Government S-1740 International Law Summer 2006 Humanitarian Intervention, Warfighting and the Laws of War

Outline I. What is Humanitarian Intervention? II. Intervening to protect nationals III. Intervening to protect non-nationals IV. Just Conduct of War Principles and codification of jus in bellum The Laws Of and In War Post-911

What is humanitarian intervention? “The prerogative of a foreign actor (state, a coalition of states, international organization) to act within the territorial jurisdiction of a state to ameliorate or terminate violations of internationally recognized human rights.” Rwanda Refugee Camp

The Problem of Consensus Content of international human rights? When are rights threatened? Who decides? The “international community”, coalitions, or individual states? What mode of intervention? What is the role for military force?

Dilemmas for International Law State Sovereignty Prohibition on the Use of Force Human Rights

Unilateral Force to Protect Nationals Humanitarian intervention to protect own nationals Hostage-taking and Rescue Missions American Hostages in Tehran, 1979

Unilateral Force to Protect Non-Nationals No treaty law exists at all for unilateral humanitarian intervention on behalf of non-nationals. Evolving or established right under Customary International Law?

Humanitarian Intervention and the UN Charter Article 39 - Security Council authority to “decide what matters shall be taken to restore international peace and security.” Connection between fundamental human rights and international peace and security?

Iraq and the Kurds (1991) Established link between internal repression and international peace and security Significant opposition within the Council No authorization to use force (Res. 688)

Haiti: Intervention to Support Democracy (1993-1995) Military ouster of an elected regime SC votes sanctions (Res 841) and blockade (Res 875) Justification: Threats to international peace and security Humanitarian concerns Illegitimacy of overthrow

Somalia (1992): Intervening in Complex Emergencies SC authorized intervention under Chapter VII Authorized “all necessary means” to create a safe environment for aid delivery 30,000 troops deployed

NATO Bombing in Kosovo (1998-1999): Intervention by a Regional Organization Security Council Res. 1199 NATO bombing campaign Justification: Enforcement action? Collective self-defense? Humanitarian intervention?

A“Just” Forceful Intervention? Just War Doctrine: Competent Authority Just Cause Right Intention Proportionality of Response Principles of humanitarian intervention: Security Council? General Assembly? Regional organization? Halt human suffering Motive: humanitarian; “clean hands” Intervention or force employed commensurate with humanitarian objective

Issues of Just War Fighting Whenever an armed conflict breaks out, certain questions arise: Who, or what, is "the enemy"? What happens to treaties between warring states? What happens to enemy property? Who is a combatant, and who is not? How are civilian non-combatants to be treated? When does a soldier cease to be a combatant? What limits does international law place on the way states can fight? What is a war crime, and who is responsible?

Principles of Just Warfighting Proportionality - of military means to political ends.

Legal definitions of proportionality Article 22, §2, Chapter 1 of the Hague Rules of 1907: "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.“ Article 35(1) of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Section 1: "In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited."

Principles of Just Warfighting Proportionality Discrimination

Discrimination Direct intentional attacks on non-combatants and non-military targets are prohibited. Is discrimination possible when modern war involves total mobilization of a society? Commingling of military targets with population centers?

Principles of Just Warfighting Proportionality Discrimination Prohibited Means

Prohibited Means Means that are bad in themselves (malum in se) Means that are bad because they are prohibited (malum in prohibitum) Inhumane Weapons Environmental Warfare Weapons of Mass Destruction Nuclear Weapons?

Codifying the Laws of War Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 Geneva “Red Cross” Conventions of 1949 Geneva Additional Protocols of 1977

Geneva Conventions of 1949 Convention on Wounded and Sick Members of the Armed Forces in the Field Convention on Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked at Sea Convention on Prisoners of War Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Geneva Additional Protocols of 1977 Focus is on role of non-combatants Operations against non-military targets prohibited Non-combatants defined Indiscriminate military activity prohibited Variety of other actions prohibited

POW Status Criteria Art 4(A) of Geneva Convention on POWs: Members of armed forces that are parties to a conflict Members of militias or other forces belonging to one of the parties, if they Are commanded by some one responsible for subordinates Have a fixed sign recognizable from a distance Carry arms openly Conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Current U.S. Policy Toward Prisoners of War How are current POWs treated? Afghanistan: classified as “detainees of war” or “unlawful combatants” Iraq: captured Iraqis are being treated as POWs

Are they POWs? NO The forces in Afghanistan failed to fulfil the requirements Rumsfeld: The detainees are “committed terrorists” and therefore not entitled to POW status YES The Conventions don’t require fulfilment of the four criteria in a particular way – therefore, they are POWs POW status does not depend on the grace of the winning belligerent

Determination of POW status Article 5: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.” Admin response: This is a new war, and the old rules can’t apply exactly.

Military Commissions? Long detentions a “security necessity”? Detainees can challenge detainment in U.S. Courts (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld & Rasul v. Bush - 2004) Detainee Treatment Act (Dec 2005) Hamdan v Rumsfeld (June 2006) What’s to become of the detainees?