a spccial lcgal status dccrcascd. Tc conccpt

rccmcrgcd
whcn thc US adoptcd thc Ncutrality Act ol ..
8
Undcr thc Act, US allics wcrc
cntitlcd to acquirc important goods on a cashandcarry basis, whilc Gcrmany
and hcr allics wcrc dcnicd that right. Subscqucntly, i.c. bclorc its ocial cntry
into thc Sccond Vorld Var, thc US

did not connc itscll to cconomically assist

ing Grcat 8ritain. For cxamplc, US Coast Guard vcsscls participatcd, albcit indi
rcctly, in mcasurcs dircctcd against Gcrman vcsscls.
+o
uring thc cvacuation ol
unkirk a unit ol US warships was scnt to Lisbon to protcct Amcrican intcr
csts by prcvcnting Frcnch gold lrom lalling into thc hands ol thc Axis Powcrs.
Tc US Govcrnmcnt had ocially purchascd thc gold to cnablc Francc to acquirc
Amcrican wcapons. (!t may bc addcd that thc wcapons wcrc ncvcr dclivcrcd.
++
) n
Scptcmbcr , .c, thc socallcd cstroycr cal was announccd.
+:
Finally, on
Vith rcgard to thc position takcn by US intcrnational lawycrs scc Ph. C. Jessup,
Ncutrality: !ts History, conomics and Law, \ol. !\, at .a. ct scq. (Ncw York .6),
P. Fauchille, Trait dc roit !ntcrnational Public, Tomc !!: Gucrrc ct Ncutralit, at
6 (
imc
cd., Paris .a.), P. de la Pradelle, Lvolution dc la ncutralit, in: . Rcvuc
dc roit !ntcrnational .,aa., at a.c (.), J. Fischer !illiams, Sanctions undcr
thc Covcnant, in: ., 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational Law .c., at . ct scq.
(.6).
6 Scc also Ph. C. Jessup, (supra notc ), Fauchille (supra notc ), at 6 ct scq., de la
Pradelle (supra notc ), at a.c.
, Undcr thc Scnatcs Joint Fesolution ol January ., . (thc socallcd Borah
Rcsolution), thc U.S. Prcsidcnt was cntitlcd to proclaim that thc US was adopting a
status ol nonbclligcrcncy. Howcvcr, thc right to imposc an arms cmbargo on onc ol
thc partics to a conict was latcr abolishcd by a strict duty ol impartiality. Tcrclorc,
during thc Chaco crisis lor cxamplc, thc US Govcrnmcnt was not allowcd to dil
lcrcntiatc bctwccn thc partics to that conict. Tc Ncutrality Act ol . subjcctcd
thc cxports ol arms and ammunition to strict control mcasurcs. Scc Ph.C. Jessup
(supra notc ), at .a .; E.M Borchard!.P. Lage, Ncutrality lor thc Unitcd Statcs,
at . (a
nd
cd., Ncw Havcn .c). Tc unilatcral arms cmbargo imposcd on !taly by
scvcral mcmbcrs ol thc Lcaguc ol Nations was thc only cxamplc ol intcrnational
rccognition ol a status ol nonbclligcrcncy. Scc I.F. !allas, ic volkcrrcchtlichc
Zulassigkcit dcr Ausluhr kricgswichtigcr Gutcr aus ncutralcn Staatcn, at . ct scq.
(Hamburg .,c).
Printcd in: AJ!L ct scq. (.c). Scc also !.P. Deac, Amcricas Undcclarcd Naval
Var, in: , U.S. Naval !nstitutc Procccdings, ,c,, at , (ctobcr .6.), Ph.C Jessup,
Tc Ncutrality Act

ol ., in: AJ!L (.c), Q. !right, Rights and utics

undcr !ntcrnational Law, in: AJ!L aa (.c).
At thc bcginning ol Vorld Var !! !taly, Spain and Turkcy also adoptcd a position ol
dicrcntiatcd ncutrality. Scc D. Schindler, Aspccts contcmporains dc la ncutralit,
in .a. Rcccuil dcs Cours a6 (.6, !!).
.c Cl. !.P. Deac (supra notc ), at , ct scq.
.. Ibid., at ,.
.a cpt. ol Statc 8ullctin \ol. , ac. (, Scptcmbcr .c), printcd in: AJ!L ,6, (..
Suppl.). Scc also thc critical cvaluations by H.!. Briggs, Ncglcctcd Aspccts ol thc
546 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
March .., .., with thc adoption ol Lend Lease ct, thc US gavc up any prctcnsc
ol impartiality.
+
US Attorncy Gcncral Jackson justicd thc US position on
March a,, .., by rclcrring to thc right ol nonparticipants to discriminatc against a
lawbrcakcr and by rclying on thc just war doctrinc.
+
!ndccd, Hugo Grotius bclicvcd that third Statcs wcrc obligcd to rclrain lrom
acts lavoring a bclligcrcnt whosc causc was unjust:
orum, qui a bcllo abstincnt, ocium cst, nihil laccrc, quo validior at is, qui
improbam lovct causam, aut quo justum bcllum gcrcntis motus impcdiantur.
+

Tat position was, howcvcr, rcjcctcd by Bynkershoek in thc .
th
ccntury. According
to him, thc justncss or unjustncss ol a causc is without prcjudicc to thc ncutrals posi
tion:
Si rcctc judico, bclli justitia vcl injustitia nihil quicquam pcrtinct ad communcm
amicum, cjus non cst, intcr utrumquc amicum, sibi inviccm hostcm, lcdcrc
judiccm, & cx causa acquiorc vcl iniquiorc huic illivc plus minusvc tribucrc vcl
ncgarc. Si mcdius sim, altcri non possum prodcssc, ut altcri noccam. Scd, ajcs,
utriquc mittam, quicquid mihi vidcbitur, & sic postulat ratio amicitiac, si, quod
altcri miscram, illc utatur in ncccm altcrius, quid ad mc: At tu noli sic sapcrc,
quin potius crcdc, amicorum nostrorum hostcs bilariam considcrandos cssc, vcl
ut amicos nostros, vcl ut amicorum nostrorum hostcs. Si ut amicos considcrcs,
rcctc nobis iis adcssc liccrct opc consilio, cosquc juvarc militc auxiliari, armis,
cstroycr cal, in: AJ!L 6, (.c), E. Borchard, Thc Attorncy Gcncrals
pinion on thc xchangc ol cstroycrs lor Naval 8ascs, ibid. 6c6,, L.H. !oolsey,
Govcrnmcnt Trac in Contraband, ibid. c. Scc also thc morc lavorablc cvaluation
by Q. !right, Tc Translcr ol cstroycrs to Grcat 8ritain, ibid., 6c6.
. Cl. !.P. Deac (supra notc ) at ,, Q. !right, Tc Lcnd Lcasc 8ill and !ntcrnational Law,
in: AJ!L, c. (..).
. Printcd in: AJ!L ct scq. (..). Scc also Q. !right, Tc Prcscnt Status ol Ncutrality,
in: AJ!L .., at ca: !l ncithcr ol thcsc cvcnts |dctcrmination ol brcachcs ol intcr
national law| occurs, thc mattcr has bccn, in practicc, lclt to thc sclldctcrmination ol
cach statc. ach onc is judgc in his own casc, a condition ol anarchy which, unlortunatcly,
intcrnational law has tolcratcd. Clcarly il cach nonparticipant in hostilitics individu
ally passcs on thc guilt or innoccncc ol thc participants and discriminatcs against thc statc
which it thinks has illcgally rcsortcd to hostilitics, thc various nonparticipants may dccidc
dicrcntly, and thcrc may bc scrious conlusion. || 8ut |....| thc jural situation bccomcs,
undcr modcrn conditions, cqually conluscd il nonparticipating statcs unilatcrally dccidc
that nonc ol thc participants in hostilitics havc brokcn obligations, and so proclaim ncutral
ity. Paranthcscs addcd by thc author.
. Hugo Grotius, c iurc bclli ac pacis libri trcs, Libcr !!!, Caput .,, para. . For thc
nglish translation ol this paragraph by F.!. Kelsey, scc: Classics ol !ntcrnational Law, cd. by J.B.
Scott, xlord .a: !t is thc dutics ol thosc who kccp out ol a war to do nothing whcrcby hc who
supports a wickcd causc may bc rcndcrcd morc powcrlul, or whcrcby thc movcmcnts ol him
who wagcs a just war may bc hampcrcd.
547 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
& quibuscunquc aliis, quibus in bcllo opus habcnt. Quatcnus autcm amicorum
nostrorum hostcs sunt, id nobis laccrc non licct, quia sic altcrum altcri in bcllo
praclcrrcmus, quod vctat acqualitas amicitiac, cui in primus studcndum cst.
+6

Vhilc thc US Attorncy Gcncrals position was challcngcd cvcn in thc U.S,
+
thc
US position prior to its cntry into Vorld Var !! is considcrcd to havc sct a prcc
cdcnt
+8
in tcrms ol intcrnational rccognition ol an intcrmcdiatc status ol non
bclligcrcncy.
+
Vith thc adoption ol thc UN Chartcr and its Articlc a() prohibition on
thc usc ol lorcc, an incrcasing numbcr ol intcrnational lawycrs took thc position
that thc right ol nonparticipating Statcs to rcmain strictly ncutral has bccn con
sidcrably rcstrictcd or modicd.
:o
Tcy maintain that thc traditional law ol ncu
.6 Cornelius .an Bynkershoek, Quacstionum juris publici libri duo, Libcr !, Caput !X, p.
6 (Lcydcn .,,). For thc nglish translation ol this paragraph by T. Frank, scc: Classics ol
!ntcrnational Law, cd. by J.8. Scott, xlord .c: !n my judgcmcnt, thc qucstion ol justicc
and injusticc docs not conccrn thc ncutral, and it is not his duty to sit in judgcmcnt
bctwccn his lricnds who may bc ghting cach othcr, and to grant or dcny anything
to cithcr bclligcrcnt through considcrations ol thc rclativc dcgrcc ol justicc. !l ! am
a ncutral ! may not lcnd aid to onc to an cxtcnt that brings injury to thc othcr. 8ut,
you say, ! will scnd to both whatcvcr ! choosc, lor thus lricndship rcquircs, and il
onc uscs lor thc dcstruction ol thc othcr thc things ! scnd, that is not my lault. 8ut
you must not adopt such an opinion. Vc must rathcr considcr thc cncmics ol our
lricnds lrom two dicrcnt points ol vicw, not only as our lricnds, but also as cncmics
ol our lricnds. !l wc considcr thcm only as lricnds wc may propcrly hclp thcm with
advicc, with troops, arms, and whatcvcr clsc thcy nccd in war. 8ut in so lar as thcy
arc cncmics ol our lricnds wc may not do this, bccausc wc would thcn show prclcr
cncc to onc sidc in thc war, and this thc cquality ol lricndship, which has rst claim,
lorbids.
., H.!. Briggs (supra notc .a) AJ!L at 6, n. a (.c), E. Borchard, in: AJ!L at 6a.
(..).
. A lurthcr cxamplc is thc 8ritish and Frcnch position during thc RussoFinnish
Vintcr Var (./c). 8oth Statcs lurnishcd Finland with arms and ammuni
tion. Norway and Swcdcn allowcd thcir tcrritorics to bc uscd lor thc translcr ol thc
8ritish and Frcnch subsidics. Morcovcr, Swcdcn itscll dclivcrcd arms and scnt vol
untccrs across its bordcrs. Cl. I.F. !allas (supra notc ,), at ct scq.
. E. Lauterpacht, Tc Lcgal !rrclcvancc ol thc Statc ol Var, in: 6a Proc. AS!L,
6, at 6 (.6); F.F. Coudert, Non8clligcrcncy in !ntcrnational Law, in: a \irginia
Law Rcvicw ... (.a). Vith rcgard to thc U.S. position scc also N. Or.ik, Tc
cclinc ol Ncutrality ...., at . ct scq. (a
nd
cd., London .,.).
ac D. Schindler (supra notc ), in: .a. RdC at a6. ct scq. (.6, !!), K. Skubis.e.ski, Usc
ol Forcc by Statcs: Collcctivc Sccurity, Law ol Var and Ncutrality, in: Manual ol
Public !ntcrnational Law, at c ct scq. (M. Sorcnscn, cd., Ncw York .6); Ph.C
Jessup, in: AJ!L ct scq. (.), AJ!L, (.c), AJ!L, ct scq. (.),
Q. !right, J L (.c), a ., .., 6 ., F.F. Coudert (supra notc .), a
\irginia Law Rcvicw . ct scq. (.a), . Gioia, Ncutrality and Non8clligcrcncy,
in: !ntcrnational conomic Law and Armcd Conict, ...c (H.H.G. Post, cd.,
ordrccht .), O. Bring, Commcnts, in: Tc Gull Var .c.c, aa6, at a
548 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
trality is inadcquatc to mcct modcrn rcquircmcnts
:+
and thcrclorc considcr that
third Statcs arc cntitlcd to adopt a position ol bcncvolcnt/dicrcntial ncutral
ity in cascs whcrc onc party to a conict has violatcd thc jus ad bellum.
::
Statc practicc sincc . sccms to conrm that vicw.
:
!n postVorld Var
!! intcrnational armcd conicts Statcs not partics havc rarcly complicd with
thc comparativcly strict rulcs ol thc law ol ncutrality laid down in .c, Haguc
Convcntions \ and X!!!. !nstcad, thcy havc morc or lcss opcnly supportcd onc
ol thc bclligcrcnt partics, cithcr cconomically or militarily.
uring thc !ran!raq war (.c.) thc majority ol Statcs not partics to
thc conict dcncd thcir position as ncutral.
:
nly Francc, Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait did not lccl bound by
,
thc laws ol ncutrality bccausc thcy had, morc or lcss
ocially, adoptcd a position ol nonbclligcrcncy.
:
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
assistcd !raqs warghting and warsustaining corts by mcans ol considcrablc
nancial subsidics that cnablcd !raq to, inter alia, purchasc Sovict wcapons. !n
addition, Saudi Arabia pcrmittcd its ports to bc uscd to translcr war matcrial
dcstincd lor !raq. !raqi oil was cxportcd via Saudi Arabian pipclincs.
:6
cspitc its
(L.F. DekkerH.H.G. Post, cds., ordrccht .a), G.M. Melko., Ncutrality in Var, in:
Sovict Ycarbook ol !ntcrnational Law a,a. (.,).
a. For cxamplc, Ph.C. Jessup warncd: |w|c should bc surc that wc do not incrcasc thc
numbcr ol obstaclcs by a rigid adhcrcncc to traditional conccpts which may havc
bccn thc product ol historical situations which do not havc thcir countcrpart today,
AJ!L .c, .c (.).
aa Scc thc rclcrcnccs supra in notc . ct scq. Furthcr L. Oppenheim, !ntcrnational Law
\ol. !!, at 6. (,
th
cd. by H. Lauterpacht, London .6).
a For an ovcrvicw ol postVorld Var !! Statc practicc scc P.M. Norton, 8ctwccn thc
!dcology and thc Rcality: Tc Shadow ol thc Law ol Ncutrality, in: ., Harvard Law
Journal a.., at a ct scq. (.,6), H.S. Le.ie, Tc Falklands Crisis and thc Laws
ol Var, in: Tc Falklands Var, 6,,, at , ct scq. (cd. by A.R. Coll/A.G Arcnd,
8oston .), M. Jenkins, Air Attacks on Ncutral Shipping in thc Pcrsian Gull: Tc
Lcgality ol thc !raqi xclusion Zonc and !ranian Rcprisals, in: 8oston Collcgc
!ntcrnational & Comparativc Law Rcvicw .,, at a ct scq. (.), . GioiaN.
Fon.itti, Tc Law ol Ncutrality: Tird Statcs Commcrcial Rights and utics, in:
Tc Gull Var .c. (supra notc ac), aa.aa, at aaa ct scq., F. Ottmuller, ic
Anwcndung von Scckricgsrccht in militarischcn Koniktcn scit ., at , ct scq.
(Hamburg .,), F.. Boyle, !ntcrnational Crisis and Ncutrality: U.S. Forcign Policy
Toward thc !raq!ran Var, in: Ncutrality Changing Conccpts and Practiccs,
6, at 6 ct scq. (cd. by A.T. Lconhard, Lanham .), F.!. Fusso, Ncutrality at Sca
in Transition: Statc Practicc in thc Gull Var as mcrging !ntcrnational Customary
Law, in: . ccan cvclopmcnt and !ntcrnational Law . (.), B.. Boc.ek,
Law ol Varlarc at Sca and Ncutrality: Lcssons lrom thc Gull Var, in: ac ccan
cvclopmcnt and !ntcrnational Law a,at a6 (.).
a Cl. . GioiaN. Fon.itti (supra notc a), at aaa.
a Scc also , cpt. ol Statc 8ullctin . (August .,), Ncthcrlands Ycarbook ol
!ntcrnational Law c (.).
a6 Cl. F.!. Fusso, (supra notc a) . !L at (.).
549 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
traditional policy ol not cxporting war matcrial to rcgions acctcd by war, Francc
bccamc onc ol !raqs most important wcapons supplicrs.
:
Although othcr Statcs had ocially dcclarcd thcmsclvcs to bc strictly ncu
tral, thcir actual conduct was not always in accordancc with thc laws ol ncutral
ity.
Rcpcatcdly dcclaring that its policy was onc ol ncutrality, thc Unitcd Statcs
cmphasizcd that no sidc would bc supplicd with war matcrial, cithcr dircctly or
indircctly.
:8
Howcvcr, !ran was initially morc scvcrcly acctcd by US rcstrictions
than !raq.
:
(Tc !ranContra aair rcvcalcd that !ran had ncvcrthclcss managcd
to acquirc wcapons in cxchangc lor Amcrican hostagcs.
o
) cially, cxports to
!ran wcrc subjcct to scvcrc rcstrictions undcr antitcrrorism lcgislation.
+
Vith
rcgard to !raq, thc US dcclarcd that it would assist that country in maintaining its
dclcnsc capabilitics.
:
Hcncc, in ctobcr ., a liccnsc pcrmitting thc cxport ol
a, Cl. Ch. Fousseau, Chroniquc dcs laits intcrnationaux, in: Rcvuc Gnralc dc roit
!ntcrnational Public, .,, (..). Scc also a, Annuairc Franais dc roit !ntcrnational,
(..), \ol. a, .c (.a), \ol. a, , c (.), \ol. c, ., .c.a (.), \ol. .,
6a (.), \ol. , c. (.). Prior to thc outbrcak ol hostilitics in .c Francc had
alrcady assistcd !raq in its cort to looscn dcpcndcncc on Sovict dclivcrics. arly
Frcnch dclivcrics altcr .c wcrc justicd by rclcrcncc to contracts that had bccn
signcd prior to thc commcnccmcnt ol activc hostilitics.
a , U.S. cpt. ol Statc 8ullctin . (August .,), \ol. ., ., ( July ..), \ol. a,
( July .a), \ol. , ( July .), \ol. , , (April .), \ol. 6, . (March .6),
\ol. ,, , 6a, 66 ( July .,), \ol. , 6. ( July .). Scc, howcvcr, F.. Boyle (supra
notc a, at ,c) who statcs that thcrc wcrc scvcral indications lrom thc public rccord
that thc Cartcr Administration tacitly condoncd, il not activcly cncouragcd, thc !raqi
invasion ol !ran in Scptcmbcr ol .c bccausc ol thc administrations shortsightcd
bclicl that thc prcssurcs ol bclligcrcncy might cxpcditc rclcasc ol thc U.S. diplo
matic hostagcs hcld by Tchran sincc Novcmbcr ol .,. Prcsumably thc !raqi army
could rcndcr !ranian oil clds inopcrablc and, unlikc Amcrican marincs, do so with
out provoking thc Sovict Union to cxcrcisc its allcgcd right ol countcrintcrvcntion
undcr Articlcs and ol thc RussoPcrsian Trcaty ol Fricndship.
a Tat was duc to thc U.S. tradc cmbargo imposcd in rcsponsc to thc taking ol
Amcrican hostagcs in Tchran. Scc c cpt. ol Statc 8ullctin . ct scq. (May .c).
Altcr thc hostagcs rclcasc thc tradc cmbargo was rclaxcd, but an arms cmbargo was
maintaincd. Scc . cpt ol Statc 8ullctin .., . (Fcbruary ..), \ol. ,, 6, ct scq., ,a
( January .,, \ol. , , ct scq. (March .).
c Cl. .T. Leonhard, !ntroduction (supra notc a), at , F.. Boyle (supra notc a), at .
ct scq.
. Fcdcral Rcgistcr .c (a Scptcmbcr .), a ., . Fcdcral Rcgistcr .c (
Junc .6), ac6 L, . Fcdcral Rcgistcr . (. ctobcr .6), 6,ca l., a Fcdcral
Rcgistcr .c (. ctobcr .,), 6,, 6,6 l, a Fcdcral Rcgistcr aa (a, Novcmbcr
.,), c ., cpt. ol Statc 8ullctin \ol (Novcmbcr .), 6.
a , cpt. ol Statc 8ullctin 66 ( July .,). Tc U.S. had madc clcar at thc bcginning ol
. alrcady that an !raqi dclcat would bc contrary to U.S. intcrcsts and that it would
takc stcps to prcvcnt it.
550 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
Bell :z, ST hclicoptcrs partly suitcd lor military usc

