after some thought, that the camo tutu is "kinda cute"; but that it just isn't me - damme.
More seriously, this seems astute:
The mix of civilian and military has raised and will raise some complex legal issues. I don't have a name for what we should call that area legally, but it goes beyond the traditional laws of armed conflict.goesh
I see a pattern change though that is distinct, mainly the quality of civilian input and direct involvement in military affairs in some very non-traditional ways, hence my previous qualifier of "almost moot"
Getting down to the very basics, LOAC looks to:
1. Is there an armed conflict ?
2. What is the status of the conflicting "powers" (state or non-state) ?
3. What is the status of the individuals in the area of armed conflict (basically, regular combatant, irregular combatant and civilian) ?
So, what is the status of a soldier who is doing what is normally a civilian task ? And, what is the status of a civilian who is very much integrated into the military structure, but is performing what is normally a civilian task ?
It is one thing to have the Marine Corps and Peace Corps with a bright line separation between the two. But what happens legally when you mix them (a camo tutu in effect) ?
More questions than answers, I'm afraid.
Bookmarks