Abbott, K., “A Brief Overview of Legal Interoperability Challenges for NATO Arising from the Interrelationship between IHL and IHRL in Light of the European Convention on Human Rights” (2014) 96 International Review of the Red Cross 107.Google Scholar

Abella v. Argentina, Case 11.137, Inter-Am. Comm’n HR, Report No. 55/97,OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98.Google Scholar

Adjutant General’s Office, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field: Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, 1863 (1898) (Lieber Code).Google Scholar

Al Bahlul v. United States, Case No. 11–1324, Brief for the United States on Petition for Review from the US Court of Military Commission Review, July 10, 2013.Google Scholar

Al Maqaleh v. Hagel, DC Circuit Court of Appeals, 738 F3d 312 (2013).Google Scholar

Aldrich, George, “The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Determination of Illegal Combatants” (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, App. No. 61498/08 (2010) 51 EHRR 9.Google Scholar

Al-Saadoon and Others v. Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWHC 773 (Admin) (High Court).Google Scholar

Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom, App. No. 55721/07, Judgment (2011).Google Scholar

American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security, DoD Law of War Manual Workshop (Jan. 9, 2017).Google Scholar

Anonymous v. State of Israel, CrimA (TA) 6659/06 (2008).Google Scholar

Arai-Takahashi, Y., The Law of Occupation: Continuity and Change of International Humanitarian Law, and Its Interaction with International Human Rights Law (Leiden: Brill, 2009).Google Scholar

Arai-Takahashi, Y.“Preoccupied with Occupation: Critical Examinations of the Historical Development of the Law of Occupation” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Arjona, A., Kasfir, N., and Mampilly, Z. (eds.), Rebel Governance in Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, International Court of Justice [2005].Google Scholar

Arnold, R. and Quénivet, N. N. R. (eds.), International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Towards a New Merger in International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008).Google Scholar

Aughey, S. and Sari, A., “Targeting and Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict: Serdar Mohammed and the Limits of Human Rights Convergence” (2015) 91 International Law Studies, 60–118.Google Scholar

Azarova, V. and Blum, I., “Belligerency,” Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law 249 (Sept. 2015).Google Scholar

Banaszewska, D. M., “Lex Specialis,” in Lachenmann, F. and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), The Law of Armed Conflict and The Use of Force, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Bangerter, O., “Reasons Why Armed Groups Choose to Respect International Humanitarian Law or Not” (2011) 93(882) International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Barone, M., “The Overlawyered War,” American Enterprise Institute, Sept. 17, 2007.Google Scholar

Barr, W. P., Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “Authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Override International Law in Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities,” Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, June 21, 1989.Google Scholar

Bartels, R., “Dealing with the Principle of Proportionality in Armed Conflict in Retrospect: The Application of the Principle in International Criminal Trials” (2013) 46 Israel Law Review.Google Scholar

Baxter, R., “Jus in Bello Interno: The Present and Future Law,” in Moore, J. (ed.), Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1974).Google Scholar

Baxter, R.“So-called ‘Unprivileged Belligerency,’ Spies, Guerrillas, and Saboteurs” (1951) 28 British Yearbook of International Law.Google Scholar

Baxter, R.“The First Modern Codification of the Law of War: Francis Lieber and General Orders No. 100” (1963) 3 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Beit Sourak Village Council v. The Government of Israel [2004] HCJ 2056/04.Google Scholar

Bellal, A. (ed.), The War Report: Armed Conflict in 2014 (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

BellingerIII, J. B., “The Convention Against Torture: Extraterritorial Application and Application to Military Operations,” Lawfare (Oct. 26, 2014).Google Scholar

Bellinger, III“Obama’s Announcements on International Law,” Lawfare (Mar. 8, 2011).Google Scholar

BellingerIII, J. and Haynes, W. J., Letter to Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, President, International Committee of the Red Cross, Regarding Customary International Law Study (Nov. 3, 2006).Google Scholar

BellingerIII, J. and Haynes, W. J.“A US Government Response to the International Committee of the Red Cross Study Customary International Humanitarian Law” (2007) 89 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Ben-Naftali, O. (ed.), International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Benvenisti, Eyal, The International Law of Occupation, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Benvenisti, Eyal“The Origins of the Concept of Belligerent Occupation” (2008) 26 Law and History Review.Google Scholar

Benvenisti, Eyal“Water Conflicts during the Occupation of Iraq” (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Berman, N., “Privileging Combat: Contemporary Conflict and the Legal Construction of War” (2004–5) 43 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.Google Scholar

Best, G., War and Law Since 1945 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).Google Scholar

Blank, L. R., “Extending Positive Identification from Persons to Places: Terrorism, Armed Conflict, and the Identification of Military Objectives” (2013) Utah Law Review.Google Scholar

Bolgiano, D. G. and Taylor, J., “Can’t Kill Enough to Win? Think Again” (Dec. 2017) 144 Proceedings.Google Scholar

Boon, K., “Obligations of the New Occupier: The Contours of Jus Post Bellum” (2008) 31 Loyola LA International and Comparative Law Review.Google Scholar

Boothby, W. H., The Law of Targeting (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Bothe, M., Partsch, K. J., and Solf, W., New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982).Google Scholar

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 US 723 (2008).Google Scholar

Brown, G. D., “Spying and Fighting in Cyberspace,” Journal of Law and National Security Policy (Mar. 29, 2016).Google Scholar

Brown, G. D. and Metcalf, A. O., “Easier Said than Done: Legal Reviews of Cyber Weapons,” Journal of National Security Law and Policy (Feb. 12, 2014).Google Scholar

Callwell, C. E., Small Wars: Their Principles and Practice, 3rd ed. (London: HMSO, 1906).Google Scholar

Cameron, L., et al., “Common Article 3: Conflicts not of an International Character,” in ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Cameron, L.“The Updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: A New Tool for Generating Respect for International Humanitarian Law” (2015) 97 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Canestaro, N. A. “Legal and Policy Constraints on the Conduct of Aerial Precision Warfare” (2004) 37 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.Google Scholar

Cassesse, A., “The Status of Rebels under the 1977 Geneva Protocol on Non-International Armed Conflicts” (1981) 30 International and Comparative Law Quarterly.Google Scholar

Center for Law & Military Operations, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, US Army, “Legal Lessons Learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, Vol. I Major Combat Operations 11 Sept. 2001–1 May 2003” (Aug. 1, 2004), 54.Google Scholar

Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Oceans Law and Policy Department, Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (Newport: US Naval War College, 1997).Google Scholar