was issucd. !n .6 and

., !raq was supplicd with inlormation gathcrcd by US satcllitcs and AVACS
aircralt that had bccn dcploycd to Saudi Arabia.

Tc uropcan Communitics
had also imposcd an arms cmbargo on !ran in April .c. Tc cmbargo was
rcscindcd altcr thc rclcasc ol thc Amcrican hostagcs.
vcn though it had dcclarcd it was ncutral in thc conict, thc lormcr Sovict
Union rcsumcd arms cxports to !raq altcr a lutilc attcmpt to normalizc rclations
with Tchran.

!t was thus charactcrizcd as 8aghdads largcst supplicr ol military

cquipmcnt and a kcy sourcc ol cconomic aid.
6
Tc Unitcd Kingdoms position was lairly clcar. Tc salc ol arms and military
cquipmcnt was subjcct to strict controls undcr national lcgislation modicd to
cnsurc impartiality. No arms, ammunition or any othcr lcthal cquipmcnt wcrc
cxportcd to cithcr party to thc conict.

Howcvcr, in . !raq acquircd matc
rial lor chcmical dclcnsc lrom thc UK. !ranian allcgations that thc UK had also
dclivcrcd chcmical wcapons wcrc strongly rcjcctcd by thc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt.
8

!n ctobcr . thc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt publishcd guidclincs lor cxports to !ran
and to !raq. vcn though it maintaincd thc prohibition on lcthal cquipmcnt,
thc Govcrnmcnt statcd it would ncvcrthclcss attcmpt to lulll cxisting contracts
and obligations. !t addcd that it would not approvc ol ordcrs lor any dclcncc
cquipmcnt which in HM Govcrnmcnts vicw, would signicantly cnhancc thc
capability ol cithcr sidc to prolong or cxaccrbatc thc conict.

Vith rcgard to an
cxport crcdits agrccmcnt signcd on Scptcmbcr a, .,, thc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt
statcd that it would not contributc to !raqs war cort as it only covcrcd cngincs,
scrviccs, mcdical and othcr humanitarian goods.
o
uring thc Falklands/Malvinas conict, thc US did not charactcrizc its
position as nonbclligcrcnt. Altcr US Sccrctary ol Statc Haig tricd in vain to
mcdiatc bctwccn thc Unitcd Kingdom and Argcntina, thc US Administration
announccd it would assist Grcat 8ritain cconomically and militarily.
+
n April
a, .a, thc Scnatc dcclarcd that thc Unitcd Statcs cannot stay ncutral. n
Tc Rcagan Administration also issucd a liccnsc pcrmitting thc cxport ol six Lockheed
L-zcc aircralt and, latcr, ol six small jcts. Cl. F.. Boyle (supra notc a), at , ct scq.
B.. Boc.ek (supra notc a) at a6, F.. Boyle (supra notc a), at ,c ct scq.
Cl. S!PR! Ycarbook, at a, ct scq. (Stockholm .,).
6 M.H. m.acost, U.S. Sovict Rclations: Tcsting Gorbachcvs Ncw Tinking, ,
cpt. ol Statc 8ullctin 6 ct scq., (Scptcmbcr .,).
, Cl. a 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational Law ac (..), , (.a), , (.),
, , (.), 6, (.), ,, 6 (.6), , 6 (.,).
Cl. 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational Law (.).
Cl. 6 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational Law (.), ,, 6 (.6), , 6
(.,).
c Cl. . GioiaN. Fon.itti (supra notc a), at ac, n. ,.
. Cl. H.S. Le.ie (supra notc a) at , ct scq.
551 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
May , .a, thc Housc ol Rcprcscntativcs issucd a similar dcclaration and assurcd
Grcat 8ritain ol lull diplomatic support |...| in its cort to uphold thc rulc ol
law. Grcat 8ritain rcccivcd logistical and opcrational assistancc lrom thc US
during thc conict. Although thc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt rcjcctcd Argcntinc allc
gations that 8ritains victory was duc mainly to massivc military assistancc,
:
it is
bcyond doubt that US assistancc compriscd:

Fuel. As part ol a routinc agrccmcnt, thc US scnt .. million gallons ol avia

tion lucl to thc joint US8ritish airbasc on Asccnsion !sland.

!t also madc
KC-z acrial tankcrs availablc to 8ritain, cvcn though thcsc wcrc ncvcr scnt
to thc South Atlantic. !nstcad, thc RAF uscd its own KC-zs lor midair
rclucling of !ulcan bombcrs making thc ,ccmilc trip lrom Asccnsion to
thc Falklands, whilc US plancs in uropc wcrc rcassigncd to 8ritish NAT
dutics.
mmunition. Tc US sold an unspccicd quantity ol acmm shclls and sup
plicd sonarcquippcd buoys lor usc in antisubmarinc warlarc. !t is not, how
cvcr, clcar whcthcr any ol this cquipmcnt was cvcr uscd on thc islands.
Missiles. Tc US sold about zcc IM-,L Side.inder missilcs. l thc a,
Side.inders rcd lrom Harriers during thc war, a scorcd hits. Tcsc, how
cvcr, wcrc probably 8ritish missilcs, thc U.S. supplicd Side.inders wcrc
apparcntly uscd only to rcplcnish invcntorics in 8ritain. Highly ccctivc
lascr targct indicators lor 8ritish ground lorccs and a radar systcm lor thc
Royal Navys Sea.olf SAMs wcrc also supplicd.
Intelligence and Communications. As a NAT ally, 8ritain always had rcgu
lar acccss to thc U.S. built clcnsc Satcllitc Communications Systcm that
rclays cncryptcd mcssagcs around thc world. Routinc inlormation lrom US
mctcorological satcllitcs was also availablc, although thc satcllitcs ccctivc
ncss was scvcrcly limitcd by bad wcathcr ovcr thc South Atlantic.
cspitc thc assistancc, a 8ritish rcqucst lor an undiscloscd numbcr ol US
AVACSs was rcjcctcd on thc grounds that Amcrican scrviccmcn, who would
havc had to man thc aircralt, should not gct involvcd in thc conict.
!t should also bc notcd that thc . Gcncva Convcntions and thc .,, First
Additional Protocol makc a distinction bctwccn ncutral and Statcs not partics
a According to Time Maga.ine a 8ritish ocial statcd: All thcsc claims that U.S.
tcchnology won thc Falklands war lor 8ritain arc nonscnsc. !t playcd a part, and wc
arc gratclul lor that, but it was not thc dccisivc clcmcnt in our victory. Scc Time
Maga.ine ol Junc a, .a, Spccial Scction: Just How Much id thc U.S. hclp:.
Ibid.
Tc usc ol thc air basc had bccn agrccd on in thc trcaty ol August a, .6a on
thc Usc ol Vidcawakc Aircld in Asccnsion !sland by Unitcd Kingdom Military
Aircralt (. UST ..,, T!AS ., UNTS .,,).
552 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
to thc conict.

Furthcr, with thc modcrn jus ad bellum distinguishing at lcast in

thcory bctwccn lawlul and unlawlul usc ol lorcc or rathcr bctwccn lawlul and
unlawlul wars
6
Statcs arc cntitlcd to support thc victim ol aggrcssion undcr
thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc. !n sum, thcrc sccm to bc vcry good rcasons lor
rccognizing a spccial, intcrmcdiatc, status bctwccn bclligcrcncy and ncutrality.

!l Statcs arc cntitlcd to militarily assist a victim ol aggrcssion by activcly joining
in thc hostilitics, thcn a fortiori thcy must bc cntitlcd to distinguish bctwccn thc
aggrcssor and assist thc allcgcd victim by mcans short ol war.
Somc authors rclusc to rccognizc thc conccpt ol nonbclligcrcncy by
maintaining that, undcr thc UN systcm, Statcs arc not cntitlcd to autonomously
dctcrminc that aggrcssion has occurrcd.
8
Howcvcr, thc Sccurity Councils rcspon
sibility lor intcrnational pcacc and sccurity docs not cxcludc mcmbcr Statcs right
to indcpcndcntly cvaluatc thc lcgality ol usc ol lorcc il thc Council is unablc
to act undcr Chaptcr \!!.

Tc Councils rcsponsibility is mcrcly primary, not

cxclusivc. Statcs not partics to a conict arc thcrclorc cntitlcd to activcly support
onc sidc in accordancc and within thc limits ol thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc.
Howcvcr, thcy will havc to idcntily thc aggrcssor or lawbrcakcr. !t lollows that
thc UN Chartcr docs not sccm to imposc an absolutc duty ol ncutrality and that
ncutrality is a lacultativc position.
!t is ncvcrthclcss doubtlul whcthcr thc right to gct involvcd in an armcd
conict by rclcrcncc to thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc justics thc conclusion
that, de majore ad minus, nonparticipating Statcs arc also lrcc to opcnly discrimi
natc against a party to an intcrnational armcd conict. Tcorctically, thc Chartcr
docs not cxcludc a position ol nonbclligcrcncy il thc bcncvolcnt ncutral
cxprcssly justics its bchavior by rclcrcncc to Articlc .. !t would havc to dcmon
stratc that it considcrs thc assistcd Statc thc victim ol an illcgal attack and that it
was willing to support that Statc by mcans short ol war. Howcvcr, a nonbcl
ligcrcnts position would bc similar to that ol a Statc that has lormally dcclarcd
war against onc ol thc partics without activcly joining in thc armcd strugglc. Tc
dicrcncc bctwccn a bcncvolcnt ncutral and thc partics to a conict would lic
.g., Articlcs a lit. (c), para. a lit. (a), ., aa para. a lit. (a), para. ., and 6 ol thc
.,, Additional Protocol !.
6 J.L. Kun., 8cllum Justum and 8cllum Lcgalc, in: AJ!L a (..). Scc also
F.!. Tucker, Tc Law ol Var and Ncutrality at Sca, at ct scq. (Vashington .C.
.,).
, K. Skubis.e.ski (supra notc ac), at c l., D. Schindler (supra notc ), in: .a. RdC at
a6 ct scq. (.6, !!).
I. Seidl-Hohen.eldern, cr 8cgri dcr Ncutralitat in dcn bcwanctcn Koniktcn
dcr Gcgcnwart, in: Um Rccht und Frcihcit. Fcstschrilt v.d Hcydtc, 6., at 6
(cd. by H. Kipp et al., 8crlin .,,), bclicvcs that dicrcntial ncutrality is a scll
contradiction.
H. Kelsen, Collcctivc Sccurity and Collcctivc Scllclcnsc undcr thc Chartcr ol thc
Unitcd Nations, in: a AJ!L, ,,6, at , (.).
553 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
only in thc abscncc ol usc ol armcd lorcc. !l ccrtain ncutral dutics do not apply
to a nonbclligcrcnt thcn thc samc must hold truc with rcgard to an allcgcd
aggrcssor. Tc situation would thus not bc govcrncd by any lcgal rulc at all. Tc
allcgcd aggrcssor would not bc obligcd to acccpt bcing discriminatcd against.
o

Morcovcr, an aggrcssor Statcs UN mcmbcrship docs not imply rcnunciation ol
thc rulcs ol ncutrality whcrc thc collcctivc sccurity systcm is not lunctioning.
!l Statcs adopt a position ol dicrcntial/bcncvolcnt ncutrality, thcir right
undcr Articlc . compctcs with that ol thc discriminatcd bclligcrcnt to claim
obscrvancc ol ncutral dutics. !l thc Sccurity Council is unablc to dctcrminc thc
aggrcssor (at lcast ex post) thcrc would bc no rulcs to scrvc as a lcgal yardstick.
Apart lrom thcorctical considcrations, post. Statc practicc docs not
allow thc conclusion that nonbclligcrcncy has bccomc part ol customary intcr
national law. Tat vicw could only bc uphcld il a cursory analysis ol Statc practicc
wcrc sucicnt. Proponcnts ignorc thc lact that third Statcs assisting onc bclligcr
cnt against anothcr ncvcr rclcrrcd to thc right ol collcctivc sclldclcnsc.
+
!nstcad,
thcy cithcr advanccd contractual obligations, claimcd that thcir assistancc did not
covcr military (lcthal) itcms,
:
or simply actcd clandcstincly.

Statc practicc sincc . thus cannot bc rclicd on to |provc| that a ncw statc
ol nonbclligcrcncy has cmcrgcd as a conccpt ol law. !t would bc all too casy to
avoid dutics ol ncutrality by just dcclaring a dicrcnt status.

Tc vcry lact that

nonbclligcrcnts cndcavorcd in many cascs to conccal thcir assistancc indicatcs,
il not provcs, that thcy did not basc thcir conduct on rclcvant opinio juris.
!t may bc addcd that thc UN Sccurity Council did not dicrcntiatc bctwccn
strict and bcncvolcnt ncutrals during thc !ran!raq war. Tc Council instcad
callcd on all Statcs not activcly participating in thc conict to rclrain lrom acts
that would contributc to an cscalation.

