Adil Haque Profile picture
Aug 13, 2019 7 tweets 3 min read Read on X
Quick THREAD on the Army/Marine Law of Land Warfare Manual, old and new. The original, 1956 Manual was principally written by Richard Baxter. In 1976, it was updated to include the passage below. 1/
If that looks familiar, it should. A variant would appear in Article 57 of Additional Protocol I, which the U.S. signed in 1977 but never ratified. 2/
That's pretty good evidence that, in 1976, the U.S. Army considered the "target verification rule" part of customary international law, binding on the U.S. quite apart from API. It is, by the way. 3/
ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/…
Fast forward to 2015, and the rule is conspicuously absent from the 1,200 page DOD Law of War Manual. And the rule doesn't appear in the 200-page Army/Marine Manual released last week. 4/
There are general references to precautions to reduce risks to civilians, but these are most naturally read to refer to risks of incidental harm (cf. API below), not risks of misidentification. 5/
The omission of the target verification rule is bizarre, and especially troubling given DoD's express rejection of the rule of doubt. (To its credit, the new Army/Marine Manual accepts the rule as a matter of practice). 6/
That's it, really.

Oh, one last thing: the Rapporteurs for the Committee that drafted Article 57 were George Aldrich and Richard Baxter.

fin

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adil Haque

Adil Haque Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdHaque110

May 17
And we're off. Gilad Noam striking a more combative different tone than in January.
Objects to the short timeline. Says the rest of the legal team was unavailable today. Asked to reschedule, was denied. Notes that SA changed its first request. Image
Opens by reframing facts. Israel is fighting a war of self-defense, rocket fire ongoing. Rafah is a Hamas stronghold. 120 rockets fired last two weeks, hostages likely held. Says Palestinians will be "liberated" only if Hamas is defeated in Rafah.
Invokes self-defense, says civilians and hostages are human shields. Says there has not been a major assault on Rafah, only targeted operations.
Read 27 tweets
May 17
Not bad. My take:

1. In January, the ICJ found a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the right of the Palestinians to be protected from acts of genocide.

In March, seven judges found there is a risk to their very existence.

bbc.com/news/articles/…
2. The Court found "plausible" the rights claimed by South Africa.

For some judges, that just means it's plausible that the rights exist under international law (obvi).

For other judges, that also means it's plausible that the rights have been violated.
3. In other words, some judges think provisional measures are all about preventing harm and preserving rights, and shouldn't even touch the merits of the case.

Other judges think the Court shouldn't grant interim relief if a case is obviously baseless.
Read 5 tweets
May 14
Quick 🧵 on the new ICJ hearings on Gaza:

1. The Court faces two basic questions:

- Has the situation changed since March 28, creating further risk of irreparable prejudice that its prior orders do not fully address?

- If so, what should the Court order now?
2. South Africa argues:

- Rafah is the last refuge for civilians. An attack will kill thousands. So will mass expulsion (from starvation and disease).

- Israel now controls all land crossings.

- New evidence of IDF practices indicates further risk of genocidal killing.
Image
Image
3. SA requests the Court to order Israel

- to immediately withdraw and cease its military offensive in the Rafah Governorate

- ensure and facilitate unimpeded humanitarian access, plus allow fact-finding missions, investigators, and journalists

- report back on compliance Image
Read 11 tweets
Jan 29
Short 🧵 on the ICJ's order and self-defense.

1. The Court mentions self-defense twice, when it summarizes Israel's arguments (a) that the Court lacks prima facie jurisdiction and (b) that the rights claimed by South Africa are not plausible.

The Court rejected both arguments.
Image
Image
2. When the Court turns to South Africa's request that it order Israel to suspend military operations, the Court does not mention Israel's argument that this order would impair its right of self-defense.

It only mentions Israel's argument that this order would reverse precedent.
Image
Image
3. Israel invoked the Bosnia case for the proposition that, when genocidal acts allegedly occur in the context of an armed conflict, the Court should order the prevention and punishment of the genocidal acts but not the suspension of all military operations. Image
Read 7 tweets
Jan 4
The Israel-Hamas conflict has not changed IHL itself. But note:

1. The Oct 27 UNGA resolution identified Israel as the occupying Power in Gaza.

Though not conclusive, this is substantial State practice supporting the 'functional' approach to the persistence of occupation.
Image
2. The same UNGA resolution, as well as the Dec. 22 UNSC resolution, affirm that IHL requires both parties to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief.
Image
Image
3. This is significant because Israel has argued that it is taking advantage of an exception to its legal obligation, reflected in GC IV art. 23.

gov.il/en/Departments…

Image
Image
Read 7 tweets
Dec 7, 2023
A few thoughts:

1. All States have a legal obligation to cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens).
Image
2. The basic rules of international humanitarian law are peremptory norms.

For example, the prohibition of starvation is undoubtably a basic rule.

So is wilfully impeding relief supplies short of starvation, I would argue. Image
3. Israel's violation of these basic rules is gross and systematic, and therefore serious.

So all States have a legal obligation to bring Israel's violations to an end.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(