Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Counter-Insurgency Operations in Afghanistan. What about the ‘Jus ad Bellum’ and the ‘Jus in Bello’: Is the Law Still Accurate?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2010

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ((YIHL,volume 13))

Abstract

The military operations in Afghanistan raise some important questions on the inherent right of self-defense against non-state actors, the nature of the conflict and the applicable rules in combating insurgencies, especially extra-territorially. Firstly, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, it was argued that the right of self-defense was not confined to military action in response to armed attacks carried out by States, but also included armed attacks carried out by non-State actors. Today, it is clear that States have an inherent right of self-defense against armed attacks by non-State actors even if the acts cannot be attributed to a State if that State is unwilling or unable to “control” that non-State actor. Secondly, if a state of armed conflict exists, what is the nature of that conflict and what rules regulate the conduct of hostilities? It will be argued that extra-territorial military operations against organized armed groups, when reaching the level of armed conflict, are governed by the law of non-international armed conflict. Finally, regardless the nature of the conflict, military commanders need to understand the changing nature of military operations when conducting their operations in the sense that the centre of gravity shifted from the traditional killing of the enemy to winning the hearts and minds of the civilian population. Consequently, this influence the way military operations are executed. Because insurgents do not distinguish themselves from the population, additional criteria (hostile act/hostile intent) need to be developed to counter that problem, since status based targeting becomes almost impossible. With regard to the means of warfare in counterinsurgency operations, one should reconsider the limitations on the use of certain conventional means if their use enhances the protection of the civilian population, such as RCA and expanding bullets.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author in his personal capacity and do not intend to reflect the views of the DG or of the Ministry of Defense.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Acharya UD (2009) War on terror or terror wars: the problem in defining terrorism. Denver JIL & Pol 37:653–679

    Google Scholar 

  • Addison M (2005) In: Nagl JA (ed) Learning to eat soup with a knife, counterinsurgency lessons from Malaya and Vietnam. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexandrov SA (1996) Self-defense and the use of force in international law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Altenburg JD Jr (2009) Just three mistakes. Case West Reserve JIL 42:11–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour SA, Salzman ZA (2008) The tangled web: the right of self-defense against non-state actors in the Armed Activities Case. NY Univ JIL & Pol (Special Issue) 40:53–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin JJ (2009) In pursuit of justice: prosecuting terrorism cases in the Federal Courts, 2009 update and recent developments. Case West Reserve JIL 42:267–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennoune K (2008) Terror/Torture. Berkeley JIL 26:3–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti E (2010) The legal battle to define the law on transnational asymmetric warfare. Duke J Comp & IL 20:339–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Bill B, Marsh J (eds) (2010) Operational law handbook. Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Charlottesville VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothby WH (2009) Weapons and the law of armed conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boothby B (2010) And for such time as: the time dimension to direct participation in hostilities. NY Univ JIL & Pol 42:741–767

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnee J, Toope S (2005) Terrorism is also disrupting categories of international law, EJIL Forum, available at www.ejil.org/forum_WTC/ny-cassese-03.htlm

  • Bush GW (2002) Presidential military order on the detention, treatment and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism, 13 November 2001, Section 1, (a), ILM 41

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers M (2002) Terrorism, the use of force and international law after 11 September. ICLQ 51:411–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camera P (2006a) The Guantanamo gap: can foreign nationals obtain redress for prolonged arbitrary detention and torture suffered outside the United States? Calif West ILJ 36:304–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Camera S (2006b) The exploitation of legal loopholes in the name of national security: a case study on extraordinary renditions. Calif West ILJ 37:121–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassel D (2009) International human rights law and security detention. Case West Reserve JIL 40:383–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2007) The Nicaragua and Tadić tests revisited in light of the ICJ Judgment on genocide in Bosnia. EJIL 18:649–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaffee D (2009) The cost of indefinitely kicking the can: why continued ‘prolonged’ detention is no solution to Guantánamo. Case West Reserve JIL 42:187–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford JR (2002) The International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility, Introduction, text and commentaries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson T, Gibson K (2009) Experts meeting on security detention report. Case West Reserve JIL 40:323–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeks AS (2009) Administrative detention in armed conflict. Case West Reserve JIL 40:403–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbrück J (2001) The fight against global terrorism: self-defense or collective security as international police action? Some comments on the international legal implications of the ‘war against terrorism. GYIL 44:9–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Filippo M (2008) Terrorist crimes and international co-operation: critical remarks on the definition and inclusion of terrorism in the category of international crimes. EJIL 19:533–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (1987) International legal response to terrorism, le droit international à l’heure de sa codification, mélange Roberto Ago, Milan, A. Giuffrè

