Some Considerations Concerning the Role of the Ius ad Bellum in Targeting

Chapter

Abstract

This contribution examines the influence of the ius ad bellumupon the targeting process. Specifically, it will examine how the rules of international law relating to the permissibility of the use of force can and do influence the targeting of both objects and persons which constitute military objectives under international humanitarian law and can, alongside other relevant rules and principles of international law and policy considerations, additionally influence the geographical and temporal scope of the targeting process.

Keywords

Ius ad bellum Ius in bello Necessity Proportionality Immediacy military objective Neutrality law Non-intervention Territorial scope of armed conflicttemporal scope of armed conflict 

References

  1. Boothby WH (2012) The law of targeting. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boothby WH (2009–2010) And for such time as: the time dimension to direct participation in hostilities. New York Univ J Int Law Policy 42:741–768Google Scholar
  3. Bothe M (2013) The law of neutrality. In: Fleck D (ed) The handbook of international humanitarian law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Dinstein Y (2004) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dinstein Y (2011) War, aggression and self-defence, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ducheine PAL, Pouw EH (2012) Legitimizing the use of force: legal bases for Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF. In: van der Meulen J, Vogelaar A, Beeres R, Soeters J (eds) Mission Uruzgan: collaborating in multiple coalitions for Afghanistan. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, Chap. 3, pp. 33–46Google Scholar
  7. Gill T (2010) Legal basis of the right of self-defence under the UN Charter and under customary international law. In: Gill T, Fleck D (eds) The handbook of the international law of military operations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Gill T (2015) When does self-defence end? In: Weller M, Solomou A (eds) The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Gill T, Ducheine P (2010) Rescue of nationals. In: Gill T, Fleck D (eds) The handbook of the international law of military operations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill TD, Ducheine PAL, F.H. Boddens Hosang JFH, Marchand C (2013) Report on the role of self-defence in multinational operations. In: Horvat S, Benatar M (eds) Recueil international society for military law and the law of war, Congress proceedings of the 19th international congress on the ‘Legal Interoperability and Ensuring Observance of the Law Applicable in Multinational Deployments’, Brussels, pp. 121–171Google Scholar
  11. Greenwood C (1983) The relationship of the ius ad bellum and the ius in bello. Rev Int Stud 9:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenwood C (1989) Self-defence and the conduct of international armed conflict. In: Dinstein Y (ed) International law at a time of perplexity: essays in honour of Shabtai Rosenne. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  13. Kleffner J (2013) Scope of application of international humanitarian law. In: Fleck D (ed) The handbook of international humanitarian law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Manchester W (1978) American Caesar: Douglas Mac Arthur 1880–1964. Dell Publishers, paperback ednGoogle Scholar
  15. Melzer N (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law, ICRC, Geneva. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2014
  16. Parks H (2009–2010) Part IX of the ICRC direct participation in hostilities study: no mandate, no expertise, and legally incorrect. New York Univ J Int Law Policy 42:769–830Google Scholar
  17. Ponti C (2009) The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission on the threat or use of force and individual self-defence. In: de Guttry A, Post HHG, Venturini G (eds) The 1998–2000 war between Eritrea and Ethiopia: an international legal perspective. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rogers APV (2004) Law on the battlefield, 2nd edn. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Schmitt N (2009–2010) Deconstructing direct participation in hostilities: the constitutive elements. New York Univ J Int Law Policy 42:697–740Google Scholar
  20. de Vitoria F (1991). De Jure Belli Reprinted. In: Pagden A, Lawrence J (eds) Vitoria political writings. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Watkin K (2009–2010) Opportunity lost: organized armed groups and the ICRC direct participation in hostilities interpretive guidance. New York Univ J Int Law Policy 42:641–696Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Military LawUniversity of Amsterdam & Netherlands Defence AcademyAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations