When Israel bombed apartment tower, two scholars wrote: laws of war permit such strikes.
Their (and the IDF's) view of the law is an outlier/minority.
It would support bombing a mosque if enemy put a single military landline inside.
The correct view👇
justsecurity.org/76657/the-idfs…
Their (and the IDF's) view of the law is an outlier/minority.
It would support bombing a mosque if enemy put a single military landline inside.
The correct view👇
justsecurity.org/76657/the-idfs…
2. I should spell out what I mean by the majority and minority view, which is about the pure question of law (#IHL). Not how it cashes out in this specific strike.
Here's the majority view.👇
@ICRC report on the left; @ILA_official report on the right.
Here's the majority view.👇
@ICRC report on the left; @ILA_official report on the right.
3. In short: Targeting such dual-use structures must include the civilian parts of the structure (eg the civilian apartments) in the proportionality analysis.
Note both the ICRC and ILA reports cite to US military manuals in support of the majority view.
Note both the ICRC and ILA reports cite to US military manuals in support of the majority view.
4. Valuable info from Brian L. Cox.
How U.S. military lawyers advise on dual-use targeting: must consider civilian parts of infrastructure to comply with laws of war.
Aligns with @ICRC and majority view of the law.
Shows what's wrong with @IDF view.
justsecurity.org/76681/the-idf-…
How U.S. military lawyers advise on dual-use targeting: must consider civilian parts of infrastructure to comply with laws of war.
Aligns with @ICRC and majority view of the law.
Shows what's wrong with @IDF view.
justsecurity.org/76681/the-idf-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
