Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS Case Brief essay

Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS Case Brief

Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839

Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago

Pages: 5-10

Instructions:

Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS Case Brief

Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS Case Brief

I. Classification of the Conflict and Applicable Law
1. (Document B, para. [1])
a

. Using only the information in this paragraph, how would you classify the situation in Iraq as of 10 June 2014?

b. Did the statement made by the UK Foreign Secretary on 16 June 2014 affect the classification of the situation?

2. (Document B, paras [2]-[3])

a. Using only the information in these paragraphs, how would you evaluate the impact of the US air strikes on the

classification of the situation in Iraq. Was this involvement enough to turn the US into a party to the conflict? Would you

classify the conflict as international or non-international in character?

b. Did the UK’s air drops of aid affect the classification of the conflict? It’s pre-positioning of fighter aircraft in Cyprus?

3. (Document B, para. [4])

a. What impact did the US extension of its bombing campaign of ISIS into Syria have on the classification of the

situation? Would you characterize this as a non-international armed conflict that had spilled over onto Syrian territory? In

your opinion, did these actions trigger an international armed conflict between Syria and the US? Why/Why not?

4. (Document B, para. [5])

a. Based on the information in this paragraph, how would you classify the situation in Iraq as of 30 September 2014?

Who were the parties to the conflict at that time?

5. (Document B, paras. [6]-[9])

a. Did the first strike using Reaper drones in Iraq on November 9th change the classification of the situation?

b. By undertaking surveillance missions over Syria, did the UK become a party to the conflict in Syria? If it had consent of

the Syrian Government? If it did not obtain such consent? Since all the drone flights into Syria were in fact armed?

c. Do you agree with the statement made by the official spokesman of the UK Prime Minister to the effect that

surveillance missions do not constitute military action? Even if all the drones conducting these missions were armed?

6. (Document B, paras [10] – [13])

a. Did the UK’s use of force on Syrian territory in the summer and autumn of 2015 affect the classification of the conflict

in Syria? Does it matter that force was directed against UK nationals and not the Syrian Government?

b. Did the vote by UK MPs in December 2015 to extend UK airstrikes into Syria affect the classification of the situation?

7. (Document A, paras [1], [5]-[8])

a. Does the admission by the British Ministry of Defence in September 2016 that its drones were involved in an airstrike

that killed 62 Syrian Government soldiers have an impact on the classification of the conflict in Syria as at that date?

Referring to para. 6, do you think the classification outcome depends on the intention of the British Government?

b. Are Government soldiers legitimate military targets? Is it problematic that the UK was involved in an airstrike that

killed 62 Syrian soldiers?

c. (Document A, paras [16]-[17]) How could one argue for and against the existence of one or more international or non-

international conflict(s) with the United Kingdom as a party to the conflict? Does it matter whether the coalition forces

informed Russia prior to the strikes?

d. Is an armed conflict between the United Kingdom and ISIS limited to the territory of one or more states? Does it

matter for the classification whether the government of Iraq agrees to the assistance of UK military forces? Is the

situation in Syria different? Does IHL apply to the entire territory of these States or only the parts where the fighting, if

any, is taking place? Does IHL apply to the fighting between the United Kingdom and ISIS outside the territory of these

countries? (GC I-IV, Art. 3)

e. Does it matter for the classification of the conflict whether the Syrian government soldiers were struck intentionally or

by accident? (GC I-IV, Arts 2 and 3; P I, Art. 1; P II, Art. 1)

f. Can fighting against a terrorist organization amount to an armed conflict? What criteria shall be fulfilled for such

fighting to be regarded as an armed conflict? Does IHL apply to armed conflicts against terrorist groups? (GC I-IV, Arts 2 and 3; P I, Art. 1; P II, Art. 1)

g. (Document A, paras [4], [13]-[14]) Do you think Australia and Denmark are also parties to the conflict in Syria? Are each

of these States involved in an international armed conflict with the Syrian Government? Why/Why not?

 

II. Targeted killings
8. (Document B, paras [11]-[12] and [17]-[18])

a. What are targeted killings? Does IHL apply to the targeted killings described in this case? What particular rules of IHL

are at risk of being violated as a result of the practice of targeted killings? (CIHL, Rules 1-21; P I, Arts 35-36; 48, 50, 51

and 57; P II, Art. 13)
b. Under IHL, may individuals be deliberately targeted with the sole aim of killing them? If yes, which individuals may be

so targeted? Is your answer the same for IACs and NIACs? What categories of persons may be targeted in a NIAC? Does this depend on where the individuals are geographically located? Is targeting such individuals lawful if an option to

capture them were available? (CIHL, Rule 6; P II, Art. 13 (3); P I, Art. 51 (3)); See also, Document, ICRC, Interpretive

Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities, Part 2. A. II and Part 2. C. IX).

9. (Document B, paras [19]-[21])
a. Under IHL, is there any obligation to subsequently investigate attacks, which have resulted in death? Injury? If fighters

are killed? If civilians are killed? Only those incidents that may constitute war crimes? Is there such an obligation under

IHRL?

b. Are states under the obligation to report civilian casualties? Do States have to make the results of their investigations

public?

c. In your opinion, is the MoD’s insistence that no civilians have been killed in the 1200 strikes carried out problematic? What steps do you think the MoD should take to better comply with IHL as far as accountability is concerned?

10. Document B, para. [22]) Do you agree that the UK has a responsibility to be transparent about its use of drones?

Might this conflict with the prerogative of States to keep military secrets? Could there exist a legitimate interest that might justify lack of transparency about the criteria according to which persons will be targeted? About which

individuals were actually hit?

 

III. Conduct of Hostilities

11. Is the use of drones per se prohibited under IHL? Do IHL rules on conduct of hostilities apply to drone strikes? If the

target is located outside the territory of a State involved in an armed conflict? (CIHL, Rules 1, 7, 14-15, 21 and 22; P I, Arts 48, 51(2) and (5)(b), 52 (2), 57 and 58)

12. In your opinion, what principles and/or rules of IHL are particularly problematic when drones are used as a weapons

platform? What principles and/or rules become easier to comply with when drones are used as a weapons platform? Is

it easier or more difficult to respect precautions in attacks prescribed by IHL when drones are used? (CIHL, Rules 1, 7,

14-16, 21 and 22; P I, Arts 48, 51(2) and (5)(b), 52 (2), 57 and 58)
13. (Document A, para. [13]) According to the Australian Prime Minister, his country’s aircraft withdrew from the

operation after Russian officials advised that the intended targets may have been Syrian military personnel. Do you think

that by failing to act similarly, the other States involved violated the IHL rules on precautions? Would your response be

different if the persons killed in the attack were not Government soldiers but civilians? (CIHL, Rules 15 and 16; P I, Art. 57)

14. In your opinion, is it unfair to use drones against an enemy who possesses none and/or is unable to shoot them

down? Is it unethical that a drone operator does not run any personal risk of harm during the conduct of an operation? Is

either of these situations illegal?
15. Is the current legal framework sufficient to respond to the development and use of drones or similar new

technologies? Where do you see potential for additional rules?

Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS Case Brief

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS Case Brief

Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS Case Brief

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!