WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Currently browsing posts by Dan King
Does the International Law of Assassination Outside of the Battlefield Make Sense?
Alan Dershowitz’s recent Huffington Post column discusses the legality of the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, (now former) leader of Hamas’ military wing. Commentators correctly speculate that Israel was responsible. Dershowitz argues that the assassination did not violate international law. Whether or not the assassination violated international law, another important question is whether the relevant international law makes sense.
Dershowitz’s first inquiry is to determine if al-Mabhouh was a combatant vis-à-vis his killers. Accepting that the Israelis assassinated him, al-Mabhouh was a combatant—considering that he was an “active participant in the ongoing war by Hamas against Israeli civilians. Indeed, it is likely that he was killed while on a military mission to Iran in order to secure unlawful anti-personnel rockets that target Israeli civilians.[1]” Now that we’ve established that al-Mabhouh was a combatant, we have to determine if there are circumstances in which international law forbids combatant assassinations. Presumably, international law does not allow assassinations of combatants under all circumstances.
Dershowitz writes that geography is the only limitation on assassinations of combatants. Had the assassination taken place in Gaza, it assuredly would have been legal. The only complication to the legality of the assassination is the fact that it took place in Dubai. Dubai law and sovereignty was violated—but nothing else. Perhaps there should be other circumstances in which assassinations of combatants are prohibited. I confess to not being an international law expert;…
What’s next for Libyan Victims of Terrorism?
Readers of Opinio Juris may have seen Roger Alford’s recent piece discussing the apportionment of compensation funds among victims of Libyan terrorism. Victims and their families have retained Crowell & Moring to act against the Libyan government. Given the large number of victims, it was decided to appoint representatives to liaise between victims and the firm. The representatives signed a joint prosecution agreement (JPA), stipulating that compensation received by any signatory was to be shared by all signatories, according to an injury-type sliding scale and without regard for nationality.
A few years later, the U.S. government signed a compensation treaty with the Libyans, compensating only American victims. Crowell & Moring demanded that the funds obtained through the treaty should be shared with all victims of terrorism, including non-Americans, as per the JPA. Alford thinks it will be difficult for the non-Americans to argue that the JPA overrides the treaty as the agreement does not explicitly allocate funds obtained through diplomatic means. I bow to his superior knowledge of likely litigation outcomes – but am unsure that such a decision would be just.
The majority of victims of Libyan atrocities are non-American. Morally, they are as entitled to compensation as American victims. There is a possibility that other nations will not be as successful as the Americans in obtaining compensation for their victims. The Libyans have a strong incentive to please the Americans as…
Should International Law Accountability Extend to US Drone Operations?
Opinio Juris recently cited remarks by Philip Alston, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, in which he argued that the United States should publicly discuss its unmanned drone activities in Waziristan. The United States Government’s terse response is that the “Predators are targeting combatants in armed conflict.” Insufficient, says Alston, because the drones are striking numerous targets including civilians, without being subjected to international law scrutiny. This begs the obvious question of whether or not the drone attacks are justified. As it’s an interesting question, I hope to read more about it. However, this piece will explore Alston’s conception of international law accountability vis-à-vis the drone attacks. I argue that the drone operations should face international law scrutiny, but in a less publicized fashion
Alston’s argument seems prima facie justifiable. If an actor’s military operations are killing civilians and worry UN investigators, surely the member state government should either issue a convincing public defence of the operations or end them. Yet, if US government lawyers do the former, they may risk compromising key military operations. Why is this, and if it is the case, how can the drone operations face international law scrutiny?
