The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[Polarbear1605]

I just finished reading the Ben Emmerson attachment…and it is a bit too righteous for my taste. First: Thanks to JMM99 for the two above posts. Second; a disclaimer; I am a retired military guy and ain’t no lawyer (no offense there JMM99). Like JMM99 I have some issues with that word “mandate” that Mr Emmerson seems to quick draw from his two holster gun belt.

As a military guy, Mr Emmerson also annoys me greatly because he quick draws another term…i.e “rule of law”. It annoys me because I see and hear our own (US) general officers draw, fire and then aim that term whenever they want to invoke an “all bark and no bite” conversation about war, COIN and strategy. Having said that indulge me, as I ask some questions.

Mr E. speaks of the “Rule of Law”… whose’s? US ROL? UK’s? Pakistan? international human rights ROL. And which one of these sets of ROL applies to non-state terrorist operating outside each jurisdiction?? On 9/11 the US had to make a decision between the ROL or the LOW. LOW always seemed the right choice to me.

Is international human rights that Mr E represents a ROL? Or “The drafters almost certainly believed that they were stating general principles, not laws that would be enforced by national courts...I can affirm that the administration I represented considered it primarily a diplomatic weapon”. IRL is the embodiment of “War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means”. In other words it is not law; it’s politics.

He mentioned the 474 civilians killed in Pakistan by drone strikes (including 176 children) but make no mention of the Afghanistan civilian casualties due to enemy (Taliban) activity?... it is in the thousands and been rising 30% per year since 2006. Why start with drone strikes Mr E. when so many more are the victims of enemy activity?

Mr E mentions a Pakistan citizen from Northern Waziristan receiving a judicial review from the High Court in London. How does a Pakistani from North Waziristan get a judicial claim for a drone attack through the ROL process all the way to London? Who is helping him?

Where is the argument for “self-defense Mr E? Not only is self-defense a universal principle but also it goes back as far as St Thomas Aquinas. As a county and as an individual we have a right to self-defense especially when a set of non-state extremists opening declare total war on all US citizens and prove it by collapsing two skyscrapers and killing nearly 3000 innocent civilians.

Why introduce the torture issue as an absolute when it is actually a debate because no one seems to have the political courage to define it? You know better…my opinion is here.

I suspect that Mr E. is more politics and less counter terrorism LOW for a number of reasons. He is trying to gather political support at the US expense and he is playing into the lawfare campaign of terrorist.

I have to think that Mr E. has it all wrong.

[jmm99]

except to segue into what he really wants to say.

Anyhow, I'm now a Retired Gentleman (a ripoff from Victor McLaughlin in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon") - not a lawyer[*] ...

But, in answer to your question - Mr Emmerson will use any law he can argue (1) to defend his clients; and (2) to paint the USG as war criminals. What is ironic is that the USG is footing a good percentage of Mr Emmerson's "mandate" to make that happen.

[*]

Not being entirely stupid, my Mich license is still in effect (which also applies to the Federal Courts, including SCOTUS); but other than posts here, I've kept away from the rest of law for the past year.

Instead, I been working on my house (a Karate Kid type "wax on, wax off" approach to reach some semblence of physical condition), and some selected military readings (e.g., the BEF in WWI, including many personal memoirs from that conflict).

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Strikes (whether drone or other air, or boots on the ground direct actions) can be divided into two catagories, depending on what is known and unknown re: the target.

A "personality strike" is one targeting an individual whose identity and past and current activities are known. When the strike is conducted, those making the decision to engage are primarily concerned with (1) the degree of confidence that the particular individual is present; and (2) the extent of collateral damage that can be tolerated. UBL and al-Awlaki, for example.

A "signature strike" is one targeting an individual (or individuals) whose precise identity is (precise identities are) unknown or uncertain. Instead, the individual or individuals must match a pre-identified “signature” (a behavior set) that the targeter links to terrorist activity or association.

I expect we'll be hearing much more about "signature strikes".

