Murder by an Unprivileged Belligerent Is Not a War Crime

THE UNILATERALUNILATERAL CREATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DURINGDURING THE "WAR"WAR ONON TERROR": MURDER BY AN UNPRIVILEGEDUNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT IS NOT AA WARWAR CRIMECRIME

Noman Goheer*Goheer*

INTRODUCTION On July 4, 2006,just2006, just fivefive days days after after the the Supreme Supreme CourtCourt ruledruled in Hamdan v.v. Rumsfeld,'Rumsfeld,' prosecuting attorneysattorneys ProfessorProfessor NealNeal KatyalKatyal of Georgetown University Law Law Center Center and and LieutenantLieutenant CommanderCommander Charles Swift flewflew toto Guant~namoGuantanamo Bay,Bay, CubaCuba (Guantdnamo)(Guantanamo) to meet their client,client, Salim Hamdan, and tell him the Supreme Court declared the militarymilitary commissions hehe waswas to to be be tried tried underunder unconstitutional.2 WhileWhile explainingexplaining theirtheir seminalseminal victoryvictory to Hamdan,Hamdan, they said that "[i]"[i]n n 50 to 100100 years, law studentsstudents willwill bebe readingreading this case and reading your name."'name."3 HamdanHamdan respondedresponded that that " "[m]aybe[m] aybe I'll change my name.name. II just want to go home."'home."4 While Hamdan's resignationresignation isis understandableunderstandable consideringconsidering his five-year confinement confinement atat Guantnamo,Guantanamo, the legal communitycommunity be- lieved Katyal andand SwiftSwift did did thethe impossible.impossible.'5 TheyThey wonwon aa casecase strik-strik- ing downdown aa judicialjudicial systemsystem thatthat depriveddeprived itsits participantsparticipants ofof constitutional rights.6 In eighteight MilitaryMilitary Commissions Instructions (MCI(MCI No. 1-8), the Department ofof Defense (DOD) delineateddelineated procedures to guide the

* J.D. CandidateCandidate (2008),(2008), WashingtonWashington CollegeCollege of of Law, Law, AmericanAmerican University;University; M.A.M.A. Candidate (2008),(2008), SchoolSchool of of International International Service Service — - AmericanAmerican University;University; B.A., Emory University, 2005.2005. I am grateful toto thetheJ.A.G. J.A.G. officers atat the Office of thethe Chief Defense Counsel in thethe OfficeOffice of MilitaryMilitary CommissionsCommissions at at thethe DepartmentDepartment of Defense forfor their help, particularly Major Tom Fleener, Major Dan Mori, and Col.Col. DwightDwight Sullivan. I am alsoalso gratefulgrateful toto ProfessorProfessor RickRick Wilson,Wilson, Tritia Yuen, and my family forfor their guidance and supportsupport asas II waswas writing this piece. II alsoalso want toto give special thanksthanks to the staff of the New York City Law Review.Review. I HamdanHamdan v.v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld, 126126 S.S. Ct. Ct. 2749 (2006).(2006). 2 SeeSee T.R. Goldman, Katyal's Crusade:Crusade: How an OverachievingOverachieving LawLaw ProfessorProfessor Toppled the President's Terror Tribunals, LEGAL TIMES, TIMES, Jul. Jul. 31, 31, 2006 2006 at at1, 1,18, 18, http://www.law.com/ http://www.law.com/ jsp/article.jsp?id=1jsp/articlejsp?id=1155027927847 155027927847 (describing(describing NealNeal Katyal'sKatyal's unexpectedunexpected win wherewhere the Supreme CourtCourt declareddeclared PresidentPresident GeorgeGeorge W.W. Bush'sBush's post-9/11post-9/11 militarymilitary commissions system unconstitutional). 3 Id.Id. 4 Id.Id. 5 See,See, e.g.,e.g., id.id. at 1717 (reporting(reporting aa "prominent "prominent law law professor's"professor's" adviceadvice toto KatyalKatyal asas "My realreal adviceadvice toto youyou isis toto givegive up up thethe argument"). 6 Hamdan,Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 2759.

533

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 533 2006-2007 534 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEWREWFW [Vol.[Vol. 10:533

war-crimes trialstrials of of thethe GuantdnamoGuantanamo detainees.detainees.'7 ThisThis CommentComment discusses "murder"murder by anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent,"belligerent," an offenseoffense chargeable byby militarymilitary commissionscommissions in MCI No. 2.2.88 During thethe UnitedUnited States'States' hostilitieshostilities with the TalibanTaliban inin No-No- vember 2001, militiamilitia forcesforces captured captured HamdanHamdan andand turned himhim overover to thethe U.S.U.S. military.military.99 InIn June June 2002,2002, thethe U.S.U.S. transportedtransported himhim toto GuantdnamoGuantanamo where he waswas laterlater charged withwith oneone count ofof con-con- spiracy "to commit ...... offensesoffenses triable by military commission."'commission."' While Hamdan's chargecharge includedincluded conspiracyconspiracy to commit murder by an unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent, itit diddid not include a directdirect chargecharge ofof murder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent.belligerent. TheThe onlyonly detaineesdetainees charged with either attemptedattempted murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belliger-belligerent oror murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentbelligerent in thethe originaloriginal tenten commission trials prior to thethe enactmentenactment ofof the the Military Military Commis-Commis- 12 sions Act of 2006 werewere OmarOmar Khadr" andand DavidDavid Hicks.iHicks. 2

7 DEP'TDEP'T OFOF DEF.,DEF., MILITARYMILITARY COMM'NCOMM'N INSTRUCTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, Nos. Nos. 1-8 1-8 (2003), (2003), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/commissions_instructions.htmlhttp://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/commissionsinstructions.html (follow(follow hyperlinks for individualindividual Military Commission Instructions)Instructions) [hereinafter MCI].MCI]. See also Hamdan, 126126 S.S. Ct.Ct. at 27772777 (defining(defining thethe jurisdictionjurisdiction ofof aa lawlaw ofof warwar militarymilitary commission as extending onlyonly toto (1)(1) ""'[v] [v] iolationsiolations ofof thethe lawslaws andand usagesusages ofof warwar cog-cog- nizable by militarymilitary tribunals,'"tribunals,'" and (2)(2) ""'[b] [b] reaches of military ordersorders or regulations which areare not not legally legally triable triable by bycourt-martial"' court-martial"' (quoting (quoting WILLIAM WILLIAM WINTHROP, WINTHROP, MILITARY MILITARY LAW AND AND PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS 839 839 (2d (2d ed. ed. 1920)1920))); )); DEP'T DEP'T OF OF THE THE ARMY,ARMY, FM 27-1027-10 DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FIELD FIELD MANuAL: MANUAL: THE THE LAW LAW OF OFLAND LAND WARFARE WARFARE 505(a), q 505(a), at at180 180 (1956), (1956), available atat http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law_warfare-1956.pdfhttp://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/MilitaryLaw/pdf/law warfare-1956.pdf [hereinafter U.S. U.S. ARMY ARMY FIELDFIELD MANUAL] MANUAL] (providing (providing that that "[a]ny "[a]ny person person charged charged with a war crime has the rightright toto aa fairfair trialtrial onon thethe factsfacts andand law").law"). 8 MCIMCI No. 2,2, supra note 7,7, §§ 6(B) 6(B) (3), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/ news/May2003/d20030430milcominstno2.pdf. TheThe Department of Defense defines the crimecrime ofof "Murder"Murder byby anan UnprivilegedUnprivileged Belligerent"Belligerent" as: a. ElementsElements: (1)(1) The accusedaccused killed one or moremore persons;persons; (2) TheThe accused:accused: (a) intended toto killkill oror inflictinflict greatgreat bodily harm on such person or persons or (b) intentionallyintentionally engaged in an act that is inherently dangerous toto anotheranother andand evincesevinces aa wantonwanton disregard for human life;life; (3)(3) The accused did not enjoyenjoy combatant immunity; and (4) The killingkilling took place in the context ofof andand waswas associatedassociated with armed conflict;conflict; b. Comments: (1) The termterm 'kill''kill' includes intentionally causing death, whether directly oror indirectly; (2)(2) Unlike the crimes ofof willful killingkilling oror attacking civilians, inin whichwhich thethe victim's status is aa prerequi-prerequi- site to criminality,criminality, for this offense the victim's status isis immaterial.immaterial. Even an attack on a soldier would be a crime ifif thethe attacker did not enjoy 'belligerent'belligerent privilege' or 'combatant immunity.' Id. 9 Hamdan,Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 2759.2759. 1010 Id.Id. 11I1 SeeSee Charging Document at III 23-24,23-24, UnitedUnited StatesStates v.v. Khadr, available at http:// www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2005/d20051104khadr.pdfwww.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2005/d200511O4khadr.pdf (charging(charging Khadr with thethe murder ofof aa U.S.U.S. soldiersoldier "while"while in the contextcontext ofof andand associatedassociated withwith armed conflictconflict and withoutwithout enjoyingenjoying combatantcombatant immunity").immunity"). 1212 SeeSee Charging DocumentDocument at 1 21, UnitedUnited StatesStates v.v. Hicks,Hicks, available at http:// www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040610cs.pdf (charging(charging HicksHicks with the at-at- tempted murder ofof Coalition Coalition forcesforces "while"while he did not enjoy combatant immunity and such conductconduct takingtaking placeplace inin thethe contextcontext ofof and and associatedassociated withwith armedarmed conflict").conflict").

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 534 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 535

The chargecharge murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentbelligerent illustratesillustrates the arbitrary naturenature ofof thethe militarymilitary commissions.commissions. TheThe legallegal situa-situa- tion surrounding thethe "War"War onon Terror"Terror" andand the 9/11 attacksattacks on the World Trade Center and the PentagonPentagon hashas created questions unan- swerable throughthrough codified law."law."3 TheThe issuesissues became more complex as President George W. Bush continued toto useuse warwar powers without a formalformal declarationdeclaration of war,'war, 4 whichwhich causedcaused confusionconfusion regardingregarding whether military law wouldwould be be applicableapplicable duringduring thethe "War"War onon 15 Terror."Terror."'15 Murder by an unprivileged belligerent, like the charge ofof con-con- spiracy usedused againstagainst Hamdan,Hamdan, isis anan unprecedented warwar crimecrime ab-absent from international law.law. InternationalInternational lawlaw governing the use of force in armedarmed conflictconflict isis traditionally termed jusjus inin bellobello ("the lawlaw of war"), or more frequentlyfrequently "the lawlaw of armed combat," and constitutes part of United States law.'law.'6 ThisThis frameworkframework comprisescomprises the body of rules thatthat governsgoverns hostilitieshostilities between States and hostilitieshostilities within States.States. Customary international lawlaw plays aa significant rolerole inin the lawlaw of war. VariousVarious laws-of-armed-combatlaws-of-armed-combat conventionsconventions composecompose a body of customary lawlaw that that bindsbinds eveneven non-partiesnon-parties to to thethe conventions.conventions." 17

1313 SeeSee Michael Hoffman, TerroristsAre Are UnlawfulUnlawful Belligerents, Not Not UnlawfulUnlawful Combatants: A Distinction with Implications forfor the Future of InternationalInternational HumanitarianHumanitarian Law, 3434 CASECASE W. RES. J. J.INT'L INrri, L. L. 227, 227, 228 228 (2002) (2002) (noting (noting the the undertakingundertaking necessarynecessary toto definedefine the status of non-state actors involved inin terroristterrorist acts asas aa largelylargely unexplored unexplored question). 1414 SeeSee STAFF JUDGE JUDGE ADvoCATEADVOCATE TO TO THE THE COMMANDANTCOMMANDANT OF OF THE THE U.S. U.S. MARINEMARINE CORPS, "TIME OFOF WAR"WAR" ANDAND THETHE UNIFORMUNIFORM CODECODE OFOF MILITARYMILITARY JUSTICE,JUSTICE, http:// http:// sja.hqmc.usmc.mil/jam/time%20of%20war.docsja.hqmc.usmc.mil/jam/time%20of%20war.doc (last(last visited Apr.Apr. 15,15, 2007)2007) (declaring(declaring that sincesince September 11,11, 2001, therethere has not beenbeen aa declarationdeclaration ofof war war byby CongressCongress "nor"nor aa specialspecial findingfinding byby the PresidentPresident thatthat UCMJUCMJ [Uniform[Uniform CodeCode ofof MilitaryMilitary Justice]Justice] `Time'Time of War' exists").exists"). 1315 SeeSee id.id. 1616 SeeSee FilartigaFildrtiga v.v. Pefia-Irala,Pena-Irala, 630630 F.2dF.2d 876, 876, 886 886 (2d (2d Cir.Cir. 1980)1980) (integrating (integrating interna- tionaltional lawlaw into thethe U.S.U.S. common lawlaw by reviewing thethe historyhistory surrounding surrounding thethe adoption of thethe UnitedUnited StatesStates Constitution).Constitution). See generally UK MINISTRYMINISTRY OF DEFENCE, THE MANUAL OF OF THE THE LAw LAW OF OF ARMED ARMED CONFLICT CONFLICT § (A)(1.2), § (A) (1.2), at 2 at(2004) 2 (2004) (providing (providing thethe United Kingdom's interpretation ofof thethe lawlaw of armed combat and listing other synon-synonymous terms includingincluding "international humanitarian lawlaw applicable in armed conflict,"conflict," and "international"international humanitarianhumanitarian law").law"). 17 SeeSee Affidavit ofof Michael N. Schmitt at 1, United StatesStates v. Hicks,Hicks, available at http:/ /www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/d20051OO6voll0.pdf/www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/d20051006voll0.pdf [hereinafter SchmittSchmitt Aff.]Aff.] (asserting thatthat even though conventions requirerequire signatures toto bebe binding, broad con-conventions followed byby manymany nationsnations create customary internationalinternational law thatthat remains binding on allall nations).nations). TheThe Schmitt Schmitt affidavit affidavit was was writtenwritten for thethe trialtrial ofof David David Hicks,Hicks, an Australian detainee beingbeing triedtried byby thethe previousprevious commissioncommission system.system. See also Karma Nabulsi, The Law:JusLaw: ins ad Bellum/Jus in Bello,Bello, in CRIMES OF OF WAR WAR 223, 223, 223 223 (Roy (Roy Guttman Guttman & David Rieff eds.,eds., 1999)1999) (adding(adding that "military thinkers, backed by other scholars,scholars, emphasize that the lawslaws of war areare drawn directly fromfrom the customs and practices of war itself").itself").

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 535 2006-2007 536 NEW YORKYORK CITYCITY LAWLAW REVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:53310:533

For example, even though thethe U.S.U.S. is not aa signatorysignatory to the 19771977 Additional Protocol II toto thethe 19491949 GenevaGeneva Conventions, it concedes that thethe ProtocolProtocol reflectsreflects thethe customarycustomary lawlaw ofof internationalinternational conflicts.conflicts.'18 In order toto showshow thatthat murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentbelligerent isis not aa warwar crime, this Comment begins with backgroundbackground on the ele-elements ofof thethe charge,charge, includingincluding thethe definitionsdefinitions ofof "privilege" "privilege" and "war"war crimes" inin PartPart I. PartPart IIII describesdescribes thethe potentiallypotentially lawfullawful statusstatus of members of the Taliban and concedesconcedes the correctcorrect categorizationcategorization of members ofof alal QaedaQaeda asas unprivilegedunprivileged belligerents.belligerents. AfterAfter illus-illustrating the charge'scharge's absenceabsence inin bothboth internationalinternational andand domesticdomestic law, PartPart III shows thatthat the charge of murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent does not conformconform to any instrument or interpretationinterpretation of law.law. Next,Next, PartPart IVIV usesuses thethe SupremeSupreme Court'sCourt's reasoningreasoning inin Hamdan v.v. RumsfeldRumsfeld to refute thethe chargecharge whilewhile simultaneouslysimultaneously using the case for guidance inin thethe constructionconstruction ofof a a newnew trialtrial systemsystem for the GuantanamoGuantinamo detainees.detainees. PartPart V V explains explains howhow thethe MilitaryMilitary Com-Com- missions Act Act of of 20062006 treatstreats thethe chargecharge ofof murder by an un-unprivileged belligerent. Lastly,Lastly, Part VI describes the various court systems availableavailable toto adjudicateadjudicate thethe charge and ultimatelyultimately argues for a newnew courtcourt systemsystem based on thethe U.S.U.S. courts martial. TheThe Com-Com- ment concludesconcludes thatthat thethe executive executive oversteppedoverstepped itsits boundsbounds byby creat- ing a crimecrime thatthat doesdoes notnot complycomply with international and domesticdomestic legal standards.

