Military Advantage: A Matter of “Value”, Strategy, and Tactics

Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law book series (YIHL, volume 17)

Abstract

The concept of “military advantage” is an underexplored, but essential aspect of the humanitarian law governing targeting. The precise meaning of military advantage has proven difficult to articulate, although in general terms it has a particular resonance with “military necessity”. The analysis of military advantage has often centered on two almost polar opposite interpretations: one focused on tactical gains, and the other more strategically on “the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not from isolated or particular parts of the attack.” Considered together these two approaches only begin to scratch the surface of the complexity of the issue. Separately, they appear to significantly under-represent the challenge facing practitioners, legal analysts and courts when dealing with targeting issues arising from complex contemporary security operations. Practical considerations of military advantage are often masked by the use of terms such as “high-value target”, and assessing the “effects” of an attack to achieve a particular objective. The focus of this article is on adding “flesh” to the textual “bones” provided under Additional Protocol I. The term “military advantage” plays a critical role in identifying the wide range of objects that may be targeted as military objectives, and further acts as the counterweight to collateral civilian effects when assessing the proportionality of an attack. Military advantage is a “value” based concept, with the anticipated advantage being interpreted as an indication of the importance of the target to the military effort. While a particular focus has been placed on “high-value targets” there are targets, which by virtue of their status (e.g., people) or remoteness from the war effort that might justify only limited, or even no collateral civilian effects. It is also evident from the 2011 bin Laden raid that determining a target is particularly important will not automatically lead to a large number of collateral civilian casualties. The military advantage requires a broader assessment of factors than simply the importance of the target and the potential collateral damage (i.e., the need to confirm the target is killed). To date the courts have not dealt in a comprehensive manner with the concept of military advantage. The frequent use of science based analytical approaches for assessing both that advantage, and the related concept of proportionality requires close scrutiny. Like strategy, the assessment of anticipated military advantage designed to attain conflict goals does not lend itself to precision, or an entirely scientific resolution. This is evident in the conclusion that proportionality, which requires the weighing of military advantage against the collateral effects of an attack, cannot be measured to a “standard of precision”. Understanding the context within which military advantage is assessed is an essential aspect of applying that legal standard. In this respect the conduct of a strategic air campaign; the concurrent impact of jus ad bellum principles when acting in self-defense; and participation in a counterinsurgency can all influence how military advantage is assessed.

Keywords

Military advantage Targeting Proportionality Levels of war Counterinsurgency Accountability 

References

  1. Abresch W (2005) A human rights law of internal armed conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya. Eur J Int Law 16:740–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alland D (1987) International responsibility and sanctions: self-defence and countermeasures. In: Spinedi M, Simma B (eds) ILC codification of rules governing international responsibility, United Nations codification of State responsibility. Oceana Publications, New York, pp 143–195Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich G (2002) The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the determination of illegal combatants. Am J Int Law 96:891–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen C (2006) Limits on the use of force in maritime operations in support of WMD counter-proliferation initiatives. Int Law Stud 81:77–139Google Scholar
  5. Barak A (2012) Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baxter R (1988) The duties of combatants and the conduct of hostilities. In: Henry Dunant Institute and UNESCO (ed) International dimensions of humanitarian law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 93–133Google Scholar
  7. Baxter R (2013) The law of war. In: Vagts D F et al (eds) Humanizing the laws of war: selected writings of Richard Baxter. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 241–247Google Scholar
  8. Beran M (2010) The proportionality balancing test revisited: how counterinsurgency changes “military advantage”. The Army Lawyer 27-50-447:4–11Google Scholar
  9. Bergen P (2012) Manhunt: the ten-year search for Bin Laden from 9/11 to Abbottabad. Doubleday CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. Blanford N (2011) Warriors of God: inside Hezbollah’s thirty-year struggle against Israel. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Boivin A, Sandoz Y (2006) The legal regime applicable to targeting military objectives in the context of contemporary warfare. Research papers series, No. 2. Geneva University Centre for International Humanitarian Law. http://www.geneva-academy.ch/docs/publications/collection-research-projects/CTR_objectif_militaire.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2015
