MEMO 4
U.S. Department of
Justice
Office of the Legal Counsel
Office of the Deputy
Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
January 9, 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR
WILLIAM J. HAYNES II
GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FROM: John Yoo
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Robert J. Delahunty
Special Counsel
RE: Application
of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees
"Which
brings us to HYPOTHESIS NUMBER THREE: THE ORDER USES THE
HEGELIAN DIALECTIC PROCESS TO BRING ABOUT SOCIETY IN WHICH
THE STATE IS ABSOLUTE, i.e., ALL POWERFUL.
This hypothesis, of course, reflects the gulf between The
Order and American society. The gulf stems from the
differing views of the relationship between the State and
the individual.
Which is superior? Our whole way of life is based on the
assumption that the individual is superior to the State.
That the individual is the ultimate holder of sovereignty.
That the State is the servant of the people. It's deeply
engrained within us.
The Order holds the opposite -- that the State is superior,
that the common man (the peasant) can find freedom only by
obedience to the State.
Now, of course, the State is a fiction. So who or what
controls the State?
Obviously, The Order."
America's Secret
Establishment -- An Introduction to the Order of Skull and
Bones, by Antony C. Sutton |
You have asked for
our Office's views concerning the effect of international treaties and
federal laws on the treatment of individuals detained by the U.S. Armed
Forces during the conflict in Afghanistan. In particular, you have
asked whether the laws of armed conflict apply to the conditions of
detention and the procedures for trial of members of al Qaeda and the
Taliban militia. We conclude that these treaties do not protect
members of the al Qaeda organization, which as a non-State actor cannot
be a party to the international agreements governing war. We
further conclude that that these treaties do not apply to the Taliban
militia. This memorandum expresses no view as to whether the
President should decide, as a matter of policy, that the U.S. Armed
Forces should adhere to the standards of conduct in those treaties with
respect to the treatment of prisoners.
We believe it most
useful to structure the analysis of these questions by focusing on the
War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (Supp. III
1997) ("WCA"). The WCA directly incorporates several provisions of
international treaties governing the laws of war into the federal
criminal code. Part I of this memorandum describes the WCA and teh
most relevant treaties taht it incorporates: the four 1949 Geneva
Conventions, which generally regulate the treatment of n on-combatants,
such as prisoners of war ("POWs"), the injured and sick, and civilians.
[1]
Part II examines whether al Qaeda
detainees can claim the protections of these agreements. Al Qaeda is
merely a violent political movement or organization and not a
nation-state. As a result, it is ineligible to be a signatory to any
treaty. Because of the novel nature of this conflict, moreover, we do
not believe that al Qaeda would be included in non-international forms
of armed conflict to which some provisions of the Geneva Conventions
might apply. Therefore, neither the Geneva Conventions nor the WCA
regulate the detention of al Qaeda prisoners captured during the
Afghanistan conflict.
Part III discuses whether the same
treaty provisions, as incorporated through the WCA apply to the
treatment of captured members of the Taliban militia. We believe that
the Geneva Conventions do not apply for several reasons. First, the
Taliban was not a government and Afghanistan was not – even prior to the
beginning of the present conflict – a functioning State during the
period in which they engaged in hostilities against the United States
and its allies. Afghanistan’s status as a failed state is ground alone
to find that members of the Taliban militia are not entitled to enemy
POW status under the Geneva Conventions. Further, it is clear that the
President has the constitutional authority to suspend our treaties with
Afghanistan pending the restoration of a legitimate government capable
of performing Afghanistan’s treaty obligations. Second, it appears from
the public evidence that the Taliban militia may have been so
intertwined with al Qaeda as to be functionally indistinguishable from
it. To the extent that the Taliban militia was more akin to a
non-governmental organization that used military force to pursue its
religious and political ideology than a functioning government, its
members would be on the same legal footing as al Qaeda.
In part IV, we address the
question whether any customary international law of armed conflict may
apply to the al Qaeda or Taliban militia members detained during the
course of the Afghanistan Conflict. We conclude that customary
international law, whatever its source and content, does not bind the
President or restrict the actions of the United States military, because
it does not constitute federal law recognized under the Supremacy Clause
of the Constitution. The President, however, has the constitutional
authority as Commander in Chief to interpret and apply the customary or
common laws of war in such a way that they would extend to the conduct
of members of both al Qaeda and the Taliban, and also to the conduct of
the U.S. Armed Forces towards members of those groups taken as prisoners
in Afghanistan.
I. Background and Overview of
the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions
It is our understanding that your
department is considering two basic plans regarding the treatment of
members of al Qaeda and the Taliban militia detained during the
Afghanistan conflict. First, the Defense Department intends to make
available a facility at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for
the long-term detention of these individuals, who have come under our
control either through capture by our military or transfer from our
allies in Afghanistan. We have discussed in a separate memorandum the
federal jurisdiction issues that might arise concerning Guantanamo Bay.
[2] Second, your department is developing procedures to implement the
President’s Military Order of November 13, 2001, which establishes
military commissions for the trial of violations of the laws of war
committed by non-U.S. citizens. [3] The question has arisen whether the
Geneva Conventions, or other relevant international treaties or federal
laws, regulate these proposed policies.
We believe that the WCA provides a useful starting point for our
analysis of the application of the Geneva Conventions to the treatment
of detainees captured in the Afghanistan theater of operations. [4] Section
2441 of Title 18 renders certain acts punishable as "war crimes." The
statute’s definition of that term incorporates, by reference, certain
treaties or treaty provisions relating to the laws of war, including the
Geneva Conventions.
A. Section 2441: An Overview
Section 2441 reads in full as
follows:
War crimes
(a) Offense -- Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States,
commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection
(b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term
of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be
subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances -- The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are
that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war
crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national
of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act).
(c) Definition -- As used in this section "war crime" means any conduct
--
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions
signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to
which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague
Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18
October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
international convention signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and
which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to
the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3
May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States
is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to
civilians.
18 U.S.C. § 2441.
Section 2441 lists four categories of war crimes. First, it criminalizes
"grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions, which are defined by treaty
and will be discussed below. Second, it makes illegal conduct prohibited
by articles 23, 25, 27, and 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV.
Third, it criminalizes violations of what is known as "common" Article
3, which is an identical provision common to all four of the Geneva
Conventions. Fourth, it criminalizes conduct prohibited by certain other
laws of war treaties, once the United States joins them. A House Report
states that the original legislation "carries out the international
obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to
provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes." H.R. Rep. No.
104-698 at 1 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2166, 2166. each
of those four conventions includes a clause relating to legislative
implementation and to criminal punishment. [5]
In enacting section 2441, Congress also sought to fill certain perceived
gaps in the coverage of federal criminal law. The main gaps were thought
to be of two kinds: subject matter jurisdiction and personal
jurisdiction. First, Congress found that "[t]here are major gaps in the
prosecutability of individuals under federal criminal law for war crimes
committed against Americans." H.R. Rep. No. 104-698 at 6, reprinted in
1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2170. [6] Second, Congress found that "[t]he
ability to court martial members of our armed services who commit war
crimes ends when they leave military service. [Section 2441] would allow
fir prosecution even after discharge." Id. at 7, reprinted in 1996
U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2172. [7] Congress considered it important to fill this
gap, not only in the interest of the victims of war crimes, but also of
the accused. "The Americans prosecuted would have available all the
procedural protections of the American justice system. These might be
lacking if the United States extradited the individuals to their
victims’ home countries for prosecution." Id. [8] Accordingly, Section
2441 criminalizes forms of conduct in which a U.S. national or a member
of the Armed Forces may be either a victim or a perpetrator.
B. Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions were approved by a diplomatic conference on
August 12, 1949, and remain the agreements to which more States have
become parties than any other concerning the laws of war. Convention I
deals with the treatment of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the
filed; Convention II addresses treatment of the wounded, sick, and
shipwrecked in armed forces at sea; Convention III regulates treatment
of POWs; Convention IV addresses the treatment of citizens, the Geneva
Conventions set the rules for the treatment of the victims of war.
The Geneva Conventions, like treaties generally, structure legal
relationships between Nation States, not between Nation States and
private, subnational groups or organizations. [9] All four Conventions
share the same Article 2, known as "common Article 2." It states:
In addition to the provisions
which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall
apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which
may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if
the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to
all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High
Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed
resistance.
Although one of the Powers in
conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who
are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the
said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
(Emphasis added)
As incorporated by § 2441(c)(1), the four Geneva Conventions similarly
define "grave breaches." Geneva Convention III on POWs defines grave
breach as:
willful killing, torture or
inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing
great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a
prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or
willfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular
trial prescribed in this Convention.
Geneva Convention III, art. 130.
As mentioned before, the Geneva Conventions require the High Contracting
Parties to enact penal legislation to punish anyone who commits or
orders a grave breach. See, e.d., id. art. 129. Further, each State
party has the obligation to search for and bring to justice (either
before its courts or by delivering a suspect to another State party)
anyone who commits a grave breach. No State party is permitted to
absolve itself or any other nation liability for committing a grave
breach.
Thus, the WCA does not criminalize all breaches of the Geneva
Conventions. Failure to follow some of the regulations regarding the
treatment of POWs, such as difficulty in meeting all of the conditions
set forth for POW camp conditions, does not constitute a grave breach
within the meaning of Geneva Convention III, art. 130. Only by causing
great suffering or serious bodily injury to POWs, killing or torturing
them, depriving them of access to a fair trial, or forcing them to serve
in the Armed Forces, could the United States actually commit a grave
breach. Similarly, unintentional, isolated collateral damage on civilian
targets would not constitute a grave breach within the meaning of Geneva
Convention IV, art. 147. Article 147 requires that for a grave breach to
have occurred, destruction of property must have been done "wantonly"
and without military justification, while the killing of injury of
civilians must have been "willful."
D. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
Section 2441 (c)(3) also defines as a war crime conduct that
"constitutes a violation of common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions.
Article 3 is a unique provision that governs the conduct of signatories
to the Conventions in a particular kind of conflict that is not one
between High Contracting Parties to the Conventions. Thus, common
Article 3 may require the United States, as a High Contracting Party, to
follow certain rules even if other parties to the conflict are not
parties to the Conventions. On the other hand, Article 3 requires state
parties to follow only certain minimum standards of treatment toward
prisoners, civilians, or the sick and wounded, rather than the
Conventions as a whole.
Common Article 3 reads in relevant part as follows:
In the case of armed conflict not
of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the
High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to
apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part
in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down
their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds,
detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated
humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color,
religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts
are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever
with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person,
in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and
torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal
dignity; in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and
the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a
regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which
are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be
collected and cared for…
The application of the preceding
provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the
conflict.
Common article 3 complements
common Article 2. Article 2 applies to cases of declared war or of any
other armed conflict that may arise between two or more of the High
Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one
of them. [10] Common Article 3, however, covers "armed conflict not of
an international character" – a war that does not involve cross-border
attacks – that occurs within the territory of one of the High
Contracting Parties. There is substantial reason to think that this
language refers specifically to a condition of civil war, or a
large-scale armed conflict between a State and an armed movement within
its own territory.
To begin with Article 3’s text strongly supports the interpretation that
it applies to large-scale conflicts between a State and an insurgent
group. First, the language at the end of Article 3 states that "[t]he
application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal
status of the Parties to the conflict." This provision was designed to
ensure that a Party that observed Article 3 during a civil war would not
be understood to have granted the "recognition of the insurgents as an
adverse party." Frits Kalshoven, Constraints on the Waging of War 59
(1987). Second, Article 3 is in terms limited to "armed conflict…
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties"
(emphasis added). This limitation makes perfect sense if the Article
applies to civil wars, which are fought primarily or solely within the
territory of a single state. The limitation makes little sense, however,
as applied to a conflict between a State and a transitional terrorist
group, which may operate from different territorial bases, some of which
might be located in States that are parties to the Conventions and some
of which might not be. In such a case, the Conventions would apply to a
single armed conflict in some scenes of action but not in others – which
seems inexplicable.
This interpretation is supported by commentators. One well-known
commentary states that "a non-international armed conflict is distinct
from an international armed conflict because of the legal status of the
entities opposing each other, the parties to the conflict are not
sovereign States, but the government of a single State in conflict with
one or more armed factions within its territory. [11] A legal scholar
writing in the same year in which the Conventions were prepared stated
that "a conflict not of an international character occurring in the
territory of one of the High Contracting Parties… must normally mean a
civil war." [12]
Analysis of the background to the
adoption of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 confirms our understanding of
common Article 3. It appears that the drafters of the Conventions had in
mind only the two forms of armed conflict that were regarded as matters
of general international concern at the time: armed conflict between
Nation States (subject to Article 2), and large-scale civil war within a
Nation State (subject to Article 3). To understand the context in which
the Geneva Conventions were drafted, it will be helpful to identify
three distinct phases in the development of the laws of war.
First, the traditional law of war
was based on a stark dichotomy between "belligerency" and "insurgency."
The category of "belligerency" applied to armed conflicts between
sovereign States (unless there was recognition of belligerency in a
civil war), while the category of "insurgency" applied to armed violence
breaking out within the territory of a sovereign State. [13]
Correspondingly, international law treated two classes of conflict in
different ways. Inter-state wars were regulated by a body of
international legal rules governing both the conduct of hostilities and
the protection of noncombatants. By contrast, there were very few
international rules governing civil unrest, for States preferred to
regard internal strife as rebellion, mutiny and treason coming within
the purview of national criminal law, which precluded any possible
intrusion by other States. [14] This was a "clearly
sovereignty-oriented" phase of international law. [15]
The second phase began as early as the Spanish Civil war (1936-39) and
extended through the time of the drafting of the Geneva Conventions
until relatively recently. During this period, State practice began to
apply certain general principles of humanitarian law beyond the
traditional field of State-to-State conflict to "those internal
conflicts that constituted large-scale civil wars." [16] In addition to
the Spanish Civil War, events in 1947 during the Civil War between the
Communists and the National regime in China illustrated this new
tendency. [17] Common Article 3, which was prepared during this second
phase, was apparently addressed to armed conflicts akin to the Chinese
and Spanish civil wars. As one commentator has described it, Article 3
was designed to restrain governments "in the handling of armed violence
directed against them for the express purpose of secession or at
securing a change in the government of a State," but even after the
adoption of the Conventions it remained "uncertain whether [Article 3]
applied to full-scale civil war." [18]
The third phase represents a more complete break than the second with
the traditional "State-sovereignty-oriented approach" of international
law. This approach gives central place to individual human rights. As a
consequence, it blurs the distinction between international and internal
armed conflicts, and even that between civil wars and other forms of
internal armed conflict. This approach is well illustrated by the ICTY’s
decision in Tadic, which appears to take the view that common Article 3
applies to a non-international armed conflicts of any description, and
is not limited to civil wars between a State and an insurgent group. In
this conception, common Article 3 is not just a complement to common
Article 2; rather, it is a catch-all that establishes standards for any
and all armed conflicts not included in common Article 2. [19]
Nonetheless, despite this recent trend, we think that such an
interpretation of common Article 3 fails to take into account, not only
the language of the provision, but also its historical context. First,
as we have described above, such a reading is inconsistent with the text
of Article 3 itself, which applies only to "armed conflict not of an
international character occurring in the territory of one of the High
Contracting Parties." In conjunction with common Article 2, the text of
Article 3 simply does not reach international conflicts where one of the
parties is not a Nation State. If we were to read the Geneva Conventions
as applying to all forms of armed conflict, we would expect the High
Contracting Parties to have used broader language, which the easily
could have done. To interpret common Article 3 by expanding its scope
well beyond the meaning borne by the text is effectively to amend the
Geneva Conventions without approval of the State Parties to the
agreements.
Second, as we have discussed, Article 3 was prepared during a period in
which the traditional, State-centered view of international law was
still dominant and was only just beginning to give way to a
human-rights-based approach. Giving due weight to the State practice and
doctrinal understanding of the time, it seems to us overwhelmingly
likely that an armed conflict between a Nation State and a transitional
terrorist organization, or between a Nation State and a failed State
harboring and supporting a transitional terrorist organization, could
not have been within the contemplation of the drafters of common Article
3. These would have been simply unforeseen and, therefore, not provided
for. Indeed, it seems to have been uncertain even a decade after the
Conventions were signed whether common Article 3 applied to armed
conflicts that were neither international in character nor civil wars
but anti-colonialist wars of independence such as those in Algeria and
Kenya. See Gerald Irving Draper, The Red Cross Conventions 15 (1957).
Further, it is telling that in order to address this unforeseen
circumstance, the State Parties to the Geneva Conventions did not
attempt to distort the terms of common Article 3 to apply it to cases
that did not fit within its terms. Instead, they drafted two new
protocols (neither of which the United States has ratified) to adapt the
Conventions to the conditions of contemporary hostilities. [20]
Accordingly, common Article 3 is best understood not to apply to such
armed conflicts.
Third, it appears that in enacting the WCA, Congress did not understand
the scope of Article 3 to extend beyond civil wars to all other types of
internal armed conflict. As discussed in our review of the legislative
history, when extending the WCA to cover violations of common Article 3,
the House apparently understood that it was codifying treaty provisions
that "forbid atrocities occurring in both civil ward and wars between
nations." [21] If congress had embraced a much broader view of common
Article 3, and hence of 18 U.S.C. § 2441, we would expect both the
statutory text and the legislative history to have included some type of
clear statement of congressional intent. The WCA regulates the manner in
which the U.S. Armed Forces may conduct military operations against the
enemy; as such, it potentially comes into conflict with the President’s
Commander in Chief power under Article II of the Constitution. As we
have advised others earlier in this conflict, the Commander in Chief
power gives the President the plenary authority in determining how best
to deploy troops in the field. [22] Any congressional effort to restrict
presidential authority by subjecting the conduct of the U.S. Armed
Forces to a broad construction of the Geneva Convention, one that is not
clearly borne by its text, would represent a possible infringement on
presidential discretion to direct the military. We believe that Congress
must state explicitly its intention to take the constitutionally dubious
step of restricting the President’s plenary power over military
operations (including the treatment of prisoners), and that, unless
Congress clearly demonstrates such an intent, the WCA must be read to
avoid such constitutional problems. [23] As congress has not signaled
such a clear intention in this case, we conclude that common Article 3,
should not be read to include all forms of non-international armed
conflict.
II. Application of WCA and Associated Treaties to al Qaeda
It is clear from the foregoing that members of the al Qaeda terrorist
organization do not receive the protections of the laws of war.
Therefore, neither their detention nor their trial by the U.S. Armed
Forces is subject to the Geneva Conventions (or the WCA). Three reasons,
examined in detail below, support this conclusion. First, al Qaeda’s
status as a non-State actor renders it ineligible to claim the
protections of the Geneva Conventions. Second, the nature of the
conflict precludes application of common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions. Third, al Qaeda members fail to satisfy the eligibility
requirements for treatment as POWs under Geneva Convention III.
Al Qaeda’s status as a non-State actor renders it ineligible to claim
the protections of the treaties specified by the WCA. Al Qaeda is not a
State. It is a non-governmental terrorist organization composed of
members from many nations, with ongoing operations in dozens of nations.
Its members seem united in following a radical brand of Islam that seeks
to attack Americans throughout the world. Non-governmental organizations
cannot be parties to any of the international agreements here governing
the laws of war. Al Qaeda is not eligible to sign the Geneva Conventions
– and even if it were eligible, it has not done so. Common Article 2,
which triggers the Geneva Convention provisions regulating detention
conditions and procedures for trial of POWs, is limited only to cases of
declared war or armed conflict "between two or more of the High
Contracting Parties." Al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party. As a
result, the U.S. military’s treatment of al Qaeda members is not
governed by the bulk of the Geneva Conventions, specifically those
provisions concerning POWs. Conduct towards captured members of al
Qaeda, therefore, also cannot constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2441
(c)(1) or § 2441 (c)(2). [24]
Second, the nature of the conflict precludes application of common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Al Qaeda is not covered by common
Article 3, because the current conflict is not covered by the Geneva
Conventions. As discussed in Part I, the text of Article 3, when read in
harmony with Common Article 2, shows that the Geneva Conventions were
intended to cover either: a) traditional wars between Nation States
(Article 2), or non-international civil wars (Article 3). Our conflict
with al Qaeda does not fit into either category. The current conflict is
not an international war between Nation States, but rather a conflict
between a Nation State and a non-governmental organization. At the same
time, the current conflict is not a civil war under Article 3, because
it is a conflict of "an international character," rather than an
international armed conflict between parties contending for control over
a government or territory. Therefore, the military’s treatment of al
Qaeda members captured in that conflict is not limited either by common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions or 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (c)(3), the
provision of the WCA incorporating that article. [25]
Third, al Qaeda members fail to satisfy the eligibility requirements for
treatment as POWs under Geneva Convention III. It might be argues that,
even though it is not a State party to the Geneva Convention, al Qaeda
could be covered by some protections in Geneva Convention III on the
treatment of POWs. Article 4(A)(2) of the Geneva Convention III defines
prisoners of war as including not only captured members of the armed
forces of a High Contracting Party, but also irregular forces such as "[m]embers
of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those
of organized resistance movements." Geneva Convention III, art. 4.
Article 4(A)(3) also includes as POWs "[m]embers of regular armed forces
who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by
the Detaining Power." Id. art. 4(A)(3). It might be claimed that the
broad terms of these provisions could be stretched to cover al Qaeda.
This view would be mistaken. Article 4 does not expand the application
of the Convention beyond the circumstances expressly addressed in common
Articles 2 and 3. Unless there is a conflict subject to Article 2 or 3
(the Convention’s jurisdictional provisions), Article 4 simply does not
apply. As we have argued with respect to Article 3, and shall further
argue with respect to Article 2, the conflict in Afghanistan does not
fall within either Articles 2 or 3. As a result, Article 4 has no
application. In other words, Article 4 cannot be read as an alternative
and far more expansive, statement of the application of the Convention.
It merely specifies, where there is a conflict covered by the
Convention, who must accord POW status.
Even if Article 4, however, were considered somehow to be jurisdictional
as well as substantive, captured members of al Qaeda still would not
receive the protections accorded to POWs. Article 4(A)(2), for example,
further requires that the militia or volunteers fulfill the conditions
first established by the Hague Convention IV of 1907 for those who would
receive that protections of the laws of war. Hague Convention IV
declares that the "laws, rights and duties of war" only apply to armies,
militia, and volunteer corps when they fulfill four conditions: command
by responsible individuals, wearing insignia, carrying arms openly, and
obeying the laws of war. Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and
Customs of War on Land, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277. Al Qaeda members
have clearly demonstrated that they will not follow these basic
requirements of lawful warfare. They have attacked purely civilian
targets of no military value; they refused to wear uniform or insignia
or carry arms openly, but instead hijacked civilian airliners, took
hostages, and killed them; they have deliberately targeted and killed
thousands of civilians; and they themselves do not obey the laws of war
concerning the protection of the lives of civilians or the means
legitimate to combat. Thus, Article 4(A)(3) is inapt because al Qaeda do
not qualify as "regular armed forces," and its members do not qualify
for protection as lawful combatants under the laws of war.
III. Application of the Geneva Conventions to the Taliban Militia
Whether the Geneva Conventions apply to the detention and trial of
members of the Taliban militia presents a more difficult legal question.
Afghanistan has been a party to all four the Geneva Conventions since
September 1956. Some might argue that this requires application of the
Geneva Conventions to the present conflict with respect to the Taliban
militia, which would then trigger the WCA. This argument depends,
however, on the assumptions that during the period in which the Taliban
militia was ascendant in Afghanistan, the Taliban was the de facto
government of that nation, that Afghanistan continued to have the
essential attributes of statehood, and that Afghanistan continued in
good standing as a party to the treaties that its previous governments
had signed.
We think that all of these assumptions are disputable, and indeed false.
The weight of informed opinion strongly supports the conclusion that,
for the period in question, Afghanistan was a "failed State" whose
territory had been largely overrun and held by violence by a militia of
faction rather than by a government. Accordingly, Afghanistan was
without the attributes of statehood necessary to continue as a party to
the Geneva Conventions, and the Taliban militia like al Qaeda, is
therefore not entitled to the protections if the Geneva Conventions.
Furthermore, there appears to be substantial evidence that the Taliban
leadership cannot be distinguished from al Qaeda, and accordingly that
the Taliban militia cannot stand on a higher footing under the Geneva
Conventions.
A. Constitutional Authority
It is clear that, under the Constitution, the Executive has the plenary
authority to determine that Afghanistan ceased at relevant times to be
an operating State and therefore that members of the Taliban militia
were and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. [26] As an initial
matter, Article II makes clear that the President is vested with all of
the federal executive power, that he "shall be Commander in Chief," that
he shall appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and
receive, ambassadors, and that he "shall have Power, by and which the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties." U.S. Const, art.
II, §1 limits Congress to "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted" in
the rest of Article I.
From the very beginnings of the Republic, this constitutional
arrangement has been understood to grant the President plenary control
over the conduct of foreign relations. As Secretary of State Thomas
Jefferson observed during the first Washington Administration: "The
constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches
[and] … has declared that ‘the executive powers shall be vested in the
President,’ submitting only special articles of it to a negative by the
senate." [27] Due to this structure, Jefferson continued, "[t]he
transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It
belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions
of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be
construed strictly." [28] In defending President Washington’s authority
to issue the Neutrality Proclamation, Alexander Hamilton came to the
same interpretation of the President’s foreign affairs powers. According
to Hamilton, Article II "ought… to be considered as intended… to specify
and regulate the principal articles implied in the definition of
Executive Power; leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of that
power." [29] As future Chief Justice John Marshall famously declared a
few years later, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its
external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations…
The [executive] department… is entrusted with the whole foreign
intercourse of the nation…" [30] Given the agreement of Jefferson,
Hamilton, and Marshall, it has not been difficult for the executive
branch consistently to assert the President’s plenary authority in
foreign affairs ever since.
On a few occasions where it has addressed the question, the Supreme
Court has lent its approval to the executive branch’s broad powers in
the field of foreign affairs. Responsibility for the conduct of foreign
affairs and for protecting the national security are, as the Supreme
Court has observed, "central’ Presidential domains." [31] The
President’s constitutional primacy flows from both his unique position
in the constitutional structure, and from the specific grants of
authority in Article II that make the President both the Chief Executive
of the nation and the Commander in Chief. [32] Due to the President’s
constitutionally superior position, the Supreme Court has consistently
"recognized ‘the generally accepted view that foreign policy [is] the
province and responsibility of the Executive.’" [33] This foreign
affairs power is independent of Congress: it is "the very delicate,
plenary, and exclusive power of the President as sole organ of the
federal government in the field of international relations – a power
which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.
[34]
Part of the President’s plenary power over the conduct of the Nation’s
foreign relations is the interpretation of treaties and of international
law. Interpretation of international law includes the determination
whether a territory has the necessary political structure to qualify as
a Nation State for purposes of treaty implementation. In Clark v. Allen,
331 U.S. 503 (1947), for example, the Supreme Court considered whether a
1923 treaty with Germany continued to exist after the defeat, occupation
and partition of Germany by the victorious World War II Allies. The
Court rejected the argument that the treaty "must be held to have failed
to survive the [Second World War], since Germany, as a result of its
defeat and the occupation by the Allies, has ceased to exist as an
independent national or international community." [35] Instead, the
Court held that "the question whether a state is in a position to
perform its treaty obligations is essentially a political question.
Terliden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 288 [(1902)]. We find no evidence that
the political departments have considered the collapse and surrender of
Germany as putting an end to such provisions of the treaty as survived
the outbreak of the war or the obligations of either party in respect to
them." [36]
Thus, Clark demonstrates the Supreme Court’s sanction for the
Executive’s constitutional authority to decide the "political question"
whether Germany had ceased to exist as a Nation State and, if so,
whether the 1923 treaty with Germany had become inoperative. Equally
here, the executive branch should conclude that Afghanistan was not "in
a position to perform its treaty obligations" because it lacked, at
least throughout the Taliban’s ascendancy, all the elements of
statehood. If the Executive made such a determination, the Geneva
Conventions would be inoperative as to Afghanistan until it was in a
position to perform its Convention duties. The federal courts would not
review such political questions, but instead would defer to the decision
of the Executive.
B. Status as a Failed State
There are ample grounds that
demonstrate that Afghanistan was a failed State. Indeed, the findings of
the State and Defense Departments, of foreign leaders, and of expert
opinion overwhelmingly support such a conclusion.
International law recognizes many situations in which there may be a
territory that has no "State." A variety of situations can answer to
this description. [37] Of chief relevance here is the category of the
"failed State." The case of Somalia in 1992, at the time of the United
States intervention, provides a clear example of this category.
A "failed State" is generally characterized by the collapse or
near-collapse of State authority. Such collapse is characterized by the
inability of central authorities to maintain government institutions,
ensure law and order or engage in normal dealings with other
governments, and by the prevalence of violence that destabilizes civil
society and the economy. The Executive can readily find that at the
outset of this conflict, when the country was largely in the hands of
the Taliban militia, there was no functioning central government in
Afghanistan that was capable of providing the most basic services to the
Afghan population, of suppressing endemic internal violence, or of
maintaining normal relations with other governments. Afghanistan,
consequently, was without the status of a State for purposes of treaty
law, and the Taliban militia could not have qualified ad the de facto
government of Afghanistan. Rather, the Taliban militia would have had
the status only of a violent faction or movement contending with other
factions for control of that country.
We want to make clear that this Office does not have access to all of
the facts related to the activities of the Taliban militia and al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the available facts in the public record
support our conclusion that Afghanistan was a failed state – including
facts that pre-existed the military reversals suffered by the Taliban
militia and the formation of the new transitional government pursuant to
the Bonn agreement. Indeed, the departments best positioned to make such
a determination appear to have reached that conclusion some time ago.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, declared at a
November 2, 2001 press conference that the "Taliban is not a government.
The government of Afghanistan does not exist today. The Taliban never
was a government as such. It was a force in the country that is not
substantially weakened – in many cases cloistered away from the people."