I.1. BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND A. PrivilegedPrivileged and and Unprivileged Unprivileged Belligerency Belligerency underunder U.S.U.S. LawLaw and thethe Geneva ConventionsConventions'19 The termterm "unprivileged"unprivileged belligerent" is related toto the term "unlawful combatant,"combatant," adoptedadopted by thethe United StatesStates Supreme Court in

18 SeeSee MichaelMichaelJ. J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Advisor, U.S. Dep'tDep't of State, Remarks at the SixthSixth AnnualAnnual AmericanAmerican RedRed Cross-WashingtonCross-Washington College of LawLaw Conference on International HumanitarianHumanitarian Law:Law: AA Workshop on CustomaryCustomary International LawLaw and the 19771977 ProtocolsProtocols Additional toto thethe 19491949 GenevaGeneva ConventionsConventions (Jan.(Jan. 22,22, 1987),1987), in 2 AM. U.J.U. J. INT'LINT't. L. L. & & POL'Y POL'Y 415, 415, 419-20 419-20 (1987) (1987) (considering (considering thethe United StatesStates legallylegally bound onlyonly byby thethe provisionsprovisions of ProtocolProtocol I to thethe GenevaGeneva ConventionsConventions that reflectreflect customary internationalinternational lawlaw despitedespite the the failurefailure ofof the UnitedUnited States to ratifyratify that Protocol). 19 SeeSee generallygenerally Geneva Convention forfor thethe Amelioration ofof thethe Condition of the Wounded andand SickSick inin ArmedArmed ForcesForces inin thethe Field,Field, Aug.Aug. 12,12, 1949,1949, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. 3114,3114, 75 U.N.T.S. 31;31; GenevaGeneva Convention Convention forfor thethe Amelioration ofof thethe Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked MembersMembers ofof Armed Armed ForcesForces atat Sea,Sea, Aug.Aug. 12,12, 1949,1949, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. 3217, 75 U.N.T.S. 85; GenevaGeneva ConventionConvention Relative to to thethe Treatment of PrisonersPrisoners of War,War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135135 [hereinafter[hereinafter Geneva Convention III];Ill];

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 536 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 537537

Ex Parte QuirinQuiin2020 "to"to describedescribe thethe GermanGerman saboteurssaboteurs triedtried byby mili-military commissions during World WarWar II."II. ''221' TerroristsTerrorists areare betterbetter termed unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentsbelligerents becausebecause privilegedprivileged belligerentsbelligerents operate duringduring armedarmed hostilitieshostilities andand withinwithin thethe lawlaw ofof war,war, whilewhile unprivileged belligerents operate outside the rulesrules ofof war, whether in timestimes ofof warwar or relativerelative peace.2222 "Privileged""Privileged" conflict conflict refers refers to to the the mantlemantle ofof protection that comes with lawful combatancycombatancy under under thethe law of armed combat,combat, particularly combatant immunity.immunity.2323 AccordingAccording toto ArticleArticle 4(2) ofof the GenevaGeneva Convention Relative toto thethe Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 19491949 (Geneva(Geneva Convention III),III), to gaingain privi-privileged status oneone must: belongbelong toto an organized group, belong to a party to the conflict,conflict, be commandedcommanded by a person responsibleresponsible for his subordinates, havehave aa fixedfixed distinctivedistinctive sign recognizable at aa dis-dis- tance, carry arms openly, andand conduct one's operationsoperations inin accor-accor- 24 dance withwith thethe lawslaws andand customscustoms ofof war.war.2 4 Not all who fight in wars areare guaranteed this privilege. ForFor example, since guerrillas2525 conductconduct warwar inin secret,secret, itit isis improbableimprobable that thethe groupgroup wouldwould complycomply with the wearing of insignia, automat- ically disqualifying them them fromfrom Geneva Convention protection.2266 Though ArticleArticle 44 of Additional Protocol II relaxed the insignia requirement, it waswas recommended for rejectionrejection byby thethe U.S.U.S. Presi-Presi- dent.2727 ThereThere are, are, however, however, otherother ways ways ofof gaining privilegeprivilege outside

Geneva Convention Relative to to thethe Protection of CivilianCivilian Persons in Time ofof War,War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. 287287 [hereinafter[hereinafter Geneva Convention IV].IV]. 20 317317 U.S.U.S. 11 (1942).(1942). 21 Hoffman, supra note 13,13, at 228 (describing the attempt by the executive branch to adopt thethe SupremeSupreme Court'sCourt's definitiondefinition ofof unlawfulunlawful combatant). 22 Id.Id. at 229 (contrasting(contrasting unlawfulunlawful combatants with terrorists, thethe latter ofof which often attack during times of peace andand against sitessites and and people people protectedprotected underunder international humanitarian law);law); see also William H. Taft, IV, The Law of Armed Conflict After 9/11: Some Some SalientSalient Features, Features, 28 YALE J. J.INT'L INT'L L. L.319, 319, 320 320 (2003) (2003) (labeling (labeling terroriststerrorists as belligerents who lack rights of thosethose lawfullylawfully engagedengaged inin combat). 23 SeeSee YORAM DINSTEIN, THETHE CONDUCTCONDUCT OFOF HOSTILITIESHOSTILITIES UNDERUNDER THETHE LAWLAW OFOF INTERNA-INTERNA- TIONAL ARMED ARMED CONFLIT CONFLICT 234 (2004)234 (2004) (indicating (indicating that that when when the the law law of of international international armed conflictconflict negates a lawful status,status, the the perpetrator perpetrator isis thenthen vulnerable to ordinary penal sanctionssanctions for acts in thethe domesticdomestic legallegal system).system). 24 GenevaGeneva ConventionConvention III,III, supra note 19,19, atat 3320.3320. 25 SeeSee Major Richard R.R. Baxter,Baxter, So-Called 'Unprivileged Belligerency': Spies,Spies, Guerrillas,Guerrillas, and Saboteurs,Saboteurs, 28 BRIT. Y.B. Y.B. INT'L INret. L. L. 323, 323, 333 333 (1951) (1951) (defining (defining guerrillaguerrilla warfare as armed hostilitieshostilities byby privateprivate personspersons oror groups whowho dodo not meetmeet thethe qualificationsqualifications established under Article 4 of GenevaGeneva Convention III). 26 SeeSee id.id. at 336336 (discussing(discussing the accounting of guerrilla tacticstactics during war in cus-customary international law).law). 27 UnitedUnited States:States: MessageMessage of thethe President Transmitting Protocol III1 Additional to the 19491949 Geneva Conventions, RelatingRelating toto thethe Protection of Victims of Noninterna- tional Armed Conflicts,Conflicts, Jan. 29,29, 1987,1987, 2626 I.L.M.I.L.M. 561.561. See alsoalso LESLIE C.C. GREEN, THE

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 537 2006-2007 538 NEW YORKYORK CITYCITY LAW REVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:53310:533 the GenevaGeneva Conventions. GenuineGenuine allegianceallegiance and creditablecreditable sup-support from thethe StateState onon whosewhose behalf they are undertaking the combat would likelylikely preclude preclude internationalinternational criminality.criminality.'28 An irregular combatantcombatant isis oftenoften a "part-time combatant[ ] whowho dodo[es] [es] notnot wear a uniform oror carrycarry armsarms openlyopenly whenwhen onon activeactive duty," butbut thethe termterm isis notnot synonymous synonymous withwith guerrilla.guerrilla.229 9 GuerrillasGuerrillas are distinguisheddistinguished from irregulars by the guerrillas' choice to useuse tactics suchsuch as "ambushes, sniping, and sabotage,"sabotage," whereas irregulars "might notnot use suchsuch tacticstactics at at allall ...... """"0 IrregularsIrregulars maymay bebe considered lawfullawful combatants in international conflictsconflicts if theythey ad-ad- 3 here to the lawlaw ofof armedarmed combat.combat.'' As anan unprivileged belligerent, anan individualindividual becomesbecomes vulnera- 32 ble to criminalcriminal prosecution underunder thethe domestic domestic legallegal system.system. 32 IfIf an individual'sindividual's status isis questionable,questionable, the detainingdetaining powerpower mustmust

CONTEMPORARY LAW LAW OF ARMEDOF ARMED CONFLICr CONFLICT 111 (2d 111 ed. (2d 2000) ed. 2000) (recognizing (recognizing that that armed armed forces of national liberationliberation movementsmovements inin WorldWorld WarWar IIII andand conflictsconflicts sincesince 19451945 are frequently not professionalprofessional soldiers,soldiers, butbut "farmers"farmers byby day and soldierssoldiers byby night"). 28 SeeSee Baxter, supra note 25,25, at 337337 (interpreting(interpreting customarycustomary internationalinternational lawlaw asas itit should applyapply toto thethe realityreality ofof post-WWII post-WWII warfare). 29 EwenEwen Allison,Allison, The Law: Irregulars,Irregulars, in CRIMES OF WAR,WAR, supra note 17,17, atat 216216 (describing(describing commoncommon traits of irregular combatants). 303° Id. 31 Id.Id. 32 U.S.U.S. ARMY, ARMY, JUDGEJUDGE ADVOCATEADVOCATE GEN. LEGALLEGAL CTR. && SCH.,SCH., OPERATIONALOPERATIONAL LAWLAW HAND-HAND- BOOK 17 17 (Maj. (Maj. Joseph Joseph B. B. Berger Berger III III etet al. eds.,eds., 2004),2004), available atat https:// www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/CLAMO-Public.nsfwwwjagcneLarmy.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/CLAMO-Public.nsf (fol-(fol- lowlow "2004 OperationalOperational Law Handbook"Handbook" hyperlink; then follow "OLH2004.pdf""OLH2004.pdf' hyperlink)link) [hereinafter[hereinafter U.S. U.S. JAG JAG OP. Op. LAw LAw HANDBOOK]HANDBOOK] ("Unprivileged ("Unprivileged belligerents belligerents areare notnot entitled to prisoner ofof warwar status, and maymay be prosecuted underunder thethe domesticdomestic lawlaw of the captor.");captor."); see also Schmitt Aff.,Aff., supra note 17,17, 1 38,38, at 12-1312-13 (deducing(deducing that an unprivileged belligerent who kills a lawful combatantcombatant isis subject subject to to prosecutionprosecution underunder the domesticdomestic lawlaw of the StateState becausebecause lackinglacking combatant immunityimmunity makesmakes an individ-individual vulnerable to domesticdomestic law ifif their alleged crime is not aa violation of the lawlaw of armed conflict);conflict); DINSTEIN, DINSTEIN, supra note 23, atat 237237 (stating(stating thatthat asas longlong asas unlawfulunlawful combatants do not commitcommit crimescrimes underunder internationalinternational law,law, theythey maymay onlyonly be prosecuted under domestic domestic courts); courts); ELIZABETH ELIZABETH CHADWICK, CHADWICK, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-DETERMINATION, TERRORISM TERRORISM ANDAND THE INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN HUMANITARIAN LAW LAW OF ARMEDOF ARMED CONFLIcT CONFLICT 92 (1996) 92 (1996) (stating (stating that that terrorists are jurisdictionallyjurisdictionally isolatedisolated within domestic criminal law);law); George H.H. Al-Al- drich, The Taliban,Taliban, Al Al Qaeda,Qaeda, and and the the Determination Determination of of Illegal Illegal Combatants, Combatants, 96 AM.AM. J. INT'LINT'L LAw 891, 891,898 898 (2002)(2002) (emphasizing thatthat members of al Qaeda are not entitledentitled toto law-lawful statusstatus underunder international lawlaw and are subject to trial andand punishment under U.S.U.S. domestic law). But seesee ROBERT K. GOLDMAN & BRIAN D.D. TITTEMORE, Am.AM. Soc'YSOC'Y OF INT'L LAW,LAw, TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM,TERRORISM, UNPRIVILEGEDUNPRIVILEGED COMBATANTSCOMBATANTS AND THETHE HOSTILITIES IN AFGHANISTAN: THEIRTHEIR STATUSSTATUS ANDAND RIGHTSRIGHTS UNDERUNDER INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIANHUMANITARIAN ANDAND HUMAN RIGHTS RIGHTS LAw LAw 19-20 19-20 (2002), available at http://www.asil.org/taskforce/ goldman.pdf (stating(stating that ifif a membermember ofof alal QaedaQaeda werewere capturedcaptured offoff UnitedUnited StatesStates soilsoil for the 9/11 attacks,attacks, he couldcould bebe triedtried asas aa common common criminal;criminal; butbut becausebecause alal Qaeda is fighting alongside a State party to the GenevaGeneva Conventions inin an international armed conflict there mustmust bebe carefulcareful analysisanalysis toto determine theirtheir exactexact statusstatus in the conflict).conflict).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 538 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERALUNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 539539 guarantee protection of GenevaGeneva Convention IIIIII until theythey deter-determine the individual'sindividual's status by aa competentcompetent tribunal.3333 ButBut thethe ac-actual nature of thethe tribunaltribunal still remains inin thethe hands of thethe captor.3434 TheThe U.S.U.S. ArmyArmy FieldField Manual definesdefines aa competent tribu-tribunal as a "board"board ofof not lessless than threethree officersofficers acting according to such procedures as may be prescribedprescribed for tribunalstribunals of thisthis na-nature."3535 AA militarymilitary commissioncommission could potentially serveserve as a compe-competent tribunal."tribunal.36 TheThe DOD DOD did did create create Combatant Combatant Status Status Review Review Tribunals (CSRTs),(CSRTs), thoughthough itit is questionablequestionable whetherwhether oror not theythey constituted competentcompetent tribunals sincesince theythey diddid notnot decide a de-detainee's entitlemententitlement toto prisoner-of-warprisoner-of-war (POW) status, but whether 37 a detaineedetainee qualifiedqualified asas an "enemy"enemy combatant."combatant. 37 After thethe tribunal's determination, the detaineedetainee would gain or lose his rights accordingly.'accordingly."8 SinceSince individuals individuals subjectsubject toto captivitycaptivity

33 SeeSee Geneva Convention III, supra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. at 3324,3324, 7575 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at 142142 (emphasizing(emphasizing thatthat status must be competently andand fairly determineddetermined before an indi-individual's POW rights can be takentaken away).away). 34 SeeSee GREEN, supra note 27, at 112 (providing thatthat aa captivecaptive whosewhose POWPOW status isis in doubt will enjoy thethe protection of Geneva ConventionConvention III III untiluntil hishis oror her statusstatus is determined by a "competent"competent tribunal," the nature of which is determined by the captor). 35 U.S.U.S. ARMY ARMY FIELD FIELD MANUAL., MANUAL, supra note 7, ¶ 71(c),71 (c), atat 30.30. 36 SeeSee Kenneth Anderson,Anderson, What to Do with Bin LadenLaden andand Al Al Qaeda Qaeda Terrorists?: Terrorists?: A Qualified Defense ofof MilitaryMilitary Commissions andand United States Policy onon Detainees atat Guantd- namo Bay NavalNaval Base,Base, 25 HARV.HARv. J.L. J.L. & & PUB. PuB. POL'Y POL'Y 591, 591, 619 619 (2002) (2002) (believing (believing thatthat a military commission couldcould serveserve thisthis rolerole ifif itit fulfilledfulfilled thethe requirements ofof ArticleArticle 75 of Additional Protocol I by being a "regularly constituted court with regularregular judicial procedures andand impartiality").impartiality"). 37 SeeSee GuantdnamoGuantdnamo Bay Bay Detainees Detainees Overview: Overview: Current Status andand Legal Legal Challenges, Challenges, INT'L DEBATES, Apr. Apr. 2006, 2006, at at98, 98, 99 99 (stating (stating that that criticscritics viewedviewed thethe CSRTs as insufficiently complying withwith thethe Supreme Court's ruling inin Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507507 (2004),(2004), because manymany believebelieve Hamdi applies to allall detainees,detainees, regardlessregardless ofof citizen-citizen- ship). See alsoalso Hamdi,Hamdi, 542 U.S. atat 533533 (concluding that aa citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his status asas anan enemy combatantcombatant mustmust bebe given anan opportunityopportunity to do so). See also DEPUTY SEC'YSEC'Y OFOF DEF., DEPTDEP'T OF OF DEF., DEF., COMBATANT COMBATANT STATUSSTATUS REVIEW REVIEW TRIBUNALTRIBUNAL PROCESS § §(B), (B), (2006), available atat http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2006/ d2006O8O9CSRTProcedures.pdfd20060809CSRTProcedures.pdf (providing (providing a a non-adversarialnon-adversarial proceeding proceeding toto deter-determine whether each detainee meets the criteriacriteria to bebe designateddesignated anan enemyenemy combat-combatant). TheThe Department Department of of Defense Defense definesdefines anan enemyenemy combatantcombatant as:as: [A]n individualindividual whowho waswas part part ofof oror supporting TalibanTaliban or al Qaeda forces, or associatedassociated forcesforces thatthat areare engaged inin hostilitieshostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. ThisThis includesincludes anyany person whowho has committed a belligerent act or hashas directlydirectly supported hostilitieshostilities in aid of enemyenemy armed forces.forces. Id.Id. 38 SeeSee Press Release, Dep't.Dep't. of Def., Combatant StatusStatus ReviewReview TribunalTribunal Order Is-Is- sued (July(July 7,7, 2004),2004), http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID= 7530 ("Any detainee detainee whowho isis determined determined notnot to be an enemyenemy combatantcombatant willwill be transferred toto theirtheir countrycountry ofof citizenshipcitizenship oror otherother dispositiondisposition consistentconsistent withwith domesticdomestic and internationalinternational obligationsobligations andand U.S.U.S. foreignforeign policy.");policy."); see also Guantdnamo BayBay De-