Chang, K., “Remarks on U.S. and International Perspectives on the New U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual” (2016) 110 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting 115.Google Scholar

Chesney, R., “Hays Parks on the Demise of the DOD Law of War Manual,” Lawfare (Dec. 8, 2012).Google Scholar

Cilliers, J., Counter-Insurgency in Rhodesia (London, Sydney, Dover, New Hampshire: Croom Helm, 1985).Google Scholar

Clapham, A., “Detention by Armed Groups under International Law” (2017) 93 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Clapham, A., Gaeta, P., and Sassòli, M. (eds.), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Clausewitz, C. von, On War, ed. and trans. M. Howard and P. Paret (Princeton University Press, 1976), I.Google Scholar

Cline, L., Pseudo Operations and Counterinsurgency: Lessons from Other Countries (Pennsylvania: Strategic Studies Institute, 2005).Google Scholar

Coalition Provisional Authority Regulation No. 1, §1(1) (May 16, 2003).Google Scholar

Coard et al. v. United States, Case 10.951, Report No. 109/99, Sept. 29, 1999.Google Scholar

Colby, E., “Occupation under the Laws of War” (1925) 25 Columbia Law Review.Google Scholar

Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 US 509, 517 (1878).Google Scholar

Colleanu v. German State, Jan. 12, 1929 (Germano-Rumanian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal) (1929) 5 International Law Reports.Google Scholar

Cooper, J. M. and Procope, J. F. (eds.), Seneca: Moral and Political Essays (Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

Corn, G. P., “Should the Best Offense Ever Be a Good Defense? The Public Authority to Use Force in Military Operations: Recalibrating the Use of Force Rules in the Standing Rules of Engagement” (2016) 49 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S., “Belligerent Targeting and the Invalidity of a Least Harmful Means Rule” (2013) 89 International Legal Studies.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S.“Hamdan, Lebanon, and the Regulation of Armed Conflict: The Need to Recognize a Hybrid Category of Armed Conflict” (2007) 40 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S.“Legal Classification of Military Operations,” in G. S. Corn, R. E. van Landingham, and S. R. Reeves (eds.), U.S. Military Operations: Law, Policy, and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Corn, G. S.“Mixing Apples and Hand Grenades: The Logical Limit of Applying Human Rights Norms to Armed Conflict” (2010) 1 International Humanitarian Legal Studies.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S.“Self-Defense Targeting: Blurring the Line between the Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello” (2012) 88 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S.“War, Law, and the Oft Overlooked Value of Process as a Precautionary Measure” (2015) 42 Pepperdine Law Review.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S., and Schoettler, J. A. Jr., “Targeting and Civilian Risk Mitigation: The Essential Role of Precautionary Measures” (2015) 223 Military Law Review.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S., van Landingham, R. E. and Reeves, S. R. (eds.), U.S. Military Operations: Law, Policy, and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Corn, G. S., Schoettler, J. A., Brenner-Beck, D., Hansen, V. M., Jackson, R., Jensen, E. T., and Lewis, M. W., The War on Terror and the Laws of War: A Military Perspective, 2nd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crawford, E., “The Principle of Distinction and Remote Warfare,” in J. D. Ohlin (ed.), Research Handbook on Remote Warfare (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017).Google Scholar

Clausewitz, C. von, On War, ed. and trans. M. Howard and P. Paret (Princeton University Press, 1976), I.Google Scholar

Cullen, A., The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cummins, S. J. and Stewart, D. P. (eds.), Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2000.Google Scholar

Danish Ministry of Defence, “Militærmanual om Folkeret for Danske Væbnede Styrker i Internationale Militære Operationer” (2016).Google Scholar

Daskal, J. C., “The Geography of the Battlefield: A Framework for Detention and Targeting outside the Hot Conflict Zone” (2013) 161 University of Pennsylvania Law Review.Google Scholar

Davis, G. B., “Doctor Francis Lieber’s Instructions for the Government of Armies in the Field” (1907) 1 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Davis, P. K. and Cragin, K. (eds.), Social Science for Counterterrorism: Putting the Pieces Together (Santa Monica: RAND, 2009).Google Scholar

Debuf, E., Captured in War: Lawful Internment in Armed Conflict (Paris: Pedone, 2013).Google Scholar

Deeks, A. S., “‘Unwilling or Unable’: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense” (2012) 52 Virginia Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Judgment) (2005).Google Scholar

Department of the Air Force, AFP 110–31, “International Law— The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations” (1976).Google Scholar

Department of the Army Field Manual 27–10, Rules of Land Warfare (Oct. 1, 1940).Google Scholar

Department of the Army Field Manual 27–10, The Law of Land Warfare (Jul. 18, 1956 with Change 1, Jul. 15, 1976).Google Scholar

Department of Defense, Directive 2311.01E, DoD Law of War Program (2006).Google Scholar

Department of Defense, Directive 5100.77, DoD Law of War Program (1998).Google Scholar

Department of Defense, Military Commission Instruction No. 2 (Apr. 30, 2003).Google Scholar

Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, “An Assessment of International Legal Issues in Information Operations,” 2nd ed. (Nov. 1999).Google Scholar

Dill, J., “The 21st-Century Belligerent’s Trilemma” (2015) 26 European Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., “Concluding Remarks on Non-International Armed Conflicts,” in K. Watkin and A. J. Norris (eds.), Non-International Conflict in the Twenty-First Century, International Law Studies 88 (Newport: US Naval War College, 2012).Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y.“Discussion: Reasonable Military Commanders and Reasonable Civilians,” in Wall, Andru E. (ed.), Legal and Ethical Lessons of NATO’s Kosovo Campaign, International Law Studies 78 (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2002).Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y.Non-International Armed Conflicts in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y.The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y.“The ICRC Customary International, Humanitarian Law Study” (2006) Israel Yearbook on Human Rights.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y.The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Dobbins, J., et. al., “Occupying Iraq: A History of the Coalition Provisional Authority,” www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG847.pdf.Google Scholar

Dörmann, K., Elements of War Crimes Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Dörmann, K.“The Legal Situation of ‘Unlawful/Unprivileged Combatants’” (2003) 85 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Doswald-Beck, L. and Vité, S., “International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law” (1993) 293 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Doty, G. R., “The United States and the Development of the Laws of Land Warfare” (1998) 156 Military Law Review.Google Scholar

