Books
Law Applicable to Armed Conflict, Ziv Bohrer, Janina Dill and Helen Duffy
Which law applies to armed conflict? This book investigates the applicability of international humanitarian law and international human rights law to armed conflict situations. The issue is examined by three scholars whose professional, theoretical, and methodological backgrounds and outlooks differ greatly. These multiple perspectives expose the political factors and intellectual styles that influence scholarly approaches and legal answers, and the unique trialogical format encourages its participants to decenter their perspectives. By focussing on the authors' divergence and disagreement, a richer understanding of the law applicable to armed conflict is achieved. The book, firstly, provides a detailed study of the law applicable to armed conflict situations. Secondly, it explores the regimes' interrelation and the legal techniques for their coordination and prevention of potential norm conflicts. Thirdly, the book moves beyond the positive analysis of the law and probes the normative principles that guide the interpretation, application and development of law.
Cambridge University Press, Max Planck Trialogues on the Law of Peace and War, 2020
My contribution on SSRN: Towards a Moral Division of Labour between IHL and IHRL During the Conduct of Hostilities
Legitimate Targets? Social Construction, International Law and US Bombing
Based on an innovative constructivist theory of international law the book investigates the effectiveness of international humanitarian law (IHL) in regulating the conduct of hostilities. A comprehensive exegesis of the law defining a legitimate target of attack reveals an unacknowledged controversy among legal and military professionals about the ‘logic’ according to which belligerents ought to balance humanitarian and military imperatives: the logics of sufficiency or efficiency. Although IHL prescribes the former, increased recourse to international law in US air warfare is constitutive of a legitimate target in accordance with the logic of efficiency. The logic of sufficiency is morally less problematic. Yet, neither logic satisfies contemporary expectations of effective IHL or legitimate warfare. Those expectations demand that hostilities follow a logic of liability, which proves impracticable. The book proposes changes to IHL, but concludes that according to widely shared normative beliefs on the 21st century battlefield there are no truly legitimate targets.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Studies in International Relations, 2015
Runner-up for the 2016 Birk's Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship, awarded by the Society of Legal Scholars
Honourable Mention, Theory Book Award 2016, International Studies Association
Reviews and Discussions
Which law applies to armed conflict? This book investigates the applicability of international humanitarian law and international human rights law to armed conflict situations. The issue is examined by three scholars whose professional, theoretical, and methodological backgrounds and outlooks differ greatly. These multiple perspectives expose the political factors and intellectual styles that influence scholarly approaches and legal answers, and the unique trialogical format encourages its participants to decenter their perspectives. By focussing on the authors' divergence and disagreement, a richer understanding of the law applicable to armed conflict is achieved. The book, firstly, provides a detailed study of the law applicable to armed conflict situations. Secondly, it explores the regimes' interrelation and the legal techniques for their coordination and prevention of potential norm conflicts. Thirdly, the book moves beyond the positive analysis of the law and probes the normative principles that guide the interpretation, application and development of law.
Cambridge University Press, Max Planck Trialogues on the Law of Peace and War, 2020
My contribution on SSRN: Towards a Moral Division of Labour between IHL and IHRL During the Conduct of Hostilities
Legitimate Targets? Social Construction, International Law and US Bombing
Based on an innovative constructivist theory of international law the book investigates the effectiveness of international humanitarian law (IHL) in regulating the conduct of hostilities. A comprehensive exegesis of the law defining a legitimate target of attack reveals an unacknowledged controversy among legal and military professionals about the ‘logic’ according to which belligerents ought to balance humanitarian and military imperatives: the logics of sufficiency or efficiency. Although IHL prescribes the former, increased recourse to international law in US air warfare is constitutive of a legitimate target in accordance with the logic of efficiency. The logic of sufficiency is morally less problematic. Yet, neither logic satisfies contemporary expectations of effective IHL or legitimate warfare. Those expectations demand that hostilities follow a logic of liability, which proves impracticable. The book proposes changes to IHL, but concludes that according to widely shared normative beliefs on the 21st century battlefield there are no truly legitimate targets.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Studies in International Relations, 2015