[38]
The State Department has taken the same view. Near the start of the
conflict, the Bureau of South Asian Affairs found that "[t]here is no
functioning central government [in Afghanistan]. The country is divided
among fighting factions… the Taliban [is] a radical Islamic movement
[that] occupies about 90% of the country. [39]
Prominent authorities and experts on Afghan affairs agree that
Afghanistan was a failed State. As one leading scholar of international
law has written, "[t]he most dramatic examples of the decline in state
authority can be found in countries where government and civil order
have virtually disappeared. Recent examples are Liberia, Somalia, and
Afghanistan. The term ‘failed states’ has come to be used for these
cases and other like them." [40] Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations
mediator in Afghanistan and a former Algerian Foreign Minister,
described Afghanistan under the Taliban ad a "failed state which looks
like an infected wound." [41] Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great
Britain, on a visit to that country this month, declared that
"Afghanistan has been a failed state for too long and the whole world
has paid the price." [42]
Traditional legal analysis also makes clear that Afghanistan was a
failed State during the period of the Taliban militia’s existence. A
State has failed when centralized governmental authority has almost
completely collapsed, no central authorities are capable of maintaining
government institutions or ensuring law and order, and violence has
destabilized civil society and the economy. [43] A failed state will not
satisfy some or all of the three traditional tests for "statehood" under
international law:
i) Does the entity have a defined
territory and population?
ii) Are the territory/population
under the control of its own government?
iii) Does the entity engage in or
have the capacity to engage in formal relations with other states? [44]
In another version of the
traditional formulation, the State Department has identified four tests
for "statehood":
i) Does the entity have effective
control over a clearly defined territory and population?
ii) Is there an organized
governmental administration of the territory?
iii) Does the entity have the
capacity to act effectively to conduct foreign relations and to fulfill
international obligations?
iv) Has the international
community recognized the entity? [45]
Based on these factors, we
conclude that Afghanistan under the Taliban militia was in a condition
of the "statelessness," and therefore was not a High Contracting Party
to the Geneva Conventions for at least that period of time. The
condition of having and organized governmental administration was
plainly not met. Indeed, there are good reasons to doubt whether any of
the conditions was met.
First, even before the outset of the conflict with the United States,
the Taliban militia did not have effective control over a clearly
defined territory and population. Even before the United States air
strikes began, at least ten percent of the country, and the population
within those areas, was governed by the Northern Alliance. A large part
of the Afghan population in recent years has consisted of refugees: as
of June 2001, there were an estimated 2,000,000 Afghan refugees in
Pakistan, and as of December 2000, an estimated 1,500,000 were in Iran.
[46] These figures demonstrate that a significant segment of the Afghan
population was never under the control of the Taliban militia. It is
unclear how strong was the hold of the Taliban militia before the
conflict, in light of the rapid military successes of the Northern
Alliance in just a few weeks.
Indeed, the facts appear to show that Afghanistan appears to have been
divided between different tribal and warring factions, rather than by
any central state as such. As we have noted, the State Department has
found that Afghanistan was not under the control of a central
government, but was instead divided among different warlords and ethnic
groups. The Taliban militia in essence represented only an ethnically
Pashtun movement, a "tribal militia," [47] that did not command the
allegiance of other major ethnic groups in Afghanistan and that was
apparently unable to suppress endemic violence in the country. As a
prominent writer on the Taliban militia wrote well before the current
conflict began, "[e]ven if [the Taliban] were to conquer the north, it
would not bring stability, only continuing guerilla war by the non-Pashtuns,
but this time from bases in Central Asia and Iran which would further
destabilize the region." [48]
Second, again even before the United States air strikes and the
successes of the Northern Alliance, an organized governmental
administration did not exist in Afghanistan. One expert on the Taliban
concluded that the country had
ceased to exist as a viable state
and when a state fails civil society is destroyed. The entire Afghan
population has been displaced, not once but many times over. The
physical destruction of Kabul has turned it into the Dresden of the late
twentieth century… There is no semblance of an infrastructure that can
sustain society – even at the lowest common denominator of poverty… The
economy is a black hole that is sucking in its neighbors with illicit
trade and the smuggling of drugs and weapons, undermining them in the
process… Complex relationships of power and authority built up over
centuries have broken down completely. No single group or leader has the
legitimacy to reunite the country. Rather than a national identity or
kinship-trial-based identities, territorial regional identities have
become paramount… [T]he Taliban refuse to define the Afghan state they
want to constitute and rule over, largely because they have no idea what
they want. The lack of a central authority, state organizations, a
methodology for command and control mechanisms which can reflect some
level of popular participation… make it impossible for many Afghans to
accept the Taliban or for the outside world to recognize a Taliban
government… No warlord faction has ever felt itself responsible for the
civilian population, but the Taliban are incapable of carrying out even
the minimum of developmental work because they believe that Islam will
take care of everyone. [49]
Another expert reached similar
conclusions:
Afghanistan today has become a
violent society, bereft of political institutions that function
correctly and an economy that functions at all. When this is coupled
with the destruction of population and the physical infrastructure … it
becomes clear that Afghanistan is a country on the edge of collapse, or
at least profound transformation… With the Taliban, there are few
meaningful governmental structures and little that actually functions.
[50]
The State Department also came to
such conclusions. In testimony early in October 2001 before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Near East and South Asian
Affairs, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina
Rocca explained that:
[t]wenty-two years of conflict
have steadily devastated [Afghanistan]. Destroyed its physical and
political infrastructure, shattered its institutions, and wrecked its
socio-economic fabric… The Taliban have shown no desire to provide even
the most rudimentary health, education, and other social services
expected of any government. Instead, they have chosen to devote their
resources to waging war on the Afghan people, and exporting instability
to their neighbors. [51]
Rather than performing normal
government functions, the Taliban militia exhibited the characteristics
of a criminal gang. The United Nations Security Council found that the
Taliban militia extracted massive profits from illegal drug trafficking
in Afghanistan and subsidized terrorism from those revenues. [52]
Third, the Taliban militia was unable to conduct normal foreign
relations or to fulfill its international legal obligations. Indeed, the
public record shows that the Taliban militia had become so subject to
the domination and control of al Qaeda that it could not pursue
independent policies with respect to the outside world. [53] Publicly
known facts demonstrate that the Taliban was unwilling and perhaps
unable to obey its international obligations and to conduct normal
diplomatic relations. Thus, the Taliban has consistently refused to
comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1333 (2000) and
1267 (1999), which called on it to surrender Osama bin Laden to justice
and to take other actions to abate terrorism based in Afghanistan. [54]
Those resolutions also called on all States to deny permission for
aircraft to take off or to land if they were owned or operated by or for
the Taliban, and to freeze funds and other resourced owned or controlled
by the Taliban. The Taliban also reportedly refused or was unable to
extradite bin Laden at the request of Saudi Arabia in September, 1998,
despite close relations between the Saudi government and itself. As a
result, the Saudi government expelled the Afghan charge d’affaires. [55]
The Taliban’s continuing role in sheltering and supporting those
believed to be responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001 placed it in clear breach of international law, which required it
to prevent the use of its territory as a launching pad for attacks
against another Nation. [56]
Fourth, the Taliban militia was not recognized as the legitimate
government of Afghanistan by the United States or by any member of the
international community except Pakistan. Neither the United States nor
the United Nations ever recognized that the Taliban militia were a
government. The only two other States that had maintained diplomatic
relations with it before the current conflict began (Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates) soon served them. [57] Even Pakistan had
withdrawn its recognition before the end of hostilities between the
United States and the Taliban forces. This universal refusal to
recognize the Taliban militia as a government demonstrates that other
nations and the United Nations concur in our judgment that the Taliban
militia was bi government and that Afghanistan had ceased to operate as
a Nation State.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence supports the
conclusion that Afghanistan, when largely controlled by the Taliban,
failed some, and perhaps all, of the ordinary tests of statehood. Nor do
we think that the military successes of the United States and the
Northern Alliance change that outcome. Afghanistan was stateless for the
relevant period of the conflict, even if after the Bonn Agreement it
becomes a State recognized by the United Nations, the United States, and
most other nations. [58] If Afghanistan was in a condition of
statelessness during the time of the conflict, the Taliban militia could
not have been considered a government hat was also a High Contracting
Party to the Geneva Conventions.
The conclusion that members of the Taliban militia are not entitled to
the protections accorded to POWs under the Geneva Conventions received
further support from other arguments. As we have already suggested,
there is substantial evidence that the Taliban an al Qaeda were so
closely intertwined that the Taliban cannot be regarded as an
independent actor, and therefore cannot stand on a higher footing under
the Geneva Conventions than al Qaeda. Mullah Mohammed Omar, the
spiritual leader of the Taliban, appears to have been particularly
susceptible to the more sophisticated leadership of al Qaeda, who
"introduced him to the world of Islamic radicalism, global jihad and
hatred of the United States," who exercised great religions and
ideological influence over him, and who furnished him with personal
favors such as a bomb-proof house in Kandahar. [59] In Particular, Omar,
who was born into poverty and was virtually uneducated, seems to have
worked closely with Osama bin Laden, who shared with Omar a vision of an
international Islamic revolution. [60]
Al Qaeda also provided substantial material assistance to the Taliban
militia. It made large sums available to Taliban leaders, and supplied
them with "a steady stream of guerrilla fighters to assist the Taliban
in their continuing battles with the Northern Alliance." [61] Because
the Taliban was not equipped to maintain control over Afghanistan in the
face of armed opposition from other factions, the Taliban became
increasingly dependent on the money, weapons, recruits, and well-trained
soldiers provided to it by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda in turn depended on the
Taliban to provide it with bases for training camps and a refuge from
the United States. Over the course of his dealings with it, bin Laden
"pumped tens of millions of dollars into the Taliban, provided it with
his most elite Arab fighting forces, and integrated his Qaeda network
into key portfolios within the Taliban government… [T]he two [movements]
had long since melded together as one, through money, combat, and a
shared radical interpretation of Islam." [62] Further, both because al
Qaeda was capable of mustering more formidable military forces than the
Taliban at any given point, and because failure to protect bin Laden
would have cost the Taliban the support of radical Islamists, it may
well have been impossible for the Taliban to surrender bin Laden as
directed by the United Nations, even if it had been willing to do. [63]
In any event, by continuing to harbor bin Laden and al Qaeda and to
assist them in material ways, the Taliban became complicit in its
terrorist acts. Taking all these facts into account, together with other
non-public information that may be available to the Executive, we think
it fair to characterize the Taliban militia as functionally intertwined
with al Qaeda, and therefore on the same footing as al Qaeda under the
Geneva Conventions.
C. Implications Under the Geneva Conventions
Whether bases on the view that Afghanistan was a failed State or on the
view that Taliban was functionally indistinguishable from al Qaeda, the
view that Afghanistan had ceased to be a party to the Geneva Conventions
has two immediate ramifications. First, common Article 2 – and thus most
of the substance of the Geneva Conventions - would not apply to the
members of the Taliban militia, because that provision only applies to
international wars between two State Parties to the Conventions. Second,
even common Article 3’s basic standards would not apply. This would be
so, not only because the current conflict is not a non-international
conflict subject to Article 3, but also because common Article 3
concerns only a non-international conflict that occurs "in the territory
of one of the High Contracting Parties" (emphasis added). If Afghanistan
was not a High Contracting Party during the time of the conflict, then a
non-international conflict within its territory does not fall within the
terms of Article 3.
We have considered the argument that, even if our conclusions held
during the period when Afghanistan was largely under the Taliban’s
control (and thus in a condition of statelessness), they have ceased to
hold in light of the Bonn Agreement. Afghanistan now has an
internationally recognized government, and on that basis it might be
argued that it has resumed its status as a High Contracting Party under
the Geneva Conventions. It could then be argued that the protections of
those Conventions – including the protections for prisoners of war – now
clothe the Taliban militia, even if they did not during the Taliban’s
ascendancy.
This reasoning would be mistaken. First, even if Afghanistan now has a
recognized government, it does not necessarily follow that its status as
a party to the Conventions has been completely restored. Afghanistan
still may not be in a position to fulfill its Convention
responsibilities, and thus should not yet be accorded party status under
the Conventions. [64] Thus, even though Germany had some form of
government when the Supreme Court decided Clark v. Allen in 1947, the
Court declared that whether Germany was "in a position to perform its
treaty obligations" [65] was a political question, meaning that it
remained open for the President to decide whether the treaty with
Germany was in effect. We expect that the courts would properly
recognize that it rests solely within the President’s constitutional
authority to determine whether Afghanistan has yet returned to the
status of a state party to the Conventions.
Second, the jurisdictional provisions of the Conventions (common
Articles 2 and 3) still remain inapplicable to the conflict between the
United States and the Taliban militia. This is the case even assuming
that, with the substantial cessation of that conflict, the status of
Afghanistan as a party to the Conventions has been restored. Article 2
states that the Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or
other armed conflict between the High Contracting Parties. But there was
no war or armed conflict between the United States and Afghanistan
during the period before the Bonn Agreement if Afghanistan was stateless
at that time. Nor, of course, is there a state of war or armed conflict
between the United States and Afghanistan now. Likewise, Article 3
states that certain basic standards shall apply in the case of "an armed
conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of
one of the High Contracting Parties." The most natural reading of this
provision is that the conflict must have occurred in the territory of a
State that was a High Contracting Party at the time of the conflict. So
understood, Article 3 would not apply to the conflict with the Taliban.
[66]
Because the jurisdictional provisions remain inapplicable even if
Afghanistan’s status as a Convention party has been restored, Taliban
prisoners remain outside the protections of the Conventions. As a
result, they do not, for example, fall under the definition of
"prisoners of war" in Geneva Conventions III, art. 4.
Furthermore, even apart from the question whether Afghanistan was or
remains a failed state, there are specific reasons why Geneva Convention
III, relating to POWs, would not apply to captured Taliban militia.
First, Article 4 of Geneva Convention III enumerates particular
categories of persons who are entitled to POW status. In our judgment,
Taliban captives do not fall within any of these categories, including
that of Article 4(A)(3), "Members of regular armed forces who profess
allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the
Detaining Power." As we have discussed, the United Nations and almost
all members of the world community, including the United States, refused
to recognize the Taliban militia as the government of Afghanistan. Of
the handful of States that did recognize it, all but Pakistan withdrew
their recognition soon after the start of the conflict, and Pakistan
later followed suit. Thus, the Taliban cannot even be considered "a
government or authority" at all for purposes of this provision, since no
other state in the world viewed the Taliban militia as qualifying as
one. According the Taliban militia the status of the armed forces of a
government, even when no other country in the world considered it as
such, would be tantamount to allowing any political or violent movement
to simply declare itself to be a government. Enjoyment of the rights and
duties of a sovereign state should not be so easily accorded as by
self-identification.
Second, even if a political group or movement could be considered to be
"a government or authority" within the meaning of Article 4(A)(3), that
group or movement would have to demonstrate that it considered itself
bound by Geneva Convention III in order to be in a position to claim the
Convention’s benefits. Your Department, however, informs us that the
Taliban militia failed to confirm its acceptance of the Geneva
Conventions, did not fulfill its obligations, and it did not act
consistently with the most fundamental obligations of the laws of war,
such as the prohibition on using civilians to shield military forces.
