Proportionality is intimately linked to the overarching concepts of self-defense, lawful force, and the controlled application of violence. It is one of the most visible facets of humanitarian law designed to reduce unnecessary human suffering and avoid excessive damage to property, and the natural environment. However, its application has come under renewed scrutiny and sustained controversy as a result of wars against non-state actors and from the extensive use of drones, human shields, cyber war techniques, and counterinsurgency tactics. Proportionality in International Law critically assesses the law of proportionality in normative terms combining abstract philosophical and legal analysis with highly emotive contemporary combat cases. The principle of proportionality permits actions that are logically linked to the intended goal, and thus defines the permissible boundaries for the initiation and conduct of modern wars. The case studies discussed in this book are predominantly from the perspective of those who make decisions in the midst of armed conflict, bringing analytic rigor to the debates as well as sensitivity to facts on the ground. The authors analyze modern usages of proportionality across a wide range of contexts enabling a more complete comprehension of the values that it preserves. This book contrasts the applications of proportionality in both jus ad bellum (the law and morality of resort to force) and within jus in bello (the doctrines applicable for using force in the midst of conflicts). Proportionality in International Law provides the reader with a unique interdisciplinary approach, offering practitioners and policymakers alike greater clarity over how proportionality should be understood in theory and in practice.

This collection of essays brings together jus post bellum and transitional justice theorists to explore the legal and moral questions that arise at the end of war and in the transition to less oppressive regimes. Transitional justice and jus post bellum share in common many concepts that will be explored in this volume. In both transitional justice and jus post bellum, retribution is crucial. In some contexts criminal trials will need to be held, and in others truth commissions and other hybrid trials will be considered more appropriate means for securing some form of retribution. But there is a difference between how jus post bellum is conceptualized, where the key is securing peace, and transitional justice, where the key is often greater democratization. This collection of essays highlights both the overlap and the differences between these emerging bodies of scholarship and incipient law.

Over three decades after the fall of the Pol Pot regime, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)-a UN-backed tribunal fusing Cambodian and international law, procedure, and personnel-was established to try key Khmer Rouge officials for atrocities they committed. In Hybrid Justice, John D. Ciorciari and Anne Heindel trace the tribunal's evolution and reveal the influence of contemporary local political forces on its unique form and function. Although international legal norms have largely been observed, political wrangling between national and international actors has greatly influenced the pace, jurisdictional scope, and perceived legitimacy of the court's proceedings. After examining the ECCC's performance in judicial affairs, administration, public outreach, and victim participation, the authors offer preliminary assessments of its contributions to justice, truth, and reconciliation. In the conclusion, they discuss apparent strengths and shortcomings of the hybrid model as an alternative to domestic or fully international tribunals.

Few events have influenced our global order as intensely as the events of September 11, 2001. At various levels in the past ten years, persistent attempts have been made to address the threat of terrorism, yet there is still urgent need for a joint and coherent application of a variety of regulations relating to international criminal justice co-operation, the use of force and international human rights law. In an important contribution to international discourse, Larissa van den Herik and Nico Schrijver examine the relationship between different branches of international law and their applicability to the problem of terrorism and counter-terrorism. Using a unique combination of academic perspectives, practitioners' insights and a comprehensive three-part approach, Counter-terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order offers sound policy recommendations alongside thorough analysis of the state of international law regarding terrorism and provides fresh insights against the backdrop of recent practice.

In 1955 the Supreme Court ruled that veterans of the U.S. armed forces could not be court-martialed for overseas crimes that were not detected until after they had left military service. Territorial limitations placed such acts beyond the jurisdiction of civilian courts, and there was no other American court in which they could be adjudicated. As a result, a jurisdictional gap emerged that for decades exempted former troops from prosecution for war crimes. "This was not merely a theoretical possibility," Patrick Hagopian writes. Over a dozen former soldiers who participated in the My Lai massacre did in fact "get away with murder." Further court rulings expanded the gap to cover civilian employees and contractors that accompanied the armed forces. In American Immunity, Hagopian places what he calls the "superpower exemption" in the context of a long-standing tension between international law and U.S. sovereignty. He shows that despite the U.S. role in promulgating universal standards of international law and forming institutions where those standards can be enforced, the United States has repeatedly refused to submit its own citizens and troops to the jurisdiction of international tribunals and failed to uphold international standards of justice in its own courts.

In 2000 Congress attempted to close the jurisdictional gap with passage of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. The effectiveness of that legislation is still in question, however, since it remains unclear how willing civilian American juries will be to convict veterans for conduct in foreign war zones.

In 1946, the judges at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg declared 'crimes against peace' - the planning, initiation or waging of aggressive wars - to be 'the supreme international crime'. At the time, the prosecuting powers heralded the charge as being a legal milestone, but it later proved to be an anomaly arising from the unique circumstances of the post-war period. This study traces the idea of criminalising aggression, from its origins after the First World War, through its high-water mark at the post-war tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, to its abandonment during the Cold War. Today, a similar charge - the 'crime of aggression' - is being mooted at the International Criminal Court, so the ideas and debates that shaped the original charge of 'crimes against peace' assume new significance and offer valuable insights to lawyers, policy-makers and scholars engaged in international law and international relations.

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has proven the most complicated and controversial of all arms control treaties, both in principle and in practice. Statements of nuclear-weapon States from the Cold War to the present, led by the United States, show a disproportionate prioritization of the non-proliferation pillar of the Treaty, and an unwarranted underprioritization of the civilian energy development and disarmament pillars of the treaty. This book argues that the way in which nuclear-weapon States have interpreted the Treaty has laid the legal foundation for a number of policies related to trade in civilian nuclear energy technologies and nuclear weapons disarmament. These policies circumscribe the rights of non-nuclear-weapon States under Article IV of the Treaty by imposing conditions on the supply of civilian nuclear technologies. They also provide for the renewal and maintaintenance, and in some cases further development of the nuclear weapons arsenals of nuclear-weapon States. The book provides a legal analysis of this trend in treaty interpretation by nuclear-weapon States and the policies for which it has provided legal justification. It argues, through a close and systematic examination of the Treaty by reference to the rules of treaty interpretation found in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that this disproportionate prioritization of the non-proliferation pillar of the Treaty leads to erroneous legal interpretations of the Treaty, prejudicing the legitimate legal interests of non-nuclear-weapon States.

In this evaluation of the international legal standing of the right to reparation and its practical implementation at the national level, Christine Evans outlines State responsibility and examines the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission and the convergence of norms in different branches of international law, notably human rights law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. Case studies of countries in which the United Nations has played a significant role in peace negotiations and post-conflict processes allow her to analyse to what extent transitional justice measures have promoted State responsibility for reparations, interacted with human rights mechanisms and prompted subsequent elaboration of domestic legislation and reparations policies. In conclusion, she argues for an emerging customary right for individuals to receive reparations for serious violations of human rights and a corresponding responsibility of States.

Until recently, and with a few notable exceptions in the wake of World War II, violations of the laws of war and international humanitarian law were addressed primarily as claims between states. However, this approach has changed radically in the last twenty years, as the international community has increasingly accepted the idea of individual criminal responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have played a key role in this transformation and, as the trailblazers for a growing number of new international or hybrid criminal courts, in establishing the field of international criminal justice and encouraging the national prosecution of war crimes. Understanding the Tribunals' origins, their ground-breaking jurisprudence, and how they have addressed critical legal and practical challenges is essential to understanding both the revolution that has occurred over the past twenty years and how international criminal law will change and grow in the years ahead. As a leading scholar on humanitarian law, and President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Theodor Meron has observed and influenced the development of international criminal law as it has evolved from a mostly academic exercise to a cornerstone of the new international legal order. In this collection of speeches delivered during his first decade on the bench, he offers an insightful overview of the foundations of international criminal law as well as a unique insider's perspective on the challenges faced by international criminal tribunals, their creation of a corpus of substantive and procedural law, and the responsibilities of international jurists. Judge Meron's experience in international criminal justice makes this volume as rewarding for experts as it is for the general public.

Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or impending humanitarian crisis, such as found in Rwanda in early 1994, Kosovo in 1999, and Darfur more recently. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect asserts that when a state is failing to uphold its citizens' human rights, the international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens, including by undertaking humanitarian intervention. It is unclear, however, which particular agent should be tasked with this responsibility. Should we prefer intervention by the UN, NATO, a regional or subregional organization (such as the African Union), a state, a group of states, or someone else? This book answers this question by, first, determining which qualities of interveners are morally significant and, second, assessing the relative importance of these qualities. For instance, is it important that an intervener have a humanitarian motive? Should an intervener be welcomed by those it is trying to save? How important is it that an intervener will be effective and what does this mean in practice? The book then considers the more empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current interveners actually possess these qualities, and therefore should intervene. For instance, how effective can we expect UN action to be in the future? Is NATO likely to use humanitarian means? Overall, it develops a particular normative conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. It uses this conception of legitimacy to assess not only current interveners, but also the desirability of potential reforms to the mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention.

In The Responsibility to Protect: The Promise of Stopping Mass Atrocities in Our Time, Jared Genser and Irwin Cotler provide a comprehensive overview on how this contemporary principle of international law has developed and analyze how best to apply it to current and future humanitarian crises. The "responsibility to protect" is a doctrine unanimously adopted by the UN World Summit in 2005, which says that all states have an obligation to protect their own citizens from mass atrocities, which includes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Its adoption and application has generated a passionate debate in law schools, professional organizations, media and within the U.N. system. To present a full picture of where the doctrine now stands and where it could go in the future, editors Jared Genser and Irwin Cotler have assembled a global team of authors with diverse backgrounds and differing viewpoints, including Edward Luck, the UN Secretary-General's Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect. Genser and Cotler balance the pro-RtoP chapters with more skeptical arguments from agency staff and scholars with long experience in addressing mass atrocities. Framed by a Preface from Desmond Tutu and Vaclav Havel and a Conclusion from Gareth Evans, these in-depth and authoritative analyses move beyond theory to demonstrate how RtoP has worked on the ground and should work if applied to other crises. The global focus of this book, as well as its detailed application of the principle in case studies make it uniquely useful to staff at international organizations and NGOs considering use of the principle in a given circumstance, to scholars providing advice to governments, and to students seeking guidance on this still-expanding subject.

This is the third edition of the pioneering work that has become the standard text in the field. The first edition was one of the earliest to establish that the newly-developing international law of human rights could be set down as any other branch of international law. It also incorporates the complementary fields of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, while addressing the problems associated with their interaction with human rights law.
The book is more than a descriptive analysis of the field. It acknowledges areas of unclarity or where developments may be embryonic. Solutions are offered. Recent developments have confirmed the value of solutions proposed in this edition and the previous one.
Central to most of the chapters is the human rights norm of most salience in the treatment of prisoners, namely, the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The early chapters focus on the period of first detention, when detainees are most at risk of having information or confessions, however unreliable, extracted by unlawful means. Voices contemplating the legitimacy of such treatment to combat terrorism have been heard in the wake of the atrocities of September 11, 2001. The book finds that the evidence clearly suggests that the absolute prohibition of such treatment remains firm.
Other chapters deal with problems of poor prison conditions and of certain extraordinary penalties, notably corporal and capital punishment. A chapter explores ethical codes for members of professions capable of inflicting or preventing the prohibited behavior (police and medical and legal professionals). Chapters are also devoted to the extreme practice of enforced disappearance and the contribution of the new convention on this phenomenon, as well as to extra-legal executions.

Trusteeship and the civilizing mission in international relations did not end with the emergence of the self-determination entitlement that led to decolonization in the second half of the 20th century. International organizations, whose modern form emerged during the height of colonialism, took on the 'civilizing' role in the 'post-colonial' era, internationalizing trusteeship and re-legitimizing it as a feature of international public policy into the bargain. Through analysis of the history of and purposes associated with the involvement of international organizations in territorial administration, such as the UN missions in Kosovo and East Timor, a comparison between this activity and colonial trusteeship, the Mandate and Trusteeship arrangements, and an exploration of the modern ideas of international law and public policy that underpin and legitimize contemporary interventions, this book relates a new history of the concept of international trusteeship.
From British colonialist Lord Lugard's 'dual mandate' to the 'state-building' agenda of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lord Ashdown, wide-ranging links between the complex peace operations of today and the civilizing mission of the colonial era are established, offering a historical, political, and legal framework within which the legitimacy of, and challenges faced by, complex interventions can be appraised. This new history of international trusteeship raises important questions about the role of international law and organizations in facilitating relations of dominations and tutelage, and suggests that the contemporary significance of the self-determination entitlement needs to be re-evaluated.

