Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Armed Conflict and Law Enforcement: Is There a Legal Divide?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Armed Conflict and International Law: In Search of the Human Face

  • 1343 Accesses

Abstract

The division between peace and war has become increasingly blurred in factual terms in recent decades. Similarly, the law has progressed in a manner that has not necessarily been consistent. The author reviews how the laws covering the use of force in both peace and war have developed separately under the respective headings of the laws of war (also known as the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law) and human rights law. The increasing overlap between these two bodies of public international law has led to tensions particularly in relation to the conduct of hostilities. The author suggests a way forward to ensure the applicability of the highest standards of protection whilst still enabling military operations to be carried out efficiently within a legal framework.

The author is a former Stockton Professor of International Law at the United States Naval War College, Newport Rhode Island. He is currently a Fellow of the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ICRC 2008.

  2. 2.

    ICRC 2010.

  3. 3.

    Declaration Renouncing the Use in Time of War of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight (Hereinafter St. Petersburg Declaration 1868), Saint Petersburg, 29 November/11 December 1868, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 54.

  4. 4.

    St. Petersburg Declaration 1868, Ibid., Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 55.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    Dunant 1986.

  7. 7.

    Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, Geneva, 22 August 1864, Schindler and Toman 2004, p. 365.

  8. 8.

    Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, 118 L.N.T.S. 343.

  9. 9.

    Bugnion 2003, p. 248.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., p. 268.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., p. 284.

  12. 12.

    Resolution XIV, Sixteenth International Red Cross Conference, London, June 1938, Bugnion 2003, p. 285.

  13. 13.

    Common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Roberts and Guelff 2000, pp. 198, 223, 245 and 302 respectively.

  14. 14.

    Pictet 1952, p. 49.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., p. 50.

  16. 16.

    Preamble, Charter of the United Nations, San Francisco, 26 June 1945, Brownlie 2002, p. 2.

  17. 17.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Paris, 10 December 1948, Brownlie 2002, p. 193.

  18. 18.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter ICCPR), New York, 16 December 1966, Brownlie 2002, p. 205.

  19. 19.

    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, Brownlie 2002, p. 197.

  20. 20.

    European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR), Rome, 4 November 1950, Brownlie 2002, p. 245. The ECHR entered into force on 3 September 1953.

  21. 21.

    ICCPR, supra note 18, Brownlie 2002, p. 212.

  22. 22.

    ECHR, supra note 20, Brownlie 2002, p. 249, Article 15.

  23. 23.

    Pictet 1952, p. 49.

  24. 24.

    Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter AP I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 422.

  25. 25.

    Protocol (II) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter AP II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 483.

  26. 26.

    AP II, Ibid., Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 484, Article 1(1).

  27. 27.

    AP II, Ibid., Article 1(2).

  28. 28.

    Sandoz et al. 1987, p. 1354.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., p. 1355.

  30. 30.

    Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW), Geneva, 10 October 1980, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 520.

  31. 31.

    Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I), Geneva, 10 October 1980, Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II), Geneva, 10 October 1980 and Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III), Geneva, 10 October 1980, Roberts and Guelff 2000, pp. 527, 528 and 533 respectively.

  32. 32.

    Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV), 13 October 1995, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 535.

  33. 33.

    Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V), 28 November 2003, www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/610?OpenDocument. Accessed 23 December 2011.

  34. 34.

    Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention as amended on 3 May 1996), 3 May 1996, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 536.

  35. 35.

    Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Oslo, 18 September 1997, opened for signature on 3 December 1997, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 648.

  36. 36.

    Convention on Cluster Munitions, Dublin, 30 May 2008, opened for signature on 3 December 2008. www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/620?OpenDocument. Accessed 23 December 2011.

  37. 37.

    St. Petersburg Declaration, supra note 3, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 55.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., p. 54.

  39. 39.

    See United Nations Security Council, Resolution 827, 25 May 1993, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993).

  40. 40.

    See United Nations Security Council, Resolution 955, 8 November 1994, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994).

  41. 41.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber, Case No. IT-94-1, 2 October 1995, 105 International Law Reports, p. 488, para 70.

  42. 42.

    ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, para 218.

  43. 43.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber, Case No. T-94-1-A, 15 July 1999, 105 International Law Reports, p. 520, para 127.

  44. 44.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 675, Article 8.

  45. 45.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., foreword by Dr. Jacob Kellenberger, xvi.

  47. 47.

    Henckaerts 2006.

  48. 48.

    Dinstein et al. 2006.

  49. 49.

    AP I, supra note 24, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 449, Article 51(5)(b).

  50. 50.

    ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 240.

  51. 51.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, 43 ILM 1009, p. 1048.

  52. 52.

    See for example, Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996 (HC 215), paras 205–213.

  53. 53.

    See for example, House of Lords, R. v. Clegg, 1 (1995) All England Reports p. 334.

  54. 54.

    ECHR, supra note 20, Brownlie 2002, p. 249, Article 15.

  55. 55.

    European Court of Human Rights, Isayeva v. Russia, Application No. 57950/00, 24 February 2005, para 191, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-68381#{"itemid":["001-68381"]}.

