NATO Veterans Initiative - NAVI’s Post

I'm very sure that former criminal prosecutors such as Prof. Ken Roth, Datuk Stanley Augustin and human rights pioneer Datuk Param Cumaraswamy and HRW, CEP, FDD-LWJ are well aware that the USA is not a State-Party to the Rome Statute and apparently, neither is Malaysia. Americans, whether victims or otherwise of International Terrorist Activities arising out of October 7 thereafter, and their families, will surely demand Justice. In the USA, the U.S. has laws like 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which makes it a federal crime to provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations. This statute has been applied in numerous cases, such as Holder v Humanitarian Law Project, where the US Supreme Court upheld the prohibition on providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations. SCOTUS stated that even support intended for peaceful purposes could be diverted to further terrorist activities, thereby posing a threat to USA national security. Additionally, the U.S. exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute terrorist acts against U.S. citizens that occur outside the country. This means that even if a terrorist act happens abroad, the U.S. can still investigate and prosecute the perpetrators under its federal laws. It highlighted the broad scope of the material support statute and its application to various forms of assistance, including training and expert advice. The USA is among the few countries in the world where foreign common law trained lawyers may take the Californian, New York and Texas Bar exams and be admitted to the respective state bars or take the LLM for foreign trained lawyers etc. The approach to substantive law is the same but nuanced in common law countries.

Reflecting on the 25 years since the Kargil War, we honor the bravery of our soldiers and examine the legal aspects that have shaped our national security policies. Understanding the implications of war from a legal perspective is crucial for ensuring justice and peace. #KargilWar25 #LegalPerspective #NationalSecurity #IndianArmy #KargilVijayDiwas #WarAndLaw #MilitaryLaw #PeaceAndJustice

Part II of our analysis applies International Humanitarian Law's (IHL) core principles to both sides of the ongoing Israel/Hamas armed conflict. We also make a pragmatic argument for compliance with IHL, even when confronted by an enemy who flagrantly violates IHL. Counterinsurgency conflict is frequently as much a kinetic war, as a war of ideas against an extremist ideology. Therefore, winning the psychological operations fight on the political battlefield requires strict adherence to the rule of law. Unilateral compliance with IHL communicates to the world that the line between the morally just and morally unjust party and cause is clear.

Justice Weekly: From the Section on Editorials (LBA) Understanding the Role of Combatants in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) In the realm of International Humanitarian Law, the term ‘combatant’ holds significant legal weight, denoting individuals authorized to engage directly in hostilities during an armed conflict. The foundation of this designation is rooted in Article 43(2) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1949), which classifies combatants as “all the members of the armed forces of a party to an armed conflict, apart from medical personnel and chaplains.” This distinction underscores the structured framework within IHL aimed at regulating armed conflicts while ensuring humanitarian protections. By clearly defining combatants, IHL sets the stage for accountability and compliance in the conduct of warfare, safeguarding non-combatants and upholding the principles of humanity.

Check out BCC Member Katharine Fortin's latest piece in Just Security examining the manner in which armed groups' civilian and political wings fit within the #IHL framework. 👇 This is part of the Symposium on Armed Groups and International Law. In the Shadowland of Legality and Illegality (Edward Elgar Publishing), edited with BCC member Ezequiel Heffes, which explores how the relation between armed groups and international law is conceived, and the different tensions that arise from this complex relationship 👇 https://lnkd.in/eJp2aWB6 #internationallaw #internationalhumanitarianlaw

A very interesting article on the nexus between IHL and HRL. two distinct and complementary sets of laws that guide armed conflicts. https://lnkd.in/dVyxjnBm

Excellent article from the Lieber Institute for Law and Warfare on the inherent shortfalls in International Humanitarian Law — which is often vague and open to varying interpretation. It is imperative to understand the intent and spirit of any law or bodies of law. The intent and spirit of IHL, born largely from the atrocities and lessons of WWII, was the promotion of ethical and professional warfare and the protection of the innocent in conflict. The intent and spirt was not as legal justification for the infliction of massive civilian harm. If that becomes its purpose — then what is IHL other than a legal protection and justification for atrocity? The United States military understands this and takes these questions head on. There is always work to do, but the United States sets the standard for ethical and professional warfighting and precision in warfare. "It is... unrealistic to expect IHL to serve as a silver bullet to address all harm or guarantee comprehensive civilian protection.... Addressing civilian harm, and responding to humanitarian need in armed conflict, cannot be addressed comprehensively through a normative lens, let alone the limited lens of IHL." #IHL #InternationalHumanitarianLaw #CivilianHarm #NationalSecurityStrategy #PrecisionWarfare

I am super happy to announce that my new book, published by Palgrave MacMillan, is out! The book, titled Preventive Warfare: Hegemony, Power, and the Reconceptualization of War, provides a critical analysis of the reconceptualization of preventive warfare in the 21st century. It discusses how the US redefined key concepts to set up a new legal framework for preventive warfare and, consequently, to introduce unlawful practices into preventive military operations. The new conceptualization of preventive warfare enabled the US to ignore some of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and thus use armed force within a lax legal framework and with greater impunity.   The book starts by examining how preventive measures aimed at eliminating future vague threats became a key part of counterterrorism in both law enforcement and military operations in the post-9/11 era. The paradigmatic shift to preventive actions included the reinvention of preventive methods of combat. Focusing on three examples of preventive warfare, the book examines the reconceptualization of preventive national self-defense, preventive on-the-spot reactions in combat operations, and preventive “security” detention. The new legal framework and practices used in preventive warfare blurred the line between civilians and legitimate military targets in ways that increased the risks of causing harm to civilians. Finally, the book explores how the new rules on preventive warfare fit within hegemonic international law. It contends that the shift to preventive warfare enabled the US to resort to indiscriminate and disproportionate violence to maintain its hegemonic position in the international system.   Link: https://lnkd.in/dj_Wh4pY

Join us in our "One Minute of International Law" series as we explore the crucial topic of "Understanding the Limits of Armed Conflict." 🕊️💼 In this episode, we delve into the legal boundaries that govern warfare, shedding light on the delicate balance between military necessity and humanitarian principles. 🛡️✨ Don't miss out on gaining valuable insights into the laws that safeguard humanity even in the midst of battle. Click the link below to watch now! ⬇️ #InternationalHumanitarianLaw #ArmedConflict #HumanRights #OneMinuteOfInternationalLaw #LegalSeries #LinkedInLearning #LegalEducation #HumanitarianPrinciples #CivilianProtection #LinkedInVideo