Naval War College

About: Naval War College is a education organization based out in Newport, Rhode Island, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: International law & China. The organization has 233 authors who have published 519 publications receiving 6652 citations. The organization is also known as: United States Naval War College & U.S. Naval War College.

Warlords and Coalition Politics in Post-Soviet States by Jesse Driscoll

Abstract: Jesse Driscoll's path-breaking book Warlords and Coalition Politics in Post-Soviet States will serve as the standard bearer for scholars exploring dynamics of civil conflict across the post-Soviet ...

Fundamentalism and Public Policy

Abstract: The response of religious fundamentalists across the spectrum of world religions has been mixed and is complex due to differing histories, cultures, and political structures. Some fundamentalists reject participation in the political process while others fully embrace participation and seek to implement laws and cultural practices that reflect the values and commitments of the religious community that are frequently derived from narrow interpretation of religious texts. Use of the term fundamentalist is contested by some due to the historical context in which it arose and came to be used pejoratively in Protestant Christianity in the United States. Compounding discussion of the subject with respect to sexuality and gender issues is the fact that many women within fundamentalist religious communities accept rather than reject the doctrines and practices that are viewed by those outside of the community as restrictive and oppressive. In societies where policies have been implemented reflecting theological beliefs and values, such policies have created strict boundaries of gender activity and focused on attire, reproductive rights, education, sexual orientation, and economic opportunity. The majority of the scholarly research on the topic was done pre-2000, and the subject has not received much scholarly attention in recent years. Keywords: abortion; human rights; marriage; religon

The Ibar Bridge Attack: a Legal Assessment

Abstract: Rear Admiral Carter’s account of the air strike against the Ibar River Bridge during Operation Allied Force in 1999 illustrates the extent to which ethical norms can permeate the execution of combat missions. Although not the focus of his discussion, the mission equally exemplifies the appropriate application of the international humanitarian law (IHL) rules governing targeting. Deconstructing the attack from a purely legal perspective, this brief commentary demonstrates that ethical and legal norms usually demand identical behaviour on the battlefield. Such commonality is to be expected. After all, IHL is the product of a delicate balancing by states of their need to maintain the capacity to fight effectively and their desire to advance humanitarian objectives (Schmitt 2010: 795). The initial step in any IHL analysis is classifying the nature of the conflict, for the conflict’s legal classification determines the body of law that applies (Akande 2012: 32). There are three options. Some violent situations do not qualify as armed conflicts at all, as in the case of civil disturbances. International human rights law and domestic law, not IHL, govern uses of force in these circumstances (Melzer 2008: sect. B). If the violence in the country becomes very intense and involves hostilities between the state and organized armed groups, a non-international armed conflict exists to which a limited number of IHL rules apply. By contrast, hostilities between two or more states comprise, irrespective of the intensity of the hostilities, an international armed conflict. The bulk of IHL, including the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocol I, applies to the latter conflicts. Prior to the commencement of Operation Allied Force, hostilities between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s (FRY) security forces and the Kosovar Albanian insurgents constituted a non-international armed conflict. However, once the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operations began, an international armed conflict between the FRY and those states participating in the campaign commenced. Air strikes launched by states that were party to Additional Protocol I were therefore subject to the ‘conduct of hostilities’ rules set forth in that treaty. Although the USA is not a party to the instrument, it recognizes most Additional Protocol I targeting provisions as reflective of customary international law, and thus binding on US forces. In great part, then, attacks by all NATO forces were subject to a common set of legal prescriptions. The first question when assessing the legality of any attack is the target’s qualification as a ‘military objective’. ‘Military objective’ is a legal term of art that refers to an object or person that may be lawfully attacked. With respect to individuals, the target must be a member of the regular armed forces, a member of an organized armed group, or a civilian who is directly participating in the hostilities (ICRC 2009). Military objectives also include