Morcovcr, ncithcr thc !ntcrnational Law

Associations Hclsinki Principlcs on Maritimc Ncutrality,
6
nor thc San Rcmo
Manual on !ntcrnational Humanitarian Law Applicablc to Armcd Conicts at
c Tat position is clcarly takcn by E. Castren, Tc Prcscnt Law ol Var and Ncutrality,
at (Hclsinki .).
. Scc also St. Oeter, Ncutralitat und Vacnhandcl, at .6 (8crlin .a).
a For cxamplc, during thc !ran!raq Var thc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt statcd that it would
not dclivcr lcthal cquipmcnt to !raq, but addcd that it would ncvcrthclcss attcmpt
to lulll cxisting contracts and obligations. Scc 6 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational
Law (.).
!t succs hcrc to mcntion thc !ranContra Aair. Scc .T. Leonhard, !ntroduction,
in: Ncutrality Changing Conccpts and Practiccs (supra notc a), at .
M. Bothe, Ncutrality at Sca, in: Tc Gull Var .c. (supra notc ac), aca.., at
ac,.
Scc, c.g., UN oc. S/RS/c ol ctobcr ., ., S/RS/a ol ctobcr , .6,
S/RS/ ol July ac, .,.
6 !LA, Rcport ol thc Sixtyighth Conlcrcncc, at , ct scq. (London .).
554 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
Sca,

providc cvidcncc that an intcrmcdiatc nonbclligcrcnt lcgal status has

bccn rccognizcd. Tc Gcncva Convcntions and thc First Additional Protocols
sccming dicrcntiation bctwccn ncutral and Statcs not participating in thc con
ict docs not ncccssarily mcan that nonbclligcrcncy has bccomc a gcncrally
rccognizcd conccpt ol intcrnational law. Tc said provisions may wcll bc thc
rcsult ol thc unccrtainty that dclcgatcs lclt with rcspcct to thc status ol thc law ol
ncutrality, cspccially as thcy wcrc unablc to dccidc whcthcr that law applicd only
il thcrc was a statc ol war or in any casc ol intcrnational armcd conict.
8

Statcs not partics to an ongoing intcrnational armcd conict will in many
cascs stand to prot cconomically, politically or idcologically lrom a rclaxation
ol thc rclativcly strict rulcs ol traditional ncutrality law.

!t is not surprising
that thcy havc rcpcatcdly tricd to avoid or ignorc thc law ol ncutrality or to jus
tily thcir conduct by rclcrcncc to a status ol nonbclligcrcncy.
6o
!l, howcvcr, as
thc casc ol thc Arab Statcs dcmonstratcs,
6+
thc aggricvcd bclligcrcnt disposcs ol
thc ncccssary military or cconomic mcans to cnlorcc traditional ncutrality rulcs,
nonbclligcrcnts will most oltcn rcturn to strict ncutrality.
6:
!n thc rcmaining
cascs thc bcncvolcnt ncutrals wcrc simply lucky that thcir violations ol thc law
wcnt unpunishcd.
!n contrast to thc cra in which a gcncrally unlimitcd right to rcsort to war
cxistcd, today it is morc dicult to accommodatc thc dichotomy ol bclligcrcncy
, San Rcmo Manual on !ntcrnational Law Applicablc to Armcd Conicts at Sca,
availablc at: http://www.icrc.org. Scc also San Rcmo Manual on !ntcrnational Law
Applicablc to Armcd Conict at Sca (cd. by L. Dos.ald-Beck, Cambridgc .).
ICFC, Commcntary on thc Additional Protocols ol Junc z,,, to thc Gcncva
Convcntions ol .a August ., MN . ct scq. (Gcncva .,), M. 8othc, Ncutrality
in Naval Varlarc, in: Humanitarian Law ol Armcd Conict Challcngcs Ahcad,
ssays in Honour ol Frits Kalshovcn, ,c, at c ct scq. (cd. by A.!.M. clisscn/
G.J. Tanja, ordrccht. ..).
Castren statcs: !t is advantagcous lor third Statcs not to bc lorccd to apply rulcs ol
ncutrality, which only scrvc to rcstrict commcrcial rclations bctwccn thcsc Statcs and
thcir citizcns on thc onc hand and conicting Statcs and othcr ncutral Statcs on thc
othcr, without, howcvcr, conlcrring any rcal additional bcncts, E. Castren (supra
notc c), at .
6c Cl. P.M. Norton (supra notc a, at a ct scq., scc also K. Zemanek, Tc Chaotic
Status ol thc Laws ol Ncutrality, in: !m icnst an dcr Gcmcinschalt, Fcstschrilt lur
Dietrich Schindler zum 6, Gcburtstag, , at 6 (cd. by !. Haller. Kol.G.
MullerD. Turer, 8ascl/Franklurt .).
6. Cl. P.M. Norton (supra notc a), at c,.
6a uring thc Yom Kippur Var (.,) many Vcstcrn uropcan Statcs dcnicd thc U.S.
usc ol its military bascs lor thc purposc ol assisting !sracl by air, as wcll as usc ol
thcir national airspacc. n ctobcr a6, ., thc !sracli mcrchant vcsscl Palmah had
to lcavc thc Gcrman port ol 8rcmcrhavcn without thc military cquipmcnt ol U.S.
origin it was to takc to !sracl. Cl. F Ottmuller (supra notc a), at a ct scq., P.M.
Norton (supra notc a), at a ct scq.
555 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
and ncutrality.
6
Undcr thc UN Chartcr, violations ol thc law ol ncutrality cannot,
in principlc, bc countcrcd by rcsort to armcd lorcc unlcss thc violations constitutc
armcd attacks within thc mcaning ol Articlc .. !t may bc said that thc modcrn
jus ad bellum which govcrns thc rclationship bctwccn bclligcrcnts and Statcs not
participating in a conict has contributcd to third Statc rcadincss to assist onc
ol thc partics as il thcrc wcrc no armcd conict at all. cspitc thc impaticncc
that thc intcrnational customary lawmaking proccss sccms to gcncratc, such
acts should not bc hastily takcn as sucicnt cvidcncc ol a corrcsponding rulc ol
customary intcrnational law. Tcy should, instcad, bc charactcrizcd as what thcy
arc: violations ol thc law ol ncutrality. Hcncc, as a mattcr ol lcgal principlc and
in vicw ol Statc practicc, a lcgal status ol nonbclligcrcncy has to bc rcjcctcd.
6

8riggss opinion, cnunciatcd morc than sixty ycars ago, still holds truc:
!ntcrnational law rccognizcs no such thing as thc socallcd status ol nonbcl
ligcrcncy. Nonbclligcrcncy is in rcality only a cuphcmism dcsigncd to covcr
violations ol intcrnational law in thc cld ol ncutral obligations.
6
!t should bc cmphasizcd that proponcnts ol nonbclligcrcncy rccognizc that
thcir position prcscnts considcrablc dicultics lor adhcring Statcs.
66
Vhilc a
bcncvolcnt Statc may justily dcviating lrom thc law ol ncutrality by claiming
to cnjoy a spccial lcgal status, thc aggricvcd bclligcrcnt is not obligcd to rccognizc
6 Cl. Ph.C. Jessup, AJ!L .c, at .cc (.), Q. !right, AJ!L, .., at ca
(.c).
6 Many intcrnational lawycrs considcr nonbclligcrcncy to bc a mcrcly political
status. Cl. H. Meyro.it., Lc principc dc lgalit dcs bclligrants dcvant lc droit
dc la gucrrc, at p. 6 ct scq. (Paris .,c), F.L. Bindschedler, ic Ncutralitat im
modcrncn \olkcrrccht, in ., Zcitschrilt lur auslandischcs ocntlichcs Rccht und
\olkcrrccht .,, at a6 (.6/,), F. Dek, Ncutrality Rcvisitcd, in: Transnational Law
in a Changing Socicty, ssays in Honour ol Philip C. Jessup, .,., at . (Ncw
York .,a), !. Seidl-Hohen.eldern (supra notc ), at 6ca ct scq., M.-F. FuretL.-C.
Martine.H. Dorandeu, La gucrrc ct lc droit, at (Paris .,).
6 H.!. Briggs (supra notc .a), AJ!L 6,, 6 n. a (.c). Scc also Bothe who
statcs: Unncutral support lor a bclligcrcnt party has bccn and still is a violation ol
thc law ol ncutrality. !t givcs risc to a right ol rcprisal lor thc bclligcrcnt which is
acctcd by this violation, M. Bothe (supra notc ), at ac,.
66 . Gioia (supra notc ac), at .cc admits: !ndccd, cvcn il an attitudc ol nonbcllig
crcncy is not considcrcd as constituting, per se, a violation ol intcrnational law, thc
aggricvcd bclligcrcnt might pcrccivc thc bchaviour ol a nonbclligcrcnt Statc as
amounting, in ccrtain circumstanccs, to complicity with thc aggrcssor: this may bc
thc casc, in particular, whcrc a nonbclligcrcnt Statc supplics thc cncmy with arms
or war matcrials, or whcrc it grants loans or subsidics to thc cncmy. O. Bring (supra
notc ac), at a, adds: Sincc nonbclligcrcnts could bc cxpcctcd to dcviatc lrom thc
law ol ncutrality, thcy cannot rcasonably cxpcct to rcccivc all thc protcction that
ows lrom it.
556 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
it.
6
Tc aggricvcd bclligcrcnt will havc good rcason to claim that thc bcncvo
lcnt ncutral did not comply with thc dutics ol a ncutral and will bc cntitlcd to
rcsort to countcrmcasurcs. As thcrc is no duty ol acquicsccncc by thc aggricvcd
bclligcrcnt, thc dicrcncc bctwccn bcncvolcnt and strict ncutrals is countcr
productivc. Tc rclationship bctwccn a bcncvolcnt ncutral and an aggricvcd
bclligcrcnt rcmains govcrncd by thc law ol ncutrality il thcrc is no authorita
tivc dctcrmination ol rcsponsibility lor aggrcssion by thc Sccurity Council. Tus,
along with thc jus ad bellum, it is also thc law ol ncutrality that dctcrmincs thc
mcasurcs that may bc takcn by thc bclligcrcnt or thc ncutral. As statcd by a com
mcntator: although thc nonbclligcrcnt may discriminatc opcnly against onc
ol thc bclligcrcnts (and thcrcby lurnish thc lattcr with adcquatc causc lor taking
rcprisals), it ncvcrthclcss rctains a ncutral status so long as it docs not cntcr into
thc hostilitics.
68
II Iaw of Neutrality: Applicability
Although thc law ol ncutrality has not bccn dcrogatcd or supplcmcntcd by an
intcrmcdiatc lcgal status, its scopc ol applicability is lar lrom scttlcd. Vhilc
somc maintain that ncutral obligations arisc only in a statc ol war, othcrs claim
that applicability dcpcnds on a lormal dcclaration by a ncutral Statc. Still othcrs
bclicvc that ncutrality law is applicablc in cvcry intcrnational armcd conict, at
lcast whcn thc conict is charactcrizcd by intcnsc hostilitics ol a ccrtain dura
tion.
No Derogation of the La. of Neutrality
Tcrc is widcsprcad agrccmcnt that thcrc is no longcr room lor application ol
ncutrality law il thc Sccurity Council, acting undcr Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr,
has authoritativcly idcnticd an aggrcssor Statc.
6
Vhilc thc prcscnt author
6, F.!. Tucker (supra notc 6), at . n. : !n lact, it would sccm that what writcrs
actually havc in mind whcn thcy dcclarc that thc traditional law docs not rccognizc
a condition ol nonbclligcrcncy is that this law docs not grant ncutral statcs a right
to dcpart lrom thc dutics othcrwisc imposcd upon nonparticipants, a right in thc
scnsc that thc injurcd bclligcrcnt is obligcd to pcrmit thcsc acts and to rclrain lrom
taking rcprisals.
6 Ibid. at . n. and a.
6 IL, Hclsinki Principlcs on thc Law ol Maritimc Ncutrality (supra notc 6), Principlc
..a: || !n particular, no Statc may rcly upon thc Principlcs statcd hcrcin in ordcr
to cvadc obligations laid upon it in pursuancc ol a binding dccision ol thc Sccurity
Council. San Rcmo Manual (supra notc ,), para. ,: Notwithstanding any rulc in
this documcnt or clscwhcrc on thc law ol ncutrality, whcrc thc Sccurity Council,
acting in accordancc with its powcrs undcr Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr ol thc Unitcd
Nations, has idcnticd onc or morc partics to an armcd conict as rcsponsiblc lor
rcsorting to lorcc in violation ol intcrnational law, ncutral Statcs: (a) arc bound not
557 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
sharcs this vicw, it should not bc ovcrlookcd that thc Council rclcrs to thc con
ditions laid down in Chartcr Articlc only in thc most gcncral tcrms. \cry
oltcn it will just statc that it is acting undcr Chaptcr \!!. !n vicw ol thc cnsu
ing lack ol authoritativc dctcrmination ol thc aggrcssor/wrongdocr it may not
bc clcar which party to an intcrnational armcd conict rcsortcd to usc ol lorcc
in violation ol thc jus ad bellum, particularly il both sidcs claim to bc acting in
sclldclcnsc.
o
Tc unccrtainty will bc cvcn grcatcr whcrc thc Sccurity Council is
inactivc, which, as is gcncrally known, happcns lrom timc to timc. Hcncc, thc law
ol ncutrality may havc bccn modicd by thc UN Chartcr, but it has ccrtainly not
bccomc obsolctc. A UN mcmbcr Statc is prohibitcd lrom taking a ncutral stancc
only il thc Sccurity Council has authoritativcly idcnticd thc aggrcssor or il it
has dccidcd on cnlorccmcnt mcasurcs undcr Chaptcr \!!.
+
8ut cvcn thcn thc
Sccurity Council may, in thcory at lcast, absolvc a mcmbcr Statc lrom its dutics
undcr thc Chartcr.
:
Post., third Statcs havc rclraincd in practicc lrom charactcrizing onc ol
thc partics to an intcrnational armcd conict as an aggrcssor.

Vhilc thcir con

to lcnd assistancc othcr than humanitarian assistancc to that Statc, and (b) may lcnd
assistancc to any Statc which has bccn thc victim ol a brcach ol thc pcacc or an act
ol aggrcssion bu that Statc.
,c Tis was thc casc in thc Falklands/Malvinas conict (.a) and in thc !ran!raq war
(.c.).
,. H.J. Taubenfeld, !ntcrnational Action and Ncutrality, in: , AJ!L ,,6, ct
scq. (.), Oppenheim, !ntcrnational Law (supra notc aa) at 6, ct scq., J.F. Lali.e,
!ntcrnational rganization and Ncutrality, in: a 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational
Law ,a, , ct scq. (.,), M. Bothe (supra notc ) at ac, D. Schindler (supra notc
), .a. Rccucil dcs Cours a ct scq. (.6, !!), E. Castren (supra notc c) at ct scq.,
F.!. Tucker (supra notc 6) at .,. ct scq. Scc also Articlc ol thc ., Vicsbadcn
Rcsolution ol thc !nstitut dc roit !ntcrnational: Lorsquc lcs Forccs dcs Nations
Unics sont cngagcs dans dcs hostilits, lcs tats mcmbrcs dc lrganisation nc
pcuvcnt ni sc prvaloir dcs rglcs gnralcs du droit dc la ncutralit pour sc sous
trairc aux obligations qui lcur sont imposcs cn vcrtu dunc dcision du Conscil dc
la scurit agissant conlormmcnt a la Chartc, ni drogcr aux rglcs dc la ncutralit
au bncc dunc partic opposc aux Forccs dcs Nations Unics., 6 Annuairc dc
l!nstitut dc roit !ntcrnational a (.,).
,a Cl. J.F. Lali.e, (supra notc ,.) at . .g., in casc ol a limitcd nonmilitary cnlorcc
mcnt mcasurc (cmbargo) thcrc is still room lor an impartial stancc. Scc lurthcr
G.P. Politakis, \ariations on a Myth: Ncutrality and thc Arms Tradc, in: Gcrman
Ycarbook ol !ntcrnational Law c6, c ct scq. (.a), who also advocatcs lor thc
continuity ol thc law ol ncutrality and statcs: !t so happcns that thc long diagnoscd
mallunction ol thc UN cocrcivc mcchanism savcd ncutrality lrom dcclinc, lor in a
world whcrc aggrcssion oltcn prcvails with impunity and thc Chartcrs Chaptcr \!!
is kcpt in mothballs thcrc can still bc room lor abstcntion and impartiality, at lcast
tcchnically.
, Cl. D.P. OConnell, !ntcrnational Law and Contcmporary Naval pcrations, in:
8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational Law ., at a, ct scq. (.,c), ., a, ., F.
Ottmuller (supra notc a) at , ct scq., P.M. Norton (supra notc a) at a ct scq.
558 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
duct may not always havc conlormcd to thc principlc ol impartiality, thc accom
panying lack ol an authoritativc Sccurity Council pronounccmcnt had a lasting
impact in that thcy wcrc lorccd to adopt and maintain a ncutral status.

B pplicability Rationc Matcriac ct Tcmporis
Vhilc Statc practicc indircctly provcs thc continuing validity ol thc law ol ncu
trality, thcrc is no conscnsus as to whcn that body ol law applics. Not surprisingly,
thc law ol ncutrality is paid lip scrvicc in situations that qualily as a statc ol war.
No onc sccms to doubt that in a war strictu sensu all nonbclligcrcnt Statcs arc
automatically bound by thc dutics ol abstcntion and impartiality providcd lor in
Haguc Convcntions \ and X!!! ol .c, and thc corrcsponding principlcs and
rulcs ol customary intcrnational law.