  12. Boothby B (2010) “And for such time as”: the time dimension to direct participation in hostilities. NYU J Int Law Polit 42:741–768Google Scholar
  13. Boothby W (2012) The law of targeting. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bothe M (2002) Targeting. Int Law Stud 78:173–187Google Scholar
  15. Bothe M et al (eds) (1982) New rules for victims of armed conflicts: commentary on the two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyne W (2005) The influence of airpower upon history. Pen and Sword Aviation, South YorkshireGoogle Scholar
  17. Braudy L (2003) From chivalry to terrorism: war and the changing nature of masculinity. Vintage books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Byman D (2011) A high price: the triumphs and failures of Israeli counterterrorism. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Camp D (2009) Operation phantom fury: the assault and capture of Fallujah, Iraq. Zenith Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  20. Carmola K (2005) The concept of proportionality: old questions and new ambiguities. In: Evans Mark (ed) Just war theory: a reappraisal. Edinburgh University Press Ltd, Edinburgh, pp 93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cannizzaro E (2006) Contextualizing proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese war. Int Rev Red Cross 88:779–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Catignani S (2008) Israeli counter-insurgency and the Intifadas: dilemmas of a conventional army. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clancy T, Stiner C (2002) Shadow warriors: inside the special forces. GP Putnam’s Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen A, Century D (2008) Brotherhood of warriors. Harper Collins Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Connaughton R (2008) Modern warfare: the true story of conflict from the Falklands to Afghanistan. Constable and Robinson Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Cordesman A et al (2007) Lessons of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war. Center for strategic and international studies, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Cortright D, Lopez G (2002) Sanctions and the search for security: challenges to U.N. action. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  28. Corum J, Johnson W (2003) Airpower in small wars: fighting insurgents and terrorists. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  29. Corn G (2010) Mixing apples and hand grenades: the logical limit of applying human rights norms to armed conflict. J Int Hum Leg Stud 1:52–94Google Scholar
  30. Corn G, Corn G (2012) The law of operational targeting: viewing the LOAC through an operational lens. Tex Int Law J 47:337–380Google Scholar
  31. Correll J (2013) The assault on EBO. Air Force Magazine 50–54Google Scholar
  32. Crawford N (2013) Accountability for killing. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Deptula D (2001) Effects based operations: change in the nature of warfare. Aerospace education foundation, Arlington. http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/AEF-AFA-Effect-Based-Operations-D.A.Deptula-2001.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2015
  34. DiMarco L (2012) Concrete hell: urban warfare from Stalingrad to Iraq. Osprey Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Dinstein Y (2004) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. Cambridge University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dinstein Y (2010) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict, 2nd edn. Cambridge University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dinstein Y (2011) War, aggression and self-defence, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Earle E (ed) (1971) Makers of modern strategy: military thought from Machiavelli to Hitler. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp vii–xiGoogle Scholar
  39. Franck T (2008) On proportionality of countermeasures in international law. Am J Int Law 102:715–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fenrick W (1982) The rule of proportionality and Protocol I in conventional warfare. Mil Law Rev 98:91–127Google Scholar
  41. Fenrick W (2001) Targeting and proportionality during the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Eur J Int Law 12:489–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Freedman L (2013) Strategy: a history. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Fuller J (1920) Tanks in the Great War 1914–1918, E. P. Dutton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Gale A, Pickering W (2007) Force protection. Can Mil J http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no2/pick-eng.asp. Accessed 25 March 2015
  45. Galula D (1964) Counterinsurgency warfare: theory and practice. Frederick A Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Gardam J (2004) Necessity, proportionality and the use of force by States. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Geraghty T (2010) Black ops: the rise of special forces in the C.I.A., the S.A.S., and Mossad. Pegasus Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Geiss R (2005) Humanitarian safeguards in economic sanctions regimes: a call for automatic suspension clauses, periodic monitoring, and follow-up assessment of long-term-effects. Harv H R J 18:167–199Google Scholar
