Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:48:35.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal asymmetries in asymmetric war

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2014

RYDER McKEOWN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Standard conceptions of the relationship between international law and war in International Relations (IR) mostly oscillate between the sceptical view that law is mostly irrelevant in times of conflict, and the optimistic view that law is a meaningful moral standard that effectively constrains violence. Modern asymmetric conflicts between liberal democratic states and non-state actors such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or Hamas challenge these conceptions, however, as they are at once increasingly legal and extremely violent. Drawing inspiration from IR and International Law (IL) scholarship from multiple theoretical paradigms, this article examines the legal asymmetries before, during, and after asymmetric conflict. Noting that law is at once a useful tool and a strong normative force, it argues that a good understanding of legal asymmetries can supplement existing theories of asymmetric war, continue the dissolution of false dichotomies and open up interesting avenues of research in IR, and help both scholars and policymakers understand how international law influences modern asymmetric conflict against non-state actors.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 117 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2014 

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 Roughly translated as ‘In times of war, the law is silent.’

2 In this article, I will use the acronyms of IR and IL to describe the disciplines of International Relations and International Law, and the lowercase of international relations and international law to describe the actual phenomena and practice.

3 Mearsheimer, John, ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, 19:3 (1994/5), pp. 5–49, 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see more generally Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf, 1960)Google Scholar.

4 See, for example, Reus-Smit, Christian (ed.), The Politics of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bower, Adam, Norm Development without the Great Powers: Assessing the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (University of British Columbia, 2012)Google Scholar.

5 See, for example, Deutsch, Karl and Hoffman, Stanley, The Relevance of International Law: Essays in Honour of Leo Gross (Garden City, NY: Schenkman Publishing Inc, 1971)Google Scholar.

6 Kennedy, David, Of War and Law (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006), p. 10Google Scholar.

7 While much of the scholarship that informs it deals with conflict between states of all regime types, this article's focus is strictly on conflicts between liberal democracies and non-state actors for three main reasons: first, the legal asymmetries I seek to explain are more acute given that international law is created only by states; second, liberal democracies are more likely than other states to wage war legally and be more susceptible to accusations of law-breaking; third, this article specifically seeks to contribute to ongoing policy debates regarding how liberal democracies should fight against non-state actors, and is therefore geared toward these countries and their citizens. Accordingly, in all sections but the first (IR views of international law and asymmetric war) I use the term asymmetric war to apply to wars between liberal democracies and non-state actors. That being said, some of this article's findings may also apply both to asymmetric interstate conflicts and to asymmetric conflicts between autocracies and non-state actors.

8 See Mack, Andrew, ‘Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict’, World Politics, 27:2 (1975), pp. 175–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arreguin-Toft, Ivan, ‘How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict’, International Security, 26:1 (2001), pp. 93–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Biddle, Stephen, Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

10 See fn. 8 above.

11 Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar.

12 Sullivan, Patricia L., ‘War Aims and War Outcomes: Why Powerful States Lose Limited Wars’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51:3 (2007), pp. 496–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See also Mahnken, Thomas G., ‘The American Way of War in the Twenty-First Century’, in Inbar, Efraim (ed.), Democracies and Small Wars (Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis Ltd, 2003), pp. 71–82Google Scholar.

14 Kissinger, Henry, ‘The Vietnam Negotiations’, Foreign Affairs, 47:2 (1969), pp. 211–34, 214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See also Kober, Avi, ‘Western Democracies in Low Intensity Conflict: Some Postmodern Aspects’, in Democracies and Small Wars, pp. 2–18Google Scholar.

16 Mack, ‘Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars’, p. 185.

17 Ibid., p. 179; Lyall, Jason and Wilson, Isaiah III, ‘Rage against the Machines: Explaining Outcomes in Counterinsurgency Wars’, International Organization, 63:1 (2009), pp. 67–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Arreguin-Toft, ‘How the Weak Win Wars’.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., p. 101.