!t has, howcvcr, ncvcr bccn clcar whcn a

statc ol war cxists, apart, pcrhaps, lrom situations in which a dcclaration ol war
has bccn madc. 8ut, such situations havc virtually vanishcd in Statc practicc.
!ntcrnational lawycrs noncthclcss continuc to almost unanimously maintain
that thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol war automatically triggcrs thc applicability ol thc
law ol ncutrality.
6
According to that vicw, il an intcrnational armcd conict docs
not amount to a war Statcs not partics arc lrcc to comply with thc law ol ncu
trality, but havc no obligation to do so.

!n such situations oltcn labclcd status

mixtus
8
no Statc is bound by thc law ol ncutrality against its will. !nstcad, its
, Scc thc rclcrcnccs in thc lorcgoing lootnotc. Furthcr H.S. Le.ie (supra notc a) at ,
ct scq., M. Jenkins (supra notc a) at a ct scq., . GioiaN. Fon.itti (supra notc a)
at aaa ct scq., D. Schindler, Translormations in thc Law ol Ncutrality sincc ., in:
ssays in Honour ol Frits Kalshovcn (supra notc ), 6,6, at 6.
, Scc, inter alia, H.-J. !ol, Kricgscrklarung und Kricgszustand nach Klassischcm
\olkcrrccht, at . (8crlin .c).
,6 L. Kot.sch, Tc Conccpt ol Var in Contcmporary History and !ntcrnational Law,
at .. (Gcncva .6), D. Schindler, Statc ol Var, 8clligcrcncy, Armcd Conict, in:
Tc Ncw Humanitarian Law ol Armcd Conict, ac, at ct scq. (cd. by A. Casscsc,
Napoli .,), E. Castren (supra notc c), at , a, D.P. OConnell (supra notc ,),
8Y!L a, (.,c), K. Skubis.e.ski (supra notc ac), at c, Ch. Green.ood, Tc Conccpt
ol Var in Modcrn !ntcrnational Law, in: 6 !ntcrnational and Comparativc Law
Quatcrly ac6, c (.,), St. Oeter (supra notc .) at , .., Ch. Fousseau, Lc droit
dcs conits arms, at ,. (Paris .).
,, G. Sch.ar.enberger, Jus Pacis ac 8clli:, in: , AJ!L 6c,, , (.), E. Castren
(supra notc c), at a, St. Oeter (supra notc .), at .. ct scq., D. Schindler, Statc ol
Var (supra notc ,6), at ., Ch. Green.ood (supra notc ,6), at a, cc, P. Guggenheim,
Trait dc roit !ntcrnational Public !!, at .c (Gcncva .), J. Stone, Lcgal Controls
ol !ntcrnational Conict, at . (Ncw York .), L.C. Green, Armcd Conict, Var,
and Scllclcncc, in: 6 Archiv dcs \olkcrrcchts ,, . (.6/,).
, Tis conccpt was rst dcscribcd by Georg Sch.ar.enberger: Vhcthcr thc statc ol
pcacc continucs with thc Statc against which limitcd lorcc is applicd or not, dcpcnds
on thc lattcrs dccision. Similarly, it is lclt to third Statcs to dccidc lor thcmsclvcs
whcthcr, in thcir rclations with thc contcnding Statcs, thcy prclcr thc law ol pcacc
559 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
rclationship to thc partics to a conict continucs to bc govcrncd by thc law ol
pcacc. As thcrc is no duty ol abstcntion, third Statcs may assist onc ol thc bcl
ligcrcnts, cvcn by supplying thc party in qucstion with arms and othcr military
cquipmcnt.

Tc aggricvcd bclligcrcnt would not bc allowcd to rcsort to coun

tcrmcasurcs.
8o
ctcrmining thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol war is almost impossiblc. Tcrc is
no gcncrally rccognizcd conccpt ol war, nor conscnsus on thc rclcvancc ol thc
actual conduct ol third Statcs. Somc apply an objcctivc standard, rclying cithcr
on a lormal dcclaration ol war or on thc lactual application ol mcasurcs bclong
ing to ncutrality law, such as prizc mcasurcs.
8+
thcrs bclicvc that it dcpcnds on
thc intcnsity and duration ol an ongoing armcd conict.
8:
Vhat both positions
havc in common is that thcy rclcr cxclusivcly to thc conduct ol thc bclligcrcnts
and not, likc proponcnts ol a minority vicw,
8
to thc conduct ol nonbclligcrcnt
Statcs.
8
Tosc who link thc applicability ol thc law ol ncutrality to thc cxistcncc ol
a statc ol war by combining conditions ol applicability and admissibility strivc
to limit bclligcrcnt intcrlcrcncc with third Statcs and thcir nationals as lar as
possiblc. Tc suitability and ccicncy ol such cndcavors will, howcvcr, bc rathcr
limitcd il thc opcration ol thc said lcgal limits is madc solcly dcpcndcnt on thc
or ncutrality. vcn il all Statcs dircctly and indircctly conccrncd acquicsccd in thc
limitcd usc ol lorcc, it appcars to bc a misnomcr to call such a pax bcllica by thc
namc ol pcacc. !t is cqually unwarrantcd to call war a statc in which both contcnd
ing Statcs insist on thc continuation ol thcir pcacclul rclations, mcrcly bccausc third
Statcs wish to apply thc law ol ncutrality during such a bcllum pacicum. Tcsc
constcllations arc incompatiblc with thc statcs ol pcacc and war, thcy constitutc a
statc ol thcir own, a status mixtus, , AJ!L ,c (.). Scc also Ph.C. Jessup, Should
!ntcrnational Law Rccognizc an !ntcrmcdiatc Status bctwccn Pcacc and Var:, in
AJ!L .c (.).
, Tis vicw is takcn by St. Oeter (supra notc .), at .a.
c Cl. D. Schindler, Statc ol Var (supra notc ,6), at .a, ., K. Skubis.e.ski (supra notc
ac), at c, St. Oeter (supra notc .), at .
. Cl. L. Kot.sch, Conccpt ol Var (supra notc ,6), .. l., K. Skubis.e.ski (supra notc ac),
S. c ., St. Oeter (supra notc .), at .
a Scc thc rclcrcnccs supra notc ,6.
Ch. Green.ood (supra notc ,6), at c.: vcn in rclation to thc law ol ncutrality,
thcrclorc, thc charactcrisation ol a conict as war by onc ol thc partics has lcw, il
any, lcgal conscqucnccs. Tc law ol ncutrality is brought into opcration by thc acts
ol thc ncutral Statcs, not thc bclligcrcnts. Scc also D. Schindler (supra notc ,6), at
.: Ncutrality is considcrcd rathcr to bc a voluntary attitudc ol Statcs which can bc
takcn in wars as in othcr armcd conicts.
A similar vicw is takcn by E. Castren (supra notc c, at ): Tc vicw that third States
may x thc lcgal naturc ol an armcd conict by cithcr rccognizing or not rccogniz
ing a statc ol war |...| cannot bc acccptcd |...| as its application would lcad to arbi
trarincss and conlusion. Scc lurthcr P. Guggenheim (supra notc ,,), at .c, L. Kot.sch,
(supra notc ,6), at ..
560 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
bclligcrcnts abstaining lrom making usc ol thc mcasurcs providcd lor by thc law
ol ncutrality. Tc admissibility ol prizc mcasurcs, lor cxamplc, prcsupposcs that
thc bclligcrcnts arc in lact intcrlcring with ncutral shipping and aviation. Similar
doubts may bc voiccd with rcgard to rcliancc on thc intcnsity and duration ol an
intcrnational armcd conict. !n that casc, thc bclligcrcnts would simply havc to
cscalatc and/or prolong thc armcd conict.
Lastly, thc vicw that thc applicability ol thc law ol ncutrality dcpcnds cxclu
sivcly on thc dccisions ol third Statcs is unloundcd. !l it did, thc dutics ol abstcn
tion and impartiality would ccasc to bc lcgally binding on ncutral Statcs and
bccomc mcrcly a political option.
8
!t is also unclcar why proponcnts ol this vicw
continuc to rcly on thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol war il, ultimatcly, thc applicability
ol thc law ol ncutrality rcquircs only a third Statc dccision to that ccct. Tcir
gcncric rcliancc on Statc practicc
86
is not substantiatcd and sccms to indicatc a
vaguc lcgal conviction, rathcr than prool ol thc cxistcncc ol a customary intcrna
tional law norm.
Clinging to thc conccpt ol a statc ol war cannot thcrclorc ccctivcly protcct
third Statcs lrom bclligcrcnt mcasurcs. Tc objcct and purposc ol thc law ol ncu
trality is to protcct Statcs lrom thc harmlul cccts ol an ongoing intcrnational
armcd conict and, by subjccting ncutral Statcs to ccrtain lcgal obligations, to
prcvcnt an cscalation ol thc conict. Tis body ol law docs not rcplacc thc law
ol pcacc, but rathcr cstablishcs lcgal limitations that thc bclligcrcnts may not
transgrcss cvcn though thcy arc cngagcd in armcd hostilitics. PostVorld Var !!
Statc practicc
8
rcvcals that thc law ol ncutrality has, in principlc, applicd in cvcry
intcrnational armcd conict irrcspcctivc ol whcthcr ncutral Statcs wishcd to bc
bound by it or not.
III Te Current State of the Iaw of Neutrality
Tc law ol ncutrality has also bccn substantially modicd. 8clligcrcnt and third
Statcs havc in practicc shown that thcy arc only prcparcd to comply with thc law
ol ncutrality in toto in cxccptional cascs, cvcn whcn thcrc is unanimous agrcc
mcnt that an armcd conict qualics as war strictu sensu.
88
!t should not, howcvcr,
bc ovcrlookcd that both bclligcrcnts and ncutrals also applicd thc law ol ncutral
ity in situations that did not amount to a statc ol war. Hcncc, ncithcr thc doctrinc
ol status mixtus, nor rcliancc on thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol war, can lurnish sul
cicnt prool ol Statc practicc. Tat practicc clcarly shows, on thc onc hand, that
E. Castren (supra notc c), at .
6 Cl. Ch. Green.ood (supra notc ,6), a, ct scq., cc, D. Schindler (supra notc ,6), at
..
, Scc thc rclcrcnccs supra notcs a ct scq. and accompanying tcxt.
Scc also D. Schindler (supra notc ,6), at ., D. Schindler, (supra notc ,), at , ct scq.,
Ch. Green.ood (supra notc ,6), at a,, cc.
561 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
thc law ol pcacc has not bccn complctcly rcplaccd by thc law ol ncutrality and,
on thc othcr, that thc law ol pcacc has bccn partially modicd by thc law ol ncu
trality. Tc lact that third Statcs cithcr abstaincd lrom supplying onc party to a
conict with arms or dcnicd bcing cngagcd in such activitics (or conductcd thcm
clandcstincly), provcs that thcy did not bclicvc thcy wcrc lrcc to choosc bctwccn
thc law ol pcacc and thc law ol ncutrality.
Tc position ol somc authors who apply thc law ol ncutrality in toto to cvcry
intcrnational armcd conict
8
is unsustainablc in light ol Statc practicc. Vhilc
it is truc that thc law ol ncutrality scrvcs thc intcrcsts ol both bclligcrcnts
o
and
ncutrals, this docs not ncccssarily mcan that thc law ol ncutrality is applicablc in
toto in cvcry intcrnational armcd conict. Statc practicc supports thc vicw that
thc law ol ncutrality applics automatically and comprchcnsivcly in cxccptional
cascs only, rcgardlcss ol whcthcr thc armcd conict in qucstion amounts to a
statc ol war or not. According to modcrn Statc practicc, thc applicability ol thc
law ol ncutrality dcpcnds on lunctional considcrations that will, in most cascs,
rcsult in a dicrcntial or partial applicability ol that body ol law.
Interference .ith Neutral Trade
Somc parts ol thc law ol ncutrality, likc prizc law, bccomc applicablc in an intcr
national armcd conict only whcn and insolar as thc bclligcrcnts rcsort to rcc
ognizcd mcthods and mcans by, lor cxamplc, intcrlcring with ncutral shipping
and aviation.
+
Such mcasurcs arc lcgal to thc cxtcnt that thc bclligcrcnts rcmain
within thc limits ol thc applicablc rulcs. Tc lcgality ol mcasurcs such as visit and
scarch opcrations dcpcnds ncithcr on thc cxistcncc ol a statc ol war, nor on con
sidcrations ol ncccssity in thc light ol thc jus ad bellum.
Tc last part ol that contcntion has bccn scriously challcngcd by thc Unitcd
Kingdom. !n .6, altcr thc 8ritish mcrchant vcsscl Barber Perseus was intcr
ccptcd by !ranian units during thc !ran!raq war, thc Forcign Ministry dcclarcd:
|...| undcr Articlc . ol thc Unitcd Nations Chartcr a Statc such as !ran, activcly
cngagcd in an armcd conict, is cntitlcd in cxcrcisc ol its inhcrcnt right ol scll
Scc, c.g., M. Bothe (supra notc at ac6): !t is submittcd that thc practicc during
thc !ran!raq war conrms thc trcnd to substitutc thc notion ol war by thc notion
ol armcd conict in ordcr to dctcrminc thc cld ol application ol what uscd to bc
callcd thc law ol war, including thc law ol ncutrality. Scc also thc criticism by Ch.
Green.ood, Commcnts, in: Tc Gull Var .c. (supra notc ac), a.aa.6, at a.a ct
scq.
c Ch. Green.ood (supra notc ,6), at a, also admits that thc law ol ncutrality may bc
usclul in sctting an uppcr limit to thc rights ol thc combatants.
. Tcrclorc, according to thc San Rcmo Manual (supra notc ,), thc admissibility ol
such mcasurcs is to bc judgcd in thc light ol thc jus in bello/law ol maritimc ncutral
ity alonc.
562 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
dclcncc, to stop and scarch a lorcign mcrchant ship on thc high scas il thcrc is
rcasonablc ground lor suspccting that thc ship is taking arms to thc othcr sidc
lor usc in thc conict |...|
:
Although limitcd to naval warlarc,

this position was rccmphasizcd in thc

rcccntly publishcd UK Manual ol thc Law ol Armcd Conict,

paragraph ..
ol which rcads:
!n considcring thc rulcs sct out in this chaptcr, it is ncccssary to bcar in mind
at all timcs onc point ol ccntral importancc, namcly that thc conduct ol armcd
conict at sca is subjcct to thc limitations imposcd by thc UN Chartcr on all
usc ol lorcc. nc particularly important aspcct ol thosc limitations is that cvcn
whcn rcsort to lorcc is justicd, it should not cxcccd what is ncccssary and pro
portionatc to thc achicvcmcnt ol thc goal lor which lorcc may bc uscd. !n a
conict ol limitcd scopc, this may mcan that a bclligcrcnt statc is constraincd,
to a grcatcr cxtcnt than thc rulcs sct out in thc prcscnt chaptcr might suggcst,
in thc action that it may lawlully takc against thc shipping or aircralt ol statcs
not involvcd in thc conict.
!l thc UK position corrcctly rcccts customary intcrnational law, thc admissibil
ity ol bclligcrcnt intcrlcrcncc with ncutral tradc would havc to bc cvaluatcd pri
marily in light ol thc right ol sclldclcnsc and only sccondarily in light ol thc law
ol ncutrality. Vhilc somc may considcr thc 8ritish position attractivc bccausc it
scts up an additional lcgal rcquircmcnt,

it is submittcd that that vicw is unsus

tainablc. !t ncithcr rcccts Statc practicc,
6
nor is it rcconcilablc with thc prin
ciplc ol cqual application ol thc jus in bello. Morcovcr, it implics an clcmcnt ol
a Statcmcnt by thc Ministcr ol Statc, Forcign and Commonwcalth cc, January a,
.6, Housc ol Commons cbatcs, \ol. c, col. a6, printcd in: , 8ritish Ycar 8ook
ol !ntcrnational Law (.6).
!n this contcxt thc qucstion ariscs why thc allcgcd impact ol thc jus ad bellum is
rcstrictcd to thc law ol naval warlarc and maritimc ncutrality. !l, as statcd in thc UK
Manual, cvcry rcsort to lorcc is to bc judgcd in thc light ol thc jus ad bellum, thcn this
should hold truc lor land and acrial warlarc as wcll.
UK Ministry ol clcncc, Tc Manual ol thc Law ol Armcd Conict (xlord
acc).
Scc, c.g., J.G. Graham, Proportionality and Forcc in !ntcrnational Law, in: , AJ!L
.., at .a (.), who bclicvcs that sincc thc !ran!raq war it has bccomc di
cult to scc how it can bc argucd that thc rulcs rcgulating thc conduct ol armcd con
ict arc unacctcd by considcrations rclating to thc usc ol lorcc.
6 For an asscssmcnt ol modcrn Statc practicc with rcgard to prizc mcasurcs scc. !.
Heintschel .on Heinegg, \isit, Scarch, ivcrsion and Capturc in Naval Varlarc
Conditions ol Applicability: Part !!, cvclopmcnts sincc ., in: c Canadian
Ycarbook ol !ntcrnational Law .6 (.a).
563 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
arbitrarincss that will in most cascs provc countcrproductivc lrom thc standpoint
ol ccctivc protcction ol ncutral commcrcc.
Tc San Rcmo Manual,

!LA Hclsinki Principlcs,

8
and manuals ol thc
U.S.