The signature strike matrix below is strictly hypothetical (presented as a quote only to set it off):

A Signature Strike Matrix

(1) Individual(s) Planning Attacks

(2) Individual(s) Transporting Weapons (not incl. legal weapons ?)

(3) Individual(s) Handling Explosives

(4) Individual(s) in Terrorist Compound

(5) Individual(s) in Terrorist Training Camp

(6) Military-Age Male(s) in Known Terrorist Activity Area

(7) Individual(s) Consorting with Known Militants

(8) Armed Man(Men) Traveling (on foot)(in vehicles) in Terrorist-Controlled Area

(9) Individual(s) in Suspicious Camp located in Terrorist-Controlled Area

(10) Group(s) of Armed Men Traveling Toward Conflict Area

(11) Individual(s) Operating a Terrorist Training Camp

(12) Individual(s) Training to Join a Terrorist Group

(13) Individual(s) Facilitating a Terrorist Group

(14) Individual(s) in Terrorist Rest Facilities (Safe Houses)

Discuss, if you wish, the plusses and minuses of the matrix as written

- as well as

(1) the test you would use to include a factor (e.g., "more likely than not", "reasonable certainty", "high degree of confidence", etc., etc.);

(2) whether you would include or exclude each factor separately without considering the other factors (strict "must stand on its own" test); or would you aggregate all factors supported by some evidence, even where each such factor would not "stand on its own" ("conditional probability"); and

(3) whether other factors should be added to the matrix.

This doesn't require legalese.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

1. President Obama will target Al Qaeda operatives with drones and special forces. President Romney will target Al Qaeda operatives with drones and special forces.

2. President Obama will not close Guantanamo Bay and will follow a policy of indefinite detention. President Romney will not close Guantanamo Bay and will follow a policy of indefinite detention.

3. President Obama will use a combination of federal courts and military commissions to try suspected terrorists. President Romney will use a combination of federal courts and military commissions to try suspected terrorists.

4. President Obama will work to update the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and institutionalize its authorities. President Romney will work to update the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and institutionalize its authorities.

5. President Obama will not reinstate the Bush administration’s interrogation policies; but neither will he create any mechanism of accountability for those responsible for the Bush-era interrogations. President Romney will not reinstate the Bush administration’s interrogation policies; but neither will he create any mechanism of accountability for those responsible for the Bush-era interrogations.

6. President Obama will use warrantless wiretapping. President Romney will use warrantless wiretapping.

7. The "international legal community" will not approve of President Obama's policies; and the NY Times and Wash Post Editorial Boards will wring their hands about the lack of "international support". The "international legal community" will not approve of President Romney's policies; and the NY Times and Wash Post Editorial Boards will wring their hands about the lack of "international support".

HT to Ben Wittes for the basic concept.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

The initial decision of the ICTY condemning Gotovina and Markac to 24 years and 18 years imprisonment (they have been in detention since 2005) was reported here at posts 117, 118 & 119. The Amicus Brief (by US-UK military law experts) arguing reversal of the convictions is reported here at posts 120 & 121.

Reuters, Hague appeal tribunal frees jailed Croatian officers:

Svebor Kranjc
Reuters
9:39 a.m. CST, November 16, 2012

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The most senior Croatian military officer convicted of war crimes during the Balkan wars of the 1990s was freed on appeal on Friday in a decision that will strain already fraught relations between Croatia and its old enemy Serbia.

General Ante Gotovina was cleared by appeal judges at the U.N. war crimes tribunal after being convicted of targeting hospitals and other civilian sites during a military operation to retake Croatia's Krajina region from rebel Serbs.

Gotovina, hailed as a hero at home but reviled in neighboring Serbia, was freed along with Croatian police commander Mladen Markac. ... (more in story)

Since it was set up in 1993, the tribunal has indicted 161 people for crimes committed during the Yugoslav wars, of whom only 14 have been acquitted.