Third, even if the Taliban considered themselves to be a party to Geneva
Conventions III, or even if they had stated publicly that they would
comply with that Convention’s provisions and in fact did so, Taliban
captives would still have to meet other requirements of Article 4, to be
entitled to POW status. For example, Article 4(A)(3) only covers "[m]embers
of regular armed forces" (emphasis added). The Taliban militia, it
seems, cannot be so characterized. To be sure, Article 4(A)(2) accords
POW status to persons who are not in regular armed forces – i.e., "[m]embers
of other militias and members of other voluntary corps, including those
of organized resistance movements." Nevertheless, Article 4 makes clear
that these combatants are only afforded POW status if they meet certain
conditions, including "that of being commanded by a person responsible
for his subordinates," "that of having a fixed distinctive sign
recognizable at a distance," and "that of conducting their operations in
accordance with the laws and customs of war." Your Department advises us
that the Taliban militia’s command structure probably did not meet the
first of these requirements; that the evidence strongly indicates that
the requirement of a distinctive uniform was not met; and that the
requirement of conducting operations in accordance with the law and
customs of armed conflict was not met. Accordingly, we think that
Taliban captives do not qualify for POW status either as members of
regular armed forces or as combatants of other kinds covered by the
Convention. [67]
D. Historical Application of the Geneva Conventions
We conclude by addressing a point
of considerable significance. To say that the specific provision of the
Geneva and Hague Conventions do not apply in the current conflict with
the Taliban militia as a legal requirement is by no means to say that
the principles of the law of armed conflict cannot be applied as a
matter of U.S. Government policy. The President as Commander in Chief
can determine as a matter of his judgment for the efficient prosecution
of the military campaign that the policy of the United States will be to
enforce customary standards of the law of war against the Taliban and to
punish any transgressions against those standards. Thus, for example,
even though Geneva Convention III may not apply, the United States may
deem it a violation of the laws and usages of war for Taliban troops to
torture any American prisoners whom they may happen to seize. The U.S.
military thus could prosecute Taliban militiamen for war crimes for
engaging in such conduct. [68] A decision to apply the principles of the
Geneva Conventions or of other laws of war as a matter of policy, not
law, would be fully consistent with the past practice of the United
States.
United States practice in post-1949 conflicts reveals several instances
in which our military forces have applied the Geneva Conventions as a
matter of policy, without acknowledging any legal obligation to do so.
These cases include the Wars in Korea and Vietnam and the interventions
in Panama and Somalia.
Korea. The Korean War broke out on June 25, 1950, before any of
the major State parties to the conflict (including the United States)
had ratifies the Geneva Conventions. Nonetheless, General Douglass
MacArthur, the United Nations Commander in Korea, said that his forces
would comply with the principles of the Geneva Conventions, including
those relating to POWs. MacArthur stated: "My present instructions are
to abide by the humanitarian principles of the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
particularly common Article three. In addition, I have directed the
forces under my command to abide by the detailed provisions of the
prisoner-of-war convention, since I have the means at my disposal to
assure compliance with this convention by all concerned and have fully
accredited the ICRC delegates accordingly." [69]
Viet Nam. The United States through the State Department took the
position that the Geneva Convention III "indisputable applies to the
armed conflict in Viet Nam," and therefore that "American military
personnel captured in the course of that armed conflict are entitled to
be treated as prisoners of war." [70] We understand from the Defense
Department that our military forces, as a matter of policy, decided at
some point in the conflict to accord POW treatment (but not necessarily
POW status) to Viet Cong members, despite the fact that they often did
not meet the criteria for that status (set forth in Geneva Convention
III, art. 4), e.g., by not wearing uniforms or any other fixed
distinctive signs visible at a distance.
Panama. The United States’ intervention in Panama on December 20,
1989 came at the request and invitation of Panama’s legitimately elected
President, Guillermo Endara. [71] The United States had never recognized
General Manuel Noriega, the commander of the Panamanian Defense Force,
as Panama’s legitimate ruler. Thus, in the view of the executive branch,
the conflict was between the Government of Panama assisted by the United
States on the one side and insurgent forces loyal to General Noriega on
the other. It was not an international armed conflict between the United
States and Panama, another State. Accordingly, it was not, in the
executive’s judgment an international armed conflict governed by common
Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions. [72] Nonetheless, we understand
that, as a matter of policy, all persons captured or detained by the
United States in the intervention – including civilians and members of
paramilitary forces as well as members of the Panamanian Defense Force –
were treated consistently with the Geneva Convention III, until their
precise status under that Convention was determined. A 1990 letter to
the Attorney General from the Legal Advisor to the State Department said
that "[I]t should be emphasized that the decision to extend basic
prisoner of war protections to such persons was based on strong policy
considerations, and was not necessarily based on any conclusion that the
United States was obligated to do so as a matter of law." [73]
Interventions in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia. There was
considerable factual uncertainty whether the United Nations Operation in
Somalia in late 1992 and early 1993 rose to the level of an "armed
conflict" that could be subject to common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions, particularly after the United Nations Task Force abandoned
its previously neutral role and took military action against a Somali
warlord, General Aideed. Similar questions have arisen in other peace
operations, including those in Haiti and Bosnia. It appears that the
U.S. military has decided, as a matter of policy, to conduct operations
in such circumstances as if the Geneva Conventions applied, regardless
of whether there is any legal requirement to do so. The U.S. Army
Operational Law Handbook, after noting that "[I]n peace operations such
as those in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia, the question frequently arises
whether the [law of war] legally applies" states that it is "the
position of the US, UN, and NATO that their forces will apply the
‘principles and spirit’ of the [law of war] in these operations." [74]
E. Suspension of The Geneva Convention as to Afghanistan
Even if Afghanistan under the Taliban were not deemed to have been a
failed State, the President could still regard the Geneva Conventions as
temporarily suspended during the current military` action. As a
constitutional matter, the President has the power to consider
performance of some or all of the obligations of the United States under
the Conventions suspended. Such a decision could be based on the finding
that Afghanistan lacked the capacity to fulfill its treaty obligations
or (if supported by the facts) on the finding that Afghanistan was in
material breach of its obligations.
As the Nation’s representative in foreign affairs, the President has a
variety of constitutional powers with respect to treaties, including the
powers to suspend them, withhold performance of them, contravene them or
terminate them. The treaty power is fundamentally an executive power
established in Article II of the Constitution, and therefore power over
treaty matters after advice and consent by the Senate are within the
President’s plenary authority. We have recently treated these questions
in detail, and rely upon that advice here. [75]
The courts have often acknowledged the President’s constitutional powers
with respect to treaties. Thus, it has long been accepted that the
President may determine whether a treaty has lapsed because a foreign
State has gained or lost its independence, or because it had undergone
other changed in sovereignty. [76] Nonperformance of a particular treaty
obligation may, in the President’s judgment, justify withholding
performance of one of the United States’ treaty obligations, or
contravening the treaty. [77] Further, the President may regard a treaty
as suspended for several reasons. For example, he may determine that
"the conditions essential to [the treaty’s] continued effectiveness no
longer pertain." [78] The President may also determine that a material
breach of a treaty by a foreign government has rendered a treaty not
merely voidable, but void, as to that government. [79]
The President could justifiably exercise his constitutional authority
over treaties by regarding the Geneva Conventions as suspended in
relation to Afghanistan. The basis for such a determination would be a
finding that under that Taliban militia, Afghanistan committed grave
violations of international law and maintained close relationships with
international terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, which have
attacked wholly civilian targets by surprise attack. As a result,
Afghanistan under the Taliban could be held to have violated basic
humanitarian duties under the Geneva Conventions and other norms of
international law. Nonperformance of such basic duties could be taken to
have demonstrated that Afghanistan could not be trusted to perform its
commitments under the Conventions during the current conflict. [80]
After the conflict, the President determine that relations under the
Geneva Conventions with Afghanistan had been restored, once an Afghan
government that was willing and able to execute the country’s treaty
obligations was securely established. Furthermore, if evidence of other
material breaches of the Conventions by Afghanistan existed, that
evidence could also furnish a basis for the President to decide to
suspend performance of the United States’ Convention obligations. A
decision to regard the Geneva Conventions as suspended would not, of
course, constitute a "denunciation" of the Conventions, for which
procedures are prescribed in the Conventions. [81] The President need
not regard the Conventions as suspended in their entirety, but only in
part. [82]
Although the United States has never, to our knowledge, suspended my
provision of the Geneva Conventions, it is significant that on at least
two occasions since 1949 – the Korean War and the Persian Gulf War – its
practice has deviated from the clear requirements of Article 118 of
Geneva Convention III. That Article prescribes the mandatory
repatriation of POWs after the cessation of a covered conflict. [83]
Although on both occasions the POWs themselves sought to avoid
repatriation, Geneva Convention III provides that a POW may "in no
circumstances renounce in part or in entirety" the right to
repatriation. Moreover, the negotiating history of the Convention
reveals that a proposal to make POW repatriation voluntary was
considered and rejected, in large part on the ground that it would work
to the detriment of the POWs. [84] Consequently, withholding of
repatriation, even with the consent of the POWs, represented a deviation
from the Convention’s strict norms.
Korea. The Korean War broke out on June 25, 1950, before any of
the major State parties to the conflict (including the United States)
had ratified the Geneva Conventions. Nonetheless, the principle of
repatriation of POWs had long been rooted in treaty and customary
international law, including Article 20 of the Annex to Hague Convention
IV, which states that "[a]fter the conclusion of peace, the repatriation
of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible." [85]
Large numbers of Chinese and North Korean POWs held by the United
Nations did not wish to be repatriated, however, and special provisions
for them (and for a small number of United Nations POWs in Communist
hands) were made under the Armistice of July 27, 1953. "To supervise the
repatriation, the armistice created a Neutral nations Repatriation
Commission, composed of representatives from Sweden, Switzerland,
Poland, Czechoslovakia, and India. Within sixty days of signing the
Armistice, prisoners who desired repatriation were to be directly
repatriated in groups to the side to which they belonged at the time of
their capture. Those prisoners not so repatriated were to be released to
the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission… for further disposition.
[86] Altogether approximately 23,000 POWs refused repatriation. The
majority (not quite 22,000) eventually went to Taiwan. [87]
The Persian Gulf War. At the cessation of hostilities in the
Persian Gulf War, some 13,418 Iraqi POWs held by Allied forces were
unwilling to be repatriated for fear of suffering punishment from their
government for having surrendered. Notwithstanding the repatriation
mandate of Geneva Convention III, the United States and its Allies
executed an agreement with Iraq providing for only voluntary
repatriation through a program administered by the International
Committee of the Red Cross. [88]
F. Suspension Under International Law
Although the United States may determine either that Afghanistan was a
failed State that could not be considered a party to the Geneva
Conventions, or that the Geneva Conventions should otherwise be regarded
as suspended under the present circumstances, there remains the distinct
question whether such determinations would be valid as a matter of
international law. [89] We emphasize that the resolution of that
question, however, has no bearing on domestic constitutional issues, or
on the application of the WCA. Rather, these issues are worth
consideration as a means of justifying the actions of the United States
in the world of international politics. While a close question, we
believe that the better view is that, in certain circumstances,
countries can suspend the Geneva Conventions consistently with
international law.
International law has long recognized that the material breach of a
treaty can be grounds for the party injured by the breach to terminate
or withdraw from the treaty. [90] Under customary international law, the
general rule is that breach of a multilateral treaty by a State Party
justifies the suspension of that treaty with regard to that State. "A
material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles…
[a] party specifically affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground
for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the
relations between itself and the defaulting State." [91] Assuming that
Afghanistan could have been found to be in material breach for having
violated "a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or
purpose of the [Geneva Conventions]," suspension of the Conventions
would have been justified. [92]
We note, however, that these general rules authorizing suspension do not
apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person
contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to
provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected
by such treaties. [93] Although the United States is not a party to the
Vienna Convention, some lower courts have said that the Convention
embodies the customary international law of treaties and the State
department has at various times taken the same view. [94] The Geneva
Conventions must be regarded as "treaties of a humanitarian character,"
many of whose provisions relate to the protection of the human
person." [95] Arguably, therefore, a determination by the United States
that the Geneva Conventions were inoperative as to Afghanistan or a
decision to regard them as suspended, might put the United States in
breach of customary international law.
In addition, the Geneva Conventions could themselves be read to preclude
suspension. Common Article 1 pledges the High Contracting Parties "to
respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all
circumstances" (emphasis added). Some commentators argue that this
provision should be read to bar any State party from refusing to enforce
their provisions, no matter the conduct of its adversaries. In other
words, the duty of performance is absolute and does not depend upon
reciprocal performance by other State parties. [96] Under this approach
the substantive terms of the Geneva Conventions could never be
suspended, and thus any violation would always be illegal under
international law.
This understanding of the Vienna and Geneva Conventions cannot be
correct. There is no textual provision in the Geneva Conventions that
clearly prohibits temporary suspension. The drafters included a
provision that appears to preclude State parties from agreeing to
absolve each other of violations. [97] They also included careful
procedures for the termination of the agreements by individual State
parties, including a provision that requires delay of a termination of a
treaty, if that termination were to occur during a conflict, until the
end of the conflict. [98] Yet, at the same time, the drafters of the
Conventions did not address suspension at all, even though it has been a
possible option since at least the eighteenth century. [99] Applying the
canon of interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that the
inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of the other, we should
presume that the State parties did not intend to preclude suspension.
Indeed, if the drafters and ratifiers of the Geneva Conventions believed
the treaties could not be suspended, while allowing for withdrawal and
denunciation, they could have said so explicitly and easily in the text.
The text of the Conventions also makes it implausible to claim that all
obligations imposed by the Geneva Convention are absolute and that
non-performance is never excusable. To begin with, the Conventions
themselves distinguish "grave" breaches from others. They further
provide that "[n]o High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve
itself… of any liability incurred by itself… in respect of [grave]
breaches." [100] If all of the obligations imposed by the conventions
were absolute and unqualified, it would serve its purpose to distinguish "grave"
breaches from others, or to provide explicitly that no party could
absolve itself from liability for grave breaches. Furthermore, although
specific provisions of the Conventions rule out "reprisals" of
particular kinds, [101] they do not rule out reprisals as such. Thus,
Article 13 of Geneva Convention III, while defining certain misconduct
with respect to prisoners of war as constituting a "serious breach" of
the Convention, also states categorically that "[m]easures of reprisal
against prisoners of war are prohibited." (emphasis added). Similarly,
Article 60(5) of the Vienna Convention on Treaties states that the usual
rules permitting treaty suspension in some instances "do not apply to
provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in
treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions
prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such
treaties" (emphasis added). That provision seems to be an implicit
prohibition only of a particular class of reprisals, not of all
reprisals. Accordingly, it appears to be permissible, as a matter both
of treaty law and of customary international law, to suspend performance
of Geneva Convention obligations on a temporary basis. It also appears
permissible to engage in reprisals in response to material breaches by
an enemy, provided that the reprisals do not give rise to "grave"
breaches or to reprisals against protected persons.
Finally, a blanket non-suspension rule makes little sense as a matter pf
international law and politics. If there were such a rule, international
law would leave an injured party effectively remediless if its
adversaries committed material breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Apart
from its unfairness, that result would reward and encourage
non-compliance with the Conventions. True, the Conventions appear to
contemplate that enforcement will be promoted by voluntary action of the
parties. [102] Furthermore, the Conventions provide for intervention by
"the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial
humanitarian organization… subject to the consent of the Parties to the
conflict concerned." [103] But the effectiveness of these provisions
depends on the good will of the very party assumed to be committing
material breaches, or on its sensitivity to international opinion.
