Aspals Reading List - 2010

Military Legal Issues

Return to Home Page
Archive Cases   |  Consultancy Contact  FAQ   | Home Index of Links News Military | News Stories | Quick Links | Next Assignment  |  Reading List  | Search |  Shopping Site Map  | Sounding Board |  War Crimes 

Please pass on information about sources and links which you consider of interest and relevance. Hot links are provided to web sources. The cited references do not signify agreement by Aspals with their content (see the Disclaimer). An item marked **New** means new to the list.

The Lists: See the Aspals Archive     Get Acrobat Reader here, free  Acro Reader Search the Aspals Lists

Bottom of Page  bottom of pageBottom of Page

Last Year's List

Contact Aspals
Date Title Author Reference
2010 Military Manuals, Operational Law and the Regulatory Framework of the Armed Forces Charles Garraway National Military Manuals on the Law of Armed Conflict (Nobuo Hayashi Ed.), FICHL Publication Series No.2 (2008),
at pp.45-53
  (very large file)
The author noted two major setbacks to publishing manuals. First, the constantly changing nature of armed conflict threatens to make the law, as well as the positions adopted by a state in its military manual, quickly obsolete. Second, the growing use of manuals — not just national manuals properly so called but also, and more problematically, lower-level publications — by organisations and courts as evidence of state practice has prompted states to classify their manuals or caveat them with disclaimers. He argued that, ultimately, a national LOAC manual is necessary because it is part of what a state owes to members of its armed forces. Soldiers must make life-and-death decisions swiftly and based on imperfect information, and they must do so in conformity with the law. Since their government asks this of them and threatens to punish them if they fail, they are entitled to know the standard by which they will be judged.   Summary extracted by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

December 2010 Pre-Trial Detention and Control Orders Under British Anti-Terror Legislation Post 9/11: Balancing a Need for Security With the European Convention on Human Rights " An Overview Sascha-Dominik Bachmann and Peter Galvin Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, Vol. 28, No. 1,
at pp.p. 185, 2010
  (abstract and full paper courtesy of SSRN)
Contemporary British anti-terror legislation has been characterised by an extensive use of extra-ordinary detention measures: the Terrorism Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006 contain provisions, which enable the extended pre-charge detention of terror suspects beyond the limits of normal criminal procedure. The now repealed provisions of Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allowed the indefinite detention of foreign national terror suspects on a quasi-judicial basis. Its successor, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, enables the use of Control Orders, effectively a form of house arrest characterised by restrictions on an individual's liberty. In short, these measures have in common the extensive limitation of the individual's right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst the judiciary have curtailed the most abhorrent manifestations of such extraordinary measures, as detailed, the legal framework as it exists today, still raises ECHR compliancy issues. Legal reformation should be sought to end such an impasse by amending at the very least the statutory framework already in place. Ideally anti-terror detention provisions should be brought back within the sphere of criminal law and in compliance with the ECHR.   
Summary by SSRN.Return to TopofPage

November 2010 The Targeting Process Headquarters, Department of the Army FM 3-60 (FM 6-20-10), (US Army Field Manual)
This publication (Field Manual [FM] 3-60, The Targeting Process) describes the targeting process used by the United States Army. The FM 3-60 is descriptive and not prescriptive in nature. This manual has applicability in any theater of operations. The manual offers considerations for commanders and staffers in preparing for challenges with targeting, yet it is flexible enough to adapt to dynamic situation. FM 3-60 replaces FM 6-20-10, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for the Targeting Process. The development and research of FM 3-60 parallels similar ongoing efforts by other Army proponents to develop their own supporting branch doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures for the division, support brigades, brigade combat teams, and subordinate elements.   
Summary by Authors.Return to TopofPage

November 2010 Britain's Strategic Defence and Security Review: Muddling Through A Chatham House Report, by Paul Cornish Access Here
How is Britain's Strategic Defence Review to be judged? Was it a good idea in the first place, or has it been rushed? Most importantly,will it be a reliable guide to future threats and provide value for money? Or shall we just end up muddling through?
Dr Paul Cornish is Carrington Professor of International Security and Head of the International SecurityProgramme at Chatham House.
Summary extracted by Author.Return to TopofPage