Runner-up for the 2016 Birk's Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship, awarded by the Society of Legal Scholars
Honourable Mention, Theory Book Award 2016, International Studies Association
Reviews and Discussions
- Stephen C. Ropp, "Legitimacy in Global Politics," (Review Article) Human Rights Review, 2016, Vol 17, pp. 391-396
- William Boothby, "Book Review: Legitimate Targets?" International Review of the Red Cross, 2016, Vol. 98 (1), pp. 361-363
- Alvina Hoffman, "Review of Legitimate Targets?'" International Affairs, 2016, Vol. 92 (5), pp. 1260-1261
- Matthew Evangelista, "Is War too Easy?" (Review Article) Perspectives on Politics, 2016, Vol. 14 (1), pp. 132-137
- Valentina Azarova, "A Healthy Dose of Wartime Normative Realism: Review of Legitimate Targets?'" Palestine Yearbook of International Law, 2016, Vol. 18 (1), pp. 205 - 217
- Jutta Brunnée, "A Constructivist Theory of International Law?" EJIL Talk (23 September 2015)
- Geoffrey Corn, "Legitimate Questions about Legitimate Targets?" EJIL Talk (23 September 2015)
- Brett Rosenberg, "Law, Legitimacy and Morality: A Conversation about Legitimate Targets," Politics in Spires (19 July 2015); reposted on Centre for Security Studies ETH Zurich (3 August 2015)
- "Logiques de Guerre et Application de Droit International Humanitaire," Dommages Civils (11 February 2015)
Articles, Chapters and Selected Papers
"Distinction, Necessity and Proportionality: Afghan Civilians' Attitudes Towards Wartime Harm," Ethics and International Affairs, 2019, Vol 33 (3), pp. 315-342.
"Do Attackers have a Legal Duty of Care? Limits to the 'Individualisation of War'," International Theory, 2019, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 1-25.
"The Rights and Obligations of Parties to International Armed Conflicts: From Bilateralism but not Towards Community Interest?" in: Eyal Benvenisti and George Notle (eds.) Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)
"Just War Theory in Times of Individual Right," in: Robyn Eckersley and Chris Brown (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)
"Abuse of Law on the 21st Century Battlefield: A Typology of Lawfare," in: Michael L. Gross and Tamar Meisels (eds.) Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017)
"Forcible Alternatives to War: Legitimate Violence in 21st Century International Relations," in: Jens David Ohlin (ed.) Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016)
“The 21st Century Belligerent’s Trilemma,” European Journal of International Law, 2015, Vol. 26 (1), pp. 83–108
“Ending Wars: The jus ad bellum Criteria Suspended, Repeated or Adjusted?” introduction to edited symposium, Ethics, 2015, Vol. 125 (April), pp. 627–630
“The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War,” contribution to the symposium on: Allen Buchanan and Robert O. Keohane, “Toward a Drone Accountability Regime,” Ethics and International Affairs, 2015, Vol. 29 (1), pp. 51-58
"The American Way of Bombing and International Law: Two Logics of Warfare in Tension," in: Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue (eds.) Changing Ethical and Legal Norms, From Flying Fortresses to Drones (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014)
“Interpretive Complexity and the Principle of Proportionality,” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Int. Law, 2014, Vol. 108, pp. 82-105
“Limiting Killing in War: Military Necessity and the St Petersburg Assumption,” Ethics and International Affairs, 2013, Vol. 26 (3), pp. 311-334 – Janina Dill and Henry Shue
“Should International Law Ensure the Moral Acceptability of War?” Leiden Journal of International Law, 2012, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 253-270
"Puntland's Declaration of Autonomy and Somaliland's Secession: Two Quests for Self-governance in a Failed States," in: Katherine Nobbs and Mark Weller (eds.) Asymmetric Autonomy and the Settlement of Ethnic Conflict (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008 & 2010)
“Applying the Principle of Proportionality in Combat Operations,” policy paper for The Oxford Institute for Ethics and Law of Armed Conflict (ELAC), December 2010
“The Definition of a Legitimate Target of Attack: Not More than a Moral Plea?” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, 2009, Vol. 103, pp. 229-232
“The United States’ Battle with Collateral Damage in Afghanistan,” policy paper for Oxford Analytica – Global Analysis and Advisory, August 2009
“The Principle of Proportionality in the Conduct of War,” policy paper for Oxford Analytica – Global Analysis and Advisory, February 2009
"Staatszerfall als neue Außenpolitische Herausforderung," in: Arne Niemann (ed.) Herausforderungen and die Deutsche und Europäische Außenpolitik - Analysen und Politikempfehlungen (Dresden: TUD Press, 2005)
"Do Attackers have a Legal Duty of Care? Limits to the 'Individualisation of War'," International Theory, 2019, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 1-25.
"The Rights and Obligations of Parties to International Armed Conflicts: From Bilateralism but not Towards Community Interest?" in: Eyal Benvenisti and George Notle (eds.) Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)
"Just War Theory in Times of Individual Right," in: Robyn Eckersley and Chris Brown (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)
"Abuse of Law on the 21st Century Battlefield: A Typology of Lawfare," in: Michael L. Gross and Tamar Meisels (eds.) Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017)
"Forcible Alternatives to War: Legitimate Violence in 21st Century International Relations," in: Jens David Ohlin (ed.) Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016)
“The 21st Century Belligerent’s Trilemma,” European Journal of International Law, 2015, Vol. 26 (1), pp. 83–108
“Ending Wars: The jus ad bellum Criteria Suspended, Repeated or Adjusted?” introduction to edited symposium, Ethics, 2015, Vol. 125 (April), pp. 627–630
“The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War,” contribution to the symposium on: Allen Buchanan and Robert O. Keohane, “Toward a Drone Accountability Regime,” Ethics and International Affairs, 2015, Vol. 29 (1), pp. 51-58
"The American Way of Bombing and International Law: Two Logics of Warfare in Tension," in: Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue (eds.) Changing Ethical and Legal Norms, From Flying Fortresses to Drones (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014)
“Interpretive Complexity and the Principle of Proportionality,” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Int. Law, 2014, Vol. 108, pp. 82-105
“Limiting Killing in War: Military Necessity and the St Petersburg Assumption,” Ethics and International Affairs, 2013, Vol. 26 (3), pp. 311-334 – Janina Dill and Henry Shue
“Should International Law Ensure the Moral Acceptability of War?” Leiden Journal of International Law, 2012, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 253-270
"Puntland's Declaration of Autonomy and Somaliland's Secession: Two Quests for Self-governance in a Failed States," in: Katherine Nobbs and Mark Weller (eds.) Asymmetric Autonomy and the Settlement of Ethnic Conflict (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008 & 2010)
“Applying the Principle of Proportionality in Combat Operations,” policy paper for The Oxford Institute for Ethics and Law of Armed Conflict (ELAC), December 2010
“The Definition of a Legitimate Target of Attack: Not More than a Moral Plea?” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, 2009, Vol. 103, pp. 229-232
“The United States’ Battle with Collateral Damage in Afghanistan,” policy paper for Oxford Analytica – Global Analysis and Advisory, August 2009
“The Principle of Proportionality in the Conduct of War,” policy paper for Oxford Analytica – Global Analysis and Advisory, February 2009
"Staatszerfall als neue Außenpolitische Herausforderung," in: Arne Niemann (ed.) Herausforderungen and die Deutsche und Europäische Außenpolitik - Analysen und Politikempfehlungen (Dresden: TUD Press, 2005)
Blog Posts and Pod Casts
|
"The DoD Law of War Manual and the False Appeal of Differentiating Types of Civilians," Just Security, December 2016
"Assessing Proportionality: An Unreasonable Demand on the Reasonable Military Commander?" Intercross, EJIL Talk! and Lawfare, October 2016 "Five Don'ts for Introducing a Female Speaker," The Duck of Minerva, reposted on The Times Higher Education, May 2016 "Proportionate Collateral Damage and Why We Should Care What Civilians Think," Just Security, March 2015 "Inside the Issues 5.7: Legitimate Targets," video pod cast for the Center for International Governance Innovation (GIGI), October 2014 "Israel's Use of Law and Warnings in Gaza," Opinio Juris, July 2014 "Legitimate Targets? The Partial Effectiveness of International Law in War," pod cast for The Oxford Programme on the Changing Character of War (CCW), March 2013 Projects in Progress |
|
“Attitudes towards War: Instrumental Imperatives, Moral Principles and International Law” – Janina Dill and Livia Schubiger (conditionally accepted at American Journal of Political Science)
"Public Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons in the US, UK, France, and Israel" - Janina Dill, Scott Sagan, Benjamin Valentino (under review) Is War a Legal Emergency?" (under review) "The Precautionary Principle: A Cross-national Experiment" – Janina Dill, Scott Sagan, Benjamin Valentino |
|
