This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines International Humanitarian Law Outlines

Attack Outline

Updated Attack Outline Notes

International Humanitarian Law Outlines

International Humanitarian Law

Approximately 63 pages

This outline delineates international statutory and case law for times of conflict. Subjects include: customary international law, enforcement and implementation, international armed conflict & noninternational armed conflict, gender issues, Guantanamo Bay, responsibility to protect, occupation, and individual status. There is also an outline on the sources of IHL (Hague Convention, Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols, UN Charter, Rome Statute, and ICJ rules), as well as a description of rel...

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our International Humanitarian Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

What is the goal of IHL? TO PROTECT CIVILIANS

What is the doctrine of Just War? TO PRESERVE OR RESTORE PEACE

Jus ad Bellum (UN Charter)

  1. Justified force?

    1. Prohibition of force: Art 2.4

      1. Exceptions

        1. Security Council Authorization: Ch 7, Art. 42

          1. Happens when…

            1. Heavy civilian casualties

            2. Human rights violations

            3. Crimes against humanities (sometimes)

            4. Plight of refugees and foreign workers

            5. Use of mercenaries

          2. R2P requires SC authorization

            1. If state doesn’t wait, and is wrong, then they are in danger of being found by SC/ICC as committing act of aggression, and leaders are in danger of being prosecuted for crime of aggression

            2. Only applies in 4 mass atroticity crimes

              1. Ethnic cleansing (no IL definition)

              2. Crimes Against Humanity (Rome Statute)

              3. Genocide (1948 Genocide Convention)

              4. War Crimes (Rome Statute, Geneva Convention)

            3. 5 criteria before piller 3 (triggers)

        2. Inherent right of self defense: Ch 7, Art. 51, CIL

          1. Must be in response to Armed Attack (Or imminent AA)

            1. Must be a grave form of use of force. Act committed by armed bands where such acts occur on a significant scale

              1. Nicaragua v. US, citing Art. 3(g) of Definition of Aggression annexed to GA resolution 3314 (XXIX)

              2. 2 Tests

                1. use of weapons

                2. effect test

            2. Less grave forms (still violate UN Charter, but don’t allow for self defense)

              1. Training, financing, providing arms, logistical assistance, etc.

            3. If collective self defense, the victim state must form and declare the view that it has been attacked. There is no rule in CIL permitting another state to exercise the right of collective self defense on the basis of its own assessment of the situation.

              1. Nicaragua v. US

              1. But consider: R2P

          2. Must be for the right purpose

            1. Objectivity standard

            2. Ex: oil platforms case. Court questioned whether this use of force could reasonably have had a self defense purpose

              1. Terrorist attacks do not lead to right purpose, because it is most likely a one-time attack

          3. Must be against responsible party

            1. Problem: cyber network attacks

            2. Ex: Oil Platforms Case

              1. US failed to meet burden of proof to show that Iran was responsible party for the attack on its flagged ship

              2. Wall case: if no state is responsible, no right to SD

                1. Terrorist attacks only applicable when terrorists are tied to HCP

          4. Necessity and Proportionality

            1. Necessity: imminence, armed force the only option (diplomatic means have failed)

              1. Caroline, 1841

                1. Threat is instant

                2. Overwhelming

                3. No choice of means

                4. Or time for deliberation

                5. Limited by necessity

              2. US model (Pre-Emptire)

                1. Inherent ambiguity with “imminence”

                2. Do not need to wait for traditional threats

                3. Ex: Osirak

                  1. SC applies Caroline test, finds Israel violated IL

            2. Proportionality: only what is necessary to protect self

          5. Must report to SC (Art. 51 duty)

Jus in Bello (GCs, APs, Hague, SC Resolutions, treaties) (GC CA1)

  1. Armed Conflict

    1. GC CA1 – regardless of aggressor, all parties to the conflict are bound by Geneva law

    2. Elements

      1. Armed attack + Attack in kind (“exchange of hostilities”)

        1. Osirak – not an armed conflict, no response from Iraq

        2. Existence of AC determined objectively, no declaration of war is required (CA2)

  2. IAC

    1. Armed force between states, of some degree of intensity and duration (Tadic)

    2. Opposing states, AA + response in kind, objective (CA2)

    3. Fights against colonial domination (AP1, 1.4)

    4. Occupation (Hague laws, GCIV)

    5. By proxy (ICRC)

  3. NIAC

    1. Protracted violence against states, with minimum level of duration, intensity, and organization (Tadic)

    2. Within territory of HCP, b/w govt or just non govt. groups, reaching threshold of confrontation (CA3)

    3. Threshold determined by minimum level of intensity and organization (CIL)

      1. Intensity

        1. Frequency, gravity, duration

        2. Number and type of forces involved (police vs. military)

        3. Type of weapons/equipment

        4. Number of victims, scope of destruction

        5. Impact on civilian populations

      2. Organization

        1. Structure/hierarchy of group

        2. Whether group has chain of command/ability to give orders

        3. Capacity to recruit/train new members

        4. Capacity to train/carry out coordinated operations

        5. Capacity to procure weapons and logistics

        6. Existence of code of conduct within group

        7. Control of territory (just APII)

  4. Principle of IHL (APs, CIL)

    1. Distinction (API: 48) (between civilian populations and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives)

      1. Military objectives

        1. Limited to those that by nature, location, purpose, use make effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction offer a definite military advantage (API:52)

      2. GCIII:4 – regular army & criteria for others

      3. US – unlawful combatant

      4. GCIV:4 – civilians

      5. API: 51(3) – DPH

        1. Targetted killings (Means and methods)

          1. ICRC Primary Acts Test (Interpretive Guidance, 2009)

          2. Membership Model (Totality of Circumstances)

            1. Ex: targeted killing case in Israeli Supreme Court

            2. US Model

              1. Imminent threat

              2. Capture not feasible

              3. Consistent with IHL (distinction, necessity, limitation, proportionality)

                1. Ex: JAG Bunker Case – not proportional

    1. Military Necessity: 1907 Hague Regulation IV, Article 23(g) (see KJ’s doc)

      1. Use force only against military targets for legitimate military purposes.

      2. Justifies measures not forbidden by IL which are...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our International Humanitarian Law Outlines.

More International Humanitarian Law Samples