Lessons for human rights and humanitarian law in the war on terror: Comparing Hamdan and the Israeli Targeted Killings case

International Review of the Red Cross

Volumn 89, Issue 866, 2007, Pages 373-393

  Milanovic, Marko ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85022020306     PISSN: 18163831     EISSN: 16075889     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S181638310700104X     Document Type: Article

References (128)

1. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, US Supreme Court, 548 U.S. ___ (2006)
2. 126 S. Ct. 2749
3. 2006 U.S. LEXIS 5185 (hereinafter Hamdan). All citations in this article will be to the slip opinion of the Court, available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05–184.pdf (last visited 29 January 2007).
4. Hamdan, above note 1
5. Opinion of the Court, at p. 1.
6. 344 F. Supp. 2d 152 (DC 2004).
7. 415 F. 3d 33 (2005).
8. Hamdan, above note 1
9. Opinion of the Court, at pp. 49–72.
10. The Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al v. The Government of Israel et al, Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice, Judgment, 11 December 2006, HCJ 769/02, available at http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.HTM (last visited 29 January 2007) (hereinafter Targeted Killings).
11. Matthew Tempest, “UK condemns “unlawful” Yassin killing”, Guardian, 22 March 2004, available at http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1175312,00.html (last visited 29 January 2007).
12. Brian Whitaker and Oliver Burkeman, “Killing probes the frontiers of robotics and legality,” Guardian, 6 November 2002, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,834311,00.html (last visited 29 January 2007).
13. For a general overview of the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations, as well as for an exceptionally prescient analysis of the relevant legal questions, see David Kretzmer, “Targeted killing of suspected terrorists: extra-judicial executions or legitimate means of defence?”, EJIL, Vol. 16 (2005), p. 171
14. Orna Ben-Naftali and Keren R. Michaeli, ““We must not make a scarecrow of the law”: a legal analysis of the Israeli policy of targeted killings”, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 36 (2003), p. 233.
15. See Gabor Rona, “Official statement on behalf of the ICRC”, 16 March 2004, available at http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5XCMNJ (last visited 12 May 2007): “There is no more logic to automatic application of the laws of armed conflict to the “war on terror” than there is to the ”war on drugs”, “war on poverty” or “war on cancer”. Thus, blanket criticism of the law of armed conflict for its failure to cover terrorism, per se, is akin to assailing the specialized law of corporations for its failure to address all business disputes.”
16. For example, Oppenheim defines war as “a contention between two or more States through their armed forces, for the purpose of overpowering each other and imposing such conditions of peace as the victor pleases”. Lassa Oppenheim, International Law (Hersch Lauterpacht ed., 7th ed., 1952) Vol. II, p. 202.
17. See generally Christopher Greenwood, “The concept of war in modern international law”, ICLQ, Vol. 36 (1987), p. 283
18. for the opposite view see Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 4th edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 14–15.
19. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Government Brief on the Merits, available at http://www.hamdanvrumsfeld.com/HamdanSGmeritsbrief.pdf (last visited 12 May 2007), at pp. 23–26.
20. Government Brief on the Merits., p. 26.
21. Hamdan, above note 1
22. Opinion of the Court, p. 67 (citations omitted).
23. This is basically the position taken in Derek Jinks, “September 11 and the law of war”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 28 (2003), p. 20.
24. See, e.g., the discussion by Marty Lederman at the Georgetown Law Faculty Blog, “Top ten myths about Hamdan, Geneva, and interrogations”, 5 July 2006, available at http://gulcfac.typepad.com/ georgetown_university_law/2006/07/top_ten_myths_a_1.html (last visited 12 May 2007)
25. George P. Fletcher, “The Hamdan case and conspiracy as a war crime”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 4 (2006), pp. 442, 444
26. Harold Hongju Koh, “Setting the world right”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 115 (2006), p. 2350, at pp. 2365–6.