and thc Gcrman Navics

+oo
start lrom thc prcmisc that thc jus ad bellum and
thc jus in bello (thc lattcr comprising thc law ol ncutrality) arc two distinct parts
ol intcrnational law. Kccping in mind thc basic principlc ol cqual application ol
thc ius in bello
+o+
thcsc tcxts ncithcr distinguish bctwccn an aggrcssor and thc
victim ol aggrcssion, nor modily thc jus in bello by rclcrcncc to thc lcgal limits ol
sclldclcnsc. Pursuant to thcsc documcnts, all partics to an intcrnational armcd
conict at sca may, in principlc, rcsort to thc lull spcctrum ol mcthods and mcans
ol naval warlarc, including mcasurcs short ol attack.
Vhilc thc 8ritish position cannot bc said to rccct customary intcrnational
law, it may bc askcd who, othcr than a bclligcrcnt Statc, is compctcnt to dccidc
what is ncccssary and proportionatc to thc achicvcmcnt ol thc goal lor which
lorcc may bc uscd. !t is clcar that an authoritativc UN Sccurity Council dccision
bascd on Chaptcr \!! ol thc Chartcr could prcvcnt a bclligcrcnt lrom making
usc ol thc lull spcctrum ol mcasurcs providcd lor in thc law ol ncutrality. !n thc
abscncc ol such a dccision, howcvcr, it is gcncrally rccognizcd that bclligcrcnt
Statcs thcmsclvcs arc cntitlcd to dccidc whcthcr thcy will intcrlcrc with ncutral
shipping and aviation. Tc acctcd ncutral Statcs arc limitcd to lcgally cvaluat
ing thc concrctc mcasurcs undcrtakcn, i.c. thcy could judgc thcir lcgality bascd
on thc law ol naval warlarc and thc law ol maritimc ncutrality.
+o:
Tus, thc right
to rcndcr a lcgally binding opinion on thc lawlulncss ol an initial visit and scarch
dccision rcsts cxclusivcly with thc UN Sccurity Council. Statcmcnts by ncutral
Statcs on thc lcgality ol mcasurcs short ol attack bascd on rulcs othcr than thc ius
in bello (including thc law ol maritimc ncutrality) arc mcrcly political in naturc.
, San Rcmo Manual (supra notc ,), paras. et seq.
!LA, Hclsinki Principlcs (supra notc 6), paras. ..a and ...
Tc Commandcrs Handbook on thc Law ol Naval pcrations, NVP .. M, para.
...
.cc Gcrman Navy, Commandcrs Handbook Lcgal 8ascs lor thc pcrations ol Naval
Forccs, MN a. (8onn acc).
.c. For a dctailcd analysis ol this principlc scc H. Meyro.it., Lc principc dc lgalit
dcs bclligrants dcvant la droit dc la gucrrc (Paris .,c). Scc also Y. Dinstein,
Tc Conduct ol Hostilitics undcr thc Law ol !ntcrnational Armcd Conict, at
(Cambridgc acc).
.ca vidcncc can bc lound in thc practicc ol Statcs during thc !ran!raq war. Tc attacks
on ncutral mcrchant vcsscls wcrc condcmncd by thc UN Sccurity Council (UNSC
Rcs. a, . Junc .) and by mcmbcr Statcs ol thc uropcan Community, scc 8ull.
ol thc uropcan Communitics, Commission, No. , p. , (.c), uropcan Political
Coopcration ocumcntation, 8ull. \ol. , No. a, p. (.,) and \ol. , No. ., pp. .,
et seq. (.).
564 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
Tc 8ritish position could also lcad to an arbitrary application ol thc law
ol naval warlarc and maritimc ncutrality. 8ritish conduct in thc Falklands war
(.a) and during thc !ran!raq war (.c.) scrvcs as an cxamplc.
+o
As is wcll known, thc 8ritish govcrnmcnt cstablishcd a Total xclusion
Zonc (TZ) during thc Falklands war. According to thc announccmcnt ol a
April .a:
Tc cxclusion zonc will apply not only to Argcntinc warships and naval aux
iliarics but also to any othcr ship, whcthcr naval or mcrchant vcsscl, which
is opcrating in support ol thc illcgal occupation ol thc Falkland !slands by
Argcntinc lorccs. Tc zonc will also apply to any aircralt, whcthcr military or
civil, which is opcrating in support ol thc Argcntinc occupation. Any ship and
any aircralt, whcthcr military or civil, which is lound within thc zonc without
authority lrom thc Ministry ol clcncc in London will bc rcgardcd as opcrat
ing in support ol thc illcgal occupation and will thcrclorc bc rcgardcd as hostilc
and will bc liablc to bc attackcd by 8ritish lorccs.
+o
Pursuant to thc wording ol thc proclamation thc UK was prcparcd to attack
cvcry ship cncountcrcd within thc limits ol thc TZ. 8ascd on thc Nurcmbcrg
Tribunals jurisprudcncc and on customary intcrnational law, thc lcgality ol thc
TZ or ol attacks thcrcin was morc than qucstionablc.
+o
!t may wcll bc that thc
proclamation was intcndcd to dctcr rathcr than to providc a lcgal basis lor attacks
on ncutral shipping. !t may wcll bc that it was nothing but a pcrmissiblc rusc ol
war. At lacc valuc, howcvcr, and in vicw ol thc lact that thc 8ritish govcrnmcnt
attcmptcd to justily thc TZ by rclcrcncc to sclldclcnsc, its action could also
havc, il considcrcd ncccssary lor rcasons ol sclldclcnsc, gonc bcyond thc prc
scriptions ol thc law ol naval warlarc and cstablishcd and cnlorccd a lrccrc
zonc.
!n othcr words, whcn it is a party to an intcrnational armcd conict, such as
thc Falklands Var, thc 8ritish Govcrnmcnt bclicvcs that it is cntitlcd to broadcn
thc spcctrum ol mcthods and mcans providcd lor in thc law ol naval warlarc and
ol maritimc ncutrality by rclcrcncc to thc inhcrcnt right ol sclldclcnsc. Vhcn
it is not a party to an intcrnational armcd conict, such as thc !ran!raq war, thc
8ritish Govcrnmcnt dcnics that vcry right to thc bclligcrcnts, but claims to bc
cntitlcd to judgc and dcclarc what is ncccssary and proportionatc lor thc bcl
.c For a dctailcd analysis ol that practicc scc !.J. Fenrick, Tc xclusion Zonc cvicc
in thc Law ol Naval Varlarc, in: a Canadian Ycarbook ol !ntcrnational Law .
.a6 (.6). Furthcr F.P. BarstonP.!. Birnie, Tc Falkland !slands/!slas Malvinas
Conict A Qucstion ol Zoncs, , Marinc Policy .a (.).
.c Printcd in: 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational Law a (.a).
.c Howcvcr, Fenrick (supra notc .c, at ..a et seq.) maintains that thc 8ritish TZ was
lcgal in vicw ol thc lact that it was cstablishcd in a rcmotc sca arca and that ncutral
ships wcrc not attackcd.
565 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
ligcrcnts sclldclcnsc. !l that position wcrc sharcd by othcr Statcs (which is not
thc casc), it would lcad to a dcgrcc ol lcgal ambiguity and insccurity that could
ultimatcly inducc both bclligcrcnts and ncutrals to ncglcct thc law ol ncutrality
altogcthcr.
B Essentials of the La. of Neutrality: Inter-State Felations
nly thosc parts ol thc law ol ncutrality that arc strictly ncccssary lor salcguard
ing its objcct and purposc bccomc automatically applicablc in intcrStatc rcla
tions. Tird Statcs arc obligcd to rclrain lrom any activity that may contributc to
thc cscalation ol an armcd conict. Tcy arc cspccially prohibitcd lrom assisting
onc party in a manncr that could lcad to a tcmporal, spatial or othcr widcning ol
thc conict.
+o6
Arms translcrs by Statcs arc incompatiblc with thc law ol ncutral
ity
+o
and privatc translcrs must bc prcvcntcd on an impartial basis il and insolar
as domcstic rulcs providc.
+o8
Ncutral tcrritory, including ncutral watcrs,
+o
may
not scrvc as a basc ol opcrations lor any ol thc bclligcrcnts.
++o
Morcovcr, ncutral
Statcs arc obligcd to usc all mcans at thcir disposal to prcvcnt abusc ol thcir ncu
tral status by a bclligcrcnt.
+++
Pcrmission lor or prohibitions on thc usc ol ncu
tral watcrs and ncutral tcrritory arc subjcct to thc principlc ol impartiality.
++:
Tc
partics to a conict arc obligcd to rcspcct thc sovcrcignty and tcrritorial intcg
rity ol ncutral Statcs, as wcll as thcir tradc rclations with othcr ncutral Statcs.
++

.c6 Tc continuing validity ol this obligation is conrmcd by statcmcnts ol thc 8ritish
Govcrnmcnt (, 8ritish Ycar 8ook ol !ntcrnational Law 6 ct scq. |.,|), by thc
US Administration during thc !ran!raq war ( US cpt. ol Statc 8ull. 6. | July
.|), and by UN Sccurity Council Rcsolutions S/RS/c ol ctobcr ., ., S/
RS/a ol ctobcr , .6, and S/RS/ ol July ac, .,.
.c, Scc thc rclcrcnccs supra in notc a ct scq.
.c Cl. St. Oeter (supra notc .), at a.6 ct scq., aa., aa, a.
.c Ncutral watcrs, according to thc San Rcmo Manual (supra notc ,, para. .): con
sist ol thc intcrnal watcrs, tcrritorial sca, and, whcrc applicablc, thc archipclagic
watcrs, ol ncutral Statcs.
..c .g., thc US attack against Cambodia was in part justicd by rclcrcncc to thc
nonncutral conduct ol that Statc. Scc statcmcnt by thc Lcgal Adviscr ol thc U.S.
cpartmcnt ol Statc, J.F. Ste.enson, ol May a, .,c, 6a US cpt. ol Statc 8ull. ,6
ct scq. (May .,c). Scc also F.. Falk, Tc Cambodian pcration and !ntcrnational
Law, in: Tc \ictnam Var and !ntcrnational Law \ol. , , (cd. by R.A. Falk,
Princcton .,a). Scc also San Rcmo Manual (supra notc ,), paras. . ct scq., NVP
.. M (supra notc ), para. ,., Gcrman Navy, Commandcrs Handbook (supra notc
.cc), MN aa.
... San Rcmo Manual (supra notc ,), paras. ., ac, NVP .. M (supra notc ), para.
,., Gcrman Navy, Commandcrs Handbook (supra notc .cc), MN aa.
..a San Rcmo Manual (supra notc ,), para. aa, NVP .. M (supra notc ), para. ,.,
Gcrman Navy, Commandcrs Handbook (supra notc .cc), MN a6 ct scq.
.. Scc thc lorcgoing rclcrcnccs in notcs .c ct scq.
566 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
Tradc rclations bctwccn ncutrals and bclligcrcnts may only bc intcrlcrcd with in
accordancc with thc rclcvant rulcs and principlcs ol thc law ol ncutrality.
Tc military manuals ol thc US
++
and Gcrman navics
++
dcmonstratc that
Statcs agrcc on thc csscntials ol thc law ol ncutrality. Tc UK manual is thc only
rcccnt onc that docs not cxplicitly addrcss thc law ol ncutrality.
++6
Howcvcr, thc
amcndcd vcrsion
++
ol chaptcr . compriscs vc paragraphs showing that thc UK
also rccognizcs thc csscntials ol thc law ol (maritimc) ncutrality:
..A 8clligcrcnt lorccs may not usc ncutral watcrs as a sanctuary.
..8 Subjcct to Paragraphs ...6 and ..ac, a ncutral Statc may, on a non
discriminatory basis, condition, rcstrict or prohibit thc cntrancc to or
passagc through its ncutral watcrs by bclligcrcnt warship and auxiliary
vcsscls.
..C Subjcct to thc duty ol impartiality, and to Paragraphs .. and ...c
..ac, and undcr such rcgulations as it may cstablish, a ncutral Statc
may, without jcopardising its ncutrality, pcrmit thc lollowing acts
within its ncutral watcrs:
a. passagc through its tcrritorial sca and, whcrc applicablc, its archi
pclagic watcrs by warships, auxiliary vcsscls and prizcs ol bcllig
crcnt Statcs, warships, auxiliary vcsscls and prizcs may cmploy
pilots ol thc ncutral Statc during passagc,
b. rcplcnishmcnt by a bclligcrcnt warship or auxiliary vcsscl ol its
lood, watcr and lucl sucicnt to rcach a port in its own tcrritory,
and
c. rcpairs ol bclligcrcnt warships or auxiliary vcsscls lound ncccs
sary by thc ncutral Statc to makc thcm scaworthy, such rcpairs
may not rcstorc or incrcasc thcir ghting strcngth.
.. A bclligcrcnt warship or auxiliary vcsscl cxcrcising rights ol passagc
through ncutral watcrs should do so continuously and cxpcditiously
unlcss unablc to do so on account ol damagc, thc strcss ol wcathcr or
by force majeure.
.. Should a bclligcrcnt Statc bc in violation ol thc rcgimc ol ncutral
watcrs, as sct out in this manual, thc ncutral Statc is undcr an obliga
tion to takc thc mcasurcs ncccssary to tcrminatc thc violation. !l thc
ncutral statc lails to tcrminatc thc violation ol its ncutral watcrs by a
bclligcrcnt, thc opposing bclligcrcnt must so notily thc ncutral Statc
and givc that ncutral Statc a rcasonablc timc to tcrminatc thc violation
.. NVP .. M (supra notc ), chaptcr ,.
.. Gcrman Navy, Commandcrs Handbook (supra notc .cc), MN aa, ct scq.
..6 UK Manual (supra notc ).
.., Tc amcndcd vcrsion ol thc UK Manual, which was availablc on thc intcrnct until
rcccntly, will bc publishcd in duc coursc.
567 20 Bene.olent Tird States in International rmed Conicts
by thc bclligcrcnt. !l thc violation ol thc ncutrality ol thc Statc by thc
bclligcrcnt constitutcs a scrious and immcdiatc thrcat to thc sccurity
ol thc opposing bclligcrcnt and thc violation is not tcrminatcd, thcn
that bclligcrcnt may, in thc abscncc ol any lcasiblc and timcly altcr
nativc, usc such lorcc as is strictly ncccssary to rcspond to thc thrcat
poscd by thc violation.
A ncutral Statc has no choicc but to comply with thcsc essentialia neutralitatis
il it docs not wish to bccomc involvcd in an ongoing intcrnational armcd con
ict. Tcir applicability dcpcnds cxclusivcly on thc cxistcncc ol such a conict.
!n casc ol noncompliancc, thc aggricvcd bclligcrcnt is not obligcd to claim a
violation ol ncutral dutics. According to this authors vicw, thc admissibility ol
bclligcrcnt intcrlcrcncc with ncutrals is not thc rclcvant issuc. Tc locus must
instcad bc on thc objcct and purposc ol thc law ol ncutrality, which is protcc
tion ol thc bclligcrcnts intcrcsts and prcvcntion ol thc cscalation ol thc armcd
conict. Undcr this rcading, thc essentialia neutralitatis must ol ncccssity bc auto
matically applicablc in cvcry intcrnational armcd conict. Vhcthcr and to what
cxtcnt thc rcmaining rulcs and principlcs ol thc law ol ncutrality arc applicablc
will dcpcnd on thc circumstanccs ol cach casc. Tis docs not mcan that it will
dcpcnd on thc dccision ol a third Statc, but, instcad, on whcthcr thc partics to
an intcrnational armcd conict arc willing and ablc to cnlorcc thc wholc body
ol thc law ol ncutrality. Tc lailurc ol thc bclligcrcnts to so cnlorcc it (bccausc
thcy arc conlrontcd with a powcrlul ncutral Statc or bccausc thcy do not want
to intcrlcrc with tradc rclations), docs not imply that thc csscntials ol thc law ol
ncutrality arc mcaninglcss or obsolctc. Tird Statcs continuc to bc bound by thc
essentialia neutralitatis cvcn il thc bclligcrcnts rclrain lrom cnlorccmcnt. A lunc
tional and dicrcntial approach cxplains why Statcs, in thcir military manuals lor
cxamplc, continuc to rccognizc thc traditional law ol ncutrality by quoting thc
.c, Haguc Convcntions \ and X!!!. Vhilc thc law ol ncutrality rcmains sub
stantivcly unmodicd, only thc rulcs strictly ncccssary to achicvc its objcct and
purposc bccomc automatically applicablc during intcrnational armcd conict
Concluding Remarks
8y assisting thc US warghting cort in !raq thc Gcrman Govcrnmcnt con
travcncd thc law ol ncutrality bccausc it lailcd to adhcrc to thc essentialia neu-
tralitatis. Vhcthcr pcration !raqi Frccdom could bc charactcrizcd as a statc
ol war is irrclcvant. As has bccn argucd, thc lact that !raq was unablc to rcact to
thc violations is also irrclcvant. !n vicw ol !raqs inability to rcact, somc may con
cludc that it is lutilc to cxaminc that casc or to dcal with thc law ol ncutrality at
all. !t should, howcvcr, not bc ovcrlookcd that thc law ol ncutrality dcspitc thc
UNs collcctivc sccurity systcm continucs to scrvc thc vital intcrcsts ol Statcs,
likc thc Fcdcral Rcpublic ol Gcrmany, which dcpcnd hcavily on intcrnational
568 !ol Heintschel .on Heinegg
tradc. Statcs should thcrclorc think twicc bclorc dcparting lrom thc csscntials ol
ncutrality law. !l thcy wcrc to bc conlrontcd with a bclligcrcnt lar morc powcr
lul than !raq in a luturc conict, thc law ol ncutrality could provc to bc thc only
lcgal ordcr ccctivcly protccting thcir lcgitimatc intcrcsts as Statcs not taking
part in thc conict.
!ndcx
A
Adviscrs
rolc ol, 404
Alghanistan
al Qacda and Taliban targcts, bombing
ol, 158, 166
attacks on as sclldclcnsc, 162
conict, application ol Gcncva Con
vcntions, 213215, 224
countcrtcrrorism opcrations in, 177
178
lorcign ghtcrs, dctcntion ol, 437438
humanitarian law rulcs govcrning
hostilitics in, 345
!SAF mission, 270
lawlul attack on, 11
occupation ol, 471
opposing lorccs, dcnial ol prisoncrol
war status, 334
Taliban,
al Qacda, support lor, 186
sanctions against, 161162, 167
strikcs on, 186
tcrrorist group, dircction to takc
action against, 181
US invasion ol, 258
Aggrcssion
armcd, 59
changing lunction ol, 61
clcarcut acts ol, 62
dcnition ol, 5657, 5960
lorcc not amounting to act ol, 169171
lcgal lunction or signicancc, 6263
Sccurity Council, paucity ol practicc
ol, 62
UN Chartcr, addrcsscd in, 6061
Agincourt, 8attlc ol, 405
Albania
Corlu Channcl, mincswccping, 179
180
Anncxation
cascs ol, 444
illcgal, 443, 514518
original status ol tcrritory, 444
prohibition, 442445
scparation lcncc lor purposcs ol, 536
translormativc occupation, and, 442
443
Armcd attack
aggrcssion, dcnition ol, 5657
civilians, involving, 278
lronticr incidcnt, and, 56
Gcncral Asscmbly, dcnition by, 53
immcdiatc rcsponsc to, 153
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, dcni
tion by, 58, 122123
law cnlorccmcnt against, 171
lowcring ol bar, 187
naturc ol, 169171
nonStatc actors, by, 158
rcgular armcd lorccs, actions by, 5456
sclldclcnsc,
looscning ol rcquircmcnt lor, 8889
rcsort to, 79
statc practicc, 62
Statc rcsponsibility lor, 185
UN Chartcr, addrcsscd in, 6061
usc ol armcd lorcc, and, 5960
Armcd conict
allcgcd US violations ol law ol, 212,
221225
applicability ol law ol, 213215
attcmpts to catcgorizc, 268
bcncvolcnt third partics,
discrimination by, 552
570 Index
cconomic prot by, 554
ncutrality. Scc Ncutrality
nonbclligcrcncy. Scc Nonbclligcr
cncy
tcrritory, usc ol, 543
unjust causc, rcquircmcnt to rclrain
lrom acts lavoring, 546
changing naturc ol, 269
civilian population, duty protcct, 253
continuation ol, 244
dccrcasing numbcr ol, 270
hypocritical pcriphrasis, 30
intcrnational,
bclligcrcnt immunity, taking up
arms without complying with
prcrcquisitcs, 418421
dctcntion in, 348349
intcrnational policc action, pcr
ccivcd as, 262
law cnlorccmcnt actions, changc
into, 263264
low lcvcl 272
mcaning, 344
naturc ol, 267
tcrrorists, law cnlorccmcnt aimcd at,
261262
transnational tcrrorism, arising
lrom, 270
intcrnational participation in, 270
jus in bello, conccpt lor, 46
law, pragmatic naturc ol, 332
lawlul rcsort to, 242
lcgal mcaning, 47
modcrn,
changc in naturc, 266
cxisting law, suitability ol, 280293
mcthods and mcans, 274280
scopc ol rulcs, conscnsus lor, 274
traditional intcrnational law con
ccpts, challcnging, 272273
typcs ol, 267274
nonintcrnational,
dctcntion in, 350351, 354
cncmy combatants in, 353354
humanitarian protcction, corts to
cxtcnd to, 271
intcrnal law, prohibitcd by, 254255
intcrnational humanitarian law,
trcatmcnt ol partics in, 255257
intcrnational law not prohibiting,
254255
jus ad bellum and jus in bello distin
guishcd, 254257
jus ad bellum, cxistcncc ol, 255
naturc ol, 267
occupation, 268
norms govcrning, univcrsality, 411
outlaw statcs, action against, 263264
scopc in intcrnational law, 47
taxonomics ol, 36
traditional catcgorics, blurring, 273
translcr ol sovcrcignty in !raq, ccct
ol, 421422
transnational, 272
violcncc rcaching lcvcl ol, 289
war on tcrrorism as, 344347
Armcd lorcc
cxccptions to prohibition, intcrprcta
tion ol, 10
lorciblc intcrvcntion, rcsponsc to chal
lcngcs ol, 9
intcrnational law govcrning usc ol, 1
lcgal authority lor usc ol, 13
UN Chartcr, usc undcr, 711
Armcd lorccs
bclligcrcnts, status ol, 327
civilianisation, trcnd towards, 399
civilians supporting, 280
combatants or noncombatants, as,
325, 327
hostilitics, involvcmcnt in, 328
mcmbcrship, lunctional dctcrmination
ol, 374376
US, rulcs govcrning, 386389
Australia
cputy Shcri, as, 15
prccmptivc sclldclcnsc policy, 101
103
B
8clligcrcnts
changing undcrstanding ol, 323
dcnitions, 321323
Haguc Convcntion, 321322
hostilitics, involvcmcnt in, 328
571 Index
privilcgcd, 330, 332
prosccution, 331
qualications ol, 321
spics, 323
status, tcrm ol, 321322
unlawlul, 328, 330
unprivilcgcd, 330, 332
dctcntion ol, 334
prosccution, 331
protcction ol, 334
status ol, 275, 284287, 323
violation ol jus ad bellum, not agrccing
on, 246
8iological wcapons
limits ol acquisition ol, 237
8osnia and Hcrzcgovina
NAT air strikcs, right to rctaliatc,
260
8rownlic, !an, 9
C
Chcchnya
Russian sccurity lorccs, opcrations by,
288
Chcmical wcapons
limits ol acquisition ol, 237
China
prccmptivc usc ol lorcc, 108
Chivalry
codc ol, 410411
Civilians
combatants distinguishcd, 275, 318
319
dcnition, 325, 330
dircct participation in hostilitics, 338
341, 385
Fourth Gcncva Convcntions, protcctcd
by, 329330, 332, 339340
hostilitics, involvcmcnt in, 327
intcrnmcnt, duration ol, 331
military contractors. Scc Military
contractors
pcrsons taking dircct part in hostilitics,
status ol, 285
status dctcrmination, 329
unlawlul combatants, as, 338
Collcctivc sccurity
armcd lorccs, UN mcmbcr statcs
making availablc, 22
coalitions ol willing countrics, 232
rcgional organizations, by, 25
rcthinking, rcason lor, 2122
right to sclldclcnsc, and, 119
sclldclcnsc, 24
Unitcd Nations rcgimc,
dcsign ol, 22
inauguration ol, 58
lcgal and political structurc ol, 150
original dcsign, aws in, 2223
ovcrcoming wcakncsscs ol, 2426
standing lorcc, lailurc to cstablish,
23
wcakncsscs ol, 2224
US systcm, 147150
Combatants
acquiring status as, 401
activity, indicating, 321
Additional Protocol !, trcatmcnt in,
286287
armcd conict, in, 320
changing undcrstanding ol, 323
civilians distinguishcd, 275, 318319
conduct bascd asscssmcnt, 324
controvcrsy ovcr word, 318
dcnitions, 318327, 336
dctcrmination ol status, 336
cncmy, 327
armcd conict, in, 344
dctcntion ol, 347352
mcaning, 342344, 355
nonintcrnational armcd conict, in,
353354
notion ol, 342354
scopc ol pcrsons considcrcd to bc,
353354
status ol, 353
!CRC Customary Law Study,
approach in, 286
illcgal, 418421
immunity, 336
lawlul, 286
military contractors, status ol, 373381
nonstatc actors, 286
prisoncrs ol war, dctcntion as, 324
status ol, 324
572 Index
dctcrmination, 329
intcrnational humanitarian law,
undcr, 335342
tcchnical tcrm, as, 319
tcrrorists, including, 325
Tird Gcncva Convcntion, tcrm not
sucd in, 322
unlawlul, 285
Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, protcc
tion undcr, 339, 341
lcgal notion ol, 335
lcgal status, 338342
mcaning, 337338
Command rcsponsibility
Krstic, casc ol, 410
Romc Statutc, provisions ol, 220221
Shakcspcarc, in, 408411
war crimcs, lor, 220225
Yamashita principlc, 409
Crusadcs
justication, 45
Cyprus
Northcrn, application ol human rights
law, 460461
Czcchoslovakia
human rights law, application ol provi
sions ol 459460
D
cmocracy
domino ccct, 236237
ctainccs
status, standard ol trcatmcnt dcpcnd
ing on, 291
ctcntion
administrativc, 351352
Alghanistan, in, 437438
capturcd pcrsons, ol, 367
civilian, in !raq,
Appcllatc Rcvicw Pancl, 427
Ar Rabit, lrom, 413
brigadc intcrnmcnt lacility, in, 431
criminal suspccts, ol, 417
dcbatc, dcning, 414422
dccision on, 425
dctaining commandcr, rcvicw by,
425428
ctcntion Rcvicw Authority, 427
division intcrnmcnt lacility, in, 431
duc proccss salcguards, 414
luturc, modcl lor, 435438
illcgal combatants, 418421
implcmcntation ol law, 424425
initial stagcs ol rcvicw, 431
!raqi domcstic law, undcr, 429
justication, 413
lcgal basis lor, 414
occupation, during, 423424
translcr ol sovcrcignty, altcr, 428430
lcgal custody v. physical control,
417418
mandatc, implcmcnting, 430431
occupation law, undcr, 424
occupation, during, 422428
phascs ol, 415
proccss, 432434
rcsponsiblc command, undcr, 430
Rcvicw and Rclcasc 8oard, 427,
432436
sccurity intcrnccs, 418421, 423
424
statc practicc, conicting cxamplcs
ol, 436
thcatcr intcrnmcnt lacility (Abu
Ghraib), in, 431432
translcr ol sovcrcignty, lollowing,
414, 428434
writtcn rcqucsts and arrcst warrants,
418
civilian, usc ol tcrm, 420
cncmy combatants, ol, 347352
human rights provisions, 352
intcrnational armcd conict, in, 348
349
nonintcrnational armcd conict, in,
350351, 354
outsidc armcd conict, 351352
prctrial, 352
iplomatic prcmiscs
obligation to protcct, 180
urcss
ordcrs, carrying out undcr, 407408
573 Index
E
ast Timor
scorchcdcarth policy in, 229
ntcbbc Airport
rcscuc mission at, 8
ritrcathiopia Claims Commission
application ol intcrnational humani
tarian law during military occupa
tion, qucstion ol, 249
partial award by, 334
thiopia
allcgcd dcclaration ol war on ritrca,
334
F
Falklands Var
nonbclligcrcncy, 550551
Total xclusion Zonc, 564
Forcc
act ol aggrcssion, not amounting to
169171
armcd. Scc Armcd lorcc
armcd attack, and, 5960
conccpt ol, 30
jus ad bellum, and, 4563
gravc lorms ol usc ol, 4950