  49. Goodman R (2013a) The power to kill or capture enemy combatants. Eur J Int Law 24:819–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Goodman R (2013b) The power to kill or capture enemy combatants: a rejoinder to Michael N. Schmitt. Eur J Int Law 24:863–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grant R (2003) The redefinition of airpower. 86 Air Force: J of the Air Force Association 86:32–38Google Scholar
  52. Gray C (2005) Another bloody century: future war. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Green L (2008) The contemporary law of armed conflict, 3rd edn. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  54. Greenwood C (1989) Self-defense 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 Nijhof Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 273–288Google Scholar
  55. Harel A, Issacharoff A (2008) 34 Days: Israel, Hezbollah and the war in Lebanon. Palgrave MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Hashim A (2006) Insurgency and counter-insurgency in Iraq. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  57. Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law study, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Holley I Jr (1997) Reflections on the search for airpower theory. In: Meilinger P (ed) The paths of heaven: the evolution of airpower theory. Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, pp 579–599Google Scholar
  59. Hull E (2011) High-value target: countering Al Qaeda in Yemen. Potomac Books, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  60. Hunt L (2007) Inventing human rights: a history. WW Norton & Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. ICRC (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2015
  62. ISAF (2009) ISAF commander’s counterinsurgency guidance, http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf. Accessed 27 March 2015
  63. Joes A (2007) Urban guerrilla warfare. The University Press of Kentucky, LexingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kalshoven F (1991) A comment to chapter 11 of the commander’s handbook on the law of naval operations. Int Law Stud 64:300–330Google Scholar
  65. Katz Y, Hendel Y (2012) Israel vs. Iran: the shadow war. Potomac Books, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  66. Keegan J (1993) The history of warfare. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Klaidman D (2012) Kill or capture. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Kraska J (2011) Maritime power and the law of the sea. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kretzmer D (2013) The inherent right to self- defence and proportionality in jus ad bellum. Eur J Int Law 24:235–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kolenda C (2012) The counterinsurgency challenge: a parable of leadership and decision making in modern conflict. Stackpole Books, MechanicsburgGoogle Scholar
  71. Krulak C (1999) The strategic corporal: leadership in the three block war. Marines Mag http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/strategic_corporal.htm. Accessed 24 March 2015
  72. Kunz K (1947) Individual and collective self-defense in Article 51 of the charter of the United Nations. Am J Int Law 41:872–879Google Scholar
  73. Lauder M (2009) Systemic operational design: freeing operational planning from the shackles of linearity. Can Mil J http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no4/08-lauder-eng.asp. Accessed 24 March 2015
  74. Lauterpacht H (1952) The problem of the revision of the law of war. Br Yearb Int Law 29:360–382Google Scholar
  75. Lewis M (2003) The law of aerial bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War. Am J Int Law 97:481–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Levitt M (2013) Hezbollah: the global footprint of Lebanon’s Party of God. Georgetown University Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  77. Lieblich E (2014) Quasi-hostile acts: the limits on forcible disruption operations under international law. Bos U Int Law J 32:101-Google Scholar
  78. Lindqvist S (2001) A history of bombing. The New Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  79. MacIssac D (1984) Voices from the central blue: the airpower theorists. In: Paret Peter (ed) Makers of modern strategy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 624–647Google Scholar
  80. McKeogh C (2002) Innocent civilians: the morality of killing in war. Palgrave MacMillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Meilinger P (2013) Airpower and collateral damage: theory, practice and challenges. Air power Australia essay on military ethics and culture http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-EMEAC-2013-02.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2015
  82. Melzer N (2008) Targeted killing in international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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 Law Politics 42:831–916Google Scholar
  84. Merom G (2003) Why democracies lose small wars. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Meron M (2000) The humanization of humanitarian law. Am J Int Law 94:239–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Montalvo E (2013) When did imminent stop meaning immediate?Jus in bello hostile intent, imminence, and self-defense in counterinsurgency. The Army Lawyer 9:24–35Google Scholar
  87. Murray W, Scales R Jr (2003) The Iraq War. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  88. Naske N, Nolte G (2007) Aerial security law. Case No. 1 BvR 357/05. 115 BVerfGE 118. Am J Int Law 101:466–471Google Scholar
