Qualifiées d’ « actes de guerre », les attaques du 11 septembre 2001 ont permis au Président George W. BUSH de justifier ses interventions militaires déclenchées contre les Etats qu’il désignait comme étant l’ « Axe du Mal » en référence à l’ « Empire du Mal » dénoncé par Ronald REAGAN. Le 18 septembre 2001, le Congrès américain confortait cette militarisation de la lutte contre le terrorisme en votant presque unanimement l’ « Authorization for Use of Military Force ». La réaction des Etats-Unis se résume en quatre mots bien précis : « guerre contre le terrorisme » (« War on Terrorism ») ou « guerre contre la terreur » (« War on terror »). Dès le 6 octobre 2001, cette « guerre » prend la forme d’un conflit armé international en Afghanistan et en Irak. L’objectif principal des Etats-Unis était d’éradiquer le terrorisme en détruisant l’organisation terroriste Al-Qaïda dont son leader Oussama BEN LADEN, que George W. BUSH voulait « mort ou vif » (« Wanted dead or Alive ») en référence à la justice expéditive du Far West. Ces conflits armés ont conduit à la capture des combattants taliban et membres d’Al-Qaïda sur de différents champs de bataille. C’est sur la base du Military Order du Président américain, qu’ils seront pour la plupart d’entres eux détenus à la base navale américaine de Guantanamo bay, qualifiés de « combattants illégaux », puis privés du statut de prisonnier de guerre. La pratique quotidienne de la torture par des soldats américains fera de Guantanamo une véritable « zone de non-droit ». Les détenus se sont retrouvés dans un « trou noir juridique » du fait de l’incertitude créée autour de leur statut juridique. Pourtant, la guerre est réglementée par le droit international humanitaire à travers les règles du jus ad bellum déterminant les situations dans lesquelles il est licite de recourir à la force, et le jus in bello réglementant la conduite d’une guerre. Ce corpus juridique est aujourd’hui largement codifié par les Conventions de Genève de 1949 et leurs Protocoles additionnels de 1977. Mais, la « guerre contre le terrorisme » est incontestablement une nouvelle forme de « guerre » qui n’avait pas été envisagée lors de l’adoption des Conventions de Genève. Une lecture attentive de ces conventions peut laisser penser que ces dispositions ne s’appliquent pas aux terroristes qui s’engagent dans des activités totalement contradictoires au droit de Genève. Si bien que, l’applicabilité et l’application de ce droit dans cette « guerre » semblent controversées, notamment en ce qui concerne le statut des personnes arrêtées puis détenues par les Etats-Unis. Toutefois, la constante du droit international humanitaire veut qu’il soit applicable dès qu’une situation de violence se transforme en conflit armé / Described as "acts of war", the attacks of 11 September 2001 enabled President George W. BUSH to justify his military interventions against the states he designated as the "Axis of Evil" "Empire of Evil" denounced by Ronald REAGAN. On September 18, 2001, the US Congress reinforced the militarization of the fight against terrorism by almost unanimously voting the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". The reaction of the United States can be summed up in four very specific words: "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terror". As early as 6 October 2001, this "war" took the form of an international armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. The main objective of the United States was to eradicate terrorism by destroying the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, including its leader Oussama BEN LADEN, whom George W. BUSH wanted "dead or alive" Reference to the expeditious justice of the Far West. These armed conflicts have led to the capture of Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda members on different battlefields. It is on the basis of the US President's Military Order that most of them will be detained at the US naval base in Guantanamo bay, described as "illegal combatants", and then deprived of prisoner-of-war status. The daily practice of torture by American soldiers will make Guantanamo a true "no-law zone". The detainees found themselves in a "legal black hole" due to the uncertainty created around their legal status. Yet war is regulated by international humanitarian law through the rules of jus ad bellum, which determine the situations in which it is lawful to resort to force, and jus in bello regulating the conduct of a war. This corpus of law is today largely codified by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977. But the "war on terror" is undoubtedly a new form of "war" which was not envisaged The adoption of the Geneva Conventions. A careful reading of these conventions may suggest that these provisions do not apply to terrorists who engage in activities that are totally contradictory to Geneva law. Thus, the applicability and application of this right in this "war" seem controversial, particularly with regard to the status of those arrested and then detained by the United States. However, the constant of international humanitarian law is that it should be applicable as soon as a situation of violence turns into an armed conflict.

