Shared Flashcard Set


LOAC Exam 2
Morton's 2nd Exam for LOAC
Political Studies
Undergraduate 4

Additional Political Studies Flashcards




Laws of Belligerent Occupation

 in armed conflict aganist another nation state, occupying territory of another nation state

  • Jus In Bello Principles
  • Prisoner of War Laws
  • Weapon restrictions
  • aerial warfare and warefare at sea
Occupying Foreign Land in War
  • Immedietely we apply jus ad bellum - was this a legal intervention ? Yes or no? Then jus ad bello apply
  • up until 1900- could claim territory as own -- territorial agrandizement - sovereign territory

-in 1900- doctorine of intervention was in play so it was legal 

Traditional Timeline for Occupied Land
  • war - often some occupation --> annexation was the means that a state would lay title to it which is a domestic process--> then it owns that land
  • war was more likely than not because of the nation states feeling fewwer restrictions with greater benefits
  • the princple reason for prohibiting annexation was the way to lower going to war
  • Belligerent occupation,  then occupied territory that reamins territory of B, but abides by the laws of the belligerent occupation.
Belligerent Occupation
  • terrotiry under foreign military control
  • no change in status or nationality.
  • the exception to non intervenion principle - SC authorization and self defense i.e Iraq
  • Needs two things, Clear statement of Occupation and Rules for Society
Clear Statement of Occupation
  •  comes with coordinates
    • if the occupying power fails to make statement, does not undermine status of occupying terroritory
Rules for Society
  • what the statement should provide. And the penalties for violating them
Occupying Power
  • often reffered to as the controlling power
Examples of Belligerent Occupation
  • the little on invaded the big, gained control over big piece of territory(occupied territory), now it is under belligerent occupation
  • the little country responsible for mantaining the occupation, order, and applying the rules as stated
    • the small country then moves northward, and occupies up north -- battlefield not under occupation rules and regulations
    • just because at war with a country in the country doesn’t mean we occupy all territory
Occupation Time Line
  • begin with a period of hostilities, then a period of occupation, Belligerent occupation ; hositilites end and the period of belligerent occupation continues because it doesnt mean the controlling power is immedietely relieved of its responsibilities; period of that extension is one year
  • belligerent occupation laws begin after intervention and then it ends one year after the end of hostilities
Recent Belligerent Occupations

-Israel: Palestinian Territories - Israelis responsible for the people in those territories and their own well being

  • Iraq: Kuwait (1990-1991) - Amount of destruction per day average was most destructive; Iraqis went after everything -- birth records, drivers liscenses, etc. Looted everything , killed people, ruined infrastructure. When war ended there was a specialy commision established that would determine Iraqi reporcussions
  • USA: Iraq (2003-200?)  ? of when it ended, there was a transfer of power back to Iraqis, but others look at Iraq and say we have been occupying until the end of 2011/ 2012 it would go into because formally end war in 2012
  • Turkey: Northern Cyrus ( as result of 1974 invasion) 
Belligerent Occupation Principles
  • See them outlined in Hague 1899 and 1907 - Most states say 1907 is the very definitive Belligerent Occupation one.
  • Civilian’s convention in 1949 - part of Geneva Conventions - further extended Hague Principles
  • Responsibilities of Local Authorities End ( at the core)  -- not longer responsibility and it transfers to the occupying power
  • Occupying power now is responsible - mantining order/ applying rules/ if someone quits you have to fill the vaccum
Rights of Belligerent Occupiers
  • Relocate occupied Population
    • should either be to protect the population or as a result of military neccessity
  • Arrest, Detain, and Prosecute violators of the Law
  • Use of Public Facitilies of the occupied
  • May change/Amend domestic laws of the occupied people
Occupation and Domestic Law
  • Municipal law of the occupied state
    • can take out some of those laws if run counter to interests as occupied power
    • common is right to bear arms
    • can change the election laws - can even dismiss all together 
  • Can Add Laws to raise standards or to Reflect Human Rights
  • Womens suffrage
Restrictions on Belligerent Occupiers

1. Devalue Local Currency to Harm the Public

- degrade economy by attacking currency really breaks them down; can print new or change the exchange rate

2. Tax Beyond the Needs for Administration

- of the occupation, cannot use it as a weapon

3. Confiscate Private Property

-state property is a different matter, homes have to be respected

4. Implement Collective Punishment

-frequently happens under belligerent occupation; can not hold innocent accountable for the actions of others

5. Allow Looting and lawlessness

- Penalties usually applied after the fact; IL not applied blindly and equally as sounds in theory

