Charles Garraway

THE USE AND ABUSE OF MILITARY MANUALS

This article looks at the history of military manuals and their role in the dissemination of the law of armed conflict. It divides manuals into three categories, international, national, and internal, examining each in turn in relation to its role. The author concludes that there is a tension between the role of a manual as evidence of ‘state practice’ in the development of customary international law and the need to provide service personnel with clear understandable instructions for use in military operations. He counsels against excessive reliance on manuals as evidence of state practice as this could have the effect of making states reluctant to openly publish such documents with a detrimental effect in the operational field.

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

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.

Can the Law of Armed Conflict Survive 9/11?

For those of my generation, the question always used to be, “Can you remember where you were when you heard of Kennedy’s assassination?” I can, but that question has now been replaced by “Can you remember where you were when you heard about the Twin Towers?” Again I can. But such earth shattering events have different effects. Whilst the Kennedy assassination led to a plethora of conspiracy theories, books and films, it did not have any effect on the international legal structure. “9/11”, on the other hand did.

Comments on Illegal War and Illegal Conduct: Are the Two Related?

This article examines whether there is a link between the legality or otherwise of an armed conflict under jus ad bellum and the subsequent conduct of the campaign under jus in bello. This is done by comparing two conflicts where the legality was not in serious dispute, the Falklands/Malvinas conflict and the Iraq War 1990–1991, and three where the legality has been questioned, Kosovo 1999, the ‘global war on terror’ and the Iraq War 2003. In looking for a common link, the author is drawn away from concerns over the jus ad bellum to doubts over the content of the relevant law governing the conduct of hostilities. Uncertainties in the law have occurred both from the extension to non-international armed conflict of ‘Hague law’, traditionally applicable only in international armed conflicts, and the overlap between human rights law and the law of armed conflict. The author concludes that there is a danger that the balance between military necessity and humanity may be disturbed so that the law will become impracticable in the cauldron of conflict to the detriment of all, soldier and civilian alike.

The International Humanitarian Fact‐Finding Commission

The International Humanitarian Fact‐Finding Commission was established in 1977 by Article 90 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Unfortunately, it has never been used. This article looks at the Commission, its history and whether it is still relevant in the modern world.