Post

More from @BrianCox_RLTW

Dr. Brian L. Cox

May 29

I've recently received a few requests in private to provide links to some work I've had published irl that complements my commentary here on @X. Not everyone will be interested, of course - but for anyone who is, here is a curated 🧵 of such works.

Just to give structure to the posts that follow, here's the plan. Shorter works are first, and among those I'll start with posts that engage specifically with the ongoing conflict in #Gaza since this is very much still a current issue & it forms a large part of my motivation to get active on X in the first place. Then I'll include links to a few shorter works that engage with #LOAC from a more conceptual approach that may be useful to anyone interested in the theory behind practical application of int'l law. The next category will be a few longer journal-length works that engage with some aspect of LOAC. Finally, I'll close by including links to some of my works on #AI & #AutonomousWeapons since I get the sense that this subject may be of interest to some folks who are also interested in the preceding topics. That's the plan for the posts that follow below.

Also, each post will provide a short observation to help situate that particular work in the broader context of public discourse involving LOAC. When available, I'll provide links to posts here on X rather than directly to the work itself.

Two notes before we get started.

First, this isn't meant to be a complete anthology of my works to date. The goal is just to select material that I think would be most of interest to folks who also have an interest in my content here on X.

Second, you will notice that the blog site Lawfire is disproportionately represented among the platforms that have published works selected for this 🧵. While Lawfire doesn't have its own X page, the editor for that blog, my dear friend Charlie Dunlap, is also executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security (LENS) @DukeLaw. LENS, in turn, manages the X page for @DukeLawNatSec (QTd) - which also posts about nearly every article or other entry published on Lawfire. I am a huge fan of Lawfire in part because it is one of very few blog publications that is geared almost exclusively to the practitioner perspective and that does not exhibit the humanitarian bias that almost every other blog does (ranging from subtle to rabid, depending on the particular platform). If you don't follow @DukeLawNatSec, I strongly encourage you to do so, along with following Lawfire & the LENS Center irl.

Ok, with those preliminary observations out of the way, let's get to the 🧵 of selected works.

1. The QT'd post links to Part I of a two-part Lawfire article analyzing Oct 2023 "attack" on Ah-Ahli hospital in Gaza. Because this incident occurred so early after @Israel initiated the counter-Hamas campaign following Oct 7 and because it involved a major coordinated effort of lawfare & disinformation, politicians & media professionals should have been put on notice early on in this armed conflict (if not long before) not to trust any information coming out of Gaza at face value. Sadly, that lesson was not learned at the time - and even worse it generally never has been still to this day.

For the post(s), Part I explores social & political rhetoric involving the incident for context and also canvasses some primary LOAC considerations involved. Part II (next post) then addresses the broader context by...

https://x.com/DukeLawNatSec/status/1732429138965758178

2. Part II of the article on Ah-Ahli hospital incident then explores broader context of the divergence between humanitarian & doctrinal approaches to #LOAC in applied context.

https://x.com/DukeLawNatSec/status/1732429138965758178

3. This Lawfire post explores law & rhetoric involving the Nuseirat hostage rescue op in June 2024.

As an aside, I'll note that the experience getting this article published before bringing it to Charlie to be considered for Lawfire is a major factor that led me to get started here on X (this article was published in Aug 2024, the same month I set up this account). The humanitarian bias (again, ranging from subtle to rabid) reflected in editorial preferences & peer review for most other blogs represents an enduring impediment to the public's ability to be exposed to an unvarnished practitioner approach & perspective. Setting up my own account here on X was intended, in large part, as a method to bypass the humanitarian editorial bias of most existing blogs & engage directly in public discourse with more of an unfiltered practitioner approach.
x.com/DukeLawNatSec/…

Read 25 tweets

Dr. Brian L. Cox

@BrianCox_RLTW

May 24

Headline for this story suggests BBC Verify is "investigating" @Israel's strike on #Gaza's European Hospital. If this story by @MerlynThomas qualifies as a legitimate "investigation" pursuant to @BBCNews Editorial Guidelines, this media company may have different definitions for terms such as "public interest," "truth," "fair," & "accurate" than much of its audience.