  89. National commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States (2004) The 9/11 commission report. W.W. Norton & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  90. Nurick L (1945) The distinction between combatant and noncombatant in the law of war. Am J Int Law 39:680–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Overy R (2005) Air warfare. In: Townsend Charles (ed) The Oxford history of modern war. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 262–279Google Scholar
  92. Owen M (2012) No easy day: the autobiography of a Navy Seal. Dutton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  93. Owen T, Kiernan B (2006) Bombs over Cambodia. The Walrus pp 62–69. http://www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2015
  94. Pape R (1996) Bombing to win. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  95. Parks WH (2009) Combatants. Int Law Stud 85:247–306Google Scholar
  96. Parks WH (2010) Part IX of the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” study: no mandate, no expertise, and legally incorrect. NYU J Int Law Politics 42:769–830Google Scholar
  97. Pomper S (2012) Toward a limited consensus on the loss of civilian immunity in non-international armed conflict: making progress through practice. Int Law Stud 88:181–193Google Scholar
  98. Pouw E (2013) International human rights law and the law of armed conflict in the context of counterinsurgency. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, on file with the authorGoogle Scholar
  99. Raviv D, Melman Y (2012) Spies against Armageddon: inside Israel’s secret wars. Levant Books, Sea CliffGoogle Scholar
  100. Ricks T (2007) Fiasco: the American military adventure in Iraq. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  101. Roach K (2011) The 9/11 effect: comparative counter-terrorism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Roberts A (2008) The equal application of the laws of war: a principle under pressure. Int Rev Red Cross 90:931–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Roblyer DA (2003) Beyond precision: issues of morality and decision making in minimizing collateral casualties. Paper submitted to the Program in arms control, disarmament and international security, University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  104. Rogers A (2004) Law on the battlefield, 2nd edn. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  105. Saul B (2008) Defining terrorism in international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sanger David E (2012) Confront and conceal: Obama’s secret wars and surprising use of American power. Broadway Paperbacks, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  107. Scahill J (2013) Dirty wars: the world is a battlefield. Nation Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  108. Schmitt E, Shanker T (2011) Counterstrike: the untold story of America’s secret campaign against Al Qaeda. Times Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  109. Schmitt M (2004) Targeting and humanitarian law: current issues. Isr Yearb H R 34:59–104Google Scholar
  110. Schmitt M (2005) War, technology, and international humanitarian law. 4 occasional paper series http://www.hpcr.org/pdfs/OccasionalPaper4.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2015
  111. Schmitt M (2010) Deconstructing direct participation in hostilities. NYU J Int Law Pol 42:697–739Google Scholar
  112. Schmitt M (2013b) Wound, capture, or kill: a reply to Ryan Goodman’s ‘The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants”. Eur J Int Law 24:855–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Schroen G (2005) First in: an insider’s account of how the CIA spearheaded the war on terror in Afghanistan. Ballantine Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  114. Shapiro J (2013) The terrorist’s dilemma: managing violent covert organizations. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Shultz R, Dew A (2006) Insurgents, terrorists and militias: warriors of contemporary combat. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  116. Slim H (2008) Killing civilians: method, madness, and morality in war. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  117. Smith R (2006) The utility of force: the art of war in the modern world. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  118. Spaight J (1911) War rights on land. MacMillan and Co Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  119. Spaight J (1947) Air power and war rights, 3rd edn. Longmans, Green and Co Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  120. Strachan H (2013) The direction of war: contemporary strategy in historical perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Thomas W (2001) The ethics of destruction. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  122. Thompson R (1966) Defeating communist insurgency. Hailer Publishing, St PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  123. Tostensen A, Bull B (2002) Are smart sanctions feasible? World Polit 54(3):373–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Towle P (1989) Pilots and rebels: the use of aircraft in unconventional warfare 1918–1988. Brassey’s (UK) Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  125. Townshend C (2002) Terrorism: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  126. Turkel Commission (2011) Public commission to examine the maritime incident of 31 May 2010: Report part 1 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/TurkelCommission.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2015
