Unlawful combatant (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Unlawful combatant" in English language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank English rank

27web.archive.org

1^st place

11icrc.org

2,421^st place

2,218^th place

4doi.org

2^nd place

4nih.gov

4^th place

3un.org

97^th place

164^th place

3ohchr.org

1,210^th place

1,422^nd place

3yale.edu

565^th place

460^th place

3bbc.co.uk

8^th place

10^th place

3findlaw.com

1,478^th place

868^th place

2hrw.org

729^th place

650^th place

2wikisource.org

27^th place

51^st place

2newyorker.com

146^th place

110^th place

2nytimes.com

7^th place

2theglobeandmail.com

293^rd place

203^rd place

2defenselink.mil

4,722^nd place

3,194^th place

1abanet.org

low place

1uwe.ac.uk

8,193^rd place

5,548^th place

1hpcr.org

low place

1af.mil

439^th place

283^rd place

1guide-humanitarian-law.org

low place

1justice.gov

918^th place

556^th place

1usnwc.edu

low place

9,093^rd place

1corteidh.or.cr

low place

1cornell.edu

332^nd place

246^th place

1agh-attorneys.com

low place

1umkc.edu

2,839^th place

1,792^nd place

1prospect.org

8,179^th place

5,000^th place

1fsu.edu

2,584^th place

1,811^th place

1aclu.org

5,482^nd place

3,140^th place

1archives.gov

446^th place

308^th place

1uchicago.edu

230^th place

214^th place

1oup.com

485^th place

440^th place

1taylorfrancis.com

3,142^nd place

2,072^nd place

1globalsecurity.org

443^rd place

435^th place

1pitt.edu

1,476^th place

1,056^th place

1uscourts.gov

2,275^th place

1,288^th place

1arabnews.com

1,365^th place

928^th place

1syr.edu

3,753^rd place

2,311^th place

1commondreams.org

5,363^rd place

3,477^th place

1utrechtlawreview.org

low place

1ap.org

1,596^th place

964^th place

1shu.edu

low place

1villagevoice.com

856^th place

532^nd place

1washingtonpost.com

34^th place

27^th place

1ap.google.com

7,926^th place

5,166^th place

1baltimoresun.com

453^rd place

267^th place

1latimes.com

22^nd place

19^th place

1wsj.com

79^th place

65^th place

1timesonline.co.uk

241^st place

193^rd place

1csmonitor.com

791^st place

550^th place

1humanrightsfirst.org

low place

1jcpa.org

9,643^rd place

7,561^st place

1justice.gov.il

low place

1cps.gov.uk

8,764^th place

5,075^th place

1fas.org

505^th place

410^th place

1state.gov

264^th place

249^th place

1theperspective.org

low place

abanet.org

"Unlawful Combatants" in the United States: Drawing the Fine Line Between Law and War Archived 14 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine Human Rights Magazine Winter 2003, published by the American Bar Association

aclu.org

Revised ACLU Interested Person's Memo Urging Congress to Reject Power to Detain Suspected Terrorists Indefinitely Without Charge, Trial or a Right to Counsel by the American Civil Liberties Union

af.mil

au.af.mil

Brown, Gary D.. Prisoner of war parole: Ancient concept, modern utility The Military Law Review, Vol 156 (June 1998) p.13 ( Major Gary D. Brown in June 1998 was Chief, International and Operational Law at Headquarters, United States Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

agh-attorneys.com

Ex Parte Quirin -n1- (Nos. 1-7CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) or Ex Parte Quirin Archived 23 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine or EX PARTE QUIRIN Archived 19 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine

ap.google.com

Mark Sherman (12 June 2008). "High Court: Gitmo detainees have rights in court". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 22 June 2008. Retrieved 12 June 2008. The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

ap.org

wid.ap.org

Moazzam Begg's dossier (.pdf)^{[permanent dead link]} from his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, hosted by Associated Press

arabnews.com

Guantanamo inmates can be held 'in perpetuity'- US, Arab News, 16 June 2005. (Reuters report 15 June 2005)

archives.gov

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

President George W. Bush's Military Order of 13 November 2001: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism; 66 FR 57833 backup site Archived 4 April 2003 at the Wayback Machine

baltimoresun.com

weblogs.baltimoresun.com

James Oliphant (12 June 2008). "Court backs Gitmo detainees". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 14 June 2008. Retrieved 12 June 2008.

bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

1976 June 28: Death sentence for Angolan mercenaries BBC
Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling, BBC 8 July 2004
British Army Board of Inquiry into death of Sgt Steven Roberts, 31 July 2007, website of the BBC. See paragraph 61 for details of British Rules of Engagement in the Iraq War

commondreams.org

Appeals Court Says Bush Can't Hold U.S. Citizen Archived 22 January 2014 at the Wayback Machine Published on Thursday, 18 December 2003 by Reuters

cornell.edu

supct.law.cornell.edu

Ex Parte Quirin -n1- (Nos. 1-7CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) or Ex Parte Quirin Archived 23 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine or EX PARTE QUIRIN Archived 19 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine

corteidh.or.cr

Annyssa Bellal, Gilles Giacca, and Stuart Casey-Maslen (March 2011). "International law and armed non-state actors in Afghanistan" (PDF). International Law Studies. 93 (881). International Review of the Red Cross: 52.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

cps.gov.uk

Crown Prosecution Service (27 April 2006). "CPS decision on Iraq deaths: Press Release". CPS website. Archived from the original on 26 September 2010.

csmonitor.com

"Obama endorses military commissions for Guantánamo detainees". The Christian Science Monitor. 29 October 2009. Archived from the original on 31 May 2023.

defenselink.mil

Sergeant Sara Wood (4 June 2007). "Charges Dismissed Against Canadian at Guantanamo". United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
Sergeant Sara Wood (4 June 2007). "Judge Dismisses Charges Against Second Guantanamo Detainee". United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

doi.org

Holmes D, Perron A (2007). "Violating ethics: unlawful combatants, national security and health professionals". J Med Ethics. 33 (3): 143–5. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016550. PMC 2598252. PMID 17329383. The official position of the US government is that these detainees are not prisoners of war. Rather, they are unlawful combatants and, consequently, are not subject to the rules and regulations governing wartime, such as found in the Geneva Conventions. This distinction is legally suspect,12,13 but it is the basis on which the Bush administration has justified (or tolerated) torture.
Rowe P (2002). "Freedom fighters and rebels: the rules of civil war". J R Soc Med. 95 (1): 3–4. doi:10.1177/014107680209500102. PMC 1279138. PMID 11773342.
Vierucci, Luisa (1 August 2003). "Prisoners of War or Protected Persons qua Unlawful Combatants? The Judicial Safeguards to which Guantanamo Bay Detainees are Entitled". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 1 (2): 284–314. doi:10.1093/jicj/1.2.284. Retrieved 15 November 2022.
Rabkin, Jeremy (2018), "After Guantanamo: The War Over the Geneva Convention", The National Interest on International Law and Order, pp. 63–76, doi:10.4324/9781351323642-8, ISBN 9781351323642, retrieved 15 November 2022

fas.org

Elsea, Jennifer (13 January 2005) [11 April 2002]. Treatment of "Battlefield Detainees" in the War on Terrorism (PDF). American Law Division CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL31367. p. 41 (CRS–38).

findlaw.com

news.findlaw.com

report by the American Bar Association in PDF
US Congress' joint resolution of 18 September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF"); public law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

Rasul et al. v. Bush, President of the United States)

fsu.edu

law.fsu.edu

War and the Constitution Archived 12 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine by George P. Fletcher in The American Prospect Issue Date: 1.1.02 or War and the Constitution Archived 18 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine and the response The Military Tribunal Debate Archived 28 April 2005 at the Wayback Machine

globalsecurity.org

DoD News: Combatant Status Review Tribunals Update No. 057-05, 19 January 2005

guide-humanitarian-law.org

"The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law: Nonstate Armed Groups". Médecins Sans Frontières.

hpcr.org

Warriors without rights? combatants, unprivileged belligerents, and the struggle over legitimacy Archived 9 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine by Kenneth Watkin for The Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research

hrw.org

Background Paper on Geneva Conventions and Persons Held by U.S. Forces by "Human Rights Watch Press" footnote 1: International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva: 1958), p. 51 (emphasis in original). The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, charged with prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the recent conflicts in the Balkans, has explicitly affirmed this principle in a 1998 judgment, stating that "there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention], provided that its article 4 requirements [defining a protected person] are satisfied". Celebici Judgment, para. 271 (1998).
"Israel: Opportunistic Law Condemned". Human Rights Watch. March 2002.

