Ukraine’s Crisis Part 3: The Principle of Distinction and LOAC’s Key Goals
By Laurie R. Blank* This is the final article in a three-part series on the Ukrainian crisis’s implications and lessons for the international law of armed conflict. You can read Part 1 and Part 2 here. Recent events in eastern Ukraine highlight the challenges...Ukraine’s Crisis Part 2: LOAC’s Threshold for International Armed Conflict
Series Introduction Following a new outbreak of violence in eastern Ukraine on Thursday, tensions in Ukraine and between Russia and the United States and NATO countries are high ahead of Ukraine’s presidential elections Sunday. Russian troops remain along...
Ukraine’s Crisis: Implications for the Law of Armed Conflict
Emory Law Professor Laurie R. Blank argues that the conflict in Ukraine demonstrates the importance of sustaining the strict separation between the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and the jus ad bellum, a low threshold for recognition of international armed conflict, and the principle of distinction in today’s conflicts.
Hostage-Takers and Fleeing Felons: Questioning Two Analogies to the “Imminent Threat” of Terrorist Attack from Abroad
Amien Kacou, attorney at GPI Law PLLC, argues that analogies from the use of lethal force against hostage-takers or fleeing felons to justify targeted killings of suspected al Qaeda terrorists are misguided. Image courtesy of Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY 2.5.
Crimean Diplomacy
Katherine Earle of AEI discusses the recent Crimean referendum to join Russia and the associated security implications. Image courtesy of Getty Images.