The Looting of Baghdad Museum
  • one of best in world
  • Mesopotamia, looted after the American Intervention in spring 2003, the US became belligerent occupying power of all territory under its control.
  • secretary of defense constantly questioned about it
  • we did not live up to responsibilities
  • the simple rule is if you can not occupy as required than do not intervine
Rumsfeld’s Iraq Map Statement
  • Support for war the time of the intervention broke, the pres. approval rating almost reached 90 percent
  • the ones who opposed, they jsut did because said didnt authroze it from UN
  • many worried that US wouldnt ultimately succeeed
  • had map behind him, showed a vast majority of the map and said we are already occupying 75-80% of the country. All of the major cities inside the zone
  • very close after, spokeperson retracted statement, said it was for illustration purposes only
    • what it was about, was our responsibility -- > if we failed to provide to that whole area, we were in trouble and it was the fall of the americans
    • just because we retracted wording, doesnt mean the us wansnt the belligerent occupier
Obligations of Belligerent Occupiers
  • Local Needs - Very Large. No matter what size the part of the area, large amount of area. Basic needs to get by
  • according to local resources, about 60% could be provided about
  • but the occupying power can not tell them to lower their needs, the belligerent occupier is responsible for filling that gap and making sure resoucrces are up to the point of neccessity
  • we have lawyers and judges to reach final decisions just like in domestic law 
Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule
  • “ If you break it, you own it”
  • If you invade Iraq, you know own it
    • we know this not to be true
  • If you occupy it, then you are responsible for it --- change it to this
    • if you can’t hold the responsibility, you do not occupy it


Iraq’s Occupation of Kuwait (1990-91)
  • 600 oil wells set on fire
  • destruction of property 
  • absolute destruction
  • enviromental destruction
  • opened up oil into gulf and made so much damage
US Occupation of Iraq(2003-2011)
  • not the easiest question to say when it ends
  • enormous amount of american energy
  • Americans were never really successful there
Israel’s Occupation of the Territories

-west bank and Goland heights

-Richard Falk- Princeton- considered one of the more brillant IL Lawyers

  • very critical of Israel and its occupational practices
  • routinely, he is denied entry into the country
Jus in Bello Principles

-not cut and dry

  • ongoing test
  • very complicated to apply and adjudicate
  • laws that date to antiquity
  • place restrictions on forces in the field
    • terminology used in the Hague Conventions
Principle Aims ( of jus in bello principles) of Hague Conventions
    • reduce the destructive nature of war
    • limit human suffering
    • separate belligerents from innocents ( soldier in the field can be ind. or legal person/ nation state = belligerent)
    • establish standards for negotiation
The First Perspective of Morality and War ( there are 3)
  • the orgins of jus ad bello are moral
    • theres war and then morality and the two will never meet
    • General Patton - War is hell
    • unrealated
    • war is a neccesity 
    • morality is a luxury

The Second Perspective of Morality and War ( there are 3)
    • General Sherman( was in the 1860s)
    • Morality and War are Contradictory 
      • they are contradictory, oxmoronic
      • they undermine one another
      • We should go to war againist morality
      • Inflict Severe Pain
      • argued you could end the war quickly if you fought a dirty/destructive war
    • reflects the Sherman approach-- applied by Truman in Japan

 not a japanese center for the japanese military, it killed their family

    • idea behind was we were going to make their society pay to such an extent that they would surrender
    • before this we were dropping gasoline bombs in tokyo
    • trying to make war as nasty and horrible as possible so the victim/recieving side will surrender 
Logic of Sherman’s Perspective
  • Immoral Dirty war will lead to a Quick Victory -- > Loss of Life is Avoided if we do this
  • Machiavelli would say “ the ends justify the means”
  • where as if fought a moral (legal) war  it will lead to a Prolonged War--> More lives lost
  • Sherman , burning of the south, said helped end civil war earlier
  • Sherman - destruction of southern crops and plantations

    • if you fight an immoral and dirty war, it will lead to quick victory and you will have a net gain in terms of overall deaths, save peoples lives by sacrificing a few
Examples of Sherman
  • use of poisonous gases ( ww1)
  • Vietnam - horrific bombing and destruction, 8 years of war
  • American Civil War
  • WW1
  • Vietnam War
    • All 3 in category as dirty wars , violation of core principles of jus ad bello , all very long and destructive wars
  • when have an idea, think of example to counter it
The Illogic of Sherman’s Perspective
  • A Dirty War leads to a lot of conclusions on the other side
    • the other side reaches the conclusion that the enemy is a monster
    • also that you can’t negotiate with a monstrous enemy
    • finally, that it is a war to the end
    • It also leads to retaliation -- response in Kind
Us v Taliban: Afghanistan (2001-?)
  • 2012: Us- Taliban Negotiations announced
  • then pictures shown of us soldiers decegrading the enemy
  • Then it was said that negotiations should go ahead as scheduled -- > President Karzi
The Iraq War 2003-2011
  • Repulsive behavior by Americans
Inter Arma, Silent Leges
  • In time of war, laws fall silent
Third Perspective of Morality and War ( one of the 3)
  •  IHL Proponents
  • the relationship between morality and war is essential and undeniable; there is a moral and legal obligation and at the core self-interest drives respect for morality in time of war
Reasons for Respecting IHL
  • The Humane Imperative - we should not be unnecessary destructive
  • Action- Reaction Cycle
  • Avoid Prosecution
  • Coalition support can be lost
  • International Reputation
Haditha Killings 2005
  • people diff. views of Peter W.
    • some say he is a murdered and some people say he is a soldier in a difficult time
    • some say he is a hero, that what he did needs a medal
    • disgrace to the uniform, what many in the military say
    • what he did as the bottom line, attacks on americans and cost american lives
Jus in Bello Principles
  • Distinction - Discrimination -- to discriminate between targets
  • Proportionality - using sufficient military force to accomplish limited goals but not overkill
  • No Unnecessary Suffering
  • Prohibition on Perfidy - treatury
  • Marten’s Clause - found in preamble of Hague
  • Three are cardinal rules - No unnecesscary suffering, prohibition on perfidy, and discrimination
Distinction Among targets
  • Lawful and unlawful
  • Combatant and noncombatant
  • If it is a combatant it may be targeted; if it is a noncombatant it may not be targeted
Civilians in time of War
  • Not members of an armed group
  • Do not Participate directly in the war
  • Non-combatants
Human Sheilding