I've investigated this media investigation. As we shall see, there is very little analysis provided in the story that is true, fair, or accurate. As such, it is difficult to describe this story as consistent with the public interest.

Intent of this 🧵 is to focus on journalist & "expert" commentary addressing relevant #LOAC rules. These include attacks on medical facilities, warnings before attacking medical facilities, proportionality & feasible precautions in the attack.

Screenshots from video story are attached when referring to specific excerpts from the story, and timeline counter is retained in each screenshot as a pinpoint citation to that excerpt.

Bottom line: analysis of this BBC Verify story helps demonstrate why news media is generally not competent to "investigate" whether incidents that occur in armed conflict comply with relevant LOAC rules. The cumulative effect of thousands upon thousands of such incompetent media "investigations" in sustained combat operations such as ongoing armed conflict in Gaza & region gradually distorts prevailing public opinion by constructing the perception that lawful conduct is illegal.

Each post in 🧵 below analyzes one specific LOAC rule (2 to 4), then final post (5) presents some concluding reflections.

1/5

2/ Attacks on medical facilities.

At the outset of the analysis, it should be noted that this was not an attack on a hospital. According to evidence presented in the story, the attack was directed against an underground object located under & in the vicinity of the European Hospital. Even so, a major component of legal "analysis" in video story is an assertion that this attack may have constituted a #LOAC violation because it "targeted" a hospital.

One source who provides seemingly expert commentary is Prof Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne. He asserts evaluating lawfulness of attack involves 3 parts. First is "whether there was a command and control center being used by #Hamas within this hospital. If there was, and if that can be shown by @Israel to be true, the strike wasn't necessarily lawful" (7:13 - 7:26).

That's the claim. Now let's take a look at what int'l law actually requires.

Pic 1 presents art. 12 of Additional Protocol I (1977) to 1949 Geneva Conventions (AP I). 🇮🇱 hasn't ratified AP I & this treaty wouldn't apply to fight against non-state armed group such as #Hamas anyway. However, this provision is generally regarded to reflect customary law. As an information paper published by @IsraelMFA regarding application of LOAC to current conflict notes, "the special protection afforded under international law to objects such as hospitals is reflected in IDF procedures" (pic 2, available: gov.il/en/pages/hamas…). Because art. 12 of AP I provides significant detail regarding what the "special protection afforded...to objects such as hospitals," current analysis will refer to these provisions even though text of AP I doesn't apply as a matter of *conventional (treaty) law.

Notice Hill-Cawthorne's assertion that presence of command & control (C2) center "within this hospital" is emphasized above. Yes, presence of C2 facility within a hospital would render the medical facility a military objective & therefore subject to deliberate attack. However, evidence presented in this story demonstrates nothing "within this hospital" was object of attack.

Pic 3 shows extent of damage depicted in story from cellphone video footage taken within hospital minutes after attack. It's essentially cosmetic damage: broken wall tiles, some collapsed ceiling tiles, and such. Near the beginning of video story, we're shown CCTV footage of a person who was sitting in a plastic chair in very close proximity to one particular blast. The chair & person get knocked over backward, but then the person gets up & hustles away. Analysis in story (I believe correctly) suggests "bunker buster" munitions with delayed fuses were utilized to attack underground objects while significantly limiting above-ground effects. Pic 4 shows placement of at least 13 damage sites BBC Verify was able to identify. Not one is inside the hospital. A couple in the courtyard, several in parking lots, several more in the surrounding area. Not a single one in the hospital.

These factors suggest the object of attack was indeed a C2 node located *under hospital & surrounding area, along with #Hamas fighters believed to be located there. Notice in pic 1 that articulation in AP I establishes hospitals "shall not be made the object of attack". This means attacks must not be deliberately directed against hospitals (note green highlight in pic 1 confirming civilian medical units receive same protection as military once as long as enumerated criteria are met). Directing an attack against an apparent C2 facility located under hospital & surrounding area while utilizing munitions designed to limit effects of attack to avoid damaging hospital is not making a medical facility the "object of attack."

I also emphasized Hill-Cawthorne's assertion that presence of C2 facility in vicinity of hospital must be "shown by Israel to be true." This is incorrect for two primary reasons. First, Israel has no obligation to "show" anyone anything about what was object of attack. One reason there is no such obligation (among many others) is that sensitive intel is often utilized to determine target is a military objective. I've been involved in more targeting ops than I could ever hope to count, both in training & in combat, so I know from extensive experience that Top Secret info that could compromise collection method(s) if that intel were released to public is often utilized to identify & confirm targets. Another reason this assertion is inaccurate is because what matters in terms of assessing compliance with LOAC distinction rule is knowledge & intent of personnel responsible for attack AT THE TIME, not whether it turns out an apparent C2 node was, in fact, present at hospital. This is what it means to make something the "object of an attack." If a C2 facility is *believed to be present & that is what is attacked, personnel responsible made what they believed AT THE TIME to be C2 facility the object of attack. If it turns out later they were wrong in that belief, they still made the apparent C2 facility the object of attack AT THE TIME. What Hill-Cawthorne does instead is a common mistake among those who have no actual experience applying LOAC in practice - he converts distinction rule into an effects-based construct. This is doctrinally incorrect - focal point of distinction rule is knowledge & intent of attacker AT THE TIME, not whether their belief turns out to be correct AFTER the attack.

Before moving on from LOAC distinction rule & what it means to make hospital the "object of an attack," it is worth noting that journalist's commentary throughout story repeatedly provides caveat that @IDF did not substantiate assertions regarding presence of C2 facility. This is a tactic journos often utilize to cast doubt on claim that target was believed to be military objective AT THE TIME of attack. As indicated above, there is no obligation to confirm details regarding target assessment to media or anyone else. If there were, militaries would be routinely in the habit of leaking info regarding sensitive intel collection methods to the public and, by extension, to their adversaries (current or future). Emphasizing a military element didn't substantiate assertion regarding characterization of target as military objective is a tell-tale sign of media coverage that is biased against the military element that is the subject of media coverage.

3/ Warnings before attacks on hospitals & feasible precautions in attack.

Assertion that this attack may violate #LOAC because advance warning was apparently not provided by @IDF is made more than once in this story. Prof Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne continues his "analysis" by asking, "Did @Israel carry out sufficient precautions to warn the civilians in the hospital of the impending attacks so that they could flee?" (7:29-7:38) There are actually two significant errors in this assertion. Before we address those, let's take a look at another assertion regarding LOAC requirement involving advance warning before attacking medical facilities.

Earlier in story, Sir Geoffrey Nice suggests, "There are many ways in which medical facilities - patients, doctors, and so on - enjoy special protection. And one of the ways they enjoy extra protection is under [LOAC], warnings have to be given. And if so no warning was given, it's even harder for Israel to assert that this was a legitimate attack on a hospital" (5:04-5:30).

Notice emphasis at end of Sir Nice's commentary regarding legitimate attack on a hospital. As 2/ above points out, this was not an attack on a hospital. As such, this requirement regarding advance warning before attacking medical facilities is not activated in this strike.

If we refer to doctrinal LOAC requirements, we can see why it doesn't make sense to regard this as an attack on a medical facility or to assert effective advance warning was therefore required.

Pic 1 affirms that medical facilities lose protected status when they're used to engage in acts harmful to enemy (green highlight). That means even if hospital were actually object of attack, suspected presence of #Hamas C2 node in hospital would result in loss of protected status.

HOWEVER, that protection ceases "only after a warning has been given" & has gone unheeded (pic 1, yellow highlight). Notice there is no exception to this rule - if attack is directed against medial facility, advance warning must be provided.

