DOCSLIB.ORG

The Logical Nexus Between the Decision to Deny Application of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 36 | Issue 2 2004 The Logical Nexus between the Decision to Deny Application of the Third Geneva Convention to the Taliban and al Qaeda and the Mistreatment of Prisoners in Abu Ghraib Evan J. Wallach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Evan J. Wallach, The Logical Nexus between the Decision to Deny Application of the Third Geneva Convention to the Taliban and al Qaeda and the Mistreatment of Prisoners in Abu Ghraib, 36 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 541 (2004) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol36/iss2/21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE LOGICAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE DECISION TO DENY APPLICATION OF THE THIRD GENEVA CONVENTION TO THE TALmBAN AND AL QAEDA AND THE MISTREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN ABU GHRAIB* Evan J. Wallacht Our values are non-negotiablefor members of our profession. They are what a professionalmilitary force represents to the world.' Presented at the War Crimes Research Symposium: "Terrorism on Trial" at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, sponsored by the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center, on Friday, October 8, 2004. t Judge, United States Court of International Trade. Adjunct Professor, Law of War, Brooklyn Law School, George Mason Law School, New York Law School. Visiting Professor, Law of War, University of Minster. Webmaster ILOWA Home Page, http://www.lawofwar.org. J.D. Berkeley, 1976, LLB (international law) Cambridge, 1981. The author's interest in the issues here discussed springs, in part, from his service as an Attorney/Advisor in the International Affairs Division of the Office of TJAG during the Persian Gulf War working on, inter alia, prisoner of war and war crimes issues. This article is respectfully dedicated to my mother, Sara Florence Rothaus Wallach. In answer to Cain's question, Genesis 4:9, so many times she told us, "You are your brother's keeper." The author, as a Judge Advocate in the Nevada National Guard from 1989 through 1995, used those words in briefing the 72nd Military Police Company on the laws of war. About the 72nd Military Police Company, the Schlesinger Committee Report noted: When Abu Ghraib opened, the first MP unit was the 72nd MP Company, based in Henderson, Nevada. Known as "the Nevada Company", it has been described by many involved in investigations concerning Abu Ghraib as a very strong unit that kept tight rein on operational procedures at the facility. The company called into question the interrogation practices of the MI Brigade regarding nakedness of detainees. The 72nd MP Company voiced and then filed written objections to these practices. HON. JAMES R. SCHLESINGER, U.S. DEP'T OF DEFENSE, FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT PANEL To REvIEw DOD DETENTION OPERATIONS 74 (Aug. 2004). To those citizen soldiers this article is also dedicated, with pride and respect. The author also wishes to thank Charles Gittings for his excellent web site, Project to Enforce the Geneva Convention (PEGC), devoted to enforcement of the Geneva Conventions. http://pegc.no-ip.info/. His extensive efforts made this research much easier. The views here expressed represent those only of the author and not of any person with whom, or entity with which, he is affiliated. 1LTG ANTHONY R. JONES, U.S. DEP'T OF THE ARMY, AR 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF THE ABU GHRAm PRISON AND 205TH MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BRIGADE 23 (Aug. 23, 2004), http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ library/reports/2004/intell-abu-ghraibarl5-6.pdf (last visited March 19, 2005). CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L. [Vol. 36:541 Those who do battle with monsters must take care that they do not thereby become a monster. Always remember that when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into you. 2 L Introduction Revelations of sexual indecencies committed by United States military personnel against Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison,3 and allegations of other misconduct, followed by repeated leaks of documents related to the decision making process regarding the status of captured enemy combatants, forced the release of at least some additional government documents ("the government memos") relating to the issue. Taken as a whole, these documents, other known facts, and applicable law demonstrate that: 1) the legal, and perhaps, the factual basis for the classification of many Afghan prisoners outside the Third Geneva Convention appears flawed; 2) the treatment of persons entitled to the rights of prisoners of war in ways forbidden by the Third Geneva Convention appears to be neither inadvertent nor incidental; and 3) the application of those coercive treatment methods to the Abu Ghraib prisoners appears to be related to the sexual misconduct by prison guards. This article examines the international law aspects of the determination by the United States government that Guantanamo detainees - and indeed all members of the Taliban, including those held and questioned in Afghanistan without transportation to Guantanamo - are unprotected by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 ("GC3") 4. The government memos and other information released in, for example, press reports and Red Cross reports5 demonstrate that the government based its decision either on a finding that the Taliban was not the de facto government of Afghanistan and therefore its military forces were unprotected by GC3, or on a finding that the Taliban was the de facto government but its forces were unprotected for failure to meet certain purported requirements of Article 4(2) of GC3. The article discusses the requirements of Article 5 of GC3 2 FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, JENSEITS VON GUT AND BOSE, Part IV, at para. 146 (1964) (quotation translated by the author). 3 MG ANTONIO TAGUBA, U.S. DEP'T OF THE ARMY, ARTICLE 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF THE 800TH MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE, Finding of Fact Regarding Part One of the Investigation, at para. 5, available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp- bde.htm (last visited March 19, 2005) [hereinafter Taguba Report] (characterizing them as "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses ...inflicted on several detainees"); see also id. at Conclusion, para. 1 (concluding that they constituted "grave breaches of international law") 4 Third Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135 [hereinafter the Third Geneva Convention]. 5 See discussion infra. at VI.A.2. 2004] THE LOGICAL NEXUS which provides that should any doubt exist as to the status of a captured person, a presumption of POW status continues until a decision to the contrary has been made by a competent tribunal. This article examines government memos and other recent information and demonstrates that reasonable doubt does exist as to at least Taliban6 detainees' status, and that because they have not, to date, been screened by a competent tribunal, they continue to be entitled to treatment as POWs. The article also examines the interrogation methods used to question those detainees and concludes that: 1) as to protected persons, the methods constitute a breach - in some instances a grave one - of the Third Geneva Convention and 2) the determination that POW status did not apply appears to have been driven by a desire to use those interrogation methods to obtain information from battlefield detainees in a manner not permitted by GC3, and then to admit that information in trial proceedings using procedural and evidentiary rules forbidden by GC3. Finally, the article analyzes the development of those interrogation methods, their migration to Iraq, and their application to prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It determines that the sexual misconduct by the Abu Ghraib prison guards, while not necessarily ordered or directed by higher authority, was an evolution reasonably foreseeable from the violations of GC3 already in place. Finally, the article concludes that many of the extraordinary interrogation methods, as applied, may constitute breaches of both domestic and international law, depending on the facts of each detainee's case. II. Background Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade center and the Pentagon, the President of the United States immediately characterized those strikes as "an act of war.",7 The United States took swift military action against the perpetrators; members of al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization. President Bush demanded that Afghanistan's ruling party, the Taliban, turn members of al Qaeda over to 6 Al Qaeda detainees present a different question. Their only potential claim to protected status rests on whether they were, in fact, acting as part of the Taliban when captured. The issue, depending on individualized facts such as the place, time and manner of capture, might or might not present an issue for resolution before a competent tribunal. This article does not examine other arguments which an al Qaeda detainee, who is not a prisoner of war, might assert regarding the legality of interrogation techniques. For examples of such arguments, see, e.g., U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/ html/menu3lb/h_cat39.htm (last visited Mar. 19, 2005) [hereinafter Torture Convention]. 7 Bush Calls Attacks 'Acts of War', BBC NEWS, Sept. 12, 2001, at http://news.bbc.co.uk /hi/english/ world/americas/newsid_1537000/1537534.stm (last visited Mar.
Recommended publications
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States