Droege, C., “Get Off My Cloud: Cyber Warfare, International Humanitarian Law, and the Protection of Civilians” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Dunlap, C. J., “Getting the Law Right on Carpet Bombing and Civilian Casualties,” War on the Rocks (Mar. 16, 2016).Google Scholar

Dunlap, C. J.“How the New York Times Misconstrues the Law on Civilian Casualties,” Lawfire (Oct. 13, 2017).Google Scholar

Dunlap, C. J.“Lawfare 101: A Primer,” Military Review (May–June 2017).Google Scholar

Dunlap, C. J.“The Moral Hazard of Inaction in War,” War on the Rocks (Aug. 19, 2016).Google Scholar

Dunlap, C. J.“Understanding War-Sustaining Targeting: A Rejoinder to Iulia Padeanu,” Yale Journal of International Law (Apr. 6, 2017).Google Scholar

Elbridge, C., “How to Fight Savage Tribes” (1927) 21 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Estreicher, S., “Privileging Asymmetric Warfare? Defender Duties under International Humanitarian Law” (2011) 11 Chicago Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Ex parte Quirin, 317 US 1, 27–46 (1942).Google Scholar

Farrell, B. R., Habeas Corpus in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Ferraro, T., “Determining the Beginning and End of an Occupation under International Humanitarian Law” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Fleck, D., “Development of New Rules or Application of More than One Legal Regime?,” in Harvey, C. et al. (eds.), Contemporary Challenges to the Laws of War: Essays in Honour of Professor Peter Rowe (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Fleck, D. and Gill, T. D. (eds.), The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Fleiner-Gerster, T. and Meyer, M., “New Developments in Humanitarian Law: A Challenge to the Concept of Sovereignty” (1985) 34 International and Comparative Law Quarterly.Google Scholar

Fortin, K., The Accountability of Armed Groups under Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

“Forum on ‘Direct Participation in Hostilities’” (Spring 2010) 42 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics.Google Scholar

Fox, G. H., “The Occupation of Iraq” (2004) 36 Georgetown Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Fox, G. H.“Transformative Occupation and the Unilateralist Impulse – ICRC” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

France et. al. v. Goering et. al., 22 IMT 411, 466 (IMT, 1946).Google Scholar

French, D., “Nasty Not Nice: British Counter-Insurgency Doctrine and Practice: 1945–1967” (2012) 23(4–5) Small Wars & Insurgencies.Google Scholar

French Ministry of Defence, “Manuel de Droit des Conflits Armés – Edition 2012” (2012).Google Scholar

Gallis, P. E., “Kosovo: Lessons Learned from Operation Allied Force,” Congressional Research Services Report for US Congress (Nov. 19, 1999).Google Scholar

Gardam, J. G., “Proportionality and Force in International Law” (1993) 87 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Garraway, C., “Combatants: Substance or Semantics?,” in M. Schmitt and J. Pejic (eds.), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007).Google Scholar

Garraway, C.“The Law Applies, But Which Law? A Consumer Guide to the Law of War,” in Evangelista, M. and Shue, H. (eds.), The American Way of Bombing: Changing Ethical and Legal Norms, From Flying Fortresses to Drones (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Garraway, C.“The Use and Abuse of Military Manuals” (2004) 7 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law.Google Scholar

Garraway, C.“War and Peace: Where Is the Divide?” (2012) 88 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Gatchel, T., “Pseudo-Operations – A Double-Edged Sword of Counterinsurgency,” in J. Norwitz (ed.), Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency (Newport: US Naval War College, 2008).Google Scholar

No, General Order. 100, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Apr. 24, 1863), reprinted in The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Lieber Code), Series III, vol. 3 (GPO, 1899).Google Scholar

Georgia v. Russia, App. No. 38263/08, Judgment, Dec. 13, 2011.Google Scholar

German Federal Ministry of Defence, “Law of Armed Conflict – Manual” (2013).Google Scholar

Giladi, R., “A Different Sense of Humanity: Occupation in Francis Lieber’s Code” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Gill, T., “Chivalry: A Principle of the Law of Armed Conflict?,” in Matthee, M., Toebes, B., and Brus, M. (eds.), Armed Conflict and International Law: In Search of the Human Face (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Glahn, G. von, The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation (University of Minnesota Press, 1957).Google Scholar

Glazier, D., “A Critical Assessment of the New Department of Defense Law of War Manual” (2017) 42 Yale Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Goodman, R., “Authorization versus Regulation of Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts” (2015) 91 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Goodman, R.“Targeting ‘War-Sustaining’ Objects in Non-International Armed Conflicts” (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grant, J. P. and Barker, J. C., “Co-belligerent(s),” in Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Greenberg, K. J. and Dratel, J. L. (eds.), The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Greenberg, L. M., The Hukbalahap Insurrection: A Case Study of a Successful Anti-Insurgency Operation in the Philippines: 1946–1955 (Washington, DC: US. Army Centre of Military History, 2005).Google Scholar

Greenwood, C., “Self-Defence and the Conduct of International Armed Conflict,” in Dinstein, Y. and Tabory, M. (eds.), International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1988).Google Scholar

Greer, M. J., “Redefining Perfidy” (2015) 47 Georgetown Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Grotius, H., De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625), III.Google Scholar

Guichaoua, Y., Understanding Collective Political Violence (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).Google Scholar

Gurulé, J. and Corn, G. S., Principles of Counter-Terrorism Law (St. Paul: West Academic Publishing, 2011).Google Scholar

Gwynn, C. W., Imperial Policing, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1939).Google Scholar

Haer, R., Armed Group Structure and Violence in Civil Wars: The Organisational Dynamics of Civilian Killing (Oxford: Routledge, 2015).Google Scholar

Haque, A. A., Law and Morality at War (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Haque, A. A.“Off Target: Selection, Precaution, and Proportionality in the DoD Manual” (2016) 92 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Halleck, H. W., International Law or Rules Regulating the Intercourse of States in Peace and War (New York: Van Nostrand, 1861).Google Scholar

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).Google Scholar

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004).Google Scholar

Hannaman, F., Chief Legal Advice Division, Memorandum to Office of Economic Affairs – Finance Division on Revenues from Laender-Owned Property (Mar. 30, 1951), repr. in XX Selected Opinions January 1, 1951–April 30, 1951 of Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, Office of General Counsel, Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar

Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, and Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at US Naval War College, “The Future of U.S. Detention under International Law: Workshop Report” (2017) 93 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Hassan v. United Kingdom, App. No. 29750/09, Judgment, Sept. 16, 2014.Google Scholar