This is different from a similar advance warning requirement provided in feasible precautions rule. Again, art. 57 of AP I isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of customary law - but it is uncontroversial to assert even as a matter of custom that "effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit" (pic 2, orange & green highlight) is customary. The "unless circumstances do not permit" clause provides an enormous exception to feasible precautions requirement to provide advance warning - an exception that does not apply to medical facilities. Why?

The purpose of advance warning requirement for medical facilities is to allow patients to be evacuated as much as possible before attack commences. Such an evacuation may take some time due to potentially immobile nature of many patients. Pic 3 is screenshot of video footage taken from inside hospital minutes after attack. Effective advance warning before attacking hospitals exists - without exception - to allow medical staff to wheel patients out of hospital on gurneys (such as the one depicted) and so on.

Ok, that's the purpose of this specific advance warning requirement. Is it apparent now why this was not, in fact, an attack *on a hospital? That's right. There was no need to provide advance warning to allow evacuation of patients because object of attack was (reportedly) C2 node under hospital & surrounding area. That's why the courtyard was attacked (in two separate places) & surrounding area was as well - but no bombs were dropped into hospital itself. Targeteers responsible for planning this attack appear to have taken EXTRAORDINARY care to select aim points & munitions that would limit effects to (apparent) C2 node under hospital RATHER than hospital itself (I can tell - I was a qualified & certified collateral damage estimation analyst in Afghanistan where I worked on dozens, perhaps hundreds, of target packages similar to this one in close proximity to collateral concerns).

The whole point of the advance warning requirement before making hospital the object of attack is to allow potentially immobile patients to be evacuated beforehand as much as possible. There was no need to evacuate *anyone before this strike because effects were planned not to be directed at hospital. And if hospital was not, in fact, object of attack, then the advance warning that is required without exception before making medical facility object of attack didn't apply.

What we're left with instead is the standard requirement to provide effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit (pic 2, feasible precautions rule). But this "requirement" has a caveat (unless circumstances do not permit) that often means *this warning is not provided.

Incidentally, this constitutes the second error in Hill-Cawthorne "analysis" when he asks, "Did Israel carry out sufficient precautions to warn the civilians in the hospital of the impending attacks so that they could flee?" Sufficient precautions is reference to feasible precautions in attack rule (pic 2), which has an exception (unless circumstances do not permit) he would need to account for in order to legitimately suggest this rule may have been violated. Requirement to provide advance warning before making hospital object of attack is technically a specialized component of LOAC distinction rule since it involves loss of protection ("protection may CEASE "only after a warning has been given") and not the "precautions" requirement, which is separate (as reflected in art. 57 rather than art. 13).

Read 5 tweets

Dr. Brian L. Cox

@BrianCox_RLTW

Jan 13

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1878604473301381286

Breaking Down Misleading News Coverage of Gaza -- @60Minutes Edition

Subject: Request by @Israel for @POTUS Biden Administration to Deliver 2,000 Pound Bombs

Read on for a🧵presenting in-depth analysis of this spectacularly misleading segment posted today by 60 Minutes. 1/8

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1878604473301381286

2/ @60Minutes segment is structured to focus on several substantive points highlighting that requested 2,000 lb munitions have been controversial throughout the conflict in #Gaza. This previous context is presented to create the suggestion, though never specifically articulated, that the audience should regard the request by for more 2k lb bombs with suspicion. After all, the segment is about to summarize for the audience many concerns that have been raised by use of these munitions during the conflict in the past.

Next post traces arc of the story to outline main points presented in segment that seeks to construct concern for munitions requested by Israel. Subsequent posts analyze each substantive point in sequence. Final post in🧵then consolidates analysis to situate this 60 Minutes segment in broader context of misleading media coverage of Gaza conflict.

3/ Arc of the story.

Lede: Israel has requested munitions from US, particularly 2,000 lb bombs, which are “one of the most powerful in the US arsenal, typically used to destroy large targets like weapons depots.”