    In the Supreme Court of the United States

    No. ________ In the Supreme Court of the United States KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID J. CYNAMON THOMAS B. WILNER MATTHEW J. MACLEAN COUNSEL OF RECORD OSMAN HANDOO NEIL H. KOSLOWE PILLSBURY WINTHROP AMANDA E. SHAFER SHAW PITTMAN LLP SHERI L. SHEPHERD 2300 N Street, N.W. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Washington, DC 20037 801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 202-663-8000 Washington, DC 20004 202-508-8000 GITANJALI GUTIERREZ J. WELLS DIXON GEORGE BRENT MICKUM IV SHAYANA KADIDAL SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH CENTER FOR 1350 “I” Street N.W. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20005 666 Broadway, 7th Floor 202-898-5800 New York, NY 10012 212-614-6438 Counsel for Petitioners Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover JOSEPH MARGULIES JOHN J. GIBBONS MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY GIBBONS P.C. LAW SCHOOL One Gateway Center 357 East Chicago Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 Chicago, IL 60611 973-596-4500 312-503-0890 MARK S. SULLIVAN BAHER AZMY CHRISTOPHER G. KARAGHEUZOFF SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 833 McCarter Highway 250 Park Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 New York, NY 10177 973-642-8700 212-415-9200 DAVID H. REMES MARC D. FALKOFF COVINGTON & BURLING COLLEGE OF LAW 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. NORTHERN ILLINOIS Washington, DC 20004 UNIVERSITY 202-662-5212 DeKalb, IL 60115 815-753-0660 PAMELA CHEPIGA SCOTT SULLIVAN ANDREW MATHESON DEREK JINKS KAREN LEE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SARAH HAVENS SCHOOL OF LAW ALLEN & OVERY LLP RULE OF LAW IN WARTIME 1221 Avenue of the Americas PROGRAM New York, NY 10020 727 E.
  • Executive Detention

    Executive Detention

    NYSBA REPORT ON EXECUTIVE DETENTION, HABEAS CORPUS AND THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION’S COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS MAY 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.............................................................................. 1 A. The Guantanamo Detainees....................................................................... 2 B. Report Summary ........................................................................................ 7 I. HISTORY OF HABEAS CORPUS..................................................................... 12 A. The Origins of Habeas Corpus: England ................................................. 12 B. Extra-Territorial Application of Habeas Corpus at Common Law.......... 15 C. Early American Habeas Law ................................................................... 17 D. Early American Extension of Habeas Corpus to Aliens and Alien Enemy Combatants .................................................................................. 20 E. American Suspension of Habeas Corpus................................................. 23 F. World War II and the Extension of Habeas Corpus to Enemy Aliens ....................................................................................................... 28 G. Relevant Post-World War II Habeas Developments ............................... 33 H. Adequate and Effective Habeas Substitute.............................................. 37 II. LAWS OF WAR REGARDING ENEMY COMBATANTS PRE- SEPTEMBER 11TH ...........................................................................................
  • Retired Military Officers in Support of Petitioners

    Retired Military Officers in Support of Petitioners

    Nos. 03-334, 03-343 In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ SHAFIQ RASUL, ET AL., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., Respondents. __________ FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF RETIRED MILITARY OFFICERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS MIRNA ADJAMI JAME S C. SCHROEDER Midwest Immigrant and Counsel of Record Human Rights Center GARY A. ISAAC 208 South LaSalle St. STEPHEN J. KANE Chicago, IL 60603 JON M. JUENGER (312) 660-1330 Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP 190 South LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 782-0600 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ............1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................2 ARGUMENT .............................3 I. The United States Has Played A Leading Role In Developing International Standards To Safeguard The Rights Of Captured Prisoners. 3 II. The Geneva Conventions And U.S. Military Regulations Implementing The Conventions Require That A Competent Tribunal Determine The Status Of Captured Prisoners. ..........6 III. These Cases Raise Issues Of Extraordinary Significance .........................8 A. The Judicial Branch Has A Duty To Act As A Check On The Executive Branch, Even In Wartime ..................8 B. Failure To Provide Any Judicial Review Of The Government’s Actions Could Have Grave Consequences For U.S. Military Forces Captured In Future Conflicts ..... 11 CONCLUSION ........................... 20 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Brown v. United States, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 110 (1814) .............................. 10 Chandler v.
  • THE ARMY LAWYER Headquarters, Department of the Army

