COUNTERINSURGENCY WARFARE The Interplay Between the Legal Paradigms of Law Enforcement and the Conduct of Hostilities Author: Melina Gayle Mouris ANR: 685816 - SNR: 1266007 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. N.M. Rajkovic LLM International Law and Global Governance Department European and International Public Law Faculty of Law, Tilburg University The Netherlands, December 2019 P a g e | 1 “THE FIRST THING THAT MUST BE APPARENT WHEN CONTEMPLATING THE SORT OF ACTION WHICH A GOVERNMENT FACING INSURGENCY SHOULD TAKE, IS THAT THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS A PURELY MILITARY SOLUTION BECAUSE INSURGENCY IS NOT PRIMARILY A MILITARY ACTIVITY.” ~ General Sir Frank Kitson1 ~ 1 Kitson 1977, p. 283. P a g e | 2 P a g e | 3 P a g e | 4 ABSTRACT The wars fought nowadays cannot be compared with the traditional ways of warfare. Conflicts occur in smaller scale and among the population within urban areas. 2 In order to quell insurgencies, States have come to realize the need for a population centered approach. 3 Counterinsurgency is a military tactic of fighting insurgencies where it is of utmost importance to win the heart of the population. The specific characteristics inherent to modern-day insurgencies cause difficulties with regard to the applicable rules of international law. This research therefore examines the interplay between the law enforcement paradigm and the conduct of hostilities paradigm in the context of counterinsurgency operations. The counterinsurgency operation performed by the International Security Force Afghanistan offers an illustrative example of the interplay between the two paradigms from a practical perspective. Warfare – Counterinsurgency – Law Enforcement and the Conduct of Hostilities – International Human Rights Law and International Human Rights Law – International Security Force Afghanistan 2 Banks 2013, p. 10. 3 Pouw 2013, p. 2. P a g e | 5 PREFACE This master thesis is the end result of many years of endeavor and forms the final requirement of the Master International Law and Global Governance. Conducting my studies, doing an internship at the juridical department of the Dutch Ministry of Defense and the writing of my master thesis has been a period in which I have gained a better perspective in my future career path. Both research and the law of war have fascinated me for several years and the last few months have only confirmed this interest. This master thesis has certainly not been written without guidance. First and foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude towards my supervisor, prof. dr. Rajkovic, who has been very instrumental. His support, sympathetic assistance and valuable feedback have helped me tremendously in completing my thesis. My sincere thanks also goes to Lieutenant Colonel Pouw for his time and effort in discussing the subject of this thesis and explaining his dissertation on which this thesis builds upon. I realize that it is not self-evident for him to invest valuable time in my research and I am therefore very grateful for his help. Furthermore, I want to extend my love and gratitude to my parents for their unconditional support. I proudly dedicate this master thesis to them. Also many thanks to my partner and my friends for their useful feedback and encouragement, especially in the stressful times. Melina Mouris, Tilburg, December 2019 P a g e | 6 CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 5 List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. 8 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1. The problem ....................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2. Research purpose and research questions ........................................................................................ 13 1.3. Significance of the research ............................................................................................................... 13 1.4. Methodology and overview ............................................................................................................... 15 2. Counterinsurgency Warfare ............................................................................................................ 18 2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 18 2.2. Insurgency .......................................................................................................................................... 18 2.2.1. The asymmetry .............................................................................................................................. 20 2.3. Counterinsurgency ............................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.1. Classical counterinsurgency ........................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2. Contemporary counterinsurgency ................................................................................................. 24 2.3.3. Types of counterinsurgency operations ........................................................................................ 25 2.4. Counterinsurgency and counterterrorism ......................................................................................... 26 2.5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 27 3. The Legal Paradigms ....................................................................................................................... 29 3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 29 3.2. IHRL and IHL ....................................................................................................................................... 29 3.3. The two legal paradigms .................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1. The legal paradigm of law enforcement ........................................................................................ 31 3.3.2. The legal paradigm of the conduct of hostilities............................................................................ 32 3.3.3. The primary differences ................................................................................................................. 33 3.3.3.1. The principle of necessity .............................................................................................................. 34 3.3.3.2. The principle of proportionality ..................................................................................................... 34 P a g e | 7 3.3.3.3. The principle of precaution ............................................................................................................ 35 3.4. Determining the parameters ............................................................................................................. 36 3.4.1. Status, function or conduct ............................................................................................................ 36 3.4.2. Degree of control and intensity of violence ................................................................................... 38 3.5. The synergy between the legal paradigms ........................................................................................ 39 3.5.1. Law enforcement as the default applicable paradigm .................................................................. 39 3.5.2. The conduct of hostilities as the prevailing paradigm ................................................................... 41 3.6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 42 4. ISAF and the Use of Force ................................................................................................................ 45 4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 45 4.2. ISAF and the conflict in Afghanistan .................................................................................................. 45 4.3. The principle of distinction ................................................................................................................ 48 4.3.1. Distinguishing insurgents from the civilian population ................................................................. 48 4.3.2. Insurgents and the use of civilian objects ...................................................................................... 49 4.3.3. Minimum use of force .................................................................................................................... 50 4.4. The principle of proportionality ........................................................................................................