  127. Urban M (2010) Task force black. St Martin’s Griffin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  128. Von Clausewitz C (1976) On war. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  129. Walzer M (2000) Just and unjust wars, 3rd edn. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  130. Warden J (1988) The air campaign: planning for combat. National Defense University Press http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/ward-toc.htm. Accessed 25 March 2015
  131. Warden J (1995) The enemy as a system, Airpower Journal. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj95/spr95_files/warden.htm. Accessed 25 March 2015
  132. Watkin K (2005) Warriors without rights? Combatants, unprivileged belligerents, and the struggle over legitimacy. Program on humanitarian policy and conflict research Harvard University, Occasional paper series. http://www.hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/OccasionalPaper2.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2015
  133. Watkin K (2010) Opportunity lost: organized armed groups and the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” interpretive guidance. NYU J Int Law Politics 42:641–695Google Scholar
  134. Watkin K (2012) Use of force during occupation: law enforcement and conduct of hostilities. Int Rev Red Cross 94:267–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. West B (2005) No true glory: a frontline account of the battle of Fallujah. Bantam Dell, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Other Consulted Sources

  1. Canadian National Defence (2001) Law of armed conflict at the tactical and operational levels. Joint Doctrine manual, B-GJ-005-104/FP-021Google Scholar
  2. Center for Civilians in Conflict/Columbia Law School (2012) The civilian impact of drones: unexamined costs, unanswered questions. http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/The%20Civilian%20Impact%20of%20Drones.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2015
  3. Corbett J (1911) Some Principles of maritime strategy. Republished in 2004. Dover Publications Inc, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Doswald-Beck L (ed) (1995) San Remo manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (2009) Commentary on the HPCR manual on international law applicable to air and missile warfare http://ihlresearch.org/amw/Commentary%20on%20the%20HPCR%20Manual.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2015
  6. Howard M, Paret P (trans and eds) (1976) Carl Von Clausewitz—on war, Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Human Rights Watch (2004) The wedding that became a funeral: US drone attack on marriage procession in Yemen http://www.hrw.org/reports/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral. Accessed 24 March 2015
  8. International institute of humanitarian law (2009) Rules of engagement handbook https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b0d0f70-bb07-48f2-af0a-7474e92d0bb0/San-Remo-ROE-Handbook. Accessed 25 March 2015
  9. Joint Chiefs of Staff (2010) Department of defense dictionary of military and associated terms (2010) (as amended through 15 January 2010) http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/index.html. Accessed 24 March 2015
  10. Joint Chiefs of Staff—US (2013) Joint Targeting, Joint Publication 3-60Google Scholar
  11. Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre (2004) The joint service manual of the law of armed conflict. Joint Service Publication 383 Ministry of Defence, ShrivenhamGoogle Scholar
  12. Liddell B (1991) Strategy, 2nd edn. A Meridan Book, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Mao T-T (1937) On guerrilla warfare. Samuel B Griffith trs (2000). University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  14. NATO/ISAF (2009) Tactical directive, ISAF headquarters http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/Tactical_Directive_090706.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2015
  15. Robertson HB Jr (1997) The principle of the military objective in the law of armed conflict. US Air Force Acad J Law Stud 8:35–70Google Scholar
  16. Sandoz Y et al (eds) (1987), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987) http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750073?OpenDocument. Accessed 24 March 2015
  17. Schmitt M (2009a) Targeting narcoinsurgents in Afghanistan: the limits of international humanitarian law. Yearb Int Hum Law 12:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmitt M (2009b) Targeting and international humanitarian law in Afghanistan. Int Law Stud 85:307–333Google Scholar
  19. Schmitt M (ed) (2013a) Tallin manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmitt M (2006) Effects based operations and the law of aerial warfare. Wash Univ Glob Stud Law Rev 5(2):265–293Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Army (2006), Marine corps counterinsurgency field manual. Marine corps Warfighting publication No. 3–33.5Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard (2007) The commander’s handbook on the law of naval operations. NWP 1-14 M https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9b8e92d-2c8d-4779-9925-0defea93325c/. Accessed 24 March 2015
  23. Watkin K (2014a) Targeting in air warfare. Isr Yearb Hum Rights 44:1–67Google Scholar
  24. Watkin K (2014b) Targeting “Islamic State” oil facilities. Int Law Stud 99:499Google Scholar
  25. Zarate J (2011) Treasury’s war: unleashing of a new era of financial warfare. Public Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KingstonOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations