Abstract

This essay describes the emerging legal battleground between states engaged in transnational armed conflict and the role of third parties—courts, international institutions, NGOs, and civil society—in developing and enforcing the law. This legal conflict has led to the formation of two opposing “camps” within the community of legal scholars and practitioners: the “IHL camp” which emphasizes the protection of non-combatants and the obligation to limit harm to combatants, and the “LOAC camp,” that wishes to point out that the Law of Armed Conflict is primarily designed to regulate the relations between fighting armies engaged in mutual destruction. The essay delineates the fundamental cleavage that exists between these two visions and explores its ramifications with respect to questions such as the legality of targeted killing and the scope of judicial review of military discretion.

Disciplines

Human Rights Law | International Law | Law

Date of this Version

Winter 2-6-2012