(l)U.S. forces enter the host nation without invitation, but under some
color of authority that serves to remove the operation from the realm
of "international armed conflict." [e.g. a Chapter VI Peacekeeping
mission].(2)Although such operations involve the risk, and often the reality, of
hostilities between U.S. forces and host nation forces, the purported
authority underlying the presence of U.S. forces removes the dispute
element of the "international armed conflict" definition.(3)This situation results in a vacuum of legal authority governing the
conduct of US. forces in such situations.(a) The "semi-permissive" nature of the operation acts to displace host
nation law;(b)The lack of a "dispute between states" acts to prevent triggering of
the LOW.(4)This vacuum of legal authority is not accompanied by a coordinate
absence of legal issues facing the force.(a) MOOTW have consistently involved substantial legal issues which,
if present in the context of an international armed conflict, would
be resolved by application of the LOW.(b)These issues generally fall under the same categories as legal issues
related to traditional military operations:(i) Targeting;(ii) Treatment of captured personnel;(iii) Treatment of civilians;(iv) Treatment of the wounded and sick.B. There is a natural tension between the law and policy which dictate the
justification for a military operation and the legal standards which we apply in
the context of the operations.
- Public International Law governs the conduct of states vis-6-vis other states,