government s-1740 international law summer 2006
DESCRIPTION
Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006. Humanitarian Intervention, Warfighting and the Laws of War. Outline. I. What is Humanitarian Intervention? II. Intervening to protect nationals III. Intervening to protect non-nationals IV. Just Conduct of War - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Government S-1740International Law
Summer 2006
Humanitarian Intervention,
Warfighting and the Laws of War
![Page 2: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
I. What is Humanitarian Intervention?
II. Intervening to protect nationals
III. Intervening to protect non-nationals
IV. Just Conduct of War
V. Principles and codification of jus in bellum
VI. The Laws Of and In War Post-911
![Page 3: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
What is humanitarian intervention?
“The prerogative of a foreign actor (state, a coalition of states, international organization) to act within the territorial jurisdiction of a state to ameliorate or terminate violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
Rwanda Refugee Camp
![Page 4: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Problem of Consensus
• Content of international human rights?• When are rights threatened?• Who decides? The “international
community”, coalitions, or individual states?
• What mode of intervention? What is the role for military force?
![Page 5: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Dilemmas for International Law
• State Sovereignty
• Prohibition on the Use of Force
• Human Rights
![Page 6: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Unilateral Force to Protect Nationals
• Humanitarian intervention to protect own nationals
• Hostage-taking and Rescue Missions
American Hostages in Tehran, 1979
![Page 7: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Unilateral Force to Protect Non-Nationals
• No treaty law exists at all for unilateralhumanitarian intervention on behalf of
non-nationals.
• Evolving or established right under Customary International Law?
![Page 8: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Humanitarian Intervention and the UN Charter
• Article 39 - Security Council authority to “decide what matters shall be taken to restore international peace and security.”
• Connection between fundamental human rights and international peace and security?
![Page 9: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Iraq and the Kurds (1991)• Established link between internal repression and international peace and security
• Significant opposition within the Council
• No authorization to use force (Res. 688)
![Page 10: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Haiti: Intervention to Support Democracy (1993-1995)
• Military ouster of an elected regime
• SC votes sanctions (Res 841) and blockade (Res 875)
• Justification:– Threats to international peace
and security
– Humanitarian concerns
– Illegitimacy of overthrow
![Page 11: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Somalia (1992): Intervening in Complex Emergencies
• SC authorized intervention under Chapter VII
• Authorized “all necessary means” to create a safe environment for aid delivery
• 30,000 troops deployed
![Page 12: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
NATO Bombing in Kosovo (1998-1999): Intervention by a
Regional Organization
• Security Council Res. 1199• NATO bombing campaign• Justification:
– Enforcement action?– Collective self-defense?– Humanitarian intervention?
![Page 13: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
A“Just” Forceful Intervention?
Just War Doctrine:
Competent Authority
Just Cause
Right Intention
Proportionality of Response
Principles of humanitarian intervention:
Security Council? General Assembly? Regional organization?
Halt human suffering
Motive: humanitarian; “clean hands”
Intervention or force employed commensurate with humanitarian objective
![Page 14: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Issues of Just War Fighting
Whenever an armed conflict breaks out, certain questions arise: Who, or what, is "the enemy"? What happens to treaties between warring states? What happens to enemy property? Who is a combatant, and who is not? How are civilian non-combatants to be treated? When does a soldier cease to be a combatant? What limits does international law place on the way states can
fight? What is a war crime, and who is responsible?
![Page 15: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Principles of Just Warfighting
Proportionality - of military means to political ends.
![Page 16: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Legal definitions of proportionality
• Article 22, §2, Chapter 1 of the Hague Rules of 1907:
"The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.“
• Article 35(1) of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Section 1:
"In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited."
![Page 17: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Principles of Just Warfighting
• Proportionality
• Discrimination
![Page 18: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Discrimination
• Direct intentional attacks on non-combatants and non-military targets are prohibited.
• Is discrimination possible when modern war involves total mobilization of a society?
• Commingling of military targets with population centers?
![Page 19: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Principles of Just Warfighting
• Proportionality
• Discrimination
• Prohibited Means
![Page 20: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Prohibited Means
• Means that are bad in themselves (malum in se)
• Means that are bad because they are prohibited (malum in prohibitum)– Inhumane Weapons
– Environmental Warfare
– Weapons of Mass Destruction
– Nuclear Weapons?
![Page 21: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Codifying the Laws of War
• Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907
• Geneva “Red Cross” Conventions of 1949
• Geneva Additional Protocols of 1977
![Page 22: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Geneva Conventions of 1949
I. Convention on Wounded and Sick Members of the Armed Forces in the Field
II. Convention on Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked at Sea
III. Convention on Prisoners of WarIV. Convention for the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War
![Page 23: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Geneva Additional Protocols of 1977
• Focus is on role of non-combatants
• Operations against non-military targets prohibited
• Non-combatants defined
• Indiscriminate military activity prohibited
• Variety of other actions prohibited
![Page 24: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
POW Status Criteria
• Art 4(A) of Geneva Convention on POWs:– Members of armed forces that are parties to a conflict– Members of militias or other forces belonging to one of
the parties, if they• Are commanded by some one responsible for
subordinates• Have a fixed sign recognizable from a distance• Carry arms openly• Conduct operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war
![Page 25: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Current U.S. Policy Toward Prisoners of War
• How are current POWs treated?
• Afghanistan: classified as “detainees of war” or “unlawful combatants”
• Iraq: captured Iraqis are being treated as POWs
![Page 26: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Are they POWs?
NO• The forces in
Afghanistan failed to fulfil the requirements
• Rumsfeld: The detainees are “committed terrorists” and therefore not entitled to POW status
YES• The Conventions don’t
require fulfilment of the four criteria in a particular way – therefore, they are POWs
• POW status does not depend on the grace of the winning belligerent
![Page 27: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Determination of POW status
• Article 5: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
• Admin response: This is a new war, and the old rules can’t apply exactly.
![Page 28: Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081603/568144cf550346895db198dd/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Military Commissions?
• Long detentions a “security necessity”?• Detainees can challenge detainment in U.S.
Courts (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld & Rasul v. Bush - 2004)
• Detainee Treatment Act (Dec 2005)• Hamdan v Rumsfeld (June 2006)• What’s to become of the detainees?