18

If President Trump refuses to execute the war, does that become an act of treason on his part? Probably not, but it depends on the definition of treason. Congress could decide that it is, impeach him, and remove him from office. They could also remove him from office without using the term treason. Is he required to act on such a resolution? Not ...


9

Under the Geneva Convention a prisoner-of-war may lawfully resume fighting once they have successfully escaped. Under Article 91: The escape of a prisoner of war shall be deemed to have succeeded when: He has joined the armed forces of the Power on which he depends, or those of an allied Power; He has left the territory under the control of the Detaining ...


6

The Commander-in-chief powers are quite broad. The War Powers Resolution limits his ability to engage unilaterally in military action, by requiring him to report to Congress within 48 hours, and if Congress disapproves, troops must be removed after 60 days. However, this law pertains to armed forces, and would not apply to remotely-launched missiles. ...


5

Was International Law Violated? When it used chemical weapons to kill large numbers of civilians in his own country, Assad's regime in Syria was violating its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international treaty obligation that the regime acknowledged was binding upon it in 2013 when at U.S. insistence and with Russian supervision, the ...


5

Under Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, The Congress shall have power... To declare war but does not say what follows from "declaring war", nor does it say what form such a declaration shall take. This rather long document analyzes the notion of "declaration of war". The primary significance of a "declaration of war" lies in ...


5

The international laws of war are generally much easier to apply in the context of a group of people claiming to be a state, than in the context of a group of people who do not claim to be a state. For example, one of the critical questions for classifying an individual under the laws of war is whether the enemy combatant is publicly identified as a soldier ...


4

Depends a lot on who is invading and who is being invaded. In the case of USA invading France, NATO and the European Union would have something to say about it, and the USA would be in big trouble for violating several conventions. They'd likely be faced with a lot of sanctions as well as a coalition of militaries backing up France. But if Chad were to ...


4

You could almost define a country as, "an entity that can defend itself against invasions." Non-sovereign entities are indeed generally prohibited from deploying lethal autonomous defense systems like booby-traps. But governments and state-like actors, as a matter of practice, choose their own rules. laws-of-war and international-law are not like "regular"...


4

Is it possible for the US to be at war with a non-nation actor (ISIL, Al-Quaeda), in the same way that the US was at war with other recognized nations in WWII? Yes. Basically. As noted in the other answer it is usually not called a declaration of war if it is against a non-state actor. If yes, has there been a declaration of war with XXXX (ISIL, ...


4

The original country laws by default, but that can change. Once a country(let's say Elbonia) takes unconstested control of a town/region(let's say Silvania), it becomes an occupying power and has the obligation of ensuring the safety and well-being of its population. It usally also has the practical need of ensuring that the zone does not plunge into chaos, ...


4

If the FBI has reason to believe they have committed a crime under US law Being an official of a foreign (or domestic) government in a military or civilian capacity does not make a person immune from US law except in the specific case of diplomatic immunity. There are some US laws that apply even if the perpetrator is not and has never been in the US, for ...


3

No (assuming that nothing new as happened since I last saw the news earlier today, these matters can change in a matter of hours during the course of a day). There has been no declaration of war by Congress (which has the sole power to declare war under the U.S. Constitution), there has been no authorization by Congress to use military force (the modern ...


3

The concept of "legality" presupposed a governing body, for example the US government establishes what is legal in the US, and not that is legal in Canada or Iran. There are a number of multi-national organizations such as NATO or the United Nations which include multiple countries but which are not themselves governments (and then there is the EU which ...


3

"Does threatening to attack cultural heritage constitute conspiracy to commit a war crime..." Almost certainly not. It's a threat to commit a war crime, but is probably not illegal in and of itself. On the other hand, if the Commander In Chief were to ask his generals what would be involved in mounting a cruise missile attack on the Meidan Emam in Esfahan,...


3

I interpret the sentence "intruder enters your home using the internet" in the question as not as physically entering the home but as virtually entering the home, in other words hacking into the victim's home network remotely. When that interpretation is incorrect, please comment. Note that an action can only be considered self-defense when the self-defense ...


3

What if the enemy gives aid & comfort to you instead? Is that treason? Is it covered by a different crime? This is not treason on the part of the recipient, although it could involve receipt of a bribe, or failure to register as a foreign agent, if it were in exchange for the performance or expected performance of some official act or a fee for ...


3

Napoleon was never a prisoner of war, since he surrendered, as you say, after the conclusion of hostilities. If a label is necessary, he was probably a prisoner of State; but the important point was that in Rochefort he surrendered not, as in 1814, to the Allied Powers but to the British Government specifically: he dictated a letter on 13 July 1815 to George ...


3

Country A and country B must do whatever they agree in the settlement of the conflict between themselves - returning or ceding of territory being one of these. Or they can disagree about these laying the seeds for further conflict. The most recent example of this is Russia's seizure of the Crimea from Ukraine; which they legitimised by a plebiscite. AFAIK, ...


3

The fact that an explosive device is improvised is irrelevant to any law of war with which I am familiar. "Legal in war" is more a matter of deciding which treaty, convention, or custom you care to respect.


2

While your question is primarily directed towards the use of legal autonomous weapons systems by military forces, I will address one tangential point (I may provide a separate answer on the military issues later). There is a long standing (i.e. many hundreds of years old) common law rule of premises liability in Britain, which has now been incorporated by ...


2

Paragraph 8 defines chemical weapon as "the following, together or separately". Before looking at the content, you have to ask what that could mean. In saying "or separately", that means that if any one of the following is true, it constitutes a chemical weapon. Subparagraph (a) identifies toxic chemicals (it qualifies) but with an exception ("intended for ...


2

The Nazi gas chambers used Zyklon B, a device and formulation for dispersing hydrogen cyanide (HCN), which is an extraordinarily lethal chemical. In gas chambers these devices were employed in a manner specifically to cause the death of masses of persons through direct exposure to the chemical HCN. But Zyklon B devices were developed and used for peaceful ...


2

Outside of the Counterintelligence list, there are no North Korean, Chinese, or Russian military officers or government officials are on any of the FBI wanted list. The Counterintelligence list includes one Chinese military officer, but no Russian or Korean military officers (though it is possible albeit unlikely that the three Russians on the list are in ...


2

There is no such limitation Each sovereign state is free to recognise or not recognise another state. Further, each is free to recognise or not recognise a government of a state they recognise. For example, most Arab nations do not recognise Israel and, by extension, the government of Israel. Without a UN resolution sanctions are also a matter for ...


2

Yes. This follows article 6 of the UN Charter: A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.


2

Congress has not officially declared war since WWII. We have "been at war" a number of times. There is a long legal analysis which exposes the nuances of the question, for example (start p. 49) 2 USC 198(b) says that the adjournment statute is not applicable in case of declared war: This section shall not be applicable in any year if on July 31 of such ...


1

The military doesn't change a country's boundaries, and doesn't change a countries laws. That would be done at some later point in some official negotiations. For example, no matter what the military did, there was some point in time where legally North Vietnam and South Vietnam became Vietnam and (I assume) the laws of North Vietnam become the laws of ...


1

It depends For example, the most ubiquitous "autonomous weapons system" is the anti-personal mine. These are illegal under the Ottawa Treaty which has been ratified by 40 nations including most of Europe, Africa, South & Central America, South-east Asia, Australia, Canada and Mexico so the use of anti-personnel mines by or against those nations ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible