In late July, a group of academic, military, and governmental experts from both sides of the Atlantic gathered at Britain’s Oxford University for the fourth annual “Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict.” The roundtable, held under the Chatham House Rule, and which this year included participants from Australia was held over two days and examined contemporary questions of international law relating to military operations.
This year’s event placed a particular emphasis not only on some substantive issues relating to the conduct of hostilities (such as targeting of “war sustaining” objects and the principle of proportionality), but on procedural obligations arising under the law of armed conflict. The procedural obligations discussed include the obligations of parties: to engage in review of the lawfulness of detentions in the armed conflict; to guarantee fair trials for those prosecuted for offences related to the conflict; and to investigate suspected violations of the law of armed conflict. Discussion of these procedural obligations focused on the content and scope of these obligations. The sessions also examined the extent to which these obligations apply to (and are capable of being fulfilled in) non-international armed conflicts and non-state armed groups. Inevitably, the sessions also considered the relationship between the procedural obligations imposed by international humanitarian law and those which may arise under international human rights law. To what extent should the latter inform the former?
Some of those who attended the workshop have agreed to participate in a series of blog posts focusing on specific topics that were addressed during the workshop. Three blogs, Intercross, EJIL:Talk!, and Lawfare, are coordinating the series, and will host the posts, outlined below. Each blog post represents the different authors' perspectives, and not necessarily those of anyone else at the workshop, nor any of the institutions represented. The blogposts focus almost exclusively on procedural obligations in the law of armed conflict. In addition, there will be a post on the principle of proportionality under IHL. Although proportionality imposes a substantive obligation on parties not to cause damage or casualties which are excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage, arguably, the attempts to achieve conformity with this obligation tends to be effected through particular processes and procedures.
Schedule of blog posts:
- "Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict"- Nehal Bhuta (European University Institute) - EJIL: Talk!
- "Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict" - Monica Hakimi (University of Michigan) - Lawfare
- "Coalition Operations & the Obligation to Investigate IHL Violations" - Chris Jenks (Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law) - Intercross
- "The Obligation to Investigate Violations of International Humanitarian Law" - Ian Park (Royal Navy) - EJIL: Talk!
- "Procedural Guarantees in Detention" - Rachel E. VanLandingham (Southwestern Law School) - Lawfare
- "Procedural Guarantees in Detention"- Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne (University of Reading) - EJIL:Talk!
- "Proportionality"- Janina Dill (London School of Economics) - Intercross
The joint blog series arising from the workshop follows on from our collaboration in hosting a similar series last year (see here, here and here). The Transatlantic Workshop is organized and sponsored by the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, the Oxford Martin Programme on Human Rights for Future Generations (both directed by Dapo Akande), the Washington DC & London delegations of International Committee of the Red Cross, the Houston College of Law (through the good offices of Geoff Corn), and the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas (directed by Bobby Chesney).
Click here for the 2015 Series.
Click here for the 2014 Series.