Liability in Joint Military Operations—The Green Desert Case

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jcsl/kraa008
Peter Vedel Kessing
{"title":"Liability in Joint Military Operations—The Green Desert Case","authors":"Peter Vedel Kessing","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/kraa008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Almost all international military operations today are joint military operations where several states collaborate to carry out concrete operations, such as combat or arrest operations. This raises pertinent and difficult questions in relation to state responsibility if international law obligations are breached during the operation, not least: Which state or states are responsible? In June 2018, a Danish High Court found Denmark responsible in its complicity for Iraqi ill-treatment of 18 Iraqis who were detained by the Iraqi military in a joint Danish–Iraqi military operation in Iraq in November 2004. Danish soldiers did not exercise control over the Iraqi troops; the detainees were not captured by Danish soldiers or at any time subject to their control or jurisdiction; and Danish forces did not participate in or witness any ill-treatment during the operation. Nevertheless, the Danish High Court found that the Danish defence forces were liable to pay compensation to the 18 Iraqi detainees because Danish defence forces ‘should have known’ that there was a real risk of Iraqi ill-treatment of detainees and paid to little attention to the risk when planning and participating in the operation. The article discusses the Danish High Court judgment. Is it a problem that the High Court decided the case on the basis of Danish compensation law and largely ignores international law standards? And would the Danish defence forces have been responsible if assessed on the basis of State responsibility standards in international law?","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jcsl/kraa008","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/kraa008","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

Almost all international military operations today are joint military operations where several states collaborate to carry out concrete operations, such as combat or arrest operations. This raises pertinent and difficult questions in relation to state responsibility if international law obligations are breached during the operation, not least: Which state or states are responsible? In June 2018, a Danish High Court found Denmark responsible in its complicity for Iraqi ill-treatment of 18 Iraqis who were detained by the Iraqi military in a joint Danish–Iraqi military operation in Iraq in November 2004. Danish soldiers did not exercise control over the Iraqi troops; the detainees were not captured by Danish soldiers or at any time subject to their control or jurisdiction; and Danish forces did not participate in or witness any ill-treatment during the operation. Nevertheless, the Danish High Court found that the Danish defence forces were liable to pay compensation to the 18 Iraqi detainees because Danish defence forces ‘should have known’ that there was a real risk of Iraqi ill-treatment of detainees and paid to little attention to the risk when planning and participating in the operation. The article discusses the Danish High Court judgment. Is it a problem that the High Court decided the case on the basis of Danish compensation law and largely ignores international law standards? And would the Danish defence forces have been responsible if assessed on the basis of State responsibility standards in international law?
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
联合军事行动中的责任——绿色沙漠案例
如今,几乎所有的国际军事行动都是联合军事行动,几个国家合作开展具体行动,如作战或逮捕行动。如果在行动中违反了国际法义务,这就提出了与国家责任有关的相关而棘手的问题,尤其是:哪个国家或哪些国家应对此负责?2018年6月,丹麦高等法院认定丹麦对2004年11月丹麦和伊拉克在伊拉克的联合军事行动中被伊拉克军方拘留的18名伊拉克人的伊拉克虐待同谋负有责任。丹麦士兵没有控制伊拉克军队;被拘留者没有被丹麦士兵抓获,也没有在任何时候受到丹麦士兵的控制或管辖;丹麦部队在行动中没有参与或目睹任何虐待行为。然而,丹麦高等法院认定,丹麦国防军有责任向18名伊拉克被拘留者支付赔偿金,因为丹麦国防军“应该知道”伊拉克确实存在虐待被拘留者的风险,并且在计划和参与行动时很少注意这一风险。文章讨论了丹麦高等法院的判决。高等法院根据丹麦赔偿法裁决此案,在很大程度上无视国际法标准,这是一个问题吗?如果根据国际法中的国家责任标准进行评估,丹麦国防军会承担责任吗?
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