humanrightsfirst.org

Military Commissions

icrc.org

"The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism". International Committee of the Red Cross. 1 January 2011. Retrieved 30 June 2019. If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms).
Commentary for Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
Dörmann, Knut (March 2003). "The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants]" (PDF). IRRC. 85 (849).
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia "Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No". IT-96-21-T seems to return the Appeal Judgment instead of the Trial Judgment. However, the relevant section of the Judgment is available from the University of the West of England Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons". See: Para. 271 Archived 30 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine:
In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;
[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view". Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.
Geneva Conventions Protocol I Article 51.3 also covers this interpretation "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities".
The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism official statement by the ICRC 21 July 2005. "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
Article 51 (3) of Additional Protocol I "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities". (Geneva Conventions Protocol I Article 51.3)
Rupert Ticehurst The Martens Clause and the Laws of Armed Conflict 30 April 1997, International Review of the Red Cross, no. 317, p.125-134
Vladimir Pustogarov, Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens (1845–1909) – a humanist of modern times, 30 June 1996 International Review of the Red Cross, no. 312, p.300-314
Commentary on the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929
ICRC Commentary on GCIII: Article 21

jcpa.org

Israel's Commitment to Domestic and International Law in Times of War by Judge Amnon Straschnov Former IDF Military Advocate General.

justice.gov

"Former Taliban Commander Charged with Killing American Troops in 2008". United States Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs. 7 October 2021.

justice.gov.il

Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law, 5762-2002 Archived 18 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine (DOC) "unlawful combatant" means a person who has participated either directly or indirectly in hostile acts against the State of Israel or is a member of a force perpetrating hostile acts against the State of Israel, where the conditions prescribed in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 with respect to prisoners-of-war and granting prisoner-of-war status in international humanitarian law, do not apply to him.

latimes.com

Solicitor general nominee says 'enemy combatants' can be held without trial, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2009

newyorker.com

Outsourcing torture: The secret history of America's "extraordinary rendition" program by Jane Mayer The New Yorker Issue of 2005-02-14 Posted 2005-02-07 Paragraph 32
Outsourcing torture: The secret history of America's "extraordinary rendition" program by Jane Mayer The New Yorker Issue of 2005-02-14 Posted 2005-02-07 Paragraph 34

nih.gov

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Holmes D, Perron A (2007). "Violating ethics: unlawful combatants, national security and health professionals". J Med Ethics. 33 (3): 143–5. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016550. PMC 2598252. PMID 17329383. The official position of the US government is that these detainees are not prisoners of war. Rather, they are unlawful combatants and, consequently, are not subject to the rules and regulations governing wartime, such as found in the Geneva Conventions. This distinction is legally suspect,12,13 but it is the basis on which the Bush administration has justified (or tolerated) torture.
Rowe P (2002). "Freedom fighters and rebels: the rules of civil war". J R Soc Med. 95 (1): 3–4. doi:10.1177/014107680209500102. PMC 1279138. PMID 11773342.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Holmes D, Perron A (2007). "Violating ethics: unlawful combatants, national security and health professionals". J Med Ethics. 33 (3): 143–5. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016550. PMC 2598252. PMID 17329383. The official position of the US government is that these detainees are not prisoners of war. Rather, they are unlawful combatants and, consequently, are not subject to the rules and regulations governing wartime, such as found in the Geneva Conventions. This distinction is legally suspect,12,13 but it is the basis on which the Bush administration has justified (or tolerated) torture.
Rowe P (2002). "Freedom fighters and rebels: the rules of civil war". J R Soc Med. 95 (1): 3–4. doi:10.1177/014107680209500102. PMC 1279138. PMID 11773342.

nytimes.com

Judge Says Terror Suspect Can't Be Held as an Enemy Combatant The New York Times 1 March 2005
Glaberson, William (5 June 2007). "Military Judges Dismiss Charges for 2 Detainees". The New York Times.

ohchr.org

Under Article 47 of Protocol I (Additional to the Geneva Conventions) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention– International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries A/RES/44/34 72nd plenary meeting 4 December 1989 (UN Mercenary Convention). Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1 states that "A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention." – International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries Archived 8 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries A/RES/44/34 72nd plenary meeting 4 December 1989 (UN Mercenary Convention) Entry into force: 20 October 2001 Archived 12 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries Archived 12 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine

oup.com

academic.oup.com

Vierucci, Luisa (1 August 2003). "Prisoners of War or Protected Persons qua Unlawful Combatants? The Judicial Safeguards to which Guantanamo Bay Detainees are Entitled". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 1 (2): 284–314. doi:10.1093/jicj/1.2.284. Retrieved 15 November 2022.

