scholarly journals The Concept Of Enemy Combatant By United States: Does International Humanitarian Law Recognized This Concept? (Case Study: Armed Conflict Between United States, Al Qaeda And Taliban)

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 263
Author(s):  
Adhitya Nini Rizki Apriliana ◽  
Lina Hastuti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Enemy Combatant

Operation Neptune's Spear: The Lawful Killing of Osama Bin Laden

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A Wallace
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Intense Debate

The reactions to the reports of Osama bin Laden's death were many: shock, relief, joy, wariness, elation, reservation. Not surprisingly, an intense debate soon emerged over the legality of killing Osama bin Laden. Critics – including the authors of the article, ‘Has “Justice Been Done”? The Legality of Bin Laden's Killing under International Law’, Kai Ambos and Josef Alkatout – raise many interesting and thought-provoking questions. The purpose of this submission is to respond to the arguments of Ambos and Alkatout. This response article argues that the killing of Osama bin Laden was lawful under international humanitarian law. More specifically, a careful legal analysis demonstrates that a non-international armed conflict exists between the United States and Al Qaeda. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Al Qaeda is an organised armed group under international humanitarian law. Osama bin Laden most accurately could be thought of as a strategic level commander of Al Qaeda. He has been actively involved in planning and co-ordinating armed attacks against military and civilian targets for years, including the most recent planning of attacks commemorating the tenth anniversary of September 11. As such, he is clearly targetable under international law. Finally, the United States was well within its rights under international law to launch an attack into Pakistan against bin Laden.

scholarly journals The end of application of international humanitarian law

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (893) ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Milanovic
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
General Rule ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict

AbstractThis article provides an overview of the rules governing the end of application of international humanitarian law (IHL), or the law of armed conflict. It articulates the general principle that, unless there is a good reason of text, principle or policy that warrants an exception, the application of IHL will cease once the conditions that triggered its application in the first place are no longer met. For IHL to apply, its distinct thresholds of application – international armed conflict, belligerent occupation and non-international armed conflict – must continue to be satisfied at any given point in time. The article also examines situations in which a departure from the general rule is warranted, as well as the factors that need to be taken into account in determining the end of each type of armed conflict. In doing so, the article analyzes terminating processes and events, which generally end the application of IHL (but not necessarily all of it), and transformative processes and events, which end the application of one IHL sub-regime but immediately engage another. Finally, the article briefly looks at the (putative) armed conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda and its seemingly imminent end.

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW FROM A FIELD PERSPECTIVE – CASE STUDY: NEPAL

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 394-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.J.C. Schimmelpenninck van der Oije
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Humanitarian Aid ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Link Theory ◽  
Field Perspective

AbstractWhat is it like to be working in the field with international humanitarian law during an armed conflict? In the article ‘International Humanitarian Law from a field perspective - case study: Nepal‘, the promotion of international humanitarian law is described through the eyes of a humanitarian aid worker. The author worked as a delegate for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) during the civil war in Nepal. International humanitarian law forms the legal basis of the ICRC's presence in Nepal, it's humanitarian activities and confidential interventions. Nepal and its conflict are introduced, as well as the warring parties and the Red Cross in Nepal. Various humanitarian activities and dilemma's are described. Through this article the YIHL seeks to link theory and practice, and focus on international humanitarian law from an operational perspective.

scholarly journals Islamic Injunctions on Prisoner’s Immunity and Termination of captivity in War: The Case Study of Afghanistan

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (02) ◽  
pp. 29-46
Author(s):  
Muhammad Tariq Ramzan ◽  
Amir Hayat ◽  
Hafiza Sumera Rabia
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Military History ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Islamic Jurisprudence ◽  
History Of ◽  
Global Powers

Afghanistan remained an arena for international powers for the last two centuries. The climax period of the militant activities in this soil was from September 2001 to August 2021. Millions of human entities took part in this escalation and a large number of human fabric became captive by the detaining powers during this period. At the end of the armed climax, the emerging political & military coalition on this soil declared its stance about the method of governance after 15 August 2021 which would be based upon Islamic resources. In the perspective of this armed conflict, the question of prisoner’s immunity and termination of captivity in war attracted the attention of global powers. What options be available to prisoners of war about termination of war captivity under Islamic International Humanitarian Law (IIHL) and Conventional International Humanitarian Law (CIHL), is the mainstay of this paper. To answer the question, Islamic jurisprudence provides five methods to dissolve the detention and captivity in war. These methods are respectively freedom gratis, ransom, exchange of prisoners of war, execution, and enslavement. According to Islamic military guidance, freedom gratis remains the general practice in entire Islamic military history. Contrary to it, Ransom and exchange of prisoners of war were occasionally utilized and not the general practice in the entire military history of Islam. The execution and enslavement were pre-Islamic methods and practices. A set of Islamic injunctions were revealed to reform them (Execution & Enslavement) and hence they have been invoked as the source of reference in Islamic prudential literature. Along with, principles of conventional international humanitarian law are also associated with this discourse. Under these facts, this paper is a strenuous effort to embark on the solution of the matter which would be acceptable to all stakeholders regarding Afghanistan. 

