Taking into consideration the density of the book, it would be irrelevant to attempt to review all the developments contained in its 14 chapters, all of them well-structured, offering many bibliographical references and emanating from leading specialists. Chapter 1 is devoted to the historical development and the legal basis of IHL, but it begins with a condensed overview of the legal framework regulating the right to resort to armed force under the UN Charter (‘ius ad bellum’, as opposed to the ‘ius in bello’ which corresponds to IHL). The author discusses various recent justifications advanced for the use of force – such as ‘anticipatory self-defence’ and humanitarian emergency (see pp. 5 sq.). The author seems to admit the existence of a right of anticipatory self-defence (p. 7), but doesn’t endorse the distinction made by some scholars between ‘anticipatory’ or ‘incipient’ self-defence (which refers to the recourse to force in front of an attack actually mounted and about to begin) and the broader doctrine of ‘preemptive self-defence’ permitting the use of force in the case of a remote or even hypothetical threat[3].  Chapter 2 revisits the notion of ‘armed conflict’ – which conditions the application of IHL – in light of the fact that there exists ‘no sharp dichotomy between peace and armed conflict in international law such as used to exist between peace and war’ (n. 201).

 

Chapter 3 pays special attention to challenges to combatant status in recent conflicts. It discusses in detail the issue of ‘unlawful combatants’, but only briefly addresses, under the heading ‘Civilian contractors’, the growing phenomenon of the outsourcing of tasks belonging to the military domain: the emergence of private military companies or private security companies  (see n. 320)[4], which raises crucial questions with respect to IHL, as evidenced e.g. by recent events in Iraq, such as the killing of 17 civilians by Blackwater employees in September 2007.

 

Chapter 4 on ‘Methods and Means of Combat’ explores the multiple dimensions of the core principle of IHL, i.e. that the right to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited (a rule contained in Article 35, AP I). Among the applications of this general principle is the prohibition, under the terms of Article 2 of the 1980 Protocol on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located within a concentration of civilians, as the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) did, according to the Red Cross, during the December 2008-January 2009 offensive on Gaza. Analogous remarks on the conduct of military operations by belligerents in many other recent conflicts around the world can be made after reading the section devoted to the protection of civilian objects (n. 451), and Chapter 5 on ‘Protection of the Civilian Population’ (n. 501 sq.). Chapter 4 also usefully emphasizes the growing concern over protection of the environment from the effects of armed conflict, an issue neglected until the Vietnam war, that prompted the adoption of the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention), as well as the inclusion in Article 35, AP I of prohibition of severe environmental damage (see n. 403). As the author points out, the extent of application of the provisions of the ENMOD Convention and the environment-related provisions contained in AP I, is still subject to debate, partly because of the uncertainties surrounding the definitions of ‘widespread’, ‘long-lasting’ and ‘severe’ damage to the environment, which serve as criteria of application of both treaties. It is understandable, in this context, that many commentators expressed the wish that the ENMOD Convention be reviewed in order to correct the shortcomings of its text and take into account recent technological advances[5].

 

The issue of protection of the civilian population encompasses, among others, the law of belligerent occupation, which has been the subject of renewed attention from academics in the past few years in the context of the occupation of Iraq[6]. The main criterion of application of the international law on belligerent occupation (that of ‘actual control’ of a territory by the occupant State, found in Article 42, Hague Regulations of 1907) is the subject of comprehensive developments, related – among others – to the issue of the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (GC IV) to the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). While the author reminds us rightly that Israel’s position ‘on the (non)applicability of GC IV to the territories occupied in 1967 has been rejected by all other states parties to the Geneva Conventions, acting individually and through international organizations, in particular through various UN bodies including the General Assembly, by the ICRC and other non-governmental organizations and by academic writing’ (n. 527), he doesn’t take into account the renewal of the debate following the Israeli ‘disengagement plan’ of the Gaza strip implemented in 2005. Since then, experts are indeed divided on the legal status of Gaza: while Israeli officials claim that the disengagement dispels claims regarding Israel’s responsibilities as occupying power on the territory, some argue on the contrary that it continues to exercise effective control on the strip[7]. However, as the author of this chapter states in a general way, ‘the issue of the legal status and of the fate of occupied land is a question which must be kept distinct from the humanitarian purposes of Geneva Law’ (n. 527).

 

It is noteworthy that the long Chapter 10, devoted to ‘The Law of Armed Conflict at Sea’, while it mentions the growing criticism vis-à-vis the law of naval warfare, the provisions of which supposedly ‘do neither meet the necessities of modern operations, as e.g. maritime interception operations or non-military enforcement measures decided upon by the UN Security Council, nor do they offer operable solutions to the naval commander’ (p. 475), does not explicitly address the issue of the legality of the Proliferation Security Initiative (2003), under which the United States and some of their allies have sought new means to interdict shipments of Weapons of Mass Destruction in international waters[8]. The author argues in this respect that ‘Maritime interception operations aimed at combating transnational terrorism or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related components do have a legal basis that is independent from the law of naval warfare’ (p. 475). In our view, it remains that the interdiction principles contained in the PSI shall be put in harmony, through a multilateral binding instrument, with the existing law of the seas.

 

The last chapter is entitled ‘Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law’. As regards this issue of great importance, it would have been worthwhile had the author further elaborated on the implications of the 1998 establishment of the ICC for ensuring respect of IHL, since, as Dr Fleck rightly points out, ‘there is an urgent and continuing need for investigatory and punitive measures as well as for reparation and for activities to prevent future violations’ (p. xiii).

 

Let us finish by mentioning that the work under review, which has no equivalent at the present day, and is therefore absolutely necessary to everyone interested in IHL, also contains a useful Table of International Instruments and a Table of Judgments and Decisions, as well as a comprehensive Bibliography.