Monday, September 29, 2014
‘New Battlefields, Old Laws’ – Debate on the Future of the 2001 AUMF
Please click on the link below to see this great post about 'New Battlefields, Old Laws' which was recently published on Opinio Juris.
Friday, January 17, 2014
PART II – Dershowitz Analyzed: An Insufficiently Broad Condemnation of a Complicated and Malleable Regime
This post is the second of a three part series regarding
Alan Dershowitz’s recent criticism of international law (to see his full
remarks, please use the link in the last blog post). During this entry I intend
to concentrate on some of Dershowitz’s observations on international law, both
stated and implied, with a particular focus on their relevance to IHL. This
response will address certain legal and philosophical issues expansive enough
for many scholars to devote lifetimes too. I only attempt to scratch the
surface on what I hope will continue to be a proactive, healthy and lengthy
debate on these subjects.
Dershowitz aptly notes that rationality must be understood
as a product of perspective within a given context. However, this does not mean
that certain ethical concerns in the name of humanity cannot be codified,
ratified and generally implemented. The vast majority of the world’s nations
have come together to create and advance numerous treaties and prohibitions
delineating the use of force in conflict. The United Nations and Geneva
Conventions are the best representations of this universal attempt to protect
and advance humanitarian goals. Specifically, nearly every nation has agreed to
adhere to the foundational principles of IHL: distinction, necessity,
proportionality, and humanity. As Dershowitz knows well as a distinguished
defense attorney, just because a small, even dangerous minority may not follow
the law, it does not mean that the law itself has failed.
Nevertheless ethical norms that help define humanitarian
aims are constantly changing. In this regard international law, unlike other
legal constructs that may improperly constrain progressive applications due to
their structural rigidity, is designed to recognize and usurp customary
modifications. Along with ethical changes, technological advancement has
completely altered the way war is both conceived and decided. Consequently who is most affected by war has changed dramatically. Today, the vast majority of
casualties during armed conflict are civilian. It is not only logical; it is
necessary for IHL to adjust to this reality in order to maintain relevance.
Dershowitz however, attacks this flexibility, arguing that
international law has turned into a left-wing academic exercise in fantasy. This
is, of course, patently false. Dershowitz is insinuating that a dichotomy
exists between damage to the enemy
and protection of civilians. Yet IHL
as well as most of its scholars and practitioners do not see these concerns as
contradictory or mutually exclusive. Additionally, IHL is embraced and advanced
by almost every organized military in the world – codified in military handbooks,
disseminated by military officials, regulated in the field by military advisors
and officers, as well as explored in military institutions of higher learning.
“Rational” operational concerns are both loudly and commonly voiced within
forums aimed at advancing IHL – including our own IHLToday.com. The structure
of IHL not only encourages military and state participation, it requires it.
Dershowitz’s most potent and reasonable critique is that
international law does not necessarily produce the most favorable outcome from
a state’s individual perspective, thus diminishing both its practicality and
value to this state. But is the law of war intended to serve individual states?
If not, whom? This question has been contemplated since pagan antiquity. The
best answer may be a non-answer. International Law’s structure is designed to
preserve life – civilian or combatant. Doing so requires the cooperation of
states (and increasingly non-state actors), international organizations as well
as individuals. International law admittedly prospers when the reciprocity of
its aims are respected by all relevant belligerents. However international
law’s greatest successes have arguably occurred when one party to a conflict
upholds this doctrine despite flagrant violations by its enemy.
International law (IHL included) does not always
provide a clear, practical or even beneficial (by its own stated goals)
comprehension of the law. It is absolutely critical that we choose to address
these situations as soon as possible by shaping IHL’s already pliable structure
to ensure it suits both contemporary norms and conflict reality. Anecdotally, I
fully admit that IHL is far from perfect. I personally acknowledge certain rare
actualities where violating the law of armed conflict as it is currently
appreciated is necessary to uphold its core principles (famously elaborated by
Gabriella Blum). I do not believe that these circumstances warrant IHL’s broad
dismissal or prejudicial condemnation. I believe they warrant dialogue. This is
the very purpose of IHLToday.com. Please continue to follow, share and
participate.
Click image for larger view
Alan Dershowitz – A Broad Critique of International Law
There is nothing quite like an assault on international law
by one of the most renowned lawyers in the world – the Alan Dershowitz. His
public dismissal of international law as “a construct in the mind of a bunch of
left wing academics” occurred during a lecture at the Institute of National
Security Studies in Israel. This lecture which was taped and uploaded to the
Internet has now gone viral -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbzd0QIKACo. I’ve seen it most frequently touted on social-media sites by
self-proclaimed Israel advocates particularly upset about the recent interim deal
the United States made with Iran in Geneva.
Though IHLToday.com deals with international humanitarian
law (IHL) and advancing its operationalization through discourse between
scholars and practitioners, not jus ad bello concerns, I believe
we’d be remiss not to address the recent Dershowitz critiques which have broad
and analogous relevance for IHL. Furthermore I believe his remarks underscore a
great opportunity to advance IHL precisely because jus in bello issues are kept separate by the law itself from modern
jus ad bellum quarrels over preemption
v. prevention.
