In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: battlefield robots

28 Feb

...human rights and the law of war mutually exclusive. Considering the world as a comprehensive battlefield in which democracies are combating the war on terror is contrary to the rules of war. As in other different sectors of international law, the scope of a regulation is primarily territorial. Since we cannot consider the entire world as a battlefield, outside the zone of operations, there are no combatants, and thus no targets a priori. The reasoning of those who think that the term “war” to refer to international struggle against terrorism...
28.02.10 | |

21 Jul

...embassies, the Cole etc. are such overwhelming crimes that I think they negate the possibility of a truth and reconciliation type process. Feel free to make any normative argument you want, but I think my empirical point is accurate. Truch commissions investigate bad acts committed against good people, looking at bad acts againt bad people would be unprecedented. Kevin Jon Heller So all the detainees at Guantanamo who were picked up away from the battlefield by warlords looking for bounties, against whom the US government has no evidence of any...
21.07.08 | |

31 Jul

Howard Gilbert POWs are not limited to battlefield capture, and need not be people who have engaged in combat. With a conventional enemy army, anyone in uniform may be captured, including the cook who spent the war peeling potatoes or the file clerk who shuffles paper. Any member of the enemy armed services contributes to the war effort, and the purpose of detention in international law is to deny the enemy army their services for the duration of the hostilities. In the current conflict the enemy does not wear a...
31.07.08 | |

03 Jul

...circumstances; Israeli intelligence is good, but, for instance, it is unlikely to have access to contact information for someone in every home in Gaza in order to make a warning phone call that provides specific directions. More, the nature of the battle and battlefield in Gaza makes providing a clear "escape corridor" difficult; unlike a war between militaries, in which civilian areas are mostly free of targets and combatants (rendering relatively easy the identification of areas that will be free of combat), the battlefield in Gaza is mutable and determined...
03.07.15 | |

09 May

Michael Another pragmatic reason for rejecting our current standards of prisoner/detainee treatment is the negative impact it has on surrender rates in battlefield encounters. Anecdotal evidence both from WWII and the Gulf Wars indicates enemy combatants surrendered to our forces at higher rates because of our known moderation in prisoner treatment. I fear we have now lost that reputation and the next war we fight may be bloodier as a consequence. Michael Another pragmatic reason for rejecting our current standards of prisoner/detainee treatment is the negative impact it has on...
09.05.08 | |

05 May

...but retreating from the battlefield remains a lawful target, but that is because operationally it is apparent that such actions are inconsistent with clearly expressing an intention to surrender. No surprise to the operators there. Another issue which I think you alluded to, and one that Alan is better placed to comment on than I, is that there is a distinction between land forces and maritime (and, I add, air). At the simplest level, a lone sailor on deck with his or her hands in the air is unlikely to...
05.05.11 | |

19 Feb

...any system to investigate or punish war crimes, let alone desire. National investigations might be inherently biased in favor of their nationals. As for national tribunals, assuming you get that far, the problem is that an asymmetrical battlefield provides plenty of ambiguity. That ambiguity results in doubt of guilt at trial -- and a national tribunal will naturally resolve any doubt in favor of its national (if for no other reason than a lack of self-awareness and self-identification with the accused coupled with a lack thereof with the victim). Even...
19.02.09 | |

23 Apr

...his book, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. He reports that as legal adviser, “Harold Koh, wanted to lay out the case publicly before Aulaqi was killed,” in an effort to preempt critiques of the administration’s decision to target and kill a U.S. citizen in secret and without a trial.[15] According to Mr. Scahill: “In advance of his public speech, the CIA and military gave Koh access to their intel on Aulaqi. Koh settled in for a long day of reading in the Secured Classified Intelligence Facility. According to...
23.04.15 | |

07 Apr

...be targeted. Human rights law generally applies in time of war on the battlefield or during self-defense targetings, but applicable human rights instruments such as the ICCPR apply to a person within the actual power or effective control of the United States -- which is not the case in this instance. See generally http://ssrn.com/abstract=1520717 Concerning international law and enhancement of presidential power, see, e.g., Paust, Van Dyke, Malone, International Law and Litigation in the U.S. 271-73 (3 ed. 2009) (West - American Casebook Series). Jordan J. Paust Kal Raustiala Response......
07.04.10 | |

13 Nov

...is well worth noting that even during its heyday in Afghanistan, one of its largest "bases" was in its Pakistani birthplace, and even before the Northwest frontier started to go steadily into the pits after 2006, it was by far the dominant power in the area. And in any case, the Taliban's open refusal to follow international law, particularly on the battlefield, makes the legitimacy of both its rule in Afghanistan and its armed formations dubious to say the least, and coupled with its less-than-legit activities across the frontiers (largely...
13.11.09 | |

12 Aug

...So you can roll this thing anyway that you wish, but you seem at least to me to always end up with the fact that even our enemies who I detest have minimum rights once captured - however you qualify the battlefield or even if you do not qualify it as a battlefield. As does every human. The debate then merely turns to whether this or that state will recognize that right. Of course one of those basic rights being not to be tortured. If a state does not recognize...
12.08.10 | |

10 Nov

...legally allowed to shoot such individuals as soon as you can identify them as such without the benefit of even the flimsiest trial right on the battlefield. Naturally, I am not advocating this action be taken in all cases (in no small part because not only is it highly distasteful and liable to be abused in horrible ways- which should be reason enough in all but the most trying circumstances- but also because I have a feeling that most of those involved are not the Islamist "Old Guard" form Afghanistan,...
10.11.09 | |