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
Parallel Application of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: An Examination of the Debate
This article provides a critical examination of the debate over the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. On the question surrounding the very fact of co-application, it appears that the dominant view supports the co-applicability of the two legal regimes. Opinion is however far from settled on the scope of application of international human rights law, especially insofar as it relates to the issue of extra-territorial applicability. The approach taken in the event of co-applying the two frameworks to specific circumstances, and whether and how one is to use the doctrine of lex specialis, reveals further questions in need of coherent answers. Finally, there remain particular areas in which the co-application faces challenges that must be surmounted, if it is to prove a useful approach. These include the issues of the so-called “war on terror,” the distinction between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello, non-international armed conflicts, and more. Whilst the co-application of the two regimes is now almost undisputed, it appears therefore that obstacles remain that must be dealt with in order for the relationship of the regimes to be of a fully harmonious nature.
The Gulf War 1990-91 in International and English Law
Lady Hazel Fox, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, David Garratt, Royal Air Force (Legal Branch), Christopher Greenwood, Magdalene College, Cambridge, Francoise Hampson, University of Essex, Anthony H Hudson, University of Liverpool, Shaun Lyons, RN, Chief Naval Judge Advocate, Hilaire McCoubrey, University of Nottingham, Michael Meyer, British Red Cross, Gordon Risius, Army Legal Services, Adam Roberts FBA, University of Oxford, Peter Rowe, University of Liverpool, David Travers, University of Lancaster, Bernadette Walsh, Formerly University of Liverpool, Marc Weller, University of Cambridge