DOCSLIB.ORG

Conference Respect for International Humanitarian Law. a Major

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conference Respect for International Humanitarian Law. a Major Check against delivery Conference Respect for International Humanitarian Law. A major challenge, a global responsibility Speaking notes of Dr Jakob Kellenberger, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross Tuesday 16 September 2008 European Parliament, Brussels Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, (1) I thank Commissioner Louis Michel, Mr. Hans-Gert Pötering, President of the European Parliament, and M. Thierry Cornillet, Standing Rapporteur on Humanitarian Aid, for their invitation to attend this important Conference on the theme Respect for International Humanitarian Law: a major challenge, a global responsibility. (2) The promotion and strengthening of international humanitarian law are central concerns of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in its capacity and international mandate to work for the faithful application of international humanitarian law. This role has many facets, including the dissemination of international humanitarian law and the promotion of ratification of relevant treaties, the monitoring of respect of humanitarian law by the parties to an armed conflict, as well as the preparation of new developments in this field. For the ICRC, an institution that is active in all conflict theatres around the world, the main challenge today is without a doubt the proper application of and respect for IHL by the belligerents, States and non-State armed groups. We sadly live in a world in which reports of direct attacks against civilians, of forced displacement, and of mistreatment of persons detained in relation to an armed conflict and the denial of their basic rights, judicial guarantees and procedural safeguards, are all too common. (3) Some of you will, I believe, be familiar with the ICRC's view that existing rules of international humanitarian law for the protection of victims of war are, on the whole, adequate enough to respond to the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts and that the major dilemma to be met is one of achieving greater compliance with and respect for existing norms by all parties to an armed conflict. 1 This is one of the major conclusions of a Report presented by the ICRC to the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent held in Geneva in November 2007, entitled "International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflict" and which sought to reaffirm the basic tenets of international humanitarian law and the continued adequacy of international humanitarian law norms to address the circumstances of contemporary warfare. This conclusion is also reflected in the text and recommendations enshrined in Resolution 3 of the Conference on the Reaffirmation and Implementation of IHL "Preserving Human Life and Dignity in Armed Conflict". (4) Aware of the need for clarification of key notions like "direct participation in hostilities", the necessity for developing more detailed rules for internment/administrative detention, judicial guarantees and other areas, the work of clarification to be carried out with regard to new situations of occupation or the gaps in treaty law applicable to non-international armed conflicts, this conclusion will certainly not lead me to say there is no scope or need for the development and adaptation of humanitarian law to new situations. The recent adoption in Dublin of a new international treaty comprehensively outlawing cluster munitions, and for which the ICRC has been one of the leading advocates, testifies also to the continued dynamism of this body of law. What I am suggesting is that any attempt to re- evaluate the appropriateness of international humanitarian law can only take place after it has been determined that it is the law that is lacking, and not the political will to apply it. (5) It is almost common today to suggest that we live in an increasingly complex world in which the factors and risks of armed violence are evermore difficult to predict and circumscribe. The realities of armed conflict at the outset of the new millennium have also changed, as classical inter-state wars have mainly given way to a wide range of highly complex and drawn-out non-international armed conflicts, often with an international dimension, yet almost always implying a direct and far-reaching impact on civilians. Even in cases where fighting is of low intensity, the humanitarian consequences for the civilian population are very serious indeed. (6) I do not have the time in the course of this brief presentation to review the many dilemmas and impediments to the application of international humanitarian law in present day conflicts. As some of you will know, the ICRC is developing a wide range of initiatives aiming to strengthen international humanitarian law, to clarify some of its key concepts and to reflect upon emerging trends and threats to the implementation of humanitarian law on the battlefield. The ICRC's Report to the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent highlights some of the ICRC's main concerns, including inter alia the challenge of implementation of IHL in the so-called "fight against terrorism", the proliferation and fragmentation of non-State armed groups and the phenomenon of "asymmetric warfare", the emergence of new actors of conflict such as private military and security companies, or yet the evolving threats linked to new technological developments with potentially devastating humanitarian consequences. 