Hathaway, O. A., et al., “Which Law Governs during Armed Conflict? The Relationship Between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law” (2011–2012) 96 Minnesota Law Review.Google Scholar

Hayashi, N., “Introduction,” in Hayashi, N. (ed.), National Military Manuals on the Law of Armed Conflict, 2nd ed. (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl, 2010).Google Scholar

Hayashi, N.“Requirements of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law” (2010) 28 Boston University International Law Journal.Google Scholar

Head Money Cases, 112 US 580, 598 (1884).Google Scholar

Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (eds.), Customary International Humanitarian Law, 2 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Henkin, L., “The President and International Law” (1986) American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Herr, T. and Rosenzweig, P., “Cyber Weapons and Export Control: Incorporating Dual Use with the PrEP Model,” Journal of Law and National Security Policy (2016).Google Scholar

Hill, S., “The Role of NATO’s Legal Adviser,” in Zidar, A. and Gauci, J. P. (eds.), The Role of Legal Advisers in International Law (Leiden: Brill; Boston: Nijhoff, 2016).Google Scholar

Hill-Cawthorne, L., Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Hodgkinson, S. L., “Detention Operations: A Strategic View,” in G. Corn, R. E. van Landingham, and S. R. Reeves (eds.), U.S. Military Operations: Law, Policy & Practice (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Hoffman, M. H., “Can Military Manuals Improve the Law of War? The San Remo Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict Considered in Relation to Historical and Contemporary Trends” (2007) 37 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights.Google Scholar

HPCR Manual on the International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare, 2010.Google Scholar

Hughes, G., “Intelligence-Gathering, Special Operations and Air Strikes in Modern Counter-Insurgency,” in P. Rich and I. Duyvesteyn (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Insurgency and Counterinsurgency (London & New York: Routledge, 2012).Google Scholar

Hughes, G. and Christian, T., “Anatomy of a Surrogate: Historical Precedents and Implications for Contemporary Counter-Insurgency and Counter-Terrorism” (2009) 20(1) Small Wars & Insurgencies.Google Scholar

Human Rights Watch, Needless Deaths in the Gulf War: Civilian Casualties during the Air Campaign and Violations of the Laws of War (New York: HRW, 1991).Google Scholar

Hutchinson, D. J., “‘The Achilles Heel’ of the Constitution: Justice Jackson and the Japanese Exclusion Cases” (2002) Supreme Court Review.Google Scholar

International Code of Conduct for Information Security (Jan. 9, 2015).Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “A Study on the Roots of Restraint in War” (2017).Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Geneva: ICRC, Martinus Nijhoff, 1987).Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)Commentary on the Geneva Convention (I) on Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (Cambridge University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)Customary International Humanitarian Law Study (Oct. 29, 2010).Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)“Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law” (2009) 90 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, “Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” (1999).Google Scholar

International Institute of Humanitarian Law, The Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict with Commentary (San Remo: IIHL, 2006).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, “Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law” (2006) II (Pt II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission.Google Scholar

Irons, P., Justice at War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

Isayeva v. Russia, App. No. 57950/00, Judgment (2005) 41 EHRR 38.Google Scholar

Jackson, R., “Perfidy in Non-International Armed Conflicts” (2012) 88 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Jackson, R. H., “Wartime Security and Liberty Under Law” (1951) 1 Buffalo Law Review 103, 116.Google Scholar

Jaloud v. The Netherlands, App. No. 47708/08, Judgment, 20 November 2014.Google Scholar

Jensen, E. T., “Precautions against the Effects of Attacks in Urban Areas” (2016) 98(1) International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Jensen, E. T.“The Future of the Law of Armed Conflict: Ostriches, Butterflies, and Nanobots” (2015) 35 Michigan Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 US 763, 789 n. 14 (1950).Google Scholar

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 1–04, Legal Support to Military Operations (Aug. 2, 2016).Google Scholar

Joint Pub. 3–0, Joint Operations (Aug. 11, 2011).Google Scholar

Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina, Case No. 11.137, Report No. 55/97, Nov. 18, 1997.Google Scholar

Kaeuper, R., Medieval Chivalry (Cambridge University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011).Google Scholar

Kaikobad, K. H., “Problems of Belligerent Occupation: The Scope of Powers Exercised by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, April/May 2003–June 2004 Current Developments: Public International Law: Part I” (2005) 54 International & Comparative Law Quarterly.Google Scholar

Kalshoven, F., “The Respective Roles of Custom and Principle in the International Law of Armed Conflict and the Law of Armed Conflict” (2006) 2 Acta Societatis Martensis.Google Scholar

Kittrie, O. F., Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War 1 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Kleffner, J., “The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law to Organised Armed Groups” (2011) 882 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Kolb, R., “Etude sur l’occupation et sur l’Article 47 de la IVème Convention de Genève du 12 Août 1949 relative à la protection des personnes civiles en temps de guerre: le degree d’intangibilité des droits en territoire occupé” (2002) 10 African Yearbook of International Law.Google Scholar

Kolb, R. and Gaggioli, G. (eds.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013).Google Scholar

Kolb, R. and Vité, S., Le Droit de l’occupation militaire: perspectives historiques et enjeux juridiques actuels (Brussels: Bruylant, 2009).Google Scholar

Kononov v. Latvia, App. No. 36376/04, Judgment (2010).Google Scholar

Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406, 1416–19 (ND Ca. 1984).Google Scholar

Kretzmer, D., “The Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Krofan v. Public Prosecutor (1966) (Sing.), reprinted in 1 Malayan Law Journal 133 (1967); 52 ILR 497 (1979).Google Scholar

Kuhn, M. and Berger, A. C., “Legal Advisers in the Armed Forces,” in Zidar, A. and Gauci, J.P. (eds.), The Role of Legal Advisers in International Law (Leiden: Brill, 2016).Google Scholar

Kunduz Case, Judgment, Oct. 6, 2016 (Federal Court of Justice, Germany).Google Scholar

Landais, C. and Bass, L., “Reconciling the Rules of International Humanitarian Law with the Rules of European Human Rights Law ” (2015) 97 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H., The Function of Law in the International Community (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933).Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H.Recognition in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 1947).Google Scholar

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice [2004].Google Scholar

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice, 1996 ICJ 226.Google Scholar

Lewis, M. W., “The Law of Aerial Bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War” (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Lietzau, W. K., “U.S. Detention of Terrorists in the 21st Century,” in Rose, G. and Oswald, B. (eds.), Detention of Non-State Actors Engaged in Hostilities (Leiden: Brill, 2016).Google Scholar