21 Ibid., p. 104.

22 Valentino, Benjamin, Huth, Paul, and Balch-Lindsay, Dylan, ‘Draining the Sea: Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare’, International Organization, 58:2 (2004), pp. 375–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Arreguin-Toft , ‘How the Weak Win Wars’, pp. 104, 110.

24 Sullivan, ‘War Aims and War Outcomes’.

25 Lyall and Wilson III, ‘Rage Against the Machines’.

26 See Stein, Jana Von, ‘International Law: Understanding Compliance and Enforcement’, in Denemark, Robert (ed.), International Studies Compendium (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009)Google Scholar; Simmons, Beth A., ‘Treaty Compliance and Violation’, Annual Review of Political Science, 13:1 (2010), pp. 272–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Valentino, Benjamin, Huth, Paul, and Croco, Sarah, ‘Covenants without the Sword: International Law and the Protection of Civilians in Times of War’, World Politics, 58:3 (2006), pp. 339–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kahl, Colin H., ‘In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs? Norms, Civilian Casualties, and U.S. Conduct in Iraq’, International Security, 32:1 (2007), pp. 7–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Valentino, Huth, and Balch-Lindsay, ‘Draining the Sea’.

29 McKeown, Ryder, ‘Norm Regress: US Revisionism and the Slow Death of the Torture Norm’, International Relations, 23:1 (2009), pp. 5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Morrow, James D., ‘When do States Follow the Laws of War?’, American Journal of Political Science, 101:1 (2007), pp. 559–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallace, Geoffrey P. R., ‘Welcome Guests, or Inescapable Victims?: The Causes of Prisoner Abuse in War’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56:2 (2012), pp. 955–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Farrell, Theo, ‘World Culture and Military Power’, Security Studies, 14:3 (2005), pp. 448–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hurd, Ian, ‘Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World’, Ethics and International Affairs, 25:3 (2011), pp. 293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Scott, Shirley V., ‘Is there Room for International Law in Realpolitik?: Accounting for the US “Attitude” Towards International Law’, Review of International Studies, 30:1 (2004), pp. 71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Price, Richard, ‘The Chemical Weapons Taboo’, International Organization, 49:1 (1995), pp. 73–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Deitelhoff, Nicole, ‘The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case’, International Organization, 63:1 (2009), pp. 33–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Scott, Shirley V., ‘Identifying the Source and Nature of a State's Political Obligation Towards International Law’, Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1:1–2 (2005), pp. 49–60Google Scholar.

36 Scott, Shirley V. and Ambler, Olivia, ‘Does Legality Really Matter? Accounting for the Decline in US Foreign Policy Legitimacy Following the 2003 Invasion of Iraq’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:1 (2007), pp. 67–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Charles J. Dunlap Jr, ‘Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Century Conflicts’, Carr Centre for Human Rights, Working Paper (John F. Kennedy School Of Gov't, Harvard University, 2001), available at: {http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/Web%20Working%20Papers/Use%20of%20Force/Dunlap2001.pdf} accessed 4 April 2012; Dunlap, Charles J. Jr, ‘Lawfare Today: A Perspective’, Yale Journal of International Affairs, 3:1 (2008), pp. 146–53Google Scholar; Dunlap, Charles J. Jr, ‘Does Lawfare Need an Apologia?’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011), pp. 21–143Google Scholar; Dunlap, Charles J. Jr, ‘Lawfare Today … and Tomorrow’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011), pp. 315–25Google Scholar; Watkin, Kenneth, ‘Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict’, The American Journal of International Law, 98:1 (2004), pp. 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Both authors are retired military lawyers, from the US Air Force and the Canadian Forces respectively.

