Author: Kubo Mačák* and Michael N. Schmitt PDF: “Enemy-Controlled Battlespace”: The Contemporary Meaning and Purpose of Additional Protocol I’s Article 44(3) Exception Abstract The contemporary propensity for, and risk of, armed conflict taking place among the civilian population has cast a new light on several long-standing challenges to the application of international humanitarian law (IHL). One is the determination of combatant status and, more specifically, the question

Civil society, the United Nations, and others are subjecting the conduct of hostilities to increasing scrutiny. But they often lack access to internal targeting data and therefore frequently render legal judgments based on the effects of attacks or assertions that particular weapons or methods of combat are inherently unlawful. This Article analyzes the historical development of key provisions of international humanitarian law (IHL) within the framework of two perennial legal

Reports of state-sponsored harmful cyber intrusions abound. The prevailing view among academics holds that if the effects or consequences of such intrusions are sufficiently damaging, international humanitarian law (IHL) should generally govern them—and recourse to armed force may also be justified against states responsible for these actions under the jus ad bellum. This Article argues, however, that there are serious problems and perils in relying on analogies with physical

Cluster munitions have been a significant weapon in the world’s arsenals for the last half-century, but their use has drawn sharp criticism for its impact on civilian populations. The weapons function by releasing dozens of small “bomblets” over a wide area.  For years the debate over these weapons was focused on whether they violated the norms of international humanitarian law, but the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions has altered the discussion, banning the weapons outri