October 2010 R2P and the Protection Obligations of Peacekeepers Sabine Hassler Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Volume 1, Number 1, October 2010 , pp. 205-212
Access Here
One concept, an almost endless range of applications. Or so it may seem. Since R2P was first formulated it has attracted attention from all quarters, especially from those who see it imperative to intervene for humanitarian reasons, owing to a humanitarian impulse. For R2P's advocates, the concept ensures that help is provided for the "right" reasons and, at the same time, avoid the stigma that came with humanitarian intervention. For others, it is merely a smokescreen and thus nothing more than new wine in old bottles. As such, R2P is subject to much misinterpretation and misconceptions about its scope and applicability. Thus, its usefulness depends very much on the perspective taken. Although there are potentially positive elements, the concept's development into a norm, despite the best efforts of its advocates to declare it so, is at best doubtful as its parameters remain largely unclear. This is no more apparent than when trying to forcefully marry peacekeeping missions and their protection obligations vis-á-vis civilians and R2P.   
Summary extracted by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

21 October 2010 International Law and the Use of Drones A Chatham House International Law Discussion Group meeting, Speakers: Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell and Prof Michael N. Schmitt Chatham House
A discussion about the legality of the use of drones in international law, in particular with regard to US strikes against persons suspected of ties to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups around the world. The participants included representatives of government, embassies, NGOs, media, academics and practising lawyers. Prof O'Connell argued that the real issue with the use of drones is the firepower they deploy. As a military weapon, they can only be used lawfully on the battlefield, since in law enforcement the use of lethal force is limited to the situations of absolute necessity. Therefore, resort to drones must be compatible with the jus ad bellum (law on resort to force) and the way they are used must be based on international humanitarian law and human rights law. Prof Schmitt argued that it is important that we carefully distinguish between two different bodies of law — the jus ad bellum which regulates when states are permitted to use force, and the jus in bello which governs how that force should be used once an armed conflict exists. Although the ICJ appears to have rejected the notion that the right to self-defence arises against an armed attack by a nonstate actor, the decisions were highly controversial and widely criticized. Indeed, strong dissenting opinions correctly pointed out that not only was the Court ignoring post 9/11 state practice, but that there was nothing in the text of the Article 51 which would indicate that an armed attack cannot be launched by a nonstate actor. With regard to the use of drones, it is generally agreed that operations may be launched into the territory of another state with that state's consent, albeit with limits. It is legally more problematic when the cross border operation is conducted without the territorial state's consent. In such cases, it is necessary to balance two competing legal rights - territorial integrity and self-defence. The summary paper also contains a useful discussion on pre-emptive force.   
Summary extracted by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

October 2010 Strategy in Austerity The Security and Defence of the United Kingdom A Chatham House Report, by Paul Cornish Chatham House
Shortly after the May 2010 general election the coalition government embarked upon a review of the United Kingdom's security and defence strategy. The decision to begin the review so promptly was driven by the knowledge that security and defence were in the midst of a deep and long-term financial crisis, by an awareness of the stresses caused by recent and current operational commitments and by the sense that the national strategic framework was beginning to unravel. The culmination of this strategy review is the publication of a government White Paper in October 2010. With no more than six months to prepare and publish the White Paper, the 2010 strategy review was conducted at a very fast pace. While the brisk schedule largely precluded a wideranging discussion of ideas and options, involving research institutes, independent analysts and others outside government, there was no shortage of debate over the possible effect of the review on the UK armed forces. The author reviews the 2010 strategy review.
Dr Paul Cornish is Carrington Professor of International Security and Head of the International Security Programme at Chatham House.
Summary extracted by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

October 2010 Comparative Analysis Of Preliminary Investigation Systems In Respect Of Alleged Violations Of International Human Rights and/or Humanitarian Law The Open Society Justice Initiative Gaza Inquiry
10 August 2010
Also available in the documents folder.
In response to the Report of the Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict of September 2009, ("the Goldstone Report") the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) issued a report ("the IDF report") 1 in January 2010 which claims that preliminary investigation systems similar to the IDF "Command Investigation" exist in other legal systems around the world, such as the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia. The Goldstone Report concludes that this system results in a delay in transferring cases for independent investigation that might take up to six months (at para.1830). This memorandum examines international standards and comparative procedures on the duty to investigate, in the four jurisdictions — the US, UK, Canada, and Australia — highlighted in the IDF report, that apply where there has been an alleged violation of the law of armed conflict or a gross violation of human rights law.   
Summary by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

