The last time the U.S. Department of Defense published a comprehensive manual on the law of war was in 1956, when Richard Baxter set the standard. Much has happened since then–the U.S., in particular, has engaged in many armed conflicts and other military endeavors — and yet the 1956 Manual, although slightly amended, has never been superseded. In 1990 — that is to say, a quarter of a century ago — esteemed Department of Defense lawyer Hays Parks published a law review article in which he wrote that “the United States has undertaken a two-track program to ensure and enhance continued respect for the law of war. [A] comprehensive military review identified a need to update and significantly expand American military law of war manuals. A new Navy manual was published in 1987, and the new Army law of war manual will be completed in 1990.”

Well, here we are 25 years later and, believe it or not, the Department of Defense today published the long-awaited revised Manual, on behalf of the Department as a whole. (An Army-specific manual reportedly will follow shortly.)

Importantly, the preface states that the manual “is an institutional publication and reflects the views of the Department of Defense,” and that, although it “has benefited significantly from the participation of experts from the Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, and the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, . . . the views in this manual do not necessarily reflect the views of those Departments or the U.S. Government as a whole.”

http://justsecurity.org/23805/law-war-manual/

Pentagon Admits that War is Illegal
Sunday, 14 June 2015, 10:41 am
Article: David Swanson

Pentagon Admits that War is Illegal

By David Swanson
http://davidswanson.org/node/4797

The Pentagon has just published 1,204 pages on how it thinks you can behave legally during a war. Looking through this "Law of War Manual" at various hot topics, one finds some atrocities excused as acceptable (cluster bombs, nuclear bombs) and others rejected as completely disallowed (torture) even when in reality they are routinely engaged in.

Beginning to wonder what the point is of writing out such a lengthy description of laws when someone could just read the laws themselves in less time, I notice that nowhere does this document strengthen any actual law, while in many places it weakens them. It picks and chooses which laws to mention and which to leave out or marginalize in footnotes. It stresses the supposed right to ignore any international law that a nation objected to while that law was being created. It incorporates into the whole scheme the idea of launching wars not only against nations, but against any other entities, and of launching wars in nations with those nations' approval. This paper is a sort of enormous signing statement appended retroactively to all existing laws, indicating which will be adhered to and which disregarded, while attempting to advertise a pattern of legal behavior by the U.S. military as a public relations correction to people's awareness of the actual pattern of lawlessness.


But I think the place to start is with the pretense that war itself is legal. This is what permits three-quarters of this document to exist, devoted as those sections are to proper legal conduct during a war. The Pentagon says that one must fight wars legally whether or not the wars are legal. That is, whether or not you have some legal justification for attacking a country, you must nonetheless meet completely vague standards of proportionality and so forth during the course of the attack -- or of the occupation. There's a large section on the legal conduct of occupations that breezes right past any question of the illegality of maintaining the occupation at all. Here's a typical passage about legal "proportionality": "Attacks using nuclear weapons must not be conducted when the expected incidental harm to civilians is excessive compared to the military advantage expected to be gained." How much "harm" to civilians from nuclear weapons would be "excessive"? The so-called law, once you accept war and then try to regulate its conduct, is in the eye of the sociopathic beholder; there's nothing empirical or enforceable about it.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1506/S00097/pentagon-admits-that-war-is-illegal.htm