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 539 2006-2007 540 NEW YORKYORK CITYCITY LAWLAW REVIEWREVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:533 of a detaining power retain thethe protectionprotection ofof the the GenevaGeneva Conven-Conven- tions until determineddetermined otherwise,otherwise, onlyonly anan "unprivileged""unprivileged" determi-determination would remove the POWPOW protectionprotection of thethe GenevaGeneva Conventions. Ultimately,Ultimately, the termterm "unprivileged""unprivileged" refers toto aa statusstatus to bebe determined,determined, notnot anyany particularparticular crime.crime.3939 AA combatantcombatant whowho failed to follow the lawlaw and customscustoms ofof war,war, oror ArticleArticle 4(A)4(A) (2)(2) of Geneva ConventionConvention III, maymay have committed aa warwar crime asas well.well.'"4 ° Even ifif aa belligerentbelligerent is deemed unprivileged, he or sheshe isis protected byby Common Article 3 toto allall fourfour GenevaGeneva Conventions,Conventions, whichwhich applies toto the treatment ofof all persons no longer taking part in the hostilities.hostilities.'4' ByBy its its very very naturenature CommonCommon ArticleArticle 33 appliesapplies toto unlaw-unlawful combatants andand to "conflicts"conflicts 'not'not ofof anan internationalinternational charac-character"'ter '"4242 since the International CommitteeCommittee ofof thethe RedRed CrossCross created the ArticleArticle to "ensur"ensur[e] [e] respect for thethe fewfew essentialessential rules of humanity which all civilized nationsnations consider asas validvalid everywhereeverywhere and under allall circumstancescircumstances and as beingbeing aboveabove andand outsideoutside warwar it-itself."'self."'4 3 TheThe International International Committee Committee ofof the the Red Red CrossCross formulatedformulated a similarsimilar but moremore specificspecific provisionprovision inin ArticleArticle 7575 ofof AdditionalAdditional Protocol I toto thethe 19491949 GenevaGeneva Conventions."Conventions.44 ItIt similarly similarly estab-estab- tainees Overview, supra note 37,37, at 99 ("Of("Of the 38 detainees determined not to be en-enemy combatants,combatants, 2323 havehave beenbeen transferred to their homehome states.").states."). 39 CompareCompare DINSTEIN, supra note 23,23, atat 3131 (explaining(explaining thatthat warwar criminalscriminals areare brought toto trialtrial forfor seriousserious violationsviolations ofof thethe lawlaw of international armedarmed conflictconflict itself,itself, but thethe lawlaw ofof internationalinternational armedarmed conflictconflict refrainsrefrains fromfrom stigmatizingstigmatizing anan unlawfulunlawful combatant's acts as criminal and insteadinstead merelymerely takestakes off the mantle ofof immunity),immunity), with A.P.V. Rogers, The Law: Combatant Status, in CRIMES OF W.AR,WAR, supra note 17,17, at 97 (asserting that noncombatants—thosenoncombatants-those notnot directlydirectly participatingparticipating inin hostilities—whohostilities-who commit war crimes by directly participatingparticipating in hostilities may bebe prosecutedprosecuted for anyany attacks on people as common crimes, and that whilewhile their actsacts as noncombatants are, therefore not warwar crimes,crimes, theirtheir directdirect participationparticipation inin hostilitieshostilities isis a warwar crime). 40 SeeSee DINSTEIN, supra note 23,23, atat 3939 (acknowledging(acknowledging thatthat ultimatelyultimately privilegedprivileged sta-status requires adherence to thethe lawslaws and customscustoms of war, and if thisthis isis not properlyproperly followed, itit isis likelylikely thethe individualindividual committedcommitted a war crime). 41 SeeSee Geneva Convention III, supra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. atat 3318-20,3318-20, 7575 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at 136-38. 42 Derek Jinks, The Declining Significance of POW Status,Status, 45 HARV.HARv. INT'LINT'L L.J.L.J. 367, 400-01 (2004)(2004) (articulating(articulating CommonCommon ArticleArticle 3's3's applicabilityapplicability between states and informal armed opposition groups). 43 GenevaGeneva Convention III,III, supra 19,19, 6 U.S.T.U.S.T. at 3320,3320, 75 U.N.T.S. atat 138. ThisThis provision includesincludes prohibitionsprohibitions against: (a)(a) violenceviolence toto life andand person,person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;torture; (b)(b) takingtaking ofof hostages;hostages; (c) outragesoutrages upon personalpersonal dignity,dignity, in particular,particular, humiliatinghumiliating and degradingdegrading treat-treatment; (d)(d) thethe passingpassing ofof sentencessentences andand thethe carryingcarrying outout ofof executions executions withoutwithout previ-previous judgmentjudgment pronounced byby aa regularlyregularly constitutedconstituted court affordingaffording allall thethe judicial guarantees which are recognizedrecognized asas indispensableindispensable byby civilizedcivilized peoples. Id.Id. 44 ProtocolProtocol AdditionalAdditional toto the the Geneva Geneva ConventionsConventions ofof 12 12 AugustAugust 1949,1949, and Relating to thethe ProtectionProtection ofof VictimsVictims of International ArmedArmed ConflictsConflicts (Protocol(Protocol I), opened forfor signature Dec. 12, 1977, 11251125 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at at 37-3837-38 [hereinafter Additional Protocol I].

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 540 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 541

lished minimum humanitarian protectionsprotections toto all persons "in the power of'of aa belligerentbelligerent State,State, irrespectiveirrespective ofof theirtheir role in the con-conflict, and whether theythey are entitled toto "benefit"benefit fromfrom moremore favour-favour- able treatment under thethe ConventionsConventions oror under this Protocol."Protocol.""45

B. War Crimes War crimes represent serious breaches of thethe lawslaws and customs of war.4466 TheThe InternationalInternational CriminalCriminal CourtCourt definesdefines warwar crimescrimes asas "serious"serious violations ofof thethe laws andand customs applicable in armed conflict not of an internationalinternational character."character."4477 Furthermore,Furthermore, viola-violations that endangerendanger protectedprotected persons,persons, objects,objects, or breach impor-impor- tant valuesvalues are treatedtreated asas warwar crimes.crimes.448 OffensesOffenses againstagainst thethe Geneva Conventions areare referredreferred to asas "grave breaches," andand are also considered warwar crimes.crimes.'49 TheThe U.S.U.S. definitiondefinition mirrorsmirrors thesethese definitions in thethe WarWar CrimesCrimes ActAct ofof 1996.1996.55°o MurderMurder byby anan un-un-

45 Id.Id. at 37.37. 46 INT'LINT'L COMM. COMM. FOR FOR THE THE RED RED CROSS, CROSS, COMMENTARY COMMENTARY ONON THETHE ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS I OFOF 88 JUNEJUNE 19771977 TOTO THETHE GENEVAGENEVA CONVENTIONS CONVENTIONS OF OF12 12AUGUST AUGUST 1949 1949 888 888 (Claude (Claude Pil- loud etet al. al. eds., eds., 1987) 1987) [hereinafter [hereinafter RED RED CROSS CROSS COMMENTARY] COMMENTARY] (citing (citing The The ReportReport of the Int'lInt'l LawLaw Comm'n,Comm'n, 3d3d Sess.Sess. vol. 4, atat 59 (1951)); seesee also Agreement for thethe Prose-Prose- cution and PunishmentPunishment ofof thethe MajorMajor WarWar CriminalsCriminals ofof thethe EuropeanEuropean Axis,Axis, Aug.Aug. 8, 1945,1945, 59 Stat. 1544 at 1547, 82 U.N.T.S. 279279 atat 288288 (defining war crimes asas "violations of the lawslaws or customs of war" andand enumerating,enumerating, but notnot limiting,limiting, violationsviolations as "mur-"murder, ill-treatment or deportation toto slaveslave labour or for anyany otherother purposepurpose ofof civilian civilian population of or inin occupied territory,territory, murdermurder oror ill-treatmentill-treatment ofof prisoners ofof warwar or persons on the seas,seas, killing of hostages,hostages, plunderplunder of public or private property, wanton destruction ofof cities, cities, townstowns oror villages, or devastation notnot justified byby militarymilitary necessitynecessity .") 47 United NationsNations DiplomaticDiplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on thethe Establish-Establish- ment ofof anan InternationalInternational Criminal Criminal Court, Court, June June 15—July 15-July 17,17, 1998,1998, Rome Statute of thethe International CriminalCriminal Court,Court, Article 8(2)(e),8(2)(e), U.N.U.N. Doc.Doc. A/CONF.183/9A/CONF.183/9 (July(July 17,17, 1998)1998), , available at http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/english/romestatutehttp://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/english/rome_statute(e).pdf (e).pdf [hereinafter[hereinafter Rome Statute]. 48 SeeSeeJEAN-MARIE JEAN-MARIE HENCKAERTS & & LOUISELOUISE DoswALD-BECK,DOSWALD-BECK, INT'L INT'L COMM.COMM. FOR THE RED CROSS, CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN HUMANITARIAN LAw: LAW: VOL. VOL. I:I: RULES 569 (2005) (us-(using deductive analysis ofof listslists ofof war war crimes crimes to to define define thethe roots of war crimes). 49 See GREEN, supra note 27,27, at 292 (explaining that eveneven thoughthough offensesoffenses againstagainst the GenevaGeneva Conventions are referred toto asas "grave"grave breaches," theythey carry the weight of war crimes in international law).law). 50 1818 U.S.C.A.U.S.C.A. § 2441(c) (2006). ThisThis statutestatute definesdefines warwar crimescrimes as:as: [A]ny[A]ny con-conduct—duct- (1) defineddefined asas a grave breachbreach in any ofof thethe internationalinternational conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949,1949, or or anyany protocol protocol toto suchsuch convention toto which the UnitedUnited States is aa party;party; (2) prohibited by Article 23,23, 25,25, 27, 27, or or 2828 of of the the AnnexAnnex toto the Hague Convention W,IV, Respecting the Laws andand CustomsCustoms ofof WarWar onon Land,Land, signed 18 OctoberOctober 1907;1907; (3) which constitutes a violation ofof CommonCommon ArticleArticle 33 ofof thethe internationalinternational con-conventions signed at Geneva, 12 AugustAugust 1949,1949, or or anyany protocolprotocol to such convention to which the United StatesStates is aa party andand whichwhich dealsdeals withwith non-internationalnon-international armed con-conflict; oror (4)(4) of aa personperson who, in relationrelation to an armedarmed conflictconflict and contrary to thethe provisions ofof thethe Protocol on Prohibitions oror RestrictionsRestrictions onon thethe UseUse ofof Mines, Mines, Booby-Booby-

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 541 2006-2007 542 NEW YORKYORK CITYCITY LAW REVIEWREVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:533

privileged belligerentbelligerent mustmust fulfillfulfill thisthis standardstandard inin order toto consti-constitute a warwar crime.crime. It merits notice that unlikeunlike mostmost internationalinternational lawlaw sources,sources, the U.S. ArmyArmy FieldField ManualManual doesdoes notnot require aa "serious""serious" violationviolation of the lawlaw of warwar toto constitute aa warwar crime, anyany violationviolation of the lawlaw of war will do.5511 TheThe Field Field ManualManual enumeratesenumerates offenses,offenses, inin additionaddition to grave breaches against thethe GenevaGeneva Conventions,Conventions, toto serveserve as representative warwar crimescrimes to guide adjudicationadjudication ifif newnew typestypes ofof warwar crimes arise.arise.'2 Though it is not unprecedented for aa nationalnational court toto findfind that a specific act is aa warwar crimecrime withoutwithout internationalinternational recognition, the rarityrarity of such anan eventevent precludesprecludes customarycustomary use.use.5353 WarWar crimi-criminality is not limitedlimited toto violationsviolations ofof customarycustomary internationalinternational law,law, and includesincludes applicableapplicable treatytreaty law.law.5544 CiviliansCivilians are just asas culpableculpable for war crimes as soldiers. 55 WhileWhile analysisanalysis ofof warwar crimescrimes allowsallows for flexibility inin interpretationinterpretation to avoidavoid needless pain and sufferingsuffering in wartime, murdermurder by an unprivileged belligerent does not embodyembody this avoidance andand intention.intention.

Traps and OtherOther DevicesDevices as amended at GenevaGeneva on 33 MayMay 19961996 (Protocol(Protocol II asas amended onon 33 MayMay 1996),1996), when thethe UnitedUnited States States is is aa partyparty toto suchsuch Protocol,Protocol, willfully willfully kills or causes serious injury toto civilians.civilians. Id. 51 SeeSee U.S. ARMYARw FIELDFIELD MANUAL, supra note 7,7, ¶1 499,499, atat 178178 ("Every("Every violation of the law of war isis aa war crime."). 52 Id.Id. ¶ 504, at 180. TheThe FieldField ManualManual prescribesprescribes that: In additionaddition to thethe "grave"grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts areare representative of violations ofof thethe law of war ("war crimes"): a. Making use of poisoned oror otherwiseotherwise forbidden arms or ammunition; b. TreacherousTreacherous requestrequest forfor quarter;quarter; c.c. Maltreatment of deaddead bodies;bodies; d. FiringFiring onon localitieslocalities which are undefendedundefended andand withoutwithout militarymilitary significance; e. e. AbuseAbuse of of or or firingfiring onon the flagflag ofof truce;truce; f.f. MisuseMisuse of thethe RedRed CrossCross emblem; g. Use of civilian clothingclothing byby troopstroops toto conceal their militarymilitary character during battle; h. Improper useuse ofof privileged privileged buildingsbuildings forfor militarymilitary purposes; i.i. Poisoning of wells oror streams; j. j. PillagePillage oror purposeless destruction; k. Compelling prisoners of war to perform prohibited labor;labor; 1.1. Killing without trial spies oror other personspersons who have committed hostile acts; m.m. Compelling civilians to to performperform prohibitedprohibited labor; n. Violation of surrender terms.terms. Id. 53 SeeSee HENCKAERTS & DOSWALD-BECK,DOSWALD-BECK, supra note 48,48, atat 571571 (illustrating(illustrating howhow national courts found allegedalleged warwar criminalscriminals guiltyguilty ofof war crimescrimes during World War IIII unlisted in thethe charterscharters ofof thethe internationalinternational militarymilitary tribunalstribunals at NurembergNuremberg and Tokyo). 54 SeeSee id.id. at 572 (showing(showing that war crimes can be both violationsviolations of customary international law or violations ofof applicable treaties). 55 SeeSee id.id. at 573 (providing(providing anan exampleexample ofof the the type type ofof analysis analysis involved inin determining whether an offense is considered a war crime).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 542 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERALUNILATERAL CREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 543

II. THETHE LEGAL LEGAL DIFFERENCES DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BETWEEN THE THE TALIBAN TALIBAN ANDAND ALAL QAEDA UNDER THETHE LAWLAW OFOF WARWAR ANDAND THETHE LAWLAW OFOF INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT Since combatant privilege isis thethe centralcentral question in murder byby an unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent, itit isis importantimportant toto distinguishdistinguish whywhy members of the TalibanTaliban maymay be entitledentitled toto combatantcombatant privilegeprivilege and whywhy members of al Qaeda areare correctlycorrectly termedtermed unprivilegedunprivileged belligerents. AlAl Qaeda'sQaeda's attacksattacks onon variousvarious militarymilitary andand civiliancivilian lo-lo- cations around thethe worldworld categorizecategorize them asas aa terroristterrorist organiza-organization.5566 TheThe TalibanTaliban ruledruled AfghanistanAfghanistan asas a theocratictheocratic governmentgovernment until thethe U.S.U.S. invasioninvasion in 2001.2001."757 TheThe keykey differencedifference being that the Taliban acted as a State, andand al Qaeda did not.5588 The WhiteWhite House press secretarysecretary announcedannounced on FebruaryFebruary 7,7, 2002, that neither TalibanTaliban nornor alal QaedaQaeda detaineesdetainees "will"will bebe givengiven POW legal designation" underunder the GenevaGeneva Conventions.""Conventions."59 Yet,Yet, the President failedfailed to distinguish between the Taliban as members of the actual governmentgovernment ofof Afghanistan, and al Qaeda as members of a non-state entity.entity. Furthermore, since both thethe Taliban,Taliban, as the government of Afghanistan, andand thethe U.S. were parties to thethe Ge-Ge- neva Conventions,Conventions, theirtheir conflictconflict constitutedconstituted anan internationalinternational armed conflictconflict toto whichwhich thethe GenevaGeneva ConventionsConventions and customarycustomary internationalinternational humanitarianhumanitarian lawlaw should havehave applied.applied.66°

