Source: https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-states-america-death-osama-bin-laden
Timestamp: 2020-01-17 14:58:26
Document Index: 749183169

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 51', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 41', 'Arts 50', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 20', 'Art. 34']

United States of America, The Death of Osama bin Laden | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook
Was the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden part of an armed conflict? If it was, what was the nature of that conflict?
(Document G) Do the United Nations Special Rapporteurs consider international humanitarian law (IHL) to be applicable to that operation? What pointers can you find?
(Document H) Does the United States consider IHL to be applicable to that operation? What pointers can you find?
(Document F) Bearing in mind the fact that the operation took place in Pakistani territory, can it be a question of an international armed conflict? If confirmed, would the existence of a possible agreement between the United States and Pakistan as described by Seymour Hersh affect the classification of the situation? If Pakistan had not consented to the operation, was IHL regarding international armed conflict applicable, even if the operation was not directed against Pakistan?
(Documents C and F) With regard to how the situation is defined, does it make a difference whether the helicopters took off from Jalalabad (in Afghanistan) or from Ghazi (in Pakistan)?
(Document B) Does the “war on terrorism” or the conflict between the United States and al-Qaida constitute an international armed conflict? A non-international armed conflict? What criteria need to be fulfilled in the latter case?
If the conflict between the United States and al-Qaida is covered by the IHL of non-international armed conflict in Afghanistan, does that law also apply between the United States and al-Qaida in Pakistan? Is the mere fact that in Afghanistan there is a non-international armed conflict between the Afghan government and the United States forces on the one hand and the Taliban on the other sufficient to render the IHL of non-international armed conflict applicable to the Abbottabad operation? Is the mere fact that there might have been a non-international armed conflict in Pakistan between the government forces and Pakistani armed groups sufficient to render international humanitarian law governing non-international armed conflicts applicable to the Abbottabad operation? What connection needs to exist between those conflicts for IHL to be applicable to the Abbottabad operation?
If IHL were applicable to Abbottabad, is it necessarily also applicable to drone attacks by the United States on al-Qaida members in Yemen or in Somalia?
If IHL is not applicable, what rules are applicable to that operation? Is the United States required to comply with international human rights law in Pakistan?
(Documents D, E and F) Explain, on the basis of international law, the controversy over the statements to the effect that the questioning in Guantanamo, during which water-boarding was used, made it possible to identify Osama bin Laden’s location. Could the treatment described be justified if it had made it possible to locate, arrest or kill Osama bin Laden?
If that operation was part of an armed conflict, was Osama bin Laden necessarily a legitimate target of attack? On what conditions? Can or must the IHL of non-international armed conflicts be applied to that matter even if there were an international armed conflict between the United States and Pakistan?
(Documents B and C) What was the status of the three people shot dead by the SEALs on the first floor (the courier, his brother and a woman)? Were they legitimate targets? Could the US special forces kill them? Can the courier, who “opened fire” upon the commando when it arrived, be considered a “combatant” within the meaning of international humanitarian law? Can he be considered to have been participating directly in the hostilities? What about the other two people?
(Documents B, F and H) For Osama bin Laden to have been the legitimate target of an attack, was it sufficient to consider that he was still the al-Qaida leader? Was it necessary for him to be participating directly in the hostilities at the time of the attack? Was it sufficient for him to have retained an ongoing combatant function in al-Qaida? Did the fact that he had directed al-Qaida operations in the past and that he had never disassociated himself from that organization imply that he was still a legitimate target in 2011? What about the claim that “there wasn’t much activity for bin Laden to exercise command and control over”? Is the fact that there was no internet connection in Osama bin Laden’s residence significant in that regard? (P I, Art. 51(3); P II, Art. 13(3); See Document ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities [Recommendations I, II, IV, V])
(Document H) If Osama bin Laden was a legitimate target, should the American commando have tried to arrest him instead of killing him? Is the fact that he did not surrender sufficient justification for killing him? Does the fact that he was unarmed make him “incapacitated”, and hence hors de combat? In IHL, does a person’s surrender have to be accepted only when that surrender can be safely accepted by the attacking forces (Document H)? Can a person who surrenders ever be killed? (P I, Art. 41; Document ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities [Recommendations IX])
(Document G) If Osama bin Laden was a legitimate target under IHL, are the questions asked by the UN Special Rapporteurs relevant? Does a military operation conducted against a legitimate target always have to be planned with a view to arresting rather than killing that target?
(Documents B and G) If Osama bin Laden was not a legitimate target, what status did he have under IHL, to the extent that IHL was applicable? What law governed the operation? In that case, was killing him necessarily prohibited? Should the US commando have tried to arrest him? Does a police operation against a criminal always have to be planned with a view to arresting rather than killing that criminal? Was the fact that Osama bin Laden was said to have weapons with his reach a sufficient argument to kill him? What do you think of the statement that “the rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy”? (P I, Arts 50-51; P II, Art. 13; See Document ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities [Recommendations I and II])
(Document C) Was Osama bin Laden's wife a legitimate target? Was the commando within its rights to wound her? What if she “lunged at” the commando ? Even if she was not armed? What is she was merely “screaming hysterically”?
If those wounded during the raid were not taken care of by the SEAL team and were left inside the villa when the team left, would that be a violation of the US obligations? Should they have gathered up and taken care of those wounded people at that time? From a tactical point of view, was that feasible?
(Document F) What do you think of the statement that “the electricity supply had been cut off on the orders of the ISI hours before the raid began”? If this was meant in order to ensure that the local population would stay home, what IHL principle would this relate to?
From the fact at hand, do you think that all feasible precautionary measures were taken? What were the feasible measures the US could have taken?
If Osama bin Laden had been taken alive, which court could have tried him? For what?
(Document F) From the perspective of IHL, what do you think of burying Osama bin Laden’s body on the high seas? If Islam allowed a burial of that kind? Isn’t burial at sea provided for by the IHL of maritime warfare? Will it then be possible to return the dead body to the family? To give the family access to the burial place? (GC I, Art. 17; GC II, Art. 20; P I, Art. 34; CIHL, Rules 114-116)
Can Pakistan have allowed the United States to question the women and children taken in by Pakistani forces after the raid?
Is Pakistan obliged to allow the ICRC to visit the women and children taken in in the complex after the operation? What would the aim of an ICRC visit be?
Could Pakistan send them to Saudi Arabia or Yemen (their respective countries of origin)? On what conditions?