Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:51:50.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Danger of Conflating Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Julie Mertus
Julie Mertus*
Affiliation:
School of International Service, American University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The Relationship Between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello: Past, Present, Future
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 100 , 2006 , pp. 114 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Example drawn from author’s field work in Vietnam 1995.

2 Example drawn from author’s interviews, New York, 2004.

3 See Julie Mertus, Bait and Switch: Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy (2004).

4 Andrew Gumbel, Pentagon Was Warned that Prisoners Would Be Abused, The Indep. Feb. 20, 2006.

5 See e.g., Chesterman, Simon, Just War Or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law 201-03 (2001)Google ScholarPubMed; Mertus, Julie, Reconsidering the Legality of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from Kosovo, 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1743 (2000)Google Scholar.

6 Rishikof, Harvey & Bratton, Patrick, The Brave New World Order: Peace Through Law—Beyond Power Politics or Peace Through Empire—Rationale Strategy and Reasonable Policy, 50 Vill. L. Rev. 655 (2005)Google Scholar.

7 Beck, Louise-Doswald, Human Security: Can it Be Obtained? 97 Asil Proc. 93 (2003)Google Scholar.

8 I am grateful to Richard Falk for this point.

9 I am grateful to Richard Laquerment for this point.

10 Miillerson, Rein, Jus ad Bellum: Plus ça Change (le Monde) Plus C’est la Même Chose (le Droit)? 7 J. Conflict & Sec. L. 149, 162 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See, e.g., Dickinson, Laura A. Using Legal Process to Fight Terrorism: Detentions, Military Commissions, International Tribunals, and the Rule of Law, 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1407 (2002)Google Scholar.

12 I am grateful to Jeff Walker for this point.

13 See Jeffrey Walker, forthcoming article on file with author.

14 See Murphy, John F., The United States and the Rule of Law in International Affairs 169-77 (2004)Google Scholar; Grey, Christine, International Law and the Use of Force 270-79 (2d ed. 2004)Google Scholar.

15 Paust, Jordan J. Antiterrorism Military Commissions: Courting Illegality, 23 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1 (2001)Google Scholar; Paust, Jordan J. Antiterrorism Military Commissions: Postscript Concerning the Ad Hoc DOD Rules of Procedure, 23 Mich. J. Int’l L. 677 (2002)Google Scholar.

16 For a good text on the legitimation of violence, see Normand, Roger & Jochnick, Chris, The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War, 35 Harv. Int’l L. J. 387 (1994)Google Scholar.

17 See Rabkin, Jeremy, The Politics of the Geneva Conventions: Disturbing Background to the ICC Debate, 44 Va. J. Int’l L. 169, 175 (2003)Google Scholar.