Norme séculaire et universelle, l’immunité des non-combattants a été gravement affectée par l’avènement de l’arme aérienne. L’introduction de la troisième dimension dans la guerre a permis d’attaquer des objectifs à l’arrière des lignes de front. Dans le contexte de la guerre totale, le bombardement stratégique a érigé la population et les biens civils en objectifs militaires afin de porter atteinte au moral de la première et de hâter la fin du conflit. Le résultat a été le massacre de millions de civils pour un bilan militaire plutôt mitigé. Ces bombardements tranchent avec la pratique actuelle par laquelle les États-majors s’efforcent de prévenir au maximum les dommages collatéraux. Comment expliquer un tel gouffre dans la manière d’envisager le bombardement aérien ?La population est devenue le centre de gravité des conflits contemporains. Que ce soit dans les interventions humanitaires ou dans la stratégie de la contre-insurrection, il convient de la préserver et de la conquérir sous peine de voir la mission échouer. Cette approche est exacerbée par la géographie moderne de la guerre se déroulant au sein de la population. Elle est compliquée par l’asymétrie morale opposée par les belligérants non-étatiques, se distinguant peu des civils et opérant à proximité ou à l’intérieur de zones peuplées. Dès lors, un paradigme de la modération s’applique aux bombardements aériens poussant parfois le commandement à aller au-delà du droit international humanitaire, là où, pendant une bonne partie du XXème siècle, ils étaient encore soumis au paradigme de la force de la guerre traditionnelle. / Immunity of non-combatants is a secular and universal norm which has been severely affected by the advent of air power. The introduction of the third dimension in the war led to attack targets behind the front lines. In the context of total war, strategic bombing has elevated population and civilian objects as military targets in order to undermine the morale of the first and hasten the end of the conflict. The result was the massacre of millions of civilians for a military rather mixed record. These bombings contrast with the current practice whereby staffs strive to maximize the prevention of collateral damage. How to explain such a gap in the approach of aerial bombardment?The population has become the center of gravity of contemporary conflicts. Whether in humanitarian interventions or in counter-insurgency, it should be preserved and conquered in order to avoid mission failure. This approach is exacerbated by modern geography of the war taking place within the population. It is complicated by the moral asymetry of the non-state belligerents, who are not very distinguished from civilians. Furthermore, they operates near or within populated areas. Therefore, a paradigm of moderation applies to aerial bombing, sometimes pushing the command to go beyond the international humanitarian law. For much of the twentieth century, they were still subject to the paradigm of the strength of the traditional war.

