scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Mark David "Max" Maxwell

Bio: Mark David "Max" Maxwell is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Combatant & Geneva Conventions. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 10 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal Article
TL;DR: In 2003, U.S. Army Private Jessica Lynch captured the interest of the entire world when, on 2 April 2003, a special operations team rescued her from captivity in the Saddam Hospital compound in Nasiriya, Iraq as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: ARMY PRIVATE Jessica Lynch captured the interest of the entire world when, on 2 April 2003, a special operations team rescued her from captivity in the Saddam Hospital compound in Nasiriya, Iraq.1 On 23 March, her unit's convoy had taken a wrong turn and was ambushed by Iraqis. Lynch became a prisoner of war (POW) under the law of war-the international body of law principally made up of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions.2 Her dramatic rescue brought home one of the realities of war-the potential of enemies to capture U.S. troops during armed conflict. As a member of the regular Armed Forces, Lynch had the right to be classified as a POW, which should have guaranteed to her a certain level of treatment while in captivity. A second critical right she received is immunity from prosecution under the enemy's law for any lawful, precapture, warlike acts. This important immunity is referred to as "combatant immunity."3 Thus, if Lynch had shot and killed an Iraqi soldier during the ambush, she could not be tried for murder; she would be "cloaked in a blanket of immunity" for her combatant acts. Lynch's POW status and the privileges that flow from that status were never in doubt. The real debate as to status lies elsewhere-with civilians on the battlefield. The modern battlefield is increasingly populated with civilians and paramilitary operatives who accompany U.S. forces in support of military operations. Assume, for a moment, that civilians are in Lynch's convoy. When the firefight ensues, several Iraqis are killed, and the enemy captures two civilians. The Iraqis quickly discover that one civilian is a contractor hired by the Army to maintain power generators; the other is a CIA paramilitary operative responsible for organizing resistance movements within Iraq. The civilian contractor accompanying the force produces an identification card indicating his status as a civilian accompanying the force. The paramilitary operative has no such card. Both wear civilian attire, but the paramilitary operative has a weapon; the civilian accompanying the force is unarmed. The capture of these civilians brings to the forefront whether they should be afforded the same protections as Lynch received under international law. But, should they be deprived of such protections because their presence on the battlefield somehow violates the principle of "distinction" embedded in the law of war; that is, the principle that civilians must be distinguished from combatants? The Principle of Distinction The principle of distinction is fundamental to the law of war and "is the foundation on which the codification of the laws and customs of war rests[.]"4 Under customary international law (law adhered to by custom) distinction imposes a two-part obligation on the parties to the conflict. First, civilians must be distinguished from combatants. Second, with combatants distinguished from civilians, the parties to a conflict can target only combatants and military objectives. This two-part obligation, codified in 1977 by Article 48 of the First Additional Protocol of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, says, "[T]o ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."5 To accomplish the first prong of distinction-the distinction between civilians and combatants-a line must be drawn between what constitutes a combatant and what constitutes a civilian. An individual can hold only one status of the two under the law of war: combatant or civilian. A combatant is one who has "the right to participate directly in hostilities."6 For example, members of the Armed Forces of a party to the conflict are combatants. The right to participate in hostilities provides them with two important rights on capture: POW status and combatant immunity. …

10 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book
17 Jul 2007
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider how the United States and its coalition partners can shape indigenous attitudes and behavior during stability operations via the character of those operations and the behavior of coalition forces and those responsible for communication.
Abstract: : "Shaping," in traditional U.S. military parlance, refers to battlefield activities designed to constrain adversary force options or increase friendly force options. Recent analysis of field requirements and joint urban doctrine has expanded the concept of shaping to include influencing resident populations in military operational theaters. These populations constitute a significant component of stability operations, particularly through their decision to support friendly force objectives or those of the adversary. Virtually every action, message, and decision of a force shapes the opinions of an indigenous population: how coalition personnel treat civilians during cordon-and-search operations, the accuracy or inaccuracy of aerial bombardment, and the treatment of detainees. Given the inherent difficulty in unifying coalition messages across disparate organizations and over time, shaping efforts must be designed, war-gamed, and conducted as a campaign. The goal of such a shaping campaign is to foster positive attitudes among the populace toward U.S. and allied forces. These attitudes help decrease anti-coalition behaviors and motivate the population to act in ways that facilitate friendly force operational objectives and the attainment of desired end states. This study considered how the United States and its coalition partners can shape indigenous attitudes and behavior during stability operations via the character of those operations and the behavior of coalition forces and those responsible for communication. While successes have been achieved in this regard, U.S. forces stand to benefit from the application of select, proven commercial marketing techniques. The authors consider successes and missteps from the marketing and advertising industries and how lessons from those events might assist the U.S. military. They also present recommendations based on observations and insights from previous operations, including ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

70 citations

Book
25 Mar 2011
TL;DR: In this article, the authors address historical precedents and trends in American logistics, the current scope of contractor involvement in support of regular military forces, and the challenges posed as traditional military institutions integrate increasing numbers of civilian workers and privately owned assets into the battlespace.
Abstract: : The United States has long utilized private military contractors to augment regular military forces in support of its national foreign policy and security needs. Commonly referred to as Private Military Companies (PMCs), contractors employ and manage civilian personnel from the private sector in areas of active military operations. Frequently, regular troops become dependent on the services contractors provide a situation that may negatively impact military effectiveness. Since 1991, contractor support on and off the battlefield has become increasingly more visible, varied, and commonplace. Given the current manpower and resource limitations of the national military, the US will likely continue its extensive use of PMCs in support of military operations. This work addresses historical precedents and trends in American logistics, the current scope of contractor involvement in support of regular military forces, and the challenges posed as traditional military institutions integrate increasing numbers of civilian workers and privately owned assets into the battlespace. These problems increase the risk to US personnel and can induce budget overruns rather than savings, disrupt civil-military relations, and have detrimental consequences for the American economy and society. The work concludes by proposing a useful rubric to evaluate this new American way of war. This work considers PMCs and their interdependence with regular and reserve military units in a broad sense. It derives from unclassified material widely available; understandably, these sources limit the analysis. Lessons learned from the Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) theaters may alter findings. However, this study endeavors to frame the continuing dialog concerning the appropriate use of PMCs to support regular troops.

42 citations

Dissertation
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a method to solve the problem of "uniformity" and "unweighting" in the literature.............................................................................................xxvii.
Abstract: ............................................................................................xxvii

41 citations

18 Mar 2005
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the background of contractor support to the military and review the current policies and doctrine involving logistical services provided by contractors in combat operations, specifically focused on the United States Army.
Abstract: : The growing dependence on contractors in today's nonlinear battlefield, combined with its explicit inclusion stated in the current military strategy, provides the need to critically examine the subject of contractors on the battlefield. To bound this complex area of study this paper will briefly discuss the background of contractor support to the military and review the current policies and doctrine involving logistical services provided by contractors in combat operations, specifically focused on the United States Army. It will then concentrate on the challenges of managing contractors on the battlefield as well as identifying the associated legal issues. Lastly the paper looks ahead to the Department of Defense's ongoing efforts to better manage contingency contractor personnel providing support to U.S. military forces in combat environments. The paper concludes with an assessment of the adequacy of draft Defense policies and instructions and provides recommendations on actions the Department of Defense should take to establish policies and instructions to ensure a seamless partnership between the military force and the civilian contingency contractors.

8 citations