Codified in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Peace Conferences and later modified by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, the traditional international law of occupation has been challenged by advocates of human rights and self- determination and tested by the numerous occupations of the last two decades--among them Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, U.S. operations in Grenada and Panama, and occupations during the Persian Gulf crisis. To address the new issues that have emerged, Eyal Benvenisti formulates a contemporary theory of the law of occupation and establishes guidelines for the lawful management of occupation. In his new preface the author addresses issues arising from the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Benvenisti delineates the international responsibilities and obligations of governments that gain control over foreign territories through the use of force and examines the conduct of various occupying powers of the twentieth century, beginning with the German occupation of Belgium during World War I. He analyzes the actions of these occupants by contrasting them with the reactions of ousted governments, of peoples under occupation, and of other states and of supranational organizations. Additionally, he evaluates the legality of various measures taken by occupants, with the result that the nature of occupation can now for the first time be systematically assessed.

The third edition of Ingrid Detter's authoritative work explores the changing legal context of modern warfare in light of events over the last decade. The new edition covers post 9/11 events and the resulting changes in the ethos of war. It analyses the role of military companies sometimes authorised by States to act in war-like situations and examines what their legitimacy means for international society. The edition also discusses certain 'intrinsic' rules in the Law of War, such as rules giving individuals the right to be spared genocide, torture, slavery and, at least nowadays, apartheid and assure them basic democratic rights.

The essays convey collectively a picture of the law of armed conflict that is multidimensional in scope and insight. The second revised and expanded edition is an up-to-date, as well as a classically authoritative contribution to this immensely important field.

International law and armed conflict exist in a symbiotic relationship. In some cases, law shapes conflict proactively by imposing normative limits in advance of the appearance of proscribed conduct. Much more commonly, armed conflict either reveals lacunae in the law or demonstrates how law designed for yesterday’s wars falls short when applied to contemporary conflict. When that happens, international law reacts by allowing provisions to fall into desuetude, embracing new interpretations of existing prescriptions, or generating new norms through practice or codification. In the 21st Century, both international security and armed conflict are the subject of arguably unprecedented sea changes. As a result, claims that both the jus ad bellum and jus in bello are unwieldy and ill-fitting in the context of modern hostilities have surfaced prominently. Whether one agrees with such dire assessments, what has become clear is that armed conflict is increasingly exposing faultlines in the law governing the resort to force. The intent of this collection of essays in honour of Professor Yoram Dinstein on the occasion of his 70th birthday is to explore such faultlines, first by identifying them and then by assessing their consequences. In a sense, then, the essays, contributed by the top minds in the field, will serve to assist academics and practitioners to anticipate pressure on the law governing armed conflict and, to the extent possible, react accordingly. Paralleling Professor Dinstein’s classic works – War, Aggression, and Self-Defence and The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict − the book addresses both ius ad bellum and ius in bello topics.

This book provides expert analysis of the impact of international and national courts on the development of international law applying to armed conflicts.

This monograph is the ninth offering in the Combat Studies Institute's (CSI) Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) Occasional Papers series. The author, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and CSI historian, has produced a study that examines the evolution and continued applicability of the corpus that constitutes the law of war. As background, he provides a theoretical framework and the development of the law within Western and, specifically, U.S. Army doctrine and regulation. He then presents a case study of the British suppression of the Mau Mau insurgency between 1952 and 1960 in Kenya, a conflict with particular resonance today. Some of the more relevant characteristics of the conflict include the clash between Western and non-Western cultures and an initially asymmetric fight between conventional security forces and loosely organized, poorly equipped insurgents. It makes no claim that every lesson learned by the British during that counterinsurgency operation can be directly applied by the United States to the challenges of the GWOT, but this analysis does offer some insight about applying the law of war to an unfamiliar, non-Western environment. The genesis of this study is the public discourse asserting the possibility that the GWOT may require new rules and new law-of-war prescripts. This important discussion is fraught with complexities and long-term implications; the moral force in warfare is incredibly significant and any changes to the legal framework in place must be very carefully considered. Do we follow the law of war to the letter, do we remain consistent with the principles of Geneva, or do we approach the conflict as a new challenge requiring fundamental revisions to the law? According to the author, law-of-war violations are neither necessary nor excusable for successful prosecution of military operations in any environment, and because the law of war in its current form is more than adequate to face the new GWOT challenges, it does not warrant revision.

Armed non-state actors (ANSAs) often have economic aims that international law needs to respond to. This book looks at the aim of Islamic State to create an effective government, with an economically independent regime, which focused on key oilfields in Syria and Iraq. Having addressed Islamic State's quest for energy resources in Iraq and Syria, the book explores the lawfulness of the war with Islamic State from a variety of legal aspects. It has been attempted to make inroads into the most controversial aspects of contradictions in the application of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, particularly when discussing the use of extraterritorial armed force against ANSAs, and the obligation to protect civilian objects, including the natural environment. The question is whether the targeting of energy resources should be regarded as a violation of the laws of armed conflict, even though the war with Islamic State being classified as a non-international armed conflict. Ambitious in scope, the study argues that legal theory and state practice are still problematic as to how and under what conditions states can justify resorting to military force in foreign territory, and to what extent they can target natural resources as being part of state property. Furthermore, it goes on to examine the differences between international and non-international armed conflicts, to establish whether there is any difference in the targeting of energy resources as part of the war-sustaining capabilities of either party. Through an examination of the Islamic State case, the book offers a comprehensive study to close the gaps in jus in bello by contextualising the questions of civilian protection, victimisation and state responsibility by evaluating the US's war-sustaining theory as a justification for the destruction of a territorial state's natural resources that are occupied by ANSAs.