Legal Issues in the “War on Terrorism” – Reflecting on the Conversation Between Silja N.U. Voneky and John Bellinger

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 711-736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabor Rona
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Prisoner Of War ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The U.S

It is an irony of our times. The 9/11 attacks catapulted international humanitarian law (IHL) – otherwise known as the “laws of war” or the “law of armed conflict” – into popular conversation as never before. Who ever heard of Common Article 3 before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan? Can anyone recall arguing about the criteria for prisoner of war status before the Taliban and al Qaeda? Was anyone parsing the difference between civilian trials, courts martial and military commissions before Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?

Has ‘Justice Been Done’? The Legality of Bin Laden's Killing Under International Law

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Ambos ◽  
Josef Alkatout
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Special Forces ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Self Defence

The killing of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces on 2 May 2011 raises several questions of international law with regard to the legality of this particular operation and the permissibility of targeted killings of international terrorists in general. In this article it will be argued, on the basis of an analysis of the applicable international law, that the killing of bin Laden cannot be justified under international humanitarian law because there is no armed conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda. Even if one were to assume the existence of such an armed conflict, bin Laden's killing would only have been lawful if Al Qaeda were to be considered an organised armed group within the meaning of international humanitarian law and bin Laden could have been killedquamembership of this group. Otherwise, his killing could only have been lawful if he was (still) taking a direct part in hostilities. In any case, in the absence of an armed conflict, under the applicable legal regime of peacetime, the killing could only be justified in a situation of self-defence or an immediate danger for others. As this situation apparently did not exist, the killing of bin Laden amounted to an extrajudicial execution. On another note, the operation may also have violated international law by failing to respect Pakistan's territorial sovereignty. Ultimately, this depends on the recognition of a (pre-emptive) right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, in particular taking into account the immediacy criterion.

scholarly journals International Humanitarian Law in India: A Critical Case Study

2013 ◽  
pp. 129-140
Author(s):  
Anita Yadav ◽  
Amit Yadav
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Internal Armed Conflict ◽  
Critical Case Study

Prior to 1949, a consensual regime on internal armed conflict was nonexistent. The urgency to regulate the conducts of parties in an internal armed conflict was realized in the wake of World War II. The evolving war patterns direly necessitated regulation of massive violations of both humanitarian law and human right norms that are corollary to each other. This article attempts to sketch the application of international humanitarian law governing internal armed conflict in the context of India with reference various approaches at national and international level. It also highlights the fact that India is yet to recognize protocol II of the Geneva Convention and the concerns such has attracted. Further, the article also attempts to venture into the grey area of determining the threshold of internal armed conflict.

Joint and Combined Targeting

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schmitt ◽  
Jeffrey Biller ◽  
Sean C Fahey ◽  
David S Goddard ◽  
Chad Highfill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Practical Effect ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses how the law is implemented by armed forces during “targeting,” the process by which individuals and objects are systematically analyzed and prioritized for potential engagement. Centered on an examination of the United States’ “Joint Targeting Cycle,” a construct broadly shared by many other states and organizations, such as NATO, it explains how international humanitarian law concepts are given practical effect during armed conflict. The analysis then proceeds to explore the nuances of targeting in different operational domains: air, land, sea, and cyber. While achieving broadly the same set of legal functions, practice has developed to reflect the different means and methods of warfare in each particular environment. The chapter concludes by extending the discussion to targeting in a coalition context, in which processes and procedures are required to account for legal differences between partners, while minimizing the detrimental effect on operations in order to achieve “legal interoperability.”

THE YEAR IN REVIEW

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 195-232
Author(s):  
Susan C. Breau
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
The World ◽  
The Many

AbstractThis year in review will first discuss the major developments that contributed towards the formation or enforcement of international humanitarian law. Despite the many positive developments in the elucidation of international humanitarian law, 2009 witnessed the continuation of violent armed conflict around the world, not least in Sri Lanka where the long standing armed conflict came to a bloody conclusion amidst allegations of summary executions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Two other conflicts involving Israel/Gaza and Russia/Georgia which took place in 2008 and early 2009, resulted in the release of two influential international investigative reports, each of which alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law and called for the enforcement of criminal accountability. The election of Barack Obama marked a significant shift in the attitude of the United States to terrorism and detention with the new President immediately announcing on taking office, the closure of Guantánamo Bay.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document