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2004) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2005) War, aggression and self-defense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2009) Terrorism and Afghanistan. In: Schmitt MN (ed) The war in Afghanistan: a legal analysis, International Law Studies Vol. 85. Naval War College, Newport RI

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorronsoro G (2010) Afghanistan at the breaking point, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, available at http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=42031

  • Doswald-Beck L (ed) (1995) San Remo manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, pp 114–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes C (2004) Targeted killings’ in an age of terror: the legality of the Yemen Strike. JCSL 9:277–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusheine P (2008) Krijgsmacht, geweldgebruik en terreurbestrijding. Een onderzoek naar juridische aspecten van de rol van de strijdkrachten bij de bestrijding van terrorisme. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahmi N (2006) Terrorism is the world’s problem. Duke J Comp & IL 16:157–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidler DP (2005) The meaning of Moscow: ‘Non-lethal’ weapons and international law in the early 21st century. IRRC 859:525–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick J (2003) Speaking law to power: the war against terrorism and human rights. EJIL 14:241–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (2001) Terrorism and the right of self-defense. AJIL 95:839–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry JD (2010) Gas smells awful: UN forces, riot-control agents, and the Chemical Weapon Convention. Michigan JIL 31:475–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2003) The eleventh of september and the right in self-defense. In: Heere WP (ed) Terrorisme and the military, International legal implications. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 23–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2007) The temporal dimension of self-defense: anticipation, pre-emption, prevention and immediacy. In: Schmitt MN, Pejic J (eds) International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines. Essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2000) International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhouse L (2008) The mystery of Guantánamo bay. Berkeley JIL 27:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan A (2008) Are we fighting the right war. Cardozo J Int Comp Law 16:493–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C (2001) Legal aspects of current regulations. In: Third international workshop on wound ballistics. Thun, Switzerland, 12–20 March 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiora AM (2009) Not ‘by all means necessary’: a comparative framework for post 9/11-approaches to counterterrorism. Case West Reserve JIL 42:273–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines S (2007) Weapons, means and methods of warfare. In: Wilmshurst E, Breau S (eds) Perspectives on the ICRC study on Customary international law. British Institute of International and Comparative Law and Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakimi M (2009) International standards for detaining terrorism suspects: moving beyond the armed conflict-criminal divide. Case West Reserve JIL 40:593–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammes TX (2004) The sling and the stone. Zenith Press, Stamford, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammes TX (2006) Countering evolved insurgent networks. Military Rev, July-August:18–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper E (2001) A call for a definition of method of warfare in relation to the Chemical Weapon Convention. Naval Law Rev 48:138–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris GC (2003) Terrorism, war and justice: the concept of the Unlawful enemy combatant. Loy LA I & CLR 26:31–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Harting S (2008) Meeting America’s Security Challenges Beyond Iraq, A conference report, Rand Corporation, 43 pp, available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2008/RAND_CF246.pdf.

