Anticipatory Self-Defense in the Cyber Context

This chapter explores the application of the law relating to anticipatory self-defence to attacks in the cyber domain

Profiling Terrorists—Using Statistics to Fight Terrorism

The financial war on terror necessitates authorities and governments to search for novel methods and tools to identify, prosecute and round up (members of) terrorist networks and, preferably, preventively thwart their activities. Terrorist profiling, originating in offender profiling, provides one such method. It aims to derive information from seemingly relevant and coherent sets of attributes. Grounded in counter threat finance, and geared towards incapacitating terrorist business models and underpinning financial resources, the toolkit used is derived from another area of misuse of financial services, namely money laundering. This chapter, based on practice and scarce research, thus far, renders an account of developments in terrorist profiling in the financial economic realm. Specifically, it is discussed whether statistical profiling based on retail banking behaviour can be considered effective in the financial fight against terrorism. We conclude that, to date, similar to the effectiveness of FATF’s financial measures to fight terrorism, the effectiveness of statistical profiling in this respect remains limited

Responsibility of Organized Armed Groups Controlling Territory: Attributing Conduct to ISIS

In stark contrast to the situation for states, international organizations and individuals, there is no coherent international legal framework governing the responsibility of non-state organized armed groups that are parties to armed conflicts. The present chapter explores the possibility of developing such a framework for international law by focusing first on formulating a set of rules on attribution of conduct; and, second, using the Islamic State (IS) as a case study, to explore how some core rules of attribution could be applied to a specific type of organized armed group, namely those that—at least during a certain period of their existence—exercise territorial control

Responsibility of Organized Armed Groups Controlling Territory: Attributing Conduct to ISIS

In stark contrast to the situation for states, international organizations and individuals, there is no coherent international legal framework governing the responsibility of non-state organized armed groups that are parties to armed conflicts. The present chapter explores the possibility of developing such a framework for international law by focusing first on formulating a set of rules on attribution of conduct; and, second, using the Islamic State (IS) as a case study, to explore how some core rules of attribution could be applied to a specific type of organized armed group, namely those that—at least during a certain period of their existence—exercise territorial control

The Conduct of Hostilities and International Humanitarian Law: Challenges of 21st Century Warfare International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century

Armed conflicts evolve dynamically and the way wars are fought has changed significantly over time. The majority of contemporary armed conflicts involve a multitude of different actors with varying military capabilities. This asymmetry creates an incentive for the inferior party to use war tactics which violate rules of international humanitarian law in order to make up for disadvantages in matters relating to materiel, resources and fighting capacity. This links in with the observation that today’s armed conflicts (“new wars”) are often characterized not only by the objective to gain territory or military victory in the classical sense, but are rather often (also) about achieving independence, identity, ethnic cleansing, or spreading terror and gaining publicity. This being said, the traditional objectives of defeating enemy forces and gaining or maintaining control over territory are still highly relevant, including for non-State parties. For example, for the so-called Islamic State (IS) territorial control is a strategic priority. For State parties engaged in conflict with such groups, the objective is often to contain the threat posed by such tactics, regain and hold territories that such groups may have captured, degrade their ability to mount effective operations and ultimately to defeat them, which includes but is often not limited to a traditional military victory, whereby one side is forced to submit by superior force. Although international humanitarian law has already adapted in certain ways, for example, by providing rules for non-international armed conflicts (NIAC), one needs to keep in mind that IHL was originally designed to deal with interstate wars. What is more, in modern asymmetric armed conflicts the conduct of hostilities increasingly seems to take place in parallel with law enforcement operations. Thus, the central question is the extent to which the rules governing the conduct of hostilities need to be clarified, both in terms of their scope of application and their substantive aspects. Although some sub-aspects of this issue have been examined before, what is still missing is a coherent and more principled approach to the challenges of 21st century warfare. The central focus of the SG lies on the actual rules governing the conduct of hostilities, taking into account the three main areas highlighted above. In this context, it was not the aim of the SG to comprehensively deal with all of the various issues arising in relation to the conduct of hostilities, but to focus on selected issues where the SG felt that there is a need and/or potential for further clarification. Whereas API’s scope of application is limited by virtue of Article 49(3) API, the SG agreed that today it is widely accepted that the customary law rules governing the conduct of hostilities are applicable in all domains of warfare, i.e., land, air, sea as well as outer-space and cyber-space. Therefore, the SG decided to focus on three main issues related to the rules governing the conduct of hostilities: I. The meaning and interpretation of the term “Military Objectives;” II. “The Principle of Proportionality;” and III. “Precautions.