Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Adil Haque Profile picture
@AdHaque110
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

Adil Haque Profile picture
Dec 5
On the ICJ's standard of proof for genocide:

1. At the ICJ, an applicant must show that the only reasonable inference from the evidence is that the respondent acted with genocidal intent.

The applicant need not show that the respondent acted with *only* genocidal intent.
2. Put the other way around, an applicant must show that it is unreasonable to infer from the evidence that the respondent acted *without* genocidal intent.

The applicant must exclude any reasonable inference that the respondent acted exclusively with non-genocidal aims.
3. The Amnesty report argues that it is not reasonable to infer from the evidence that Israel's conduct in Gaza is exclusively aimed at defeating Hamas and simply indifferent to consequences for civilians.
Read 5 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
Jun 11
Good piece. A few more thoughts. 🧵

1. IHL rules still apply when troops are under fire, including distinction, precautions, and proportionality.

Serious violations still constitute war crimes.

Baruch is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Image
Image
2. In applying the proportionality rule, force protection does not carry infinite value.

Like any other military advantage, it must be weighed against foreseeable civilian harm.

Otherwise the proportionality rule would collapse anytime ground forces enter an urban area.
3. That said, the best time to consider proportionality is while planning and preparing an attack, before troops are in harm's way.
Read 6 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
May 26
Niche IHL 🧵:

1. The United States takes the idiosyncratic view that precautions is an implication of proportionality, not a fundamental principle in its own right.

On Friday, it claimed that "Most States do not recognize an IHL 'principle of precaution.'"

Unlikely.

Image
Image
2. In the Security Council, in the last few months alone, Ecuador, France, Guayana, Malta, Mozambique, and Switzerland have specifically described precautions as a basic principle.


Image
Image
Image
Image
3. In the General Assembly, the first Gaza ceasefire resolution in October identified precautions as a basic principle.

120 States voted in favor. Image
Read 6 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
May 23
Thoughts before tomorrow's order 🧵

1. The Court will no doubt find that the assault on Rafah and the resulting mass displacement change the situation since its March order and create a further risk of irreparable prejudice to rights under the Genocide Convention.
2. In a more rational world, this finding alone would dominate the news, set off alarm bells throughout the international system, and trigger immediate action by the UN Security Council. Alas, that is not our world.

3. The Court will then consider whether its prior orders fully address the changed situation.

The answer might seem obvious (no) but it isn't.

Some judges may think the prior orders are fine but Israel is violating them. They may vote to reaffirm the prior orders. Image
Read 9 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
May 22
Thread on starvation, extermination, and genocide 🧵

1. The war crime of starvation is about depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival as a method of warfare, that is, as a means to achieve war aims.
Image
Image
2. The ICC prosecutor alleges that Netanyahu and Gallant starved Gazan civilians as a means of defeating Hamas, recovering hostages, and collectively punishing civilians. Image
3. The crime against humanity of extermination is about mass killing, including through deprivation of food and medicine.


Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 7 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
May 20
Technical point:

1. The ICC Prosecutor argues that there is an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, due to Israel's use of force and belligerent occupation in Palestine, alongside the non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas.
2. This is important because, under the ICC Statute, the starvation war crime would only apply in the context of an international armed conflict.
3. Other war crimes that the ICC Statute only covers in international armed conflict include:

- attacks against civilian objects*
- excessive (disproportionate) civilian harm
- using civilians as human shields

* Specific civilian objects are protected, but eg homes are not.
Read 5 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!

Send Email!

:(