38 Dunlap Jr, ‘Law and Military Interventions’.

39 Dunlap Jr , ‘Lawfare Today: A Perspective’.

40 Dunlap Jr , ‘Lawfare Today and Tomorrow’, p. 315.

41 Kennedy, Of War and Law, p. 10.

42 Abbott, Kenneth W. and Snidal, Duncan, ‘Hard and Soft Law in International Governance’, International Organization, 54:3 (2000), pp. 421–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meron, Theodor, ‘The Continuing Role of Custom in the Formation of International Humanitarian Law’, The American Journal of International Law, 90:2 (1996), pp. 238–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Colangelo, Anthony J., ‘Constitutional Limits on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Terrorism and the Intersection of National and International Law’, Harvard International Law Journal, 4:1 (2007), pp. 121–201Google Scholar.

44 This is not to say that the law always benefits states. For example, during the politically-charged negotiations on Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, a group of states successfully extended the Protocol to include ‘armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes’, a move opposed by the US. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

45 Krezmer, David, ‘Rethinking the Application of IHL in Non-International Armed Conflicts’, Israel Law Review, 42:8 (2009), pp. 8–45, 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Smith, Thomas W., ‘The New Law of War: Legitimizing High-tech and Infrastructural Violence’, International Studies Quarterly, 46:3 (2002), pp. 355–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Watts, Sean, ‘Reciprocity and the Law of War’, Harvard International Law Journal, 50:2 (2009), pp. 365–434Google Scholar; Hampson, Francoise J., ‘Direct Participation in Hostilities and Interoperability of the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law’, in Pedrozo, Raul A. (‘Pete’) and Wollschlaeger, Daria P. (eds), International Law and the Changing Character of War (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2011), pp. 197–212, 198Google Scholar.

48 For example, Article 1(1) of Additional Protocol II notes that the Geneva Conventions apply to conflicts between states and ‘organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol’.

49 Sterio, Milena, ‘The Gaza Strip: Israel, Its Foreign Policy, and the Goldstone Report’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011), pp. 229–54, 242Google Scholar.

50 Bellinger, John B. III and Padmanabhan, Vital M., ‘Detention Operations in Contemporary Conflicts: Four Challenges for the Geneva Conventions and Other Existing Law’, The American Journal of International Law, 105:2 (2011), pp. 201–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 202–4

51 Moussa, Jasmine, ‘Can Jus ad Bellum Override Jus in Bello? Reaffirming the Separation of the Two Bodies of Law’, International Review of the Red Cross, 90:872 (2008), pp. 963–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 987–9.

52 Michelle Shephard, ‘Khadr Charged with Murder’, Toronto Star (24 April 2007), available at: {http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/04/24/khadr_charged_with_murder.html} accessed 10 February 2014.

53 See Von Stein, ‘International Law’; Morrow, ‘When do States Follow the Laws of War?’

54 Sassoli, Marco and Olson, Laura M., ‘The Relationship Between International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law Where it Matters: Admissible Killing and Internment of Fighters in Non-International Armed Conflicts’, International Review of the Red Cross, 90:871 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Sabel, Robbie, ‘The Legality of Reciprocity in the War against Terrorism’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011), pp. 473–82Google Scholar.

56 Blank, Laurie R., ‘Facts but Missing the Law: The Goldstone report, Gaza and Lawfare’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011), pp. 279–305, 304Google Scholar.

57 Schmitt, Michael N., ‘The Vanishing Law of War: Reflections on Law and War in the 21st Century’, Harvard International Review, 31:1 (2009), pp. 64–8, available at: {http://hir.harvard.edu/frontiers-of-conflict/the-vanishing-law-of-war} accessed 4 August 2012Google Scholar.

58 ICRC, ‘Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities Under Humanitarian Law’ (2009), available at: {http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf} accessed 8 February 2014.

59 Schmitt, Michael N., ‘The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis’, Harvard National Security Journal, 1 (2010), pp. 1–44Google Scholar.