ICTY, The Hague, 16 November 2012: Appeals Judgement Summary for Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač:

...
The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber concluded that the Appellants were members of a JCE whose common purpose was to permanently remove Serb civilians from the Krajina by force or threat of force. The Trial Chamber’s conclusion that a JCE existed was based on its overall assessment of several mutually-reinforcing findings. The Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius and Judge Pocar dissenting, considers that the touchstone of the Trial Chamber’s analysis concerning the existence of a JCE was its conclusion that unlawful artillery attacks targeted civilians and civilian objects in the Four Towns, and that these unlawful attacks caused the deportation of large numbers of civilians from the Krajina region.

The Trial Chamber’s finding that the artillery attacks on the Four Towns were unlawful was heavily premised on its analysis of individual impact sites within the Four Towns, which I will refer to as the “Impact Analysis”. This Impact Analysis was in turn based on the Trial Chamber’s finding a 200 metre range of error for artillery projectiles fired at the Four Towns, which I will refer to as the “200 Metre Standard”. Based on this range of error, the Trial Chamber found that all impact sites located more than 200 metres from a target it deemed legitimate served as evidence of an unlawful artillery attack. In identifying legitimate targets, the Trial Chamber took into account, in part, its finding that the HV could not identify targets of opportunity, such as moving police or military vehicles, in the Four Towns.

The Appeals Chamber unanimously holds that the Trial Chamber erred in deriving the 200 Metre Standard. The Trial Judgement contains no indication that any evidence considered by the Trial Chamber suggested a 200 metre margin of error, and it is devoid of any specific reasoning as to how the Trial Chamber derived this margin of error. The Trial Chamber considered evidence from expert witnesses who testified as to factors, such as wind speed and air temperature, that could cause variations in the accuracy of the weapons used by the HV against the Four Towns, and the Trial Chamber explicitly noted that it had not received sufficient evidence to make findings about these factors with respect to each of the Four Towns. In its Impact Analysis, however, the Trial Chamber applied the 200 Metre Standard uniformly to all impact sites in each of the Four Towns.

In these circumstances, the Appeals Chamber is unanimous in finding that the Trial Chamber erred in adopting a margin of error that was not linked to the evidence it received.

With respect to targets of opportunity in the Four Towns, the Appeals Chamber holds that the Trial Chamber did not err in determining that the HV had no ability to strike targets of opportunity in the towns of Benkovac, Gračac, and Obrovac. However, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber was presented with, and did not clearly discount, evidence of targets of opportunity in the town of Knin. In this context, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius and Judge Pocar dissenting, holds that the Trial Chamber erred in concluding that attacks on Knin were not aimed at targets of opportunity.

The Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius and Judge Pocar dissenting, recalls that, while the Trial Chamber considered a number of factors in assessing whether particular shells were aimed at lawful military targets, the distance between a given impact site and the nearest identified artillery target was the cornerstone and organising principle of the Trial Chamber’s Impact Analysis. The Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius and Judge Pocar dissenting, holds that the Trial Chamber’s errors with respect to the 200 Metre Standard and targets of opportunity are sufficiently serious that the conclusions of the Impact Analysis cannot be sustained. Although the Trial Chamber considered additional evidence in finding that the attacks on the Four Towns were unlawful, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius and Judge Pocar dissenting, holds that, absent the Impact Analysis, this remaining evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the artillery attacks on the Four Towns were unlawful.

In view of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius and Judge Pocar dissenting, finds that no reasonable trial chamber could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Four Towns were subject to unlawful artillery attacks. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius and Judge Pocar dissenting, grants Mr. Gotovina’s First Ground of Appeal, in part, and Mr. Markač’s Second Ground of Appeal, in part, and reverses the Trial Chamber’s finding that the artillery attacks on the Four Towns were unlawful.

Thus, the major point made by the US-UK Amicus Brief was sustained by the appellate court and the defendants released.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

HT to Ken Anderson for, Readings: Autonomous Weapon Systems and Their Regulation (December 11, 2012), and Readings: Jeffrey S. Thurnher on Law of Armed Conflict Applied to Autonomous Weapon Systems (January 19, 2013).