56 SeeSee Aldrich, supra note 32,32, at 893893 ("Al("Al Qaeda isis evidently a clandestine organiza-organization consisting of elements inin manymany countriescountries andand apparently composed of people of various nationalities; itit isis dedicateddedicated to advancing certain political and religiousreligious objec- tivestives byby meansmeans ofof terroristterrorist actsacts directeddirected against thethe United States and other,other, largelylargely Western, nations."). 57 CompareCompare RESTATEMENT (THIRD) (THIRD) OFOF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAWLAW OFOF THE UNITEDUNITED STATES § 201§ 201 (1987) (1987) ("Under ("Under international international law, law, a astate state is is an an entity entity that that hashas a defined territoryterritory and a permanent population,population, underunder thethe controlcontrol ofof its its ownown government, and thatthat engagesengages in ...... formalformal relationsrelations withwith otherother suchsuch entities."),entities."), quoted in Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 244 (2d Cir. 1995),1995), with Afghanistan's TalibanTaliban Rulers,Rulers, CABLE NEWS NETWORK, NETWORK, Aug. Aug. 9, 2001, 9, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/cen- http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/cen- tral/08/09/taliban.profiletra1/08/09/taliban.profile (reporting(reporting thatthat only only three three countries—Saudi countries-Saudi Arabia,Arabia, Paki-Paki- stan, andand thethe United United Arab Arab Emirates—recognized Emirates-recognized the Taliban'sTaliban's rulerule overover Afghanistan). 58 SeeSee Aldrich, supra note 32, at 894-96 (failing to understand thethe President's rea-rea- soning in denyingdenying POWPOW status to members of thethe TalibanTaliban sincesince theythey constituteconstitute gov-government forcesforces andand thusthus fallfall under privilegedprivileged status under thethe GenevaGeneva Conventions). 59 AriAri Fleischer,Fleischer, WhiteWhite HouseHouse Spokesman,Spokesman, Special White House Announcement Re: Application of Geneva Conventions inin Afghanistan (Feb. 7, 2002).2002). 6069 SeeSee Aldrich, supra note 32, at 893 (emphasizing thatthat the Taliban and alal QaedaQaeda should notnot bebe groupedgrouped togethertogether underunder internationalinternational lawlaw becausebecause thethe TalibanTaliban consti-consti- tutedtuted thethe rulingruling governmentgovernment ofof Afghanistan); but cf.cf. Kadic, Kadic, 70 F.3d atat 245 (noting the "perverse"perverse effect" ofof immunizing leadersleaders ofof unrecognized states from thethe conse-conse- quences ofof violating international law,law, where recognized statestate actorsactors wouldwould otherwiseotherwise be liable).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 543 2006-2007 544 NEW YORKYORK CITY LAW REVIEWREVEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:533

Al Qaeda's classification asas aa terroristterrorist group alsoalso precludes itsits members from certain POWPOW protections under thethe GenevaGeneva Con-Con- ventionsventions'6 1because because ofof their their previous previous attacks attacks onon the the U.S. U.S. Embassy Embassy in Kenya, thethe U.S.S. ColeCole bombing,bombing, andand the 9/119/11 attacks.attacks.6622 EvenEven while acknowledging thatthat the U.S.S.U.S.S. Cole bombingbombing waswas on aa mili-military target,target, al QaedaQaeda does notnot constitute part of thethe armedarmed forcesforces of a StateState andand accordingly,accordingly, lacked lawful authorityauthority toto carry outout the 63 attacks.63 Hostilities withwith aa non-state actor, absent any relatedrelated hostilitieshostilities with a State,State, cannotcannot triggertrigger internationalinternational armedarmed conflict.conflict.6644 AlAl Qaeda's attacksattacks preceding OctoberOctober 7,7, 2001,2001, andand anyany attacksattacks post-post- October 7,7, 2001, without aa clear,clear, direct link to the armedarmed conflictconflict with AfghanistanAfghanistan diddid notnot constituteconstitute aa internationalinternational or non-interna-non-international armed conflict.conflict.'6 5 Accordingly,Accordingly, membersmembers ofof al Qaeda do not qualify asas lawfullawful combatants combatants under under thethe law ofof internationalinternational armed conflict and havehave beenbeen accuratelyaccurately describeddescribed asas unprivilegedunprivileged belligerents.

61 CompareCompare Geneva Convention III, supra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. atat 3320,3320, 7575 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at 138138 (defining persons entitled to prisonerprisoner ofof warwar statusstatus as "[m]embers ofof other mili-mili- tias and members of other volunteervolunteer corpscorps ...... [who] [who] fulfilfulfil [sic][sic] thethe followingfollowing condi-conditions ...... thatthat ofof conductingconducting theirtheir operations operations inin accordance accordance withwith thethe laws laws and customscustoms of war"), with RED CROSSCROSS COMMENTARY,COMMENTARY, supra note 46, at 526 (indicating that terrorists do not complycomply with the combatant obligationobligation toto followfollow the rulesrules ofof international lawlaw applicable in armed conflict), and id.id. at 526 n.27n.27 (defining(defining terrorismterrorism asas "the"the system-system- atic attack on non-militarynon-military objectives in in order order to force thethe militarymilitary elements of the adverse PartyParty toto complycomply withwith the the wisheswishes of of the the attackerattacker byby meansmeans ofof thethe fear and anguish induced byby such an attack"). 62 LieutenantLieutenant ColonelColonel AndrewAndrew S.S. Williams,Williams, The Interception of Civil Aircraft OverOver the High SeasSeas in thethe GlobalGlobal WarWar onon Terror,Terror, 59 A.F. L.L. REV.REv. 73, 73, 77-78 77-78 (2007) (stating that al Qaeda hashas been heldheld responsibleresponsible forfor thethe AugustAugust 7,7, 19981998 bombingbombing inin Kenya,Kenya, the Octo- ber 12,12, 2000 bombing of the U.S.S.U.S.S. Cole, andand the SeptemberSeptember 11,11, 20012001 attacks).attacks). 63 Hoffman,Hoffman, supra note 13,13, at 229 (distinguishing(distinguishing al QaedaQaeda objectivesobjectives as a terrorist organization from thosethose of state actors involved inin armedarmed conflict). But seeseeWILLIAM WILLIAM A.A. SCHABAS,ScHABAs, AN AN INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TO TO THE THE INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL COURT COURT 35 35(2d (2d ed. ed. 2004) 2004) ("The problem with a distinct crime of terrorism lies in definition, it being often said that `one'one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."').fighter.'"). 64 SeeSee Schmitt Aff.Aff., , supra note 17,17, II1 7, atat 3 (specifying thatthat anan international armed conflict may involve non-State non-State actors, actors, but but anan actualactual international armed conflictconflict re-requires at least one state on each side). 65 SeeSee id.id. 1111 10-11,10-11, atat 4 (applying(applying a sine qua non of internationalinternational armedarmed conflictconflict that an internationalinternational armedarmed conflictconflict onlyonly beganbegan onon Oct.Oct. 7,7, 20012001 betweenbetween the U.S.U.S. and Afghanistan). See also Hamdan v.v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. Ct. 2749,2749, 27772777 (2006)(2006) (in(in orderorder to exercise jurisdiction jurisdiction byby aa tribunaltribunal convened to try Hamdan, thethe offenseoffense "must"must havehave been committedcommitted withinwithin thethe period period of of the the war." war." (quoting (quoting WINTHROP, WINTHROP, supra note 7,7, at 837)).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 544 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERALUNILATERAL CREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 545

III. MURDERMURDER BY BY AN AN UNPRIVILEGED UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENTBELLIGERENT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWLAW War crimes involve inhumaneinhumane methodsmethods of causing death,death, not causing the death itself,itself, whichwhich isis anan inherent part ofof war. AA com-com- parison of the enumerated warwar crimes in each major international convention, court, court, andand statute reveals thatthat murdermurder byby an un-unprivileged belligerentbelligerent is notnot listed in any international legallegal instru-instrument.6666 ThisThis confirmsconfirms thethe beliefbelief that that while while newnew offensesoffenses violatingviolating the lawlaw of war willwill continuecontinue toto arise with the evolutionevolution ofof warfare,warfare, the unilateral creation ofof a warwar crimecrime should be lookedlooked atat withwith aa high level ofof scrutiny.scrutiny.'67 Regardless of this evolution,evolution, murdermurder byby an unprivilegedunprivileged bellig-belligerent isis notnot governedgoverned currentlycurrently byby the lawlaw of war. WhenWhen aa belliger-belligerent is declared unprivileged, international lawlaw removes the mantle of protection providedprovided by lawful statusstatus underunder the lawlaw of armedarmed combat.668" ButBut whenwhen anan individualindividual isis not aa formalformal membermember of an armed forceforce thatthat isis partyparty toto thethe conflict,conflict, hehe fallsfalls outsideoutside interna-international legal protection.protection.6699 HeHe is is simplysimply a plain belligerentbelligerent oror civiliancivilian and wouldwould automaticallyautomatically fall under thethe domesticdomestic rulerule ofof law, law, whichwhich

66 SeeSee HENCKAERTS & DOSWALD-BECK,DOSWALD-BECK, supra note 48, at 574-99574-99 (listing(listing warwar crimescrimes by internationalinternational legal instrument with commentarycommentary onon eacheach chargecharge under each instru-instrument). TheThe listlist ofof war war crimescrimes were based on: (1)(1) grave breaches includedincluded inin thethe GenevaGeneva Conventions based on crimes pursued byby the InternationalInternational MilitaryMilitary Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo;Tokyo; (2)(2) crimescrimes derivedderived from other warwar crimescrimes trialstrials after thethe SecondSecond WorldWorld War;War; (3)(3) violationsviolations of customary international lawlaw listed in Additional Protocol I and asas war crimescrimes inin thethe Statute of the International Criminal Court committed during an internationalinternational armedarmed conflictconflict; ; (4)(4) war crimes in the Statute of the InternationalInternational CriminalCriminal CourtCourt developeddeveloped since the adoption of AdditionalAdditional Protocol II in 1977 and committed during an internationalinternational armed conflict; (5) crimes not referred to in the Statute of the InternationalInternational CriminalCriminal Court but recognizedrecognized asas violationsviolations of customary international law committed during an armedarmed internationalinternational conflict;conflict; (6)(6) seriousserious violationsviolations of CommonCommon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; (7) other seriousserious violations of customary international lawlaw during a non-international armed conflict includedincluded in the StatuteStatute of thethe InternationalInternational Criminal Court and in the Statutes of the International CriminalCriminal TribunalTribunal forfor RwandaRwanda and the SpecialSpecial CourtCourt for Sierra Leone; (8)(8) violationsviolations of Additional Protocol II and of customary internationalinternational law duringduring aa non-internationalnon-international armed conflict;conflict; (9) other seri-serious violations ofof international humanitarian law during a non-internationalnon-international armedarmed conflict listed asas warwar crimescrimes inin thethe StatuteStatute ofof thethe International Criminal Court; (10)(10) war crimes recognizedrecognized by StateState practicepractice during non-international conflict.conflict. Id. 67 SeeSee Hamdan,Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 27802780 n.34 (limiting(limiting the evolutionaryevolutionary naturenature of the common lawlaw to an incrementalincremental developmentdevelopment byby thethe judiciary).judiciary). See also FilartigaFildrtiga v.v. Pefia-Irala, 630 630 F.2d F.2d 876, 876, 881 881 (2d (2d Cir. Cir. 1980) 1980) ("The ("The requirement requirement thatthat aa rule command the 'general'general assentassent of civilizedcivilized nations'nations' toto become binding upon themthem allall isis aa strin-strin- gent one.") 68 SeeSee DINSTEIN, supra note 23, at 234 (contrasting thethe removalremoval ofof immunityimmunity with an offense against thethe law ofof internationalinternational armed conflict). 69 SeeSee Hoffman, supra note 13,13, at 230230 (distinguishing(distinguishing betweenbetween formal combatants

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 545 2006-2007 546 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEWREVIEW [Vol. 10:533

is enforceableenforceable when anan individualindividual does notnot havehave combatantcombatant 70 immunity.immunity:7° The simplestsimplest explanationexplanation predicates war as a game.game. PlayingPlaying this game isis illegal,illegal, unless you fulfill certain conditionsconditions thatthat givegive you benefits. 771' WithoutWithout these these benefits,benefits, aa player player commitscommits illegalillegal acts (the domesticdomestic crimecrime ofof murder)murder) byby simplysimply participatingparticipating (killing(killing someone).someone).7272 MurderMurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentbelligerent isis playingplaying the game withoutwithout benefits,benefits, illegalillegal activityactivity that placesplaces thethe individualindividual under domesticdomestic law.law. A benefited player plays thethe gamegame accordingaccording toto specificspecific rules. rules."73 A benefited playerplayer cancan bebe disciplineddisciplined forfor breakingbreaking thesethese specificspecific 7 rules. BreakingBreaking thesethese rulesrules constitutesconstitutes a warwar crime.crime.74' AnAn un-un- benefited playerplayer cannot break these rules because he is not part of the game.game. IfIf hehe killskills someone,someone, hehe willwill bebe subjectsubject to aa murdermurder charge under domesticdomestic lawlaw but not aa warwar crime. crime.757 5 AA warwar crime inherently requires an overtovert infractioninfraction ofof thethe lawlaw ofof war,war, not just com-com- mitting aa domesticdomestic crimecrime withoutwithout combatantcombatant immunity,immunity, i.e.i.e. privileged status.7766 A more perplexingperplexing issueissue arises after realizing that thethe DODDOD created thethe crimescrimes andand offensesoffenses under MCIMCI No. 2 afterafter thethe warwar in among nationsnations andand otherother individualsindividuals outsideoutside thethe lawlaw of warwar thatthat promulgatepromulgate attacksattacks for their own ends, not the endsends ofof aa State). 70 SeeSee Schmitt Aff.,Aff., supra note 17,17, ¶ 38,38, atat 12-1312-13 ("[T]("[T]he he unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentbelligerent who kills aa combatantcombatant is subjectsubject to to prosecutionprosecution for for murdermurder pursuant to thethe domesticdomestic law of States with subjectsubject mattermatter jurisdictionjurisdiction over the offense and personalpersonal jurisdic-jurisdiction overover the accused.").accused."). 71 Cf.Cf Geneva Conventions III, supra note 19,19, U.S.T.U.S.T. atat 3320,3320, 7575 U.N.T.SU.N.T.S at 138138 (delineating the conditionsconditions necessarynecessary toto qualifyqualify asas a prisonerprisoner ofof war, war, i.e.i.e. lawfullawful combatant). 72 See U.S. JAG OP.Op. LAW LAW HANDBOOK, HANDBOOK, supra note 3232 (establishing that thethe offenseoffense of murder, withoutwithout privilegedprivileged status under thethe lawlaw ofof war,war, is illegal under domesticdomestic law). 73 Cf.Cf U.S.U.S. ARMY FIELD MANUAL, supra note 7,7, 1112, 2, at at 3 3 (stating (stating thatthat armed conflict is governed by the law ofof landland warfarewarfare whichwhich includesincludes lawlaw enumerated enumerated in legallegal treaties and customarycustomary lawlaw which maymay apply apply even even if if not not enumerated enumerated in a written instrumentinstrument of law). 74 SeeSee suprasupra Part I.B (defining(defining war crimes as violations of the lawlaw of war, armedarmed combat, and GenevaGeneva Conventions). 75 SeeSee DINSTEIN, supra note 23,23, atat 234234 (stating(stating thatthat domestically domestically defineddefined criminalcriminal acts committed by an individualindividual without privileged statusstatus underunder the lawlaw of armed international combat removesremoves the mantlemantle of combatantcombatant immunity,immunity, thus placing the individual under domesticdomestic law).law). See also Mohammed Ali v. Public Prosecutor, [1968][1968] 3 All ER 488,488, 497,497, 1 A.C. 430430 (1969) (Judicial CommitteeCommittee of the PrivyPrivy Council) (ap-(ap- peal taken from Malay) (holding that two members of the Indonesian armed forcesforces who committed sabotage while wearing civiliancivilian clothesclothes inin Singapore could be tried under MalaysianMalaysian domestic law becausebecause theythey did did notnot comply withwith thethe requirements of Geneva Convention IIIIII Article 4(A)(2)4(A) (2) and and werewere notnot operatingoperating as members of the Indonesian armed forces atat the time). 76 SeeSee generallygenerally supra Part I.B.

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 546 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERAL CREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 547

Afghanistan began.began. The DODDOD chargedcharged thethe detaineesdetainees withwith offensesoffenses that were not war crimes at the timetime of their commission,commission, constitut- ing a violation ofof internationalinternational (and domestic) ex post facto laws.laws."7 Furthermore, eveneven ifif a national court,court, tryingtrying anan unprivilegedunprivileged com-combatant, findsfinds aa sufficiently-alleged warwar crime, crime, the the courtcourt cannotcannot prosecute the accusedaccused underunder thatthat warwar crimecrime unlessunless itit waswas an offenseoffense at the timetime ofof commission.commission.7788 The DOD created the chargecharge ofof murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent well after the invasion of AfghanistanAfghanistan"79 inin MCIMCI No. 2,2,880o making it impermissibleimpermissible toto allow aa detainee's prosecution under this charge.charge. Furthermore,Furthermore, becausebecause ofof thethe exex postpost facto protections in thethe GenevaGeneva ConventionsConventions and otherother internationalinternational lawlaw instru-instruments, the chargecharge is invalidinvalid and should not bebe evaluatedevaluated byby thethe "regularly"regularly constitutedconstituted court"court" responsible forfor trying thethe detainee.8 ' Nevertheless, aa nuanced viewview of war criminalitycriminality duringduring the war in Afghanistan requires requires anan understanding of otherother possiblepossible warwar crimes, statuses, andand categorizations thatthat could bebe confusedconfused withwith murder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent.