  56. 56.

    President’s Address to Joint Session of Congress on the United States Response to the Terrorist attacks of September 11. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html. Accessed 23 December 2011.

  57. 57.

    Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, 19 League of Nations O.J. 23 (1938) (never entered into force), Article 2(1).

  58. 58.

    These include: 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, 2 ILM 1042 (1963); 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 10 ILM 133 (1971); 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 10 ILM 1151 (1971); 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, 13 ILM 41 (1974); 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, 18 ILM 1456 (1979); The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, INFCIRC/274/Rev.1, May 1980. www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf274r1.shtml. Accessed 23 December 2011; 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 27 ILM 685 (1988); 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 27 ILM 672 (1988); 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, 30 ILM 721 (1991); 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, U.N. Doc. A/RES/52/164; 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 39 ILM 270 (2000); 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, U.N. Doc A/RES/59/290 (2005); and 2010 Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation, 10 September 2010. http://legacy.icao.int/DCAS2010/restr/docs/beijing_convention_multi.pdf. Accessed 23 December 2011.

  59. 59.

    Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 312, Article 33.

  60. 60.

    AP I, supra note 24, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 448, Article 51(2).

  61. 61.

    AP II, supra note 25, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 485, Article 4(2)(d).

  62. 62.

    Cited in Bingham 2010, p. 133.

  63. 63.

    United Kingdom statement (d) on ratification of API, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 510.

  64. 64.

    See for example, New York Times 2003.

  65. 65.

    Greenberg and Dratel 2005.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., pp. 134, 135. This latter position was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, (2006) 548 U.S. 557.

  67. 67.

    Koh 2010.

  68. 68.

    “The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaida, the Taliban, and their supporters. As part of this conflict, the United States captures and detains enemy combatants, and is entitled under the law of war to hold until the end of hostilities. The law of war, and not the Covenant, is the applicable legal framework governing these detentions.”, Comments by the Government of the United States of America on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1/Add.1 dated 12 February 2008, p. 3, accessed at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,CONCOBSCOMMENTS,,USA,47bbf3662,0.html.

  69. 69.

    ICRC 2008.

  70. 70.

    AP I, supra note 24, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 448, Article 51(3).

  71. 71.

    AP II, supra note 25, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 490, Article 13(3).

  72. 72.

    ICRC 2008, p. 995.

  73. 73.

    AP II, supra note 26, Article 1(1).

  74. 74.

    Pictet 1985, p. 75.

  75. 75.

    ICRC 2008, p. 1044.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., p. 1040.

  77. 77.

    Melzer 2010, pp. 899–890.

  78. 78.

    See for example, Hays Parks, Part IX of the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” Study: No Mandate. No Expertise, and Legally Incorrect, 42 NYU J Int’l L & Pol 769, at p. 778.

  79. 79.

    See supra note 55.

  80. 80.

    See supra note 57.

  81. 81.

    AP II, supra note 25, Roberts and Guelff 2000, p. 488, Article 6(5).

  82. 82.

    St. Petersburg Declaration, supra note 3.

  83. 83.

    See R. (on the application of Maya Evans) v. Secretary of State for Defence, 25 June 2010, [2010] EWHC 1445 (Admin), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2010/r-maya-evans-sec-state-defence.

References

Documents

Literature

  • Bingham T (2010) The rule of law. Allen Lane, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2002) Basic documents in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugnion F (2003) The International Committee of the Red Cross and the protection of war victims. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y, Garraway C, Schmitt M et al (2006) Manual on the law of non-international armed conflict. IIHL, San Remo

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunant H (1986) A memory of Solferino. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg K, Dratel J (2005) The torture papers: the road to Abu Ghraib. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J-M (2006) The ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law: an assessment. In: Maybee L, Chakka B (eds) Custom as a source of international humanitarian law. ICRC, Geneva, pp 43–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2010) Keeping the balance between military necessity and humanity: a response to four critiques of the ICRC’s interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities. NYU J Int’l L & Pol 42:831

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (1952) Commentary to the first Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in the armed forces in the field. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (1985) Development and principles of international humanitarian law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A, Guelff R (2000) Documents on the laws of war. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz Y et al (1987) Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Martinus Nijhoff, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler D, Toman J (2004) The laws of armed conflicts. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, Essex, UK

    Charles Garraway

Authors
  1. Charles Garraway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Garraway .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. De Bruynestraat 76, The Hague, 2597 RH, Netherlands

    Mariëlle Matthee

  2. , Faculty of Law,, University of Groningen, Oude Kijk in ‘t Jatstraat 26, Groningen, 9712 EK, Netherlands

    Brigit Toebes

  3. , Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Oude Kijk in ‘t Jatstraat 26, Groningen, 9712 EK, Netherlands

    Marcel Brus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Garraway, C. (2013). Armed Conflict and Law Enforcement: Is There a Legal Divide?. In: Matthee, M., Toebes, B., Brus, M. (eds) Armed Conflict and International Law: In Search of the Human Face. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-918-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation