The US Department of Defense Law of War Manual: An Update

They're updating this.

I have a report in the 2009 (they're a bit behind...just go with it) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law on efforts to produce a new service-wide US Department of Defence Law of War Manual. This would replace FM 27-10 and (should it ever see the light of day...just go with it) will be an incredibly important statement of US practice on the laws of war.

I consulted on and observed this project from August-December 2009 and I keep in contact with some of the editors. The description of the Manual (and estimate of delivery) are now outdated, but there is a good description of the process and methodology behind it. I can't go into any more details than that (there is a crazy on-going process) but it is "an update" for those who are interested. Here's the abstract:

One of the major legal instruments the US Department of Defense (DoD) will be relying on in terms of planning and carrying out its activities in the near future is a new law of war military manual which is expected to be published sometime in 2011. While on the surface such a document may not seem of critical interest to those interested in security/strategic studies or to humanitarian activists seeking to ban rather than regulate violence, there are important reasons to place a certain amount of emphasis on this DoD product and to expect that it will have a significant impact, especially on issues that are presently widely debated within the humanitarian legal community.

Six Years of Gay Marriage in Canada and the World Did Not End

Fact: 6 years after gay marriage

Happy Cat is still happy.

Cross-posted at Duck of Minerva

It’s the 6th anniversary of gay marriage in Canada and – financial meltdowns in Europe and America aside – the world hasn’t ended. Society has remained intact. Babies are being born, flowers are blooming, a Canadian hockey team still can’t win the Stanley Cup and otters are still cute.

Actually, Canada is more than fine. In an article in the Calgary Herald, Naomi Lakritz argues:

While divorce rates have increased greatly since the introduction of Divorce Laws in 1968, actual divorce rates have been decreasing in Canada since the 1990s. The 50 per cent (failure rate) fallacy is false . . . In Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, the Yukon and Nunavut, the total number of new divorce cases has declined six per cent over the four-year period ending in 2008/2009," says an IMF news release.

Indeed, while divorces per 100,000 population reached 362.3 in 1987, they were down to 220.7 per 100,000 in 2005, the year same-sex marriage became law. So much for the myth that same-sex marriage would aid the dissolution of straight marriages. They dissolve quite nicely on their own, thanks to their internal dynamics, such as domestic violence, alcoholism, gambling and infidelity. These figures, by the way, come from such eminent sources as the Vanier Institute of the Family and Statistics Canada.

And, according to Statistics Canada, "the number of marriages in the country was 149,236 in 2006, down nearly 2,000 from the previous year, but up from 148,585 in 2004." Looks like some sort of minor demographic blip occurred there in 2006, but that figure is still up from 2004, when much of the silly fearmongering was taking place prior to Bill C-38 being passed.

Indeed, a November 2009 report entitled Divorce: Facts, Causes and Consequences, by Anne-Marie Ambert of York University in Toronto, found that "divorce rates have gone down substantially during the 1990s and have remained at a lower level since 1997, with minor yearly fluctuations."

So clearly ALL of the predictions of the religious right have come true…. in that they haven’t. At all.

Considering that less than 30 years ago that many people were arrested, committed or persecuted for homosexuality in many Western countries, the progress has been impressive, (no matter what might be coming out of the mouths of Tea-Partiers. A list of countries/regions/areas/cities with same-sex marriage or civil unions is impressive and growing. Even if it is a little patchy in America, there is clear momentum in support for equal marriage rights. Obama supporting the Respect for Marriage Act is a positive (if slightly delayed) step forward.

Obviously, it’s not a totally rosy picture. It’s still a crime punishable by death in 7 countries and homosexual acts are outlawed by 113. The Uganda situation is particularly odious. But even the UN Human Rights Council has taken the step of passing its first resolution on LGBT persons in June. Even if there is still a lot of work to do, there seems to be a decent amount of momentum (and opposition).

And best wishes to New Yorkers getting ready to take the plunge!

The Economist on Canadian vs American attitudes towards immigration

This is how you have to write your immigration test.

The Economist’s "Democracy in America Blog" has a fascinating (and flattering?) look at Canadian attitudes towards immigration.

As a matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.

Read more »

Quick Post on Osama bin Laden

The best thing to do with any breaking news is to speculate about it as much as possible without really knowing any of the facts.

Actually, here there is just one important fact: Osama bin Laden is dead.

The first and obvious point is that this does not end the War on Terror. There are a lot of reasons as to why this is the case, but suffice to say in a quick post that this isn’t like GI Joe finally took down Cobra. The Global War on Terror is comprised of many different strategic facets. In the short term, the risk of terrorism may actually have significantly increased.

My co-Duck blogger, Charli Carpenter has dismissed the significance of this:

My immediate take: they've done a masterful job at playing the media and making a huge story and enormous nationalistic success out of a single operation in a vast and endless war, that apparently will have no impact on our foreign policy.

I agree and disagree. As I said above, this probably won't have huge War on Terror strategic implications (other than a heightened risk of terrorism in the West). However, I also think there are some important things to consider that make this more of a significant event than what Charli is perhaps implying.

First, if bin Laden was where they say he was (some kind of military town?) I think the Pakistani’s will have some explaining to do as to why they hadn’t found him earlier. I mean, this wasn’t exactly a cave – or maybe a strategy to hide in plain sight? I think there may be some significant fallout for US-Pakistani cooperation - something that already wasn't fantastic.

Second, and importantly I think that this is a symbol (rightly or wrongly) that the US will pursue those who commit terrorist acts. It may make removing troops (rightly or wrongly) easier; certainly easier than it would be if bin Laden was still alive. That shadow (one of many) is at least no longer a concern.

Finaly, as CNN's Ben Wedeman tweeted out today: "Dictators and tyrants will surely miss #osamabinladen: he was such a great excuse for repression."

(Possibly)… More to come…