This and upcoming IHLToday.com posts in response to
Dershowitz’s lecture will be broken into three parts. The first post will
identify and develop Dershowitz’s comments and questions that are specifically
relevant to IHL. The second post will attempt to address these observations
critically. The third post will discuss what strategies and tactics IHL
scholars and practitioners can use to respond to these critiques and advance
IHL.
PART I – The relevance of Dershowitz’s Attack to IHL
Dershowitz’s scolding of international law (in its entirety)
was passionately presented in familiar terms. His line of attack followed this
logical progression: international law is only a “construct in the mind of a
bunch of left-wing academics”; these academics aren’t rational because they are
out of harms way, isolated and misattribute the world as universally good;
consequently this has resulted in international law being both irrational,
“anachronistic” and “never viable”; therefore states (specifically addressing Israel) do not and should not base their
decisions on international law because it may not lead to the outcome best for
them.
I want to address Dershowitz’s argument first from a
theoretical perspective. During the lecture he said, (in reference to the
rationality of Iran) “where one stands is a function of where one sat.” Here
Dershowitz is simply suggesting that we are as humans and thus as nations, a
product of our environment. In relation to international humanitarian law this
stance questions the very notion of universality or what we fondly refer to as
“humanity” and its many erudite variations. Can
IHL truly register, codify and enforce humanitarian principles when said
principles are a matter of perspective and thus not universal?
Dershowitz’s attack on international law is not just
theoretical. It is also categorical. Essential to his argument is that
international law is being formulated by people unequipped to dutifully address
law realistically – i.e. left-wing academics. One could pose that his
assumption is that these academics do not understand the operational concerns
and challenges of states. To accurately assess this position, we must ask: what actors should be entrusted with the task
of universalizing and institutionalizing ethical norms? Furthermore does IHL
philosophically or structurally limit the influence of “certain” people? Should
international law consider a different “distribution” of authority among
decision-makers, academics, and potentially other actors?
Finally Dershowitz mentions that international law does not
necessarily produce the most favorable outcome from a state's perspective –
thus diminishing both its practicality and value. This leads us to questions
surrounding the aim and consequent structure of international humanitarian law.
Whose interest is the law of war intended
to serve? Militaries, civilians, states, humanity… all of these groups
simultaneously? Does international law face the credibility issues expressed and
insinuated by Dershowitz? If international law is really so fatally flawed, is
it in need of a dramatic overhaul? Should it be eliminated entirely? What will
come to replace it?
Click image for larger view
Thursday, October 24, 2013
The Challenges of Determining What is "Excessive"
The principle of proportionality is a fundamental component of IHL, based on the notion that parties to an armed conflict do not have unlimited means in which to exact damage on an enemy. Nonetheless, civilian casualties during conflict are more than an on the ground reality, they are a consequence of a complex and ambiguous legal calculus recognized during hostilities. So how does IHL control excessive casualties? Article 51 (5)(b) of Additional Protocol I places this responsibility on the attacker, justifying resulting incidental civilian casualties and damage only if the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated is greater. Operationally this proportionality calculus has proven problematic. Especially difficult and commonly disputed is whether proportionality must take into account the entire conflict timeframe. This critical uncertainty can pose an incredible strain on governments, militaries and IHL. Furthermore, this ambiguity can result in additional casualties.
The challenges surrounding excessive casualties were discussed at NBOL’s 2013 workshop - The Operationalization of the Law: Enhancing the Symmetry between IHL and Military Operational Art - hosted at the ICT’s 13th World Summit on Counter-Terrorism.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
"Kill v. Capture"
Through a combination of interrelated yet multifarious
factors, the “kill v. capture” debate has developed into one of the hottest
topics related to the operationalization of IHL. These factors include the
exponential development and usage of non-lethal weapons, the intensified effort
of NGOs and IGOs to interpret IHL through the prism of human rights law (HRL),
and the global media’s fascination with the casualties of asymmetric conflict. This was a featured topic at NBOL’s 2013 workshop – The Operationalization of
the Law: Enhancing the Symmetry between IHL and Military Operational Art -
hosted at the ICT’s 13th World Summit on Counter-Terrorism.
Highlighted are two opposing quotes from Mr. Anton Camen of the ICRC delegation in Israel and the Occupied Territories and Lt. Col. (GS) Chris de Cock of the Legal Dept., Belgian Armed Forces.
Please share your perspective on this debate by using our comment section below.
Highlighted are two opposing quotes from Mr. Anton Camen of the ICRC delegation in Israel and the Occupied Territories and Lt. Col. (GS) Chris de Cock of the Legal Dept., Belgian Armed Forces.
Please share your perspective on this debate by using our comment section below.
Click image for larger view
Monday, September 9, 2013
'Operational' Law
This special entry, our first post ever, does not follow the
standard formatting of IHLToday.com. Instead, this excellent single entry from Prof.
Geoffrey S. Corn provides a critical overview of the increasing significance of
international humanitarian law (IHL) and its operationalization, highlighting
both its advantages and disadvantages. His ringing endorsement of our
initiative underscores how we expect to contribute to the advancement of IHL.
Please use our comment section and share your valuable thoughts below.
Click the read more button below to read full opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)