The Iraq crisis: What now?

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 859-871

  Lowe, Vaughan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27644568619     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/52.4.859     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report, Kosovo, Session 1999–2000, HC 28-I, Stationery Office, 23 May 2000.
2. Cmnd 3246, 3.
3. The conditions were discussed in the Foreign Affairs Committee's Fourth Report on Kosovo, above, n 1, and in certain memoranda submitted to the Committee and reproduced in ICLQ (1999) 876–943.
4. See the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Sept 2002, 6, 15 .
5. See UN Doc S/PV 4644, 8 Nov 2002.
6. One recalls the words of Bosnian President Izetbegović to the United Nations: ‘If the international community is not ready to defend the principles which it has proclaimed as its foundations, let us say so openly, both to the people of Bosnia and to the people of the world. Let it proclaim a new code of behaviour in which force will be the first and the last argument’, quoted in Jonathan Glover, Humanity. A Moral History of the Twentieth Century (London: Pimlico, 2001), 140.
7. UN GA Resolution 377 (V), 3 Nov 1950.
8. Geneva Convention III, Art 17.
9. [2002] EWCA Civ 1598.
10. It is a matter of some concern that the United States appears to be retreating from its international obligations regarding prisoners of war. In the Operational Law Handbook (JA 422) issued by the Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1997, it is stated that ‘the US views [among others, Art 45 of Additional Protocol I] as customary international law’ (18–2).
11. The Handbook summarises Article 45 in the following terms: ‘prisoner of war presumption for those who participate in the hostilities.’ In the 2002 edition of Operational Law Handbook, however, this view has changed: it is said that the United States views Art 45 as ‘customary international law or acceptable practice though not legally binding’ (ch 2, 11).
12. Reprinted in Thomas Nagel, Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, 1991), 75.
13. The recent development of this phenomenon is analysed in the fine book by Glover, Mortal Questions.