Talk:Public International Law/Law of Armed Conflict

Review: 6 June 2023
Dear authors, Thanks for your chapter! I left a few comments in the text, mainly regarding language and some few regarding the structure. Best, Raffaela --Raffaela Kunz (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Review: 28 May 2023
Dear Anne and Imdad,

This is a very well-structured and engaging chapter on a crucially important topic. I particularly like the focus on currently debated themes, which I think students will enjoy and which will further spark their curiosity about international law. The main issue with your chapter is that it needs to be shortened by almost 3000 words. I made some suggestions in some parts as to how you could cut words without losing too much content. You can see these edits by clicking on "View history" next to the "Edit/Edit source" buttons. I think it would be great if you could edit the rest of the chapter along similar lines, which will probably already bring the word count down by a lot so that we don't have to lose too much of your wonderfully engaging content.

Warmly,

Sué

Sué González Hauck (discuss • contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Review: May 13, 2023
Your chapter provides an excellent and detailed overview of the most important rules of humanitarian law, starting from their historical development and normative foundation. One aspect that stood out to me was the clarity of the writing style. The language used is simple and easy to understand, yet allows for deeper discussions and analysis. This makes the chapter very accessible to students who are new to the subject but also provides valuable insights for more advanced readers. I also appreciated the effective use of text boxes throughout the chapter. They help to highlight key points and make it easier for students to follow the arguments presented.

One minor criticism I have is that while the chapter hints at some critical analysis of humanitarian law, it does not delve into this in great detail. I would suggest adding at least one paragraph to provide a more thorough discussion of potential criticisms of humanitarian law. Overall, I think the chapter is an excellent contribution to the textbook.

Some minor things:

- Please use OSCOLA as your citation style and make sure you provide full and accurate references for all sources cited. It is important to take the time to ensure that all footnotes are correctly formatted according to OSCOLA.

- You will also find some comments in your chapter in which I elaborate on something more specifically. To view these comments, just open you chapter page and click on "Edit" in the top-right toolbox.

- Note also that the following parts are still missing: required knowledge, learning objectives, summary

- You could add some links to other chapters of the textbook.

- Note that I have made some linguistic improvements to the text

Max Milas (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Review: 26 August 2021
Dear Anne & Imdad,

Thank you for this first outline! I really like the structure. I find the "Current Challenges" very interesting. Just keep in mind our word limit. This will definitely be a great chapter for students!

In terms of content, I would add "humans" to the actors section and deal with combatants, among other things. Their legal status is often surprising for students without knowledge of PIL.

Technically, you can add yourselves as authors and link to your user page (see, for example, my chapter on Case Analysis). In addition, some of the sub-headings are not yet properly formatted. We have described how to do this here.

Thank you very much for your work and keep it up!

--Max Milas (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments Max! We shall definitely incorporate them.
 * Imdad IUllah (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Review: 27.8.21
Dear Anne, dear Imdad, I can see why you had to "select" issues. And I guess you will deal with several topics, which do not appear in your outline, under other headings (e.g. combatant status under "distinction"). I generally like your structure. I feel though that "Interplay with Other Fields of Public International Law" should be an independent C. section and not subsumed to "current challenges". Perhaps the relation between jus in bello and jus ad bellum belonged there as well, and not in section A. But to be honest, I would not object to your keeping your original structure. Best wishes, Tax

Review: 3 December 2021
Dear Anne, Imdad,

I think the chapter is looking great! It gives a good breakdown of the subject matter in a logical way. The structure also flows logically and is very useful in outlining this topic. I particularly like the breakdown under the distinction principle - combatants and military objects, and civilians and civilian objects. Perhaps some mention of IHL and the prohibition to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, may be worth noting. At the same time, I note your section on the 'interplay with other fields of PIL.' I also especially like the section on challenges to LOAC - which I think gives a good outline of selected issues. - Marko

Review of your draft 9 Feb 2022
Dear Anne and Imdad,

Thanks for letting me read your draft so far, and well done on what you have managed to do so far (it's more than what I have managed with my section to date...!)

I have a few comments which I hope you will find helpful. Mostly, and I am not sure of your word count, I think doing a general intro to LOAC is obviously quite a big topic and hard to cover in a succinct way, so you will have to make some hard choices about what to include and what to leave out, and within that, what weight to give certain topics. I feel that in some places you might need to strip things back to basics a bit more, in order to give yourself enough space/word count to cover everything.

To be concrete, you might consider leaving out the "pre-Geneva Conventions' sub-section and starting just from 'Geneva Conventions and Additional protocols", leaving your first sentence in that para to make reference back to older customs and norms as you already do. Similarly, you could shorten the sub-section on 'customary' law' by making your key point but then referring internally within the textbook to the customary law chapter. Finally, in some places, whole provisions are quoted. I wondered if you could paraphrase these at times to make the same point but save word count?

