![]() Membership in an armed group alone is not a sufficient basis to directly target an individual. Speeches by US officials suggest that the Administration believes that it can lawfully target people based merely on their membership in armed groups, rather than on the basis of their conduct or direct participation in hostilities. This volume does not fully support them on this issue. ![]() ![]() Both reports rely strongly on the ICRC’s landmark volume Customary International Humanitarian Law. There is at least one subject, however, where they, at a minimum, overstate the clarity of the law-namely, the status of members of organized armed groups who are not directly participating in hostilities in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC).ĪI and HRW effectively state that members of an organized armed group (party to the NIAC) who are not presently directly participating in hostilities are protected from direct attack. (This debate continues on Opinio Juris and elsewhere by Deborah Pearlstein, Ryan Goodman, and Kevin Jon Heller amongst others.) Each report provides unique reporting and strong legal arguments on an important issue. They further the debate on the legality of drone strikes. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have recently published reports ( AI, HRW) regarding drone strikes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |