Adjudication of Military Deployment in National Courts

Focusing on recent cases in Europe, the United States, and Israel, the session will analyze the circumstances under which courts have been willing to adjudicate issues relating to military deployment. It will also assess the operational impact of this trend toward the judicialization of military deployment decisions. In many jurisdictions, the executive branch has historically conducted military operations with limited interference from the judicial branch. Modern interpretations of human rights and the rule of law, both at the level of national and international law, have resulted in increased judicial engagement with executive decisions to use armed force. This trend has raised serious concerns among some governments about whether more judicial involvement might overly constrain military operations or even make decisions to use force impossible in the first place. Militaries have also encountered practical challenges in planning and conducting operations, for example in the context of detention, targeting, and civilian casualties. At the same time, some have noted that judicial involvement can promote desirable outcomes such as providing a remedy for civilians harmed by military operations and promoting better integration of human rights considerations into military planning and operations. This session explores these and other issues in a comparative context.

Moderators:
• Katja Ziegler, University of Leicester Law School

Speakers:
• Major General Thomas Ayres, Judge Advocate General’s Office, U.S. Army
• Eyal Benvenisti, Tel Aviv University, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law
• Claire Landais, French Ministry of Defense
• Douglas Wilson, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office

• Co-sponsored by the International Law in Domestic Courts Interest Group

Видео Adjudication of Military Deployment in National Courts канала asil1906