This book addresses an important but little-noticed phenomenon in the revolutionary world of military technology. Across a wide range of otherwise-unrelated weapons programs, the Pentagon is now pursuing arms that are deliberately crafted to be less powerful, less deadly, and less destructive than the systems they are designed to supplement or replace. This direction is historically anomalous; military forces generally pursue ever-bigger bangs, but the modern conditions of counter-insurgency warfare and military operations 'other than war' (such as peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance) demand a military capable of modulated force. By providing a capacity to intervene deftly yet effectively, the new generations of 'useable' weaponry should enable the U.S. military to accomplish its demanding missions in a manner consistent with legal obligations, public relations realities, and political constraints. Five case studies are provided, regarding precision-guided 'smart bombs', low-yield nuclear weapons, self-neutralizing anti-personnel land mines, directed-energy anti-satellite weapons, and non-lethal weapons.

This book addresses a dilemma at the heart of counter-terrorist policy: is it ever justifiable to torture terrorists in order to save the lives of others, the so-called 'ticking bomb' scenario?
The book opens with an analysis of the pure moral argument from the standpoint of the individual as torturer. It then looks at the issues that arise once a state has decided to sanction torture in certain situations: how to establish factually that the situation is urgent, deciding who to torture, training people to carry out torture, and the efficacy of torture as a means of gathering information. The final part examines attempts to operate legal systems which tolerate torture; how they relate to the criminal law notion of necessity and to international human rights norms.
After examining the utilitarian arguments for torture, and the impact on a society of permitting torture, the author presents a powerful argument for maintaining the absolute legal prohibition.

This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or impending humanitarian crisis, such as found in Rwanda in early 1994, Kosovo in 1999, and Darfur more recently. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect asserts that when a state is failing to uphold its citizens' human rights, the international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens, including by undertaking humanitarian intervention. It is unclear, however, which particular agent should be tasked with this responsibility. Should we prefer intervention by the UN, NATO, a regional or subregional organization (such as the African Union), a state, a group of states, or someone else? Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect answers this question by, first, determining which qualities of interveners are morally significant and, second, assessing the relative importance of these qualities. For instance, is it important that an intervener have a humanitarian motive? Should an intervener be welcomed by those it is trying to save? How important is it that an intervener will be effective and what does this mean in practice?
James Pattison then considers the more empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current interveners actually possess these qualities, and therefore should intervene. For instance, how effective can we expect UN action to be in the future? Is NATO likely to use humanitarian means? Overall, it develops a particular normative conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. It uses this conception of legitimacy to assess not only current interveners, but also the desirability of potential reforms to the mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention.

This book conducts an in-depth analysis into the lawfulness of State-sponsored targeted killings under international human rights and humanitarian law. It also addresses the relevance of the law of inter-state force to targeted killings, and the interrelation of the various normative frameworks which may simultaneously apply to operations involving the intentional use of lethal force.
Through a comprehensive analysis of treaties, custom, and general principles of law in light of jurisprudence, doctrine, and travaux preparatoires the author demonstrates that contemporary international law provides two distinct normative paradigms which govern the use of lethal force in law enforcement and in the conduct of hostilities. Based on the resulting normative paradigms, the author shows in what circumstances targeted killings may be considered as internationally lawful. The practical relevance of the various conditions and modalities is illustrated by reference to concrete examples of targeted killing from recent State practice.
In essence the book argues that any targeted killing not directed against a legitimate military target remains subject to the law enforcement paradigm, which imposes extensive restraints on the practice. Even under the paradigm of hostilities, no person can be lawfully liquidated without further considerations. As a form of individualized or surgical warfare, the method of targeted killing requires a 'microscopic' interpretation of the law regulating the conduct of hostilities which leads to nuanced results.
The author concludes by highlighting and comparing the main areas of concern arising with regard to State-sponsored targeted killing under each normative paradigm and by placing the results of the analysis in the wider context of the rule of law.

