Conducting the research that resulted in this book would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals and institutions. I am particularly grateful to all who participated in my research, either by taking the time to be interviewed or by allowing me to observe them at work. I sincerely appreciate your openness and your trust. Thanks to my supervisors Cedric Ryngaert and Kim Loyens. You have always provided both thorough and timely feedback to my work, and have continuously supported me in developing my own ideas. Together, you have provided an inspirational example of interdisciplinary coope ration, being genuinely interested in each other's expertise and appreciating differences in values between research traditions. I also thank the members of the reading committee: Kevin Davis, Judith van Erp, François Kristen, Abiola Makinwa and Karin van Wingerde. Thank you for your valuable comments and questions. And to my paranimfs, Jeff Handmaker and Judith Kaspersma: thank you for your support throughout the project, and especially during this final year. There were many people at Utrecht University who provided a supportive environment. I thank my colleagues in the research group on Unilateralism and the Protection of Global Interests (UNIJURIS), as well as my colleagues at the Utrecht Centre for Accountability and Liability Law (UCALL). I have also felt connected with several colleagues at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), the Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, and the research area of Institutions for Open Societies (IOS).

On 20 November 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Jaloud v the Netherlands held that the Netherlands had failed to adequately investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of an Iraqi citizen. Mr. Jaloud had allegedly been killed by a Dutch lieutenant at a vehicle control point in Iraq in 2004. The Court attributed the impugned conduct to the Netherlands and clarified that individuals injured by shots from the checkpoint fell within the jurisdiction of the Netherlands as it was controlling the checkpoint. The Court’s decisions on attribution and jurisdiction, we argue, are open to question and may not have created the anticipated clarification. Furthermore, we argue that the implications of Jaloud for the scope of the duty to investigate the use of lethal force in out-of-area military operations remain unclear and contested. In the Netherlands, which has a history of tension between military police and active serving soldiers, as well as an investigatory policy that is cautious about criminal investigations, more clarity was needed. Since the judgment fails to set out unambiguous legal obligations, we conclude that it is unlikely that the judgment will have an impact on investigatory policy.