The Laws of War in the War on Terror
The laws of war - the parts of international law explicitly applicable in armed conflict - have a major bearing on the "war on terror" proclaimed and initiated by the US following the attacks of 11 September 2001. They address a range of critical issues that perennially arise in campaigns against terrorist movements, including discrimination in targeting, protection of civilians, and status and treatment of prisoners. The laws of war have a scope of application that is not limited to wars between recognized States. The nature of the opposition, point to potential problems in the application of the laws of war in counter-terrorist operations. Although the great majority of prisoners taken in war viewed as qualifying for prisoner-of-war (PoW) status, in a counter-terrorist war, as in other armed conflicts, there are likely individuals and even whole classes of prisoner who do not meet the treaty-defined criteria for such status. Keywords:armed conflicts; laws of war; prisoner-of-war (PoW); terrorist; war on terror
International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and Fragmentation of International Law
International tribunals and legal scholars have been considering the relationship between International Humanitarian Law (‘IHL’) and International Human Rights Law (‘IHRL’) for a number of years.1 The International Court of Justice famously or infamously (depending on your perspective) considered their relationship in its Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion in 1996.2 The Court concluded that while IHRL did apply in times of armed conflict, when it came to the prohibition of arbitrarily taking human life in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, the content of that prohibition had to be found in the lex specialis of IHL.
The Internet and the Changing Beijing-Taipei Relations: Toward Unification or Fragmentation?
Information and its technologies facilitate the exercise of what has been called “soft power,” a concept that differentiates information from the conventional dimensions of “hard power,” which is mainly associated with military force and economic influence. Soft power, according to Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, means that “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. In this sense it is just as important to set the agenda in world politics and attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or use of military or economic weapons.”1