Likewise, the provision authorizing an impartial investigation of
alleged violations also hinges on the willingness of a breaching party
to permit the investigation and to abide by its result. Other
conceivable remedies, such as the imposition of an embargo by the United
Nations on the breaching party, may also be inefficacious in particular
circumstances. If, for example, Afghanistan were bound by Geneva
Convention III to provide certain treatment to United States prisoners
of war but in fact materially breached such duties, a United Nations
embargo might have little effect on its behavior. Finally, offenders
undoubtedly face a risk of trial and punishment before national or
international courts after the conflict is over. Yet that form of relief
presupposes that the offenders will be subject to capture at the end of
the conflict – which may well depend on whether or not they have been
defeated. Reliance on post-conflict trials, as well as being uncertain,
defers relief for the duration of the conflict. Without a power to
suspend, therefore, parties to the Geneva Conventions would only be left
with these meager tools to remedy widespread violation of the Convention
by others.
Thus, even if one were to believe that international law set out fixed
and binding rules concerning the power of suspension, the United States
could make convincing arguments under the Geneva Conventions itself, the
Vienna Convention on Treaties, and Customary international law in favor
of suspending the Geneva Conventions as applied to the Taliban militia
in the current war in Afghanistan.
IV. The Customary International Laws of War
So far, this memorandum has addressed the issue whether the Geneva
Conventions and the WCA, apply to the detention and trial of al Qaeda
and Taliban militia members taken prisoner in Afghanistan. Having
concluded that these laws do not apply, we turn to your question
concerning the effect, if any, of customary international law. Some may
take the view that even if the Geneva Conventions, by their terms, do
not govern the conflict in Afghanistan, the substance of these
agreements have received such universal approval that it has risen to
the status of customary international law. Regardless of its substance,
however, customary international law cannot bind the executive branch
under the Constitution because it is not federal law. This is a view
that this Office has expressed before, [104] and is one consistent with
the views of the federal courts, [105] and with executive branch
arguments in the courts. [106] As a result, any customary international
law of armed conflict in no way binds, as a legal matter, the President
or the U.S. Armed Forces concerning the detention or trial of members of
al Qaeda and the Taliban.
A. Is Customary International Law Federal Law?
Under the view promoted by many
international law academics, any presidential violation of customary
international law is presumptively unconstitutional. [107] These
scholars argue that customary international law is federal law, and that
the President’s Article II duty under the Take Care Clause requires him
to execute customary international law as well as statutes lawfully
enacted under the Constitution. A President may not violate customary
international law, therefore, just as he cannot violate a statute,
unless he believes it to be unconstitutional. Relying upon cases such as
The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900), in which the Supreme Court
observed that "international law is part of our law," this position
often claims that the federal judiciary has the authority to invalidate
executive action that runs counter to customary international law. [108]
This view of customary international law is seriously mistaken. The
constitutional text nowhere brackets presidential or federal power
within the confines of international law. When the Supremacy Clause
discusses the sources of federal law, it enumerates only this
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States. U.S. Const. art. VI. International
law is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution as an independent source of
federal law or as a constraint on the political branches of government.
Indeed, if it were, there would have been no need to grant to Congress
the power to "define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations."
[109] It is also clear that the original understanding of the Framers
was that "Laws of the United States" did not include the law of nations,
as international law was called in the late eighteenth century. In
explaining the jurisdiction of the Article III courts to cases arising
"under the Constitution and the Laws of the United States," for example,
Alexander Hamilton did not include the Law of nations as a source of
jurisdiction. [110] Rather, Hamilton pointed out, claims involving the
laws of nations would arise either in diversity cases or maritime cases,
[111] which by definition do not involve "the Laws of the United
States." Little evidence exists that those who attended the Philadelphia
Convention in the summer of 1787 or the state ratifying conventions
believed that federal law would have included customary international
law, but rather that the law of nations was part of a general common law
that was not true federal law. [112]
Indeed, allowing customary international law to rise to the level of
federal law would create sever distortions in the structure of the
Constitution. Incorporation of customary international law directly into
federal law would bypass the delicate procedures established by the
Constitution for amending the Constitution or for enacting legislation. [113]
Customary international law is not approved by two-thirds of
Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures, it has not been
passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, nor is it
made by the President with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the
Senate. In other words, customary international law has not undergone
the difficult hurdles that stand before enactment of constitutional
amendments, statutes, or treaties. As such, it can have no legal effect
on the government or on American citizens because it is not law. [114]
Even the inclusion of treaties in the Supremacy Clause does not render
treaties automatically self-executing in federal court, not to mention
self-executing against the executive branch. [115] If even treaties that
have undergone presidential signature and senatorial advice and consent
can have no binding legal effect in the United States, then it certainly
must be the case that a source of rules that never undergoes any process
established by our Constitution cannot be law. [116]
If it is well accepted that the political branches have ample authority
to override customary international law within their respective spheres
of authority. This has been recognized by the Supreme Court since the
earliest days of the Republic. In The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, for
example, Chief Justice Marshall applied customary international law to
thee seizure of a French warship only because the United States
government had not chosen a different rule.
It seems then to the Court o be a
principle public [international] law, that national ships of war,
entering the port of a friendly power open for their reception, are to
be considered as exempted by the consent of that power from its
jurisdiction. Without doubt, the sovereign of the place is capable of
destroying this implication. He may claim and exercise jurisdiction
either by employing force, or by subjecting such vessels to the ordinary
tribunals. [117]
In Brown v. United States, 12 U.S.
(8 Cranch) 110 (1814), Chief Justice Marshall again stated that
customary international law "is a guide which the sovereign follows or
abandons at his will. The rule, like other precepts of morality, of
humanity, and even of wisdom, is addressed to the judgment of the
sovereign; and although it cannot be disregarded by him without obloquy,
yet it may be disregarded." [118] In twenty-first century words,
overriding customary international law may prove to be a bad idea, or be
subject to criticism, but there is no doubt that the government has the
power to do it.
Indeed, proponents of the notion that customary international law
is federal law can find little support in either history or Supreme Court case law.
It is true that in some contexts mostly involving maritime, insurance,
and commercial law, the federal courts in the nineteenth century looked
to customary international law as a guide. [119] Upon closer examination
of these cases, however, it is clear that customary international law
had the status only of the general federal common law that was applied
in federal diversity cases under Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Fet.) 1
(1842). As such it was not considered true federal law under the
Supremacy Clause, it did not support Article III "arising under"
jurisdiction; it did not pre-empt inconsistent state law and it did not
bind the executive branch. Indeed, even during this period the Supreme
Court acknowledged that the laws of war did not qualify as true federal
law and could not therefore serve as the basis for federal subject
matter jurisdiction. In New York Life Ins. Co v. Hendren 92 U.S. 286,
for example, the Supreme Court declared that it had no jurisdiction to
review the general laws of war, as recognized by the law of nations
applicable to this case, because such laws do not involve the
constitution, laws, treaties, or executive proclamations of the United
States. [120] The spurious nature of this type of law led the Supreme
Court in the famous case of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78
(1938), to eliminate general federal common law.
Even the case most relied upon by proponents of customary international
law’s status as federal law. The Paquete Habana, itself acknowledges
that customary international law is subject to override by the action of
the political branches. The Paquete Habana involved the question whether
U.S. armed vessels in wartime could capture certain fishing vessels
belonging to enemy nationals and sell them as a prize. In that case, the
Court applied an international law rule, and did indeed say that
"international law is part of our law." [121] But Justice Gray then
continued, "where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or
legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs
and usages of civilized nations." In other words, while it was willing
to apply customary international law as general federal common law (this
was the era of Swift v. Tyson), the court also readily acknowledged that
the political branches and even the federal judiciary could override it
at any time. No Supreme Court decision in modern times has challenged
that view. [122] Thus, under clear Supreme Court precedent, any
presidential decision in the current conflict concerning the detention
and trial of al Qaeda or Taliban militia prisoners would constitute a "controlling"
executive act that would immediately and completely override any
customary international law norms.
Constitutional text and Supreme Court decisions aside, allowing the
federal courts to rely upon international law to restrict the
President’s discretion to conduct war would raise deep structural
problems. First, if customary international law is indeed federal law,
then it must receive all of the benefits of the Supremacy Clause.
Therefore, customary international law would not only bind the
President, but it also would pre-empt state law and even supersede
inconsistent federal statutes and treaties that were enacted before the
rule of customary international law came into being. This has never
happened. Indeed, giving customary international law this power not only
runs counter to the Supreme Court cases described above, but would have
the effect of importing a body of law to restrain the three branches of
American government that never underwent any approval by our democratic
political process. If customary international law does not have these
effects, as the constitutional text, practice and most sensible readings
of the Constitution indicate, then it cannot be true federal law under
the Supremacy Clause. As non-federal law, then, customary international
law cannot bind the President or the executive branch, in any legally
meaningful way, in its conduct of the war in Afghanistan.
Second, relying upon customary international law here would undermine
the President’s control over foreign relations and his Commander in
Chief authority. As we have noted, the President under the Constitution
is given plenary authority over the conduct of the Nation’s foreign
relations and over the use of the military. Importing customary
international law notions concerning armed conflict would represent a
direct infringement on the President’s discretion as the Commander in
Chief Executive to determine how best to conduct the Nation’s military
affairs. Presidents and courts have agreed that the President enjoys the
fullest discretion permitted by the Constitution in commanding troops in
the field. [123] It is difficult to see what legal authority under our
constitutional system would permit customary international law to
restrict the exercise of the President’s plenary power in this area,
which is granted to him directly by the Constitution. Further, reading
customary international law to be federal law would improperly inhibit
the President’s role as the representative of the Nation in its foreign
affairs. [124] Customary law is not static, it evolves through a dynamic
process of State custom and practice. "States necessarily must have the
authority to contravene international norms, however, for it is the
process of changing state practice that allows customary international
law to envolve." [125] we observed in 1989, "[i]f the United States is to
participate in the evolution of international law the Executive must
have the power to act inconsistently with international law where
necessary." [126] The power to override or ignore customary
international law, even the law applying to armed conflict, is "an
integral part of the President’s foreign affairs power." [127]
Third, if customary international law is truly federal law, it
presumably must be enforceable by the federal courts. Allowing
international law to interfere with the President’s war power in this
way, however, would expand the federal judiciary’s authority into areas
where it has little competence, where the Constitution does not
textually call for its intervention, and where it risks defiance by the
political branches. Indeed, treating customary international law as
federal law would require the judiciary to intervene into the most
deeply of political questions, those concerning war. Thus, the federal
courts have said they will not do, most notably during the Kosovo
conflict. [128] Again, the practice of t he branches demonstrates that
they do not consider customary international law to be federal law. this
position makes sense even at the level of democratic theory, because
conceiving of international law as a restraint on warmaking would allow
norms of questionable democratic origin to constrain actions validly
taken under the U.S. Constitution by popularly accountable national
representatives.
Based on these considerations of constitutional text, structure, and
history, we conclude that any customary rules of international law that
apply to armed conflicts do not bind the President or the U.S. Armed
Forces in their conduct of war in Afghanistan.
B. Do the Customary Laws
of War Apply to al Qaeda or the Taliban Militia?
Although customary international
law does not bind the President, the President may still use his
constitutional warmaking authority to subject members of al Qaeda or the
Taliban militia to the laws of war. While this result may seem at first
glance to be counter intuitive, it is a product of the President’s
Commander in Chief Executive powers to prosecute the war effectively.
The President has the legal and constitutional authority to subject both
al Qaeda and Taliban to the laws of war, and to try their members before
military courts or commissions instituted under Title 10 of the United
States Code, if he so chooses. Section 818 of title 10 provides in part
that "[g]eneral courts-martial… have jurisdiction to try any person who
by the law of war is subject to trial by a military tribunal and may
adjudge any punishment permitted by the law of war" (except for capital
punishment in certain cases). Section 821 allows for the trial
"offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried
by military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals."
We have described the jurisdiction and usage of military tribunals for
you in a separate memorandum. We do not believe that these courts would
lose jurisdiction to try members of al Qaeda or the Taliban militia for
violations of the laws of war, even though we have concluded that the
laws of war have no binding effect – as federal law - on the President.
This is so because the extension of the common laws of war to the
present conflicts is in essence, a military measure that the President
can order a Commander in Chief. As the Supreme Court has recognized, "an
important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by
the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to
seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their
attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the
law of war." [129] In another case, the Court observed that in the
absence of attempts by Congress to limit the President’s power, it
appears that as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, he may, in time of war, establish and prescribe the jurisdiction
and procedure of military commissions, and of tribunals in the nature of
such commissions, in territory occupied by Armed Forces of the United
States. [130] Thus, pursuant to his Commander in Chief authority, the
President could impose the laws of war on members of al Qaeda and the
Taliban militia as part of measures necessary to prosecute the war
successfully.
Moreover, the President’s general authority over the conduct of foreign
relations entails the specific power to express the views of the United
States both on the content of international law generally and on the
application of international law to specific facts. "When articulating
principles of international law in its relations with other states, the
Executive Branch speaks not only as an interpreter of generally accepted
and traditional rules, as would the courts, but also as an advocate of
standards it believes desirable for the community of nations and
protective of national concerns." [131] Thus, the President can properly
find the unprecedented conflict between the United States and
transnational terrorist organizations a "war" for the purposed of the
customary or common laws of war. Certainly, given the extent of
hostilities both in the United States and Afghanistan since the
September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the
scale of the military, diplomatic and financial commitments by the
United States and its allies to counter the terrorist threats, and the
expected duration of the conflict, it would be entirely reasonable for
the President to find that a condition of "war" existed for purposes of
triggering application of the common laws of war. He could also
reasonably find that al Qaeda, the Taliban militia, and other related
entities that are engaged in conflict with the United States were
subject to the duties imposed by those laws. Even if members of these
groups and organizations were considered to be merely "private" actors,
they could nonetheless be held subject to the laws of war. [132]
In addition, Congress has delegated to the President sweeping authority
with respect to the present conflict, and especially with regard to
those organizations and individuals implicated in the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. In the wake of those incidents Congress
enacted Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Congress found
that on September 11, 2001 acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens *** render it both necessary
and appropriate that the United States exercise its *** and to
protect United States citizens both at home and abroad "and that such
acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to national
security and foreign policy of the United States." Section 2 of the
statute authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate
force against those nations, organizations, or persons be determines,
planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism
against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Read together with the President’s constitutional authorities as
Commander in Chief and as interpreter of international law, this
authorization allows the President to subject member of al Qaeda, the
Taliban militia, and other affiliated groups to trial and punishment for
violations of the common laws of war, if the President determines that
it would further the conduct of military operations or contribute to the
defense and security of the United States and its citizens.
C. May a U.S Service
member be Tried for Violations of the Laws of War?