A. PerfidyPerfidy Perfidy isis defineddefined as "[a]cts"[a]cts inviting thethe confidence of an ad- versary toto leadlead himhim toto believe thatthat hehe is entitledentitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under thethe rulesrules ofof international international lawlaw applicableapplicable in armedarmed conflict,conflict, with intent toto betraybetray thatthat confidence."confidence. '8822 Con-Con-

77 SeeSee M. Cherif Bassiouni, Human Rights Rights in in thethe Context Context ofof Criminal Criminal Justice: IdentifyingIdentifying International Procedural Protections and and EquivalentEquivalent Protections inin National Constitutions,Constitutions, 3 DUKEDuuE J. J.COMP. COMP. & &INT'L INT'L L. 235,L. 235, 290-92 290-92 (1993) (1993) (defining (defining the the "[p]rotection "[pi rotection from ex post factofacto laws" as as a a "guarantee "guarantee [ [] thatthat crimescrimes and punishments willwill not be created ad hochoc to be applied retroactivelyretroactively to particular cases" andand stating that ex post facto protection isis guaranteed byby the UnitedUnited StatesStates Constitution,Constitution, art.art. I,I, §§ 9,9, andand byby ninety-fiveninety-five other na-nations' constitutions).constitutions). 78 SeeSee generallygenerally Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 397397 (1798) (prohibiting the passagepassage of criminal ex postpost factofacto law).law). 79 LetterLetter fromfrom thethe PermanentPermanent RepresentativeRepresentative ofof thethe UnitedUnited StatesStates ofof AmericaAmerica to the President ofof the UnitedUnited NationsNations SecuritySecurity Council, U.N. Doc.Doc. S/2001/946S/2001/946 (Oct. 7, 2001) (The U.S.U.S. informedinformed thethe U.N.U.N. SecuritySecurity CouncilCouncil thatthat itit waswas responding withwith mili-military force inin Afghanistan inin reactionreaction toto "the armed attacksattacks carried out against the United States.").States."). 80 MCIMCI No.No. 2,2, supra note 8 (declaring(declaring thatthat murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent isis an offenseoffense on AprilApril 30,30, 2003,2003, almost two andand aa halfhalf yearsyears after thethe invasioninvasion ofof Afghanistan onon October 7, 2001).2001). 81 SeeSee Geneva Convention III, supra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. atat 3320,3320, 7575 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at 138138 (affording all the judicial guarantees recognizedrecognized asas indispensableindispensable toto civilizedcivilized people, which likely includesincludes protection protection from ex post facto criminality duedue toto its enumerationenumeration in the U.S.U.S. Constitution and 95 other nationalnational constitutions); see also Bassiouni, supra note 77,77, at 290.290. 82 Additional Protocol I, supra note 44,44, 11251125 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at 21.21.

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 547 2006-2007 548 NEW YORKYORK CITY LAWLAW REVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:53310:533 ceptually, perfidy is similarsimilar toto murder by an unprivilegedunprivileged belliger-belligerent. MilitaryMilitary manuals around thethe world,"world,83 includingincluding the the U.S. U.S. ArmyArmy Field Manual,Manual,'84 recognizerecognize perfidyperfidy asas aa warwar crime.crime. Yet, because perfidyperfidy reliesrelies onon intentionalintentional subterfugesubterfuge in order to kill,kill, wound, or capture anan enemy,enemy, itit requiresrequires conductconduct beyondbeyond murder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent.belligerent. AnAn unprivilegedunprivileged belliger-belligerent doesdoes notnot possesspossess combatantcombatant immunityimmunity and otherother privilegesprivileges inherent inin lawfullawful combat,"combat, 85 butbut doesdoes notnot necessarily necessarily killkill throughthrough deceit. BecauseBecause thethe DOD DOD allegesalleges itit isis solelysolely the act of murder itself,itself, without privilege,privilege, thatthat createscreates warwar criminality,criminality,866 anan allegationallegation ofof perfidy would require specificspecific factsfacts thatthat anan individualindividual activelyactively mis-mis- led anan enemy—outsideenemy-outside thethe lawlaw ofof war—towar-to actuate aa killing.killing.

B. Guerrilla and IrregularIrregular Warfare Warfare The U.S.U.S. Army FieldField ManualManual statesstates thatthat "[p]ersons"[p]ersons . ... . whowho take upup armsarms andand commitcommit hostilehostile actsacts withoutwithout havinghaving compliedcomplied with the conditionsconditions pre-scribedpre-scribed byby thethe lawslaws of war for recognition as belligerents ...... [are][are] notnot entitledentitled toto bebe treatedtreated asas prisonersprisoners of war . . . .","87 87 ScholarsScholars disagreedisagree whetherwhether guerrillasguerrillas byby definitiondefinition vio-vio- latelate thethe lawlaw of warwar duedue to their status and non-compliance withwith the Geneva Conventions' conditions for recognition as aa privilegedprivileged combatant.8888 Yet,Yet, ratificationratification of Additional ProtocolProtocol I does not require irregularirregular oror resistanceresistance forcesforces toto identifyidentify themselves. Irregu-Irregu- lar forces are only required toto be under properproper command,command, andand

83 SeeSee generallygenerally HENCKAERTS & DOSWALD-BECK,DOSWALD-BECK, supra note 48,48, at 203-26 (summariz-(summariz- ing thethe customarycustomary internationalinternational humanitarianhumanitarian rulesrules againstagainst deception through anan analysis ofof individualindividual States' military manuals).manuals). 84 U.S.U.S. ARMY Amv FIELD FIELD MANUAL,MANUAL, supra note 7, If1 50, at 22 (defining perfidyperfidy asas securing an advantage overover thethe enemyenemy by by lying lying or or breaching breaching faith faith oror "moral obligation toto speakspeak thethe truth"truth" such such asas feigningfeigning surrendersurrender toto secure secure anan advantageadvantage over an enemy).enemy). 85 SeeSee suprasupra PartPart LAL.A (providing(providing backgroundbackground on thethe effectseffects ofof lackinglacking privilegeprivilege underunder thethe lawlaw ofof armedarmed combat).combat). 86 SeeSee MCI No. 2, supra note 8 (defining(defining murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentbelligerent based onon the three primary elements ofof killingkilling or severelyseverely injuring,injuring, lacking privilege,privilege, and occurring during an armedarmed conflict). 87 U.S.U.S. ARMY ARMY FIELD FIELD MANUAL,MANUAL, supra note 7,17, 1 80,80, at 34 (internal citationscitations omitted). 88 CompareCompare Baxter, supra note 25, at 337 (asserting that "genuine allegiance"allegiance" and "licit andand laudable"laudable" purposespurposes in thethe viewview of thethe StateState that theythey are supporting would provide sufficientjustificationsufficient justification toto preclude international international criminality),criminality), and id.id. at 337-38 n.4 (noting(noting thatthat "[a]lthough"[a]lthough somesome guerrillasguerrillas maymay engage in in .. . . . thethe warwar crime[crime[ ]] of murder .. . . . , ,it it is is somewhat somewhat naivenaive toto supposesuppose that ...... guerrillas guerrillas nevernever devotedevote themselves toto thethe same missionsmissions as as the the regular regular armed armed forces[,]" forces[,]" soso that guerrillas should not necessarilynecessarily bebe consideredconsidered "bandits""bandits" oror "pirates""pirates" (citing Willard B.B. Cowles,Cowles, Univer- sality ofofJurisdiction Jurisdiction over War Crimes, 33 CAL. L. REV.REv. 177,181-203177, 181-203 (1945))), with GREEN, supra notenote 27,27, at 117117 ("Irregular("Irregular forces forces andand resistanceresistance movementsmovements are only protected so longlong as they satisfysatisfy the the normal normal requirementsrequirements forfor recognition asas combatants ...... ").").

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 548 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERALUNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 549 carry their arms openly, when attacking or deploying preparatory to an attack.attack."899 It is unlikely that thethe TalibanTaliban wouldwould fallfall under suchsuch aa classifica-classification since members of thethe TalibanTaliban armyarmy were combatants of a rec-recognized government (even(even ifif they were not recognizedrecognized by thethe U.S.).9U.S.)."° WithWith regardregard toto alal Qaeda,Qaeda, thethe operationsoperations conductedconducted byby al Qaeda against the Northern AllianceAlliance could categorize them as an irregular force.force.'91 AlthoughAlthough al al Qaeda Qaeda was was locatedlocated inin AfghanistanAfghanistan prior to thethe invasioninvasion byby thethe U.S.,U.S.,9922 itsits operationsoperations alongsidealongside thethe Taliban couldcould confirm the presumption that the TalibanTaliban accepted al Qaeda'sQaeda's allegianceallegiance andand foughtfought alongside themthem in somesome in-in- stances."stances.93 Therefore,Therefore, ifif a a member member ofof al al QaedaQaeda killedkilled aa soldiersoldier during battle alongsidealongside thethe Taliban, he couldcould bebe categorizedcategorized as aa privileged combatant.combatant. ThisThis isis stillstill predicated on compliancecompliance withwith the ArticleArticle 4(A)4(A) requirementsrequirements forfor privilegedprivileged combatancy.combatancy.9944 AlAl Qaeda's terroristterrorist operationsoperations outsideoutside AfghanistanAfghanistan flagrantlyflagrantly violateviolate the lawslaws ofof warwar andand would immediately precludepreclude them fromfrom privi-privi-

89 SeeSee Additional Protocol I,I, supra note 44,44, 11251125 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at 23. The armed forcesforces ofof aa PartyParty to aa conflictconflict consist of all organized armed forces, groupsgroups and units which are under aa commandcommand responsibleresponsible toto that PartyParty for the conduct ofof itsits subordinates, eveneven ifif that PartyParty isis repre- sented byby a government or anan authorityauthority notnot recognizedrecognized byby anan adverseadverse Party. SuchSuch armedarmed forcesforces shallshall bebe subjectsubject toto anan internalinternal disciplinary disciplinary sys-system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with thethe rules of interna-international lawlaw applicable in armed conflict.conflict. Id. Recognizing, however, however, that that there there are situationssituations in armedarmed conflictsconflicts where, owing toto the nature of thethe hostilitieshostilities an armed combatantcombatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain hishis status as a combatant, pro- vided that, in suchsuch situations,situations, he carriescarries hishis armsarms openly:openly: (a) DuringDuring each military engagement, andand (b)(b) DuringDuring suchsuch timetime asas hehe isis visiblevisible to the adversaryadversary whilewhile hehe is engaged in aa militarymilitary deployment preceding the launching of an attackattack inin whichwhich he isis to participate.participate. Id. 90 SeeSee suprasupra note 5757 (acknowledging(acknowledging the Taliban'sTaliban's recognitionrecognition byby SaudiSaudi Arabia,Arabia, Pakistan, andand the United ArabArab Emirates).Emirates). 91 SeeSee DINSTEIN, supra note 23,23, atat 4949 ("Al("Al QaedaQaeda fightersfighters constituteconstitute irregularirregular forces."). 92 SeeSee Memorandum fromfrom RichardRichard ClarkeClarke toto CondoleezzaCondoleezza RiceRice on Presidential Pol- icy Initiative/Review-TheInitiative/Review—The AlAl QidaQida [sic] Network (Jan. 25, 2001), available at http:// www.gwu.edu/-nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf (implying(implying thethe presence of al Qaeda inin AfghanistanAfghanistan by asking whetherwhether the National Security Council should support thethe NorthernNorthern Alliance Alliance toto provide provide aa viableviable oppositionopposition forceforce inin Afghani-Afghani- stan against alal Qaeda/Taliban).Qaeda/Taliban). 93 SeeSee GOLDMAN & TITrEMORE,TITTEMORE, supra note 32, at 30 (categorizing the al Qaeda fight-fight- ers who fought alongside thethe Taliban in brigades or other unitsunits asas irregularirregular forcesforces who still needed toto complycomply with Article 4A(2) of Geneva Convention III to qualify for privileged status). 94 GenevaGeneva Convention III,III, supra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. at 3320,3320, 75 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at 138.138.

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 549 2006-2007 550 NEW YORKYORK CITY LAWLAW REVIEWREVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:533

leged combatantcombatant status.status.9955

IV. MURDERMURDER BY BY AN AN UNPRIVILEGED UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENTBELLIGERENT UNDER HAMDAN V.v. RUMSFELDRUMSFELD While the Supreme CourtCourt diddid notnot directlydirectly discussdiscuss murder byby an unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent within thethe four corners ofof Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the opinionopinion doesdoes provideprovide aa solidsolid footingfooting forfor anan analysisanalysis of the charge.'charge.9 6Although Although U.S. U.S. military military lawlaw doesdoes not considerconsider thethe se-se- verity ofof the offense when determining aa warwar crime,crime,9977 HamdanHamdan established thatthat an actact doesdoes notnot becomebecome aa crimecrime withoutwithout itsits "foundations having beenbeen firmly establishedestablished in in precedent." precedent.""9 " Be-Be- cause murder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent reflects neitherneither the characteristics of any of the representative war crimes presentedpresented in the U.S. ArmyArmy Field Field Manual Manual'99 nor thethe warwar crimes recognizedrecognized underunder international law,'0 0the the government government did did not not make make thethe "substantial "substantial showing" necessary toto establishestablish murdermurder by an unprivileged belligerent asas anan offenseoffense violatingviolating thethe lawlaw ofof war.war.100'° ' MurderMurder byby anan un-unprivileged belligerent maymay be prosecuted asas a domestic crime, not a war crime.crime. i°1022 The SupremeSupreme CourtCourt explainedexplained thatthat whilewhile itit isis permissiblepermissible for the government toto trytry thethe allegedalleged offenseoffense even ifif thethe charge is notnot

95 SeeSee DINSTEIN, supra note 23,23, at 49 (asserting that "Al Qaeda'sQaeda's contempt" for privi-privi- legedleged combatancy "was"was flaunted flaunted in in the the executionexecution ofof thethe originaloriginal armedarmed attackattack ofof 9/9/ 11"). See also GOLDMAN & TITTEMORE,TrrrEMORE, supra note 32,32, at 29 (agreeing(agreeing withwith thethe Presi-Presi- dent andand DefenseDefense Secretary'sSecretary's depiction of al Qaeda as anan international terroristterrorist organization that conductedconducted privateprivate hostilitieshostilities against the U.S.U.S. for which they may be punished). 96 SeeSee Hamdan v.v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct.Ct. 2749,2749,2780-85 2780-85 (2006) (providing(providing an analyti-analytical procedure toto determinedetermine whetherwhether anan offenseoffense constitutesconstitutes a war crimecrime through the charge ofof conspiracyconspiracy against Salim Hamdan). 97 SeeSee suprasupra note 5151 andand accompanyingaccompanying text. 98 Hamdan,Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 27802780 n.34.n.34. See also FildrtigaFilartiga v. Pefia-lrala,Pefia-Irala, 630 F.2d 876,876, 881 (2d Cir. 1980) (interpreting(interpreting internationalinternational lawlaw asas it has evolved amongamong the nations of thethe world todaytoday through customarycustomary international law,law, rather thanthan aa staticstatic viewview of international lawlaw fromfrom 1789).1789). 99 U.S.U.S. ARMY ARMv FIELDFIELD MANUAL,MANUAL, supraSupra note 7, ¶ 504,504, at 180.180. See also suprasupra note 5252 and accompanying texttext (failing(failing toto listlist anyany violationviolation ofof thethe lawlaw of war involving thethe juxtapo-juxtapo- sition of combatant status and killing).killing). 100100 SeeSee HENCKAERTS & DOSWALD-BECK,DOSWALD-BECK, supra note 48, at 574-99574-99 (analyzing(analyzing all the war crimes listed in any international legal instrument recognized by the Interna-Interna- tional Committee of the Red Cross andand finding nono relationshiprelationship toto murder by an unprivileged belligerent). 101 CfCf. Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. atat 27802780 (concluding(concluding that thethe conspiracyconspiracy chargecharge inin Hamdan's case did notnot meetmeet thethe "substantial"substantial showing"showing" burdenburden because the chargecharge had rarely beenbeen triedtried byby anyany law-of-warlaw-of-war military military commission commission and and did did not not appearappear inin the Geneva ConventionsConventions oror the HagueHague Conventions).Conventions). 102 U.S.U.S. JAG OP.Op. LAWLAW HANDBOOK,HANDBOOK, supra note 32.