-sees a bag, has child pick up the bag

  • “neighboring”
  • this is a violation of distinction - must not endanger non combatants during armed conflict
Israeli Shielding Case 2010
  • 2 Israeli Defense Force Soldiers charged with war crimes
  • they were found guilty for having used people ( noncombatants) as human shields
  • forcing a boy in Gaza City to open doors and such
  • Given no jail time at all
  • their own gov. prosecuted them 
Reasons to Discriminate Targets
  • Legal Obligation
  • avoid friendly fire
  • Reflection of their training
Combatant Qualifications
  • Wear a uniform or Military insignia
  • Operate Under a Chain of Command
  • Carry Arms
  • Actively Participating in the war
Status Mixtus

-Civilian by Day, Insurgent by night ( kill at night)

  • Are Combatants
Lawful Target in War
  • People in militaries with armed conflict underway
  • Military Legal Advisor
  • Truck Driver
  • Army Cook
UnLawful Target in War
  • Children obviously
Lawful Combatants
  • - Meets the four qualifications, if you capture them they have certain rights, connects to the laws of war
Unlawful Combatants
  • violation of laws or one of 4 qualifications; spies;mercenaries
Lawful and Unlawful Combatants
  • both of the categories can indeed be targeted
  • may be killed, may be wounded, or captured
  • lawful side -- if captured, they enjoy POW status and protections
  • if an unlawful combatant captured, may be prosecuted as a war criminal
American Policy in the Center of Combatant and Non Combatant Divide
    • we dealt with them in a way that sort of messes up the waters a bit; manufactured concepts and applied them
    • Quantanimo Bay Detention Center

      - detenee facility so people captured in Afghanistan and Iraq were held here


Combatants and Non-combatants

-Lawfull combatant and an Unlawful Combatant - > they have a right to Legal Counsel is a right of war criminals ( not POW no need to be charged) , can be charged with crimed if unlawful combatant

  • if lawful combatant and POW- must be released when war is over
  • can be interregated - unlawful
The Bush Doctorine on Detainees
  • Had 3 categories
  • Lawful combantant
  • Illegal Combantant- can be charged and interregated but no right ot legal council
  • Unlawful combatant
  • Cilivians,Protected Persons, Medical Staff, Religious Staff, Peace keepers
  • can be detained for own protection or military neccessity, but can not be targeted
The Media ( and the two categories)
    • Journalists on Mission - Captured: Not POWS (often wear a designation)
    • War Correspondent- embedded in the military ; Captured: POW
  • all treated as civilians ; you can not intentionally target the media in warfare
Unnecessary Suffering Prohibition
  • 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration: Preamble
    • limits amounts of grams of gun power; idea of limiting destructiveness of warfare

-Hague 1899 and 1907

  • Means and Methods of War
    • Means is a weapon, methods is the use of the weapons
  • A harm greater than that unavoidable to achieve military objectives--> ICJ
Prohibition on Perfidy
  • Ruses of War
  • then International Law in between
  • and then Perfidy
  • acts that mislead the adversary to believe there is a situation affording protection under international law
  • perfidy is an exploitation of trust, in which false sense of security is conveyed to the other side for the purpose of military advantage
Ruses of War
  • act intended to mislead and adversary or induce him to act recklessly
Legal Ruses of War

Military force
- Location
- intentions

Suprise attacks
dummy weapons- cardboard tanks
Misleading Transmissions
Passwords and Codes
Moving landmarks

Ruse Qualifiers

-May not infringe upon international law

-use of the environment as a weapon of war

Perfidy: Improper use of flags
  • Man approaches soldier with the Canadian flag
  • -false protective symbols
  • Military uniforms and insignia
  • false surrender
-killing a mosquito with a sledge hammer
-matter of using appropriate amount of force to acheive limited military objectives
-Insufficient Force to obtain military objectives
-in between the two are proportionate force
Proportionality Calculation
-difficult to make
-anticipated contribution of attack attaining victory
-give a # 
-harm that will be caused to protected persons need to be balanced with the latter
-Basic calculation - overall impact of a particular of a military intervention, and collateral damage
Proportionality Violations
  • Attacking retreating soldiers if war is won - > almost never attributed to a soldier
  • Destroying a country’s infrastructure if not necessary for victory
McCaffery and The Highway of Death
  • -alleged he is a war criminal, because he did not call off the highway of death
  • highway leading from Kuwait into Iraq
  • massive aerial assault
  • limited objective of the war in kuwait was to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation
  • what is the purpose? it isn’t as if they would regroup and come back


The Kosovo War

-said we violated proportionality
-the war begins, we hit insignificant military targets
-our limited military objective was to force autonomy on serbia for Kosovo
-Milosivich does not concede, and said he doesnt recognize us as soveireign nation states anylonger
-we started bombing coffee cans ( their fake weapons)
-couldnt find them to bomb, so then we went after infrastructure - bridges, roads, etc
-we got angry because they wouldn’t concede, so then we start bombing downtown Belgrade- the political facitilities, etc. 
-did we violate LOAC?, we thought we hit Milosovich’s facility, and it was Chinas embassy. 