October 2010 Staggering to War in the Falklands? Captain William Dempsey, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired) U.S. Naval Institute
Vol. 136/10/1, p292
More than 28 years after Argentina and Great Britain went to war over a group of rocky islands in the southern Atlantic Ocean, their governance is still being contested. The reason that Argentina is still insistent might have something to do with the discovery of a reservoir of 60 billion barrels of oil beneath the ocean floor. To grasp the magnitude of this discovery, consider the fact that Britain currently has 3.4 billion barrels in reserve, and Argentina 2.2 billion. Argentina has put into place a program of economic sanctions designed to put pressure on the people who live in the Falklands. It has also been augmenting its forces and taking provocative action. It provided a 50 percent increase in the Argentine defence budget. Argentines are taught in school, and it's been written into their constitution, that the islands belong to them. Do they want another war to reclaim them? Not in the least. The islanders refer to Argentina as a bully. "When one of our Typhoons flies low over Stanley Harbor, my heart cheers! That's the sound of freedom." The author concludes by asking, as the drums of war beat on, will the civilized world stand by with the tacit message "that's not my problem," or will rational minds dedicate themselves to helping these nations chart a course away from war and toward a new era of harmony? He considers that we may find ourselves forced to decide sooner than we think.   
Summary by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

September 2010 Essays in Memory of Hilaire McCoubrey - The development of operational law within Army Legal Services HH Maj Gen G Risius International Conflict and Security Law
Cambridge University Press 2005, pp21-31
From a collection covering difficult and controversial issues in the area of conflict and security law. Judge Risius recalls that the latter part of Hilaire McCoubrey's career as a leading academic in the field of international humanitarian law (IHL) coincided with the period when the British Army gradually came to recognize IHL as a subject to be taken seriously when planning and conducting military operations. He looks at how the role of ALS lawyers has developed to the stage where they actively contribute to operational planning and execution, and maps the new legal landscape and challenges facing the modern ALS Op Lawyer.   
Summary by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

August 2010 The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations Terry D. Gilland and Dieter Fleck Published August 2010
The past decades have seen a remarkable development of military operations both within the United Nations collective security system and in other international settings. While traditional forms of military operations have been maintained and further developed, there have also been substantive developments, responding to new challenges for international security, the specific requirements of international and multinational cooperation, and legal regulation. Treaty law, customary law, and best practice relevant for military operations derive from various branches of international law which have to be applied in context. Cooperation between States and International Organizations has brought about a progressive development of applicable rules, and a requirement for legal control both at the national and international level. At the same time, the correct application of legal rules and best practice has become one of the benchmarks for the assessment of military operations and failure to meet appropriate standards can have significant military and political, as well as legal, implications. This makes the identification and correct application of these rules of crucial importance in the planning and conduct of all types of military operations. The absence of an all-encompassing set of regulations and the need to find specific solutions for tasks characterized by an interdependence of efforts have made a reassessment of this important part of international law both a timely and topical task. Renowned international lawyers have joined together in this project to offer their insight in the relevant principles and provisions. They address important rules for enforcement, peace enforcement, and peace operations, as well as for other military operations conducted within the context of self-defence and other possible legal bases for the use of force.   
Summary by Amazon.Return to TopofPage

August 2010 Just War: The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare [Hardcover] Charles Guthrie and Michael Quinlan Published 26 Sep 2007
General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff said,'I very much welcome this addition to the debate on Just War by two of the leading practitioners and thinkers of our generation. The concerns that led to the original formulation of Just War thinking are perhaps even more pertinent now in today's complex operating environment.' Field Marshal Lord Inge, Chief of the Defence Staff 1994-7 commented, 'This book has an importance out of proportion to its size. The Just War tradition remains wholly relevant today and for the future, and perhaps Cabinets should be reminded of it whenever they are minded to commit our armed forces to conflict. Those in positions of authority would be wise to read the book.' According to Henry Kissinger it is 'A remarkable book, small in size but with great clarity and insight into moral and ethical principles that need to be understood and reaffirmed.' It covers the ethical issues that the international community - the UN Security Council, in particular - faces in tackling peace and security challenges. Such difficult issues as humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect and UN Security Council's authorization of military actions are eloquently discussed, in the context of major international crises in recent decades such as Iraq (both 1991 and 2003 wars), Kosovo and Rwanda. It is also a relatively short book so that you may finish reading it well before getting bored.   Based on reviews by Amazon.Return to TopofPage