27. Hamdan, above note 1
28. Opinion of the Court, p. 68 (citations and quotations omitted).
29. Opinion of the Court., note 61.
30. This option seems to be entertained by John Cerone, “Status of detainees in non-international armed conflict, and their protection in the course of criminal proceedings: the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld”, ASIL Insight, 14 July 2006, available at http://www.asil.org/insights/2006/insights060714.html, at Part II (last visited 12 May 2007).
31. Which speaks of a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties” (emphasis added). See also Lindsay Moir, The Law of Internal Armed Conflict, 2002, pp. 1–2.
32. Jean Pictet, ed., Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 4 vols., ICRC, Geneva, 1952–9 (hereinafter ICRC Commentary). The full text of the Commentary is available at www.icrc.org (last visited 12 May 2007).
33. Hamdan, above note 1
34. Opinion of the Court, p. 68, quotation provided in full above, at note 24.
35. See, e.g., David A. Elder, “The historical background of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 11 (1979), p. 37, at pp. 53, 68–9.
36. See, e.g., Yves Sandoz, “International humanitarian law in the twenty-first century”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 6 (2003), pp. 3, 13–15
37. Robert Kolb, Ius in bello: Le droit international des conflits armés, 2003, p. 83.
38. See, e.g, Eldon van Cleef Greenberg, “Law and the conduct of the Algerian Revolution”, Harvard Journal of International Law, Vol. 11 (1970), p. 37, esp. pp. 47–52.
39. See William Abresch, “A human rights law of internal armed conflict: the European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya”, EJIL, Vol. 16 (2005), p. 741, at p. 754, n. 44.
40. ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 28, p. 36 (emphasis added).
41. Yves Sandoz et al., eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC, Geneva, 1987.
42. Hamdan, above note 1
43. Opinion of the Court, p. 68.
44. Commentary on the Additional Protocols, above note 35, p. 1319, para. 4339, also available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/475–750999?OpenDocument.
45. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Brief of Professors Ryan Goodman, Derek Jinks, and Anne-Marie Slaughter as Amicus Curiae Supporting Reversal (Geneva - Applicability), available at http://hamdanvrumsfeld.com/ GoodmanJinksSlaughter-FINALHamdamAmicusBrief-Jan52006.pdf (last visited 12 May 2007), at p. 19.
46. See generally Kolb, above note 31, pp. 85–93
47. Eric David, Principes de droit des conflits armés, 3rd edn, 2002, pp. 137–185
48. Dietrich Schindler, “The different types of armed conflicts according to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols”, Recueil des cours, Vol. 163 (1979-II), p. 124
49. Hans-Peter Gasser, “Internationalized non-international armed conflicts: case studies of Afghanistan, Kampuchea, and Lebanon”, American University Law Review, Vol. 33 (1983), p. 145.
50. See, e.g, Roy S. Schöndorf, “Extra-state armed conflicts: is there a need for a new legal regime”, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 37 (2005), p. 1.
51. See Jelena Pejic, “Terrorist acts and groups: a role for international law?” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 75 (2004), p. 71, at p. 86, n. 74.
52. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, paras. 218, 219 (hereinafter Nicaragua).
53. Targeted Killings, above note 6, para. 16.
54. Targeted Killings, above note 6, para. 18.
55. UN Commission on Human Rights, Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine: Report of the Human Rights Inquiry Commission, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/121, paras. 39–40, available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id52260 (last visited 12 May 2007).
56. It is axiomatic that a state can never occupy its own territory as a belligerent. See, e.g., Leslie C. Green, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2nd edn, 2000, p. 257.
57. Yoram Dinstein, “The international law of belligerent occupation and human rights”, Israel Year Book of Human Rights, Vol. 8 (1978), p. 105.
58. Professor Dinstein apparently still holds this view - see Dinstein, above note 14, p. 169: “Belligerent occupation posits the existence of the enemy as a State and the continuation of the war.”
59. The Israeli government has not disputed that it is the belligerent occupier of the Palestinian territories, but it has disputed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See, e.g., Dinstein, above note 14, pp. 106–108.
60. See more Eyal Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation, 2nd edn, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004, pp. 109–112.
61. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, paras. 90–101 (hereinafter Wall).