Almost since the beginning of the conflict, use of 2k lb bombs has been concerning. To create this suggestion, segment presents several substantive points – each of which is outlined in sequence below in this post & accompanied by an attached photo (also in sequence):

1. Substantive points begin by presenting context demonstrating 🇮🇱 has used 2k lb bombs throughout the conflict. Indeed, “nearly three weeks after the October 7th attacks,” @IDF “posted a video on social media of an airstrike in Gaza City, saying it targeted a #Hamas [terror] tunnel.” This is evidence from the source that an attack occurred. Now the segment will focus on the devastation reportedly caused by the attack and then demonstrate 2k lb bombs were employed for the strike.

2. Using this specific attack as a case study, @60Minutes segment will reveal just how deadly these munitions are. According to @airwars, “More than 100 people were also killed, including 81 women and children.”

3. So this airstrike was reportedly extremely deadly for the civilian population, but the segment still hasn’t established 2k lb bombs were used. Next up is a screenshot sourced from IDF video clip just before the strike, then a photo showing “the aftermath.” According to the segment, “Several sources we spoke to said Israel likely used multiple 2,000 lb American bombs.” Ok, the segment has now established 2k lb bombs were likely used – the same kind 🇮🇱 is now requesting again from 🇺🇸.

4. Even US government has concluded manner in which @Israel conducts hostilities in Gaza is problematic.

4a. In fact, two months after the strike in Gaza City mentioned earlier in segment, @POTUS Biden “warned that Israel was losing support for what he called indiscriminate bombing.”

4b. This addresses Israel’s conduct in general, but what about 2k lb bombs specifically? Well, “Last May, [Biden] halted a shipment of the 2,000lb bombs.”

☝️ points outline arc of the story. Each substantive point is analyzed in sequence in subsequent posts.

Read 8 tweets

Dr. Brian L. Cox

@BrianCox_RLTW

Dec 16, 2024

https://twitter.com/airwars/status/1867247313061818725

🚨🚨 NEW sham report by @airwars claiming patterns of civilian harm in 1st weeks of #Gaza conflict "are unprecedented in modern warfare". How to recognize as a sham?

In a word: methodology. This report reveals - again - perils of effects-based analysis in armed conflict. 🧵1/8

https://twitter.com/airwars/status/1867247313061818725

2/Let's start with what report claims to demonstrate. In intro (p.1), report asserts "manner in which @Israel has conducted the war in #Gaza may signal the development of a concerning new norm: [...] a higher threshold of acceptance for civilian harm than ever seen before."

To support this claim, @airwars would need evidence of what @IDF intends for each incident it analyzes. This is only way to determine Israel's threshold of acceptance of harm. Instead, consistent with Airwars standard methodology, report analyzes only observed effects of airstrikes - and disregards any assessment made public by 🇮🇱 unless it's corroborated by external evidence Airwars team identifies.

Next 4 posts explore fundamental flaws in report methodology that, individually and collectively, indicate findings are incapable of demonstrating what Airwars claims data analyzed in report "may signal".

3/First foundational flaw examined here applies to @airwars methodology in general. As methodology explanation indicates (p.3, pic1), NGO focuses exclusively on patterns of harm. This represents general design flaw since evaluating purported "threshold of acceptance for civilian harm" requires data related to corresponding military advantage expected from each incident analyzed.

Report methodology relies on observed effects and reports of civilian harm (p.5, pic2), meaning NGO does not have access to data necessary to actually evaluate "threshold of acceptance for civilian harm" by @IDF.

Pointing out that "Airwars has consistently applied the same open-source casualty recording methodology" (p.3, pic1) in the past does not enhance reliability of analysis & findings presented in this report. Implementing several years of flawed methodology erodes credibility of all reports published by this NGO rather than boosting credibility of this single report. As they say in computer programming: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Next up is analysis of 3 specific design flaws that further erode legitimacy of this report & its findings.

