The changing carbon cycle of the coastal ocean

The carbon cycle of the coastal ocean is a dynamic component of the global carbon budget. But the diverse sources and sinks of carbon and their complex interactions in these waters remain poorly understood. Here we discuss the sources, exchanges and fates of carbon in the coastal ocean and how anthropogenic activities have altered the carbon cycle. Recent evidence suggests that the coastal ocean may have become a net sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide during post-industrial times. Continued human pressures in coastal zones will probably have an important impact on the future evolution of the coastal ocean's carbon budget

Short-Lived Trace Gases in the Surface Ocean and the Atmosphere

The two-way exchange of trace gases between the ocean and the atmosphere is important for both the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and the biogeochemistry of the oceans, including the global cycling of elements. Here we review these exchanges and their importance for a range of gases whose lifetimes are generally short compared to the main greenhouse gases and which are, in most cases, more reactive than them. Gases considered include sulphur and related compounds, organohalogens, non-methane hydrocarbons, ozone, ammonia and related compounds, hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Finally, we stress the interactivity of the system, the importance of process understanding for modeling, the need for more extensive field measurements and their better seasonal coverage, the importance of inter-calibration exercises and finally the need to show the importance of air-sea exchanges for global cycling and how the field fits into the broader context of Earth System Science

"Impossible or disproportionate burden": The UK's approach to the Investigatory Obligation under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR

In this article, I argue for a rigorous engagement by the UK executive and domestic courts with the European Court of Human Rights’ development of the positive investigatory obligation under arts 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UK has sought to expand the dicta from Osman v United Kingdom that positive obligations should not be interpreted to impose an "impossible or disproportionate burden" on domestic authorities, while under-emphasising the criteria for effective investigations. There are frequent, inappropriate references to "proportionality" in the Ministry of Defence’s decisions to close hundreds of investigations of alleged unlawful killings, torture and ill-treatment in Iraq. The ECHR ’s positive investigatory obligations do not allow the closure of investigations on unscrutinised proportionality grounds. This article highlights inconsistencies in domestic cases, and an undesirable divergence between these and the European Court’s jurisprudence. "Impossible or disproportionate burden" must be evidenced and narrowly construed

Distorted terminology: The UK’s closure of investigations into alleged torture and inhuman treatment in Iraq

The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has closed hundreds of investigations into alleged ill-treatment of detainees by British troops in Iraq. This article probes one reason given for the closure of these investigations: the assertion (without further evidence) that the allegations were ‘less serious’, ‘lower-level’ or in the ‘middle’ range of severity. These terms usually appear without reference to international law, and are once defined with reference to the English criminal law of assault, so that investigations were closed if the alleged treatment resulted in less than grievous bodily harm. The MOD's terminology is wrong-headed and conceptually underinclusive: it fails to grasp the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment in international human rights law (IHRL), and largely neglects the investigatory obligations in IHRL, international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL)

Distorted terminology: The UK’s closure of investigations into alleged torture and inhuman treatment in Iraq

The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has closed hundreds of investigations into alleged ill-treatment of detainees by British troops in Iraq. This article probes one reason given for the closure of these investigations: the assertion (without further evidence) that the allegations were ‘less serious’, ‘lower-level’ or in the ‘middle’ range of severity. These terms usually appear without reference to international law, and are once defined with reference to the English criminal law of assault, so that investigations were closed if the alleged treatment resulted in less than grievous bodily harm. The MOD's terminology is wrong-headed and conceptually underinclusive: it fails to grasp the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment in international human rights law (IHRL), and largely neglects the investigatory obligations in IHRL, international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL)

The British Army’s training in international humanitarian law

States must disseminate international humanitarian law (IHL) and integrate it into military instruction. Implementation of the IHL training obligation was delayed in the UK; when the government asserted that IHL was inapplicable to colonial warfare, resisted the development of the IHL of non-international armed conflict, and was keen to maintain the nuclear deterrent. Absent or perfunctory IHL training correlated with recurrent violations of the prohibitions of torture and inhuman treatment, from the 1950s to the 2000s. Despite official assertions that the British Army’s training in IHL was being reformed following the death of Baha Mousa in British military custody in 2003, there were gradual changes from 2004 to 2011, and more thorough improvements from 2012 to 2017. Training materials for soldiers and officers now offer breadth and detail on IHL, with elements of international human rights law. They implement the 71 recommendations in the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry Report which the Ministry of Defence accepted, and are supplemented by practical training. Yet these are reactive reforms, which still lack norm-by-norm evaluation of soldiers’ understanding. Prohibitions on humiliating or degrading treatment of a sexual nature, and on the intentional infliction of severe mental pain and suffering are (respectively) under-emphasised and absent. References to the necessity of restraint positions (as opposed to the prohibited stress positions) may cause confusion. There is a simplistic suggestion that reprisals are lawful if they are politically authorised. Training reforms have been cited as one reason to close criminal investigations into alleged war crimes: a response which neglects coexistent investigatory obligations

Legal protections for armed forces personnel and veterans serving in operations outside the United Kingdom: response to public consultation questionnaire

The UK Ministry of Defence announced a public consultation in July 2019.* Its first proposal was a statutory 'presumption against prosecution of current or former Armed Forces personnel for alleged offences committed in the course of duty outside the UK more than ten years ago' where previous investigations had not resulted in prosecution. The Ministry of Defence intended to 'raise the threshold to be applied by prosecutors when considering whether a prosecution is genuinely in the public interest in such cases.' Investigations might be re-opened, on these proposals, only in exceptional circumstances, such as the emergence of new evidence. In response, we argue that these proposals will not remove the uncertainty ex-service personnel face regarding investigations and potential prosecutions for alleged historical crimes during extra-territorial military operations. The proposed measures, analogous as they are to time bars, amnesties and other impediments which limit criminal proceedings for historical crimes, would be incompatible with the UK's obligations under international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. The proposals cannot remove the possibility that service personnel will be tried before the International Criminal Court or in other jurisdictions. The proposed measures are also unduly restrictive of the circumstances in which investigations can be re-opened by the State; and the UK’s track record in investigating alleged wrongdoing during extra-territorial military operations is poor. The combination of these two factors is a serious cause for concern and may create perverse incentives, where poor investigations are conducted in the future, followed by reliance on the presumptions proposed.</p

Training and Education of Armed Forces in the Age of High-Tech Hostilities

In recent decades, new technologies have so radically changed current warfare that, as a consequence, the very law of armed conflict had to be applied to new means and methods of warfare, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and cyber attacks, as well as autonomous weapon systems. This Chapter explores the impact of this high-tech trend on the education and training of the personnel of armed forces from two different perspectives. First, it explores what military training duties States have with respect to high-tech means and methods of warfare and, in particular, whether the law of armed conflict requires that States employing them provide specific military training to their armed forces. It is argued that States may be held responsible for the inadequate training of their soldiers in situations where this results in a violation of the principle of precaution. Second, the analysis aims at establishing whether a duty to provide international humanitarian law education and training exists with specific regard to high-tech means and methods of warfare, in light of State practice regarding the dissemination of international humanitarian law. Arguably, although a significant trend regarding the supply of specific instructions and education pertaining to high-tech means and methods of warfare does exist, the lack of a specific international humanitarian law education and training focusing on high-tech means and methods of warfare may not be considered a violation of international humanitarian law in every case