62. See Benvenisti, above note 49, p. 112.
63. See, e.g., Adam Roberts, “Prolonged military occupation: the Israeli-occupied territories since 1967”, AJIL, Vol. 84 (1990), p. 44
64. Benvenisti, above note 49, pp. 144–148.
65. Such a scenario is, for example, not at all contemplated in the ICRC Commentary to the Conventions. ICRC Commentary, above note 28, pp. 18–25.
66. Targeted Killings, above note 6, para. 18, quoted in full at note 45.
67. See, e.g, Mara'abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel, Supreme Court of Israel, HCJ 7957/04, available at http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/570/079/a14/04079570.a14.htm (last visited 12 May 2007).
68. See David Kretzmer, “The Advisory Opinion: the light treatment of international humanitarian law”, AJIL, Vol. 99 (2005), p. 88, at p. 95, note 56.
69. Antonio Cassese, International Law, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 420
70. as cited in Targeted Killings, above note 6, para. 18.
71. Targeted Killings.
72. Lubell has also argued, albeit briefly, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be classified as international - see Noam Lubell, “The ICJ Advisory Opinion and the separation barrier: a troublesome route”, Israel Year Book of Human Rights, Vol. 35 (2005), p. 283, at pp. 296–7, note 68.
73. See also Kretzmer, above note 11, pp. 208–211.
74. Prosecutor v. Tadić, IT-94–1-A, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, 15 July 1999, at para. 84.
75. Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law, 5762–2002, available in English at http://www.jewishvir-tuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/IncarcerationLaw.pdf (last visited 12 May 2007).
76. The law has been heavily criticized, although it must be acknowledged that it is much more moderate when compared with the extremely broad powers of detention claimed by the US executive. See also Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Opportunistic Law Condemned”, 7 March 2002, at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/03/07/isrlpa3787.htm (last visited 12 May 2007)
77. Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, “Unlawful combatants or unlawful legislation? An analysis of the Imprisonment of Unlawful Combatants Law”, Israel Democracy Institute, Jerusalem, 2005, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract5902934 (last visited 12 May 2007).
78. See, e.g, the Opening Remarks by John Bellinger, Legal Adviser, US Department of State, before the UN Committee against Torture, May 5, 2006, available at http://www.us-mission.ch/Press2006/0505BellingerOpenCAT.html and the Opening Statement of Mathew Waxman, Head of US Delegation before the UN Human Rights Committee, 17 July 2006, available at http://geneva.usmis-sion.gov/0717Waxman.html (last visited 12 May 2007).
79. For the classical treatment of the subject see Richard R. Baxter, “So-called “Unprivileged belligerency”: spies, guerrillas and saboteurs”, British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 28 (1951), p. 323.
80. See also Green, above note 47, pp. 102–5, 107–8.
81. See, e.g, Jean-Philippe Lavoyer, “Should international humanitarian law be reaffirmed, clarified or developed?”, Israel Year Book on Human Rights, Vol. 34 (2004), p. 35, 42
82. Fausto Pocar, “Protocol I Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and customary international law”, Israel Year Book on Human Rights, Vol. 31 (2001), p. 145
83. Kolb, above note 31, p. 158
84. David, above note 39, pp. 483–484.
85. See Michael J. Matheson, “The United States' position on the relation of customary international law to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions”, American University Journal of International Law & Policy, Vol. 2 (1987), p. 419
86. William H. Taft IV, “The law of armed conflict after 9/11: some salient features”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 28 (2003), pp. 319, 322.
87. Remarks by John Bellinger, Legal Adviser, US Department of State, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), London, 9 February 2006.
88. See Anthony Dworkin, “United States is “looking at” the place of fundamental guarantees in the war on terror”, Crimes of War Project, 1 March 2006, available at http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-guarantees.html (last visited 12 May 2007).
89. Hamdan, above note 1
90. Opinion of the Court, pp. 70–72.
91. Targeted Killings, above note 6, para. 25.
92. Targeted Killings.
93. See ICRC Commentary on GC IV, above note 28, at p. 52, which states that “[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.
94. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution - not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.” See also Luisa Vierucci, “Prisoners of war or protected persons qua unlawful combatants? The judicial safeguards to which the Guantánamo detainees are entitled”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 1 (2003), p. 284
95. Hans-Peter Gasser, “Acts of terror, “terrorism” and international humanitarian law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 84 (847) (2002), p. 547
96. Knut Dörmann, “The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants””, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 85 (849) (2003), p. 45
97. Kolb, above note 31, pp. 158–159
98. Cassese, above note 58, pp. 409–410.
99. See Adam Roberts, “The law of war in the war on terror”, in Wybo P. Heere, ed., Terrorism and the Military, 2002, p. 82
100. Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, p. 29
101. Sean D. Murphy, “Evolving Geneva Convention paradigms in the “war on terrorism”: applying the core rules to the release of persons deemed “unprivileged combatants””, forthcoming, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 75 (2007), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract5958380 (last visited 12 May 2007).
102. Hamdan, above note 1
103. Opinion of the Court, note 61.
104. Common Article 3(3).
105. The Court extensively analyses both the element of directness and the temporal element in applying Article 51(3). See Targeted Killings, above note 6, paras. 33–40.
106. Hamdan, above note 1
107. Opinion of the Court, p. 70, note 66.
108. Targeted Killings, above note 6, para. 40.
109. Targeted Killings.
110. Targeted Killings.
111. Targeted Killings, above note 6, paras. 40–46.
112. Targeted Killings, above note 6, para. 40
113. citing Ergi v. Turkey, 32 EHRR 388 (2001)
114. McCann v. United Kingdom, 21 EHRR 97 (1995)
115. McKerr v. United Kingdom, 34 EHRR 553 (2001).
116. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 25.
117. ICJ Reports.
118. See, e.g., Louise Doswald-Beck, “International humanitarian law and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 316 (1997), p. 35: “This is a very significant statement, for it means that humanitarian law is to be used to actually interpret a human rights rule. Conversely, it also means that, at least in the context of the conduct of hostilities, human rights law cannot be interpreted differently from humanitarian law. Although this makes complete sense in the context of the arbitrary deprivation of life (a vague formulation in human rights law, whereas humanitarian law is full of purpose-built rules to protect life as far as possible in armed conflict), it is less clear whether this is also appropriate for human rights rules that protect persons in the power of an authority. This is particularly so when it is a human rights treaty body that is applying the text of the treaty. Practice thus far, in particular of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, seems to show that such bodies apply the human rights text within its own terms” (text around footnotes 50–2, emphasis added).
119. See also William Abresch, “A human rights law of internal armed conflict: the European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya”, EJIL, Vol. 16 (2005), p. 741, at pp. 743–5.
120. ICRC, “International humanitarian law and other legal regimes: interplay in situations of violence”, XXVIIth Round Table on Current Problems of International Humanitarian Law, held in San Remo, Italy, in September 2003, summary report available at http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5UBCVX/$File/Interplay_other_regimes_Nov_2003.pdf (last visited 12 May 2007).
121. Anthony Dworkin, “Israel's High Court on targeted killing: a model for the war on terror?”, Crimes of War Project, 15 December 2006, available at http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-highcourt.html (last visited 12 May 2007).
122. See, e.g., Orna Ben-Naftali and Yuval Shany, “Living in denial: the application of human rights in the occupied territories”, Israel Law Review, Vol. 37 (2003), p. 17
123. Adam Roberts, “Transformative military occupation: applying the laws of war and human rights”, AJIL, Vol. 100 (2006), p. 580
124. Kretzmer, above note 11.
125. Targeted Killings, above note 6, para. 40.
126. Wall, above note 50, paras. 107–113.
127. Armed Activities in the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda), ICJ, Judgment, 19 December 2005, paras. 216 and 220.
128. See, e.g., Charles Garraway, “Armed conflict with al Qaeda: a riposte”, Opinio Juris weblog, 15 January 2006, available at http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1168895161.shtml (last visited 12 May 2007).