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

Jun 18
Israel's Deputy Attorney General repeats a longstanding confusion. 🧵

1. An 'armed conflict' triggers the application of protective rules of IHL to both sides of the conflict.

It does not authorize the use of force by either side of the conflict (let alone by both sides). Image
Image
2. Only an 'armed attack' within the meaning of the UN Charter can authorize one State to use force against another in self-defense.

While 'armed conflict' and 'armed attack' sound similar they mean different things and serve different purposes.
3. The term 'armed conflict' may be interpreted broadly, to continue to apply during lulls in active hostilities, since its legal effect is to maintain various protections and constraints.

IHL restrains violence and abuse.

It does not authorize it.
Read 8 tweets
Jun 9
UK: "a blockade is prohibited if it is intended to starve the civilian population; or to deprive [it] of objects essential to its survival,"

"or if the suffering of the civilian population is excessive in relation to the military advantage to be gained from the blockade"

1/🧵 Image
"if the civilian population of the blockaded
territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must allow the free passage of such items"

2/🧵 Image
"The concept of blockades only exists in relation to international armed conflicts."

There is an international armed conflict only if (a) Palestine is a State and/or (b) Gaza is subject to the law of occupation.

Both are true, but Israel denies both.

Awkward.

3/🧵 Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 2
Last year, Germany told the ICJ it transferred €255M of arms to Israel from 10/23 to 3/24; the transfers reduced over time; and 98% were not "war weapons."

Today, Germany indicates that it transferred another €230M since then, possibly including "war weapons." 1/🧵 Image
Image
Germany appears to think the ICJ endorsed its "practice of careful case-by-case examination" of potential arms transfers in the case brought against it by Nicaragua.

This is a serious mistake. 2/🧵 Image
The ICJ was very clear that its decision not to indicate provisional measures against Germany was based on the *combination* of Germany's arms transfer process *and* its reduction of arms transfers to Israel, especially "war weapons." 3/🧵 Image
Image
Read 9 tweets
May 27
This Reuters piece contains useful information.

But it makes a serious analytical error when it implies that most of the 25,211 boys over 15 and men under 65 killed by the IDF as of March were fighters.

The IDF itself says that 2/3 to 3/4 of those it kills are civilians.

1/🧵 Image
Image
2. Assuming MoH records include all Hamas fighters (more on that later), that would mean the IDF killed between 12,630 and 16,672 fighters while killing between 12,581 and 8,539 civilian teenage boys and men.
3. The IDF says that it has killed around 20,000 fighters.

That's mostly a made up number.

There's also no way to reconcile that number with MoH records and the IDF's other statements ...
Read 7 tweets
May 27
Over at the ICC, Israel has filed its appeal of the Pre-Trial Chamber's decision that art. 18(1) of the ICC Statute did not require the Prosecutor to open a new investigation after 10/7 and notify Israel to that effect.

It's so dumb.

Technical 🧵 below for the hardcores. 1/🧵 Image
2. In 2021, the Prosecutor notified Israel that she had opened an investigation into alleged crimes committed in Palestine "since 13 June 2014."

She found a reasonable basis to believe the IDF and Hamas had committed war crimes in the context of the 2014 hostilities in Gaza. Image
Image
3. The Prosecutor invited all States with jurisdiction, including Israel, to inform the Court within one month if it was investigating any of the alleged crimes.

If so, the Prosecutor would defer under the complementarity principle.

Israel did not so inform the Court. Image
Image
Read 15 tweets
May 23
Over at the ICC, Hungary has submitted its response in the noncompliance proceedings arising from its failure to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit.

Hungary's response is legally flawed and will not avoid a noncompliance finding.

Short 🧵 below. Image
1. Hungary says it hasn't incorporated the ICC Statute into its national law.

Doesn't matter.

A party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

Basic stuff. Image
Image
2. Hungary next says that Netanyahu enjoys immunity from arrest as a sitting Head of Government.

The ICC has repeatedly rejected this view, first with respect to Omar Al-Bashir, and most recently with respect to Vladimir Putin—Heads of State of non-States Parties. Image
Read 6 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!

:(