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 550 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERALUNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OFOF INTERNATIONAL LAW 551 defined by statutestatute or or treaty,treaty,'0 3 thethe precedentprecedent mustmust bebe "plain"plain andand unambiguous.unambiguous."”10410' 4 Even if a sourcesource doesdoes exist,exist, itit mustmust satisfysatisfy the Court's "high standard of clarityclarity requiredrequired to justifyjustify thethe useuse of a military commission."11°50 5 InIn the the Court's Court's analysis analysis ofof thethe conspiracyconspiracy charge againstagainst the defendant,defendant, thethe burdenburden was was "far"far fromfrom satisfied"satisfied" since that crimecrime hashas "rarely"rarely if everever beenbeen tried" in this country and isis absent fromfrom thethe GenevaGeneva ConventionsConventions and HagueHague Conventions.Conventions.'1°606 It is difficult toto imagineimagine that murder byby an unprivilegedunprivileged bellig-belligerent wouldwould fulfill this burdenburden withoutwithout previousprevious consideration byby a law-of-war militarymilitary commission.commission.110°77 TheThe government's government's difficultydifficulty inin satisfying its its burden burden isis underscoredunderscored by thethe charge's absence from customary internationalinternational law' law",0 8 , andand fromfrom thethe lawlaw ofof armedarmed com-combat.' O9Thus, Thus, the the Supreme Supreme Court's Court's reasoningreasoning inin Hamdan substanti- ates the fact that murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentbelligerent isis not aa war crime triabletriable byby militarymilitary commission.commission.

V. THETHE MILITARY MILITARY COMMISSIONS COMMISSIONS ACT ACT OFOF 20062006 President BushBush signedsigned thethe MilitaryMilitary CommissionsCommissions Act of 20062006 (MCA) intointo effect on October 17,17, 2006.2006. WhileWhile recognizingrecognizing presi-presidential authorityauthority toto constituteconstitute militarymilitary commissions,commissions, thethe MCAMCA pro- vides a workingworking legislativelegislative frameworkframework for thethe commissions.commissions. Previously, the the DODDOD operatedoperated underunder a presidentialpresidential militarymilitary order by enforcing the MCIMCI since therethere waswas nono legislativelegislative mandate.'mandate."°

1103°3 SeeSee Hamdan, 126 S. Ct.Ct. atat 27802780 (stating(stating that that CongressCongress incorporated incorporated thethe common law of war through the adoptionadoption ofof ArticleArticle 2121 ofof thethe UniformUniform CodeCode ofof Military Military Justice). 1104°4 Id.Id. (fearing that lesserlesser expectations would risk givinggiving thethe military aa degree of adjudicative and and punitivepunitive powerpower beyond beyond the the levelslevels defined defined by by statutestatute oror thethe Constitution). 105105 Id. at 2781 (determining that thethe threethree sourcessources citedcited byby the governmentgovernment toto justify thethe trialtrial ofof conspiracyconspiracy in aa militarymilitary commission dodo not adequately meet thethe Court's standard). 106106 Id. at 2780-81 (adding(adding thatthat otherother internationalinternational lawlaw sources confirmed that con-con- spiracy waswas notnot a violation of the lawlaw of war). 107107 SeeSee generallygenerally MCI No. 2, supra note 8 (defining murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged bellig-belligerent for thethe firstfirst timetime onon thethe instructions'instructions' AprilApril 30,30, 2003,2003, release date). 108108 SeeSee HENCKAERTS & DOSWALD-BECK,DOSWALD-BECK, supra note 48, at 574-99574-99 (recognizing(recognizing the absence of murder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent fromfrom anyany war crime defined by a customary internationalinternational humanitarian legal instrument). 109109 SeeSee supra Part III (concluding that murdermurder byby an unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent isis not a war crime undertinder the lawlaw of armed combat). 110t10 SeeSee Press Release, George W. Bush,Bush, President Issues Military Order: Order: Detention, Treatment, andand TrialTrial ofof Certain Certain Non-CitizensNon-Citizens in thethe WarWar AgainstAgainst Terrorism (Nov.(Nov. 13,13, 2001), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html (rely-(rely- ing on his authority as thethe President andand Commander-in-ChiefCommander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to constitute militarymilitary commissions).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 551 2006-2007 552 NEW YORKYORK CITYCITY LAWLAW REVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:53310:533

Because the MCIMCI were based on thethe originaloriginal presidentialpresidential militarymilitary order thatthat hashas nownow beenbeen superceded,superceded, MCIMCI No. 2 is no longer en-en- forceable. ItIt isis replacedreplaced byby thethe definitionsdefinitions inin the MCA.'"MCA."' Rather than retainingretaining thethe charge ofof murder by an un-unprivileged belligerent,belligerent, thethe MCA splitssplits thethe charge intointo twotwo warwar crimes. The first charge is the murder of protected persons,'persons,"1 2 aa clear violation ofof GenevaGeneva Convention Convention IV, W,'"n 3 and the second,second, mur-murder inin violationviolation ofof thethe lawlaw ofof war.war.'11414 BothBoth applyapply onlyonly to thosethose per- sonssons subject to militarymilitary commissionscommissions underunder thethe MCA,MCA, defined asas "[a]ny"[a] ny alien unlawfulunlawful enemy combatant[s] ...... "115 115 SinceSince civilians,civilians, or "unlawful"unlawful enemy combatants," can commit war crimes,crimes,'1 166 thesethese two chargescharges followfollow thethe normsnorms ofof international law usingusing thethe prior 17 analytical critiquecritique ofof murder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent."belligerent." 7 Congress correctedcorrected the DOD'sDOD's error inin thethe MCIs.MCIs.

VI. AVAILABLEAVAILABLE SYSTEMSSYSTEMS OFOF ADJUDICATION A. AvailableAvailable Court Court Systems Systems If murder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerentbelligerent is not aa warwar crimecrime triable by military commission, exploring otherother courtcourt systems systems willwill likely shedshed lightlight onon more appropriate options. ThoughThough itit is is possi-possible for a national legislaturelegislature toto expandexpand itsits definitiondefinition ofof warwar crimes,crimes, the definitiondefinition wouldwould onlyonly applyapply toto itsits own nationals ifif it fell outside

m1I SeeSee Military Comm'nsComm'ns Act of 20062006 [hereinafter[hereinafter MCA],MCA], 1010 U.S.C.U.S.C. §§ 950v(b)950v(b) (2006)(2006) (defining(defining thethe crimescrimes triabletriable byby militarymilitary commission).commission). 112112 See id. § 950v(b) (1)(1) (defining "Murder of protectedprotected persons"persons" asas ""[a]ny [a]ny person subjectsubject to this chapter whowho intentionally kills oneone oror more protected persons shall be punished by death or suchsuch otherother punishmentpunishment asas aa militarymilitary commissioncommission under thisthis chapter maymay direct"); id. §§ 950v(a) (2)(2) (defining(defining "protected"protected person" as "any"any person entitled to protectionprotection underunder oneone oror more more of of the the Geneva Geneva Conventions, Conventions, including—including- (A) civilians notnot takingtaking anan acting partpart in hostilities; (B) military personnel personnel placed hors de combatcombat byby sickness, wounds,wounds, oror detention; and (C)(C) militarymilitary medicalmedical oror religiousreligious personnel"). 113113 GenevaGeneva ConventionConvention IV,IV, supra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. at 3618,3618, 7575 U.N.T.S. at 781,781, 788 (including thethe willful killing killing of of a a protectedprotected personperson asas aa gravegrave breach of thethe Convention). 114 See MCA § 950v(b)(15)950v(b) (15) (defining (defining "Murder "Murder inin violationviolation ofof the lawlaw of war" as "Dilly"[a]ny person subjectsubject toto thisthis chapterchapter whowho intentionallyintentionally kills one or moremore persons,persons, including lawfullawful combatants, in violation of the lawlaw ofof war shallshall bebe punishedpunished by death or suchsuch other punishmentpunishment asas aa military military commissioncommission under thisthis chapter maymay direct"). 115 Id.Id. §§ 948c. 116 SeeSee HENCKAERTS & DOSWALD-BECK,DOSWALD-BEcK, supra note 48,48, atat 573.573. 117 SeeSee suprasupra Part III (concluding(concluding thatthat thethe primaryprimary discrepancydiscrepancy with murder byby an unprivileged belligerent isis its categorization as aa warwar crimecrime whenwhen itit shouldshould bebe treated as a domestic crime and acknowledgingacknowledging thatthat murder alone doesdoes notnot createcreate warwar crimi-criminality, butbut murder inin violationviolation ofof otherother aspectsaspects ofof internationalinternational humanitarianhumanitarian lawlaw may).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 552 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 553 the bounds of internationalinternational law."'law."' DomesticDomestic jurisdictionjurisdiction overover in-international lawlaw derives fromfrom the universality principle"principle' 199 thatthat allowsallows federal courts toto assertassert jurisdiction over crimes of terrorism, tor-tor- 12 ture, and war.war.12'0 AssumingAssuming murdermurder byby anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent is notnot a violationviolation ofof thethe law ofof war, war, a a detainee detainee should should bebe prosecutedprosecuted under domesticdomestic instruments,instruments, whichwhich include the military'smilitary's general 2 1 courts-martial andand federal courts.'21 The universalityuniversality principleprinciple wouldwould allowallow the the U.S.U.S. toto trytry warwar criminals in federal court,1221 2 2 includingincluding war criminals ofof bothboth international andand non-internationalnon-international armed armed conflict. conflict.'123 UniversalUniversal crimescrimes encompass such "common crimes as murder," allowingallowing the U.S.U.S. to 124 prosecute a detainee for murder byby an unprivileged belligerent.belligerent.'24 Comity concerns regarding federal courtcourt involvementinvolvement in militarymilitary affairs wouldwould alsoalso bebe inapplicable because, like Hamdan, Guanta-Guantd- namo detainees are notnot aa partpart ofof thethe U.S.U.S. militarymilitary forcesforces andand their

118 GREEN,GREEN, supra note 27, atat 293. But ofcf Kadic v.v. Karadzic, 7070 F.3dF.3d 232,232, 239239 (2d Cir. 1995) (establishing(establishing that aa violationviolation ofof "'well-established," 'well-established, universally recognizedrecognized normsnorms of international law,'" andand notnot "'idiosyncratic"'idiosyncratic legallegal rules,'" confersconfers federalfederal jurisdic- tiontion underunder thethe AlienAlien TortTort Act, Act, 2828 U.S.C.U.S.C. §§ 13501350 (quoting(quoting FilartigaFilirtiga v.v. Peria-lrala,Pefia-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 888, 881881 (2d Cir. 1980))). 119119 SeeSee RESTATEMENT (THIRD) (THIRD) OF FOREIGNFOREIGN RELATIONSRELATIONS LAWLAW OF THE UNITEDUNITED STATESSTATES § 404 (1987) (stating(stating thatthat thethe premisepremise of of universal universal jurisdiction isis allowingallowing a StateState juris-jurisdiction to define and punishpunish certaincertain crimescrimes recognizedrecognized by the communitycommunity of nations as of a universal concern). See also id. § 702 (universal violations ofof internationalinternational lawlaw include "(a) genocide, (b)(b) slaveryslavery or slaveslave trade,trade, (c)(c) thethe murdermurder or causingcausing thethe disap-disap- pearance of individuals, (d)(d) torturetorture oror otherother cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,punishment, (e)(e) prolongedprolonged arbitraryarbitrary detention,detention, (f)(f) systematicsystematic racialracial discrimina-discrimina- tion,tion, or (g)(g) aa consistent consistent patternpattern of of gross gross violations violations ofof internationally internationally recognizedrecognized human rights").rights"). 120120 See,See, e.g.,e.g., Tel-Oren v. LibyanLibyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 781, 788 (D.C.(D.C. Cir. 1984)1984) (per curiam)curiam) (Edwards,(Edwards, J., concurring) (referencing(referencing thethe universalityuniversality principle in orderorder toto assertassert domesticdomestic jurisdiction over certain international offenses).offenses). See also Fildrtiga, 630 F.2d at 890890 (recognizing(recognizing torture asas aa universallyuniversally denounced crime); United States v. Layton, 509 F. Supp.Supp. 212,212, 223223 (N.D.(N.D. Cal.Cal. 1981) 1981) (mentioning(mentioning universal jurisdiction toto justify punishing terrorists).terrorists). 121 SeeSee Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126126 S. Ct. 2749, 2785 (2006) (clarifying thatthat the gov-government's failurefailure to meetmeet thethe standardstandard necessarynecessary to prosecute an offense under mili-military commissionscommissions would would not not precludepreclude itsits trialtrial underunder domestic instruments);instruments); see also Filtrtiga,Fildrtiga, 630 F.2d at 887 ("Federal jurisdictionjurisdiction over cases involving internationalinternational lawlaw isis clear."). 122122 See HENCKAERTS & DOSWALD-BECK,DOSWALD-BECK, supra note 48, at 604-05 (stating that univer-universal jurisdictionjurisdiction is supported extensively by by national national legislation). legislation). StatesStates partyparty toto the Geneva Conventions areare obligated to include universaluniversal jurisdictionjurisdiction in their lawslaws for "grave breaches"breaches" ofof thethe Geneva ConventionsConventions in in orderorder toto ensureensure that thethe world is free to try war criminals wherever itit makes the mostmost sense.sense. Id. at 606-07. 123 SeeSee id.id. at 604-05604-05 (stating(stating that severalseveral people have been tried in non-interna-non-international armed conflicts forfor war crimes as a resultresult ofof the the universal universal jurisdictionjurisdiction principle). 124124 IANIAN BROWNLIE,BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLESPRINCIPLES OF OF PUBLIC PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL LAW LAW 303 303(6th (6th ed. ed. 2003) 2003) (incorporating commoncommon criminalitycriminality into thethe universalityuniversality principle).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 553 2006-2007 554 NEW YORKYORK CITYCITY LAW REVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:533 trial in thethe military'smilitary's generalgeneral courts-martialcourts-martial systemsystem isis unlikely.unlikely.125125 The SupremeSupreme CourtCourt consideredconsidered trialtrial inin generalgeneral courts-martialcourts-martial in thethe Hamdan decision.decision.'126 Congressional Congressional hearingshearings onon thethe pos-pos- sibilities surroundingsurrounding use ofof thethe UniformUniform CodeCode ofof Military Military Justice (UCMJ)(UCMJ) inin trials after Hamdan heard fromfrom militarymilitary lawyerslawyers encour-encour- aging the useuse ofof militarymilitary commissions underunder the direction of gen-general courts-martia1.courts-martial.127127 TheirTheir proposalsproposals allowedallowed for departures from general courts-martialcourts-martial procedureprocedure as deemed practicablepracticable by the 1 2 President.123' However,However, thisthis maymay comecome intointo conflictconflict with the strin-strin- gent uniformity principleprinciple that surrounds departures from the pro-procedures laid-out forfor useuse by courts-martial.courts-martial.'1 29 RegardlessRegardless ofof thisthis allowance forfor potential procedural deviations,deviations, ArticleArticle 2121 of the UCMJ stillstill providesprovides jurisdiction overover aa militarymilitary commissioncommission 130 system. 13°