You have also asked whether the
laws of war, as incorporated by reference in title 10 also apply to
United States military personnel engaged in armed conflict with al Qaeda
or with the Taliban militia. Even though the customary laws of war do
not bind the President as federal law, the President may wish to extend
some or all of such laws to the conduct of United States military
operations in this conflict, or to treatment of members of al Qaeda or
the Taliban captured in the conflict. It is within his constitutional
authority as Commander in Chief to do so. The common laws of war can be
viewed as rules governing the conduct of military personnel in time of
combat, and the President has undoubted authority to promulgate such
rules and to provide for their enforcement. [133] The Army’s Manual on
the Law of Land Warfare, which represents the Army’s interpretation of
the customary international law governing armed conflict can be
explained, altered, or overridden at any time by presidential act, as
the Manual itself recognizes. [134] This makes clear that the
source of authority for the application of the customary laws of war to
the armed forces arises directly from the President **************** Chief
power.
Moreover, the President has authority to limit or qualify the
application of such rules. He could exempt, for example, certain
operations from their coverage, or apply some but not all of the common
laws of war to this conflict. This, too, is an aspect of the President’s
Commander in Chief authority. In narrowing the scope of the substantive
prohibitions that apply in a particular conflict, the President may
effectively determine the jurisdiction of military courts and
commissions. He could thus preclude the trials of United States’
military personnel on specific charges of violations of the common laws
of war.
Finally, a presidential determination concerning the application of the
substantive prohibitions of the laws of war to the Afghanistan conflict
would not preclude the normal system of military justice from applying
to members of the U.S. Armed Services. Members of the Armed Services
would still be subject to trial by courts martial for any violations of
the [U]niform Code of Military Justice (the "UCMJ"). Indeed, if the
President were to issue an order, listing certain common laws of war for
the military to follow, failure to over that order would constitute an
offense under the UCMJ. [135] Thus, although the President is not
constitutionally bound by the customary laws of war, he can still chose
to require the U.S. Armed Forces to obey them through the UCMJ. Thus,
our view that the customary international laws of armed conflict do not
bind the President does not, in any way, compel the conclusion that
members of the U.S. Armed Forces who commit acts that might be
considered war crimes would be free from military justice.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that neither the federal War
Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions would apply to the detention
condition in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or to trial by military commission of
al Qaeda or Taliban Prisoners. We also conclude that customary
international law has no binding legal effect on either the President or
the military because it is not federal law, as recognized by the
Constitution. Nonetheless, we also believe that the President, as
Commander in Chief, has the constitutional authority to impose the
customary laws of war on both the al Qaeda and Taliban groups and the
U.S. Armed Forces.
Please let us know if we can
provide further assistance.
_______________
Notes:
1. The four Geneva
Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, dated August 12, 1949,
were ratified by the United States on July 14, 1955. These are the
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick
in Armed Forces in the Field, 6 U.S.T. 3115 ("Geneva Convention I"); the
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 6 U.S.T. 3219 ("Geneva
Convention II"); the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners
of War, 6 U.S.T. 3517 ("Geneva Convention III"); and the Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 6 U.S.T.
3317 ("Geneva Convention IV").
2.
See Memorandum for William J. Haynes
II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from: Patrick F. Philbin,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and John Yoo, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Re: Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens
Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Dec. 28, 2001).
3. See generally Memorandum
for Albert R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Patrick F.
Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, RFe:
Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorists (Nov. 6,
2001).
4. The rule of lenity
requires that the WCA be read so as to ensure that prospective
defendants have adequate notice of the nature of the acts that the
statute condemns. See, e.g., Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S.
120, 131 (2000). In those cases in which the application of a
treaty incorporated by the WCA is unclear, therefore, the rule of lenity
requires that the interpretative issue be resolved in the defendant's
favor.
5. That common clause reads
as follows:
The [signatory Nations] undertake
to exact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions
for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave
breaches of the present Convention ... Each [signatory nation] shall be
under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or
to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring
such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts ...
It may also, if it prefers ... hand such persons over for trial to
another [signatory nation], provided such [nation] has made out a prima
facie case.
Geneva Convention I, art. 49;
Geneva Convention II, art. 50; Geneva Convention III, art. 129; Geneva
Convention IV, art. 146.
6. In projecting our
criminal law extraterritorially in order to protect victims who are
United States nationals, Congress was apparently relying on the
international law principle of passive personality. The passive
personality principle "asserts that a state may apply law --
particularly criminal law -- to an act committed outside its territory
by a person not its national where the victim of the act was its
national." United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121, 1133 (D.C.
Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 834 (1998). The principle marks
recognition of the fact that "each nation has a legitimate interest that
its nationals and permanent inhabitants not be maimed or disabled from
self-support," or otherwise injured. Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S.
571, 586 (1953); see also Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306,
309 (1970).
7. In United States ex rel.
Toth v. Quaries, 350 U.S. 11 (1955), the Supreme Court had held that a
former serviceman could not constitutionally be tried before a court
martial under the Uniform Code for Military Justice (the "UCMJ") for
crimes he was alleged to have committed while in the armed services.
8. The principle of nationality in
international law recognizes that (as Congress did here) a State may
criminalize acts performed extraterritorially by its own nationals.
See, e.g., Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 73 (1941); Steele v.
Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 282 (1952).
9. See Trans World Airlines,
Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 253 (1984) ("A treaty is in
the nature of a contract between nations."); Teh Head Money Cases, 112
U.S. 580, 598 (1884) ("A treaty is primarily a compact between
independent nations."); United States ex rel. Saroop v. Garcia, 109
F.3d. 165, 167 (3d Cir. 1997) ("[T]reaties are agreements between
nations."); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art.
2, § 1(a), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 333 ("[T]reaty' means an international
agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by
international law ...") (the "Vienna Convention"); see generally Banco
Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 422 (1964) ("The
traditional view of international law is that it establishes substantive
principles for determining whether one country has wronged another.").
10. Article 2's reference to
a state of war "not recognized" by a belligerent was apparently intended
to refer to conflicts such as the 1937 war between China and Japan.
Both sides denied that a state of war existed. See Joyce A. C.
Gutteridge, The Geneva Conventions of 1949, 26 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 294,
298-99 (1949).
11. Commentary on the
Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, at § 4339 (Yves Sandoz et al. eds., 1987)
12. Gutteridge, supra n.10, at
300.
13. See Joseph H. Beale,
Jr., The Recognition of Cuban Belligerency, 9 Harv. L. Rev. 406, 406 n.1
(1896).
14. See The Prosecutor v.
Dusko Tidic (Jurisdiction of the Tribunal), (Appeals Chamber of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 1995) (the "ICTY"),
105 L.L.R. 453, 504-05 (E. Lamerpacht and C.J. Greenwood eds., 1997).
15. Id. at 505; see also
Gerald Irving Draper, Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts 107 (1998)
("Before 1949, in the absence of recognized belligerency accorded to the
elements opposed to the government of a State, the law of war ... had no
application to internal armed conflicts ... International law had little
or nothing to say as to how the armed rebellion was crushed by the
government concerned, for such matters fell within the domestic
jurisdiction of States. Such conflicts were often waged with great
lack of restraint and cruelty. Such conduct was a domestic
matter.").
16. Tadic, 105 I.L.R. at
507. Indeed, the events of the Spanish Civil War, in which "both
the republican Government [of Apain] and third States refused to
recognize the [Nationalist] insurgents as belligerents," id. at 507, may
be reflected in common Article 3's reference to "the legal status of the
Parties to the conflict.
17. See id. at 508.
18. See Draper, Reflections
on Law and Armed Conflicts, supra, at 108.
19. An interpretation of
common Article 3 that would apply it to all forms of non-international
armed conflict accords better with some recent approaches to
international humanitarian law. For example, the Commentary on the
Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, supra, after first stating in the text that Article 3
applies when "the government of a single State [is] in conflict with one
or more armed factions within its territory," thereafter suggests, in a
footnote, that an armed conflict not of an international character "may
also exist in which armed factions fight against each other without
intervention by the armed forces of the established government."
Id. § 4339 at n.2. A still broader interpretation appears to be
supported by the language of the decision of the International Court of
Justice (the "ICJ") in Nicaragua v. United States -- which, it should be
made clear, the United States refused to acknowledge by withdrawing from
the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ:
Article 3 which is common to all
four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 defines certain rules to be
applied in the armed conflicts of a non-international character.
There is no doubt that, in the event of international armed conflicts,
these rules also constitute a minimum yardstick, in addition to the more
elaborate rules which are also to apply to international conflicts; and
they are rules which, in the Court's opinion, reflect what the Court in
1949 called "elementary considerations of humanity."
Military and Paramilitary
Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States),
(International Court of Justice 1986), 76 I.L.R. 1, 448 § 218 (E.
Lauterpacht and C.J. Greenwood eds., 1988) (emphasis added). The
ICJ's language is probably best read to suggest that all "armed
conflicts" are either international or non-international, and that if
they are non-international, they are governed by common Article 3.
If that is the correct understanding of the quoted language, however, it
should be noted that the result was merely stated as a conclusion,
without taking account either of the precise language of Article 3 or of
the background to its adoption. Moreover, while it was true that
one of the conflicts to which the ICJ was addressing itself -- "[t]he
conflict between the contras' forces and those of the Government of
Nicaragua" -- "was an armed conflict which is 'not of an international
character,'" id. at 448, § 219, that conflict was recognizably a civil
war between a State and an insurgent group, not a conflict between or
among violent factions in a territory in which the State had collapsed.
Thus there is substantial reason to question the logic and scope of the
ICJ's interpretation of common Article 3.
20. See, e.g., Protocol
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to
the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I),
June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 4; Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims
of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), June 8, 1977, 1125
U.N.T.S. 610.
21. 143 Cong. Rec. H5865-66
(daily ed. July 28, 1997) (remarks of Rep. Jenkins).
22. Memorandum for Timothy
E. Flanigan, Deputy Counsel to the President, from John C. Yoo, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The
President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations
Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them (Sept. 25, 2001).
23. Cf. Public Citzen v.
Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (construing Federal
Advisory Committee Act to avoid encroachment on presidential power);
Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 346-48 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring)
(stating rule of avoidance); Association of Am. Physicians & Surgeons,
Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898, 906-11 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (same).
24. Some difference in the
language of the WCA might be thought to throw some doubt on the exact
manner in which the statute incorporates these treaty norms. It
might be argued, for example, with respect to the Hague Convention IV,
that the WCA does not simply incorporate the terms of the treaty itself,
with all of their limitations on application, but instead criminalizes
the conduct described by that Convention. The argument starts from
the fact that there is a textual difference in the way that the WCA
references treaty provisions. Section 2441(c)(2) defines as a war
crime conduct "prohibited" by the relevant sections of the Hague
Convention IV. By contrast, § 2441(c)(1) makes a war crime any
conduct that constitutes a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, and
§ 2441(c)(3) prohibits conduct "which constitutes a violation" of common
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It might be argued that this
difference indicates that § 2441(c)(2) does not incorporate the treaty
into federal law; rather, it prohibits the conduct described by the
treaty. Section 2441(c)(3) prohibits conduct "which constitutes a
violation of common Article 3" (emphasis added), and that can only be
conduct which is a treaty violation. Likewise, § 2441(c)(1) only
criminalizes conduct that is a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions
-- which again, must be a treaty violation. In other words, §
2441(c)(2) might be read to apply even when the Hague Convention IV, by
its own terms, would not. On this interpretation, an act could
violate § 2441(c9)(2), whether or not the Hague Convention IV applied to
the specific situation at issue.
We do not think that this
interpretation is terrible. To begin with, § 2441(c)(2) makes
clear that to be a war crime, conduct must be "prohibited" by the Hague
Convention IV (emphasis added). Use of the word "prohibited,"
rather than phrases such as "referred to" or "described," indicates that
the treaty must, by its own operation proscribe teh conduct at issue.
If the Hague Convention IV does not itself apply to a certain conflict,
then it cannot itself proscribe any conduct undertaken as part of that
conflict. Thus, the most natural reading of the statutory language
is than ian individual must violate the Hague Convention IV in order to
violate Section 2441(c)(2). Had Congress intended broadly to
criminalize the types of conduct proscribed by the relevant Hague
Convention IV provisions as such, rather than as treaty violations, it
could have done so more clearly. Furthermore, the basic purpose of
§ 2441 was to implement, by appropriate legislation, the United States'
treaty obligations. That purpose would be accomplished by
criminalizing acts that were also violations of certain key provisions
of the Annex to Hague Convention IV. It would not be served by
criminalizing acts of the kind condemned by those provisions, whether or
not they were treaty violations.
Nothing in the legislative history
supports the opposite result. To the contrary, the legislative
history suggests an entirely different explanation for the minor
variations in language between §§ 2441(c)(1) and 2441(c)(2). As
originally enacted, the WCA criminalized violations of the Geneva
Conventions. See Pub. I. No. 104-192, § 2(a), 110 Stat. 2104 §
2401 (1996). In signing the original legislation, President
Clinton urged that it be expaned to include other serious war crimes
involving violation of the Hague Conventions IV and the Amended Protocol
II. See 2 Pub. Papers of William J. Clinton 1323 (1996). The
Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997, introduced as H.R. 1348 in the 105th
Congress, was designed to meet these requests. Thus, § 2441(c)(2)
was added as an amendment at a later time, and was not drafted at the
same time and in the same process as § 2441(c)(1).
25. This understanding is
supported by the WCA's legislative history. When extending the WCA
to cover violations of common Article 3, the House apparently understood
that it was codifying treaty provisions that "forbid atrocities
occurring in both civil wars and wars between nations." 143 Cong.
Rec. H5865-66 (remarks of Rep. Jenkins). The Senate also
understood that "[t]he inclusion of common article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions ... expressly allows the United States to prosecute war
crimes perpetrated in noninternational conflicts, such as Bosnia and
Rwanda." 143 Cong. Rec. S7544, S7589 (daily ed. July 16, 1997)
(remarks of Sen. Leahy). In referring to Bosnia and Rwand, both
civil wars of a non-international character, Senatory Leahy appears to
have understood common Article 3 as covering only civil wars as well.
Thus, Congress apparently believed that the WCA would apply only to
traditional international wars between States, or purely internal civil
wars.
26. This is not to maintain
that Afghanistan ceased to be a State party to the Geneva Conventions
merely because it underwent a change of government in 1996, after the
military successes of Taliban. The general rule of international
law is that treaty relations survive a change of government. See,
e.g., 2 Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law 771-3 (1963);
J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations, 144-45 (6th ed. 1963); Eleanor C.
McDowell Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to
International Law, 71 Am. J. Int'l L. 337 (1977). However, although "[u]nder
internationa law, a change in government alone generally does not alter
a state's obligations to honor its treaty commitments ... [a] different
and more difficult question arises ... when the state itself dissolves."
Yoo, supra n. 17, at 904. Furthermore, we are not suggesting that
the United States' nonrecognition of the Taliban as the government of
Afghanistan in and of itself deprived Afghanistan of party status under
the Geneva Conventions. The general rule is taht treaties may
still be observed even as to State parties, the current governments of
which have been unrecognized. See New York Chinese TV Programs v.
U.E. Enterprises, 954 F.2d 847 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 506 U.S. 827
(1992); see also Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the
United States at § 202 cmts. a, b, Egon Schwelb, The Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty and International Law, 58 Am. J. Int'l L. 642, 655 (1964)
(quoting statements of President Kennedy and Secretary of State Rusk
that participation in a multilateral treaty does not affect recognition
status).
