of ISIS.

objective within the meaning of Art 52(2) API to justify a second attack against them. The fact that the JAG is reported to have signed off on a second strike based on the boat still containing drugs only makes (some) legal sense if drugs are considered to be war sustaining, as oil in the case

Assuming that based on the Administration’s legal position there were any lawful targets to begin with, the two survivors were no longer liable to direct attack, unless they engaged in hostile acts, of which there is no evidence. The remnants of the boat would have had to qualify as a military

Assuming they are trying to escape, persons “running away” are not hors de combat, but remain lawful targets.

Wouldn’t bet the house on having anything enshrined in a treaty. See what the draft does to the ECHR and, apparently, the Withdrawal Agreement.

Would not all dependant children in a family, assuming they don’t earn £38k per annum each, be expelled?

most international lawyers will nod along, I suspect

I suppose those of us with EU SS would not have to pay NI and taxes then, right?

The service personnel involved may not be aware that the legal justification offered is untenable, but the chain of command can hardly claim ignorance that these are unlawful orders.

Sorry to hear this…but not at all surprised!

to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, to be very precise.

who are liable to attack, but they too are not subject to proportionality in these circumstances (Art 51(3) API). This is pretty fundamental. The correct way to put it is to say that an attack may not be expected to cause incidental civilian harm that is disproportionate, or excessive in relation