ICC and the DRC

The ICC publicly issued a warrant for the war criminal known as 'the Terminator' in the DRC. This is good news considering the US attempts to undermine the power of the ICC. Also, I think it important that the ICC has already issued three warrants, and has those individuals in custody. This is the fourth warrant.

As three warrants for the arrest of war criminals have already been followed, it is highly likely that this fourth will also be followed. This indicates that even though the DRC's status as a sovereign state may at times be questionable, it is trying to remain part of the international humanitarian law (IHL) regime, despite its warring factions.

Perhaps this indicates that the weaker states that want to become members of the international system are more willing to implement IHL, then states that are already members (i.e. the USA). Nevertheless, it is a good sign, that in the DRC, a country racked with war crimes, the ICC has an ability to exert influence.

Ummm...stinking hypocrisy?

On my colleague's blog, he quotes the following:

"It is important to emphasize that the president can suspend or terminate any treaty or provision of a treaty ... Any presidential decision to order interrogation methods that are inconsistent with [the UN's convention against torture] would amount to a suspension or termination of those treaty provisions" (quoted from above-linked interview)."

This is an extremely worrying perception of the US president's power. It also indicates a potential for violating domestic laws. US domestic law does not allow torture. I do not understand why, if the UN law is not in violation of domestic law, there is such a need for loop-holing. How can an administration that came to office claiming to be religious, seek out loophholes so that it can torture people? It does not make any sense. Fear is not an acceptable answer, and yet, it does appear to have an influence. If 9/11 had not happened, would the American people alway such a disregard of civil rights? Most likely not.

Publicity may skew understanding.

During our last class on the Rules of Law, Dr. Carpenter asked the class what we would individually do to help support the rules of war regime.

I stated that I would talk with family and friends to help promote understanding (while hoping that my own understand was accurate). However, several my class mates mentioned publicizing the issues to raise public awareness.

This tactic is reliant on present the right information:

Awareness raising such as: Basic Rules of War by the Canadian Red Cross, I think increase public misperceptions and misunderstandings about the rules of war. The mention of 'Red Cross,' I think adds an element of legitimacy to the presentation of any humanitarian issue (at least to the general public). But the simplified stating of rules of war on this page, I think undermine the rules of war regime. On this page it states that attacks on civilians and domestic infrastructure are prohibited. However, according to the rules of war, if a target is a legitimate military target it is legal to attack or destroy it, and the civilian causalities are causalities of war, not victims of a war crime. So yes, a military is not to attack civilians - that is a war crime. But recognition between what the rules of war say and how they are implemented my help true understanding about the dynamics of war.


The Additional Protocols acknowledge that during war, civilians die as a result of military actions. As long as the military does not intentionally target civilians, but targets a legitimate military target, it is not against the rules of war.


This specific misperception, I think may often lead to a mislabeling of incidents that involve civilian deaths as a violation of the rules of war when in fact it may be a legal action according to the international regime.

Additional Protocol, Article 51: "The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations."

Additional Protocol I, Article 52: "Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

The US is cutting off its nose to spite its face - how lovely

During our last few class discussions and class presentations on the ICC - it appears that the US is pursuing a policy that is determined to undermine the ICC. However, what I find interesting when looking at the this TABLE produced by the Human Security Center in 2005, is that there is a rapidly growing trend of country participation in international tribunals prosecuting 'grave human rights abuses.' The other thing to note, is that even though the hybrid international tribunals hit plateaus in the number of cases they are prosecuting, eventually the number continues to rise. I think that this indicates a learning curve (despite the plateaus - a steep one) in which lawyers are learning how to circumnavigate state sovereignty in pursuit of justice (however by definition a state 'ought' to have a normative basis of justice). It is a shame that the US feels obligated to undermine the ICC (as presented by my colleagues in class), however, the US efforts appear to be ineffective. The US is losing its credibility as a just, democratic nation as it attempts to inhibit international efforts to bring justice.

The current US stance makes no sense. If the US government is willing to implement justice via its own court system and abide by the IHLs, then why does it fear so much. Unless it knowingly makes policy decisions that violate IHL. I realize that sovereignty is an issue, however, it appears to me that the policy-makers lack a global vision of the world and perhaps need a bit more education. Perhaps they should sit in on our class. Again, I realize that this is a null and void thought as the likelihood is nil. But one can always hope.

Sigh those blasted civilians...bring on the markets

There is an assumption made that states protect their citizens. International humanitarian law is structured on the premise that if a state ratifies Additional Protocol II or Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, then those states will protect their citizens. However, evidence indicates that some governments do target civilians (at varying levels). Granted non-state actors target a greater number of civilians than governments, but the fact remains that government do target civilians. This is perplexing, and makes me wonder if perhaps some of these governments need to be reclassified. If the definition of a state includes providing public services, targeting them does not fulfill that bargain. Perhaps some of those entities labeled states ought to be relabeled into 'entities' instead of states, because by definition they are not functioning as the defined norm of a state.

Where does the pressure come from to establish the process of changing a state's identity because it not does comply with the norm of statehood? It is acknowledged that this is a naive question as sovereignty comes into play. But it seems that forcing change is not really an option - even if there is a hegemon. A hegemon wants to benefit from trade, not from spending money on war to 'fix' or 'help' populations that do not influence the well-being of its own citizens. Increasingly it appears that markets are more important than the rules of war, which is worrying.

Our SEALs: Doing what they have to do.

In this interesting NPR piece a SEAL recounts how his unit was ambushed by the Taliban and he is the only one that survives. He notes that they were ambushed because they let some goat-herders go instead of tying them up or killing them. He notes that they let them go because he is Christian as well as a soldier. However, he also argues that soldiers need to be able to do what they have to on the battlefield, while at the same time distinguishing civilians from combatants. It is interesting to read that a soldier/SEAL questions how they (rule bound soldiers) are supposed to fight guerrillas. He notes that over time the SEALs have adopted more guerrilla like tactics, which has decreased their wounded and killed. Upon reading his account, it is apparent why Iraqi fear the Americans. However, from the soldiers' perspective, it is what they have to do to live. It is a difficult one to argue as both the soldiers and the civilians have legitimate claims. Perhaps a fund to fix broken doors and houses would help alleviate the Iraqi fears and resentment and enable the soldiers to continue to conduct their more guerrilla-like tactics.

The second interesting point made is that money buys the SEALs a great portion of their useful on the spot intelligence. He notes that if the guy is particularly stubborn he is sent to interrogation headquarters, but it sounds like money works more often than not. I thought this relevant as a result of our class discussions about the (in)effectiveness of torture.

Iraq: Domestic Policing versus the Rules of War

While reading this article on BBC news, two items did not quite fit with what we have been learning and discussing in class.

First, the article discusses the usage of Iraqi police in combination with US soldiers. What rules are supposed to be followed if the US soldiers are expected to continue fighting the insurgents but at the same time are expected to interact with the Iraq police. I would assume that the domestic police force have different 'rule of engagement' per se than soldiers. Is this an issue, or what 'evolution' have the ROW experienced to deal with such a situation, are they even applicable?

Second, at the end of the article, it notes that civilian clothed soldiers were sent into a neighborhood:

"Fighting broke out after US troops in civilian clothes entered a central district of Hilla, they said. US military sources said the clash started after troops went to arrest rogue elements in the Mehdi Army."

Does this not go against one of the primary 'norms/rules' that were designed to protect our soldiers abroad? This little sentence indicates to me a policy decision that indicates a disregard for the well being of the US soldier or a lack of understanding of the purpose and design of the ROW designed to protect POWs.