    THE ARMY LAWYER Headquarters, Department of the Army

    THE ARMY LAWYER Headquarters, Department of the Army Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-366 November 2003 Articles Military Commissions: Trying American Justice Kevin J. Barry, Captain (Ret.), U.S. Coast Guard Why Military Commissions Are the Proper Forum and Why Terrorists Will Have “Full and Fair” Trials: A Rebuttal to Military Commissions: Trying American Justice Colonel Frederic L. Borch, III Editorial Comment: A Response to Why Military Commissions Are the Proper Forum and Why Terrorists Will Have “Full and Fair” Trials Kevin J. Barry, Captain (Ret.), U.S. Coast Guard Afghanistan, Quirin, and Uchiyama: Does the Sauce Suit the Gander Evan J. Wallach Note from the Field Legal Cultures Clash in Iraq Lieutenant Colonel Craig T. Trebilcock The Art of Trial Advocacy Preparing the Mind, Body, and Voice Lieutenant Colonel David H. Robertson, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, U.S. Army CLE News Current Materials of Interest Editor’s Note An article in our April/May 2003 Criminal Law Symposium issue, Moving Toward the Apex: New Developments in Military Jurisdiction, discussed the recent ACCA and CAAF opinions in United States v. Sergeant Keith Brevard. These opinions deferred to findings the trial court made by a preponderance of the evidence to resolve a motion to dismiss, specifically that the accused obtained and presented forged documents to procure a fraudulent discharge. Since the publication of these opinions, the court-matial reached the ultimate issue of the guilt of the accused on remand. The court-martial acquitted the accused of fraudulent separation and dismissed the other charges for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Interrogation, Detention, and Torture DEBORAH N

    Interrogation, Detention, and Torture DEBORAH N

    Finding Effective Constraints on Executive Power: Interrogation, Detention, and Torture DEBORAH N. PEARLSTEIN* INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1255 I. EXECUTIVE POLICY AND PRACTICE: COERCIVE INTERROGATION AND T O RTU RE ....................................................................................................1257 A. Vague or Unlawful Guidance................................................................ 1259 B. Inaction .................................................................................................1268 C. Resources, Training, and a Plan........................................................... 1271 II. ExECuTrVE LIMITs: FINDING CONSTRAINTS THAT WORK ...........................1273 A. The ProfessionalM ilitary...................................................................... 1274 B. The Public Oversight Organizationsof Civil Society ............................1279 C. Activist Federal Courts .........................................................................1288 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................1295 INTRODUCTION While the courts continue to debate the limits of inherent executive power under the Federal Constitution, the past several years have taught us important lessons about how and to what extent constitutional and sub-constitutional constraints may effectively check the broadest assertions of executive power. Following the publication
  • Detainees at Guantanamo Bay

    Detainees at Guantanamo Bay

    Order Code RS22173 Updated July 20, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Detainees at Guantanamo Bay name redacted Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear legal challenges on behalf of more than 500 persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in connection with the war against terrorism, the Pentagon established administrative hearings, called “Combatant Status Review Tribunals” (CSRTs), to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants. This report provides an overview of the CSRT procedures and summarizes court cases related to the detentions and the use of military commissions. The relevant Supreme Court rulings are discussed in CRS Report RS21884, The Supreme Court and Detainees in the War on Terrorism: Summary and Analysis. This report will be updated as events warrant. In Rasul v. Bush,124 S.Ct. 2686 (2004), a divided Supreme Court declared that “a state of war is not a blank check for the president”and ruled that persons deemed “enemy combatants” have the right to challenge their detention before a judge or other “neutral decision-maker.” The decision reversed the holding of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had agreed with the Bush Administration that no U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus by or on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens and are detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States. Lawyers have filed more than a dozen petitions on behalf of some 60 detainees in the District Court for the District of Columbia, where judges have reached opposing conclusions as to whether the detainees have any enforceable rights to challenge their treatment and detention.
  • The Abu Ghraib Convictions: a Miscarriage of Justice

