Insufficient Knowledge in Kunduz: The Precautionary Principle and International Humanitarian Law

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.1093/jcsl/krz033
E. Marchant
{"title":"Insufficient Knowledge in Kunduz: The Precautionary Principle and International Humanitarian Law","authors":"E. Marchant","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/krz033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The targeting protocols applied by forces during armed conflict are some of the most secretive documents held by any military. However, their role in applying principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) means that they are key to understanding their development. This piece is primarily concerned with practical and operational application of the precautionary principle under IHL; how much knowledge is sufficient to carry out an attack lawfully during modern armed conflict. In order to establish if a standard has developed with the increase in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology, this piece uses the framework of an investigation into an incident in Kunduz, Afghanistan in 2009. I explore the difficulties of obtaining information post-incident, the differential standards expected by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), and the manner in which these can be evaluated through the principles of proportionality, distinction and precautions in attack. The piece looks at the interrelated issues raised by the Rules of Engagement and Tactical Directives, as well as the problems surrounding the clarity of intelligence available. I argue that this case is demonstrative of the failings inherent in the application and practical use of the precautionary principle outlined by IHL. The lack of transparency afforded in, and after, incidents of this nature prevents objective analysis and so the development of IHL can be obfuscated. I conclude that the lack of information following incidents of this kind confuses any intelligence standard that exists under IHL.","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jcsl/krz033","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krz033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The targeting protocols applied by forces during armed conflict are some of the most secretive documents held by any military. However, their role in applying principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) means that they are key to understanding their development. This piece is primarily concerned with practical and operational application of the precautionary principle under IHL; how much knowledge is sufficient to carry out an attack lawfully during modern armed conflict. In order to establish if a standard has developed with the increase in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology, this piece uses the framework of an investigation into an incident in Kunduz, Afghanistan in 2009. I explore the difficulties of obtaining information post-incident, the differential standards expected by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), and the manner in which these can be evaluated through the principles of proportionality, distinction and precautions in attack. The piece looks at the interrelated issues raised by the Rules of Engagement and Tactical Directives, as well as the problems surrounding the clarity of intelligence available. I argue that this case is demonstrative of the failings inherent in the application and practical use of the precautionary principle outlined by IHL. The lack of transparency afforded in, and after, incidents of this nature prevents objective analysis and so the development of IHL can be obfuscated. I conclude that the lack of information following incidents of this kind confuses any intelligence standard that exists under IHL.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
昆都士知识不足:预防原则与国际人道主义法
武装冲突期间部队实施的目标协议是任何军队掌握的最机密的文件之一。然而,它们在适用国际人道主义法原则方面的作用意味着它们是理解其发展的关键。这篇文章主要涉及国际人道主义法下预防原则的实际和操作应用;多少知识足以在现代武装冲突中合法实施袭击。为了确定标准是否随着情报、监视和侦察技术的增加而发展,这篇文章使用了对2009年阿富汗昆都士事件的调查框架。我探讨了事件后获取信息的困难,北大西洋公约组织(NATO)和德国联邦法院(Bundesgerichtshof)期望的不同标准,以及通过相称性、区别性和攻击预防原则来评估这些标准的方式。这篇文章探讨了《交战规则》和《战术指令》提出的相互关联的问题,以及围绕可用情报清晰度的问题。我认为,这起案件表明了国际人道主义法所概述的预防原则在应用和实际使用中固有的缺陷。这种性质的事件及其后缺乏透明度,阻碍了客观分析,因此国际人道主义法的制定可能会受到混淆。我的结论是,此类事件后缺乏信息,混淆了国际人道主义法下的任何情报标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
25.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: The Journal of Conflict & Security Law is a thrice yearly refereed journal aimed at academics, government officials, military lawyers and lawyers working in the area, as well as individuals interested in the areas of arms control law, the law of armed conflict (international humanitarian law) and collective security law. The Journal covers the whole spectrum of international law relating to armed conflict from the pre-conflict stage when the issues include those of arms control, disarmament, and conflict prevention and discussions of the legality of the resort to force, through to the outbreak of armed conflict when attention turns to the coverage of the conduct of military operations and the protection of non-combatants by international humanitarian law.
期刊最新文献
The practice of non-recognition and economic sanctions: The case study of Ukraine, Manchuria and South Africa Roadblocks to Disarmament in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty System Recent Developments in the National Implementation of Biological Weapons Convention: What Happened Since Resolution 1540? Why Prosecuting Aggression in Ukraine as a Crime Against Humanity Might Make Sense From Theory to Reality: A Definition for the Termination of Non-International Armed Conflicts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1