  • Hays Parks W (2010) Part IX of the ICRC ‘Direct Participation in Hostilities’ study: no mandate, no expertise, and legally incorrect. NY Univ JIL & Pol 42:770–799

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1997) The general international law of terrorism. In: Higgins R, Flory M (eds) Terrorism and international law. Routledge, London, pp 13–28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoon G (2007) The legal response to global terror. Calif West ILJ 38:107–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Isanga J (2009) Counter-terrorism and human rights: the emergence of a rule of customary int’l law from UN Resolutions. Denver JIL & Pol 37:223–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen ET (2007) The ICJ’s ‘Uganda Wall’: A barrier to the principle of distinction and an entry point for warfare. Denver JIL & Pol 35:241–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Jinks D (2003a) September 11 and the laws of war. Yale JIL 28:1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Jinks D (2003b) State responsibility for the acts of private armed groups. Chic JIL 4:83–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Jomini A (1811) Traité des grandes opérations militaires, contenant l’histoire des campagnes de Frédéric II, compares à celle de l’empereur Napoléon; avec un recueil des principes généraux de l’art de la guerre, 2nd edn, Vol. 2, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyner CC (2003) International extradition and global terrorism: brining international criminals to justice. Loy LA I & Comp LR 25:493–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven F (1985) American Society of International Law: annual meetings proceedings, pp 114–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Kielsgard MD (2006) A human rights approach to counter-terrorism. Calif West ILJ 36:249–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger H (1969) The Vietnam negotiations. Foreign Aff 47/2:214

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretzmer D (2005) Targeted killing of suspected terrorists: extra-judicial executions or legitimate means of defence? EJIL 16:171–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohr JA (2005) A ‘full and fair trial’: can the executive ensure it alone? The case for judicial review of trials by Military Commissions at Guantánamo. Duke JCIL 15:387–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandsager D (2009) Rules of engagement handbook. International Institute of Humanitarian Law, IIHL, San Remo

    Google Scholar 

  • Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare Bern (2009) Cambridge MA, Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin JC (2006) Les règles internationales relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin JP, Noone GP, Noone DC (2009) Security detention, terrorism, and the prevention imperative. Case West Reserve JIL 40:463–505

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald A (2004) The challenges to international humanitarian law and the principles of distinction and protection from the increased participation of civilians in hostilities, spotlight on issues of Contemporary Concern in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law, Background working paper at a Round Table in Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeckli D (2008) The emergence of terrorism as a distinct category in international law. Tex ILJ 44:157–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SD (2008) Protean jus ad bellum. Berkeley JIL 27:22–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanda VP (2009) Introductory essay: International Law implications of the United States – War on terror. Denver JIL & Pol 37:513–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman GL (2003) Humanitarian law and counterterrorist force. EJIL 14:183–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RJ (1968) Vietnam task: the 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. Southwood Press, Riverwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson LM (2009a) Guantánamo Habeas Review: are the D.C. District Court’s decisions consistent with IHL internment standards. Case West Reserve JIL 42:197–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson LM (2009b) Practical challenges of implementing the complementarity between international humanitarian and human rights law, demonstrated by the Procedural Regulation of Internment in Non-International Armed Conflict. Case West Reserve JIL 40:437–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters R (2004) In praise of atrition. Parameters 34:24–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty KA (2009) Are you there, Geneva? It’s me, Guantánamo. Case West Reserve JIL 42:171–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet JS (ed) (1958) The Geneva convention of 12 August 1949 commentary Part IV. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A (2004) Righting wrongs or wronging rights? The United States and human rights post-September 11. EJIL 15:721–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rona G (2008) A bull in a china shop: the war on terror and international law in the United States. Calif West ILJ 39:136–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Roscini M (2005) Targeting and contemporary aerial bombardment. ICLQ 54:412–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe P (2002) Responses to terror: the new ‘war’. Melb JIL 3:301–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadat LN (2005) Ghost prisoners and black sites: extraordinary renditions and international law. Case West Reserve JIL 37:309–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadat LN (2009) A presumption of guilt: the unlawful enemy combatant and the U.S. war on terror. Denver JIL & Pol 37:539–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Santopinto F (2010) Afghanistan: échec annoncé d’un changement de stratégie improbable et trop tardif. Les Nouvelles du GRIP 55:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoli M (2006) Transnational armed groups and international humanitarian law, occasional paper series, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, 45 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Saura J (2003) Some remarks on the use of force against terrorism in contemporary international law and the role of the Security Council. Loy LA I & Comp LR 26:7–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2000) Humanitarian law and the environment. Denver JIL & Pol 28:265–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2008a) ‘Change Direction 2006’: Israeli operations in Lebanon and the International Law of self-defense. Mich JIL 29:127–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2008b) Current perspectives on regulating means of warfare. Proceedings of the Bruges colloquium, 18–19 October 2007, p 58