    The Abu Ghraib Convictions: a Miscarriage of Justice

    Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal Volume 32 Article 4 9-1-2013 The Abu Ghraib Convictions: A Miscarriage of Justice Robert Bejesky Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bpilj Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Robert Bejesky, The Abu Ghraib Convictions: A Miscarriage of Justice, 32 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 103 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bpilj/vol32/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ABU GHRAIB CONVICTIONS: A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ROBERT BEJESKYt I. INTRODUCTION ..................... ..... 104 II. IRAQI DETENTIONS ...............................107 A. Dragnet Detentions During the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.........................107 B. Legal Authority to Detain .............. ..... 111 C. The Abuse at Abu Ghraib .................... 116 D. Chain of Command at Abu Ghraib ..... ........ 119 III. BASIS FOR CRIMINAL CULPABILITY ..... ..... 138 A. Chain of Command ....................... 138 B. Systemic Influences ....................... 140 C. Reduced Rights of Military Personnel and Obedience to Authority ................ ..... 143 D. Interrogator Directives ................ ....
  • Nuremberg Icj Timeline 1474-1868

    Nuremberg Icj Timeline 1474-1868

    NUREMBERG ICJ TIMELINE 1474-1868 1474 Trial of Peter von Hagenbach In connection with offenses committed while governing ter- ritory in the Upper Alsace region on behalf of the Duke of 1625 Hugo Grotius Publishes On the Law of Burgundy, Peter von Hagenbach is tried and sentenced to death War and Peace by an ad hoc tribunal of twenty-eight judges representing differ- ent local polities. The crimes charged, including murder, mass Dutch jurist and philosopher Hugo Grotius, one of the principal rape and the planned extermination of the citizens of Breisach, founders of international law with such works as Mare Liberum are characterized by the prosecution as “trampling under foot (On the Freedom of the Seas), publishes De Jure Belli ac Pacis the laws of God and man.” Considered history’s first interna- (On the Law of War and Peace). Considered his masterpiece, tional war crimes trial, it is noted for rejecting the defense of the book elucidates and secularizes the topic of just war, includ- superior orders and introducing an embryonic version of crimes ing analysis of belligerent status, adequate grounds for initiating against humanity. war and procedures to be followed in the inception, conduct, and conclusion of war. 1758 Emerich de Vattel Lays Foundation for Formulating Crime of Aggression In his seminal treatise The Law of Nations, Swiss jurist Emerich de Vattel alludes to the great guilt of a sovereign who under- 1815 Declaration Relative to the Universal takes an “unjust war” because he is “chargeable with all the Abolition of the Slave Trade evils, all the horrors of the war: all the effusion of blood, the The first international instrument to condemn slavery, the desolation of families, the rapine, the acts of violence, the rav- Declaration Relative to the Universal Abolition of the Slave ages, the conflagrations, are his works and his crimes .
  • Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

    Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

    THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 AUGUST 12 OF CONVENTIONS THE GENEVA THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 0173/002 05.2010 10,000 ICRC Mission The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance. The ICRC also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles. Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the Geneva Conventions and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It directs and coordinates the international activities conducted by the Movement in armed conflicts and other situations of violence. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 1949 1 Contents Preliminary remarks .......................................................................................................... 19 GENEVA CONVENTION FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE WOUNDED AND SICK IN ARMED FORCES IN THE FIELD OF 12 AUGUST 1949 CHAPTER I General Provisions ....................................................................................................... 35 Article 1 Respect for the Convention ..................................................................... 35 Article 2 Application of the Convention ................................................................ 35 Article 3 Conflicts not of an international
  • Corporate Actors: the Legal Status of Mercenaries in Armed Conflict Katherine Fallah Katherine Fallah Is Ph.D

    Corporate Actors: the Legal Status of Mercenaries in Armed Conflict Katherine Fallah Katherine Fallah Is Ph.D

