<p>The construction of International Humanitarian Law and the norms regarding protection of prisoners of war have evolved as a reaction to the horrors of war. After September 11 and the following war on terrorism the notion of POWs has been widely debated. The USA holds prisoners at the navy base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba without granting them status as POWs; this thesis is placing the treatment of these detainees within a historical context. The norm concerning rights of POWs is today both internationalized and institutionalized, but that has not always been the case. This thesis illuminates how the norms have evolved during World War I, World War II and Vietnam War; finally the war against terrorism and the treatment of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is analyzed. The intention of the thesis is to use a historical overview of the evolution of IHL, and the rights of POWs in particular, to formulate a wider assumption about the implication of IHL in the war against terrorism and the future.</p><p>The thesis adopts a theory which combines constructivism and John Rawls´ theory of justice and uses constructivist ideas about the nature of the international system applied to Rawls´ notion of justice. The constructivist theory and ontology are the basis of the theoretical framework of this thesis and Rawls´ definition of justice as the base of social institutions are viewed from a constructivist perspective. IHL and the norms regarding protection of POWs are thus considered as social facts, constructed and upheld through social interaction between states.</p>

The construction of International Humanitarian Law and the norms regarding protection of prisoners of war have evolved as a reaction to the horrors of war. After September 11 and the following war on terrorism the notion of POWs has been widely debated. The USA holds prisoners at the navy base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba without granting them status as POWs; this thesis is placing the treatment of these detainees within a historical context. The norm concerning rights of POWs is today both internationalized and institutionalized, but that has not always been the case. This thesis illuminates how the norms have evolved during World War I, World War II and Vietnam War; finally the war against terrorism and the treatment of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is analyzed. The intention of the thesis is to use a historical overview of the evolution of IHL, and the rights of POWs in particular, to formulate a wider assumption about the implication of IHL in the war against terrorism and the future. The thesis adopts a theory which combines constructivism and John Rawls´ theory of justice and uses constructivist ideas about the nature of the international system applied to Rawls´ notion of justice. The constructivist theory and ontology are the basis of the theoretical framework of this thesis and Rawls´ definition of justice as the base of social institutions are viewed from a constructivist perspective. IHL and the norms regarding protection of POWs are thus considered as social facts, constructed and upheld through social interaction between states.

Syftet med denna studie var att komma till insikt, dels om hur kriget mot terrorismen har präglat diskursen kring det rättfärdiga kriget med dess särskilt utmärkande preventiva krigföring, och dels om huruvida begreppet "illegal kombattant" kan betraktas som legalt eller inte. Denna studie visar hur krigskonceptet har blivit alltmer diffust sedan det kalla kriget och hur attackerna gentemot USA den elfte september 2001 innebar en brytpunkt gällande diskussionerna kring rättfärdig krigföring. Studien visar också att begreppet "illegal kombattant", med dess preventiva syfte, tillvisso skulle kunna betraktas som legitimt i kontext till omfattningen av ovan nämnda attacker men att dess innebörd inte kan betraktas som legalt i vare sig nationell eller internationell bemärkelse. Jag har kommit till denna insikt genom att identifiera en diskursiv företeelse och lyfta fram dess legalitets- och legitimitetsaspekter och genom att identifiera en juridisk företeelse och lyfta fram syftet med dess innebörd med fokus främst på dess legalitetsaspekter. Med en diskursanalys har jag undersökt talet om det rättfärdiga kriget efter den elfte september, och genom en juridisk analys har jag prövat begreppet "illegal kombattant" gentemot nationell och internationell rätt. Dessa två analyser har fogats samman genom en samlad studie av kriget mot terrorismen och dess legalitets- respektive legitimitetsaspekter. / The purpose of this study was to come to realization on how the war on terror has characterized the discourse on Just War with its particularly distinctive preventive warfare, and also on whether the term "unlawful combatant" can be regarded as legal or not. This study shows how the concept of war has become increasingly diffuse since the Cold War and how the attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 represented an inflection point on the discussions of righteous warfare. The study also shows that the term "illegal combatant", with its preventive purposes, to a certain extent might be regarded as legitimate in the context of the magnitude of the above-mentioned attacks but that its content can not be regarded as legal in either a national or international sense. I have come to this realization by identifying a discursive phenomenon and highlighting its legality and legitimacy aspects and by identifying a legal phenomenon and highlighting the purpose and meaning of it, primarily focusing on its legality aspects. With a discourse analysis, I have examined the speach on Just War after September 11, and with a legal analysis, I have tested the notion of "unlawful combatant" against national and international law. These two analyzes have been consolidated in a comprehensive study of the war on terrorism and its legality and legitimacy aspects.

Syftet med den här studien var att komma till insikt om huruvida Bushadministrationens ageranden kring behandlingen av internerna i det nordamerikanska fånglägret på Kuba kan betraktas vara legala eller inte. Mina analyser visar att USA har brutit mot internationella såväl som nationella lagar.Jag har kommit till denna insikt genom att identifiera de viktigaste handlingarna – och dess syften – i anslutning till USAs ageranden och genom att jämföra dessa med internationell rätt och med USAs nationella lagar och avtal. Tre handlingar har stått i fokus; upprättandet av fånglägret på Kuba, med syfte att eliminera fångarnas konstitutionella skydd genom att internera dem utom USAs landsgränser; instiftningen av begreppet "illegal kombattant", med syfte att tillintetgöra internernas krigsfångestatus och därmed det internationellrättsliga skydd som tillfaller krigsfångar genom krigets lagar och; den hårda fysiska och psykiska behandlingen av fångarna, med syfte att erhålla information för att förhindra terrorism.Med en juridisk arbetsmetod har jag således prövat dessa handlingar mot USAs konstitution och mot instiftningen av nya nationella lagar, mot Genèvekonventionerna med dess tilläggsprotokoll och mot FN-konventioner. / The purpose of this study was to come to realization on whether the Bush administration's conduct regarding the treatment of inmates in the American prison camp in Cuba can be considered legal or not. My analysis shows that the U.S. has violated international and national laws.I have come to this realization by identifying the most important single actions – and their purposes – related to the U.S. conduct, and by comparing them with international law and U.S. national laws and agreements. Three single actions have been in focus; the establishment of the prison camp in Cuba, with the purpose to eliminate the prisoners' rights to constitutional protection by detaining them outside U.S. land borders; the establishment of the term "unlawful combatant", with the purpose to eliminate the prisoners' POW status, and thus the international legal protection accruing prisoners of war within the laws of war and; the rough physical and psychological treatment of the prisoners, in order to obtain information to prevent terrorism.With a legal method of working, I have thus tested these actions against the U.S. Constitution and the establishment of new national laws, against the Geneva Conventions and its additional protocols, and against UN conventions.

The aim of this thesis is to answer the question whether the U.S. policy on targeted killings with combat drones is compatible with the legal doctrine of just war theory, applicable international law, and human rights law. Moreover, this paper intends to examine the legal issues arising from the U.S. practice of international law in relation to the justification of targeted killings. The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the practice of targeted killings can be considered lawful and, if not, to provide knowledge about how the method violates applicable international law and the ethics of war. The focus is placed on relevant treaties and customary international law, and just war theory is used as a theoretical complement to explain the meaning and purpose of selected laws in order to determine their applicability to the research problem. Furthermore, this procedure has been conducted by using a legal method to identify the legal problem and interpret relevant sources of law in order to determine their applicability to the research problem. The thesis has determined that the U.S. policy on targeted killings with combat drones is not consistent with applicable international law and fundamental human rights law. In particular, the practice of targeted killings violates the principle of distinction.