Acting as a Sovereign Versus Acting as a Belligerent

THEORETICAL BOUNDARIES OF ARMED CONFLICT AND HUMAN RIGHTS, edited by Jens David Ohlin (Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming)

Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-21

38 Pages Posted: 21 Jun 2014 Last revised: 16 Jul 2014

See all articles by Jens David Ohlin

Jens David Ohlin

Cornell University - School of Law

Date Written: June 19, 2014

Abstract

In many legal disputes, the selection of one body of law rather than another is outcome-determinative. The situation with targeted killings is no different. Although there are contrary impulses at the margins, in the main a human rights paradigm is more likely to restrict such operations while a law of war paradigm is more likely to sanction it. But the question is when each body of law applies, a question that is not explicitly addressed by either body. By looking at the underlying object and purpose of each body of law, however, an account of their respective spheres becomes apparent. This essay defends the claim that the dividing line is represented by a state acting as a sovereign as opposed to acting as a belligerent. In the former situation, the state acts as a ruler over its subjects and its activities are constrained by human rights law. In contrast, when the state acts as a belligerent during armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law regulates its actions. This essay provides a framework to determine when the state is acting in one mode rather than another: acting as a sovereign involves an unequal relationship (ruler-to-ruled), while belligerency is characterized by two, formally co-equal collectives facing each other in battle. At the closing stage of an armed conflict, the relationship of belligerency may give way to sovereignty, a transition point that is often characterized by the law of occupation. The argument is both normative and descriptive in the sense that the two bodies of law already embody these normative distinctions; therefore their respective application is currently delimited by these existing principles.

Keywords: International Humanitarian Law, IHL, human rights, targeted killing, belligerency, sovereignty, detention, spatial control, personal control, ECHR, law of occupation

Suggested Citation

Ohlin, Jens David, Acting as a Sovereign Versus Acting as a Belligerent (June 19, 2014). THEORETICAL BOUNDARIES OF ARMED CONFLICT AND HUMAN RIGHTS, edited by Jens David Ohlin (Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming), Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-21, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2456754

Jens David Ohlin (Contact Author)

Cornell University - School of Law ( email )

218 Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853-4901
United States
(607) 255-0479 (Phone)
(607) 255-7193 (Fax)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
208
Abstract Views
2,537
rank
163,311
PlumX Metrics