2 (7) I turn now to my main topic this morning: the means and instruments available to the international community in order to prevent and respond to violations of humanitarian law – at the political level and through the implementation at the national and international levels of preventive, corrective and punitive measures. It is essential that the European Union and its member States continue to act forcefully, whether individually or collectively, in order to impress upon all parties to an armed conflict the fact of their legal responsibility to respect the basic tenets of international humanitarian law. As said before, the principal challenge to the application of international humanitarian law in contemporary situations of warfare remains the lack of political will by parties to an armed conflict to respect IHL and to prevent its violations. (8) I begin by recalling the primary responsibility of States stemming from the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their first Additional Protocol of 1977 "to respect and ensure respect for these Conventions under all circumstances" (Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions) and "in situations of serious violations … to act, jointly or individually, in co-operation with the United Nations and in conformity with the United Nations' Charter" (Article 89, Additional Protocol I). (9) I need not comment extensively on the obligation to "respect". The primary responsibility for providing individuals with the protection they are entitled to falls upon the authorities concerned, be they Governments, de facto authorities, armed groups, or any actors exercising control over a given territory. This includes international forces be it for example the multinational forces in Iraq, ISAF/NATO in Afghanistan or the MONUC in the DRC. (10) The second wing of the obligation under Common Article 1 is more difficult to circumscribe. Much has of course been written on the exact nature of the obligation for States to "ensure respect" for international humanitarian law. This provision is today generally interpreted as enunciating both a positive responsibility and a legal obligation for third States not involved in an armed conflict to act, whether through bilateral or multilateral channels, to ensure that the belligerents comply with the law and to use their influence to stop the violations. This should at least entail, in my view, an "obligation of means" for States to take all appropriate measures possible in an attempt to end IHL violations. (11) Over the past 20 years, considerable progress has been achieved in the application and enforcement of international humanitarian law, if one considers in particular the advent and establishment, in the face of the terrible violations of international humanitarian law that occurred in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and elsewhere, of international judicial mechanisms to prosecute and sanction individual perpetrators of the worst international crimes. These efforts have culminated in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. These developments have also served to remind States of their obligations under international humanitarian law to punish and suppress serious violations of international humanitarian law, in particular through the enactment of adequate criminal legislation allowing for the prosecution of war crimes in domestic courts based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. 3 (12) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like now to conclude this short presentation. I believe it is fair to say that the international community has come some way in past years in its efforts to strengthen international humanitarian law and to develop new mechanisms, new concepts and approaches to increase respect for the law by warring parties. Certainly, achieving compliance for humanitarian law will require our constant attention and resolve. (13) It is in this light that I would like to underline the great significance of the political commitments undertaken by the European Union and its member States in recent years in an effort to weigh upon the behaviour of belligerents on the battlefield,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HD in 2020: Peacemaking in Perspective → Page 10 About HD → Page 6 HD Governance: the Board → Page 30
    June 2021 EN About HD in 2020: HD governance: HD → page 6 Peacemaking in perspective → page 10 The Board → page 30 Annual Report 2020 mediation for peace www.hdcentre.org Trusted. Neutral. Independent. Connected. Effective. The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) mediates between governments, non-state armed groups and opposition parties to reduce conflict, limit the human suffering caused by war and develop opportunities for peaceful settlements. As a non-profit based in Switzerland, HD helps to build the path to stability and development for people, communities and countries through more than 50 peacemaking projects around the world. → Table of contents HD in 2020: Peacemaking in perspective → page 10 COVID in conflict zones → page 12 Social media and cyberspace → page 12 Supporting peace and inclusion → page 14 Middle East and North Africa → page 18 Francophone Africa → page 20 The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) is a private diplomacy organisation founded on the principles of humanity, Anglophone and Lusophone Africa → page 22 impartiality, neutrality and independence. Its mission is to help prevent, mitigate and resolve armed conflict through dialogue and mediation. Eurasia → page 24 Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) Asia → page 26 114 rue de Lausanne, 1202 – Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 (0)22 908 11 30 Email: [email protected] Latin America → page 28 Website: www.hdcentre.org Follow HD on Twitter and Linkedin: https://twitter.com/hdcentre https://www.linkedin.com/company/centreforhumanitariandialogue Design and layout: Hafenkrone © 2021 – Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue About HD governance: Investing Reproduction of all or part of this publication may be authorised only with written consent or acknowledgement of the source.