31 July 2010 Command Responsibility and Its Applicability to Civilian Superiors (Hardcover) Maria L. Nybondas ISBN-13: 978-9067043274
Article 28 of the Rome Statute explicitly provides that the command responsibility doctrine may be applied to both ╦ťcommanders and other superiors', and sets out separate criteria for the two categories of superiors. The question arises how the doctrine should be applied by the ICC and by other international courts and tribunals. Up until now, the doctrine has been applied to both military and civilian superiors without a distinctive provision. Maria L. Nybondas examines the applicability of the command responsibility doctrine to civilian superiors, taking as a point of departure the origin of the doctrine and the unique position of the commander. An analysis of cases against civilian leaders identifies the challenges that prosecutors and judges face in these cases. The book provides an assessment of the hurdles in the application of the doctrine, and offers a solution which is based on respect for the purpose of the doctrine.   
Summary by Amazon.Return to TopofPage

July 2010 Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-2009 Mary Ellen O'Connell Social Science Research Network
Within days of his inauguration as president, Barack Obama authorized the CIA to continue President Bush's policy of attacks using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) in Western Pakistan. In fact, President Obama authorized a significant increase in drone attacks. These attacks cannot be justified under international law for a number of reasons. First drones launch missiles or drop bombs, the kind of weapons that may only be used lawfully in armed conflict hostilities. Until the spring of 2009, there was no armed conflict on the territory of Pakistan because there was no intense armed fighting between organized armed groups. The so-called "global war on terror" is not an armed conflict. In addition, members of the CIA are not lawful combatants and their participation in killing"even in an armed conflict"is a crime. Members of the United States armed forces could be lawful combatants in Pakistan if Pakistan expressly requested United States assistance in an armed conflict against insurgent forces. No express request of this nature has been made. Even if it were made, drone attacks may well be unlawful under the international law governing the conduct of conflict. The CIA's intention in using drones is to target and kill individual leaders of al-Qaeda or Taliban militant groups. Drones have rarely, if ever, killed just the intended target. By October 2009, the ratio was about 20 leaders killed for 750-1000 unintended victims, raising serious questions about compliance with the principle of proportionality. Even if the loss of civilian lives is not disproportionate, counter-terrorism studies show that military force is rarely effective against terrorism, making the use of drones difficult to justify under the principle of necessity.   
Summary by SSRN.Return to TopofPage

July 2010 Mission Impossible? Anthony Paphiti Counsel Magazine
Aspals subscribers
The author argues that the decision in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v UK could mean that armed forces engaged in nation building tasks are saddled with ECHR liability when guarding prisoners on behalf of a non-ECHR host nation. This, he says, may hamper the conduct of operations for armed forces of Council of Europe States, especially those engaged on nation building tasks arising in the aftermath of conflict, which seek to restore the institutions of government and law and order in cooperation with the host nation. The decision is considered to have attached little importance to the competing legal provisions of applicable/relevant international agreements between UK and Iraq and UN SCRs. It is at odds therefore with the UN's intent to be enforced properly through the cooperation of multinational forces.   
Summary by Counsel, modified by the Author.Return to TopofPage

June 2010 Lawfare: Use of the Definition of Aggressive War by the Soviet and Russian Federation Governments Christi Scott Bartman ISBN-13: 978-1443821360
One might ask why the Soviet Union so adamantly promoted the definition of aggression and aggressive war while, as many have noted, conducting military actions that appeared to violate the very definition they espoused in international treaties and conventions. 'Lawfare: Use of the Definition of Aggressive War by the Soviet and Russian Governments' demonstrates that through the use of treaties the Soviet Union and Russian Federation practiced a program of 'lawfare' long before the term became known. Lawfare, as applied in this work, is the manipulation or exploitation of the international legal system to supplement military and political objectives. This work is unique in that it not only traces the evolution of the definition of aggression and aggressive war from the Soviet and Russian Federation perspective, it looks at that progression both from the vantage point of leading edge legal legitimacy and its concurrent use as a means of lawfare to control other states legally, politically and equally as important, through the public media of propaganda.   
Summary by Amazon.Return to TopofPage

May 2010 Weighing Up the Evidence by Joseph Holmes Counsel (subscriber's link)
at p.18
Joseph Holmes argues the case for trial by jury in international criminal trials. The jury is politically independent and, in common law systems, the right to trial by jury is, by and large, regarded as fundamental and jury verdicts are rarely criticised by those who value the importance of a fair trial. Indeed US critics of the International Criminal Court ("ICC") consider that its largest incompatibility with the American constitution is its failure to provide trial by jury. Importantly, this remains a bar to the full American participation in the ICC. A failure to fully separate politics from justice will, in the words of Justice Hunt, leave a "spreading stain" on this jurisdiction's reputation. Along with many other benefits which jury participation would engender, a jury would protect against extraneous political considerations which inhibit the true establishment of the much heralded culture of accountability.   
Summary by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