27. Thomas Jefferson,
Opinion on the Powers of the Senate Respecting Diplomatic Appointments
(1790), reprinted in 16 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 378 (Julian P.
Boyd ed. 1961).
28. Id. at 379.
29. Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus
No. 1 (1793), reprinted in 15 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 33, 39
(Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., 1969).
30. 10 Annals of Cong.
613-14 (1800).
31. Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800, 812 n. 19 (1982).
32. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 731, 749-50 (1982).
33. Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988) (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280,
293-94 (1981)).
34. United States v. Curtiss-Wright
Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).
35. Id. at 514.
36. Id.; see also id. at
508-09 (President might have "formulated a national policy quite
inconsistent with the enforcement" of the treaty).
37. It is entirely possible
in international law for a territory (even a populated one) to be
without any State. In the Western Sahara Case, Advisory Opinion,
1975 LCJ. 12 (Advisory Opinion May 22, 1975), the General Assembly
requested the ICJ to decide the question whether the Western Sahara at
the time of Spanish colonization was a territory belonging to no one.
The question would have had no meaning unless there could be Stateless
territory without a State. See D.J. Harris, Cases and Materials on
International Law 113 (1991). The Trenskei, a "homeland" created
for the Xhosa people by the Republic of South Africa in 1976, was also a
territory not internationally recognized as a State. See id. at
110-11.
38. Secretary Rumsfeld Media
Availability en Route to Moscow (Nov. 2, 2001), available at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept.11/dod_brief64.htm (visited
Nov. 8, 2001).
39. Background Note
(October, 2001), available at
http://www.state.gov/*****************5380 (visited Oct. 25, 2001), prepared
by the Bureau of South Asian Affairs. See also Reuters AlertNet --
Afghanistan, Country Profiles ("There are no state-constituted armed
forces. It is not possible to show how ground forces' equipment
has been divided among the different factions."), available at
http://www.altertnet.org/thefacts/countryprofiles/152478?version_1
(visited Nov. 1, 2001).
40. Oscar Schachter, The
Decline of the Nation-State and Its Implications for International Law,
36 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 7, 18 (1997).
41. Ahmed Rashid, Taliban:
Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia 207 (2001).
42. Philip Webster, Blair's
mission to Kabul, in The Times of London (Jan. 8, 2002), 2002 WI.
4171996.
43. "States in which
institutions, and law and order have totally or partially collapsed
under the pressure and amidst the confusion of erupting violence, yet
which subsist as a ghostly presence on the world map, are now commonly
referred to as 'failed States' or "Etats sans gouvernmement,'" Daniel
Thurer, The failed State and International Law, International Review of
the Red Cross No. 836 (Dec. 31, 19999), available at http:/www.icrc.org/eng/review
(visited Octo. 22, 2001). Somewhat different tests have been used
for determining whether a State has "failed." First, the most
salient characteristic of a "failed State" seems to be the disappearance
of a "central government." Yorarm Dinstein, The Thirteenth
Waldemar A. Self Lecture in International Law, 166 Mil. L. Rev. 93, 103
(2000); see also ids. ("All that remains is a multiplicity of groups of
irregular combatants fighting each other."). Closely related to
this test, but perhaps somewhat broader, is the definition of a "failed
State" as "a situation where the government is unable to discharge basic
governmental functions with respect to its populace and its territory.
Consequently, laws are not made, cases are not decided, order is not
preserved and societal cohesion deteriorates. Basic services such
as central governing authorities cease to exist only in limited areas."
Ruth Gordon, Growing Constitutions, 1 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 528, 533-34
(1999). Professor Thurer distinguishes three elements
(respectively, territorial, political and functional) said to
characterize a "failed State":1) failed States undergo an "implosion
rather than an explosion of the structures of power and authority, the
disintegration and destructuring of States rather than their
dismemberment;" 2) they experience "the total or near total breakdown of
structures guaranteeing law and order;" and 3) there are marked by "the
absence of bodies capable, on the one hand, of representing the State at
the international level and, on the other, of being influenced by the
outside world." Thurer, supra.
44. See Restatement (Third)
of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, at § 201; see also
1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, art. I, 49
Stat. 3097, 28 Am. J. Int'l L. Supp. 75 (1934).
45. Eleanor C. McDowell,
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International
Law, 71 Am. J. Int'l L. 337 (1977).
46. See CNN.com/In-Depth
Specials, War Against Terror, available at
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/refugee.map.html
(visited Nov. 1, 2001). Other estimates are lower but still
extremely large numbers. See, e.g., Goodson, supra, at 149
(estimating 1.2 million Afghans living in Pakistan).
47. Goodson, supra, at 115.
48. Rashid, supra, at 213.
49. Id. at 207-08, 212-13.
50. Goodson, supra, at
103-04; 115.
51. United States Department
of State, International Information Programs, Rocca Blames Taliban for
Humanitarian Disaster in Afghanistan (Oct. 10, 2001), available at
http://www.usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text/1010roca.htm
(visited Oct. 19, 2001).
52. See U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1333 (2000), available at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/unsecres_1333.htm (finding
that "the Taliban benefits directly from the cultivation of illicit
opium by imposing a tax on its production and indirectly benefits from
the processing and trafficking of such opium, and these substantial
resources strengthen the Taliban's capacity to harbor terrorists").
The United States Government has amassed substantial evidence that
Taliban has condoned and profited from narco-traffricking on a massive
scale, with disastrous effects on neighboring countries. See The
Taliban, Terrorism, and Drug Trade; Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the House Comm. on
Government Reform, 107th Cong. (2001) (testimony of William Bach,
Director, Office of Asia, Africa, Europe, NIS Programs, Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department of
State; testimony of Asa Hutchinson, Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, U.S. Department of Justice). "The heroin explosion
emanating from Afghanistan is now affecting the politics and economics
of the entire region. It is crippling societies, distorting the
economics of already fragile states and creating a new narco-elite which
is at odds with the ever increasing poverty of the population."
Rashid, supra, at 123; see also Goodson, supra, at 101-03; Peter Tomsen,
Untying the Afghan Knot, 25 WTR Fletcher F. World Aff. 17, 18 (2001)
("Afghanistan is now the world's largest producer of opium.").
Iran is estimated to have as many as three million drug addicts, largely
as a result of Taliban's involvement in the drug trade. Rashid,
supra, at 122, 203.
53. See, e.g., "2 U.S.
Targets Bound by Fate," The Washington Post at A22 (Nov. 14,
2001)("According to Thomas Gouttierre, an Afghan expert at the
University of Nebraska and a former UN adviser, the so-called Afghan
Arbs surrounding bin Laden were much more educated and articulate than
the often illiterate Taliban and succeeded in convincing them that they
were at the head of a world-wide Islamic renaissance. 'Al Qaeda ended up
hijacking a large part of the Taliban movement,' he said, noting that
[Taliban supreme religious leader Mohammed] Omar and bin Laden were
'very, very tight' by 1998."); "Bin Laden Paid Cash For Taliban," The
Washington Post at A1 (Nov. 30, 2001) (reporting claims by former
Taliban official of al Qaeda's corruption of Taliban officials).
54. U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1333 "strongly condemn[ed]" the Taliban for the "sheltering
and training of terrorists and [the] planning of terrorist acts," and "de;lor[ed]
the fact that the Taliban continues to provide a safe haven to Usama bin
Laden and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a
network of terrorist training camps from Taliban-controlled territory
and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor international
terrorist operations." U.N. Security Council Resolution 1214, ¶ 13
(1998) enjoined the Taliban to stop providing a sanctuary and training
for terrorists. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267, ¶ 2 (1999),
stated that the Taliban's failure to comply with the Council's 1998
demand constituted a threat to the peace. See Sean D. Murphy,
Efforts to Obtain Custody of AOsama Bin Laden, 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 366
(2000).
55. See Yossef Bodansky, Bin
Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America 301-02 (2001).
56. See Robert F. Turner,
International Law and the Use of Force in Response to the World Trade
Center and Pentagon Attacks, available at
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumnew/34.htm (visited Oct. 25,
2001)("if (as has been claimed by the US and UK governments) bin Laden
masterminded the attacks on New York and Washington. Afghanistan
is in breach of its state responsibility to take reasonable measures to
prevent its territory from being used to launch attacks against other
states. The United States and its allies thus have a legal right
to violate Afghanistan's territorial integrity to destroy bin Laden and
related terrorist targets. If the Taliban elects to join forces
with bin Laden, it, too, becomes a lawful target."); see also W. Michael
Reisman, International Legal Responses to Terrorism, 22 Hous J. Int'l L.
3, 40-42, 51-54 (1999).
57. See "A Look at the
Taliban" Sept. 30, 2001, available at
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/thetaliban.htm (visited Oct.
19, 2001). Indeed, Pakistan had been the only country in the world
that maintained an embassy in Kabul; the overwhelming majority of States
and the United Nations recognized exiled President Burhamuddin Rabbani
and his government as the country's legal authorities. See
"Taliban tactics move to hostage ploy," Aug. 8, 2001, available at
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/jid/jid010808_1_n.shtml
(visited Oct. 19, 2001).
58. We do not think that the
military successes of the United States and the Northern Alliance
necessarily meant that Afghanistan's statehood was restored before the
Bonn agreement, if only because the international community, including
the United States, did not regard the Northern Alliance as constituting
the government of Afghanistan. United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1378, ¶ 1 (2001), available at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/unsecres_1378.htm (visited
Nov. 19, 2001), expressed "strong support for the efforts of the Afghan
people to establish a new and transitional administration leading to the
formation of a "government" (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 3
(affirming that the United Nations should play a central role in
supporting Afghan efforts to establish a "new and transitional
administration leading to the formation of a new government"). The
plain implication of this Resolution, which reflects the views of the
United States, is that Afghanistan after Taliban did not have a
government at that time.
59. Murray Campbell,
Enigmatic Taliban cleric a poor leader, The Globe and Mail, at A11 (Dec.
1, 2001).
60. Indeed, there are press
reports (which have also been denied) that a daughter of bin Laden
married Omar, and a daughter of Omar married bin Laden.
61. Michael Dobbs and Vernon
Loeb, supra note 53.
62. Michael Kramish and
Indira A.R. Lakshmanan, Partners in 'Jihad': Bin Laden Ties to
Taliban: How Odd Alliances Marked Bin Laden's Path, in The Boston
Globe (Oct. 28, 2001), 2001 WI. 3958881. This article contains
especially detailed information about the close linkages between the two
movements and their leaders.
63. Peter McGrath and Gretel
Kovach, Bin Laden's Imprint; an expert on the radical leader says
targeting the Saudi dissident won't eliminate his threat, in Newsweek
(Sept. 14, 2001), 2001 WI. 24138958.
64. As one expert on
Afghanistan has recently noted, "Afghanistan hasn't really had a
credible central government since 1973, when the king was ousted ...
They have been out of practice at seeing themselves as having a central
authority of some kind." Kevin Whitelaw et al., A Hunt in the
Hills, in U.S. News & World Report (Dec. 17, 2001), 2001 WI. 30366330
(quoting Thomas Gouttierre of the University of Nebraska-Omaha).
65. 331 U.S. at 514.
66. In addition, as we have
noted, Article 3 is and was inapplicable because the conflict in
Afghanistan is and was of an international character.
67. We refrain from
discussing more specific facts here due to the sensitive operational
nature of such information.
68. The President could, of
course, also determine that it will be the policy of the United States
to require its own troops to adhere to standards of conduct recognized
under customary international law, and could prosecute offenders for
violations. As explained above, the President is not bound to
follow these standards by law, but may direct the armed forces to adhere
to them as a matter of policy.
69. Quoted in Joseph P.
Biallee, United Nations Peace Operations: Applicable Norms and the
Application of the Law of Armed Conflict, 50 A.F.L. Rev. 1, 63 n. 235
(2001).
70. Entitlement of American
Military Personnel Held by North Viet-Nam to Treatment as Prisoners of
War Under the Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War, July 13, 1966, reprinted in John Norton Moore, Law and
the Indo-China War 635, 639 (1972).
71. See United States v.
Noriega, 117 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S.
1040 (1998).
72. See Jan. E. Aldykiewicz
and Geoffrey S. Corn, Authority to Court-Martial Non-U.S. Military
Personnel for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law
Committed During Internal Armed Conflict, 167 Mil. L. Rev. 74, 77 n.6
(2001). In United States v. Noriega, 808 F. Supp. 791, 794 (S.D.
Fla. 1992), the district court held that the United States' intervention
in Panama in late 1989 was an international armed conflict under
(common) Article 2 of the Geneva Convention III, and that General
Noriega was entitled to POW status. To the extent that the holding
assumed that the courts are free to determine whether a conflict is
between the United States and another "State" regardless of the
President's view whether the other party is a "State" or not, we
disagree with it. By assuming the right to determine that the
United States was engaged in an armed conflict with Panama -- rather
than with insurgent forces in rebellion against teh recognized and
legitimate Government of Panama -- the district court impermissibly
usurped the recognition power, a constitutional authority reserved to
the President. The power to determine whether a foreign government
is to be accorded recognition, and the related power to determine
whether a condition of statelessness exists in a particular country, are
exclusively executive. See, e.g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 212
(1962) ("[R]ecognition of foreign governments so strongly defies
judicial treatment that without executive recognition a foreign state
has been called 'a republic or whose existence we know nothing.' ...
Similarly recognition of belligerency abroad is an executive
responsibility ...") (citation omitted); Kennett v. Chambers, 55 U.S.
(14 How.) 38, 50-51 (1852) ("[T]he question whether [the Republic of]
Texas [while in rebellion against Mexico] had or had not at that time
become an independent state, was a question for that department of our
government exclusively which is charged with our foreign relations.
And until the period when that department recognized it as an
independent state, the judicial tribunals ... were bound to consider ...
Texas as a part of the Mexican territory."); Mingtai Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. United Parcel Service, 177 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir.) ("[T]he
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Constitution commits to the
Executive branch alone the authority to recognize, and to withdraw
recognition from, foreign regimes."), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 951 (1999).
73. Letter for the Hon.
Richard L. Thornburgh, Attorney General, from Abraham D. Sofaer, Legal
Adviser, State Department at 2 (Jan. 31, 1990).
74. Quoted in Bialke, supra,
at 56.
75. See Memorandum for John
Bellinger, III, Senior Associate Counsel and Legal Adviser to the
National Security Council, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, and Robert J. Delahunty, Special
Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Authority of the President
to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty (Nov. 15, 2001); see
also Memorandum for William Howard Taft, IV, Legal Adviser, Department
of State, from John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legal Counsel, Re: President's Constitutional Authority to
Withdraw Treaties from the Senate (Aug. 24, 2001).
76. See Kennett, 55 U.S. at
47-48, 51; Terlinden, 184 U.S. at 288; Saroop, 109 F.3d at 171
(collecting cases), Alexander Hamilton argued in 1793 that the
revolution in France had triggered the power (indeed, the duty) of the
President to determine whether the pre-existing treaty of alliance with
the King of France remained in effect. The President's
constitutional powers, he said, "include[] that of judging, in the case
of a Revolution of Government in a foreign Country, whether the new
rulers are competent organs of the National Will and ought to be
recognised or not: And where a treaty antecedently exists between
the UStates and such nation that right involves the power of giving
operation or not to such treaty." Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus
No. 1 (1793), reprinted in 15 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 33, 41
(Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., 1969).
