This place could be an empty café in Paris where a targetable individual is making arrangements for a weapons airdrop back where he is fighting or it could be on a dark street corner in Morocco where a targetable individual is obtaining a zip-drive with the license place numbers and vehicle descriptions of his enemy’s top commanders. In this type of NIAC, many have argued that the law of armed conflict (LOAC) can follow, like a cloud overhead, targetable individuals to another territory where there are no indications that a NIAC is taking place. Through conversations between the two of us, and conversations we have had with others, our sense is that looking at public international law generally, as opposed to focusing separately on targetability, other jus in bello constraints, imminence and self-defense, and human rights, illustrates the myriad dilemmas, tensions, and consequences that such a borderless notion of NIAC would raise.īy way of background, a “transnational NIAC” is the term-of-art for a NIAC where hostilities cross international borders and/or where NIAC targetable individuals cross international borders. This is the first in a two-part series of postings that attempt to tease out how different international law regimes (specifically the law of armed conflict, the law of self-defense, and international human rights law) interact in transnational non-international armed conflicts (NIACs).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |