Abstract
Addressing the challenges 9/11 has posed for international law as a law in transition, the Article reviews the applicability threshold for the principles and rules of international humanitarian law and discusses their relevance in the fight against terrorism. It also considers differences and similarities within the legal paradigms of law enforcement and the conduct of hostilities, comments on the importance of that difference in peacebuilding processes, and underlines the role of civil society in implementing relevant legal obligations. Stressing the need for a discussion on best practices rather than focussing on restrictive interpretations of existing obligations, the author recommends looking at law and policy in context. He underlines the importance of developing a jus post bellum and working on its proper structure, contents and implementation mechanisms as an evolving new legal framework.
Former Director International Agreements & Policy, Federal Ministry of Defence, Germany; Honorary President, International Society for Military Law and the Law of War, http://www.soc-mil-law.org; Member of the Advisory Board of the Amsterdam Center for International Law (ACIL), http://www.jur.uva.nl/aciluk/home.cfm; Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of International Peacekeeping, http://www.brill.nl/joup. All views and opinions are personal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Fleck 2003, at p. 70.
- 2.
Lietzau 2004, at p. 398.
- 3.
Bothe 2003, at pp. 227, 232–233, 236–239.
- 4.
See Gill in Gill and Fleck 2010, at 187 ff, 217 ff, 221 ff, 229 ff.
- 5.
ILA Committee on the Use of Force 2010, at p. 713.
- 6.
SC Res 1368 (2001).
- 7.
Statement by the North Atlantic Council, 12 September 2001.
- 8.
For the ISAF mandate, its development and extensions over the years see SC Resolutions 1386 (2001), para 1; 1401 (2002), para 6; 1413 (2002); 1444 (2002); 1510 (2003); 1536 (2004), para 13; 1563 (2004); 1659 (2006), para 6; 1662 (2006), para 18; 1707 (2006); 1746 (2007), para 25; 1776 (2007); 1806 (2008), para 4 d; 1833 (2008); 1868 (2009), para 4 b; 1890 (2009); 1917 (2010), paras 5 b, 17; 1943 (2010); 1974 (2011), para 5 b; 2011 (2011); .
- 9.
Wills 2011, at p. 173.
- 10.
ICRC 2008.
- 11.
Koh 2010.
- 12.
ILA Committee on Non-State Actors 2010, at p. 637.
- 13.
Ibid., p. 638.
- 14.
ICRC 2011, at pp. 48–53.
- 15.
Pictet 1958, at pp. 35–36, with reference to the Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Volume II, Section B, at 121.
- 16.
ILA Committee on the Use of Force 2010, at p. 705.
- 17.
Melzer in Gill and Fleck 2010, at 336 f, 281.
- 18.
Ibid., p. 37.
- 19.
- 20.
Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union, http://www.itu.int/net/about/basic-texts/index.aspx.
- 21.
Oswald 2011, at p. 123.
- 22.
Koh 2010.
- 23.
Ibid.
- 24.
Kleffner in Gill and Fleck 2010, at Chapter 25.
- 25.
European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, no. 27021/08, 7 July 2011, available at http://www.icj.org/img/AL-JEDDA_v._UK.pdf, at paras 74–86.
- 26.
Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 08-1498 and 09-89, Eric H. Holder, Attorney General, et al. . v. Humanitarian Law Project et al. and Humanitarian Law Project et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Attorney General, et al. (21 June 2010) available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf.
- 27.
18 U.S.C. §2339B(a)(1).
- 28.
See Opinion of the Court, loc.cit., p. 2: ‘We conclude that the material-support statute is constitutional as applied to the particular activities plaintiffs have told us they wish to pursue. We do not, however, address the resolution of more difficult cases that may arise under the statute in future.’
- 29.
See Breyer, J., dissenting, loc.cit., p. 23: ‘… the Court has failed to examine the Government’s justifications with sufficient care. It has failed to insist on specific evidence, rather than general assertion. It has failed to require tailoring of means to fit compelling ends. And ultimately, it deprives the individuals before us of the protection that the First Amendment demands’.
References
Bothe M (2003) Terrorism and the legality of pre-emptive force. Eur J Int L 14:227
Fleck D (2003) International humanitarian law after September 11: challenges and the need to respond. Yearb Int Humanit L 6:41
Fleck D (2008) Law enforcement and the conduct of hostilities: two supplementing or mutually excluding legal paradigms? In: Fischer-Lescano A, Gasser H-P, Marauhn T, Ronzitti N (eds) Frieden in Freiheit, Peace in liberty. Paix en liberté, Baden–Baden/Zürich
Gill TD, Fleck D (eds) (2010) The handbook of the international law of military operations. Oxford University Press, Oxford
ICRC (2008) How is the term “armed conflict” defined in international humanitarian law?, Opinion paper, March 2008. http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/other/armed-conflict-article-170308.htm
ICRC (2011) International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts, Report to the 31st conference of the red cross and red crescent, Geneva, 28 Nov–1 Dec 2011, 31/C/11/5.1.2
ILA Committee on Non-State Actors (2010) First report of the committee. Report of the Seventy-Fourth Conference, The Hague
ILA Committee on the Use of Force (2010) Final report on the meaning of armed conflict in international law. Report of the Seventy-Fourth Conference, The Hague
Koh HH, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (2010) Speech at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law (ASIL), Washington, DC, 25 Mar 2010. http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm
Lietzau WK (2004) Old laws, new wars: jus ad bellum in an age of terrorism. Max Planck Yearb U.N. Law 8:383
Oswald B (2011) Detention by United Nations peacekeepers: searching for definition and categorisation. J Int Peacekeeping 15 (1–2):119
Pictet JS (ed) (1958) The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Commentary. ICRC, Geneva.
The White House (2002) The national security strategy of the United States of America, Sept 2002. http://merln.ndu.edu/whitepapers/USnss2002.pdf
Wills S (2011) The legal characterization of the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq: implications for protection. Neth Int L Rev 58(2):173
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, and the author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fleck, D. (2012). International Humanitarian Law a Decade after September 11: Developments and Perspectives. In: Schmitt, M., Arimatsu, L. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2011 - Volume 14. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol 14. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-855-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-855-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-854-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-855-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