125 SeeSee Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 2770-72 (citing(citing that thethe twotwo considerationsconsiderations ofof comitycomity that favorfavor abstention by federalfederal courtscourts fromfrom ongoingongoing militarymilitary proceedings,proceedings, listed inin Schlesinger v.v. Councilman,Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 752, 758 (1975), would not applyapply becausebecause Hamdan is not aa membermember ofof U.S.U.S. armedarmed forcesforces andand thethe systemsystem convenedconvened to trytry Hamdan isis not aa partpart ofof the the U.S. U.S. military military courtscourts system).system). 126 SeeSee generallygenerally id. at 2774-772774-77 (discussing(discussing ArticleArticle 21,21, 1010 U.S.C.A.U.S.C.A. §§ 821821 (2006),(2006), and Article 36, 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 836836 (2006),(2006), ofof the UniformUniform CodeCode ofof MilitaryMilitary Justice, the governing law ofof the military).military). 127 See,See, e.g.,e.g., MilitaryMilitary Commissions Commissions inin LightLight of of the the Supreme Supreme CourtCourt Decision in Hamdan v.v. Rumsfeld Before thethe Subcomm. onon Emerging ThreatsThreats andand Capabilities of of thethe S.S. Comm. onon Armed Services,Services, 109th Cong. 3 (2006)(2006) (statement(statement ofof EugeneEugene R.R. Fidell, President of the National Institute of MilitaryMilitary JusticeJustice andand Partner atat FeldesmanFeldesman TuckerTucker LeiferLeifer FidellFidell LLP) [hereinafter Fidell statement] (urging(urging CongressCongress to use the Manual for Courts-Courts- Martial, so thethe commissioncommission procedures will bebe guided the rulesrules forfor generalgeneral courts-courts- martial, whilewhile recognizingrecognizing thethe President's power to depart from that framework).framework). See generally Major Mynda G. Ohman, Integrating Title 1818 WarWar Crimes Crimes into TitleTitle 10:10: A Proposal to Amend thethe UniformUniform CodeCode ofof MilitaryMilitary Justice, 57 A.F. L.L. REv.REv. 1, 1, 7-10 7-10 (2005)(2005) (providing a concise history of the developmentdevelopment ofof U.S.U.S. militarymilitary law).law). 128 SeeSee 10 U.S.C. §§ 836836 (2000). (a) Pretrial, trial, and post-trialpost-trial procedures, including modes of proof, for casescases arising under thisthis chapter triabletriable inin courts-martial,courts-martial, mili-military commissions,commissions, and and otherother military tribunals,tribunals, and procedures for courts ofof inquiry,inquiry, may bebe prescribed by the PresidentPresident byby regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles ofof law andand the rulesrules of evidence generally recognized in the trialtrial ofof criminal casescases in thethe United StatesStates district courts, but which may not be contrary to or inconsistentinconsistent with this chapter; (b)(b) AllAll rulesrules andand regulationsregulations made under thisthis articlearticle shallshall bebe uniformuniform insofarinsofar asas practicable.practicable. Id. 129 SeeSee Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 2790 (stating thatthat any "departure[ ]] from the proce-procedures" of court-martial "must be tailored toto thethe exigencyexigency that necessitatesnecessitates it" (citing WINTHROP, supra note 7,7, at 835 n.81)). See also Fidell statement, supra note 127,127, atat 4-64-6 (asserting threethree proposals that would check the President's powerpower to change courts-courts- martial procedure: (1) requiringrequiring thethe President President toto state state withwith "particularity""particularity" the factsfacts that renderrender aa procedureprocedure impracticable,impracticable, (2)(2) requiringrequiring thatthat CongressCongress be notified ofof impracticability, andand (3) making anan impracticabilityimpracticability determination subject to judicialjudicial review forfor abuseabuse of discretion oror illegality).illegality). 1130" See 1010 U.S.C. § 821 (2000) ("The provisionsprovisions of this chapter conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martialcourts-martial do notnot deprivedeprive militarymilitary commissions,commissions, provost courts,courts, oror other

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 554 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERALUNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 555

Since war crimes areare not applicable here, thethe unlawfulunlawful bellig-belligerent shouldshould bebe prosecutedprosecuted underunder domesticdomestic law.law.1133 ' UnderUnder Addi-Addi- tional Protocol I,I, internationalinternational lawlaw prevailsprevails over national lawlaw in domestic courts, providing, atat the very minimum,minimum, thethe fundamentalfundamental guarantees delineateddelineated byby ArticleArticle 75.75.1321" WhileWhile itit would would bebe possiblepossible for an unlawfulunlawful combatantcombatant toto bebe a war criminal,'criminal,'"3 3 crimescrimes byby anan unprivileged belligerent fall underunder the domestic law inin their country of capture.'capture. 334 UltimatelyUltimately though,though, thethe GuantanamoGuantdnamo detaineesdetainees will almostalmost certainlycertainly bebe triedtried inin the U.S. whetherwhether they committed a crime of murder underunder Afghan Afghan domesticdomestic law,law, or whether theythey com-committed aa war crime of murdermurder by anan unprivilegedunprivileged belligerent, as the DOD asserts. TheThe universalityuniversality principle allows all States toto punish in theirtheir own courtscourts forfor bothboth typestypes of of crime.' crime.'35 Presumably, thethe AdministrationAdministration createdcreated the "war"war crimes" and "other"other offenses"offenses" inin MCI No.No. 22 toto prosecuteprosecute the detainees under international law.law. ThisThis isis a strongstrong concernconcern becausebecause U.S.U.S. domesticdomestic law does notnot applyapply toto "enemy"enemy personnel"personnel" chargedcharged withwith warwar crimes'1 366 andand warwar criminalitycriminality falls underunder the jurisdiction ofof severalseveral military and and internationalinternational courts. courts.'1 37 PlacingPlacing warwar crimescrimes under in-international humanitarianhumanitarian lawlaw providesprovides a flexibilityflexibility that domesticdomestic military tribunalstribunals ofof concurrentconcurrent jurisdictionjurisdiction withwith respectrespect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war maymay bebe tried byby militarymilitary commissions,commissions, provostprovost courts,courts, or other militarymilitary tribunals."). 131 SeeSee U.S. JAG OP.Op. LAW LAw HANDBOOK, HANDBOOK, supra note 32, at 16-1716-17 (determining(determining that even though murder alonealone doesdoes notnot qualifyqualify as a war crimecrime underunder international law,law, it still requires prosecution under domesticdomestic law).law). 132 AdditionalAdditional ProtocolProtocol I,I, supra note 44,112544, 1125 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. at 38 ("In order toto avoidavoid any doubt concerning the prosecutionprosecution and trialtrial ofof personspersons accusedaccused of warwar crimescrimes or crimes against humanity, the followingfollowing principles shallshall apply:apply: (a)(a) Persons who are accused of such crimescrimes shouldshould bebe submittedsubmitted for for thethe purposepurpose ofof prosecution and trialtrial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law . . . .")."). 133 SeeSee DINSTEIN, supra note 23,23, at 234234 (noting thethe possibilitypossibility that anan unlawfulunlawful combatant maymay intentionally commit aa seriousserious breachbreach of the law ofof international armed conflict). 134 SeeSee U.S. ARMYARw FIELDFIELD MANUAL,MANUAL, supra note 7,7, Q 81, at 3434 ("Persons("Persons who,who, without having complied with the conditions pre-scribedpre-scribed by the laws of war forfor recognitionrecognition as belligerents..,belligerents . . . commit hostilehostile actsacts about about or or behind behind thethe lines ofof the enemy areare notnot to be treated asas prisoners of war andand may bebe triedtried andand sentencedsentenced to execution or impris-impris- onment." (internal(internal citationscitations omitted)). 135 SeeSee Yoram Dinstein, The Universality Principleand and War Crimes, in INT'L LAwLAw STUD-STUD- IES VOL. 71, THE LAWLAW OF ARMED CONFLICT: CONFLICT: INTO INTO THE THE NEXT NEXT MILLENNIUM MILLENNIUM 17 17 (Michael (Michael N. Schmitt & Leslie C. Green eds., 1998) (defining the bounds ofof thethe universalityuniversality principle). 136 U.S.U.S. Aiuvw ARMY FIELD FIELD MANUAL, MANUAL, supra note 7,117, 505(e),505(e), atat 180-81 (asserting that "enemy personnel"personnel" areare to be tried directlydirectly under international law).law). 137 Id.Id. ¶ 505(d), atat 180180 (allowing(allowing jurisdiction toto generalgeneral courts-martial,courts-martial, militarymilitary commissions, provostprovost courts,courts, militarymilitary government government courts, courts, otherother military tribunals of the U.S., and internationalinternational tribunals).tribunals).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 555 2006-2007 556 NEW YORKYORK CITYCITY LAWLAW REVIEWREVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:533

law precludes,precludes, suchsuch asas "forum shopping" or a higherhigher evidentiaryevidentiary standard.'"standard. 13 BothBoth beforebefore andand afterafter Hamdan, international tribunals have beenbeen proposed to trytry detainees,'"detainees, 39 whichwhich wouldwould presentpresent a good frameworkframework'"14 ° were it notnot forfor thethe U.S.U.S. aversionaversion toto interna-international courts.courts."' 4' Another optionoption isis repatriation andand trialtrial inin thethe courtcourt systemsystem of the detainee'sdetainee's nationalnational origin.origin. ThisThis optionoption presentspresents aa complexcomplex is-issue sincesince a POW'sPOW's releaserelease afterafter thethe endend of of hostilities hostilities necessarilynecessarily "implies thatthat another statestate isis vouchingvouching for their futurefuture peaceablepeaceable behavior."behavior."1421'42 Such an implication wouldwould be problematic for an organization whose command structure isis unaffiliatedunaffiliated withwith any particular State and stretchesstretches acrossacross many States ratherrather thanthan withinwithin 43 just one.'one. 43 Ultimately, thethe endend resultresult willwill be be political political and and not not legal.' legal.'"44 In

138 SeeSee Dinstein, supra note 135,135, at 18-19,18-19, 26,26, 30-3330-33 (describing(describing howhow thethe universal-universality principle gives StatesStates greatgreat flexibilityflexibility to to prosecuteprosecute warwar criminalscriminals inin aa courtcourt ofof theirtheir choosing). 139 See,See, e.g.,e.g., Human RightsRights First,First, The U.S.US. ShouldShould Build onon anan Existing Existing InternationalInternational Tribunal to TryTry PotentialPotential AlAl QaedaQaeda oror Taliban Taliban Suspects, Suspects, Nov. 28, 2001, http:// www.humanrightsfirst.org/us-law/after__911/after_911www.humanrightsfirstorg/us_law/after_911/after_911_06.htm _06.htm (recommending(recommending thethe creation of an internationalinternational criminalcriminal tribunaltribunal mirroringmirroring thethe InternationalInternational CriminalCriminal Tribunal for thethe FormerFormer Yugoslavia Yugoslavia shortly after the 9/119/11 attacks);attacks); DouglasDouglas W.W. Kmiec,Kmiec, In thethe WakeWake ofof thethe SupremeSupreme Court'sCourt's Hamdan v.v. RumsfeldRumsfeld Decision, Should WeWe Opt forfor an International Tribunal forfor GitmoGitmo Detainees?, Detainees?, FindLaw.comFindLaw.com,, JulyJuly 6,6, 2006,2006, http:// writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060706_kmiec.htmlwritnews.findlaw.com/commentary/20060706_kmiec.html (describing(describing alternativesalternatives to detaining enemyenemy combatantscombatants without trial,trial, includingincluding redirectingredirecting somesome more seri-serious criminals toto oneone of the adad hochoc internationalinternational tribunalstribunals suchsuch asas thatthat forfor KosovoKosovo or East Timor).Timor). 149140 SeeSee Theodor Meron,Meron, War CrimesCrimes Law for thethe Twenty-FirstTwenty-First Century, in INT'L LAWLAW STUDIES, VOL.VOL. 71:71: THE LAWLAW OFOF ARMEDARMED CONFLICT INTOINTO THE THE NEXT NEXT MILLENNIUMMILLENNIUM 325, 325, 326326 (Michael N.N. SchmittSchmitt && LeslieLeslie C. C. Green Green eds.,eds., 1998)1998) ("The("The workwork of of bothboth tribunals[,tribunals[, the Hague TribunalTribunal andand the International Tribunal,] demonstratesdemonstrates that international in-in- vestigations andand prosecutionsprosecutions of persons responsible for seriousserious violations of international humanitarian lawlaw are possible and credible.").credible."). 141141 See,See, e.g.,e.g., Letter from John R.R. Bolton,Bolton, U.S.U.S. Ambassador toto thethe United Nations to Kofi Annan,Annan, SecretarySecretary General General ofof thethe United Nations, International Criminal Court: Letter to U.N.U.N. SecretarySecretary General KofiKofi Annan (May(May 6,6, 2002),2002), available at http:// www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm (withdrawing(withdrawing the UnitedUnited States'States' signa-signature from the RomeRome StatuteStatute ofof thethe InternationalInternational CriminalCriminal CourtCourt andand resigningresigning allall legal obligations fromfrom its initialinitial signing). But seesee Statement of the UnitedUnited StatesStates Dele-Dele- gation to the Preparatory Committee on thethe EstablishmentEstablishment ofof an InternationalInternational Crimi-Crimi- nal CourtCourt (Mar.(Mar. 23,23, 1998),1998), available atat http://www.amicc.org/docs/ USDe13_23_98.pdf (urging (urging congressional congressional support support for for aa "no"no war nexus"nexus" approachapproach to crimes against humanityhumanity inin the creationcreation of the International CriminalCriminal Court). 142142 Hoffman,Hoffman, supra note 13,13, at 230230 (explaining(explaining problemsproblems likelylikely to arise from categorizing terrorists as unlawful belligerentsbelligerents ratherrather thanthan asas POWs).POWs). 143143 SeeSee DINSTEIN, supra note 23,23, at 49 (distinguishing between the relative uniformity of the TalibanTaliban forces andand thethe "assemblage"assemblage ofof MoslemMoslem fanatics from all parts of the world" of al Qaeda). 144144 Compare InIn Retreat, ECONOMIST,ECONOMIST,July July 15, 15, 2006, 2006, at at29 29 (contrasting (contrasting the the BushBush Admin-

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 556 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 557 theory, any legal adjudicatory alternative toto thethe commissioncommission systemsystem would provide justicejustice andand retributionretribution to thosethose detaineesdetainees whowho com-committed crimes.crimes. SecuritySecurity issues,issues, however,however, weigh heavily inin the eyeseyes of the U.S. government,government,"455 andand compromisecompromise will be required toto ad-ad- dress those concerns whilewhile seeking an effective courtcourt for trial.

B. The Needed Modification of thethe CommissionCommission SystemSystem The courtcourt systemsystem chosen to trytry thethe GuantanamoGuant~namo detaineesdetainees must comply with the Hamdan decision."'decision.146 CongressCongress mustmust createcreate "a"a regularly constitutedconstituted courtcourt affording all the judicialjudicial guaranteesguarantees that are recognizedrecognized asas indispensableindispensable byby civilizedcivilized peoples."'147147 WhileWhile the GenevaGeneva Conventions diddid notnot directly definedefine the term "regularly"regularly constituted court,"court," there remains some guidance in thethe GenevaGeneva Conventions IV commentary,commentary, CommonCommon ArticleArticle 3,3, and and thethe Interna- tional CommitteeCommittee of of thethe RedRed Cross.Cross."'48 ItIt seemsseems clear that anan as-as- sumption ofof substantivesubstantive andand procedural uniformityuniformity with a State'sState's existing lawslaws shouldshould bebe thethe overarching theme in aa systemsystem created 1 49 to trytry detainees,detainees.149 istration's eventualeventual concessionconcession on thethe applicabilityapplicability of thethe GenevaGeneva ConventionsConventions withwith the consistently measured approach of State Department legallegal advisoradvisorJohn John BellingerBellinger on thethe applicabilityapplicability of international law inin the "War on Terror"), with U.S. Dep't of Def. Update --July July 11,11, 2006,2006, http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/For-the- http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/For-the- record/documents/20060711.html (asserting(asserting that thethe EnglandEngland DetaineeDetainee Treatment Memo does not change anyany Defense policies as aa result of the Hamdan decision be-because "the doctrine, policies, instructions,instructions, and and proceduresprocedures thatthat have been in effecteffect have always had had humane humane treatmenttreatment asas theirtheir standard"). 145 SeeSee Donald Rumsfeld,Rumsfeld, Dep'tDep't ofof Defense Defense NewsNews BriefingBriefing on MilitaryMilitary CommissionsCommissions (Mar.(Mar. 21,21, 2002),2002), available at http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2002/t03212002_t032 lsd.htmllsd.html ("The("The commissionscommissions areare intendedintended toto be different ...... because thethe [P]resident recognized that therethere hadhad toto bebe differencesdifferences toto dealdeal withwith thethe unusualunusual situationsituation wewe faceface and that aa differentdifferent approachapproach was neededneeded...... ")."). 146146 SeeSee Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.S. Ct.Ct. 2749,2749, 27982798 (2006)(2006) (holding(holding thatthat the com-commission convenedconvened byby thethe President toto try Hamdan "does not meetmeet thosethose [flexible,[flexible, general] requirements"requirements" ofof CommonCommon Article 3,3, and therefore lackslacks the powerpower to "try"try [him][him] andand subjectsubject him toto criminalcriminal punishment"). 147 Id.Id. at 2796 (quoting(quoting GenevaGeneva Convention III,III, suprasupra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. at 3320,3320, 75 U.N.T.S. 136-38).136-38). The Court emphasized thatthat "'the"'the scope ofof [Common[Common ArticleArticle 3] 3] ...... must be asas wide as possible."'possible.— Id.Id. (internal citation omitted). See also Geneva Conven- tion III,III, supra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. at 3318-20,3318-20, 7575 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. 136-38 (stating(stating CommonCommon Article 3 of the GenevaGeneva ConventionConvention III). 148 SeeSee Hamdan,Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 2796-97 (equating "properly constituted" and "regu-"regu- larlylarly constituted"constituted" in ArticleArticle 66); HENCKAERTS & DOSWALD-BECK, supra note 48,48, atat 355355 (defining(defining "regularly"regularly constituted court" as used inin CommonCommon ArticleArticle 33 asas "established"established and organised inin accordanceaccordance withwith the lawslaws andand procedures already in force in a country"). See also Geneva ConventionConvention IV,IV, supra note 19,19, 66 U.S.T.U.S.T. 3516,3516, 7575 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. 287;287; Geneva Convention III, supra note 19,19, 6 U.S.T. at 3318-20,3318-20, 7575 U.N.T.S.U.N.T.S. 136-38.136-38. 149 SeeSee Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. atat 27912791 n.50n.50 ("Indeed,("Indeed, the suggestion that CongressCongress did not intend uniformityuniformity acrossacross tribunaltribunal typestypes is belied byby thethe textualtextual proximityproximity ofof subsec-subsec-

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 557 2006-2007 558 NEW YORK CITY LAWLAW REVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:533

Pending Congressional authorizationauthorization forfor militarymilitary commissionscommissions as required by the SupremeSupreme Court,15150° thethe U.S.U.S. mustmust simplysimply followfollow the procedures ofof generalgeneral courts-martialcourts-martial asas stated under thethe UCMJUCMJ as farfar asas practicable.practicable.151151 Courts-martialCourts-martial lawlaw providesprovides more clearclear standing than thethe civilcivil casescases in federal court,court, manymany ofof which relied on thethe AlienAlien Tort ClaimsClaims Act in addition toto thethe universalityuniversality princi-principle for jurisdiction.1jurisdiction.15252 WhileWhile thethe GenevaGeneva ConventionsConventions areare prima-prima- rily concernedconcerned with administering justice withwith safeguards aimed at eliminating the possibilitypossibility ofof judicial judicial error,error, it merits emphasisemphasis to 5 3 say thatthat the Convention seeksseeks to onlyonly prohibit "summary""summary"justice.1 justice.1" An oversight system regardingregarding changes inin courts-martialcourts-martial procedure by the President shouldshould alsoalso be activated. The NationalNational In- stitute ofof MilitaryMilitary Justice proposed aa systemsystem sufficientlysufficiently insulated from executive power: thethe President would be required toto articu-articu- late the facts thatthat render aa procedureprocedure impracticable,impracticable, toto notifynotify Con-Con- gress of any determination ofof impracticability,impracticability, andand to subjectsubject aa 54 Presidential determinationdetermination to judicialjudicial review.1review.'" The governmentgovernment willwill undoubtedly havehave securitysecurity concerns re- 1 55 garding the disseminationdissemination ofof classifiedclassified materialsmaterials during trials.trials.155 In thethe previousprevious militarymilitary commissioncommission system,system, anyany evidenceevidence waswas ad-ad- missible ifif itit "would have probative valuevalue toto a reasonablereasonable per-per- dontion (a)(a) (which(which requiresrequires thatthat thethe rules rules governing governing criminalcriminal trialstrials inin federalfederal districtdistrict courts apply, absent the President'sPresident's determinationdetermination ofof impracticability, impracticability, toto courts-mar-courts-martial, provost courts,courts, and military commissions alike) and subsectionsubsection (b)(b) (which(which imposesimposes the uniformity requirement).").requirement)."). 150 SeeSee Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 2775 (stating that thethe "Presidential"Presidential authority to con-con- vene military commissions" mustmust be justified justified byby thethe "Constitution and laws,"laws," including the law ofof war andand Uniform Code of MilitaryMilitary Justice;Justice; Congress'sCongress's AuthorizationAuthorization forfor the Use of Military Force, Force, and and thethe DetaineeDetainee Treatment ActAct of 2005 dodo not meet thisthis standard for CongressionalCongressional authorization). See also Authorization for the UseUse ofof MilitaryMilitary Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat.Stat. 224224 (2001);(2001); DetaineeDetainee Treatment ActAct of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-148,109-148, 119 Stat. 2739.2739. 151 SeeSee Hamdan,Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. atat 2791 (concluding that "the rules set forth in thethe Man-Man- ual for Courts-Martial must apply to militarymilitary commissions unless impracticable"). See also Uniform Code ofof MilitaryMilitary Justice, 1010 U.S.C.A.U.S.C.A. § 810 (2007). 152152 SeeSee Kadic v.v. Karadzic,Karadzic, 7070 F.3d F.3d 232,232, 239 239 (2d(2d Cir.Cir. 1995) (using the "universal"universal concern" standard toto justify federal jurisdiction).jurisdiction). 153153 SeeSee RED CROSSCROSS COMMENTARY,COMMENTARY, supra note 46,46, at 40 (emphasizing(emphasizing thatthat no sort of immunity is meantmeant byby thethe clauseclause butbut thatthat members of the "insurgent forces shouldshould not be treated as common criminals"),criminals"), available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044fhttp://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/la13044f 3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/466097d7a301f8c4c12563cd00424e2b!OpenDocument.3bbb5b8ecl2563fb0066f226/466097d7a301 ffc4cl2563cd00424e2b!OpenDocument. 154154 SeeSee Fidell statement, supra note 127,127, at 3-6 (recommending(recommending an appropriateappropriate over-oversight system toto prevent thethe executiveexecutive from exercising too much authority over the judicial system).system). 155155 SeeSee Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2798 (stating that "the"the GovernmentGovernment has a compelling interest in denyingdenying Hamdan accessaccess toto certaincertain sensitivesensitive information").information"). But see id. at 2792 n.52 (asserting thatthat "the"the structuralstructural and procedural defectsdefects ofof Hamdan's commis-commission extendextend farfar beyondbeyond rulesrules preventingpreventing accessaccess toto classifiedclassified information").information").

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 558 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERALUNILATERAL CREATIONCREATION OFOF INTERNATIONAL LAW 559559 son."'son."1 5This6 This standard standard would would have have allowed allowed testimonialtestimonial hearsayhearsay and evidence obtained through coercion.157157 InIn orderorder to to rectify rectify thethe gov-government securitysecurity concerns with the militarymilitary rules of evidence, the rules should adopt aa systemsystem like that ofof RuleRule 9292 bis of the Interna- tional Criminal Tribunal forfor thethe formerformer Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia.115858 RuleRule 9292 bis (D) and (E)(E) requirerequire thatthat aa partyparty seekingseeking toto admitadmit anyany "transcript of evidence given by aa witness"witness" must must "give"give fourteen fourteen daysdays noticenotice toto the opposing party," whowho then hashas sevenseven daysdays to object.object.159159 TheThe trialtrial chamber then decidesdecides whether to admit the evidence after hearing the parties' argumentsarguments forfor oror againstagainst admissibility,admissibility, oror requiringrequiring the witness toto comecome inin forfor cross examination.examination.116060 Here,Here, thethe admissibility admissibility determination would move beyond solesole judicialjudicial determinationdetermination while also allowing discussiondiscussion ofof admissibility inin cameracamera to assuage security concerns.concerns. ItIt wouldwould provideprovide carefulcareful reviewreview ofof evidenceevidence obtained throughthrough meansmeans thatthat "cast"cast substantialsubstantial doubtdoubt onon itsits reliability"reliability" and areare "antithetical"antithetical to,to, andand wouldwould seriouslyseriously damage, the integrityintegrity ',lel of the proceedings.proceedings." 61 It is unlikely thatthat Common Article 3 would be subverted if the

156 Id.Id. at 27862786 (citing(citing DEP'T DEP'T OF OF DEF., DEF., MILITARY MILITARY COMM'NCOMM'N ORDER, ORDER, No. No. 1 1§ § 6(D)(1) 6(D)(1) (2005), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2005/d20050902order.http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2005/d200509O2order. pdf).Pdf)• 157 SeeSee KENNETH HURWITZ, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, TRIALSTRIALS UNDER MILITARYMILITARY ORDER: A GUIDE TO TO THETHE RULES RULES FOR FOR MILITARY MILITARY COMMISSIONS COMMISSIONS (identifying (identifying the theadmission admission of of testi-testimony receivedreceived through through torturetorture as "[o]ne ofof the mostmost troublingtroubling featuresfeatures of thethe mili-military commissioncommission rules"). But seesee Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 533-34 (2004)(2004) ("Hearsay, forfor example,example, maymay needneed toto be accepted asas thethe mostmost reliablereliable availableavailable evi-evidence from the GovernmentGovernment in such a proceeding."). 158 Cf.Cf Hamdan,Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 2792 (lacking(lacking aa "suggestion"suggestion ...... ofof anyany logisticallogistical diffi-diffi- culty" fromfrom the government "in securing properlyproperly sworn andand authenticated evidenceevidence or inin applyingapplying the usualusual principlesprinciples ofof relevancerelevance andand admissibility").admissibility"). 159159 See Prosecutor v.v. Sikirica, Case No. IT-95-8-T, Decision Decision on on Prosecution'sProsecution's Applica-Applica- tion toto Admit Transcripts Under RuleRule 92 Bis, ¶ 1 (May 23, 2001), reprinted in 7 ANNO- TATED LEADING CASES OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS: THETHE INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL FOR FOR THE THE FORMER FORMER YUGOsLAvIA YUGOSLAVIA 2001, 2001,at 120 at 120(Andre (Andre Klip Klip & & G6ranGOran Sluiter eds.,eds., 2005) 2005) [hereinafter [hereinafter ANNOTATED ANNOTATED LEADING LEADING CASES],CASES], available at http:// www.un.org/icty/legaldoc-e/basic/rpe/IT032Rev39e.pdf. 160160 Id.Id. 161161 Rome Statute, supra note 47, at Article 69(7); InternationalInternational Criminal Tribunal for the ProsecutionProsecution of PersonsPersons ResponsibleResponsible for Serious Violations ofof International Hu- manitarian Law CommittedCommitted in the TerritoryTerritory ofof the the Former Former Yugoslavia Yugoslavia SinceSince 19911991 (ICTY),(ICTY), RulesRules of of ProcedureProcedure andand Evidence, U.N.U.N. Doc.Doc. IT/32/Rev.IT/32/Rev. 39 (2006),(2006), RulesRules 89(C) and 95,95, available at http://www.un.org/icty/legaldoc-e/basic/rpe/ IT032Rev39e.pdf; International International CriminalCriminal TribunalTribunal forfor Rwanda, Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2006), Rules 89(C)89(C) and 95, available at http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/ rules/101106/rop101106.pdf.rules/101106/ropl01106.pdf. See also Sikirica, Case No. IT-95-8-T,IT-95-8-T, 11[ 3 3 (balancing(balancing thethe sub-Rule 8989 (C)(C) andand (D)(D) regardingregarding whetherwhether "a"a ChamberChamber 'may'may admitadmit anyany relevantrelevant evidence whichwhich itit deems to have probative value' and maymay excludeexclude evidenceevidence 'if itsits probative valuevalue isis substantiallysubstantially outweighed outweighed by by the the need need to to ensure ensure aa fairfair trial"'trial"' (internal citations omitted));omitted)); id.id. 1J 44 (stressing(stressing that thethe determinationdetermination ofof whether whether "a"a witnesswitness

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 559 2006-2007 560 NEW YORKYORK CITYCITY LAW REVIEWREVIEW [Vol.[Vol. 10:53310:533

UCMJ werewere utilizedutilized toto trytry "unlawful"unlawful combatants." combatants." TheThe proceduresprocedures 1621 62 of thethe MCAMCA are "based""based" onon thethe UCMJ,UCMJ, purport toto establishestablish aa regularly constitutedconstituted courtcourt under CommonCommon ArticleArticle 33 ofof GenevaGeneva Convention 111,III,163163 andand provide provide congressionalcongressional oversightoversight overover changes in procedures.'procedures. 16464 Detainees,Detainees, however,however, areare prohibitedprohibited from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a sourcesource of rights,rights,'16655 may not viewview "sensitive""sensitive" information information againstagainst them,them,'16666 and maymay stillstill have hearsay evidence used against them.'them.1676 7 ItIt is is yetyet toto bebe determineddetermined whether thethe MCAMCA will provideprovide the necessary checks and balances to mirror generalgeneral courts-martial.courts-martial. However,However, thethe SupremeSupreme CourtCourt speci-speci- fied thatthat thethe treatmenttreatment andand trialstrials ofof thethe detaineesdetainees werewere toto complycomply with Common Article 3,3,168168 andand itit shouldshould thusthus actact asas aa floorfloor for the trials, andand not aa ceiling.ceiling.

CONCLUSION The endend ofof hostilitieshostilities bringsbrings eveneven greatergreater questions,questions, especiallyespecially in aa rhetoricalrhetorical war likelike the "War"War on Terror." TheThe questionsquestions sur-surrounding thethe legitimacylegitimacy ofof thethe commissioncommission offensesoffenses willwill undoubtedly affect futurefuture questionsquestions afterafter the "War onon Terror" has ended. For instance, determining anan endend toto the the hostilities hostilities would would likelylikely be a contentious issue since an agreement onon thethe cessationcessation ofof hostilitieshostilities depends on thethe naturenature ofof thethe conflictconflict inin question.'question.' 6699 OnlyOnly thenthen would questions regarding possible repatriation be raised.raised. According to customarycustomary international law,law, thethe U.S.U.S. govern-government would be required toto grantgrant thethe broadestbroadest possiblepossible amnestyamnesty to the detaineesdetainees forfor theirtheir participationparticipation inin non-internationalnon-international armedarmed combat (or(or thosethose imprisoned for reasons related to armed combat) except for those accused of,of, oror sentencedsentenced for,for, warwar crimes.crimes.'"170 How-How- ever, the U.N. Security Council,Council, amongamong otherother national bodies,bodies, con-

should be requiredrequired toto appearappear forfor cross-examination" cross-examination" should hingehinge onon whether,whether, with-without such livelive testimony, the courtcourt could stillstill "ensure a fair trial"). 162162 MCA § 948b(c). 163163 Id.Id. §§ 948b(f). 164164 Id.Id. § 949a(d). 165 Id. §§ 948b(g). 166166 Id.Id. § 949d(f). 167 IdId.. § 949a(b)(2)(E)(ii).949a(b) (2) (E) (ii). 168168 HamdanHamdan v.v. Rumsfeld,Rumsfeld, 126126 S.S. Ct.Ct. 2749, 2798 (2006).(2006). 169 SeeSee CHRISTIANE SHIELDS DELESSERT, RELEASERELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERSPRISONERS OF WAR AT THETHE END OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES: A STUDY OF ARTICLE 118, PARAGRAPHPARAGRAPH 1 OF THE 3RD GENEVAGENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVERELATIVE TO TO THETHE TREATMENTTREATMENT OF OF PRISONERS OF OF WAR WAR 100 (1977) (recognizing(recognizing that aa cessationcessation ofof hostilitieshostilities maymay taketake many forms under heavyheavy dependence onon thethe typetype ofof conflict conflict involved).involved). 179170 SeeSee HENcKAERTsHENCKAERTS &&DoswALD-BECK, DOSWALD-BECK, supra note 48, at 611611 (establishing a rule that grants broad amnestyamnesty to detainees participating in non-international armed combatcombat

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 560 2006-2007 2007] UNILATERAL CREATION OF INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL LAW 561

7 1 firmed that the amnesty doesdoes not not applyapply to to war war crimes.' crimes.' The DepartmentDepartment ofof DefenseDefense oversteppedoverstepped itsits boundsbounds byby tryingtrying to createcreate lawlaw without the necessary precedent. Murder by an unprivileged belligerentbelligerent lacks anyany legitimate basis in internationalinternational law. While recognizingrecognizing that thethe commoncommon lawlaw isis "evolutionary"evolutionary in " i v nature,""nature, 7 thethe U.S. U.S. judiciary judiciary will will alwaysalways require solidsolid foundations in precedent."precedent.1 7 3But But shifting shifting an an individual's individual's culpabilityculpability from thatthat of common criminalitycriminality to that of war criminality throughthrough technical- ities in combatant privilege isis aa contortioncontortion in law forfor anan independent executiveexecutive purpose. ItIt isis thisthis typetype ofof contortioncontortion ofof executiveexecutive power for independent, politicalpolitical purposes thatthat thethe judiciaryjudiciary mustmust check duringduring both both formal formal'174 andand informal'informal 17 5times times ofof war. war.

through StateState practice as a normnorm ofof customarycustomary internationalinternational lawlaw applicable inin non- international armed conflict).conflict). 171171 SeeSee id.id. at 613 (showing(showing that warwar crimescrimes areare thethe exception to the general amnestyamnesty at the endend ofof hostilities).hostilities). 172 SeeSee Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. atat 28292829 (Thomas, J., J., dissenting)dissenting) ("...(". . . buildingbuilding uponupon the experience of the past and takingtaking accountaccount ofof thethe exigenciesexigencies of the present"). 173 SeeSee id.id. at 2779-80 (plurality(plurality opinion). See also id. at 27802780 n.34 ("The("The caution that must be exercisedexercised inin thethe incrementalincremental developmentdevelopment ofof common-law common-law crimescrimes by the judiciaryjudiciary is, forfor thethe reasons explained in thethe text,text, allall thethe moremore criticalcritical whenwhen reviewingreviewing developments that stem fromfrom militarymilitary action."). 174 See,See, e.g.,e.g., Youngstown SheetSheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 343 U.S. U.S. 579, 579,587 587 (1952) (declaring President Franklin Roosevelt's interferenceinterference in the steel industry strikes duringduring World War IIII asas oversteppingoverstepping executiveexecutive constitutionalconstitutional powers as Commander in Chief). 175 See,See, e.g.,e.g., Hamdan, 126126 S. Ct. at 2799 (Breyer, J., J., concurring)concurring) (declaring that the "War on Terror" diddid notnot givegive PresidentPresident GeorgeGeorge W.W. BushBush aa "blank"blank check"check" for executive authority).

HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 561 2006-2007 HeinOnline -- 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 562 2006-2007