To provide some more specific, nitpicky, feedback, section by section:

- At the very beginning, would you like to provide a sentence stating in simple, brief terms what LOAC/IHL/JiB is and what it aims to do?

- pre-Geneva conventions: If you choose to keep this section, I would re-consider stating that violence is part of the human condition because in my view, this is debated. The point you make that violence is a historical fact is, however, of course well made. The sentence which ends in '3000 BC' is a little unclear to me linguistically. Is it also perhaps too detailed for your key purposes? I would re-consider the sentence talking about traditional customs being tribal rather than humanitarian. I admit I was confused by this - can't they be both?

- Geneva Conventions and APs: Solferino battle was by all accounts terrible but maybe reconsider is we should describe the violence as "inhumane" if it was soldier on soldier? Suggest to add in the founding of the ICRC before mentioning ICRC as devising laws. 1907 naval laws - yes, but also land war as well, no? Lat sentence referring to a common article - which is it? The footnote doesn't say and I wasn't quite sure which you meant here precisely?

- Weapons law: I think a few of the sentences (especially about the St P Declaration) can be combined? Ensure dates are given for all instruments? Mention Art. 36?

- Customary law: you might like to discuss more explicitly the ICRC's long-term customary law study here?

- Principles of LOAC Section: Would you like to add a sentence or two setting out the framing the IHL is designed as a balance between military necessity and humanitarian protection? Because the rest of your discussion seems to hang off this. Then, in terms of structure, you could consider mirroring this with the structure so that it would look something like this:

Opening introductory sentence - balance of humanitarian concern and military nec.

1. humanity

2. military necessity

3 fundamental rules that reflect these two aspects of IHL:

3.1 Distinction

3.2 Precautions

3.3 Proportionality

4. Protected groups and objects (I would shift that section up higher together with the discussion of the general rules of IHL)

5. Rules on humanitarian relief (you could include this if you want to, but might be too detailed for your purposes?)

6. Weapons law (if you want, you could shift that topic down here as one important set of rules governing warfare.)

- Actors in the LOAC: I am wondering if this section is needed at all perhaps? Could some of this be covered off in an intro description of IHL at the very start, where you explain that it can apply to states and non-state actors, the UN acknowledgment that IHL applies to its forces, and that certain provisions also regulate the activities of humanitarian organisations such as the ICRC etc...?

- Selection of current challenges: In current challenges, have you considered including "Compliance" as a primary challenge? I say this because AW and cyber etc is interesting and certainly a challenge, but the lack of respect of fundamental rules such as protecting civilians and detainees seems more of a dire humanitarian problem right now. The problem of war in cities and EWIPA could also be considered as a key challenge right now? I realise this might mean that you need to reduce the weight a bit of the current sections on AW, AI and cyber.

- Protected groups and objects: have you considered including persons deprived of their liberty? This seems very important in armed conflict. Also rather than just medical personnel, I suppose you mean the entire medical mission, right (i.e. personnel, clinics, ambulances..)

- Interplay section: have you considered counterterrorism? Also, if you wanted to, to save word count, you could also consider including interplay of IHL with other legal frameworks as one of the "challenges" instead of giving it its separate big section?

Apologies - I realise I opened by talking about word count and then suggested a range of additional topics! I hope that some of the above might nevertheless be of use. I am happy to dicsuss anything further with you, and I am looking forward to see how this develops and I would be happy to read it again once it is finalised. All the very best with finishing the draft, Marnie Melldd (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Marnie,
 * thank you so much for reading our work and writing down detailed comments. Certainly at this stage, a disproportionate focus of this chapter is an issue and we shall do our best to address it in light of your suggestions. Also, you are absolutely right to add/suggest 'compliance' as a challenge and we shall have a second thought on it. Overall, we believe that your comments/suggestions shall help in improving our work. Best wishes! Imdad     IUllah (discuss • contribs) 08:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Review: 31/05/2022
Dear Anne, dear Imdad,

I really enjoyed reading your chapter. I have put some comments in the text, which you can see by clicking on the edit mode. But these concern only minor things (sources, doctrinal clarifications, historical background information, formatting as advanced text boxes). I only see one problem that you can still work on a bit and that is the word limit. Some of your parahraphs are still a bit too long. Where I noticed this, I have commented accordingly. Apart from that I enjoyed reading your chapter very much. Nevertheless, this is already a wonderful chapter! Take into account that I am not an expert in LOAC and most of my knowledge comes from three years of Jessup. So please forgive me for any mistakes!

If you have any questions about my comments, Wikibooks, or any other topic, feel free to contact me. I am here to help where I can!

All the best

--Max Milas (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)