In managing the growing number of refugees arriving in the industrialised world, beginning at the end of the 1970s, States have devised increasingly restrictive policies. The objectives of these measures have been to restrict access to the territory or, at least, to asylum procedures. Thus, while international co-operation in the refugee field traditionally focused on protection and assistance, the last two decades have been characterised by the emergence of transnational policies aimed at containing refugee flows, primarily on the European continent. The convoluted refugee routes - often described as 'secondary' or 'irregular' movements of refugees between countries of origin and their final destination - have been among States' major preoccupations. To combat what they often perceive to be proof of the fraudulent or manifestly unfounded nature of asylum claims, European States have passed legislation or agreed on international instruments designed to allocate and even evade responsibility for the examination of asylum applications. Even bolder solutions have been advocated more recently, such as the outsourcing of asylum procedures through regional or offshore schemes. This book presents a critical legal analysis of the mechanisms and arrangements devised by States to tackle secondary movements of refugees, and offers innovative solutions to the protection crisis afflicting the global refugee regime. After providing a comprehensive breakdown of the various legal tools used by States to combat secondary refugee movements, the book argues that, while the legality of these various arrangements is seriously in doubt, the most appropriate way to address these protection failures is to strengthen and develop adequate international accountability mechanisms.

This is the third edition of the pioneering work that has become the standard text in the field. The first edition was one of the earliest to establish that the newly-developing international law of human rights could be set down as any other branch of international law. It also incorporates the complementary fields of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, while addressing the problems associated with their interaction with human rights law.
The book is more than a descriptive analysis of the field. It acknowledges areas of unclarity or where developments may be embryonic. Solutions are offered. Recent developments have confirmed the value of solutions proposed in this edition and the previous one.
Central to most of the chapters is the human rights norm of most salience in the treatment of prisoners, namely, the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The early chapters focus on the period of first detention, when detainees are most at risk of having information or confessions, however unreliable, extracted by unlawful means. Voices contemplating the legitimacy of such treatment to combat terrorism have been heard in the wake of the atrocities of 11 September 2001. The book finds that the evidence clearly suggests that the absolute prohibition of such treatment remains firm.
Other chapters deal with problems of poor prison conditions and of certain extraordinary penalties, notably corporal and capital punishment. A chapter explores ethical codes for members of professions capable of inflicting or preventing the prohibited behavior (police and medical and legal professionals). Chapters are also devoted to the extreme practice of enforced disappearance and the contribution of the new convention on this phenomenon, as well as to extra-legal executions.

For more than sixty years, the blue helmets of the United Nations peacekeeping missions have come to symbolize both the promise and the fragility of the UN. Though beset with unresolved conflicts, underfunded, and invariably burdened with sentiments of over-expectation, UN peace operations have made a difference with their 'peacebuilding' initiatives. While peacebuilding has been extensively analysed and critiqued, the UN's role in addressing and ameliorating housing, land, and property rights challenges has not. This volume seeks to fill the void by examining the UN's experience grappling with the immense and inevitable housing, land, and property rights crises that emerge in all countries during and after conflict. Through analysis of UN peace missions in Burundi, Cambodia, Iraq, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan and elsewhere, this volume provides a unique array of perspectives on what the UN has done right, what it has done wrong, and what it should do in the future.

The move to end impunity for human rights atrocities has seen the creation of international and hybrid tribunals and increased prosecutions in domestic courts. The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice is the first major reference work to provide a complete overview of this emerging field. Its nearly 1100 pages are divided into three sections. In the first part, 21 essays by leading thinkers offer a comprehensive survey of issues and debates surrounding international humanitarian law, international criminal law, and their enforcement. The second part is arranged alphabetically, containing 320 entries on doctrines, procedures, institutions and personalities. The final part contains over 400 case summaries on different trials from international and domestic courts dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and terrorism. With analysis and commentary on every aspect of international criminal justice, this Companion is designed to be the first port of call for scholars and practitioners interested in current developments in international justice.

The imperatives of sovereignty, human rights and national security very often pull in different directions, yet the relations between these three different notions are considerably more subtle than those of simple opposition. Rather, their interaction may at times be contradictory, at others tense, and at others even complementary. This collection presents an analysis of the irreducible dilemmas posed by the foundational challenges of sovereignty, human rights and security, not merely in terms of the formal doctrine of their disciplines, but also of the manner in which they can be configured in order to achieve persuasive legitimacy as to both methods and results. The chapters in this volume represent an attempt to face up to these dilemmas in all of their complexity, and to suggest ways in which they can be confronted productively both in the abstract and in the concrete circumstances of particular cases.