pitt.edu

jurist.law.pitt.edu

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld summary, full text (PDF File) Archived 1 April 2005 at the Wayback Machine – U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presiding Judge James Robertson

prospect.org

War and the Constitution Archived 12 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine by George P. Fletcher in The American Prospect Issue Date: 1.1.02 or War and the Constitution Archived 18 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine and the response The Military Tribunal Debate Archived 28 April 2005 at the Wayback Machine

shu.edu

law.shu.edu

No-hearing hearings Archived 7 September 2009 at the Wayback Machine by, Mark Denbeaux, Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees, Joshua Denbeaux, Esq. and David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann, Megan Sassaman and Helen Skinner Students of Seton Hall University School of Law

state.gov

2001-2009.state.gov

Comments on the Arrest and Detention of Journalist Hassan Bility in Liberia Press Statement by Richard Boucher, Spokesman in the U.S State Department, 8 July 2002

syr.edu

law.syr.edu

Authorization for Use of Military Force: Padilla v. Bush: Jose Padilla under the Joint Resolution Archived 3 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine The Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, issued by the Syracuse University College of Law

taylorfrancis.com

Rabkin, Jeremy (2018), "After Guantanamo: The War Over the Geneva Convention", The National Interest on International Law and Order, pp. 63–76, doi:10.4324/9781351323642-8, ISBN 9781351323642, retrieved 15 November 2022

theglobeandmail.com

Koring, Paul (2007). "U.S. case against Khadr collapses". Toronto Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 6 June 2007.
Mark Sherman (12 June 2008). "Terror suspects can challenge detention: U.S. Supreme Court". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 14 June 2008. Retrieved 12 June 2008.

theperspective.org

"Tortured Journalist Hassan Bility Speaks Out".

timesonline.co.uk

Tim Reid. Problem of Guantánamo detainees returns to haunt Barack Obama, The Times, 4 May 2009

uchicago.edu

law.uchicago.edu

President George W. Bush's Military Order of 13 November 2001: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism; 66 FR 57833 backup site Archived 4 April 2003 at the Wayback Machine

umkc.edu

law.umkc.edu

Ex Parte Quirin -n1- (Nos. 1-7CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) or Ex Parte Quirin Archived 23 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine or EX PARTE QUIRIN Archived 19 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine

un.org

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia "Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No". IT-96-21-T seems to return the Appeal Judgment instead of the Trial Judgment. However, the relevant section of the Judgment is available from the University of the West of England Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons". See: Para. 271 Archived 30 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine:
In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;
[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view". Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.
Under Article 47 of Protocol I (Additional to the Geneva Conventions) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention– International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries A/RES/44/34 72nd plenary meeting 4 December 1989 (UN Mercenary Convention). Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1 states that "A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention." – International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries Archived 8 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries A/RES/44/34 72nd plenary meeting 4 December 1989 (UN Mercenary Convention) Entry into force: 20 October 2001 Archived 12 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine

uscourts.gov

dcd.uscourts.gov

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld summary, full text (PDF File) Archived 1 April 2005 at the Wayback Machine – U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presiding Judge James Robertson

usnwc.edu

digital-commons.usnwc.edu

Michael N. Schmitt (2009). "Targeting and International Humanitarian Law in Afghanistan". International Law Studies. 85: 308.

utrechtlawreview.org

Guantánamo Bay: A Reflection On The Legal Status And Rights Of ‘Unlawful Enemy Combatants’ Archived 18 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine PDF by Terry Gill and Elies van Sliedregt in the Utrecht Law Review or

uwe.ac.uk

ess.uwe.ac.uk

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia "Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No". IT-96-21-T seems to return the Appeal Judgment instead of the Trial Judgment. However, the relevant section of the Judgment is available from the University of the West of England Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons". See: Para. 271 Archived 30 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine:
In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;
[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view". Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.

villagevoice.com

Nat Hentoff (8 December 2006). "Bush's War Crimes Cover-up". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 17 June 2008. Retrieved 2 April 2007.

