Acting as a Sovereign versus Acting as a Belligerent
In many legal disputes, the selection of one body of law rather than another is outcome-determinative. The situation with targeted killings is no different. Although there are contrary impulses at the margins, in the main a human rights paradigm is more likely to restrict such operations while a law of war paradigm is more likely to sanction it. But the question is when each body of law applies, a question that is not explicitly addressed by either body. By looking at the underlying object and purpose of each body of law, however, an account of their respective spheres becomes apparent. This essay defends the claim that the dividing line is represented by a state acting as a sovereign as opposed to acting as a belligerent. In the former situation, the state acts as a ruler over its subjects and its activities are constrained by human rights law. In contrast, when the state acts as a belligerent during armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law regulates its actions. This essay provides a framework to determine when the state is acting in one mode rather than another: acting as a sovereign involves an unequal relationship (ruler-to-ruled), while belligerency is characterized by two, formally co-equal collectives facing each other in battle. At the closing stage of an armed conflict, the relationship of belligerency may give way to sovereignty, a transition point that is often characterized by the law of occupation. The argument is both normative and descriptive in the sense that the two bodies of law already embody these normative distinctions; therefore their respective application is currently delimited by these existing principles.
Has ‘Justice Been Done’? The Legality of Bin Laden’s Killing Under International Law
The killing of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces on 2 May 2011 raises several questions of international law with regard to the legality of this particular operation and the permissibility of targeted killings of international terrorists in general. In this paper it will be argued, on the basis of an analysis of the applicable international law, that the killing of bin Laden cannot be justified under international humanitarian law because there is no armed conflict between the US and Al-Qaida. Even if one were to assume the existence of such an armed conflict, bin Laden’s killing would only have been lawful if Al-Qaida were to be considered an organized armed group within the meaning of international humanitarian law and bin Laden could have been killed qua membership in this group. Otherwise, his killing could only have been lawful if he was (still) taking a direct part in hostilities. In any case, in the absence of an armed conflict, under the applicable legal regime of peacetime the killing could only be justified in a situation of self-defence or an immediate danger for others. As this situation did apparently not exist, the killing of bin Laden amounted to an extra-judicial execution. On another note, the operation may also have violated international law by failing to respect Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty. Ultimately, this depends on the recognition of a (pre-emptive) right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, in particular taking into account the immediacy criterion.
Effect of superficial gas velocity on the particle temperature distribution in a fluidized bed with heat production
The heat transfer behavior of particles and gas in an olefin polymerization fluidized bed was numerically analyzed using an in-house developed 3-D computational fluid dynamics discrete element model (CFD-DEM). First the implementation of the model was verified by comparing simulation results with analytical results. A constant volumetric heat production rate was implemented in the particle energy equation to mimic the heat production due to the polymerization reaction. It was found that the probability density function (PDF) of the particle temperature becomes more homogeneous with increasing superficial gas velocity. Furthermore, instantaneous snapshots of the thermal driving force (the difference between the single particle temperature and bed-average gas temperature, Tp− ) for different heat production rates provide detailed insight in the particle temperature distribution inside the fluidized bed. The time- and bed-averaged particle convective heat transfer coefficient, which was calculated by Gunn׳s correlation, was found to be independent of the superficial gas velocity. This is explained by the fact that the relative velocity of gas and particles in the emulsion phase, where most of the particles and gas interact, is hardly influenced when increasing the gas superficial velocity. From the spatial distribution of Nusselt number, it becomes apparent that the high heat transfer regions are found in the wake of rising bubbles, whereas low heat transfer rates are found in the clouds of the bubbles.