Liivoja, R., “Chivalry without a Horse: Military Honor and the Modern Law of Armed Conflict” (2012) 15 ENDC Proceedings.Google Scholar

Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., and Landfield, K., “Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare?” (2009) 4 Perspectives on Psychological Science.Google Scholar

Lin, P., “Could Human Enhancement Turn Soldiers into Weapons that Violate International Law? Yes,” The Atlantic (Jan. 4, 2013).Google Scholar

Lindroos, A., “Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis” (2005) 74 Nordic Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Lippold, M., “Between Humanization and Humanitarization? Detention in Armed Conflicts and the European Convention on Human Rights” (2016) 76 Heidelberg Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Luban, D., “Human Rights Thinking and the Laws of War,” in Ohlin, J. D. (ed.), Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

McChrystal, S., Tactical Directive, COMISAF, July 6, 2009.Google Scholar

McElhinney v. Ireland, App. No. 31253/96, Judgment (2002).Google Scholar

MacLeod v. United States, 229 US 416, 425 (1913).Google Scholar

McMaster, Brigadier General H. R., “Remaining True to Our Values – Reflecting on Military Ethics in Trying Times” (2010) 9(3) Journal of Military Ethics.Google Scholar

McNair, A. D., “Municipal Effects of Belligerent Occupation” (1941) 57 Law Quarterly Review.Google Scholar

McNeal, G. S., “Targeted Killing and Accountability” (2014) 102 Georgetown Law Journal.Google Scholar

Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 US 341 (1952).Google Scholar

Maqaleh v. Hagel, 605 F.3d 84 (DC Cir. 2010).Google Scholar

Margulies, P., “Making Autonomous Weapons Accountable: Command Responsibility for Computer-Guided Lethal Force in Armed Conflicts,” in J. D. Ohlin (ed.), Handbook on Remote Warfare (Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2017).Google Scholar

Marko, M. and Vidan, H. V., “A Taxonomy of Armed Conflict,” in White, N. and Henderson, C. (eds.), Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013).Google Scholar

Martin, C., “The Means–Methods Paradox and the Legality of Drone Strikes in Armed Conflict” (2015) 19 International Journal of Human Rights.Google Scholar

Martinovic, M. A., The Challenges of Asymmetric Warfare. Enhancing Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by Organized Armed Groups (Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar

Matheson, M. J., “The United States position on the Relation of Customary International Law to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions” (1987) 2 American University Journal of International Law and Public Policy.Google Scholar

Melander, E., “Organized Violence in the World 2015: An Assessment by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program,” UCDP Paper 9 (2015).Google Scholar

Melzer, N., International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction (Geneva: ICRC, 2016).Google Scholar

Melzer, N.Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (Geneva: ICRC, 2009).Google Scholar

Melzer, N.Targeted Killing in International Law (London: Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Melzer, N.“Targeted Killing or Less Harmful Means? – Israel’s High Court Judgment on Targeted Killing and the Restricive Function of Military Necessity” (2006) 9 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law.Google Scholar

Meron, T., Bloody Constraint: War and Chivalry in Shakespeare (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).Google Scholar

Merriam, J. J., “Affirmative Target Identification: Operationalizing the Principle of Distinction for U.S. Warfighters” (2016) 56 Virginia Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Meyer, J. M., “Tearing Down the Facade: A Critical Look at the Current Law on Targeting the Will of the Enemy and Air Force Doctrine” (2001) 51 The Air Force Law Review.Google Scholar

Meyer, M. and McCoubrey, H. (eds.), Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts: Selected Works on the Laws of War by the late Professor Colonel G. I. A. D. Draper (The Hague: Kluwer, 1998).Google Scholar

Milanovic, M., “The Lost Origins of Lex Specialis: Rethinking the Relationship between Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law,” in Ohlin, J. D. (ed.) Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Milanovic, M.“Norm Conflict in International Law: Whither Human Rights?” (2009) Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law.Google Scholar

Military Prosecutor v. Omar Mahmud Kassem and Others, Apr. 13, 1969 (Israel, Military Court sitting in Ramallah) (1971).Google Scholar

Modirzadeh, N. K., “Folk International Law: 9/11 Lawyering and the Transformation of the Law of Armed Conflict to Human Rights Policy and Human Rights Law to War” (2014) 5 Harvard National Security Journal.Google Scholar

Moir, L., “The Historical Development of the Application of Humanitarian Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts to 1949” (1998) 47 International and Comparative Law Quarterly.Google Scholar

Moir, L.The Law of Internal Armed Conflict (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Moore, J. N., Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

Munaf v. Geren, 553 US 674 (2008).Google Scholar

Murray, D., “How International Humanitarian Law Treaties Bind Non-State Armed Groups” (2014) 20(1) Journal of Conflict and Security Law.Google Scholar

Murray, D.Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups (Oxford and Portland, OR: Bloomsbury, 2016).Google Scholar

Murray, W. and Mansoor, P. R. (eds.), Hybrid Warfare: Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Newton, Michael A., “Contorting Common Article 3: Reflections on the Revised ICRC Commentary” (2018) 45 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law.Google Scholar

Newton, Michael A.“Exceptional Engagement: Protocol I and a World United Against Terror” (2009) 4 Texas International Law Journal.Google Scholar

Newton, Michael A.“How the International Criminal Court Threatens Treaty Norms” (2016) 49 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.Google Scholar

Newton, Michael A.“Humanitarian Protection in Future Wars” (2004) 8 International Peacekeeping: The Yearbook of International Peace Operations.Google Scholar

Newton, Michael A.“Modern Military Necessity: The Role & Relevance of Military Lawyers” (2007) 12 Roger Williams University Law Review.Google Scholar

Newton, Michael A.“The International Criminal Court Preparatory Commission: The Way It Is & the Way Ahead” (2000) 41 Virginia Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Newton, Michael A.“The Iraqi High Criminal Court: Controversy and Contributions” (2006) 88 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Newton, Michael A.“The Quest for Constructive Complementarity,” in C. Stahn and M. El Zeidy (eds.), The ICC and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Newton, M. A. and May, L., Proportionality in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Nissenbaum, D., “In Former Taliban Sanctuary, an Eerie Silence Takes Over,” Wall Street Journal (Jan. 26–27, 2013).Google Scholar

Nuhanović v. The Netherlands, Judgment, 200.020.174/01, July 5, 2011 (Court of Appeal in The Hague).Google Scholar

N.V. de Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij and Others v. The War Damage Commission, Apr. 13, 1956 (Singapore, Court of Appeal) (1956) 23 International Law Reports.Google Scholar

Oberleitner, G., Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Law, Practice, Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Odello, M. and R. W. Piotrowicz, “Legal Regimes Governing International Military Missions,” in M. Odello and R. W. Piotrowicz (eds.), International Military Missions and International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011).Google Scholar

Office of General Counsel, US Department of Defense, Department of Defense Law of War Manual, 1st ed. (June 12, 2015).Google Scholar

Office of General Counsel, US Department of Defense, Department of Defense Law of War Manual, 2nd ed. (May 31, 2016).Google Scholar

Office of General Counsel, US Department of Defense, Department of Defense Law of War Manual, 3rd ed. (Dec. 13, 2016).Google Scholar

O’Keefe, R., “Response: ‘Quid,’ Not ‘Quantum’: A Comment on ‘How the International Court Threatens Treaty Norms’” (2016) 49 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.Google Scholar

Olson, L. M. “Practical Challenges of Implementing the Complementarity between International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law – Demonstrated by the Procedural Regulation of Internment in Non-International Armed Conflict” (2009) 40 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Resolve, Operation Inherent, Remarks by General Townsend in a media availability in Baghdad, Iraq (July 11, 2017).Google Scholar

Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise, II: War and Neutrality, 1st ed. (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1906).Google Scholar

Orakhelashvili, A., “The Interaction between Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Fragmentation, Conflict, Parallelism, or Convergence?” (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Oswald, B. and Winkler, T., “Guidelines on the Handling of Detainees in Operations, International Military,” American Society of International Law Insights (Dec. 26, 2012).Google Scholar

Paquete Habana, The, 175 US 677 (1900).Google Scholar

Parks, W. Hays, “Air War and the Law of War” (1990) 32 Air Force Law Review.Google Scholar

Hays Parks, W.“Asymmetries and the Identification of Legitimate Military Objectives,” in W. Heintschel von Heinegg and V. Epping (eds.), International Humanitarian Law Facing New Challenges (New York: Springer, 2007).Google Scholar

Hays Parks, W.“National Security Law in Practice: The Department of Defense Law of War Manual,” Remarks delivered to the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security (Nov. 18, 2010).Google Scholar

Hays Parks, W.“Special Forces’ Wear of Non-Standard Uniforms” (2003) 4 Chicago Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Hays Parks, W.“Update on the DOD Law of War Manual,” Remarks delivered to the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security (Dec. 2012).Google Scholar

Parks, W. Hays and Williamson, E., “Some Questions for State and DoD Legal Adviser Nominees,” Weekly Standard (Jul. 22, 2013).Google Scholar

Partington, E. A. “Manuals on the Law of Armed Conflict,” in F. Lachenmann and R. Wolfrum (eds.), The Law of Armed Conflict and the Use of Force, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Paulsen, M. S., “The Constitutional Power to Interpret International Law” (2009) 118 Yale Law Journal 1762.Google Scholar

Paulus, A. and Vashakmadze, M., “Asymmetric War and the Notion of Armed Conflict – A Tentative Conceptualization” (Mar. 2009) 91 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Paust, J. J., “Errors and Misconceptions in the 2015 DOD Law of War Manual” (2017) 26 Minnesota Journal of International Law 303.Google Scholar

Lt, Peers. Gen, W. R., The My Lai Inquiry (New York: Norton, 1979).Google Scholar

Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva: ICRC, 1958).Google Scholar

Pictet, J. S.Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985).Google Scholar

Pictet, J. S.The Geneva Conventions of 1949: Commentary, 4 vols. (Geneva: ICRC, 1952).Google Scholar

Prize Cases, 67 US 635, 671 (1862).Google Scholar

Provost, R., International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96–4, Judgment, ¶ 593 (ICTR Trial Chamber, Sept. 2, 1998).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Case No. ICC-01/12–01/15, Judgment and Sentence (Sept. 27, 2016).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Blagojević and Jokic, Case No. IT-02–60-T, Trial Judgment (ICTY, Jan. 17, 2005).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95–14-A, Appeal Judgment (ICTY, July 29, 2004).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Boškoski and Tarčulovski, Case No. IT-04–82-T, Trial Judgment (ICTY, July 10, 2008).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Delalić, Case No. IT-96–21-T, Trial Judgment (ICTY, Nov. 16, 1998).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, Case No. ICC-02/04–01/15, Confirmation of Charges Decision (Mar. 23, 2016).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95–17/1-T, Judgment (ICTY, Dec. 10, 1998).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98–29-T, Trial Judgment (ICTY, Dec. 5, 2003).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Galić, Judgment, IT-98–29-A, Appeals Chamber (ICTY, Nov. 30, 2006).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Gotovina, Markač, and Čermak, Case No. IT-060–90-T, Trial Chamber Judgment (ICTY, Apr. 15, 2011).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05–01/08, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Mar. 21, 2016).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Katanga and Mathieu Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04–01/07, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (Sept. 30, 2008).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Kordić and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95–14/2, Appeal Judgment (ICTY, Dec. 17, 2004).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovač, and Vuković, Case Nos. IT-96–23, IT-96–23/1-A, Appeals Judgment (ICTY, June 12, 2002).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, Case No. IT-95–16-T, Trial Judgment (ICTY, Jan. 14, 2000).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Martić, Case No. IT-95–11, Trial Judgment (ICTY, June 12, 2007).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05–87-T, Trial Judgment (ICTY, Feb. 26, 2009).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Naletilić and Martinović, Case No IT-98–34-T, Judgment (ICTY, Mar. 31, 2003).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Orić, Case No. IT-03–68-T, Trial Judgment (ICTY, June 30, 2006).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Rutaganda (Judgment) ICTR- 96–3- T (Dec. 6, 1999).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Case No. ICC-01/11–01/11–565, Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Abdullah Al-Senussi against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of Oct. 11, 2013 entitled “Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al- Senussi” (July 24, 2014).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01–42-T, Trial Chamber Judgement (ICTY, Jan. 31, 2005).Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94–1-A, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber (ICTY, Oct. 2, 1995).Google Scholar

Provost, R., International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Prud’homme, N., “Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying a More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship” (2007) 40 Israel Law Review.Google Scholar

Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al. v. Government of Israel et al., HCJ 769/02, Israel Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice (Dec. 11, 2005).Google Scholar

Queguiner, J.-F., “Precautions under the Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities” (2006) 88 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

R. (Al-Skeini and Others) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ 1609 (CA).Google Scholar

R. v. Jogee [2016] UKSC 8.Google Scholar

Rabin, M., “Psychology and Economics” (1008) 36 Journal of Economic Literature.Google Scholar