washingtonpost.com

"Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases", Washington Post

web.archive.org

"Unlawful Combatants" in the United States: Drawing the Fine Line Between Law and War Archived 14 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine Human Rights Magazine Winter 2003, published by the American Bar Association
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia "Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No". IT-96-21-T seems to return the Appeal Judgment instead of the Trial Judgment. However, the relevant section of the Judgment is available from the University of the West of England Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons". See: Para. 271 Archived 30 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine:
In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;
[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view". Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.
Under Article 47 of Protocol I (Additional to the Geneva Conventions) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention– International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries A/RES/44/34 72nd plenary meeting 4 December 1989 (UN Mercenary Convention). Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1 states that "A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention." – International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries Archived 8 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine
Warriors without rights? combatants, unprivileged belligerents, and the struggle over legitimacy Archived 9 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine by Kenneth Watkin for The Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II) Archived 30 April 2007 at the Wayback Machine; 29 July 1899. contained in the Avalon Project archive at Yale Law School
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II) Archived 30 April 2007 at the Wayback Machine; 29 July 1899. contained in the Avalon Project archive at Yale Law School
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries A/RES/44/34 72nd plenary meeting 4 December 1989 (UN Mercenary Convention) Entry into force: 20 October 2001 Archived 12 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries Archived 12 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) Archived 21 August 2016 at the Wayback Machine; 18 October 1907
Ex Parte Quirin -n1- (Nos. 1-7CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) or Ex Parte Quirin Archived 23 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine or EX PARTE QUIRIN Archived 19 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine
War and the Constitution Archived 12 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine by George P. Fletcher in The American Prospect Issue Date: 1.1.02 or War and the Constitution Archived 18 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine and the response The Military Tribunal Debate Archived 28 April 2005 at the Wayback Machine
Terrorism and the rule of law by Nicholas Cowdery AM QC, President, International Association of Prosecutors Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW, Australia, at International Association of Prosecutors 8th Annual Conference, Washington, D.C. – 10–14 August 2003.
The Gitmo Fallout: The fight over the Hamdan ruling heats up—as fears about its reach escalate. By Michael Isikoff and Stuart Taylor Jr., Newsweek, 17 July 2006
President George W. Bush's Military Order of 13 November 2001: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism; 66 FR 57833 backup site Archived 4 April 2003 at the Wayback Machine
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld summary, full text (PDF File) Archived 1 April 2005 at the Wayback Machine – U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presiding Judge James Robertson
Authorization for Use of Military Force: Padilla v. Bush: Jose Padilla under the Joint Resolution Archived 3 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine The Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, issued by the Syracuse University College of Law
Appeals Court Says Bush Can't Hold U.S. Citizen Archived 22 January 2014 at the Wayback Machine Published on Thursday, 18 December 2003 by Reuters
Guantánamo Bay: A Reflection On The Legal Status And Rights Of ‘Unlawful Enemy Combatants’ Archived 18 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine PDF by Terry Gill and Elies van Sliedregt in the Utrecht Law Review or
No-hearing hearings Archived 7 September 2009 at the Wayback Machine by, Mark Denbeaux, Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees, Joshua Denbeaux, Esq. and David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann, Megan Sassaman and Helen Skinner Students of Seton Hall University School of Law
Nat Hentoff (8 December 2006). "Bush's War Crimes Cover-up". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 17 June 2008. Retrieved 2 April 2007.
Koring, Paul (2007). "U.S. case against Khadr collapses". Toronto Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 6 June 2007.
Mark Sherman (12 June 2008). "High Court: Gitmo detainees have rights in court". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 22 June 2008. Retrieved 12 June 2008. The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.
Mark Sherman (12 June 2008). "Terror suspects can challenge detention: U.S. Supreme Court". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 14 June 2008. Retrieved 12 June 2008.
James Oliphant (12 June 2008). "Court backs Gitmo detainees". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 14 June 2008. Retrieved 12 June 2008.
"Obama endorses military commissions for Guantánamo detainees". The Christian Science Monitor. 29 October 2009. Archived from the original on 31 May 2023.
Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law, 5762-2002 Archived 18 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine (DOC) "unlawful combatant" means a person who has participated either directly or indirectly in hostile acts against the State of Israel or is a member of a force perpetrating hostile acts against the State of Israel, where the conditions prescribed in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 with respect to prisoners-of-war and granting prisoner-of-war status in international humanitarian law, do not apply to him.
Crown Prosecution Service (27 April 2006). "CPS decision on Iraq deaths: Press Release". CPS website. Archived from the original on 26 September 2010.

wikisource.org

en.wikisource.org

wsj.com

Evan Perez. Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely, Wall Street Journal, 14 May 2009

yale.edu

Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II) Archived 30 April 2007 at the Wayback Machine; 29 July 1899. contained in the Avalon Project archive at Yale Law School
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II) Archived 30 April 2007 at the Wayback Machine; 29 July 1899. contained in the Avalon Project archive at Yale Law School
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) Archived 21 August 2016 at the Wayback Machine; 18 October 1907