The two articles by MAJ Jeffrey S. Thurnher (an Army JAG officer on the faculty at the Naval War College), The Law That Applies to Autonomous Weapon Systems (ASIL Insights, January 18, 2013, Volume 17, Issue 4) (6 pp.), and No One at the Controls: Legal Implications of Fully Autonomous Targeting (Joint Force Quarterly, National Defense University, Washington DC, Vol. 67, No. 4, Oct. 2012) (8 pp.), provide easy entry into complicated subject matter.

From Thurnher's first article, the legal BLUF (snips from several pages):

The Law: How to Determine the Lawfulness of a Weapon System

It is incontrovertible that the law of armed conflict applies to autonomous weapon systems. When determining the overall lawfulness of a weapon system, there are two distinct aspects of the law that need to be analyzed: weapons law and targeting law. ...
...
When analyzing whether the weapon system itself is lawful, there are two distinct rules that apply. The first rule is that the weapon system must not be indiscriminate by its very nature. A weapon is deemed indiscriminate by nature if it cannot be aimed at a specific target and would be as likely to strike civilians as combatants. ...
...
The second rule, codified in Article 35(2) of Additional Protocol I, is that a weapon system cannot cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. ...
...
Assuming the particular weapon satisfies the above weapons law rules, the weapon must still be examined under targeting law to determine whether the actual use of the weapon might be prohibited in some manner. To conduct this analysis, three core law of armed conflict requirements are particularly salient: distinction, proportionality, and precautions in the attack. ...
...
The first requirement is distinction. Distinction is the most fundamental principle of the law of armed conflict. A customary law principle, distinction obliges a combatant to distinguish between combatants and civilians, as well as between military and civilian objects. ...
...
The second requirement, proportionality, requires combatants to examine whether the expected collateral damage from an attack would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military gain. ...
...
The third and final core requirement is the obligation to take feasible precautions in the attack. ... With all of the required precautions in attack, there is inherently a value judgment about whether all feasible steps have been taken. How autonomous systems will reasonably make this value judgment may prove to be one of the biggest challenges in terms of compliance. Ultimately if a country intends to use an autonomous weapon system on a battlefield, it must ensure that the system can adequately take these feasible precautions.

Thus, Thurnher is satisfied that a particular AWS will or will not pass muster based on existing law.

His second article is concerned with the operational commander's responsibilities in controlling the AWS - here, lethal autonomous robots (LARs). He recommends four basics:

First, operational commanders need to ensure that all LARs have the proper rules of engagement (ROE), tactical directives, and other national caveats embedded in their algorithms. Moreover, commanders must ensure that any revisions to the ROE or directives are rapidly inputted into and incorporated by the LARs. Unmanned underwater systems, particularly those without regular communications with the headquarters, may prove to be the most challenged in this arena. For LARs that cannot make such adjustments while deployed, commanders need to ensure those systems can be recalled and then reprogrammed quickly.

Second, commanders should limit when and where LARs are employed to avoid potential proportionality issues. Geographically, LARs are best suited to engage targets in areas where the likelihood of collateral damage is reduced, such as underwater or in an area like the demilitarized zone in Korea. Regardless of geography, LARs might be appropriate when the target is one of particularly high value. In such situations, a commander may have fewer proportionality concerns or might at least be able to quantify the amount of acceptable collateral damage. Utilizing LARs only in specific geographic environments or when pursuing high value targets would alleviate many of the critics’ proportionality concerns and best protect operational commanders.

Third, operational commanders should carefully examine the type of conflicts where they might deploy LARs. They would be wise to use LARs predominantly during high-intensity situations where the ROE are status-based, meaning there is a declared hostile force to attack. Those declared hostile forces would then be more easily recognizable, eligible targets for LARs. LARs are less appropriate in counterinsurgency or irregular warfare situations, where “the blurring of the lines between civilian and military is a commonplace occurrence.” Similarly, commanders may also want to restrict LARs in emergency situations where the proposed target is not already on a preset list of targets. In such irregular fights and in emergency situations, the legal authority to engage with lethal force is more often conduct-based and thus contingent upon an enemy demonstrating a hostile intent or engaging in a hostile act. Given the higher degree of difficulty in identifying targets and the greater distinction concerns, the best approach may be to avoid using LARs under these circumstances. Prudent commanders should only use LARs in appropriate situations and recognize when it is best to resort to manned systems instead.