Rabkin, J. and Yoo, J., Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons Change the Rules for War 125 (New York: Encounter Books, 2017).Google Scholar

Lt, Reid-Daly. Col, R. Selous Scouts: Top Secret War (London & Johannesburg: Galago Publishing, 1982).Google Scholar

Reisman, M. and Lietzau, W., “Moving International Law from Theory to Practice: The Role of Military Manuals in Effectuating the Law of Armed Conflict” (1991) 64 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 1, GA Res. 56/83, Annex, UN Doc. A/RES/56/83 (Jan. 28, 2002).Google Scholar

Reynolds, J. D., “Collateral Damage on the 21st Century Battlefield: Enemy Exploitation of the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Struggle for a Moral High Ground” (2005) 56 Air Force Law Review.Google Scholar

Roberts, A., “Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights” (2006) 100 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Roberts, A.“What Is a Military Occupation?” (1984) 55 British Yearbook of International Law.Google Scholar

Rogers, A. P. V., “The United Kingdom Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict,” in Hayashi, N. (ed.), National Military Manuals on the Law of Armed Conflict, 2nd ed. (Oslo: Torkel Opsahl, 2010).Google Scholar

Rona, G., “Is There a Way Out of the Non-International Armed Conflict Detention Dilemma?” (2015) 91 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Roscini, M., Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Rose, G. and Oswald, B. (eds.), Detention of Non-State Actors Engaged in Hostilities, (Leiden: Brill, 2016).Google Scholar

Rowe, P., The Impact of Human Rights Law on Armed Forces (Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Rowe, P.Legal Accountability and Britain’s Wars 2000–2015 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016).Google Scholar

Ruddock v. The Queen [2016] UKPC 7.Google Scholar

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea 1994.Google Scholar

Sandoz, Y., “The Dynamic but Complex Relationship between International Penal Law and International Humanitarian Law,” in J. Doria, H.-P. Gasser, and M. C. Bassiouni (eds.), The Legal Regime of the ICC: Essay in Honour of Professor Igor Pavlovich Blishchenko (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009).Google Scholar

Sari, A., “Hybrid Warfare, Law and the Fulda Gap,” in M. N. Schmitt et al. (eds.), Complex Battle Spaces (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Sari, A.“Untangling Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction from International Responsibility in Jaloud v.Netherlands: Old Problem, New Solutions?” (2014) 53 Military Law and the Law of War Review.Google Scholar

Sassòli, M., “Targeting: The Scope and Utility of the Concept of Military Objectives for the Protection of Civilians in Contemporary Armed Conflict,” in Wippman, D. and Evangelista, M. (eds.), New Wars, New Laws? Applying the Laws of War in 21st Century Conflicts (New York: Transnational Publishers, 2005).Google Scholar

Sassòli, M., Bouvier, A., and Quentin, A. (eds.), How Does Law Protect in War, 3 vols. (Geneva: ICRC, 2011).Google Scholar

Savage, C., Power Wars (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2015).Google Scholar

Sawin, C. E., “Laws of War: The Legality of Creating an Army of Super Soldiers,” Journal of High Technology Law (Nov. 3, 2015).Google Scholar

Schabas, W., The International Criminal Court, A Commentary on the Rome Statute, (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Scheffer, D. J., “Beyond Occupation Law” (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Schindler, D., “The International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights” (1979) 19 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Schindler, D. and Toman, J. (eds.), The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions, and Other Documents (1988).Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., “‘Below the Threshold’ Cyber Operations: The Countermeasures Response Option and International Law” (2014) 54 Virginia Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N.“Charting the Legal Geography of Non-International Armed Conflict” (2013) 52 Military Law and Law of War Review.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N.“Fault Lines in the Law of Attack,” in S. Breau and A. Jachec-Neale (eds.), Testing the Boundaries of International Humanitarian Law (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2006).Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N.“Human Shields in International Humanitarian Law” (2008) 38 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N.“Investigating Violations of International Law in Armed Conflict” (2011) 2 Harvard National Security Journal.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N.“Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance” (2010) 50 Virginia Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N.“Precision Attack and International Humanitarian Law” (2005) 87 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N.“Rewired Warfare: Rethinking the Law of Cyber Attack” (2014) 96 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N.“The Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis” (2009) 1 Harvard National Security Journal.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., Garraway, C., and Dinstein, Y., The Manual on the Law of Non- International Armed Conflict (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006).Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N. and Merriam, J. J., “The Tyranny of Context: Israeli Targeting Practices in Legal Perspective” (2015) 37 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N. and Pecjic, J. (eds.), International Law and Armed Conflicts: Exploring the Faultlines (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007).Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N. and Vihul, L. (eds.) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Schwarzenberger, G., “Jus Pacis Ac Belli?: Prolegomena to a Sociology of International Law” (1943) 37 American Journal of International Law.Google Scholar

Serdar Mohammed v. Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWCA (Civ) 843 (Eng.).Google Scholar

Shanker, M. G., “The Law of Belligerent Occupation in the American Courts” (1952) 50 Michigan Law Review.Google Scholar

Shany, Y., “A Human Rights Perspective to Global Battlefield Detention: Time to Reconsider Indefinite Detention” (2017) 93 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Siordet, F., “Les Conventions de Genève et la guerre civile” (1950) 81 Bulletin International des Sociétés de la Croix-Rouge.Google Scholar

Sivakumaran, S., “Binding Armed Opposition Groups” (2006) 5 International and Comparative Law Quarterly.Google Scholar

Sivakumaran, S.The Law of Non-International Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Solis, G., The Law of Armed Conflict, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Spaight, J. M., War Rights on Land (London: Macmillan, 1911).Google Scholar

Stahn, C., “Admissibility Challenges before the ICC: From Quasi-Primacy to Qualified Deference?,” in Stahn, C. (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Stahn, C.“Response: The ICC, Pre-Existing Jurisdictional Treaty Regimes, and the Limits of the Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Doctrine – A Reply to Michael Newton” (2016) 49 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.Google Scholar

Stathis, K., The Logic of Violence in Civil War (Cambrdige University Press, 2006),Google Scholar

Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993).Google Scholar

Stephens, D., “Coalition Warfare: Challenges and Opportunities” (2006) 36 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights.Google Scholar

Stirk, P., The Politics of Military Occupation (Edinburgh University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Stone, J., Legal Controls of International Conflict (Sydney: Maitland Publications, 1954; reprinted with supplement 1959).Google Scholar

