The Law of War

Boothby, William H.; Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel von

doi:10.1017/9781108639422

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The United States adopts a significantly lower threshold for an "armed attack" allowing recourse to defensive force. 217 It additionally has endorsed a standard of pre-emptive self-defence that dramatically expands the temporal scope of self-defence beyond imminence as it is generally understood by states, 218 a position that may be incorrect as a matter of international law. This is coupled with a growing reliance on the armed conflict paradigm in order to sidestep jus ad bellum concerns entirely.…”

Section: B Normative and Practical Counterbalancementioning

confidence: 99%

Qassem Soleimani, Targeted Killing of State Actors, and Executive Order 12,333

Molloy¹

2021

VUWLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The targeted killing of the Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani in an American drone strike in January 2020 marked a novel development in the operation of the United States' drone programme; targeting a member of a state's armed forces as opposed to a member of a non-state armed group. Soleimani's killing offers an opportunity to re-examine the scope of Executive Order 12,333, which prohibits employees of the United States Government from committing assassinations. This article applies Executive Order 12,333's "assassination ban" to the Soleimani strike. The assassination ban's scope varies depending on whether it is applied in a wartime or peacetime context. This article concludes from the surrounding factual and legal context that the strike should be analysed according to the peacetime definition of assassination, which necessitates an analysis of the strike's compliance with the jus ad bellum, the legal framework applicable to uses of interstate force. It finds that the strike's non-compliance with the jus ad bellum, in addition to its likely political motive create a strong argument that the strike would constitute a prohibited assassination under the terms of the Executive Order, but the legal framework surrounding the Executive Order limits its direct enforceability with respect to presidentially authorised uses of force. It ultimately concludes that, despite the assassination ban's lack of direct enforceability, it nevertheless creates a strong normative counterbalance against an increasing tendency toward expansive uses of extraterritorial force.

show abstract

Section: B Normative and Practical Counterbalancementioning

confidence: 99%

Qassem Soleimani, Targeted Killing of State Actors, and Executive Order 12,333

Molloy¹

2021

VUWLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Protecting Warfighters from Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering

Liivoja

2024

Civility, Barbarism and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers one of most fundamental of rules of the law of armed conflict on the means and methods of warfare, which has been captured in Article 35(2) of Additional Protocol I in the following language: 'It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.' The exclusive focus of this unnecessary suffering rule on the wellbeing of combatants arguably makes it exceptional in the fabric of the law of armed conflict. And the fierce agreement about the foundational nature of this rule is only matched by the disagreement as to its precise meaning and efficacy. This paper considers the origins of the rule, and how key aspects of the rule are interpreted. It then deals with one of the more contentious issues -namely whether the rule is only concerned with the inherent properties of particular weapons or whether it also deals with the use of weapons. The paper suggest, with particular reference to human enhancement, that a better reading of the rule would indeed capture the uses of weapons. The use of a weapon with a knowledge that it would cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering in the circumstances ought to be regarded as prohibited by the rule.

show abstract

Wired warfare 3.0: Protecting the civilian population during cyber operations

Schmitt¹

2019

Int. rev. Red Cross

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a general matter, international humanitarian law is up to the task of providing the legal framework for cyber operations during an armed conflict. However, two debates persist in this regard, the resolution of which will determine the precise degree of protection the civilian population will enjoy during cyber operations. The first revolves around the meaning of the term “attack” in various conduct of hostilities rules, while the second addresses the issue of whether data may be considered an object such that operations destroying or altering it are subject to the prohibition on attacking civilian objects and that their effects need be considered when considering proportionality and the taking of precautions in attack. Even if these debates were to be resolved, the civilian population would still face risks from the unique capabilities of cyber operations. This article proposes two policies that parties to a conflict should consider adopting in order to ameliorate such risks. They are both based on the premise that military operations must reflect a balance between military concerns and the interest of States in prevailing in the conflict.

show abstract

The Law of War

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Qassem Soleimani, Targeted Killing of State Actors, and Executive Order 12,333

Qassem Soleimani, Targeted Killing of State Actors, and Executive Order 12,333

Protecting Warfighters from Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering

Wired warfare 3.0: Protecting the civilian population during cyber operations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About