77. See Taylor v. Morton, 23
F. Cas. 784 (C.C.D. Mass. 1855) (No. 13, 799) (Curtis, Circuit Justice),
aff'd 67 U.S. (2 Black) 481 (1862).
78. See International Load
Line Convention, 40 Op. Att'y Gen. 119, 124 (1941). Changed
conditions have provided a basis on which Presidents have suspended
treaties in the past. For example, in 1939, President Franklin
Roosevelt suspended the operation of the London Naval Treaty of 1936.
"The war in Europe had caused several contracting parties to suspend the
treaty, for the obvious reason that it was impossible to limit naval
armaments. The notice of termination was therefore grounded on
changed circumstances." David Gray Adler, The Constitution and the
Termination of Treaties, 187 (1986).
79. See, e.g., Charlton v.
Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 473 (1913); Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d
1098, 1106 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1036 (1980).
80. It is possible for the
President to suspend a multilateral treaty as to one but not all of the
parties to the treaty. In 1986, the United States suspended the
performance of its obligations under the Security Treaty (ANZUS Pact),
T.I.A.S. 2493, 3 U.S.T. 3420, entered into force April 29, 1952, as to
New Zealand but not as to Australia. See Marian Nash (Leich), 1
Cumulative Diegest of United States Practice in International Law
1981-1988, at 1279-81.
81. See, e.g., Geneva
Convention III, art. 142. The suspension of a treaty is distinct
from the denunciation or termination of one. Suspension is
generally a milder measure than termination, often being partial,
temporary, or contingent upon circumstances that can be altered by the
actions of the parties to the treaty. Moreover, at least in the
United States, suspension of a treaty can be reversed by unilateral
executive action, whereas termination, which annuls a treaty, and which
is therefore more disruptive of international relationships, would
require Senate consent to a new treaty in order to be undone. See
Oliver J. Lissitzyn, Treaties and Changed Circumstances (Rebus Sic
Stantibus), 61 Am. I. Int'l I. 895, 916 (1967) ("It is difficult to see
how a right of suspension would present greater dangers than a right of
termination.").
82. In general, the partial
suspension of the provisions of a treaty (as distinct from both
termination and complete suspension) is recognized as permissible under
international law. Article 60 of the Vienna Convention explicitly
permits the suspension of a treaty "in whole or in part." "[U]nder both
treaty law and non-forcible reprisal law as a basis for responsive
suspension it is clear that suspension may be only partial and need not
suspend or terminate an agreement as a whole, in contrast, for example,
with treaty withdrawal clauses." John Norton Moore, Enhancing
Compliance With International Law: A Neglected Remedy, 39 Va. J.
Int'l L. 881, 932 (1999). Although suspension of particular treaty
provisions is recognized both in State practice and international law,
we are not aware of any precedent for suspending a treaty as to some,
but not others, of the persons otherwise protected by it.
Thus, we can see no basis for suggesting that the President might
suspend the Geneva Conventions as to the Taliban leadership, but not as
to its rank and file members. However, the President could achieve
the same outcome by suspending the Conventions, ordering the U.S.
military to follow them purely as a matter of policy, and excepting the
Taliban leadership from the coverage of this policy.
83. Article 118 states in
relevant part:
Prisoners of war shall be released
and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to
the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the
conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any
such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and
execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity the principle
laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
84. See Howard S. Levie, The
Korean Armistice Agreement and Its Aftermath, 41 Naval L. Rev. 115,
125-27(1993).
85. See generally 3 Charles
Cheney Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the
United States, ¶ 674 at 1858-59 (2d ed. 1945).
86. David M. Morriss, From
War to Peace: A Study of Cease-Fire Agreements and the Evolving
Role of the United Nations, 36 Va. J. Int'l L. 801, 883 (1996).
87. Id. at 885.
88. See id. at 931 & n. 633.
89. In general, of course, a
decision by a State not to discharge its treaty obligations, even when
effective as a matter of domestic law, does not necessarily relieve it
of possible international liability for non-performance. See
generally Pigeon River Improvement, Slide & Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox,
Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 160 (1934).
90. See Legal Consequences
for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South
West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, 1971 I.C.J.
16, 47 ¶ 98 (Advisory Opinion June 21, 1971) (holding it to be a
"general principle of law that a right of termination on account of
breach must be presumed to exist in respect of all treaties, except as
regards provisions relating to the protection of the human person
contained in treaties of a humanitarian character ... The silence of a
treaty as to the existence of such a right cannot be interpreted as
implying the exclusion of a right which has its source outside of the
treaty, in general international law[.]").
91. Vienna Convention on
Treaties art. 60(2)(b).
92. Id. art. 60(3).
93. Id. art. 60(5).
The Vienna Convention seems to prohibit or restrict the suspension of
humanitarian treaties if the sole ground for suspension is material
breach. It does not squarely address the case in which suspension
is based, not on particular breaches by a party, but by the party's
disappearance as a State or on its incapacity to perform its treaty
obligations.
94. Fujitsu Ltd. v. Federal
Express Corp., 247 F.3d 423, 433 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 206
(2001); Moore, supra, at 891-92 (quoting 1971 statement by Secretary of
State William P. Rogers and 1986 testimony by Deputy Legal Adviser Mary
V. Mochary).
95. See Sir Ian Sinclair,
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 191 (2d ed. 1984)
(explaining intent and scope of reference to "humanitarian" treaties).
Indeed, when the drafters of the Vienna Convention added paragraph 5 to
article 60, the Geneva Conventions were specifically mentioned as coming
within it. See Harris, supra n.19, at 797.
96. See, e.g., Draper, The
Red Cross Conventions, supra, at 8; see also Military and Paramilitary
Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 76
I.L.R. at 448, ¶ 220.
97. See, e.g., Geneva
Convention III, art. 131.
98. See, e.g., id., art. 142
99. See Sinclair, supra, at
192.
100. Geneva Convention IV,
art. 148.
101. U.S. Army, The Law of
Land Warfare, Field Manual No. 27-10 (July 18, 1956), (the "FM 27-10"),
defines 'reprisals" as "acts of retaliation in the form of conduct which
would otherwise be unlawful, resorted to by one belligerent against
enemy personnel or property for acts of warfare committed by the other
belligerent in violation of the law of war, for the purpose of enforcing
future compliance with the recognized rules of civilized warfare.
For example, the employment by a belligerent of a weapon the use of
which is normally precluded by the law of war would constitute a lawful
reprisal for intentional mistreatment of prisoners of war held by the
enemy." Id., ch. 8, ¶ 497(a). In general, international law
disfavors and discourages reprisals. See id. ¶ 497(d).
("Reprisals are never adopted merely for revenge, but only as an
unavoidable last resort to induce the enemy to desist from unlawful
practices.") They are permitted, however, in certain specific
circumstances.
102. See, e.g., the Geneva
Convention III, art. 8; Geneva Convention IV, art. 9.
103. Geneva Convention III,
art. 9; Geneva Convention IV, art. 10.
104. See Authority of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to Override International Law in
Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities, 13 Op. O.I.C. 163 (1989).
105. See, e.g., United
States v. Alverez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992).
106. See, id. at 669-70;
Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859
F.2d 929, 935-36 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 788 F.2d 1446,
1453-55 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 889 (1986).
107. See, e.g., Michael J.
Glennon, Raising the Paquete Habana: Is Violation of Customary
International Law by the Executive Unconstitutional?, 80 NW. U.L. REV.
321, 325 (1985); Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United
States, 82 MICH. L. REV. 1555, 1567 (1984); Jules Lobel, The Limits of
Constitutional Power. Conflicts Between Foreign Policy and
International Law, 71 VA L. REV. 1071, 1179 (1985); see also Jonathan R.
Chauncy, Agora: May the President Violate Customary International
Law?, 80 AM. J. INT'L I. 913 (1986).
108. Recently, the status of
customary international law within the federal legal system has been the
subject of sustained debate with legal academia. The legitimacy
ofincorporating customary international law as federal law has been
subjected in these exchanges to crippling doubts. See Curtis A.
Bradley & Jack I. Goldsmith, Customary International Law As Federal
Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, 110 Harv. L. Rev.
815, 817 (1997); see also Phillip R. Trimble, A Revisionist View of
Customary International Law, 33 UCLA L. Rev. 665, 672-673 (1986); Arthur
M. Weisburd, The Executive Branch and International Law, 41 Vand. L.
Rev. 1205, 1269 (1988). These claims have not gone unchallenged.
Harold H. Koh, Is International Law Really State Law?, 111 Harv. L. Rev.
1825, 1827 (1998); Gerald L. Neuman, Sense and Nonsense About Customary
International Law: A Response to Professors Bradley and Goldsmith,
66 Fordham L. Rev. 371, 371 (1997); Beth Stephens, The Law of Our Land:
Customary International Law As Federal Law After Erie, 66 Frodham L.
Rev. 393, 396-97 (1997). Bradley and Goldsmith have responded to
their critics several times. See Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L.
Goldsmith, Federal Courts and the Incorporation of International Law,
111 Harv. L. Rev. 2260 (1998); Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith,
The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation, 66
Fordham L. Rev. 319, 330 (1997).
109. U.S. Const., art. I, §
8.
110. The Federalist No. 80,
at 447-49 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1999).
111. Id. at 444-46.
112. See, e.g., Stewart Jay,
The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law, 42 Vand. L. Rev.
819, 830-37 (1989); Bradford R. Clark, Federal Common Law. A
Structural Reinterpretation, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1245, 1306-12 (1996);
Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, The Current Illegitimacy of
International Human Rights Litigation, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 319, 333-36
(1997).
113. Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462
U.S. 919 (1983) (invalidating legislative veto for failure to undergo
bicameralism and presentment as required by Article I, Section 8 for all
legislation).
114. In fact, allowing
customary international law to bear the force of federal law would
create significant problems under the Appointments Clause and the
non-delegation doctrine, as it would be law made completely outside the
American legal system through a process of international practice,
rather than either the legislature or officers of the United States
authorized to do so.
115. See, e.g., Foster v.
Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314 (1829).
116. See John C. Yoo,
Globalism and the Constitution: Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and
the Original Understanding, 99 Colum L. Rev. 1955 (1999)
(non-self-execution of treaties justified by the original
understanding); John C. Yoo, Treaties and Public Lawmaking: A
Textual and Structural Defense of Non-Self-Execution, 99 Colum. L. Rev.
2218 (1999) (demonstrating that constitutional text and structure
require implementation of treaty obligations by federal statute).
117. 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116,
145-46 (1812) (emphasis added).
118. Id. at 128.
119. See, e.g., Oliver Am.
Trading Co. v. Mexico, 264 U.S. 440, 442-43 (1924); Huntington v.
Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 683 (1892); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92
U.S. 286, 286-87 (1875).
120. 92 U.S. 286, 286-87.
121. Id. at 700.
122. Two lines of cases are
often cited for the proposition that the Supreme Court has found
customary international law to be federal law. The first, which
derives from Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2.Cranch) 64
(1804). The "Charming Betsy" rule, as it is sometimes known, is a
rule of construction that a statute should be construed when possible so
as not to conflict with international law. This rule, however,
does not apply international law of its own force, but instead can be
seen as measure of judicial restraint: that violating
international law is a decision for the political branches to make, and
that if they wish to do so, they should state clearly their intentions.
The second, Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, applied
the "act of state" doctrine which generally precludes courts from
examining the validity of the decisions of foreign governments taken on
their own soil, as federal common law to a suit over expropriations by
the Cuban government. As with Charming Betsy, however, the Court
developed this rule as one of judicial self-restraint to preserve the
flexibility of the political branches to decide how to conduct foreign
policy.
Some supporters of customary
international law as federal law rely on a third line of cases,
beginning with Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630, F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).
In Filartiga, the Second Circuit read the federal Alien Tort
Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1994), to allow a tort suit in federal court
against the former official of a foreign government for violating norms
of international human rights law, namely torture. Incorporation
of customary international law via the Alien Tort Statute, while
accepted by several circuit courts, has never received the blessings of
the Supreme Court and has been sharply criticized by some circuits, see,
e.g., Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 808-10 (D.C. Cir.
1984) (Bork, J., concurring), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1003 (1985), as
well as by academics, acc Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, The
Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation, 66
Fordham L. Rev. 319, 330 (1997).
123.
See Memorandum for Timothy E.
Flanigan, Deputy Counsel to the President, from John C. Yoo, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The President's
Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against
Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them (Sept. 25, 2001) (reviewing
authorities).
124. "When articulating
principles of international law in its relations with other states, the
Executive branch speaks not only as an interpreter of generally accepted
and traditional rules, as would the courts, but also as an advocate of
standards it believes desirable for the community of nations and
protective of national concerns." Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 432-33.
See also Rappenecker v. United States, 509 F.Supp. 1024, 1029 (N.D. Cal.
1980) ("under the doctrine of separation of powers, the making of those
determinations [under international law] is entrusted to the
President."); International Load line Convention, 40 Op. Att'y Gen. at
123-24 (President "speak[s] for the nation" in making determination
under international law).
125. 13 Op. O.L.C. at 170.
126. Id.
127. Id. at 171.
128. See, e.g., Campbell v.
Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 40 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 815 (2000).
129. See Ex parte Quirin,
318 U.S. 1, 28-29 (1942); cf. Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197, 208
(1948) (Douglas J. concurring) (Agreement with Allies to establish
international tribunals to try accused war criminals who were enemy
officials or armed service members was "a part of the prosecution of the
war. It is a furtherance of the hostilities directed to a dilution
of enemy power and involving retribution for wrongs done.").
130. Madsen v. Kinsella, 343
U.S. 341, 348 (1952).
131. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at
432-33.
132. See Kadic v. Karadzic,
70 F.3d 232, 243 (2d Cir.) ("The liability of private individuals for
committing war crimes has been recognized since World War I and was
confirmed at Nuremberg after World War II ... and remains today an
important aspect of international law."), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1005
(1996).
133. The President has broad
authority under the Commander in Chief Clause to take action to
superintend the military that overlaps with Congress's power to create
the armed forces and to make rules for their regulation. See
Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 772 (1996) ("The President's
duties as Commander in Chief ... require him to take responsible and
continuing action to superintend the military, including
courts-martial."); United States v. Eliason, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 291, 301
(1842) ("The power of the executive to establish rules and regulations
for the government of the army, is undoubted."). The executive
branch has long asserted that the President has "the unquestioned power
to establish rules for the government of the army" in the absence of
legislation, Power of the President to Create a Militia Bureau in the
War Department, 10 Op. Att'y Gen. 11, 14 (1861). Indeed, at an
early date, Attorney General Wirt concluded that regulations issued by
the President on his independent authority remained in force even after
Congress repealed the statute giving them legislative sanction "in all
cases where they do not conflict with positive legislation."
Brevet Pay of General Macomb, 1 Op. Att'y Gen. 547, 549 (1822).
These independent powers of the President as commander in chief have
frequently been exercised in administering justice in cases involving
members of the Armed Forces: "[i]ndeed, until 1830, courts-martial
were convened solely on [the President's] authority as Commander-in]Chief."
Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of
America: Analysis and INterpretation 479 (1987).
134. FM 27-10, ch. 1, ¶
7(c).
135. 10 U.S.C. § 892 (2000).
Go to Next Page
|