-the pilot could not be held accountable since maps werent updated, they were humiliated though because someone google mapped it and saw right where it was

-it added charge of genocide, violations of jus ad bello and bellum, but court did not hear the case ever

Proportionality Problems
  • A priori calculation - in advanced, considering attacking, estimating its value to your war objectives , and calculation the damage which is basically impossible to do
  • “ No disproportionate threshold”
  • subjective calculation
A priori
Before the fact
Marten's Clause
  • Find in preamble to Hague Convention in 1899
    • “ Until a more complete code has been issued, war is restricted by principles of humanity and public conscience”
Prisoners of War (POW)
  • Customary International Law
  • Hague Conventions addressed this , putting custom into treaty law
  • Geneva Conventions- 1920’s = geneva conventions on POW’s
WW2 POW Regulations
  • Geneva convention of 1929, ratified by Germany and US ; so they are legally bound to them
  • 1907 Hague Convention --- Soviet Union ratifies so it is what they fall back by instead of Geneva.
  • now the two have blended a lot together
  • 1949 Geneva - all 3 are partied to 49’ because it is customary, applies to all nation states
POWS: American Civil War

-Andersonville Prisoner Camp

  • people starved to death, systematic brutal and repressive treatment of PWS
  • wide range of treatment, who captured you was big determining factor of if you survive or not
  • treated horribley
The Baatan Death March
  • happened during the 2nd World War
  • 76,000 allied soldiers, captured by the Japanese and marched 60 miles
  • 26000 died
  • german military field manual, influenced by the US field manual, and they trained their soldiers in the LOAC
Key POW Questions
  • What is a POW
  • How Should POWS be treated
  • Length of POW status
  • Institutions that Protect POWS
Where are the key POW questions addressed?
all spelt out in Geneva 29’ and 49’
Prisoner of War Requirements
  • Combatant
  • someone not able to defend him or herself 
    • person can be injured or can be surrendered

-in the hands of a belligerent

  • these would all constitute a POW
When POW status Begins
  • In the hands of a belligerent
POW's in 1991 Iraq War
  • 1991 Iraq War
    • Iraqi soldiers are dazed and confuse ; cyber warefare, etc. ; completely disoriented because US is coming from every single way , flying around all over, land air ocean, etc. 5 weeks of bombing
    • The Iraqi Soldiers than Surrender to Journalists
    • Turned Over to US Army
      • would be illegal to shoot them because they pose no threat intentionally and put their hands up and signal the fact they pose no threat
      • they would be legitimate targets of attack in the event that they are suspected of perfidious action
      • at the moment they are turned over to the US army, they are prisoners of war and then they have rights (different than when they had soldier rights)
Treatment Timeline of POWs
  • Capture- --> search and disarm ( not a legal requirement to disarm before surrendering) ---> Transported to a Detention Facility ( which isn’t defined in Geneva what it is) could be as simple as a chain linked fence --> Forward Information to The ICRC ( geneva based int. committee of the Red Cross b/c it has special status in Geneva document) 
    • Icrc is specifically designated by Geneva 49’ for all medical assets ; exclusively listed as the protector as POWs; has ability to gather info and investigate
Internment/POW Camps
  • Location Requirements 
    • must be out of warzone
    • Can not deny them neccessites of life ( food water, etc.)
    • No chemical contamination
  • Protect againist war 
    • another responsiblity
  • Obligation to Mark
    • to mark the POW camps
    • they may not be attacked
Regulations on the Holding Power
  • Nation states and their militaries holding them
  • 3 categories:
    • negative - those that limit what the holding power cannot do
    • positive- requires them to do something- must do
    • suggestive- a bit of a mix of both of them; what should be doing if at all possible
Negative Regulations on the Holding Power
  • Swear Allegiance - pow can never be required
  • Forced to Fight
  • Exposed to Public curiosity- i.e in Iraq, the gov. took pictures and released said we were verifying they had them and well handled; us said they were making them a part of public curiosity
  • Can not be prosecuted for action in time of war- because by designated by POW we are verifying they are not in violation of the LOACs
    • can be prosecuted with behavior as pows
Positive Regulations on the Holding Power
  • Enough food and shelter-- same level of nutrition as a soldier in the field
  • humanely treated- vague for a good reason, not specific
  • Paid for Labor, any pow can be required to work
  • Retain rank
Positive Regulations on the Holding Power
  • Enough food and shelter-- same level of nutrition as a soldier in the field
  • humanely treated- vague for a good reason, not specific
  • Paid for Labor, any pow can be required to work
  • Retain rank
Suggestive Regulations on the Holding Power
  • less scrutinized because can be difficult to provide for
  • Grouped by nationality
  • Allow Religious Practice
  • Provide Resources on par with soldiers on the field
  • Access by the international committee of the red cross
Prisoner Escape
  • In POW Camp - not illegal
  • IN POW CAMP - Escape effort- Rejoined Forces --- then not POW status ( can be allied or own forces)-- entered a neutral state ( not a POW)-- or if join a foreign forces ship // no pow label now they are a belligerent or combatant
Prisoner Escape Crimes
  • not a crime
  • Escape -- action taken during a escape could be a crime
POW Prosecutions
  • In camp- illegal actions during escape--Back in Camp - War Ends- Then Trial
Rex V. Brosig (1945)
  • german soldier captured during WW2
  • given label of POW
  • Moved to Canada for detention
  • Decides to escape and does so from hiding in a mail bag
  • cut his way out of the mail bag, cuts self into another mail bag that had ciggs, perfume, and gum and he uses them
  • later captured and was informed he would be facing charges of petty theft
    • two of the things stolen were violations, and one was not -- perfume -- to cover his stench was not . Added one month for each after the war ended
When to Release POWS
  • End of Hostilities
  • POW exchange
  • Injured such that they can’t fight again
  • End of War and sentence complete - i.e Rex v. brosig 45’
Institutions that protect POW’s
  • Detaining Power
    • Immedietely when POWs, needs to immedietely create an information POW bureau
  • Neutral State
  • ICRC
    • Either of these can house a central information agency for POWs
  • information flows from information POW to the central info agency for POWs
  • the IROC is the most used
  • Article 126 of the POW Convention
    • says the ICRC has the right to visit and POW
    • and detention facility
    • and to monitor labor required of the soldier
    • Can interview the detainees
    • Can speak directly to POWs or reps to POWs
    • Can Issue Reports
      • needs to be careful here
        • reports are always private
Legal Restrictions on Weapons