    [Show full text]
  • WOMEN & WAR Women & Armed Conflicts and the Issue of Sexual
    European Union Institute for Security Studies WOMEN & WAR Women & Armed Conflicts and the issue of Sexual Violence REPORT Colloquium ICRC – EUISS, 30 September 2014 WWW.ICRC.ORG WWW.ISS.EUROPA.EU pàl_COLLOQUE_2.indd 2 25/04/10 20:10 This report derives from a colloquium on the theme of “Women and Armed Conflicts and the Issue of Sexual Violence” organized jointly by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) which took place on 30 September 2014 in Brussels. The proceedings of this colloquium have been written by the speakers or by the Delegation of the ICRC in Brussels on the basis of audio recordings of the colloquium. The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the EUISS nor the ICRC. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Delegation to the EU, NATO and the Kingdom of Belgium Rue Guimard 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium tél. : +32 (0)2 286 58 70 [email protected] http://www.icrc.org/be Graphic Design by Studio Fifty Fifty, Brussels © ICRC, June 2015 Front cover : ICRC / VON TOGGENBURG, Christoph Printed in Waregem on 100% recycled paper by PrintConcept.be WOMEN & WAR Women & Armed Conflicts and the issue of Sexual Violence REPORT Colloquium ICRC – EUISS, 30 September 2014 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 OPENING 6 WELCOMING WORDS Dr Antonio Missiroli, Director of the EUISS, Mr François Bellon, Head of the ICRC Delegation to the EU, NATO and Kingdom of Belgium KEYNOTE ADDRESSES Ms Helga Schmid, Deputy Secretary General of the European External Action
    [Show full text]
  • Politica La Passione Per Le Conoscenze
    3000.169 29-05-2012 14:30 Pagina 1 3000.169 International Humanitarian Law International Institute of Humanitarian Law and New Weapon Technologies Although there can be no doubt that International Humanitarian Law applies to International Institute of Humanitarian Law International Institute of Humanitarian Law Institut International de Droit Humanitaire new weaponry and technological developments, subsuming a new technology Istituto Internazionale di Diritto Umanitario under pre-existing rules always raises the question as to whether or not this is sufficient in terms of legal clarity, in view of the specific characteristics of new technology and – above all – the humanitarian impact such technology may have. The book comprises a series of contributions by prominent scholars, experts and practitioners from different countries who extensively explore the legal aspect of an array of new weapons and military technologies that have only International Humanitarian recently entered the battlefield or that are now being tested with a view to being used for military purposes in the future. These not only include drones, robots and military outer space technologies but also cyber-technology and other Law and New Weapon devices and technologies, all of which raise important legal questions and humanitarian concerns. Technologies The International Institute of Humanitarian Law is an independent, non-profit humanitarian organization founded in 1970. Its headquarters are situated in Villa Ormond, Sanremo (Italy). Its main objective is the promotion and dissemination of International Humanitarian Law, human rights, refugee law and migration law. Thanks to its longstanding experience and its internationally acknowledged academic standards, the International Institute of Humanitarian Law is considered to be a centre of excellence and has developed close co-operation with the most important AND NEW WEAPON TECHNOLOGIES LAW HUMANITARIAN INTERNATIONAL international organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Cost of Nuclear Weapons
    The human cost Autumn 2015 97 Number 899 Volume of nuclear weapons Volume 97 Number 899 Autumn 2015 Volume 97 Number 899 Autumn 2015 Editorial: A price too high: Rethinking nuclear weapons in light of their human cost Vincent Bernard, Editor-in-Chief After the atomic bomb: Hibakusha tell their stories Masao Tomonaga, Sadao Yamamoto and Yoshiro Yamawaki The view from under the mushroom cloud: The Chugoku Shimbun newspaper and the Hiroshima Peace Media Center Tomomitsu Miyazaki Photo gallery: Ground zero Nagasaki Akitoshi Nakamura Discussion: Seventy years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Reflections on the consequences of nuclear detonation Tadateru Konoé and Peter Maurer Nuclear arsenals: Current developments, trends and capabilities Hans M. Kristensen and Matthew G. McKinzie Pursuing “effective measures” relating to nuclear disarmament: Ways of making a legal obligation a reality Treasa Dunworth The human costs and legal consequences of nuclear weapons under international humanitarian law Louis Maresca and Eleanor Mitchell Chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear events: The humanitarian response framework of the International Committee of the Red Cross Gregor Malich, Robin Coupland, Steve Donnelly and Johnny Nehme Humanitarian debate: Law, policy, action The use of nuclear weapons and human rights The human cost of nuclear weapons Stuart Casey-Maslen The development of the international initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and its effect on the nuclear weapons debate Alexander Kmentt Changing the discourse on nuclear weapons: The humanitarian initiative Elizabeth Minor Protecting humanity from the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons: Reframing the debate towards the humanitarian impact Richard Slade, Robert Tickner and Phoebe Wynn-Pope An African contribution to the nuclear weapons debate Sarah J.