60 Walton, Dale C., ‘Victory Through Villainization: Atrocity, Global Opinion, and Insurgent Strategic Advantage’, Civil Wars, 14:1 (2012), pp. 123–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, Seumas, ‘Review Essay: An Eye for an Eye: Counterterrorism, Reciprocity and Human Rights’, Harvard International Review, 31:1 (2009), pp. 84–6Google Scholar; Heller, Kevin Jon, ‘On a Differential Law of War: A Response’, Harvard International Law Journal, 52:1 (2011), pp. 237–49Google Scholar.

61 Barack Obama, ‘Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize’, Oslo (10 December 2009); see also Von Stein, ‘International Law’.

62 US Army Field Manual 3–24, ‘Counterinsurgency’, Marine Corp Warfighting Publication, 3–33.5 (Washington DC: Department of the Army and United States Marine Corps, 2006), pp. 7–9.

63 Kahl, ‘In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs?’

64 Dickinson, Laura A., ‘Military Lawyers on the Battlefield: An Empirical Account of International Law Compliance’, The American Journal of International Law, 104:1 (2011), pp. 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 While this has certainly been the case in conflicts against Islamist extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban, non-state actors do not always disregard international law. Jessica Stanton notes that in civil wars both the regime type of a rebel group's opponent and the extent of their war aims contribute to (non-)compliance with the LOAC. Rebels are more likely to target civilians when faced with a democratic opponent and when they have either separatist or unclear war aims. See Strategies of Violence and Restraint in Civil War (Proquest Umi Dissertation Publishing 2011).

66 Morrow, James, ‘The Laws of War, Common Conjectures, and Legal Systems in International Politics’, The Journal of Legal Studies, 31:1 (2002), pp. 41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Beard, Jack M., ‘Law and War in the Virtual Era’, The American Journal of International Law, 103:3 (2009), pp. 409–45Google Scholar.

68 Pedrozo, Raul A. (‘Pete’) and Wollschlaeger, Daria P., ‘Introduction’, in Pedrozo, and Wollschlaeger, (eds), International Law and the Changing Character of War (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2011), pp. 1–17, 9Google Scholar.

69 Kahl, ‘In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs?’, p. 41.

70 Murphy, John F., ‘Mission Impossible? International Law and the Changing Character of War’, in Pedrozo, and Wollschlaeger, (eds), International Law and the Changing Character of War (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2011), p. 13–40, p. 35Google Scholar.

71 Sivakumaran, Sandesh, ‘Re-envisioning the Law of Armed Conflict’, The European Journal of International Law, 22:1 (2011), pp. 219–64, 253CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Blum, Gabriella, ‘On a Differential Law of War’, Harvard International Law Journal, 52:1 (2011), pp. 164–217Google Scholar

73 Blum, ‘On a Differential Law of War’, p. 166.

74 Kittrie, ‘The International Law of War and America's War on Terrorism’, p. 400.

75 Quoted in Kittrie, ‘Lawfare and US National Security’, p. 400.

76 Westra, Joel H., ‘Cumulative Legitimation, Prudential Restraint, and the Maintenance of International Order: A Re-Examination of the UN Charter System’, International Studies Quarterly, 54:2 (2010), pp. 513–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Benvenisti, Eyal, ‘The Legal Battle to Define the Law on Transnational Asymmetric Warfare’, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 20:3 (2010), pp. 339–60, 345Google Scholar.

78 See Watts, ‘Reciprocity’, and Blum, ‘On a Differential Law of War’.

79 Quoted in Watts, ‘Reciprocity’, p. 428.

80 Tomuschat, Compare Christian, ‘Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law’, The European Journal of International Law, 21:1 (2010), pp. 15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with Krezmer, ‘Rethinking the Application of IHL’.

81 Watts, ‘Reciprocity’, p. 423.

82 See the United Nations, ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (1948).

83 Corn, Geoffrey and Jensen, Eric Talbot, ‘Transnational Armed Conflict: A “Principled” Approach to the Regulation of Counter-Terror Combat Operations’, Israel Law Review, 42:1 (2009), pp. 46–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Sivakumaran, ‘Re-envisioning the Law of Armed Conflict’, p. 238.