    Volume 88 Number 863 September 2006 Corporate actors: the legal status of mercenaries in armed conflict Katherine Fallah Katherine Fallah is Ph.D. candidate at the University of Sydney, presently working as a Research Associate to the Judges of the Federal Court of Australia. Abstract Corporate actors are taking on an increasingly significant role in the prosecution of modern warfare. Traditionally, an analysis of the law applicable to corporate actors in armed conflict commences with inquiry into the law as it applies to mercenaries. As such, the rise of the private military industry invites a reconsideration of the conventional approach to mercenaries under international law. This article critically surveys the conventional law as it applies to mercenaries, and considers the extent to which corporate actors might meet the legal definitions of a ‘‘mercenary’’. It demonstrates that even mercenaries receive protection under international humani- tarian law. The debate about the definition and status of mercenaries is not new. It is one which has provoked a polarized response from different groups of nations, with some arguing that mercenary activity should be prohibited outright, and others contending that mercenaries should not receive any differential treatment under international law. In the second half of the twentieth century, objectionsto mercenary activity were grounded in concerns about preserving the right of post-colonial states to self-determination. This approach is reflected in the language adopted by the United Nations in its persistent consideration of the use of mercenaries ‘‘as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise 599 K. Fallah – Corporate actors: the legal status of mercenaries in armed conflict of the right of peoples to self-determination’’.1 Until recently, legal consideration of corporate actors in armed conflict was limited to the question of mercenaries.
  • Black Letter Abuse: the US Legal Response to Torture Since 9/11 James Ross* James Ross Is Legal and Policy Director at Human Rights Watch, New York

    Black Letter Abuse: the US Legal Response to Torture Since 9/11 James Ross* James Ross Is Legal and Policy Director at Human Rights Watch, New York

    Volume 89 Number 867 September 2007 Black letter abuse: the US legal response to torture since 9/11 James Ross* James Ross is Legal and Policy Director at Human Rights Watch, New York. Abstract The use of torture by the US armed forces and the CIA was not limited to ‘‘a few bad apples’’ at Abu Ghraib but encompassed a broader range of practices, including rendition to third countries and secret ‘‘black sites’’, that the US administration deemed permissible under US and international law. This article explores the various legal avenues pursued by the administration to justify and maintain its coercive interrogation programme, and the response by Congress and the courts. Much of the public debate concerned defining and redefining torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. While US laws defining torture have moved closer to international standards, they have also effectively shut out those seeking redress for mistreatment from bringing their cases before the courts and protect those responsible from prosecution. I. Introduction: revelations of torture Allegations of torture by US personnel in the ‘‘global war on terror’’ only gained notoriety after photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were broadcast on US television in April 2004. Prior to the mass dissemination of these disturbing images, reports in the media and in the publications of human rights organizations of torture and other mistreatment generated little public attention and evidently rang few alarm bells in the Pentagon (Department of Defense). Words did not * Thanks to Nicolette Boehland of Human Rights Watch for her assistance in preparing this article. 561 J.
  • Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols International Humanitarian Law April 2011

    Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols International Humanitarian Law April 2011

    Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols International Humanitarian Law April 2011 Overview: Protecting the Byzantine Empire and the Lieber Code The Red Cross Vulnerable in War used during the United States Civil War. and International International humanitarian law (IHL) is The development of modern Humanitarian Law a set of rules that seek for humanitarian international humanitarian law is The Red Cross and the Geneva reasons to limit the effects of armed credited to the efforts of 19th century Conventions were born when Henry conflict. IHL protects persons who are Swiss businessman Henry Dunant. In Dunant witnessed the devastating not or who are no longer participating in 1859, Dunant witnessed the aftermath consequences of war at a battlefield hostilities and it restricts the means and in Italy. In the aftermath of that battle, of a bloody battle between French methods of warfare. IHL is also known Dunant argued successfully for the and Austrian armies in Solferino, Italy. as the law of war and the law of armed creation of a civilian relief corps to The departing armies left a battlefield respond to human suffering during conflict. littered with wounded and dying men. conflict, and for rules to set limits on A major part of international Despite Dunant’s valiant efforts to how war is waged. humanitarian law is contained in the mobilize aid for the soldiers, thousands Inspired in part by her work in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 that died. Civil War, Clara Barton would later have been adopted by all nations in found the American Red Cross and In “A Memory of Solferino,” his book also advocate for the U.S.