Abstract
AbstractThis article critiques the articulation of the legal framework applicable to Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan found in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report (Brereton Report). In particular, using the Australian experience in Afghanistan as a case study, the article argues, on the basis of the rules of treaty interpretation, that where a foreign State party to Additional Protocol II (AP II) intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which AP II applies, that foreign State is bound by AP II, in addition to the host State and non-State armed actors that are parties to the NIAC. The article concludes by outlining the reasons why the Brereton Report's silence in relation to AP II matters.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Sociology and Political Science
Reference32 articles.
1. Making and Shaping the Law of Armed Conflict
2. The Taliban at war: inside the Helmand insurgency, 2004-2012
3. Rethinking the Application of IHL in Non-International Armed Conflicts
4. September 11 and the Laws of War;Jinks;Yale Journal of International Law,2003
5. Jus ad Pacem in Bello? Afghanistan, Stability Operations and International Law Relating to Armed Conflict;Turns;Israel Yearbook on Human Rights,2009