85 Raustiala, Kal and Victor, David G., ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Resources’, International Organization, 58:2 (2004), pp. 277–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Moodrick, Hilly and Khen, Even, ‘The Question of Legal Regimes in Gaza and the West Bank’, Israel Studies, 16:2 (2011), pp. 55–80Google Scholar.

87 Hajjar, Lisa, ‘International Humanitarian Law and “Wars on Terror”: A Comparative Analysis of Israeli and American Doctrines and Policies’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 36:1 (2006), pp. 21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Kennedy, Of War and Law.

89 Krezmer, ‘Rethinking the Application of IHL’, p. 37.

90 Blum, ‘On a Differential Law of War’, p. 171.

91 Kennedy, Of War and Law.

92 Blum, ‘On a Differential Law of War’, p. 172; Benvenisti, ‘The Legal Battle’, p, 342.

93 Von Heinegg, Wolff Eintschel, ‘Asymmetric Warfare: How to Respond’, in Pedrozo, and Wollschlaeger, (eds), International Law and the Changing Character of War (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2011), pp. 463–80Google Scholar.

94 See, for example, Human Rights Watch, ‘A Face and a Name: Civilian Victims of Insurgent Groups in Iraq’ (2005), available at: {http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/10/02/face-and-name} accessed 18 December 2012.

95 Geib, Robin, ‘Asymmetric Conflict Structures’, International Review of the Red Cross 88:864 (2006), pp. 757–77, 765Google Scholar.

96 Mahnken, ‘The American Way of War’.

97 Seymour Hersh, ‘King's Ransom: How Vulnerable are the Saudi Royals?’, The New Yorker (16 October 2001), available at: {http://www.wanttoknow.info/011022newyorker.saudi.qaeda.htm} accessed 13 February 2014.

98 Geib, ‘Asymmetric Conflict Structures’, p. 766.

99 Morrow, ‘When do States Follow the Laws of War?’

100 ‘The Al Qaeda Manual’, p. 16, available at: {http://www.justice.gov/ag/manualpart1_4.pdf} accessed 9 February 2014.

101 Dinstein, Yoran, ‘Concluding Remarks: The Law of Armed Conflict and Attempts to Abuse or Subvert It’, in Pedrozo, and Wollschlaeger, (eds), International Law and the Changing Character of War (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2011), pp. 484–94Google Scholar.

102 President Barack Obama, ‘The Future of our Fight against Terrorism’, Remarks at National Defense University, Washington (2013), available at: {http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/23/obama-drones-guantanamo-speech-text} accessed 14 February 2014.

103 UN Human Rights Council, ‘Armed Drones and the Right to Life’, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (2013), p. 15.

104 Lyall, Compare Jason, ‘Does Indiscriminate Violence Incite Insurgent Attacks?: Evidence from Chechnya’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53:3 (February 2009), pp. 331–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with Kocher, Matthew A., Kalyvas, Stathis N., and Pepinsky, Thomas B., ‘Aerial Bombing and Counterinsurgency in the Vietnam War’, American Journal of Political Science, 55:2 (April 2011), pp. 201–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 See Dunlap Jr, ‘Lawfare Today’, p. 140: ‘As a practical matter, litigation is a potent engine for truth-finding as it ruthlessly eliminates the irrelevant and systematically drives towards reasoned and principled conclusions. In the national security realm, litigation can help us to creatively focus, sharpen, and strengthen our response to a range of threats. It has genuine potential to make us better and, therefore, more dangerous to our enemies.

106 See, for example, McKeown, ‘Norm Regress’.

107 Werner, Wouter G., ‘The Curious Career of Lawfare’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011), pp. 61–72, 65Google Scholar.

108 Amos Harel and Yoav Stern, ‘IDF Targets Senior Hamas Figures’, Haaretz (2009), available at: {http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-targets-senior-hamas-figures-1.267312} accessed 14 July 2012.