-Limited by Jus in Bello Principles
- Limited by a treaty

-Limited by customary IL

Categories of Weapons
  • Conventional
  • Unconventional Weapons
  • Hybrid
Example of Conventional Weapons
  • bullets , sabors, tanks, airplanes
Example of unconventional weapons
  •  Nuclear, biological and Chemical
Degrees of Restriction on Weapons
  • No restriction -- Rifle
  • Limits on Use -- Mines ( legal as weapon but the use can be illegal)
  • Prohibited - Poison
Means vs. Methods
  •  Illegal Use-- Serrated Bayonet
  • Illegal possession- Expanding bullets
Situational Considerations: Expanding Bullets
  • Situation --- On the Battlefield on a suicide bomber
  • Legal Status-- illegal on battlefield, but sense legal because againist suicide bomber
  • Bullet Purpose--on battlefield - superfluous injury ; suicide bomber- limit collateral
Prohibitions on Poison

-Hague 1907

-Nirenburg - IMT 1945

-1993- ICTY

-1998 Rome: ICC

  • Under 400 Grams
  • First authorized in St. Petersburg 1868
  • Expanding, tumbling, exploding, flamming
Must be detectable by Xray
  • Explosive device 
  • placed in  a harmless portable object


  • marked with a protective symbol
Incendiary Devices
  • Illegal in 1919
  • Legal if directed at Combatants
  • China 1277 AD- introduction
  • Europe 1573
  • 1000 Million in the ground as we speak
  • $5 per unit, about $1000 to remove
Anti-personal Landmines
  • pushed into dirt, designed to explode outward
Child-Detectors: Iran-IRaq War
  • used to detect the landmines ; children easier to replace then trained soldiers was their thinking
Ways of Detecting Landmines

-Child detectors

- Dogs that find landmines; find well but are too heavy and have a tendency to dig

- Novel Method of Detection - mice on wires used 

Landmine Victims

 -particulary non combatants

-from 60 percent to a max of 97 percent

-gender biased - search for men not women

-Country with most planted minds

Egypt to north and east africa

The Long Road to Ottawa
  • American and German met at a starbucks where american was missing limbs and german worked with prostehic limbs, decided to make NGO
    • ICBL --- int. comitte to ban landmines
    • grew into 10,000;s of people and served as an umbrella group for many other orgs
    • Enlisted services of Princess Diana
    • ultimately this group won the nobel peace prize for their efforts
Ottawa Treaty and Requirements
It started when the Americans and Germans met up due to a lot of people missing limbs etc. due to land mines. This created the ICBL- International Committee to Ban Land Mines. The ICBL then grew larger and larger and had started other programs as well. (Princess Diana was a major player in the prohibition of land mines, and also the ICBL won a Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. 
       The Ottawa Treaty is the treaty on the prohibition of land mines was then created in 1997. It entered into force in 1999. It was an immediate ban on sale, transfer and production of land mines. They had four years to destroy their stockpiles of land mines. 
The treaty also made countries remove land mines within 10 years. The country who planted the land mine in another country is responsible for getting it out of the ground.
There was a retention clause placed on the treaty. The clause stated that countries could keep as many land mines for training purposes. (This is one flaw of the Ottawa Treaty)
The U.S. resisted becoming a part of the Treaty, because land mines were needed in south korea to keep the north koreans out, and the U.S. supplied land mines to them. 
Non-Parties to the treaty are not bound by any provisions of the treaty. 
(I have APL Producers, and it says Anti-Personnel Land mines, but I am not sure what that is so stay tuned, or google
Anti-tank land mines are NOT illegal. 
--Also note, Russia is not a part of the treaty, primarily because the U.S. is not. Russia did destroy a lot of it stockpiles, but did not have too.... 
US Resistance to Ottawa
  • Military
  • South Korea Exception
  • Political - Clinton and Republicans
Rentention Clause of Ottawa
  • a country can be in full compliance of Ottawa after 10 years or before, and still retain landmines for training purposes - Article 3 - but there is no cap placed on the retention allowance
Ottawa Impact on Non-Parties
  • APL (anti personnel landmines)  Producers - the ones that kill soldiers
    • now they have fewer legal purchasers
    • Russia
      • cut stockpile in half even if doesnt have to legally do it
      • destroyed 20 million


