Donate Now  |  Take Action  |  Sign Up
 

About Us
 
Our Work
 
UN Watch Briefing
 
Testimony at the UN
 
Articles
 
Reports
 
Statements & Letters
 
Issues in Focus
 
Media Center
 
Take Action
 
Sign Up
 
Contact Us
 
Internships
 
En français
 
En español
 
       בעברית
 



 

 

  

Testimony at the UN

Testimony of Lt. Col. Geoffrey Corn
Law professor former senior
law of war adviser for U.S. army
responding to the UN Inquiry on Gaza
29 June 2015

 

 

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am Geoffrey Corn, a Professor of Law and the U.S. Army’s former senior expert on the Law of Armed Conflict. I advised an independent JINSA-commissioned Task Force on the 2014 Gaza conflict.

I commend the Report’s recognition that all parties to armed conflict must implement and respect the Law of Armed Conflict. While objective critiques of military operations can contribute substantially to the understanding, implementation, and evolution of the Law of Armed Conflict, findings and recommendations must derive from credible information, legal interpretation, and operational expertise. Otherwise, any critique risks distorting the essential balance between mitigating the suffering of armed conflict and the dictates of military necessity – one that has defined the law since its inception.

I believe the Report lacks this foundation. First, it treats questionable interpretations of this law as conclusive, and fails to apply the principle of distinction comprehensively. Specifically, it omits assessment of how an enemy’s systemic failure to distinguish himself from civilians, and deliberate exploitation of the perception of civilian status, impacts the reasonableness of attack judgments.

Second, the Report reflects common but invalid tendencies toward “effects based” condemnations of targeting judgments. Combat effects are relevant when considering compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict, but cannot substitute for recreating the context of attack decisions to determine whether they were reasonable. Limited access to operational information may make this process difficult, or even impossible, but does not justify substituting effects as the touchstone of legality.

Third, the Report is not based on credible military operational expertise. This is exacerbated by the tactical context of close combat in an urban environment against an enemy deliberately refusing to comply with its distinction obligation. The Report’s judgments regarding military advantage are attenuated from the true nature of military operations, therefore undermining the credibility of ultimate legality assessments.

Thank you, Mr. President.





Read our recent editions:

  • Issue 549
  • Again: Saudis Elected Chair of UN Human Rights Council Panel
  • Issue 548
  • Why Are UN Employees Spreading Racial Hatred?
  • Issue 547
  • Wall Street Journal TV Interviews Hillel Neuer on UNRWA Controversy
  • Issue 546
  • UN Watch Report: UNRWA Officials Operating 12 Separate Facebook Accounts Inciting Anti-Semitism
  • Issue 545
  • Hamas Blunders * UN Watch events from Singapore to Sidney
  • Issue 544
  • UK, France, Germany Join Tyrannies to Condemn Israel as World's Only Violator of Economic & Social Rights
  • Issue 543
  • Hamas front group deletes pro-terror Tweets ahead of today's UN vote, after exposed by UN Watch