Le droit international humanitaire fait partie de ses rares branches du droit international qui bénéficient d’une très large adhésion de la part de la Communauté Internationale et de la société civile. Les juridictions internationales, Cour Internationale de Justice et Tribunal Pénal International, ainsi que la doctrine se sont accordés pour voir dans les règles du droit des conflits armés des normes dotées d’une valeur supérieure aux normes ordinaires. Elles ont ainsi été qualifiées d’obligations erga omnes, de principes intransgressibles du droit international et enfin de jus cogens ou normes impératives. Il ne saurait y avoir de plus grande reconnaissance juridique au sein de l’ordre public international à ce jour. En sus, le droit international humanitaire apparaît comme un des éléments fondamentaux d’une morale internationale dans un monde globalisé. Aux côtés des États et du CICR, la société civile s’est emparée de la question de son respect et même de son développement et nombre d’organisations internationales travaillent en ce sens. On ne pourrait ainsi envisager une situation plus propice à son respect que cette unanime consécration juridique et sociale. Pourtant le droit international humanitaire est violé à chaque seconde qui passe. L’objet de cette thèse est de tenter de réfléchir aux facteurs qui expliquent la récurrence de ces violations, qu’ils soient juridiques, anthropologiques ou sociologiques / International humanitarian law is one of the rare domains of international law which receive almost the entire support of the International Community and the Civil Society. Moreover, almost all of the rules that form international humanitarian law are part of international customary law which is compulsory for all, except for persistent objector. International jurisdictions, International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, as well as doctrine agree that the rules of the law of armed conflict should be considered of superior value compared to ordinary norms. They have been qualified as obligations erga omnes, intransgressible principles of international law and even as jus cogens or imperative law. One cannot think of a better legal acknowledgment. Furthermore, international humanitarian law, at least its essential principles, appears to be one of the fundamental elements of an international moral in a globalized world. With the States and the ICRC, civil society has seized the question of its respect and even its development and many NGO work for it. We couldn’t contemplate a more favorable situation to ensure its respect that this unanimous legal and social recognition. However, the international humanitarian law is infringed every passing second. The aim of this thesis is to try to study the factors which explain the recurrence of infringements, be them legal, anthropological or sociological

The United States increasingly has resorted to the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for targeted killings of terrorists as a counterterrorism strategy. More states and terrorist organizations also are acquiring UAVs and this development can lead to indiscriminate and unregulated use of UAVs. Previous researchers have indicated the surveillance ability and precise weapon delivery capacity of UAVs make them a weapon of choice for U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Although the U.S. government estimated the collateral damage involved in the use of UAVs at 3-5%, nongovernmental sources put it at 25-40%. A gap exists in the current literature regarding public perception of the use of UAVs as a counterterrorism measure and how international humanitarian law (IHL) may interpret employment of UAVs. The purpose of this quantitative, cross-sectional study is to determine if a relationship exists among public support of the use of UAVs for targeted killing, attitudes towards counterterrorism, and public perceptions of IHL. An online survey was used to collect data from 104 adult participants using the convenience sampling method. Logistic regression, ANOVA, and correlational analyses helped to determine the relationships. The outcomes contributed to the existing literature by providing important data related to public perception of the use of UAVs with the potential to enhance global peace and security. The results contributed to social change initiatives through the potential to facilitate the establishment of international and domestic legal frameworks to regulate the future employment of UAVs for targeted killing.

<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>

In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.

In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.

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.

In the last decade the fight against terrorism was carried out not only by measures indicated in national criminal procedure laws or international treaties outlining measures in the fight against terrorism, but also using military forces and carrying out military measures. Thus the dissertation aims to establish when and to what extent is the international humanitarian law (hereinafter – IHL) applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, to analyze in what cases the fight against terrorism amounts to armed conflict, what is the status of terrorists taking part in the armed conflict according to IHL, and to evaluate in the light of IHL principles and rules the specific measures taken against terrorists. Firstly the dissertation analyses the question of the definition of terrorism and proposes a possible definition of this phenomenon. Further on the dissertation analyzes the instances when the IHL rules are applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, when such situation amounts to an armed conflict, and evaluates the main criteria of armed conflict – intensity and organization – and their application in the fight against terrorism. The dissertation also explores the questions of the status of terrorists taking part in an armed conflict, distinguishing those taking part in international and non-international armed conflicts, and exploring the criteria for the direct participation in hostilities for such persons. Finally, the dissertation analyzes the specific measure of... [to full text] / Pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais kovą su terorizmu pradėta vykdyti ne tik pasitelkiant nacionaliniuose baudžiamojo proceso įstatymuose ar tarptautinėse sutartyse, skirtose kovai su terorizmu, numatytas priemones, tačiau ir naudojant karines pajėgas bei atliekant karinius veiksmus. Taigi disertacijoje iškeliamas tikslas nustatyti, kada ir kokiu mastu taikoma tarptautinė humanitarinė teisė (toliau – THT) kovoje su terorizmu, tai yra, ištirti, kokiais atvejais kova su terorizmu laikytina ginkluotu konfliktu, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT ir atsižvelgiant į THT normas įvertinti specifines kovos priemones, naudojamas kovojant su teroristais. Pirmiausiai disertacijoje analizuojamas terorizmo apibrėžimo klausimas ir pateikiamas galimas terorizmo apibrėžimas. Toliau disertacijoje vertinama, kuriais atvejais kovojant su terorizmu bus taikomos THT normos, tai yra, kada kova su terorizmu prilygsta ginkluotam konfliktui, tiriami ginkluoto konflikto intensyvumo ir organizuotumo kriterijai ir jų taikymas kovos su terorizmu situacijose. Disertacijoje taip pat tiriama, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT, išskiriant tarptautiniuose ir netarptautiniuose ginkluotuose konfliktuose dalyvaujančius asmenis, taip pat išsamiai išanalizuojant asmenų tiesioginio dalyvavimo ginkluotame konflikte kriterijus. Galiausiai disertacijoje tiriama specifinė kovos su terorizmu priemonė – tikslinių nužudymų, ypač naudojant... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

Pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais kovą su terorizmu pradėta vykdyti ne tik pasitelkiant nacionaliniuose baudžiamojo proceso įstatymuose ar tarptautinėse sutartyse, skirtose kovai su terorizmu, numatytas priemones, tačiau ir naudojant karines pajėgas bei atliekant karinius veiksmus. Taigi disertacijoje iškeliamas tikslas nustatyti, kada ir kokiu mastu taikoma tarptautinė humanitarinė teisė (toliau – THT) kovoje su terorizmu, tai yra, ištirti, kokiais atvejais kova su terorizmu laikytina ginkluotu konfliktu, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT ir atsižvelgiant į THT normas įvertinti specifines kovos priemones, naudojamas kovojant su teroristais. Pirmiausiai disertacijoje analizuojamas terorizmo apibrėžimo klausimas ir pateikiamas galimas terorizmo apibrėžimas. Toliau disertacijoje vertinama, kuriais atvejais kovojant su terorizmu bus taikomos THT normos, tai yra, kada kova su terorizmu prilygsta ginkluotam konfliktui, tiriami ginkluoto konflikto intensyvumo ir organizuotumo kriterijai ir jų taikymas kovos su terorizmu situacijose. Disertacijoje taip pat tiriama, koks yra teroristų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotame konflikte, statusas pagal THT, išskiriant tarptautiniuose ir netarptautiniuose ginkluotuose konfliktuose dalyvaujančius asmenis, taip pat išsamiai išanalizuojant asmenų tiesioginio dalyvavimo ginkluotame konflikte kriterijus. Galiausiai disertacijoje tiriama specifinė kovos su terorizmu priemonė – tikslinių nužudymų, ypač naudojant... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / In the last decade the fight against terrorism was carried out not only by measures indicated in national criminal procedure laws or international treaties outlining measures in the fight against terrorism, but also using military forces and carrying out military measures. Thus the dissertation aims to establish when and to what extent is the international humanitarian law (hereinafter – IHL) applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, to analyze in what cases the fight against terrorism amounts to armed conflict, what is the status of terrorists taking part in the armed conflict according to IHL, and to evaluate in the light of IHL principles and rules the specific measures taken against terrorists. Firstly the dissertation analyses the question of the definition of terrorism and proposes a possible definition of this phenomenon. Further on the dissertation analyzes the instances when the IHL rules are applied in the fight against terrorism, that is, when such situation amounts to an armed conflict, and evaluates the main criteria of armed conflict – intensity and organization – and their application in the fight against terrorism. The dissertation also explores the questions of the status of terrorists taking part in an armed conflict, distinguishing those taking part in international and non-international armed conflicts, and exploring the criteria for the direct participation in hostilities for such persons. Finally, the dissertation analyzes the specific measure of... [to full text]