May 2010 War Crimes & Judge-Only Trials by Justice Fulford Counsel (subscriber's link)
at p.21
Mr Justice Fulford believes that trial by jury would cause insurmountable practical problems in administering justice. The clear animus of Joe Holmes's elegant and interesting article (on a possible role for juries in the system of international justice) is a laudable desire to see the criminal law administered by tribunals that are truly independent, and which undertake their work uninfluenced by political considerations and the apparent demands of some that international trials should end in convictions. Although The author believes that result is both critical and achievable, but is dubitant as to the suggested route. As a current labourer in the boiler room of international justice, and a sometime case-management enforcer in the UK, he apprehends an unassailable array of practical problems.   
Summary extracted by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

April 2010 Informal expert paper: The principle of complementarity in practice ICC ICC Paper ICC-01/04-01/07-1008-AnxA 30-03-2009
In April 2003, the then Director of Common Services of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mr. Bruno Cathala, approved the suggestion from the start-up team of the Court's Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) that there be an expert consultation proc-ess on complementarity in practice for the benefit of the future Chief Prosecutor and the staff of his Office. Members of the group of experts (the Group) were invited in writing to participate in an "informal expert consultation on complementarity in prac-tice" and to prepare a reflection paper on the potential legal, policy and management challenges which are likely to confront the OTP as a consequence of the complemen-tarity regime of the Statute.   
Summary by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

March 2010 Today's Quest for International Criminal Justice - a Short Overview of the Present State Of Criminal Prosecution of International Crimes Sascha-Dominik Bachmann International Law And Armed Conflict
N. Quénivet and S. Shah-Davis, eds.,T.M.C.ASSER PRESS,
© 2010 (via SSRN website), March 4, 2010
The subject of administering international criminal justice has again grasped our short lived attention when the decision of the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to prosecute the Sudanese state president Omar Bashir made the news. This piece attempts to provide a short overview of the possibilities of holding individuals criminally accountable for human rights atrocities before the different existing international criminal forums.   
Summary by SSRN.Return to TopofPage

March 2010 Why Not Torture Terrorists?: Moral, Practical, and Legal Aspects of the 'Ticking Bomb' Justification for Torture Yuval Ginbar In Paperback and Harback
This book addresses a dilemma at the heart of counter-terrorist policy: is it ever justifiable to torture terrorists in order to save the lives of others, the so-called 'ticking bomb' scenario? The book opens with an analysis of the pure moral argument from the standpoint of the individual as torturer. It then looks at the issues that arise once a state has decided to sanction torture in certain situations: how to establish factually that the situation is urgent, deciding who to torture, training people to carry out torture, and the efficacy of torture as a means of gathering information. The final part examines attempts to operate legal systems which tolerate torture; how they relate to the criminal law notion of necessity and to international human rights norms. After examining the utilitarian arguments for torture, and the impact on a society of permitting torture, the author presents a powerful argument for maintaining the absolute legal prohibition.   
Summary by Amazon.Return to TopofPage

February 2010 International Criminal Justice and the Politics of Compliance (Hardcover) Dr Christopher K Lamont
"International Criminal Justice and the Politics of Compliance" provides a comprehensive study of compliance with legal obligations derived from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)'s Statute and integrates theoretical debates on compliance into international justice scholarship. Through the use of three models of compliance, based on coercion, self-interest and norms, Lamont explores both the domestic politics of war crimes indictments and efforts by external actors such as the European Union, the United States and the Tribunal itself to induce compliance outcomes. This study imparts that compliance outcomes often do not translate into a changed normative understanding of international criminal justice on the part of target states.   
Summary by Amazon.Return to TopofPage

February 2010 Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect: Who Should Intervene? James Pattison
This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or impending humanitarian crisis, such as found in Rwanda in early 1994, Kosovo in 1999, and Darfur more recently. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect asserts that when a state is failing to uphold its citizens' human rights, the international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens, including by undertaking humanitarian intervention. It is unclear, however, which particular agent should be tasked with this responsibility. Should we prefer intervention by the UN, NATO, a regional or subregional organization (such as the African Union), a state, a group of states, or someone else? This book answers this question by, first, determining which qualities of interveners are morally significant and, second, assessing the relative importance of these qualities. For instance, is it important that an intervener have a humanitarian motive? Should an intervener be welcomed by those it is trying to save? How important is it that an intervener will be effective and what does this mean in practice? The book then considers the more empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current interveners actually possess these qualities, and therefore should intervene. For instance, how effective can we expect UN action to be in the future? Is NATO likely to use humanitarian means? Overall, it develops a particular normative conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. It uses this conception of legitimacy to assess not only current interveners, but also the desirability of potential reforms to the mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention.   
Summary by Amazon.Return to TopofPage

