international humanitarian law

Answer the following question:
During an international armed conflict between States A and B, an airliner with 120 passengers and 10 civilian crew is within the airspace of State A and is 20 minutes flying time from its capital city. The crew of the airliner have stopped communicating with air traffic control and have failed to comply with air traffic control instructions. A fighter aircraft has been scrambled, has intercepted the aircraft and reports that the crew of the airliner seem to be alert but are refusing to comply with his instructions to divert and land. State B fighters claim to be in control of the aircraft and plan to crash it into the residential district of the capital city of State A. Answer both questions:
a) under what circumstances does the civil airliner become something state A is allowed by international law to attack?
b) what precautions does the international law of armed conflict require state A to take before attacking the airliner?
Assessment criteria

Students should demonstrate the ability to:
• Assimilate the subject matter of the module.
• Apply theoretical notions to facts.
• Structure the work so that statements, arguments and conclusions flow coherently and logically.
• Use correct legal terminology.
• Make appropriate citations and references.
• Identify lacunæ and contradictions in judicial and non-judicial opinions.

In grading assessments, the quality of work will be determined by reference to the following:
• Extent to which facts have been assimilated.
• Breadth of knowledge of the relevant law.
• Degree of insight into the issues.
• Level of application of the law to the issues.
• Depth of analysis, description and discussion in promoting the arguments.
• Extent to which viable innovative solutions are proposed.
• Degree to which planning and coherence is evident in the structure of the response.
• Level to which complex solutions are offered and evaluated.
• Extent to which command of English is demonstrated in a legal context.

Please remember to add the word count.

Instruction:

• The question is Under which condition the attacked state can target a civilian airliner

• Define military objectives under Article 52 of additional protocol one paragraph 2 military objective is something that is by USE, nature, Purpose, Location. And say how civilian objectives can become military objectives

• By USE,

• NATURE,

• PURPOSE,

• and LOCATION with examples.

And how the airliner in question can become a military objectives by analysing the principle of distinction and discuss as to when a civilian airliner can become a military objective and if assumed that it become a military objective then the question is can it be attacked or not?
Then the principle of proportionality as the airliner have civilians on board and finally the principle of precaution.

Basically the three principles of targeting below need to be addressed in details and applied to the question:
• Question A)Principles of distinction /
• Principle of proportionality Article 51 Paragraph 5 / what military advantage the attacker can anticipate by attacking the civilian Airliner
• Question B)And the principle of precaution in attack under Article 57 / what are the precautions that needs to be taken and how it applies in our question/ like send a warning, use appropriate weapon etc.
Each principle needs to be analysed and then applied to the question.

Apply the scenario of 9/11, assuming if the US authority knew about the attack would they have attacked the civilian airliners with civilians on boards that were hijacked by the terrorist and were used as a weapon to attack US?

You can also use any other case law or similar scenario to our case.

Important Notice Regarding Referencing:
Dear writer, in my previous paper I have lost many marks due to poor referencing hence it is important to get it right.
1. For primary sources, References need to be complete, it should and must include correct Page Number, Paragraph number, in addition to the year of publication the name of the author etc. if it’s a journal Article, in addition to all needed information it is important to add the page number of the article.

If specific rules are used, specially to the rules contained in Geneva Convention, Particularly the Protocol, here you have to refer to the specific rule, not just say that article 1 or 2 say that or this, you have to mention for instance article 51, paragraph 5 letter B that refers to the principle of proportionality. So if it is a specific paragraph of a long article you have to be specific just mentioning the Article will not be accepted.
2. For secondary sources, quotation marks need to be applied to all texts that are used from original text whether in the main text or footnotes
Page numbers are vital to be included whether you use Journal, Article, Book, etc. Websites used need to be referenced completely.
Dear writer in addition to what you are going to include, below are the instruction for the information that need to be included in the paper.

Sources that can be used:

MILITARY OBJECTIVES AND THE PRINCIPLE OF DISTINCTION

Fleck (ed.), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, 153-199
Rogers, ‘What is a Legitimate Military Target?’, in Burchill, White and Morris (eds.), International Conflict and Security Law (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 160
David, ‘Respect for the Principle of Distinction in the Kosovo War’ 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (2000), 81
Rauch, ‘Attack Restraints, Target Limitations and Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons’, 18 Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre (1979) 53
Fenrick, ‘Attacking the Enemy Civilian as a Punishable Offence’, 7 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law (1997), 539, available at <http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?7+Duke+J.+Comp.+&+Int’l+L.+539>
* Fenrick, ‘Targeting and Proportionality during the NATO Bombing Campaign Against Yugoslavia, 12 EJIL (2001), 489
Blix, ‘Area Bombardment: Rules and Reasons’, 49 BYBIL (1978), 31-69
Dinstein, ‘Legitimate Military Objectives under the Current Jus in Bello’, 31 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (2002), 1
* Roscini, ‘Targeting and Contemporary Aerial Bombardment’ 54 ICLQ (2005), 411-433, 437-441
Human Rights Watch, Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq (December 2003), http://www.mineaction.org/doc.asp?d=367.

CIVILIANS AND THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY

1. Civilians

* ICTY Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the FRY, 39 ILM (2000), 1257
Amnesty International, Civilians in the Line of Fire – The Georgia-Russia Conflict, 2008 (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR04/005/2008/en)
Fleck (ed.), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Chapter 5
* Roscini, ‘Targeting and Contemporary Aerial Bombardment’ 54 ICLQ (2005), 433-437
Doswald-Beck, ‘The Value of the 1977 Geneva Protocols for the Protection of Civilians’, in Meyer (ed.), Armed Conflict and the New Law (1989), 137-72
Rogers, ‘Zero-casualty warfare’, 837 ICRC (2000) 165.

2. Military necessity and proportionality

McCoubrey, ‘The Nature of the Modern Doctrine of Military Necessity’, 30 Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre (1991) 215
US Department of Defence, Final Report to Congress: Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 31 ILM (1992), 615
Fenrick, ‘The Rule of Proportionality and Protocol I in Conventional Warfare’, 98 Military Law Review (1982), 91
Carnahan and Lincoln, ‘Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity’, 92 AJIL (1998) 213
Amnesty International, “Collateral Damage” or Unlawful Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force (June 2000), AI-Index EUR 70/18/00.

3. Belligerent reprisals and the taking of hostages

Greenwood, ‘The Twilight of the Law of Belligerent Reprisals’, 20 NYIL (1989), 35
Kalshoven, Belligerent Reprisals (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2005)
Verwey, ‘The International Hostages Convention and National Liberation Movements’, 75 AJIL (1981), 69
Albrecht, ‘War Reprisals in the War Crimes Trials and in the Geneva Conventions of 1949’, 47 AJIL (1953), 590
Hampson, ‘Belligerent Reprisals and the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949’, 37 ICLQ (1988), 818
Fleck (ed.), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, 204-207.

4. Targeted killings

Kretzmer, ‘Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defence?, 16 EJIL (2005), 171
Guiora, ‘Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defence’, 36 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2004), 319
* The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v The Government of Israel, Judgment, Israel’s Supreme Court (11 December 2005), available at <http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.htm>
Cassese, ‘On Some Merits of the Israeli Judgment on Targeted Killings’, 5 JICJ (2007), 339
N. Melzer, Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (2009), www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