In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: jens iverson

03 May

...of the power to detain with the power to target. Anyone who can be targeted can be detained, but not everyone who can be detained can be targeted. Miles Outstanding post. Surgically incisive. Jens David Ohlin Has the US ever stated that it targets individuals who do not meet the CCF standard? Might v. Right While we're at it, let's not neglect to fully and clearly specify the lawful source(s) of authority for the 'protective' military detention of persons by State parties during "armed conflict." If prisoners held by a...
03.05.12 | |

01 Aug

...which non-state actors have become parties to a given NIAC, just as is done in IAC. It merely takes a slightly different legal path. Whether a non-state actor is a party to an armed conflict is generally a function of its attaining a sufficient level of organization. "Organization" can be formal or functional. And functional organization can include conduct-based linking of what might, at least in name, be disparate "organizations." (See Jens Ohlin's excellent chapter, "Targeting Co-Belligerents.") Thus, coordinated activity in the application of violence provides sufficent organization to treat...
01.08.12 | |

13 Apr

...is from their own wrongdoing. It's as if I killed someone, then ran to Britain and argued if they sent me back to the US I might get the death penalty. Tobias Thienel jvarisco, You would certainly gain protection from the death penalty that way. That's pretty much what Jens Soering, of Soering v. United Kingdom 'fame', had done. da23will, I don't see how there could be 'jurisdiction', but Soering would not apply. There is only one concept of 'jurisdiction', which if present triggers all obligations under the Convention. There...
13.04.08 | |

19 Aug

...they are investigating or prosecuting. But that seems like a stretch, so I think an amendment would be the better course. Jens David Ohlin This seems to me to be, at some level, a debate about formalism and functionalism. The function of the procedure is to allow a challenge stemming from a domestic prosecution -- on that level who cares whether the domestic entity fulfills the Montevideo (or some other) criteria? Well, the status of that entity matters if you care about its formal status, i suppose. I think it...
19.08.12 | |

06 Sep

...to engage in permissible measures of self-defense, as even noted in the preamble to the AUMF! The President's authority is based in his/her obligation to faithfully execute the "Laws," which include international law as part of the laws of the United States (which, in turn, include the international law of self-defense). Members of the CIA can be acting on behalf of the Executive and the United States and carry out lawful measures of self-defense under international law. Such lawful measures would not be "unlawful" killings or murder. jens David Ohlin...
06.09.14 | |

11 Sep

...be the practice and opinio juris that supports the UN SC creations of the Statutes of the ICTY and ICTR will express nonimmunity for officials. Kevin Jon Heller Patryk, Miles captured my point well -- the duty to comply with SC resolutions is based on a treaty, the UN Charter; it's not that SC resolutions are treaty law themselves. I share your concern with the SC becoming a super-legislature, and I've criticised that position (most notably in discussions with Jens) on the blog. I think most people would agree that...
11.09.15 | |

16 Jan

...treaty it would prefer to violate. That, indeed, is how collisions of treaty obligations work; it is ultimately a consequence of the largely uncoordinated nature of international law, a system of subjective rights held against one another by differing groups of subjects of law. Why, to come back to the example, would the US lose its claim to have Jens Soering extradited, only because the UK had undertaken conflicting obligations vis-à-vis someone else? Conversely, why would Mr. Soering - and the other parties to the ECHR - lose their rights...
16.01.08 | |

25 Apr

Jens David Ohlin Side question: Is the US engaged in an armed conflict with Russia? If the US is engaged in an IAC with Syria, and Russia is a co-belligerent of Syria, does that entail that the US is engaged in an armed conflict with Russia? Nancy Simons Thank you for your question. This is an interesting and tricky one. Assuming that there is an IAC between Syria and the United States, I don’t think that we can automatically infer from that that the US would be engaged in an...
25.04.17 | |

07 Oct

...any general claim about the Code’s application throughout time - here I fully agree with Patrick’s comments. Rather, I have tried to limit my post's argument to showing the Code's distinct - and military - origins, its ‘early’ blurring of the distinction between both legal realms, and its importance for the law’s future development. Thanks again for bringing up some of these problems of my post. I am sure we still have a lot more to talk about. Adil Haque Thanks Boyd. Best of luck with the project. Jens David...
07.10.16 | |

21 Mar

...gap you have in mind. Finally, you make a great point that “the accomplice is held responsible for the same crime as the principal”, which does illustrate the attraction of the unitary model. I wonder if I can offer a metaphor to see if it assists us. Imagine that we all go to a wedding, but at the wedding you are the “groom”, and Jens is a “guest” and I am a “bartender”. It is true that we were all “involved in the same wedding”, but the significance and implications...
21.03.12 | |