The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions ("AP I") is central to the modern law of war, widely referred to as international humanitarian law outside the United States. It updates the Geneva Conventions for protection of war victims and combines them with new or updated rules governing hostilities and the use of weapons found in the Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War. Due to its comprehensive nature and adoption by a majority of States, AP I is frequently cited as the source for law of war rules by attorneys and others interested in protecting humanitarian interests. The challenge for United States attorneys, however, is that their country is not a party to AP I and has been a persistent objector to many of its new rules.While the United States signed the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, it determined, after 10 years of analysis, that it would not ratify the protocol. President Reagan called AP I "fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed."1 Yet, as will be detailed throughout this guide, United States officials have declared that aspects of AP I are customary international law. Forty years after signing AP I, and 30 years after rejecting it, the United States has never presented a comprehensive, systematic, official position on the protocol. Officials from the United States Departments of Defense and State have taken positions on particular portions of it. This guide attempts to bring those sources together in one location.

The concept that certain objects and persons may be legitimately attacked during armed conflicts has been well recognised and developed through the history of warfare. This book explores the relationship between international law and targeting practice in determining whether an object is a lawful military target. By examining both the interpretation and its post-ratification application this book provides a comprehensive analysis of the definition of military objective adopted in 1977 Additional Protocol I to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and its use in practice. Tackling topical issues such as the targeting of TV and radio stations or cyber targets, Agnieszka Jachec-Neale analyses the concept of military objective within the context of both modern military doctrine and the major coalition operations which have been undertaken since it was formally defined. This monograph will be of great interest to students and scholars of international law and the law of armed conflict, as well as security studies and international relations.

Over 350 million people are affected each year by disaster and conflict. The international community is often unable to respond effectively to these crises. This report provides an independent examination of donor performance with the aim of improving the effectiveness of aid, and promoting greater accountability of donors.

Who is accountable under international law for the acts committed by armed opposition groups? In today's world the majority of political conflicts involve non-state actors attempting to exert political influence (such as overthrowing a government or bringing about secession). Notwithstanding their impact on the course of events, however, we often know little about these groups, and even less about how to treat their actions legally. In this award-winning scholarship, Liesbeth Zegveld examines the need to legally identify the parties involved when internal conflicts arise, and the reality of their demands for rights. Her study draws upon international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law to consider a fundamental question: who is accountable for the acts committed by non-state actors, or for the failure to prevent or repress these acts? This study will be of interest to academics, postgraduate students and professionals involved with armed conflict and international relations.