Lastly, LARs should be required to have some version of a human override, sometimes referred to as software or ethical “brakes.” The systems should be able to be shut down or recalled immediately upon a commander’s order. Commanders should also establish triggers for when LARs must seek human guidance before engaging a target. For instance, when a LARs system identifies expected collateral damage greater than a predetermined acceptable limit, it could be forced to seek guidance from the command before engaging that target. Commanders would need to establish protocols and support structures to facilitate quick decisionmaking for these potential targets. In these circumstances, human decisionmakers need a high degree of clarity about what situation the robot is facing. This oversight would not be effective if the human operator were merely a rubber stamp to approve an engagement. With prudent additional control measures such as these, commanders can more safely employ LARs on the battlefield and better protect themselves and their commands.

The AWS CO has to be soundly based in the technologies of the system, and also in the legal requirements governing use of the system.

The DoD has provided a definitive set of principles applicable to these weapon systems: Ashton B. Carter, Deputy Secretary of Defense, “Autonomy in Weapons Systems,” Department of Defense Directive, Number 3000.09, November 21, 2012.

The other side of the debate ranges from the more emotional - Noel Sharkey, “America's Mindless Killer Robots Must Be Stopped: The rational approach to the inhumanity of automating death by machines beyond the control of human handlers is to outlaw it,” Guardian, December 3, 2012 - to the very scholarly intended for academic publication - Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic, “Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots,” November 19, 2012. Their bottom line is the same - an absolute ban before they breed and multiply.

We have three responses to the Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic report.

Michael N. Schmitt, International Law Department, US Naval War College, “Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A Reply to the Critics,” SSRN Working Paper, Draft of December 4, 2012.

William Marra and Sonia McNeil, “Understanding “The Loop’: Regulating the Next Generation of War Machines,” 36 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 3 (2013), Lawfare Research Paper Series 1-2012.

Kenneth Anderson and Matthew Waxman, “Law and Ethics for Robot Soldiers,” Policy Review, December-January 2012-13 (final published version at Policy Review here, and working draft with footnotes at SSRN here).

Finally, for those wishing to get down into the legal weeds with M-A Lagrange and JMM99, see this SWC thread from late 2011 and early 2012, New technologies and war legislation: a progress? (a conversation started by Marc-Andre, which deals primarily with Geneva's view toward new weapons technologies).

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Late last year, the Washington Post broke a series of stories dealing with drones and targeted killings, including Plan for hunting terrorists signals U.S. intends to keep adding names to kill lists (by Greg Miller, 23 Oct 2012):

Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the “disposition matrix.”

The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the “disposition” of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years. ... (more in story)

Bobby Chesney's comments on this story are here, Kill Lists, the Disposition Matrix, and the Permanent War: Thoughts on the Post Article (24 Oct 2012).

Last week, WP added to the stew with CIA drone strikes will get pass in counterterrorism ‘playbook,’ officials say (by Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Karen DeYoung, 19 Jan 2013):

The Obama administration is nearing completion of a detailed counterterrorism manual that is designed to establish clear rules for targeted-killing operations but leaves open a major exemption for the CIA’s campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan, U.S. officials said.

The carve-out would allow the CIA to continue pounding al-Qaeda and Taliban targets for a year or more before the agency is forced to comply with more stringent rules spelled out in a classified document that officials have described as a counterterrorism “playbook.”

