The law of armed conflict provides the authority to use lethal force as a first resort against identified enemy belligerent operatives. There is virtually no disagreement with the rule that once an enemy belligerent becomes hors de combat a what a soldier would recognizes as acombat ineffectivea a this authority to employ deadly force terminates. Recently, however, some have forcefully asserted that the LOAC includes an obligation to capture in lieu of employing deadly force whenever doing so presents no meaningful risk to attacking forces, even when the enemy belligerent is neither physically disabled or manifesting surrender. Proponents of this obligation to capture rather than kill, or use the least harmful means to incapacitate enemy belligerents, do not contest the general authority to employ deadly force derived from belligerent status determinations. Instead, they insist that the conditions that rebut this presumptive attack authority are broader than the traditional understanding of the meaning of hors de combat embraced by military experts, and include any situation where an enemy belligerent who has yet to be rendered physically incapable of engaging in hostilities may be subdued without subjecting friendly forces to significant risk of harm.... THE JOINT SERVICE MANUAL ON THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT 2.4a2.4. 3 (2004) [hereinafter UK MANUAL ON THE ... This principle of humanity is the central focus of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and is implemented throughanbsp;...
|Title||:||Belligerent Targeting and the Invalidity of a Least Harmful Means Rule|
|Author||:||Geoffrey S. Corn, Laurie R. Blank, Chris Jenks, Eric Talbot Jensen|
|Publisher||:||Maroon Ebooks - 2015-03-13|