Non-citizens include asylum seekers, rejected asylum seekers, immigrants, non-immigrants, migrant workers, refugees, stateless persons, and trafficked persons. This book argues that regardless of their citizenship status, non-citizens should, by virtue of their essential humanity, enjoy all human rights unless exceptional distinctions serve a legitimate State objective and are proportional to the achievement of that objective. Non-citizens should have freedom from arbitrary arrest, arbitrary killing, child labor, forced labor, inhuman treatment, invasions of privacy, refoulement, slavery, unfair trial, and violations of humanitarian law. Additionally, non-citizens should have the right to consular protection; equality; freedom of religion and belief; labor rights (for example, as to collective bargaining, workers' compensation, healthy and safe working conditions, etc.); the right to marry; peaceful association and assembly; protection as minors; social, cultural, and economic rights.
There is a large gap, however, between the rights that international human rights law guarantee to non-citizens and the realities they face. In many countries, non-citizens are confronted with institutional and endemic discrimination and suffering. The situation has worsened since September 11, 2001, as several governments have detained or otherwise violated the rights of non-citizens in response to fears of terrorism. This book attempts to understand and respond to the challenges of international human rights law guarantees for non-citizens human rights.

A comprehensive analysis into the lawfulness of state-sponsored targeted killings under international human rights and humanitarian law, this book examines treaties, custom and general principles of law to determine the normative paradigms which govern the intentional use of lethal force against selected individuals in law enforcement and the conduct of hostilities. It addresses the relevance of the law of interstate force to targeted killings, and the interrelation of the various normative frameworks which may simultaneously apply to operations involving the use of lethal force.
Through a comprehensive analysis of treaties, custom and general principles of law in light of jurisprudence, doctrine and travaux preparatoires the author demonstrates that contemporary international law provides two distinct normative paradigms which govern targeted killings in situations of law enforcement and the conduct of hostilities. Based on the resulting normative paradigms, the author shows in what circumstances targeted killings may be considered as internationally lawful. The practical relevance of the various conditions and modalities are illustrated by reference to concrete examples of targeted killing from recent state practice.
The book argues that any targeted killing not directed against a legitimate military target remains subject to the law enforcement paradigm, which imposes extensive restraints on the practice. Even under the paradigm of hostilities, no person can be lawfully liquidated without further considerations. As a form of individualized or surgical warfare, the method of targeted killing requires a "microscopic" interpretation of the law regulating the conduct ofhostilities which leads nuanced results reflecting the fundamental principles underlying international humanitarian law.
The author concludes by highlighting and comparing the main areas of concern arising with regard to state-sponsored targeted killing under each normative paradigm and by placing the results of the analysis in the greater context of the rule of law.
*The author has conceived and written this book in an entirely personal capacity and independently from his function as a Legal Adviser in the Legal Division of the ICRC. The opinions expressed therein are his own and do not necessarily correspond to those held by the ICRC or its Legal Division.

The book addresses a dilemma at the heart of the 'War on Terror': is it ever justifiable to torture terrorists in order to save the lives of innocent civilians; the so-called 'ticking bomb' scenario? The book first analyzes the ticking bomb dilemma as a pure moral one, facing the individual would-be torturer. A 'never-say-never' utilitarian position is pitted against a 'minimal absolutist' view that some acts are never justifiable, and that torture is one such act. It then looks at the issues that arise once a state has decided to sanction torture in extreme situations: when, how, and whom to torture; the institutionalization of torture; its effects on society; and its efficacy in combatting terrorism in the shorter and longer runs. Four models of legalized torture are next examined-including current ones in Israel and the USA and the idea of torture warrants. Finally, related legal issues are analyzed; among them the lawfulness of coercive interrogation under international law and attempts to allow torture 'only' after the fact, for instance by applying the criminal law defence of necessity. A 'minimal absolutist' view - under which torture, whether by private individuals or by state officials, must be prohibited absolutely in law, policy and practice, and allowing no exceptions for ticking bomb situations - is defended throughout.