-USA- Funded and international de-mining campagin - to help other countries since we can’t because the south korea issue

  • Capacity to have energy in the form of light in the 50’s
  • on the battlefield, they have both good and bad potential
Useful Lasers
  • for targeting
  • bounce to see how far things are
  • ground based lasers can light up a target so missles hit correct point
Lasers that protect civilians
  • in the event that we have a precision bomb that is laser guided, we can take out one individual and not cause damage or lives to those around
  • if we do not have this, we would have to use a larger bomb to make sure it covers the individual
Blinding Lasers

-used for surpurfulous injury

-designed to emit a powerful laser to catch clothing on fire, explode gasoline, and obviously at individuals to blind them, so they only see white “ flash blinding”

  • can also be used againist pilots
Regulation Options for Lasers
  • in early to mid 1990’s that the ICRC had the idea of eliminating blinding lasers
  • gave the basis and tested the waters to see who would be for these kinds of regulations; partially eliminate some and fully eliminate others
  • initially wanted to Outlaw all lasers
    • resistance from the major powers who persue the development of lasers in the battlefield
    • there was the revelation that the Chinese was going to mass produce for a blinding weapon, then the pentagon changed their stance
  • No Regulation: Good Outweighs the bad
    • US’s original stance
  • Regulate only the Bad Lasers
    • US’s new stance
Blinding Lasers Convention 1996

-defined laser weapons that would be prohibited of those whose sole intent is to cause pernament blinding

    • we can see how limited this treaty would be because of this because of 2 things
      • “ sole intent”- if blinding is a secondary result, not covered
      • Pernament blinding - flash blinding not covered
      • blinding- not defined
  • what defined blinding was a 20/200 snellings
  • illegal if to the unprotected eye
  • 90 parties to the treaty
Cluster Munitions
  • Conventional Munitions designed to disperse or release submitions
    • bomb that releases a lot of other smaller bombs weighing 20 kilograms or less
2008 Cluster Bomb Convention
  • Happened in Dublin
  • Prohibits the use of cluster bombs
  • Production and stockpiling is prohibited
  • Also calls for assistance to other states in the use of cluster bombs
    • to suspend use if it is using a different sort of weapon of war or assist those who were victimized by cluster bombs
Parties to the Convention

-entered into force in 2010

  • Threshold of 30 to ratify, it was entered into law
  • quite a number of the major powers didn’t sign off, but some were signatories and didn’t ratify like Canada and Australia
Hybrid Weapon
  • this concept isn’t found very often
Depleted Uranium Shells
  • in order to get through the really tough tanks, shells are covered in depleted uranium
  • take the depleted urianium, and treat your missles and shells with it
  • rather than hitting a tank and the missle just sort of serperating on the tank, these self sharpen and penetrate the tank
  • the most effective tank killers in history
  • radioavtice fractures in the sand ,etc. because it shatters
  • no movement on a treaty for two main reasons:
    • 1. US objection to a prohibition of some sort : we are the ones who use and defend them
    • 2. Science does not have a consensus, even when they say the soldiers contract diesases such as Luekemia, there have been several scientific studies ; but not consensus at all b/c level of radiation is so small. Also may not be pre-data at places we have been of pre info of cancer in places like afghanistan, etc.
Victims of DU Munitions
  • we used it in 1995 to beat back the Serb units and in 1999 to go after the serb tanks
  • used in Iraq and Afghanistan with more limited use, as well as Libya
  • birth defects, sickness, etc.
Unconventional Weapons
  • Biological
  • Chemical
  • Nuclear
    • the three different types
  • Put them all together and call them “ Weapons of Mass Destruction”
Biological Weapons Treaty 1975
  • one of the most ratified of international treaties
  • almost every country has ratified
  • deem the use of biological weapons to be illegal as well as the possessions, stockpile, transfer, sale, etc.
  • What is problematic is that a petri dish could be a biological weapon, because you normally don’t deliver these weapons in a military fashion, in a much more highly concentrated fashion in a public center
  • tend to focus on cilivians
  • biological weapons are different than chemical because they are living viruses and if they find a host they can multiply, spread, and create immunity to any responses
    • i.e Anthrax, Japan- doomsday group released in a subway
  • when we went to the gulf in 1991, soldiers go in fully suited if suspecting biological weapons
Chemical Weapons Treaty 1997
  • usually focused on individuals , cilivian population centers
  • Middle East have signed but not ratified
Nuclear Weapons
  • weapons that emerged during WW2
  • developed for a wide range of reasons
    • offensive capability ( US’s Use, and the only country who does this)
    • defensive purposes, for deterent value
      • if country attacked, can counter attack; the main idea that we will never use them because the country will never be attacked because you have them
  • status purposes, those who hold these have more respect, obviously have more scientific capablities and are willing to cross the threshold and go nuclear
  • Alaska, the US, france England, Israel, Russia, etc. But with concerns about Iran --> 9 countries
  • other countries have possessed but given them up i.e Ukraine
  • consider them along Possession and Use while talking about legal status
Possession of Nuclear Weapons
    • Nuclear Non Proliferation Treat - (NPT) drafted and entered into force in 1970, with a 25 year life and a sunset clause built into it. Designed to bring in nuclear and non nuclear powers
      • countries without nuclear aggreed never to possess them in exchange for :
        • Assistance with developing safe nuclear energy
        • Nuclear powers agreed to give theirs up, serious negiotiations aimed at getting rid of them
          • they did not get an overly meaningful effort
      • does have an out clause with a wait period, or a threat so significant you are justified to leave the treaty
      • ended in 1995, so lucky we didnt have a 35 year date, because 2005 is such a different time
      • as soon as it was ended, a new one was drafted with no sunset clause
    • No Jus in bello Principle
Use of Nuclear Weapons
    • no treaty because the nuclear weapon states wont have it
    • Jus in bello principle - Discrimination and Proportionality
      • “suitcase bombs” tactical 
        • for battlefield use, if no civilians to be found , can easily use them
        • on other side, if non combatant around, discrimination falls apart