January 2010 The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law) Anthony Cullen ISBN-10: 0521760488
ISBN-13: 978-0521760485
Anthony Cullen advances an argument for a particular approach to the interpretation of non-international armed conflict in international humanitarian law. The first part examines the origins of the ╦ťarmed conflict' concept and its development as the lower threshold for the application of international humanitarian law. Here the meaning of the term is traced from its use in the Hague Regulations of 1899 until the present day. The second part focuses on a number of contemporary developments which have affected the scope of non-international armed conflict. The case law of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia has been especially influential and the definition of non-international armed conflict provided by this institution is examined in detail. It is argued that this concept represents the most authoritative definition of the threshold and that, despite differences in interpretation, there exist reasons to interpret an identical threshold of application in the Rome Statute.   
Summary by Amazon. Return to TopofPage

December 2009 International Law Aspects of the EU's Security and Defence Policy, with a Particular Focus on the Law of Armed Conflict Frederik Naert International Law volume 4
Read the Flyer
This book combines an insight into the legal aspects of operations conducted as part of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) of the EU with an analysis of the status and obligations of international organizations under international law and applies the findings thereof to the law of armed conflict and human rights in relation to ESDP operations.
Part I describes and analyses the ESDP, including all 22 military and civilian crisis management operations launched up to 31 August 2009 as well as developments under the Lisbon Treaty, and briefly discusses the international law issues raised, offering a unique insight into ESDP practice and its legal aspects. Part II examines this practice in the framework of the status and obligations of international organizations under international law: it looks at the legal status and personality of international organizations and of the EU as well as how international organizations, including the EU, are bound by international obligations. Part III extensively addresses the international law applicable to the conduct of ESDP operations, in particular the law of armed conflict and international human rights law, filling a gap in the literature.
Dr. Frederik Naert is a member of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union, a senior affiliated researcher at the Institute for International Law of the KU Leuven and editor-in-chief of the Military Law and the Law of War Review/Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre. He was previously a legal advisor at the Belgian Defence Staff and a research and teaching assistant at the KU Leuven.
Summary by Intersentia   This is a most valuable work which is exceptionally well researched. It should be in the library of every military lawyer serving with EU forces. It provides a unique insight into EU military operations and their underlying legal basis.  Comment by Aspals .Return to TopofPage

December 2009 Command Authority over Contractors Serving With or Accompanying the Force Lieutenant Colonel Charles Kirchmaier Army Lawyer
December 2009, at p.35
With over 242,657 contractors serving with or accompanying the armed forces in the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) area of operations, understanding the scope of military authority that may be exercised over these persons is paramount for military commanders who are responsible for maintaining good order, morale, and discipline in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other contingency operating areas. The sheer number of contractors living and working on the battlefield alongside US armed forces suggests that civilian misconduct incidents will likely occur during the course of a unit's deployment. The first article examines the policies and procedures commanders should follow when contractors engage in criminal misconduct and the use of command authority over persons serving with and accompanying the armed forces in the field during a declared war or contingency operation.   
Summary by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

December 2009 Detention Operations in a Counterinsurgency: Pitfalls and the Inevitable Transition. Captain Matthew Greig Army Lawyer
December 2009, at p.25
This article is the first in a series of articles written by members of the XVIII Airborne Corps Office of the Staff Judge Advocate following their deployment as the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, Headquarters, 2008-2009. Each article in the series discusses one significant legal issue that arose in each of the Corps' functional legal areas during the deployment. Articles in the series will cover issues in administrative law, rule of law, contract and fiscal law, operational law, criminal law, and foreign claims. A necessary condition for success in any counterinsurgent effort is the establishment of state institutions as the sole provider of key government functions. The ability to remove malign influences from the battlefield is indispensable in a counterinsurgency, and a portion of this article is devoted to aiding judge advocates in planning for this challenge during multi-national operations.   
Summary by Aspals.Return to TopofPage

Copyright © Aspals Legal Pages 1997-

Please report problems to

The Lists: See the Aspals Archive

Forward to next page Go to previous page

Back to Top