    [Show full text]
  • Mediation for Peace
    MEDIATION FOR PEACE The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) is a private diplomacy organisation PHOTO CREDITS founded on the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. Its mission is to help prevent, mitigate, and resolve armed conflict through dialogue Page 4: Photo of Mr Espen Barth Eide. © HD - Photo credit: Alban Kakulya and mediation. Page 14: David Gorman in Indonesia. © HD Page 14: Oslo Forum banner. © HD Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) 114 rue de Lausanne, 1202 – Geneva, Switzerland Page 14: JEM and UNICEF Agreement. © HD Tel: +41 (0)22 908 11 30 Page 15: Nakuru County Peace Accord. © HD Email: [email protected] Page 15: Signing of the Tunisian Charter of Honour. © HD Website: www.hdcentre.org Page 16: HD Villa. © HD Follow HD on Twitter and Linkedin: Page 16: Member of Libyan forces. © Reuters/Esam Omran https://twitter.com/hdcentre Page 17: Government and Renamo sign a peace accord to end military hostilities. https://www.linkedin.com/company/centreforhumanitariandialogue © EPA-EFE/Andre Catueira Page 17: BOL Presentation to MILF, Duterte. © Government of the Philippines Cover images: Pages 35: Photo of Mr Espen Barth Eide. © HD – Photo credit: Alban Kakulya Front – Community mediator in the Sahel region. © HD Page 35: Photo of Mr Pierre Vimont. © Ministère français des Affaires étrangères Back – Demonstration against President Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua to demand the Page 36: Photo of Ms Sarah F. Cliffe. © Center on International Cooperation liberation of all political prisoners. © EPA-EFE/Jorge Torres Page 36: Photo of Mr Neil Janin. © HD – Photo credit: Alban Kakulya Design and layout: Rick Jones, StudioExile Page 36: Photo of Mr Armin Slotta.
    [Show full text]
  • HD Centre Annual Report 2012
    The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD Centre) is an independent organisation dedicated to improving the prevention of, and response to, armed conflict. We open channels of communication and mediate between parties in conflict, facilitate dialogue, and provide support to the broader mediation and peacebuilding community. We deploy our expertise to support local and nationally-owned processes that protect civilians and foster lasting and just peace. The HD Centre occupies a unique position within the mediation field as an organisation that mediates and facilitates peace talks, assists mediation actors, carries out capacity building work, and conducts research on mediation issues. This position enables us to link and collaborate with multiple organisations and actors within the mediation field. The HD Centre was founded to pursue Henry Dunant’s vision of a world more humane. It aims, through mediation and dialogue, to reduce the suffering caused by armed conflict in our world – where possible, to prevent such conflict; otherwise to help resolve it, or to mitigate its consequences. The HD Centre embraces a set of values that foster integrity, professionalism and respect for diversity in all areas of its work. We subscribe to the core humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality and operational independence and are committed to respecting international principles in relation to human rights and humanitarian affairs. As a private peacemaking organisation, our strengths and distinguishing traits include the ability to conduct mediation at the leadership level of parties in conflict; Political independence and impartiality so valued in third parties; Rapid, flexible response and the effective management of discreet processes; Readiness to support other lead mediators; Relationships with high-level networks, particularly in Asia and Africa; Creativity and willingness to take risks for peace; and capacity to convene.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention of Terrorism Suspects After 9/11
    Article The Power To Detain: Detention of Terrorism Suspects After 9/11 Oona Hathaway, Samuel Adelsberg, Spencer Amdur, Philip Levitz, Freya Pitts & Sirine Shebayat I. INTRO DU CTIO N ................................................................................................................................. 124 II. LAW-OF-WAR DETENTION AUTHORITY AND LIMITATIONS...........................................................128 A. Statutory Authority ........................................................................................................... 129 1. The 2001 Authorization for Use ofMilitary Force..............................................1 29 a. September 11 Nexus Requirement............................................................130 b. Geographic Reach .................................................................................... 132 c. Included Organizations and Associated Forces......................................134 d. Level ofIndividual Affiliation .................................................................. 136 2. The 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.........................140 3. Pendent Authority To Detain Under the Military Commissions Act of2009..142 B. Constitutional Authority: The President's Article H Power To Detain...........................146 1. Source ofArticle II Detention Authority .............................................................. 146 2. Scope ofArticle II Detention Authority................................................................148 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention of Terrorists in the Twenty-First Century