Read 10 tweets

Dr. Brian L. Cox

@BrianCox_RLTW

Dec 14, 2024

https://twitter.com/Alonso_GD/status/1867638550725865954

All You Need to Know About Decolonial Theory, in 8 Tweets

If you want to "know enough about decolonial theory", you can:

1): Spend career constructing new ways to blame ppl of W European heritage for afflicting those you consider disadvantaged;

or

2): Read this short 🧵.
1/8

https://twitter.com/Alonso_GD/status/1867638550725865954

2/Decolonial theory calls on ppl "of all nationalities [to] unite to smash settler colonial state & replace it w/socialism." "Settler colonial" = "capitalist" based on context, meaning intent is to "smash" capitalism & replace w/some brand of socialism.

https://x.com/seizethebanks/status/1864811602824093894?t=db40NghldTQ3VWUhpX-Rgw&s=19

3/"Decolonial approaches" justify any measure - including violence as "armed resistance" - for oppressed "to determine their political futures" in opposition to oppressor.

"Oppressed" + "resistance" = "justifiable" political violence (AKA terrorism).

https://x.com/Heidi__Matthews/status/1837510570884424116?t=hFEzOiUtDejqBBf4MYj_BQ&s=19

Read 8 tweets

Dr. Brian L. Cox

@BrianCox_RLTW

Nov 22, 2024

A few initial observations re: announcement today from @IntlCrimCourt PTC I of arrest warrants issued for current @IsraeliPM @netanyahu & former @Israel_MOD Minister @yoavgallant. Bottom line: States Party should refuse to implement warrants until several errors or omissions are satisfactorily addressed by Court.

Analysis of announcement & suggested next steps are presented in this 🧵
1/9

2/ Issue of Palestinian "state"hood is front & center, as always. In decision published today, PTC I notes that "acceptance by 🇮🇱 of the Court’s jurisdiction is not required." This is technically true, but Court has no authority to decide on behalf of State Party that Palestine qualifies for statehood.

Yes, PTC I previously determined unilaterally that 🇵🇸 is "State" Party & this is sufficient to establish jurisdiction for events occurring in territory (art. 12(2)(a) of Rome Statute). So the Court can (arguably) exercise jurisdiction, but it can't compel States to recognize 🇵🇸 "state"hood. Meeting jurisdictional requirement is required for Situation to proceed.

Any State Party that recognizes 🇵🇸 statehood already aligns with Court's determination, so this isn't a ground to refuse to implement arrest warrants for those countries. But any State Party that doesn't recognize 🇵🇸 may refuse to implement warrants since Court can't force countries to recognize statehood, and 🇵🇸 "state"hood is precondition for exercise of territorial jurisdiction.

3/ Now to substantive allegations, first of which is war crime of "intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare." Pic 1 is relevant excerpt from PTC I press release. Pic 2 is text of war crime from Rome Statute. Notice starvation "as a method of warfare" is required component (it's also listed in Elements of Crimes).

Unfortunately, "method of warfare" isn't precisely defined in conventional sources of int'l law. Still - even if one accepts that alleged offenders have intentionally starved civilians in Gaza (a contentious conclusion), this war crime requires doing so as a tactic to defeat adversary (that is, as a "method of warfare").

Problem here is that all relevant sources refer to statements purportedly made by alleged perpetrators to support claimed connection between "starvation" and "method of warfare"...but official sources haven't disclosed content of these statements. Each attached pic is from an official source, and reference to "statements" of alleged perpetrators is highlighted in red for each. PTC I press release (pic 1), statement by ICC Prosecutor @KarimKhanQC (pic 3), Report of Panel of Experts (pic 4) all claim statements from 🇮🇱 officials demonstrate: 1) intentional starvation; 2) as method of warfare. But none identify the statements.

This is a deficiency all States Party to Rome Statute should address before making final determination regarding how to proceed with arrest warrant. The "method of warfare" element isn't optional. And maybe purported statements satisfy requirement - but it's impossible to say for sure since official ICC sources haven't disclosed content of the statements.

Read 10 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Dr. Brian L. Cox

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @BrianCox_RLTW

Dr. Brian L. Cox

Dr. Brian L. Cox

Dr. Brian L. Cox

Dr. Brian L. Cox

Dr. Brian L. Cox

Dr. Brian L. Cox

Did Thread Reader help you today?

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

Send Email!