Tag Archives: NATO
8 February 2015
In December 2014, the United Nations reported that in the previous months hundreds of civilians had been killed in the struggle between armed militias in Libya, and that the acts of the militias might amount to crimes against humanity. It seems like a déjà vu. In February 2011, a popular uprising started in Libya and was brutally repressed by the regime of Colonel Qadhafi, who was eventually charged with committing crimes against humanity. The UN Security Council decided to authorize the use of military force on humanitarian grounds, in order to protect civilians. The ensuing NATO operation, which lasted from March to October 2011, resulted in the fall of the Qadhafi regime and in the establishment of a transitional government, which pledged full respect for human rights and international law. So, what has gone wrong – and what responsibility does the international community carry? (more…)
8 September 2014
On 5 September, at the conclusion of the NATO summit in Wales, President Obama announced that nine NATO allies have agreed to join the US in order to form a coalition to fight the Islamic State. (more…)
Source: The Guardian | US forms 'core coalition' to fight Isis militants in Iraq
Source: Al Jazeera | US announces coalition to fight Islamic State
Source: New York Times | Obama Enlists 9 Allies to Help in the Battle Against ISIS
2 September 2014
According to the Daily Mail, Britain is to spearhead a 10,000-strong NATO joint expeditionary force, aimed at bolstering the West’s capabilities in response to Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine. Other countries involved at the present time include Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway and the Netherlands. Canada has also expressed an interest in taking part. (more…)
Source: Financial Times | Nato states create new multilateral force
Source: Daily Mail | Britain to spearhead 10,000-strong Nato rapid reaction force with mission to halt Putin's 'Tsarist expansionism'
Source: The Sunday Times | New Nato reaction force aims to deter Russian aggression
13 May 2014
On 12 May, The Guardian reported that the British Ministry of Defence revealed that British officers are based on the US military base in Djibouti, from which drone strikes against presumed terrorists in Yemen are launched. According to the Minster of Defence Mark Francois, ‘[the three officers] work within the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) and are responsible for planning and supporting US military operations in the region. As embedded military personnel within a US headquarters they come under the command and control of the US armed forces, but remain subject to UK law, policy and military jurisdiction.’ (more…)
Source: The Guardian | UK troops working with US military at base for Yemen drone operations
Source: Human Rights Watch | A Wedding That Became a Funeral - US Drone Attack on Marriage Procession in Yemen | 2014
8 May 2014
In a decision of 2 May 2014, the British High Court of Justice held that the United Kingdom (UK) was responsible for the continued detention of an individual in Afghanistan, in violation of human rights law. The decision has already been commented on, notably here, here and here, focusing on the affirmation by the Court that the UK’s international human rights obligations applied to the non-international armed conflict in Afghanistan. This post will briefly address another important aspect of the decision, that of attribution of conduct.
The case was brought by Serdar Mohammed, an Afghan national who had been captured by British forces part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in April 2010 on the suspicion of being a member of the Taliban. He remained detained without charges until July 2010, when he was transferred to Afghan authorities. He claimed compensation from the UK for a breach of his right to liberty under Article 5 ECHR.
Apart from finding that the detention was in breach of applicable human rights obligations, the Court engaged in a relatively extensive discussion of whether the disputed conduct was to be attributed to the UK (paras 158–187, pp 47–55), thereby adding a new stone to the debate on allocation of responsibility in international military operations. (more…)