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2009a) Targeting and International Humanitarian Law in Afghanistan. In: Schmitt MN (ed) The war in Afghanistan: a legal analysis, International Law studies, vol 85. Naval War College, Newport RI

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (ed) (2009b) The war in Afghanistan: a legal analysis, International Law Studies Vol 85. Newport RI, Naval War College, 567 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2010) Deconstructing direct participation in hostilities: the constitutive elements. NY Univ JIL & Pol 42:697–738

    Google Scholar 

  • Schöndorf RS (2004) Extra-state armed conflict: is there a need for a new legal regime? NY Univ JIL & Pol 37:5–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver NJ (2001) Responding to international terrorism: moving the frontiers of international law for ‘enduring freedom? NILR 48:271–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz G (1986) Low-intensity warfare: the challenge of ambiguity, National Defense University. ILM p 206

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp WG (2000) The use of armed force against terrorism: American hegemony or impotence. Chic JIL, pp 37–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Shy J, Collier TW (1986) Revolutionary war. In: Paret P (ed) Makers of modern strategy, from Machiavelli to the nuclear age. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 815–862

    Google Scholar 

  • Siniscalshi J (1998) Non-lethal technologies: implications for military strategy, occasional paper no. 3, Alabama, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorel J-M (2003) Some questions about the definition of terrorism and the fight against its financing. EJIL 14:365–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers H (1989) A war is a war is a war is a war. In: Thompson LB (ed) Low intensity conflicts: the pattern of warfare in the modern world. Lexington Books, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams CJ (2009) The use of force against terrorists. EJIL 20:359–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RF (1972) Defeating communist insurgency: experiences from Malaya and Vietnam. Chatto & Windus, London

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aggelen J (2009) The consequences of unlawful preemption and the legal duty to protect the human rights of its victims. Case West Reserve JIL 42:21–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Vite S (2009) Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations. IRRC 873:69–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Clausewitz C (1984) On war. In: Howard ME, Paret P (eds and transl), Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkin K (2005a) Canada/United States military interoperability and humanitarian law issues: land mines, terrorism, military objectives and targeting. Duke J Comp & IL 15:312–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkin K (2005 B) Warriors without rights? Combatants, unprivileged belligerents, and the struggle over legitimacy. occasional paper studies Harvard University, Cambridge MA, Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, 75 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkin K (2010) Opportunity lost: organized armed groups and the ICRC ‘Direct participation in hostilities’ Interpretive Guidance. NY Univ JIL & Pol 42:642–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Waxman MC (2009) Guantánamo, habeus corpus, and standards of proof: viewing the law through multiple lenses. Case West Reserve JIL 42:245–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Waxman MC (2010) The structure of terrorism threats and the laws of war. Duke J Comp & IL 20:429–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson P (1996) The role of the military in combating terrorism in a democratic society. Terror Political Violence 8(3):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin T (2007) Distinguishing soldiers and non-state actors: clarifying the Geneva convention’s regulation of interrogation of captured combatants through positive inducements. Boston Univ ILJ 26:227–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemach A (2010) The unpleasant responsibilities of international human rights law. Denver JIL & Pol 38:421–461

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DG Legal Support & Mediation, Belgian Ministry of Defense, Brussels,  Belgium

    Chris De Cock

Authors
  1. Chris De Cock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris De Cock .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, Durham Univerity, 29/30 Old Elvet, Durham, United Kingdom

    M.N. Schmitt

  2. Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Aff, 10 St. James's Square, London, United Kingdom

    Louise Arimatsu

  3. , Melbourne law School, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    T. McCormack

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Stichting T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Cock, C. (2011). Counter-Insurgency Operations in Afghanistan. What about the ‘Jus ad Bellum’ and the ‘Jus in Bello’: Is the Law Still Accurate?. In: Schmitt, M., Arimatsu, L., McCormack, T. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2010. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol 13. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation