No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The International Legal Framework for Fighting Terrorists According to the Bush and the Obama Administrations: Same Or Different, Correct or Incorrect?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Same or Different? Bush and Obama Administration Approaches to Fighting Terrorists
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010
References
1 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (September 2006), available at http://www.globalsecurity.org.
2 For a legal explanation of the U.S. position, see White House, Memorandum of February 7th , 200 2, Appendix to J. R. Schlesinger (Chairman), Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review DoD Detention Operations 85 (Aug. 24, 2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil; Bellinger, John B. III, Legal Issues in the War on Terrorism—A Reply to Silja N. U. Voneky, 8 German L. J. 871 (2007)Google Scholar; Reply of the Government of the United States of America to the Report of the Five Unchr Special Rapporteurs on Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (March 10, 2006), available at http://www.asil.org/pdfs/ilib0603212.pdf.
3 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 630 (2006).
4 Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
5 See U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, In Re: Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Respondents’ Memorandum Regarding the Government’s Authority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantánamo Bay, Misc. No. 08-442 Tfh (Mar. 13, 2009).
6 For a more nuanced explanation of my position, see Sassòli, Marco, The International Legal Framework for Stability Operations: When May International Forces Attack or Detain Someone in Afghanistan?, 39 Israel Y.B. Hum. Rts. 177, 208-10 (2009)Google Scholar.
7 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) art. 5, June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 [hereinafter “Protocol II”].
8 Id. Art. 6.
9 Bellinger, supra note 2, at 874.
10 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 21, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T 3217, 75 U.N.T.S. 135. Article 5 of that Convention does, however, prescribe status determination tribunals for persons to whom a detaining power wants to deny Pow status.
11 When are active hostilities against the Taliban over? Only once the last Taliban hidden in a mountain cave is arrested? Until the Taliban formally “surrender”?
12 Protocol II, supra note 7, Art. 6(5), simply encourages the widest possible amnesty.
13 Koskenniemi, Martti, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, U.N. Doc. A/Cn.4/L.682, para. 112 (2006)Google Scholar; Krieger, Heike, A Conflict of Norms: The Relationship Between Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in the ICRC Customary Law Study, 11 J Conflict & Security L. 269, 271 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Int’l Law Comm’n, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 56th Session (3 May June, 5 July-6 August 2004), U.N. Doc. A/59/10, para. 304.
14 See Response of Us to Request for Precautionary Measures—Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 11 Apr. 2002, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 41 ILM 1015 (2002).
15 See Harold Hongju Koh, Written Responses to Pre-Hearing Questions to Legal Advisor-Designate Harold Hongju Koh by Senator Richard Lugar, Senate Foreign Relations Committee (2009), at 1, available at http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/pdf/CookQFR.pdf (visited Jan. 25, 2011).
16 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 2(1), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171(emphasis added).
17 See Dennis, Michael J., Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation, 99 AJIL 119, 123-24 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 For the government of Israel, see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Advisory Opinion), 2004 ICJ Rep. 136, at paras. 102 and 110 (July 9); Roberts, Adam, Prolonged Military Occupations: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967, 84 AJIL 44, 71-72 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It seems that the Israeli High Court of Justice recognizes the extraterritorial applicability of IHRL; see Orna Ben-Naftali & Shany, Yuval, Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in Occupied Territories, 37 ISR. L. Rev. 17, 87-95 (2003-2004)Google Scholar. For the United States, see Bellinger, supra note 2, at 877.
19 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall, supra note 18, paras 107-12; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem Rep Congo v Uganda), 2005 ICJ Rep. 116, paras 216-17.
20 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Israel. 18/08/98, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.93, para. 10; id., General Comment 31, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.l3, para. 10.
21 United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, paras. 11-19 (2004).
22 See also references in Walter Kälin, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kuwait Under Iraqi Occupation, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1992/26, at paras. 50-59 (Jan. 16, 1992).