Combat Theaters
  • Land- most obviously, consistent references in Hague and Geneva
    • most emphasized in LOAC
  • Sea- extension of Hague onto the sea
    • substantial amount in LOAC, not as much as land
  • Air
    • least of the three with dealing with LOAC
  • Laws of armed conflict cover them all, either by specifically or by applying principles
  • The land restrictions are obviously oldest because we have done battle on land longer than sea, and sea longer than air
Aerial Warfare Regulations
  • find reference in Hague 1899, but airplanes weren’t invented into 1903? They were thinking of balloons here because they had been used for military observation , and attack
    • mostly dropping objects was the issue here, not transporting or parachuting
    • in the right conditions, they could far outpace military on the ground
    • What was decided at Hague was that projectiles from balloons were illegal
    • could be observation just not projectiles, keep in mind bullets are projectiles

-1923 Hague Rules for Air Warfare

    • following Japanese problems , a microcosm of what the world war would be
    • Balkans conflict of 1909 and 1912
    • by the time we get to WW1, airplanes are used widely in conflict
    • 1923 big year for air warfare, shows Hague needed to be revisited
  • 1977 Geneva Protocol 1
    • where it was revisited
Aircraft Regulated

-ballons, a lot different from previously ; with sensors that can relay info, etc. because they are self contained

  • Kites- can be used to deliver bombs, fly a kite over the enemy, can make it explosive
  • Identification of Aircraft Requirement
    • part of Hague 1923
    • Symbols, stripes, color, etc.
    • required of any aircraft or it is in violation
Aerial Warfare Targets
  • area most likely to see violations

- Different kinds of targets:

Military use assets, dual use assets, and civilian use assets
Military Use Assets
    • Part of military or adversary, depots, mess hall, etc.
      • can always be attacked as a legitimate target
Civilian Use Assets
    • sorts of things civilians use and military does not; i.e supermarkets, etc.
      • may not legally be attacked unless you cry military neccesity
Dual Use Assets
    • targets of warfare that can be used for either the military or civilian population
      • i.e electrical grids, train stations, bridges and roads , interstate system built with tank weight in mind etc.
      • may not be attacked, decision was made to draw the line here


Al-Firdos Bunker: 1991 Gulf War
  • not a legal case because never went to court
  • mid Febuary ( 13th) 1991
  • Iraqi Bunker Used for Command and Control Center
  • here soldiers were directed into areas or to relocate into others
  • US f117A fighter jet dropped two 2,000 pound bombs
  • Up to 300 civilians dead; 100 children among them
  • if you wanted to take this out, you needed a lot of power to take this out
Kosovo War 1999
  • one of the main accusastions by NATO is that dual-use assests were targeted
  • you would have to do two things to charge
    • demonstrate to the best of your ability that the asset in question was not in use for military necessity
    • second problem is it a dutch bomb, american bomb, serbian bomb, etc. because you can not hold one image for all of the countries
    • many fell out, a lot not willing to give up the documents about the bombs
    • widely percieved, aerial targeting was illegal in Kosovo
      • if all of the countries turned their documents over, you would prob. find that 99/100 would have violated the LOAC
Feigning Distress: Ruse or Perfidy?

-Aircraft Feigns Distress

  • If you are doing it to lure enemy into a trap
    • it is illegal and is perfidy because you are making them think they are safe when you are not
  • If you are doing it to escape from an attack
    • it would be legal- ruse

-Problem, you don’t know which they are doing because they look the same, therefore there is a tendency to take out planes that are injured or look to be injured even though it could be considered a war crime since as a pilot, your aim to disable the plane, not kill the pilot

Airborne Troops

are combatants and legitimate targets

-if they are dropping for an attack, they are a legal target and completely vulnerable

  • if they are in distress, they are protected while they are in the air and can not be targeted
    • would be a violation of hague law
  • if the parachutest takes place in hostile action , i.e  drawing a weapon, etc. 
    • areas not well defined, you can’t really well define them ever because there can always be gray.


