Unlawful Attacks In Combat Situations

Death and destruction are unavoidable effects of war and combat situations. The fact that people have been killed or injured or property has been destroyed should not encourage anyone to rush to the conclusion that war crimes have been committed. On the contrary, before reaching such a conclusion, it is necessary to carefully analyze the conduct of the person causing death, injury or damage in order to ascertain whether such conduct is consistent with international humanitarian law. Technology, law and public opinion on what is acceptable has greatly evolved since World War II. The issue of civilian damage caused in combat operations has become an important topic in public opinion since Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Public pressure to limit incidental civilian damage has notably increased following the NATO aerial campaign in Kosovo in 1999 and the subsequent conflicts in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and Lebanon 2006. "Unlawful Attacks in Combat Situations" focuses on the manner in which unlawful attacks launched during the conduct of hostilities have been dealt with in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the international treaty which, to date, deals most comprehensively with war crimes committed in international and non-international armed conflicts, and in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the first international judicial body that has investigated and prosecuted crimes committed during the conduct of hostilities since World War II.

The authors of this volume have been inspired by the scholar to which this "Liber Amicorum" is dedicated - Professor Ove Bring - to look into both the past and the future of international law. Like Ove Bring, they have dealt with many aspects of the law governing the use of force, from arms control to human rights, international criminal law, the UN Charter, and, of course, international humanitarian law. Like Professor Bring, they have allowed themselves to draw trajectories from history and into the future, and have shunned away from neither the controversial nor the speculative, be it on the Middle East, the invasion of Iraq or the independence of Kosovo. This collection brings together insights from a former UN Legal Counsel, a former Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, present and former judges of the European Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, one present and one former member of the International Law Commission, as well as law professors and practitioners, from all Nordic countries, Germany and Australia. Together they form a highly challenging mosaic of perspectives on topical issues like cluster munitions, targeting, human rights in peace operations and the purposes of sentencing in international tribunals. The volume also contains a bibliography and a presentation of Professor Bring's work.

In NATO Rules of Engagement, Camilla Guldahl Cooper provides a thorough analysis of NATO rules of engagement, and offers clarity on a concept which despite its considerable political, strategic and operational importance, is often misunderstood.

This is the first comprehensive treatment of international law and policy on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. In addition to international humanitarian and human rights law, jus ad bellum, disarmament law, and international criminal law are all critical to civilian protection. The book offers in-depth analysis and explanation of the normative framework while also outlining and discussing the policies of concerned States and international and humanitarian organisations. The role of the United Nations as a key actor is considered along with regional organisations such as the African Union, the European Union, and NATO. Particular attention is given to those at direct risk of harm during armed conflict, including children, women, persons with disabilities, and LGBTI persons.

How military commanders interpret the rules of targeting impacts not only on whether civilians and civilian objects are harmed in the course of a military operation, but also on the scale of harm that ensues. Commentators have queried whether military commanders observed the law even when parties to a conflict acted in accordance with mandates to protect civilians, as was the case when a coalition of states bombed targets in Libya in 2011. However, limited guidance is publicly available on how military commanders apply these rules on the battlefield. In order to allow military commanders to exercise judgment in determining what steps they are required to take to spare civilians in a specific set of circumstances, the rules of targeting are formulated in an open-ended fashion, which complicates one’s ability to evaluate whether a particular military operation complies with the law. By examining case studies ranging from Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to Operation Protective Edge in 2014, this book addresses lacunae in current scholarship. It puts forward principles which capture how military commanders deliberate while interpreting what the rules of targeting require in particular scenarios. International humanitarian law, this book contends, places a duty on attackers to assume risk in order to mitigate danger to civilians. Drawing on the field of psychology, this study provides an explanation of how military commanders assess when circumstances do not permit them to inform civilians about a forthcoming attack.

The idea of military necessity lies at the centre of the law of armed conflict and yet it is less than fully understood. This book analyses which legal limits govern the commander's assessment of military necessity, and argues that military necessity itself is not a limitation. Military necessity calls for a highly discretionary exercise: the assessment. Yet, there is little guidance as to how this discretionary process should be exercised, apart from the notions of 'a reasonable military commander'. A reasonable assessment of 'excessive' civilian losses are presumed to be almost intuitive. Objective standards for determining excessive civilian losses are difficult to identify, particularly when that 'excessiveness' will be understood in relative terms. The perpetual question arises: are civilian losses acceptable if the war can be won? The result is a heavy burden of assessment placed on the shoulders of the military commander.

"This report analyzes the work of the coalition's investigative body, the Joint Incidents Assessment Team (JIAT), over the past two years. Human Rights Watch found that JIAT's work has fallen far short of international standards regarding transparency, impartiality, and independence. Established in 2016 after evidence mounted of coalition violations of the laws of war, JIAT has failed even in its limited mandate to assess "claims and accidents" during coalition military operations. It has provided deeply flawed laws-of-war analyses and reached dubious conclusions."--Publisher website, viewed August 30, 2018.