Swiss Military Manual on Behaviour during Deployment, Rechtliche Grundlagen für das Verhalten inm Einsatz, Reglement 51.007/IV.Google Scholar

Talmon, S., The Occupation of Iraq, II: The Official Documents of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013).Google Scholar

Talmon, S.Recognition of Governments in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).Google Scholar

Taylor, C., Chivalry and the Ideals of Knighthood in France during the Hundred Years War (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Tennyson, Lord Alfred, “Aylmer’s Field” (1793).Google Scholar

Theohary, C. A., and Rollins, J. W., “Cyberwarfare and Cyberterrorism: In Brief,” Congressional Research Service (Mar. 27, 2015).Google Scholar

Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle (1815) 13 US 191, 195 (US Supreme Court).Google Scholar

Thorington v. Smith, 75 US 1 (1868).Google Scholar

Townsend, S. J., “Reports of Civilian Casualties in the War Against Are Vastly, ISIS Inflated,” Foreign Policy (Sept. 15, 2017).Google Scholar

Trial of Wilhelm List and Others (Hostages Trial) (1946) Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. VIII, 34 (United States Military Tribunal).Google Scholar

Commission, Turkel, Report, Second, The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010, “Israel’s Mechanisms for Examining and Investigating Complaints and Claims of Violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict According to International Law” (Feb. 2013).Google Scholar

Kingdom, United, Ministry of Defence, JSP 383, The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004).Google Scholar

United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, “The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict” (2013).Google Scholar

United States v. Altstoetter et al., Trials of War Criminals Before the NMT III.Google Scholar

United States v. Behenna, 71 MJ 228, 229 (CAAF, 2012).Google Scholar

United States v. Bram, No. ARMY 20111032, 2014 WL 7236126 (Army Ct. Crim. App., Nov. 20, 2014).Google Scholar

United States v. Clagett, No. ARMY20070082, 2009 WL 6843560, at *1 (Army Ct. Crim. App., 2009).Google Scholar

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 US 304, 318 (1936).Google Scholar

United States ex rel. DR, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 376 F. Supp. 2d 617 (ED Va. 2005).Google Scholar

United States v. Girouard, 70 MJ 5, 7 (CAAF, 2011).Google Scholar

United States v. Green, 654 F.3d 637, 646–47 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1056(2012).Google Scholar

United States v. List (Wilhelm) and others, Trial Judgment, Case No. 7 (1948).Google Scholar

United States v. Maynulet, 68 MJ 374, 377 (CAAF, 2011).Google Scholar

United States v Milch, Judgment, Green Series, Vol. II at 773 (Mil. Trib. No. 12947–04-15).Google Scholar

United States v. Morlock, No. ARMY 20110230, 2014 WL 7227382 (Army Ct. Crim. App., Apr. 30, 2014).Google Scholar

United States v. Rice, 17 US 246 (1819).Google Scholar

United States v. von Leeb et al. (“The High Command Trial”) (1948) 11 LRTWC 1, 9 TWC 462 (United States Military Tribunal).Google Scholar

Army, US, Center for Law and Military Operations, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, “Legal Lessons Learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, I: Major Combat Operations 11 Sept. 2001–1 May 2003” (Aug. 1, 2004).Google Scholar

Army, US, International and Operational Law Department, “Law of War Deskbook” (2000).Google Scholar

Army, US, International and Operational Law Department, JA 422, “Operational Law Handbook” (2017).Google Scholar

Central Command, US, Investigation Report on the Airstrike on the Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without Borders Trauma Center in Kunduz, Afghanistan on Oct. 3, 2015, Nov. 21, 2015.Google Scholar

US Department of the Army, Major General Eldon A. Bargewell, Investigation, “‘Simple Failures’ and ‘Disastrous Results’” (June 15, 2006).Google Scholar

Vattel, E. D., The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law: Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns (Washington: Carnegie, 1916).Google Scholar

Vöneky, S., “Der Lieber’s Code und die Wurzeln des modernen Kriegsvölkerrechts” (2002) 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht.Google Scholar

Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977).Google Scholar

Watkin, K., Fighting at the Legal Boundaries Controlling the Use of Force in Contemporary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Watkin, K.“Warriors Without Rights? Combatants, Unprivileged Belligerents, and the Struggle Over Legitimacy,” Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Occasional Paper Series, Winter 2005.Google Scholar

Watts, S., “Law of War Perfidy” (2014) 219 Military Law Review.Google Scholar

Watts, S.“Regulation-Tolerant Weapons, Regulation-Resistant Weapons and the Law of War” (2015) 91 International Law Studies.Google Scholar

Waxman, M. C., “Detention as Targeting: Standards of Certainty and Detention of Suspected Terrorists” (2008) 108 Columbia Law Review.Google Scholar

Wells, D. A., The Laws of Land Warfare: A Guide to the U.S. Army Manuals (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1992).Google Scholar

Wet, E. de and Kleffner, J. (eds.), Convergence and Conflicts of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in Military Operations (Pretoria: PULP, 2014).Google Scholar

Whittemore, L. A., “Proportionality Decision Making in Targeting: Heuristics, Cognitive Biases, and the Law” (2016) 7 Harvard National Security Journal.Google Scholar

Wilde, R., “Triggering State Obligations Extraterritorially: The Spatial Test in Certain Human Rights Treaties,” in Arnold, R. and Quénivet, N. N. R. (eds.), International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Towards a New Merger in International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008).Google Scholar

Winthrop, W., Military Law and Precedents, 2nd ed. (Washington: Gov’t Printing Office, 1920).Google Scholar

Wisam, E. and S. al-Hawat, “Civilian Interaction with Armed Groups in the Syrian Conflict,” Conciliation Resources, Insight 2 (2015).Google Scholar

Witt, J. F., Lincoln’s Code: The Laws of War in American History (New York: Free Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Wittes, B., “Where Is the Law of War Manual? Here!,” Lawfare (Jul. 26, 2013).Google Scholar

Yeager v. Iran, 17 Iran-US Cl. Trib. Rep. 92, 101–02 (1987).Google Scholar

Yoo, J., “Iraqi Reconstruction and the Law of Occupation” (2004) 11 UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy.Google Scholar

Zetter, K., Countdown to Zero Day (New York: Broadway Books, 2014).Google Scholar

Zwanenburg, M., “International Humanitarian Law Interoperability in Multinational Operations” (2013) 95 International Review of the Red Cross.Google Scholar