109 Oakland Ross, ‘War Crimes Charges Fly in Gaza; Israelis, Palestinians both Cite Violations of International Law’, Toronto Star (6 February 2009).

110 Brunnee, Jutta and Toope, Stephen J., Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Kittrie, ‘The International Law of War’, p. 398.

112 Graham, David, ‘The Law of Armed Conflict in Asymmetric Urban Armed Conflict’, in , Pedrozo and , Wollschlaeger (eds), International Law and the Changing Character of War (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2011), pp. 302–13Google Scholar.

113 Anshel Pfeffer, ‘Barak: Gaza Probe Shows IDF Among World's Most Moral Armies’, Haaretz (22 April 2009), available at: {http://www.haaretz.com/news/barak-gaza-probe-shows-idf-among-world-s-most-moral-armies-1.274600} accessed 18 June 2012.

114 Scharf, Michael P. and Andersen, Elizabeth, ‘Is Lawfare Worth Defining?’ Report of the Cleveland Experts Meeting, September 11, 2010, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011), pp. 11–27, 24Google Scholar.

115 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this phrase.

116 Colangelo, ‘Constitutional Limits on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction’, p. 146.

117 Tiefenbrun, Susan, ‘Semiotic Definition of “Lawfare”’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2 (2011), pp. 29–60, 53Google Scholar.

118 Quoted in Kittrie, ‘Lawfare and US National Security’, p. 397.

119 BBC News, ‘Israel Fury at UK Attempt to Arrest Tzipi Livni’ (15 December 2009), available at: {http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8413234.stm} accessed 9 December 2012.

120 Langer, Maximo, ‘The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Regulatory Role of the Political Branches in the Transnational Prosecution of International Crimes’, American Journal of International Law, 100:4 (2011), pp. 868–90Google Scholar.

121 Deeks, Ashley S., ‘Litigating How We Fight’, in Pedrozo, and Wollschlaeger, (eds), International Law and the Changing Character of War (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2011), pp. 427–61Google Scholar; Brooks, Rosa Ehrenreich, ‘War Everywhere: Rights, National Security Law, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of Terror’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153:2 (2004), pp. 676–760, 702CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122 Mahler, Jonathan, The Challenge: Hamdan V. Rumsfeld and the Fight Over Presidential Power (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008)Google Scholar.

123 ICRC, ‘Strengthening Legal Protection for Victims of Armed Conflict: Address by Dr. Jakob Kellenberger’ (21 September 2010), available at: {http:www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/ihl-development-2109} accessed 9 February 2014; ICRC, ‘Interpretive Guidance’.

124 ICRC, ‘Strengthening Legal Protection for Victims of Armed Conflict’.

125 Schmitt, ‘The Interpretive Guidance’.

126 For an exception, see Stanton, Strategies of Violence and Restraint.

127 Raustiala and Victor, ‘The Regime Complex’; Busch, Marc L., ‘Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping and Dispute Settlement in International Trade’, International Organization, 67:4 (Fall 2007), pp. 735–61Google Scholar.

128 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

129 See, for example, Katzenstein, Peter J. and Okawara, Nobuo, ‘Japan, Asia-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism’, International Security, 26:3 (2001/2), pp. 153–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moravscik, Andrew, ‘Theory Synthesis in International Relations: Real Not Metaphysical’, International Studies Review, 5:1 (2003), pp. 131–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

130 See, for example, Slaughter Burley, Anne-Marie, ‘International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda’, The American Journal of International Law, 87:2 (1993), pp. 205–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

131 Beck, Robert, ‘International Law and International Relations Scholarship’, in Armstrong, David (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of International Law (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009), p. 25Google Scholar.

132 Dinstein, ‘Concluding Remarks’.

133 Price, Richard (ed.), Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

134 Barnett, Michael N. and Weiss, Thomas George, Humanitarianism in Question: Power, Politics, Ethics (Cornell University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

135 Scott and Ambler, ‘Does Legality Really Matter?’