Doolittle Bombers


  • the commander of the fleet was James Doolittle
  • April 18,1942
  • Colonel Jimmy Doolittle
  • Sent 16 bombers into Japan with the aim of demonstrating US military capacity and force projection that we can hit them even on the islands.
  • Goal: To demonstrate vulnerability of Japan to US
  • Medium sized bombers
  • All of the bombers were ultimately lost
  • 3 pilots executed
    • Russians captured one pilot and detained him for more than a year
    • 11 planes went down
Doolittle Raid

 the US got within flight zone, the 16 pilots take off, do bombing campaign on to China

DooLittle Raid and ILOAC
  • Usa Intent--> Strike Military Targets
  • Psychological Victory
  • Divert Enemy forces
  • as a result of all of these intentions, it is a legal raid
Japanese Ballon Bombs
  • Japanese responded in response to DooLittle raid
  • sent large explosive ballons; unmanned up into air to go over currents over Pacific and land on US land on the subtropic Jet to let them carry across the Pacific
  • 9,000 Japanese Balloon released
  • one out of 9 reached destination
    • so 1,000 balloons
  • they hit along Canadian frontier and US West Coast(prodominently) and as far away as Michigan
  • Why Japanese stopped bombings?
    • because they thought they werent successful
    • when their bombs landed, their was an immediete Media blackout for the US
    • gov. issued the silent decree to the media to not report on the balloon bombs
    • No Media Reporting at all
    • Japanese concluded that the policy failed by regulating the US media
Media Reports After Defenses Erected

Dealth with Japanese Balloon Bombings

  • after we made a plan to deal with them, we released info via. media
Balloon Bombs and ILOAC


  • Hague Law --- Targeting of Non-Combatants -- Violation of Discrimination!
Protected Aircraft
  • Red Cross Helicopter
    • cannot be attacked or haulted
    • if there is suspicion it is carrying illegal contraband, then it can be searched upon land
  • Commercial Aircraft
  • Weather Aircraft
  • All of these immune from attack
Naval Warfare

-Mare Liberum- Freedom of the seas

-Theaters of Naval Warfare ----> Oceans, Seas( tend to connect larger bodies of water), Gulfs, Lakes, Rivers

France V. Britain: Battle of Chesapeake
  • On a lake in the late 1800’s
Naval Warfare Regulations
  • One of early definitive treaties: Declaration of Paris (1856)
    • Privateers Prohibited
      • non combatant, who has a ship/access to a ship, not acting on the orders of a government
      • legal piracy
      • fall between pirate and a mercenary or a pirate and a naval commander
      • given free reign in assurance they will not be prosecuted
    • Neutral Flag covers enemy goods
      • allowing for trade and warfare during war times and in war zones
      • Neutral states can trade with belligerent

-Neutral Goods under Enemy Flag

      • if they are neutral goods, that ship is off limits
      • trying to show diff. between military and non military
    • Blockade Provisions
1907 Hague Convention
  • extended jus ad bello principles to the sea
  • Laws of Humanity Apply at Sea
  • High Seas: Are of Combat (legal area)
  • Immune Vessels ( specified those that are immune from attack i.e religious vessels, scientific vessels, etc.)
  • Submarines were defined to be always legal targets, and a combatant vessel
  • Only Defended Coasts Attacked ( coastlines only can be attacked if they are defended)
    • not to say that navys can’t land there, but at terms of bombing the cities or population, that is only legal if the coastal town is defended
    • not a clear definition of defended or of proximity of defenses
Blockade Rules
  • There is a bay where a port is located
    • can be a commercial center , or a military port
  • bloackade has to be definitive geographically
  • those creating the blockade must say “ the blockade starts here and ends at this point”
    • i.e where this mountain reaches the ocean to the 100 yards north of the port, or even coordinates
  • Needs a public declaration of a blockade
    • must include the geographic points, most northern/southern/eastern/western ..etc
    • Must include when the blockade begins
    • must be an adequate warning or grace period to let neutral vessels out
    • and then the blockade must be effective-- it is in effect until it is not in effect
      • once it breaks down, the vessels can come and go
      • if anyone tries to run the blockade, the blockading state has the right to search, seize, or destroy ship.
Mine Warfare
  • Been around for a long time
  • explosives that sometimes float
  • other times they float but are anchored to the floor
  • been there for a very long time, WW2 contact mind
Modern Sea Mines
  • Contact mine- when it comes in contact, if it is jarred then the mine will explode
  • Can Be Sound detinated
  • Can be Magnetic Signature
    • if touch won’t explode
    • war vessels made with a certain magnetic capacity, so the mines can be designed so civilian ships wont explode them
  • Can be Change in Water Pressure
Contact Mines at Sea
  • least expensive
  • anchored ( more often than not)
    • must become harmless as soon as they break from their mooring ( the cement block used to anchor)


    • Must become harmless within 1 hour of the military’s loss of control

-ship that is not working , just floating at sea not capable of movement or self defense

  • Defined as in peril at sea and refraining from acts of hostility

-if these are the case, then the ship is protected

    • they must be treated humanely and there is a requirement to be collected and cared for--> legal responsibility
      • if they are combatants become POWs, if civilians, release at most convienent time
      • pretty tough for submarines
Supporting users have an ad free experience!