The document, which is expected to be submitted to President Obama for final approval within weeks, marks the culmination of a year-long effort by the White House to codify its counterterrorism policies and create a guide for lethal operations through Obama’s second term. ... (more in story)

Bobby Chesney's comments on this story are here, Lethal Force Beyond the Battlefield: The Post’s “Playbook” Article (21 Jan 2013):

What does this portend for the use of armed drones going forward? It seems to me that this is yet another piece of evidence suggesting that the US government will continue to assert authority to use lethal force for counterterrorism purposes in at least some situations, outside the context of conventional conflict. Not that this is a big surprise. ... (more in article)

Barring an unforeseen Damascus moment, all the evidence suggests that US drone strikes will continue under a war paradigm - probably a "refined" paradigm, but still a war paradigm which will largely remain classified. See, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan on rise for 2013 (by Greg Miller, 10 Jan 2013):

The CIA has opened the year with a flurry of drone strikes in Pakistan, pounding Taliban targets along the country’s tribal belt at a time when the Obama administration is preparing to disclose its plans for pulling most U.S. forces out of neighboring Afghanistan.

A strike Thursday in North Waziristan was the seventh in 10 days, marking a major escalation in the pace of attacks. Drone attacks had slipped in frequency to fewer than one per week last year.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials attributed the increased tempo to a sense of urgency surrounding expectations that President Obama will soon order a drawdown that could leave Afghanistan with fewer than 6,000 U.S. troops after 2014. The strikes are seen as a way to weaken adversaries of the Afghan government before the withdrawal and serve notice that the United States will still be able to launch attacks. ... (more in story)

This continuation of the war paradigm (over what is now four presidential terms !) will, no doubt, discomfort any number of US "coalition partners", as exemplified by this story from Deutsche Welle last week, Should drone strikes be considered lawful? (18 Jan 2013):

Those opposed to drones, however, compare targeted killing to extrajudicial and state-sanctioned murder. They challenge the notion that targeted killing takes place in the context of war; the US and Pakistan, for example, are not at war with each other.

That is a crucial point in international law. In the case of war, the victims are combatants, the killing of whom can be justified under laws of war.

But if aggressors and victims are not at war, targeted killing is, technically speaking, illegal. That is, of course, unless the person or people killed posed an immediate danger to others - like a fatal shot fired by police at a hostage taker to save the lives of the hostages. ... (more in story)

The BLUF of the comments by DW's expert (Armin Krishnan) is that present US drone strike policy is illegal under the German view of law (domestic and international). See also DW, The legal gray zone of drone attacks (23 Jul 2012):

A US drone attack claimed its first German victim, a suspected Muslim fundamentalist, in 2010. A German federal investigation into the incident has reignited debate about the use of unmanned aircraft.

Shortly before his death, a man named in reports as Bunyamin E. travelled to the Pakistani region of North Waziristan, an Islamist stronghold. On October 4, 2010, a missile strike by a US drone struck the suspected radical Islamist along with a number of companions.
...
Federal German legal authorities are now investigating the controversial tactic after a nearly two-year long process of determining whether such an investigation is within the scope of their office. The US is operating in a legal gray zone and may have violated international law. Jochen Hippler of the Duisburg Institute for Development and Peace sees the drone attacks in Pakistan as especially problematic since they go against the will of the Pakistani government - at least officially.

"On the one hand, we have the problem that military attacks against a country with which one is not at war violate international law," the expert told DW. He believes a further problem lies in the killing of people merely suspected of being Islamic extremists: "In the US and in Germany, people have argued with good reason that the drone attacks represent capital punishment for people who have been accused of a crime without being given a trial." ... (much more in story)

Of course, the viewpoints expressed by DW's experts are based on application of a peace paradigm.

The situation (divergent views between the US and many of its NATO partners) reminds one of the pre- and post-WWI strategical disconnects analysed by Andre Beaufre. Pre-WWI, the lines were rather clearly drawn between the political struggle (the peace paradigm) and the military struggle (the war paradigm). After WWI, and especially after WWII with the advent of the Cold War and Nuclear Armament, the political and military struggles became mixed - as Gen. J. L. Collins titled it - "War in Peacetime".

Following Beaufre's logic, it seems doubtful that we can return to the simplicity of the 19th century where Peace was peace, War was war, and ne'er the twain shall meet. We will most likely continue to see situations which do not really fit either a pure peace paradigm or a pure war paradigm. Those situations will create both strategic and legal problems.

Regards

Mike