    xv Detention of Terrorists in the Twenty-first Century William K. Lietzau· 1. Introduction f all the instruments of power that may be employed to further national in­ O terests, nonc yields collateral consequences that are more difficult to pre­ dict than the unleashing of military force. And with respect to the past decade's use of that instrument, no consequence has engendered more debate, confusion or passion than U.S. detention policy. This article attempts to clarify the reasons for the controversy surrounding the policy--expJaining it primarily as a function of the nature of twenty-fiest-century warfare, as opposed to competing political or ideological perspectives, as many claim. It then proffers a vision fo r moving past the controversy. At firs t, few recognized the juridical stressors associated with a twenty-first­ century armed conflict steeped in terrorism; most simply looked to old laws to ad­ dress this new type of conilict. In this context a rift began to form and grew ever wider with the years of conflict.] Today, even many nations willing to share with the United States the burdens of armed conilict have expressed significant dis­ comfort with U.S. JegaJ endeavors related to detention.2 This dissonance and the • Deputy Assistant SecretaryofDefense, Rule of Law and Detainee Policy. This article is adapted from a speech given at Harvard University Law School in February 2011 at a conference titled KUnderstanding Detention and Predicting Prosecutions: Legal Challenges and Legislative Op· tions Ten Years After WIl. D The views in this article are those of the author and do not necessar· ily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or the United States government.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking out Or Remaining Silent in Humanitarian Work
    RICR SEPTEMBRE IRRC SEPTEMBER 2004 VOL. 86 N° 855 593 Speaking out or remaining silent in humanitarian work JAKOB KELLENBERGER* The question of whether — and if so, to what extent — a humanitar- ian organization should publicize and denounce violations of international humanitarian law and other wrongs, and name those responsible for them, is as acute as ever — particularly for the ICRC, as the examples given by Michael Ignatieff in Hard Choices1 or by Jonathan Benthall in Disasters, Relief and the Media1 show. There are reasons for this, and an attempt must be made to explain them. From time to time public or published statements by the ICRC also dominate the political arena. While unintentionally becoming caught up in the cut and thrust of political debate, they also show how the ICRC operates in the complex world of tension between political interests and humanitarian concerns. Hence the subject may also give an unusual insight into the work of the ICRC and the conditions under which it is carried out. Specificity of the ICRC The ICRC is one of many humanitarian organizations, which differ greatly from each other in terms of how they operate and where they are deployed. The sharp increase in such organizations is part of the changing humanitarian environment of recent times. However, the ICRC, with around 12,000 staff— more than 11,000 of whom are out in the field in areas of armed conflict or tension and elsewhere — is a large organization with a number of specific features. In the international humanitarian law treaties the various States have expressly assigned certain tasks to the ICRC, either exclusively or together with other unspecified humanitarian organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in 2017
    The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in 2017 Annual Report Credits The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) is a pri- vate diplomacy organisation founded on the principles of humanity, impartiality and independence. Its mission is to help prevent, mitigate, and resolve armed conflict through dialogue and mediation. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) 114 rue de Lausanne, 1202 – Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 (0)22 908 11 30 Email: [email protected] Website: www.hdcentre.org Follow HD on Twitter and LinkedIn: https://twitter.com/hdcentre https://www.linkedin.com/company/ centreforhumanitariandialogue Cover photo: © HD © 2018 – Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Reproduction of all or part of this publication may be authorised only with written consent and acknowledgment of the source. Board photo credits Page 33: Photo of Mr Pierre Vimont – © Ministère français des Affaires étrangères Page 33: Photo of Mr Espen Barth Eide – © HD – Photo credit: Alban Kakulya Page 34: Photo of Mr Jermyn Brooks – © Transparency International Page 34: Photo of Mr Neil Janin – © HD – Photo credit: Alban Kakulya Page 34: Photo of Ms Grace Forrest – © Minderoo Foundation Page 35: Photo of Ms Ameerah Haq – © United Nations Page 35: Photo of Dr Jakob Kellenberger – © HD – Photo credit: Alban Kakulya Page 35: Photo of Ms Irene Khan – © IDLO Page 35: Photo of Ambassador Raymond Loretan – © Olivier Maire Page 36: Photo of Dr 'Funmi Olonisakin – © HD – Photo credit: Alban Kakulya Page 36: Photo of Mr Olivier Steimer – © HD – Photo credit: Clément Rousset/Studio Contraste Page 36: Photo of Dr Javier Solana – © Reuters/ Thierry Roge Contents Table of Contents The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Mediation for Peace ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Customary International Humanitarian Law International Committee of the Red Cross CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
    Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules Henckaerts and In 1996, the International Committee of the Red Cross, alongside a range of Doswald-Beck Customary International renowned experts, embarked upon a major international study into current state practice in international humanitarian law in order to identify customary law in this area. This book (along with its companion, Volume II: Practice) is the result of Humanitarian Law that study, a comprehensive analysis of the customary rules of international Customary humanitarian law applicable in international and non-international armed International conflicts. Given that important treaties in this area have not yet been universally Volume I: Rules Humanitarian ratified, this is clearly a publication of major importance, carried out at the express request of the international community. In so doing, this study identifies the com- Law mon core of international humanitarian law binding on all parties to all armed Volume I: Rules conflicts. This original, authoritative work will be an essential tool for anyone involved with international humanitarian law. Jean-Marie Henckaerts Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck is Legal Adviser at the Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva. Louise Doswald-Beck is Professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies and Director of the University Centre for International Humanitarian Law in Geneva. She was formerly Secretary-General of the International Commission of Jurists and Head of the
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLE Folk International Law: 9/11 Lawyering and the Transformation of the Law of Armed Conflict to Human Rights Policy and Human Rights Law to War Governance
    2014 / Folk International Law 225 ARTICLE Folk International Law: 9/11 Lawyering and the Transformation of the Law of Armed Conflict to Human Rights Policy and Human Rights Law to War Governance __________________________ Naz K. Modirzadeh* Abstract This Article argues that the positions many U.S.-based lawyers in the disciplines of international humanitarian law and human rights law took in 2013 on issues of lethal force and framing of armed conflict vis-à-vis the Obama Administration would have been surprising and disappointing to those same professionals back in 2002 when they began their battle against the Bush Administration’s formulations of the “Global War on Terror.” In doing so, the Article demonstrates how, by 2013, many U.S.-based humanitarian and human rights lawyers—in the face of a perceived existential threat to their relevance from the Bush Administration’s general rejection of international law as a binding constraint in the “Global War on Terror”—had traded in strict fealty to international law for potential influence on executive decision-making. These lawyers and advocates would help to shape the Obama Administration’s articulation of its legal basis for the use of force against al Qaeda and others by making use of “folk international law,” a law-like discourse that relies on a confusing and soft admixture of IHL, jus ad bellum, and IHRL to frame operations that do not, * Senior Fellow, Harvard Law School-Brookings Project on Law and Security. B.A., University of California at Berkeley, 1999; J.D., Harvard Law School, 2002. The author would like to thank Dustin Lewis, Gabriella Blum, Marko Milanovic, William Alford, Jonathan Horowitz, Andrew March, Michael Schmitt, Janet Halley, the Harvard Law School International Law Workshop, 2011, The Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute Counterterrorism & Human Rights Project, and the Editors of the Harvard National Security Journal.
    [Show full text]