Phillips, Joan. Law of Armed Conflict in Air and Space Operations.. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Library, 2002.
Available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/loac/loac.htm
A bibliography compiled at Air University Library to support student research.

Wallach, Judge Evan. Law of War Homepage--Interactive Outline of the Law of War. 2004.
Available online at: http://lawofwar.org/outline.htm
This site is intended for use by students, military lawyers, government officials, academics, and anyone else interested in an international legal regime for the regulation of the use of armed force.
See section 3: Means and Conduct of Hostilities; Nuclear Weapons; Gas and Biological Weapons; Conventional Weapons.
See section 5: Protected Persons; Prisoners of War; Interrogation of Prisoners.

 

Books
 

Kwakwa, Edward K. The International Law of Armed Conflict: Personal and Material Fields of Application. Boston, MA, Kluwar Academic Publishers, 1992. 208 p.
See chapter 3 for a discussion of the principles of the law of war: Military Necessity, Humanity, Distinction and Proportionality.
Book call no.: 341 K98i

Air Force Operations and the Law: A Guide for Air and Space Forces. Washington, International and Operations Law Division, Judge Advocate General's Department, 2002. 700 p.
Also available online at: http://www.afjai.hq.af.mil/publications/af_olg.htm
Book call no.: 342.0412 A298 2002

Osiel, Mark. Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline and the Law of War. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers, 1999. 398 p.
Under what circumstances is a soldier justified in obeying orders to do what is probably an illegal act under traditional rules of international law? The general rule has been that the soldier should obey unless -- and this is where definitions are difficult -- the act is clearly illegal, or unlawful on its face, or obviously wrong. Or choose your own phrase for the idea that it should not be done. And in case of doubt, obey the orders. These options can be important if months or years later the soldier is on trial accused of a war crime.
Book call no.: 345.04 O82o

Documents

Documents are located in the East Wing of the Library.
Some of the documents cited in this section are student papers written to fulfill PME school requirements.

De Alicante, Tony F. How Now Shall We Fight? The Relevance of the Law of Armed Conflict to the United States and Its Coalition Members in Light of the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September 2000. Newport, RI, U.S. Naval War College, 2002. 23 p.
The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and the war in Afghanistan that followed have presented situations never before encountered by the United States in armed conflict and have changed some of the ways in which the U.S. conducts warfare. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) has not kept up with those changes.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA400948
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 D279h

Elsea, Jennifer. Treatment of "battlefield detainees" in the War on Terrorism. Washington, Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress, 2003. 47 p.
Also available online at: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31367.pdf
Doc. call no.: M-U 42953-1 no. 02-RL31367

Rawson, Holly. Does the Law of Armed Conflict Need to Evolve With Respect to Non-State Actors? Newport, RI, Naval War College, 2003. 23 p.
As the "war on terrorism" continues, the debate grows on how to deal with enemy fighters captured during military operations. Are the Taliban fighters considered prisoners of war? What about the Al Qaeda terrorists captured alongside them, or fighting separately? Today, the question of how a commander should conduct operations or treat captured fighters while still complying with the law of armed conflict is more complicated than ever.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA415488
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 R262d

Reid, Scott. Terrorists as Enemy Combatants: An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict In the Global War on Terrorism. Newport, RI, Naval War College, 2004. 26 p.
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the enemy group rather than their individual conduct. If a nation's armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA422754
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 R358t

Periodicals

Basic Principles of the Law of War. Marine Corps Gazette 86:36-37 October 2002.
The law of war is grounded in four principles that provide the basis for the conduct of war by civilized nations and disciplined military forces: military necessity, humanity, proportionality, and distinction.
Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=000000209237001&SrchMode=5&Fmt=3&retrieveGroup=0&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&x=-&VName=PQD&TS=1083017272&clientId=417

Dunlap, Charles J. Taming Shiva: Applying International Law to Nuclear Operations. Air Force Law Review 42:157-171 1997.
Dunlap explains the legal and ethical norms within which the US nuclear forces operate and briefly introduces the practitioner to some of the major legal issues associated with nuclear weapons.
Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=16559536&Fmt=3&clientId=417&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Gillette, Gregory G. Proportionality in the Law of War. Marine Corps Gazette 87:60 September 2003.
Proportionality is one of four basic principles in the LOW. The other three principles are military necessity, discrimination, and unnecessary suffering. To fully understand and properly apply proportionality, we need to understand the other three.
Also available at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=411172731&Fmt=3&clientId=417&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Krauss, Eric S. and Lacy, Mike O. Utilitarian vs. Humanitarian: The Battle Over the Law of War. Parameters 322:73-85 Summer 2002.
Krauss discusses the law of war in relation to US adherence. The US military is responsible to fight and win the nation's wars. It is thus in the best interests of the military for the United States to lead the world in the development and enforcement of the laws of war, the very rules by which the permissible methods and means of warfare are defined.
Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=000000122939781&SrchMode=5&Fmt=3&retrieveGroup=0&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&x=-&VName=PQD&TS=1083017899&clientId=417

McMichael, William H. Do the Right Thing: What To do If You're Issued and Unlawful Order. Army Times 64:14-16 May 24, 2004.

Michaelsen, Scott and Shershow, Scott T. Beyond and Before the Law at Guantanamo. Peace Review 16:293-303 September 2004.
Michaelson and Shershow discuss whether the US is in violation of international law by not treating Taliban detainees as prisoners of war. The official position of the US is that those detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are unlawful combatants.
Also available online at: http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cw/carfax/10402659/contp1.htm

Relationship Between Rules of Engagement and the Law of War. Marine Corps Gazette 86:48-49 June 2002.
Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=000000124963331&SrchMode=5&Fmt=4&retrieveGroup=0&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&x=-&VName=PQD&TS=1098144771&clientId=417

Roth, Kenneth. The Law of War in the War on Terror. Foreign Affairs 83:2-7 January-February 2004.
The war on terrorism launched by United States President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. has broad and meaningful implications on the established norms and concepts of the laws of war. The pronouncement by President Bush on September 29, 2001 made it clear that he means the war on terrorism literally and not metaphorically. By literalizing the war on terror, President Bush has broken down the distinction between what is permissible in times of peace and what can be condoned during a war. In peacetime, governments are bound by strict rules of law enforcement. Police can use lethal force only if necessary to meet an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Once a suspect is detained, he or she must be charged and tried. These requirements are codified in international human rights law. In times of war, law-enforcement rules are supplemented by a more permissive set of rules as when a combatant is captured, he or she can be held in custody until the end of the conflict, without any trial. These two sets of rules have been well developed over the years, both by tradition and by detailed international conventions. The United States Department of Justice has cited Supreme Court rulings to defend the Bush administration's use of war rules in the war on terrorism. Balance should be carefully observed by the Bush administration to protect the civil and human rights of combatants in the war on terrorism.
Also available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=11781717

Schmitt, Michael N. The International Court of Justice and the Use of Nuclear Weapons. Naval War College Review 51:91-116 Spring 1998.
The International Court of Justice issued an opinion on the use of nuclear weapons in Jul 1996, but the opinion made the issue more confusing, not less. Schmitt attempts to clarify the issue.
Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=27501152&Fmt=3&clientId=417&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Sirak, Michael. Briefing: Legal Armed Conflict. Janes Defence Weekly 41:24-28 January 14, 2004.
Legal complexities facing armed forces during war.

Return to AUL's OTS Advocacy Briefing Support Page

  Return to the AUL Homepage