Relationship between LOAC and IHRL

Latest in Relationship between LOAC and IHRL

Relationship between LOAC and IHRL

Joint Series: Querying the Roles for Human Rights Bodies in the Interplay between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law

Editors Note from Bobby Chesney: Throughout the month of September, a group of blogs including Lawfare, InterCross (the blog of the ICRC), and EJIL:Talk! (the blog of the European Journal of International Law) will be running a series of posts following up on this summer’s

Relationship between LOAC and IHRL

Judicial Review for POWs During Armed Conflict?

Interested in the ongoing debate over the relationship between LOAC and Human Rights Law in general, or the intersection of those bodies of law in relation to non-criminal detention in particular? You won't want to miss this.

In 2012, the UN Human Rights Council asked the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to produce a document spelling out just what it means to say there is a prohibition on arbitrary detention--including in the context of armed conflict.

International Law

Judicialization of Warfare in the U.K.

A British think tank called Policy Exchange has released a very interesting report on judicialization of British warfare. Entitled "Clearing the Fog of Law: Saving Our Armed Forces from Defeat by Judicial Diktat," the 50-page report by Richard Elkins, Jonathan Morgan, and Tom Tugendhat opens: "The judiciary is pioneering a revolution in military affairs. Empowered by the Human Rights Act 1998, its spectre now haunts commanders in both war and peace.

Guantanamo: Legislation

How Not to Close Guantanamo: Bring It Here

Ben asks “What Would it Take to Close Guantanamo?” and he provides a thoughtful response weighted toward the political landscape. But there’s another not-so-merely-philosophical question that underlies his question: what does it mean to “close Guantanamo?”

For purposes of rapprochement with Cuba it may have to mean U.S. out of Guantanamo altogether.

Interrogation: CIA Program

Findings, Conclusions and Areas of Dispute Between the SSCI Report, the Minority, and the CIA: Part Five

Here is the fifth and final installment in our running, side-by-side comparison of the twenty findings and conclusions of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Study on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program---along  with responses by the Committee Minority and the CIA.

Summaries of Study findings seventeen through twenty can be found below.

International Law

Findings, Conclusions and Areas of Dispute Between the SSCI Report, the Minority, and the CIA: Part Four

In this post, we proceed with Lawfare's ongoing, side-by-side comparison of the SSCI Study's key findings, and responses to them by both the SSCI Minority as well as the CIA.

By way of reminder, the SSCI's Study made twenty findings and conclusions about the CIA's detention and interrogation practices after 9/11---twelve of which the blog has summarized so far, along with any corresponding Minority and CIA remarks.

A breakdown of findings 13-16 can be found below, the lone goal being to

Interrogation: CIA Program

Released: SSCI Detention and Interrogation Study, Along With Minority Views and the CIA's Response

Here is the long-awaited Executive Summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. The latter includes in a single file a foreword authored by Senator Feinstein, as well as the Study's findings and conclusions.

Subscribe to Lawfare

EmailRSSKindle