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, vicw ol,
4863
intcrnational law litcraturc, 31
intcrvcntion, as, 52
intcrvcntion, rclationship with, 6376
irrcgular lorccs, by, 55
lcgal mcaning, 47
lcss gravc lorms ol usc ol, 5054
prohibition,
lorms to which applying, 68
proportionatc countcrmcasurcs, 52
scopc ol, 68
Sccurity Council mandatc, 159162
thrcshold lor, 56
topographics ol,
dcpiction ol, 77
mcaning, 30
war, short ol, 35
Francc
Frcnch cct, ncutralization by Royal
Navy, 1940, 129134, 145
prccmptivc usc ol lorcc, 107
Franck, Tomas M., 8
G
Gcncva Convcntions
Additional Protocol !, 268, 292, 294,
298300
combatants and civilians, catcgorics
ol 329
combatants, dcnition ol, 325327
Alghanistan conict, applicability to,
213215
Common Articlc 3, 333
dctcntion ccntcrs, applicability to
dctainccs at, 215220
duc diligcncc standard, 409
human rights provisions, rclationship
with, 452453
law codicd in, 242
minimum protcctions undcr, 224
pcrsons protcctcd by, 328330
war or armcd conict, provisions
applying in casc ol, 3536
Guantanamo 8ay
dctainccs, lcgal status ol, 215220
dctcntion at, 437438
lorcign nationals, suit against US, 219
Gull Var. See also !raq, invasion ol
ccascrc, violation ol, 205206, 209,
232
phascs ol, 205
suspcnsion ol hostilitics, 205
H
Human rights
construction ol wall in ccupicd Tcr
ritorics, application ol Convcntions
to, 525528
dctcntion ccntcrs, violations at, 212,
215220
dcvclopmcnt ol law, 451
cxponcntial dcvclopmcnt ol, 21
humanitarian law, intcrlacc with,
287290
law ol war, rclationship with, 452458
nontrcaty, 352
occupation, application ol law in, 451
574 Index
467. Scc also ccupation
trcatics, 451
cxtratcrritorial application, 456
457
US condoning violations ol, 212
usc ol lorcc, norms controlling, 288
Humanitarian intcrvcntion
doctrinc ol, 202
lorciblc, 17
!raq, in, 17
Kosovo, in, 1617
mitigation ol actions, 910
principlcs lor, 1618
Rcport ol thc !ntcrnational Com
mission on !ntcrvcntion and Statc
Sovcrcignty, 1720
I
!ndia
prccmptivc sclldclcnsc by, 105
!ntcrnational Commission on !ntcrvcn
tion and Statc Sovcrcignty
Rcport ol, 23, 5, 1720
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc
armcd attack, dcnition ol, 58, 122
123
compulsory jurisdiction, acccptancc
ol, 199
conccpt ol war, abscncc in conccptual
ization, 31
construction ol wall in ccupicd Tcr
ritorics, dccisions. Scc !sracl
lorcc and intcrvcntion, rclationship ol,
6376
lorcc, vicw ol, 4863
lcgal contcnt ol right to sclldclcnsc,
asscssing, 8994
!ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor thc
Formcr Yugoslavia
control ovcr privatc individuals, dcgrcc
rcquircd by, 396
durcss, plca ol, 407408
jurisdiction, 396
!ntcrnational humanitarian law
application ol jus ad bellum, not rcn
dcring impossiblc, 252254
approach ol, 245
argumcnts undcr jus ad bellum not sucd
to intcrprct, 249252
both sidcs in conict, application to,
244
catcgorics ol pcrsons outsidc, 342
challcngcs to, 280
chivalric systcm, 411
combatant status undcr, 335342
combatant, usc ol tcrm, 319
componcnts ol, 241
contcmporary armcd conict, chal
lcngcs ol, 280293
contcmporary challcngcs lacing, 266
cracks in, 284293
dccisions, 317
cquality ol bclligcrcnts bclorc, 246248
cxplosivc rcmnants ol war, applicablc
to, 314
lrontlincs, application on, 283
individual taking dircct part in hostili
tics, not prohibiting, 400
intcrnational human rights, intcrlacc
with, 287290
jus in bello, as branch ol, 242
lcgitimacy ol causcs ol partics, and,
264
lex specialis, as, 287
longstanding principlcs, strcss placcd
on, 276
military occupation, on, 249
nonintcrnational armcd conict,
application to partics in, 255257
nonintcrnational conicts, application
in, 290
nonstatc actors cngagcd in national
libcration, application to, 268269
normativc provisions, cnlorccmcnt ol,
269
occupation, principlcs and proccdurcs
lor, 439440. Scc also ccupation
positivc law lramcwork, adcquacy ol,
292293
qualication ol conict undcr jus ad
bellum, application indcpcndcntly ol,
248249
rcsistancc to changc, 281284
rcspcct lor, 244
rcvicw ol, 281
575 Index
solt law, 294295
structurc and lcgal notions, undcr
standing ol, 355
tcrrorists, law cnlorccmcnt aimcd at,
261262
Unitcd Nations, whcthcr binding,
259260
unprivilcgcd bclligcrcnts, status ol,
275, 284287
usc ol sclldclcncc to intcrprct, 250
violations, cxpost justication, 263
way ahcad, 293296
!ntcrnational law
instcins approach to, 266
US attitudc to, 12
!ntcrvcntion
armcd, 6768
countcrmcasurcs, languagc ol, 7172
humanitarian. Scc Humanitarian
intcrvcntion
!ntcrnational Court ol Justicc, clcar
scnsc dcvclopcd by, 7576
lcgal lramcwork ol lorcc, rclationship
with, 6376
nonintcrvcntion, principlc ol
acts brcaching, 63
construction ol, 66
scopc, dcning, 6769
ocially solicitcd, 74
pcrmissiblc, possibilitics lor, 7374
political or idcological, unlawlulncss
ol, 7071
practicc ol, 6869
prohibition,
cxccptions, 7172
limitations, 7576
naturc ol, 6364
undcrstanding, lraming, 6768
!ran
prccmptivc sclldclcnsc by, 106
US mbassy in Tchran, scizurc ol, 180
!raq
activc hostilitics, cnding ol, 422
arms salcs to, 550
chcmical and biological wcapons,
scarch lor, 188189
civilian dctcntions in. Scc ctcntion
coalition lorccs in, 415
conict, naturc ol, 363367
continuing armcd conict in, 365366
dcmocracy in, 236
disarmamcnt rcgimc, basis lor, 234
lorcign ghtcrs, turnovcr lor prosccu
tion, 437
lormcr rcgimc clitc, trcatmcnt ol,
416417
insurgcnts, ghting, 366
intcgrity ol statc, 507
intcrim administration, corts to
lcgitimizc, 505508
invasion. See !raq, invasion ol
intcrnational armcd conict law apply
ing in, 363367
military contractors in. See Military
contractors
military opcrations, closurc ol, 366
occupation law, 364
occupation ol,
administration, 478480
April 2003, lrom, 476489
basis ol authority, 480
bclligcrcnt, 505508
changcs madc, 484
Coalition Provisional Authority,
crcation ol, 480482
conduct ol, 483484
controvcrsial ordcrs, 484
dc8aathication ol socicty, 484
dissolution ol cntitics, 484
lorcign invcstmcnt, 485
lormal cnding, 486487
goals, 480
Haguc and Gcncva law, lramcwork
ol, 478
human rights law, application ol
provisions ol 462464
insurgcncy, dcvclopmcnt ol, 485
486
lcgal justication, 474475
lcgal norms, qucstion ol violating,
477
libcration, and, 477
ncw currcncy, introduction ol, 484
objcctivcs, 482483
planning, 476
political motivcs, 472
576 Index
political rcstructuring, rolc ol coali
tion in, 503505
political translormation, 486
prisoncrs, maltrcatmcnt ol, 484
proportionality, 474
salc havcn, 471472
translormation as basis ol dccision
to usc lorcc, 472475
translormativc, 476489
UN, rolc ol, 483
il lor Food scandal, 239240
pcacctimc law cnlorccmcnt in, 414
415
political translormation, 486
postwar asscssmcnt ol wcapons pro
grams, 238239
Survcy Group, 239
tcrrorism, tics to, 188
translcr ol sovcrcignty, 488489
dctcntions lollowing, 414, 428434
intcrnational armcd conict, cnding,
421422
UNM\!C, 234
UNSCM, lailurc to comply with,
233234
US and UK action in, 189, 195
wcapons ol mass dcstruction, unlawlul,
234235, 239
wcapons programs, lailurc to account
lor, 231233
withdrawal ol lorccs, right to dcmand,
488
!raq, invasion ol
anticipatory sclldclcnsc, as, 142144,
147
argumcnt in support ol, 229
buildup to, 12
cost ol, 236
dctcntion ccntcrs, human rights viola
tions at, 215220, 226
clcctions lollowing, 236
Gcrman tcrritory, usc ol, 543
humanitarian intcrvcntion, 17
illcgality, dcbatc in Gcrmany, 543544
lcgal and policy justication, 204211
lcgal grounds lor, 12
lcgal justication, 142
lcgality ol, UK govcrnmcnt sccking
opinion on, 13
political lcadcrs, discussion by, 235
Sccurity Council blockcd lrom action
on, 235236
Sccurity Council rcsolutions, intcrprc
tation ol, 209211, 229231
sclldclcnsc as justication ol, 206207
Taliban and Al Qacda dctainccs,
status ol, 215220, 226
trcatmcnt ol, 220225
unlawlul, argumcnt lor 11
unprcdictability, 229
!sracl
construction ol wall in ccupicd Tcr
ritorics,
anncxation, illcgality ol, 514518
bclligcrcnt occupation, application
ol law ol, 518525
claim, 251, 267, 288, 461462
common issucs, 511530
dccisions on, 509510
dccisions, commonalitics, dicr
cnccs and spccics in, 540541
dcstruction or rcquisition ol prop
crty lor, 515516, 523
Haguc Rcgulations, lcgality in light
ol, 522523
human rights Convcntions, applica
tion ol, 525528
laws ol bclligcrcnt occupation,
lcgality in light ol, 535538
lcgality ol, 509
nccds ol army, justicd by, 524
proportionality principlc, 538540
scizurc ol land lor, 522
sclldclcnsc, as, 532535
spccic rights ol Palcstinians, viola
tion ol, 528530
construction ol wall in ccupicd Tcr
ritorics, claim on, 90, 168
Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, dcnial ol
application, 248
!raq!sracl conict, adjudication ol
action, 3740
Jcrusalcm, status ol, 512
occupicd tcrritorics, application ol
human rights law, 461462
prccmptivc usc ol lorcc, 104
577 Index
scttlcmcnts on Vcst 8ank, lcgality ol,
530532
Six ay Var, 1967, 134139, 146
strikc on !raqs nuclcar rcactor,
anticipatory sclldclcnsc, as, 134
142, 146147
ocial justication ol, 40
prccmptivc usc ol lorcc, as, 104
Vcst 8ank, lcgal status ol,
bclligcrcnt occupation, 511514
common ruling, pcculiarity ol,
513514
Fourth Gcncva Convcntion, non
rccognition ol dc jurc applicability
ol, 519521
Haguc Rcgulations, application ol,
519
human rights Convcntions, applica
tion ol, 525528
spccic provisions, application ol,
521525
Ius ad bellum. See Jus ad bellum
Ius in bello. See Jus in bello
J
Japan
utch ast !ndics, movc against, 146
prccmptivc sclldclcnsc, position on,
103104
Jus ad bellum
argumcntativc practiccs ol, 34
broad conccpt ol, 242
dcning tcxts ol, 46
lorcc, conccpt ol, 4563
Gcrman cquivalcnt, 243
history ol, 243244
intcrnational humanitarian law not
rcndcring application impossiblc,
252254
intcrnational humanitarian law, argu
mcnts not uscd to intcrprct, 249252
!raq!sracl conict, adjudication ol
action, 3740
jus in bello distinguishcd, 290292
conscqucnccs ol, 248254
contcmporary thrcats to, 257264
disciplinary cquation with 47
nonintcrnational armcd conicts,
in, 254257
scparation, 244246
Kcllogg8riand Pact, 46
lcgal mcaning ol war, possibilitics lor,
37
naval warlarc, 563
nonintcrnational armcd conict, jus in
bello distinguishcd, 254257
ocial justication ol !sracls strikc on
!raqs nuclcar rcactor, 40
origin ol tcrm, 243
principlcs, 290
provcnancc and augmcntation ol, 33
right to wagc war, instanccs ol, 242
schcma,
lincar naturc ol, 159
Sccurity Council mandatc, 159162
scll dclcncc. See Sclldclcncc/
dclcnsc
strict construction, 201
support, lcvcl ol, 187
UN Chartcr Articlc 2(4). organizing
principlc in 46
usc ol lorcc, rulcs on, 241242
rulcs on lcgality ol, 241242
usc ol military lorcc pursuant to, 159
violation, bclligcrcnts not agrccing on,
246
war on tcrror, application in, 258
Jus in bello
application ol law, 290
dcning tcxts ol, 46
Gcncva Convcntions, application ol,
3536
Gcrman cquivalcnt, 243
history ol, 243244
intcrnational human rights, allcgcd
violations ol, 211225
intcrnational humanitarian law as
branch ol, 242
!raq!sracl conict, adjudication ol
action, 3740
jus ad bellum distinguishcd, 290292
conscqucnccs ol, 248254
contcmporary thrcats to, 257264
disciplinary cquation with 47
nonintcrnational armcd conicts,
578 Index
in, 254257
scparation, 244246
naval warlarc, 563
nonintcrnational armcd conict, jus
ad bellum distinguishcd, 254257
origin ol tcrm, 243
rclcvant norms, implcmcntation ol, 36
timc ol war, application ol laws in, 46
translormativc occupation projccts,
lcgal lramcwork lor, 440
Just war thcory
classical, 243
collegium fetiale, institution ol, 3
dcclinc ol, 67
Lcnin, dcclaration by, 67
ncw intcrcst in, 1
origins ol, 36
pcrvcrsion ol, 5
political cxigcncics, subscrvicncc to, 4
rcsponsibility to protcct, and, 1819
St. Tomas Acquinas, dctails sct out
by, 5
usc ol lorcc, unjusticd, 1
K
Kosovo
humanitarian intcrvcntion in, 1617
NAT campaign, 202204
Kuwait
attcmptcd anncxation, 443444
invasion ol,
aggrcssivc conduct by !raq, as cul
mination ol, 231
withdrawal, Sccurity Council
dcmanding, 232
!raqi invasion ol, 7, 204
L
Landmincs
activc lilc, limiting, 312
antipcrsonncl, 309
ttawa Convcntion, 312313
Lcaguc ol Nations
loundation ol, 7
Libya
sanctions against, 161
US bombing in, 157
M
Mcrccnarics
activc rolc ol, 368
criminalization, 368
historical pcrspcctivc, 367369
mcaning, 367
military contractors as, 381382
nationality critcrion, 382
rcdundant military pcrsonncl as, 369
status ol, 332333
Military contractors
accountability, 386
actions attributablc to statcs, 393
civilian cxpcrtisc, 372
civilians, as, 377, 379381
combatants or noncombatants, as,
373381
cost ol, 370371
dircct participation in hostilitics, 382
386, 398
ccctivc control ovcr, 395396
group cohcsion, 372
historical pcrspcctivc, 367369
intclligcncc gathcring, 384
!ntcrnational Criminal Tribunal lor
thc Formcr Yugoslavia, dcgrcc ol
control rcquircd by, 396
!raq, in,
applicablc law, 363
companics cmploying, 359361
criminal jurisdiction ovcr, 386389
dcaths, 361
dctcntion ol, 367
dircct participation in hostilitics,
382386, 398
lunctions ol, 359360
hostilitics, participation in, 362
individual, usc ol, 358
lcgal issucs, 362363
lcgal status, 363
numbcrs ol, 357358
outsourcing, analysis ol, 362
privatc military companics, cmploy
mcnt by, 360
sccrccy ol, 361
shadow armcd lorcc, as, 357367
shorttcrm contracts, 359
579 Index
unlawlul acts, statc rcsponsibility
lor, 392399
lcgal rcsponsibilitics to, 391
lcgal status,
companics, ol, 373
contractors, ol, 373382
liability ol,
accountability, 386
civil, 390392
criminal, 386389
mcrccnarics, as, 381382
military command, not undcr, 375
military objcctivcs, guarding, 384
national law, undcr, 379
nationality, 382
Nicaragua, in, 395
othcr partics, duty to notily ol, 378
outsourcing. See Military outsourcing
principlc ol distinction, 377, 401
prisoncr ol war status, 379, 381
protcction ol, 400401
protcction, providing, 380
rcscuc by, 385
status and accountability, qucstions as
to, 398
status ol, 377, 379381
training, 371
unilorms, 377378
unlawlul acts, statc rcsponsibility lor,
392399
US armcd lorccs, contracting by, 369
372
voluntccrs, as, 376
war crimcs by, 388
Military intcrvcntion
critcria lor, 2
human protcction, lor, 1819
Military opcrations
closurc ol, 366
Military outsourcing
analysis ol, 362
downsizing ol armcd lorccs, on, 370
lorccs driving, 370372
privatc scctor, to, 370
N
Namibia
occupicd, application ol human rights
law, 459
Ncutrality
bcncvolcnt, 556
conduct in accordancc with laws ol,
549
currcnt statc ol law, 560567
cvcry intcrnational armcd conict, not
applicablc in, 561
Gcrman Govcrnmcnt contravcning
law ol, 567
intcrStatc rclations, 565567
intcrnational law, in, 544556
!ran!raq Var, during, 548550, 553
law, applicability ol,
dccisions ol third statcs, dcpcnding
on, 560
no dcrogations ol, 556558
ratione materiae et temporis, 558560
scopc, 556
lcgal status ol, 555
modication ol law, 560
navy manuals, provisions ol, 566567
ncutral tradc, intcrlcrcncc with, 561
565
rcquircmcnt ol, 547548
Statcs not party to conict, and, 551
552
strict, 556
US Act, 545
violations ol law ol, 555
Nonbclligcrcncy
advocating, 545
conccpt, nonrccognition ol, 552
customary intcrnational law, in, 553
Falklands conict, during, 550551
intcrnational law, in, 544556
!ran!raq Var, during, 548550, 553
North Korca
nuclcar wcapons, justication ol dcvcl
opmcnt, 111
prccmptivc usc ol lorcc, 106
Nuclcar wcapons
intcrnational humanitarian law, usc
contrary to, 250
lcgality ol thrcat or usc ol, 4344
580 Index
O
ccupation
administration, lorm ol, 446
Alghanistan, ol, 471
bclligcrcnt,
applicablc law, 498500
authority ol hostilc army, undcr, 499
civilians, no translcr ol, 502
construction ol wall in ccupicd
Tcrritorics, lcgality ol, 535538
control and sccurity mcasurcs, 500
lundamcntal political changcs on,
498
!raq, ol. See !raq
isolatcd phcnomcnon, not, 497
!sracli wall casc, application ol law
in, 518525
lcgal ordcr or govcrnmcntal struc
turc, no intcrlcrcncc with, 501
lcgislativc actions, 502503
modcl lor, 508
occupant, obligations ol, 500503
pcnal law, 501
rulcs ol intcrnational law govcrning,
497498
ruling authority, 497
Vcst 8ank, ol, 511514
changcs introduccd undcr, 447451
civil and political rights in, 455
concomitant ol war, as, 442
dclcnsivc war, lollowing, 444445
cnding, 365
cxisting laws and cconomic arrangc
mcnts, rcspcct lor, 439
cxisting lcgislation, and, 447451
lundamcntal and lasting changc,
bringing about, 445
lundamcntal changcs, introduction ol,
439
Gcrmany, ol, 468470
human rights law, application ol provi
sions ol, 451452
asscssmcnt, critcria lor, 464467
Czcchoslovakia, 459460
dcrogations, 465
dcvclopmcnt ol, 451
cxtratcrritorial application, 456
457
implcmcntation, lcgal obligation,
457458
importancc ol, 466
incrcasing rccognition ol, 491
intcrnational attcntion, attracting,
454
!raq, in, 462464
!sraclioccupicd tcrritorics, 461462
law ol war, rclationship with, 452
458
Namibia, in, 459
Northcrn Cyprus, 460461
particular rclcvancc, 466467
partics to, 465
practical issucs, 458
rclcvancc ol, 489495
scopc ol, 464
signicancc ol, 453454
spccic issucs, 456
Unitcd Nations, rolc ol, 458459
usc ol lorcc, asscssing, 456
intcrnational humanitarian law, prin
ciplcs ol, 439440
!raq, ol, 365
Japan, ol, 468470
jus post bellum, 490
law, 364
viablc and usclul, bcing, 439
libcrators, illusions ol wclcomc as, 492
ccupying Powcr, 446
tcmporary trustccship, 446
translormativc,
anncxation, and, 442443
bodics attcmpting, 490
distinct typcs ol, 490491
cxisting laws, compatibility with,
492
history ol, 445
humanitarian intcrvcntion, as, 440
implications ol, 467
!raq, ol, 471489. See also !raq
jus in bello, lcgal lramcwork undcr,
440
laws ol war, 442451
lcgal approachcs to, 494
lcgal justication lor, 440
original rcason lor intcrvcntion,
581 Index
distinct lrom, 441
particular projccts distinguishcd,
493
political purposc, 441
postCold Var, 470471
post1945, 467489
progrcss, bringing, 467
Sccond Vorld Var, postsurrcndcr,
468470
war, laws ol,
anncxation, prohibition, 442445.
See also Anncxation
cxisting lcgislation, and, 447451
human rights provisions, morc
dctailcd than, 465
minimal altcration ol cxisting ordcr,
as to, 442
occupants structurc ol authority,
445447
rclcvancc ol, 489495
rdcr
crimc, to commit, 406408
not qucstioning, 407
P
Pakistan
Unitcd Statcs air strikcs in, 183184
Panama
US invasion ol, 258
Pcacckccping
military participation, as, 270
purposc ol, 23
Poison
wcapon, usc as or in, 307
Principlc ol distinction
customary intcrnational law, as lunda
mcntal principlc ol, 276
gcographic arca ol opcrations, ccct ol
cxpansion, 278
military contractors, position ol, 377,
401
modcrn battlcspacc, rclcvancc in, 279
Prisoncrs ol war
activc hostilitics, hcld until ccssation
ol, 331
Alghanistan, status ol lorccs in, 334
combatants as, 336
dcnition, 322323
cncmy,
lormcr rcgimc clitc as, 416417
right to trcatmcnt as, 416
military contractors, status ol, 379, 381
right to capturc and hold, 416
status, claiming, 324
Taliban and Al Qacda dctainccs,
status ol, 215220, 226
trcatmcnt ol, 220225
Taliban ghtcrs, status dcnicd to, 286
R
Rcprisals
dclcnsivc, 152
sclldclcnsc, dividing linc with, 151
154
Roman mpirc
Christianity as ocial rcligion ol, 34
Rulc ol law
idcal, 198
mcaning, 197198
modcl, 197198
Russia
prccmptivc usc ol lorcc, 105
S
Sclldclcncc/dclcnsc
actions in, 11
anticipatory, 80, 114
Caroline critcria, application ol,
126128
conclusions, 145147
customary law, in, 128150
lormula lor, 145
Frcnch cct, ncutralization by Royal
Navy, 1940, 129134, 145
Gull Var 2003, 142144, 147
!sracli strikc against sirak Nuclcar
Rcactor, 134142, 146147
ncccssary, critcrion ol, 207208
ncccssity and proportionality, 123
124
proportionality, 207208
rclormulatcd tcst lor, 207208
rcjcction ol doctrinc, 208
right ol, 121
582 Index
Six ay Var, 1967, 134139, 146
Statc practicc, 128150
usc ol tcrm, 115
armcd attack,
looscning ol rcquircmcnt, 8889
naturc ol, 169171
attack on Alghanistan, as basis lor, 162
codicd norm ol, 163
collcctivc, 72
collcctivc right to, 552
construction ol wall in ccupicd Tcr
ritorics, claim ol !sracl on, 90, 168,
251, 267, 288, 532535
critcria lor cxcrcisc ol, 120128
customary law, status in,
mcthodology, 128
Statc practicc, 129150
dcgrcc ol lorcc, 172
domcstic criminal law, in, 154
cxtratcrritorial law cnlorccmcnt, 15
lailurc to act against, 120
lcttcr on right to act in, 171
lramcwork lor analysis, 114
illcgal lorcc, rcsponsc to, 117
illcgal or inappropriatc, 119120
immcdiacy as indcpcndcnt critcrion
lor cxcrcisc ol right, 151155
immcdiacy critcrion, 172175
individual or collcctivc cxcrcisc ol, 163,
165
inhcrcnt right ol, 24, 4344
intcrnational humanitarian law, intcr
prctation ol, 250
intcrnational systcm, rcccting rcalitics
ol, 155
irrcgular lorccs, against, 9394
isolatcd armcd attack, altcr, 175
jus ad bellum, placc in, 115
lcgal basis ol right,
dual customary Chartcr basis, 117
118, 120125
occurrcncc ol armcd attack, prcdi
catcd on, 121125
strict and litcral intcrprctation, 121
substancc ol, 115120
tcmporal dimcnsion, 125128
UN Chartcr, 115120
mcasurcs short ol war,
Caroline principlcs, application ol,
42
wars ol sclldclcncc, and, 4041, 44
ncccssity critcrion, 171
nonStatc actors, against, 167169
nonStatc cntity, by, 118
nonstatc groups, against, 9394
onc sidc in armcd conict bclicving
in 251
pcrmittcd, 79
prccmptivc, 1416
anothcr statc, attack on, 109
attacks ol Scptcmbcr 11, 2001,
ccct ol, 8586
Australia, policy in, 101103
broadcr US claim, 108
8ush Administration, dcbatc by,
8688
8ush doctrinc, 147150, 154
Caroline critcria, application ol, 114,
125128
casc lor, 189194
China, by, 108
claim to right ol, 7988
Clinton Administration, stratcgy
ol, 84
Congo, activitics on tcrritory ol, 91
controvcrsy ovcr, 113
covcrt costs, 111
dcbatc ovcr, 209
disagrccmcnt with right ol, 109110
cxplicit collcctivc claims, 95
cxplicit unilatcral claims, 9596
Francc, by, 107
Frcnch cct, ncutralization by Royal
Navy, 1940, 129134, 145
gcncral possibility ol attack, rclcvant
to, 149
Gull Var 2003, 142144, 147
immcdiatc thrcat, against, 114
!ndia, by, 105
!ran, by, 106
!sracls strikc against !raq, 95
!sracl, by, 104
!sracli strikc against sirak Nuclcar
Rcactor, 134142, 146147
Japan, position in, 103104
583 Index
lcgal contcnt ol right, asscssing,
8994
lcvcls ol violcncc, 80
lowlcvcl conicts, in, 110
mimctic cccts, 110112
North Korca, by, 106
opcn dcbatc on, 96
potcntial thrcat, against, 113
rcactivc, 84
Russia, by, 105
Shultz octrinc, 8283
Six ay Var, 1967, 134139, 146
Taiwan, by, 108
Unitcd Kingdom, doctrinc in,
96101
US collcctivc sccurity systcm, 147
150
US National Sccurity Stratcgy, 87,
147, 154, 189194
usc ol tcrm, 115
proportionality critcrion, 172
purposc ol, 124125
radically intcrprctcd right ol, 150
rcdcnition ol, 2425
rcprisal, dividing linc with, 151154
scopc and limits ol, 150
scopc ol action in, 24
Sccurity Council, rcport to, 11
Statcs, by, 118
strict application ol right, 116
tcmporal dimcnsion, 125128
customary law, in, 128150
rclcvant circumstanccs, in, 154
rcprisal, dividing linc with, 151154
tcrritorial sovcrcignty yiclding to, 194
UN collcctivc sccurity systcm, and, 119
UN High Lcvcl Pancl, rcport ol, 192
Unitcd Statcs claiming right to, 163
167
wars ol,
mcasurcs short ol war, and, 4041,
44
mcrits, asscssmcnt ol, 42
proportionality, principlc ol, 4142
validity ol, 4243
Sclldctcrmination
anncxation, prccluding, 518
Palcstinian pcoplc, right ol, 515516
principlc ol, 515
Scmantics
study ol law, importancc in, 317318
Shakcspcarc, Villiam
adviscrs, rolc ol, 404
ntony and Cleopatra, 408410
command rcsponsibility, dcpiction ol,
408411
Hcnry \, 405
King John, 406
lcadcrsubordinatc intcraction, dcpic
tion ol, 410
lcadcrs committing crimcs, dcpiction
ol, 403405
man lor all timc, as, 403
ordcr to commit crimc, dcpiction ol,
406408
Fape of Lucrece, 404
Fichard II, 408
Fichard III, 406408
Solacr, Abraham ., 16
Solt law
approach ol, 294295
Sovict Union
dissolution, 200
Spics
bclligcrcnts, as, 323
St. Tomas Acquinas, 5
Stahn, Carstcn, 910
Statc rcsponsibility
intcntionally wronglul act, lor, 393
military contractors, lor unlawlul acts
ol, 392399
Statclcss pcrsons
protcction ol, 340
Statcs
obligation to policc tcrritory, 179181
tcrritorial intcgrity, 182
Stonc, Julius, 2
Sudan
sanctions against, 161
US attacks on, 164165, 193
T
Taiwan
prccmptivc usc ol lorcc, 108
Tcrrorism
584 Index
acting outsidc law, irrclutablc prc
sumption ol, 174
asymmctrical locs, combating, 8485
attacks ol Scptcmbcr 11, 2001, 8586,
158
bascs within sovcrcign statcs, opcration
lrom, 15
combatants, dcnition ol, 325
countcrtcrrorism,
Alghanistan, opcrations in, 177178
anticipatory, 174
conscnt ol Statc on which taking
placc, without, 176
crossbordcr opcrations, limits on,
182184
cxtratcrritorial law cnlorccmcnt,
177
lcgal basis lor, 159
maturation ol stratcgy and law, 194
situs ol opcrations, 176182
Statcsponsors, opcrations against,
184186
crossbordcr, 271273
dcnitions ol, 112
nancing, 161
history, in, 275
insurgcnts, and, 280
intcrccptivc, 174
intcrnational,
rcsort to military lorcc in rcsponsc
to, 165
thrcat to intcrnational pcacc and
sccurity, as, 160
usc ol lorcc, as qualilying condition
prcccdcnt to, 161
intcrnational law, rclationship with,
158
!raq, action against, 188189
law cnlorccmcnt aimcd at as intcrna
tional armcd conict, 261262
Madrid bombings, 346
mass casualty attacks, rcaction to, 187
multiplc strikcs, 175
policc, rcsponsc by, 293
Sccurity Council mcasurcs against, 161
scll dclcncc. Scc Sclldclcncc/dclcnsc
Shultz octrinc, 8283
Statcsponsors, opcrations against,
184186
Statc support lor,
attitudc ol National Sccurity Strat
cgy, 191
sanctions against, 194
thrcshold lor action, 174
timc and placc, unccrtainty as to, 193
transnational, conict arising lrom,
270271
unilatcral attacks to prcvcnt attacks,
8182
US National Sccurity ccision ircc
tivc 81
war on,
armcd conict, as, 344347
criticism ol actions, 211
lorm ol 345
global, 342
ncw typc ol conict, as, 347
scparatc groups as party to, 346
warning, abscncc ol, 173
Torturc
8ybcc mcmorandum, 222223
Guantanamo 8ay, conditions at, 219
ticking bomb sccnario, 9
Trcatics
law, cnlorcing, 283
ncgotiation proccss, 281
U
Uganda
acts ol armcd aggrcssion, allcgation
ol, 32
Salc Havcn documcnt, 9193
UN Chartcr
aggrcssion, addrcssing, 6061
armcd attack,
addrcssing, 6061
rcdcnition ol, 24
armcd lorcc, prohibition ol, 201
lorcc, conccpt ol, 34
lcgal basis to do what is morally right,
as, 1920
rclorm, road to, 27
sclldclcnsc, lawlulncss ol, 79
usc ol armcd lorcc in intcrnational
rclations, intcrprctation ol, 1
585 Index
usc ol lorcc undcr, 711
war, rclcrcnccs to, 34
Unitcd Kingdom
Frcnch cct, ncutralization by Royal
Navy, 1940, 129134, 145
prccmptivc sclldclcnsc doctrinc,
96101
Stratcgic clcnsc Rcvicw, 97
Unitcd Nations
collcctivc sccurity. Scc Collcctivc
sccurity
crcation ol, rolc ol Unitcd Statcs, 199
rst purposc ol, 21
Highlcvcl Pancl on Trcats, Chal
lcngcs and Changc, 8889
impact ol, 237
intcrnational humanitarian law,
whcthcr bound by, 259260
occupation ol !raq, rolc in, 483
occupations, rolc in applying human
rights in, 458459
third statcs as majority in, 199
Unitcd Nations Sccurity Council
actions in sclldclcnsc, rcport to, 11
attacks ol Scptcmbcr 11, 2001, con
dcmning, 160
cnlargcmcnt, incvitablc, 27
lailurc to dischargc rcsponsibilitics, 2
lcgislativc powcr, lack ol, 505
rclusal to act, ccct ol, 238
usc ol lorcc, authorisation ol, 159162
usc ol lorcc to bc undcrtakcn by, 149
vcto, powcr ol, 7
voluntary rcstraints on thrcat or usc ol
vcto, 2526
withdrawal lrom Kuwait, dcmanding,
232
Unitcd Statcs
attack on Alghanistan as sclldclcnsc,
193194
8ybcc mcmorandum, 222225
collcctivc sccurity systcm, 147150
crcation ol Unitcd nations, rolc in, 199
crossbordcr opcrations, 182184
intcrnational law, attitudc to, 12
intcrnational lcgal ordcr, loss ol control
ovcr, 199
intcrnational ordcr bascd on lcgal
principlcs, aim ol, 199
National Sccurity Stratcgy, 87, 147,
154, 189194
Pakistan, air strikcs in, 183184
position prior to cntry into Sccond
Vorld Var, 545547
powcr shilt, 200
prccmptivc sclldclcnsc, claim to,
7988
rulc ol law modcl, diculty in adhcr
ing to, 227
sclldclcnsc, claiming, 163167
supcrpowcr, as, 199
unilatcral action by, 200
W
Var
choicc ol law impcrativc, 3740
conccpt ol, 3145
dcning, obscssion ol, 32
dctcrmining cxistcncc ol statc ol,
558560
intcrnational rclations, as lact in, 244
jus ad bellum and jus in bello, unilying
lramc ol rclcrcncc, 2930
jus ad bellum, possibilitics ol lcgal
mcaning lor, 37
just or humanitarian, ncw conccpts ol,
257260
laws ol, rclusal ol !LC to codily, 245
lcgal condition, as, 3145
lcgal signicancc, diminution, 33
pcacctimc status mixus, 268
sclldclcnsc, ol,
mcasurcs short ol war, and, 4041,
44
mcrits, asscssmcnt ol, 42
proportionality, principlc ol, 4142,
45
validity ol, 4243
thrcc block, 293
traditional institutions ol, 42
wartimc status mixus, 268
Vorld Tradc Ccntcr attacks, usc ol
tcrm lollowing, 293
Var crimcs
command rcsponsibility lor, 220225
586 Index
intcrnational humanitarian law, rcli
ancc on, 244
military contractors, by, 388
Var, laws ol
human rights provisions, rclationship
with, 452458
human rights, salcguarding, 455
military occupation, as to. Scc ccupa
tion
Unitcd Nations intcrcst in dcvclop
mcnt ol, 453
Varlarc
asymmctric, 274
cnvironmcntal dimcnsion, 301, 305
306
modcrn, 274280
nonstatc actors, usc by, 276277
tools ol, 274
Vcaponry
antipcrsonncl landmincs, 309
clcanup costs, 310311
computcr as 277
Convcntional Vcapons Convcntion
gcncration ol ncw law, as vchiclc
lor, 311
proccss, 298
protocols, 309, 311312
discriminatory way, usc in, 306
cxplosivc rcmnants, 310311,313
!CRC Customary Law Study,
approach in, 300
law ol,
adcquacy ol, 311315
cxpansion ol, 315
lundamcntal principlcs, 298301
intcrnational, 297
Martcns clausc, 298299, 420
ncw, proposals lor, 316
spccic, abscncc ol, 298
summary, 315
mass dcstruction. See Vcapons ol mass
dcstruction
ncw, lcgal rcvicw ol,
altcrnativc systcms, 310311
circumstanccs ol usc, considcration
ol, 303
Convcntional Vcapons Convcn
tion, provisions ol, 309
data supporting, 302303
discrimination, 306
cnvironmcntal impact, 305306
luturc dcvclopmcnts, 310
guidancc on conduct ol, 310
lcgal rcquircmcnt, 301302
particular wcapons, spccic rulcs
applying to, 307309
proccss, 303
supcruous injury or unncccssary
sucring, causing, 304305
UK Guidancc, 302303
poison, usc ol, 307
prccision, 278279
prohibitcd bullcts, 308
prohibitcd usc ol, 299
rcscarch, lcgal input, 302
satcllitcs, 277
St. Pctcrsburg cclaration, 299
supcruous injury or unncccssary sul
lcring, causing, 299301, 304305
tcchnology, usc ol, 276278
trcaty rcgimc, 297
Vcapons ol mass dcstruction
!raq, unlawlully in, 234235
limits ol acquisition ol, 237
rcgimc lor, 307
International Humanitarian Iaw Series
. Michacl J. Kclly, Festoring and Maintaining Order in Complex Peace Operations: Te
Search for a Legal Frame.ork, . isnx c .. ..,
a Hclcn urham and Timothy L.H. McCormack (cds.), Te Changing Face of Conict
and the Ecacy of International Humanitarian La., . isnx c .. ..c
Richard May, avid Tolbcrt, John Hocking, Kcn Robcrts, 8ing 8ing Jia, aryl Mundis
and Gabricl osthuizcn (cds.), Essays on ICTY Procedure and E.idence in Honour of
Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, acc. isnx c .. .a
lizabcth Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality Fe.isited:La., Teory and Case Studies,
acca isnx c .. .,,
Lal Chand \ohrah, Fausto Pocar, Yvonnc Fcathcrstonc, livicr Fourmy, Christinc
Graham, John Hocking and Nicholas Robson (cds.), Mans Inhumanity to Man:Essays
on International La. in Honour of ntonio Cassese, acc isnx c .. .6
6 Gidcon 8oas and Villiam A. Schabas (cds.), International Criminal La. De.elopments
in the Case La. of the ICTY, acc isnx c .. ., 6
, Karcn Hulmc, !ar Torn En.ironment: Interpreting the Legal Treshold, acc
isnx c c . x
Hclcn urham and Traccy Gurd (cds.), Listening to the Silences: !omen and !ar, acc
isnx c c .6
Martcn Zwancnburg, ccountability of Peace Support Operations, acc
isnx c c .c
.c Hirad Abtahi and Gidcon 8oas (cds.), Te Dynamics of International Criminal La.,
acc6 isnx c c ., ,
.. Frits Kalshovcn, Belligerent Feprisals, acc isnx c c .6 6
.a Pablo Antonio FcrnndczSnchcz (cd.), Te Ne. Challenges of Humanitarian
La. in rmed Conicts: In Honour of Professor Juan ntonio Carrillo-Salcedo, acc
isnx c c .c a
. Ustinia olgopol and Judith Gardam (cds.), Te Challenge of Conict: International
La. Fesponds, acc6 isnx o o + o
. Laura Pcrna, Te Formation of the Treaty La. of Non-International rmed Conicts,
acc6 isnx c c .a
. Michacl Schmitt and Jclcna Pcjic (cds.), International La. and rmed Conict: Exploring
the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, acc, isnx , cc. a
.6 la ngdahl, Protection of Personnel in Peace Operations: Te Fole of the Safety Con.ention
against the Background of General International La., acc, isnx , cc. 66 ,
., Frits Kalshovcn, Feections on the La. of !ar: Collected Essays, :cc,
isnx , c c .a a
. Hctor lsolo, Unla.ful ttacks in Combat Situations: From the ICTYs Case La. to
the Fome Statute, acc, isnx , c c .6acc 6