The legal production of “the civilian” in contemporary war
International humanitarian law status, surveillance governance, and evidentiary regimes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2628Keywords:
International humanitarian law, civilian status, surveillance, evidentiary regimes, targeted killingAbstract
How is “the civilian” made knowable in contemporary war? This article argues that civilian status is increasingly produced as an epistemic outcome at the intersection of international humanitarian law (IHL) status categories, surveillance governance, and evidentiary/justificatory regimes. Through a socio-legal reading of treaty law, ICRC commentaries, military manuals, civilian-harm mitigation policies, selected jurisprudence, and public justifications, it traces two coupled production loops: pre-strike classification (pattern-of-life inference, metadata, probabilistic thresholds) and post-strike recognition (recording, investigation, secrecy, and narrative closure). The analysis shows how the presumption of civilian status in doubt can be practically inverted by risk-calculus and intelligence “confidence”, while accountability mechanisms can stabilise or erase civilianhood through files, standards of proof, and disclosure practices.
Downloads
Metrics
Global Statistics ℹ️
|
47
Views
|
27
Downloads
|
|
74
Total
|
|
References
Additional Protocol I, 1977. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977
Additional Protocol II, 1977. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/apii-1977
Airwars, 2026. Casualty recording [online]. Available at: https://airwars.org/casualty-recording/
Akande, D., 2010. Clearing the fog of war? The ICRC’s interpretive guidance on direct participation in hostilities. International and Comparative Law Quarterly [online], 59(1), 180–192. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589309990133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589309990133
Amoore, L., 2011. Data derivatives: On the emergence of a security risk calculus for our times. Theory, Culture & Society [online], 28(6), 24–43. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411417430 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411417430
Amoore, L., and De Goede, M., 2005. Governance, risk and dataveillance in the war on terror. Crime, Law and Social Change [online], 43, 149–173. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-005-1717-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-005-1717-8
Aradau, C., and van Munster, R., 2007. Governing terrorism through risk: taking precautions, (un)knowing the future. European Journal of International Relations [online], 13(1), 89–115. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107074290 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107074290
Asaro, P., 2012. On banning autonomous weapon systems: human rights, automation, and the dehumanization of lethal decision-making. International Review of the Red Cross [online], 94(886), 687–709. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000768 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000768
Bacchi, C., 2009. Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson.
Badalič, V., 2023. The metadata-driven killing apparatus: Big data analytics, the target selection process, and the threat to international humanitarian law. Critical Military Studies [online], 9(4), 619–639. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2023.2170539 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2023.2170539
Becker, J., and Shane, S., 2012. Secret “kill list” proves a test of Obama’s principles and will. The New York Times [online], 29 May. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html
Bode, I., and Huelss, H., 2018. Autonomous weapons systems and changing norms in international relations. Review of International Studies [online], 44(3), 393–413. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000614 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000614
Bourdieu, P., 1987. The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal [online], 38(5), 814–853. Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol38/iss5/3/
Bowker, G. C., and Star, S. L., 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences [online]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001
Boyle, M. J., 2013. The costs and consequences of drone warfare. International Affairs [online], 89(1), 1–29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12002
Breau, S., and Joyce, R., 2013. The responsibility to record civilian casualties. Global Responsibility to Protect [online], 5(1), 28–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-00501003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-00501003
Breeze, E. J., 2024. Duty to act on knowledge: Precautions, intelligence and the law of armed conflict. Journal of Conflict and Security Law [online], 29(3), 311–329. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krae015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krae015
Butler, J., 2009. Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso.
Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), 2012. The civilian impact of drone strikes [online]. Available at: https://civiliansinconflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The_Civilian_Impact_of_Drones_w_cover.pdf
Cohen, A., and Shany, Y., 2011. Beyond the grave breaches regime: The duty to investigate alleged violations of international law governing armed conflicts. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law [online], 14, 37–84. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-855-2_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-855-2_2
Daniele, L., 2024. Incidentality of the civilian harm in international humanitarian law and its contra legem antonyms in recent discourses on the laws of war. Journal of Conflict and Security Law [online], 29(1), 21–54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krae004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krae004
Der Derian, J., 2000. Virtuous war/virtual theory. International Affairs [online], 76(4), 771–788. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00164 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00164
ECtHR, 2011. Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], App no 55721/07, Judgment, 7 July 2011 [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-105606
ECtHR, 2014. Jaloud v. the Netherlands [GC], App no 47708/08, Judgment, 20 November 2014 [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-148367
ECtHR, 2021. Hanan v. Germany [GC], App no 4871/16, Judgment, 16 February 2021 [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-208279
Ekelhof, M.A.C., 2018. Lifting the fog of targeting: “Autonomous weapons” and human control through the lens of military targeting. Naval War College Review [online], 71(3), 61–94, Article 6. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol71/iss3/6/
Espeland, W. N., and Stevens, M. L., 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology [online], 24, 313–343. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313
Fairclough, N., 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Foucault, M., 2007. Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fourcade, M., and Healy, K., 2013. Classification situations: Life-chances in the neoliberal era. Accounting, Organizations and Society [online], 38(8), 559–572. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.11.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.11.002
Franz, N., 2017. Targeted killing and pattern-of-life analysis: Weaponised media. Media, Culture & Society [online], 39(1), 111–121. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716673896 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716673896
Fricker, M., 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
Geneva Convention III, 1949. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949
Geneva Convention IV, 1949. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949
Geneva Conventions, 1949. The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [online]. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/geneva-conventions-and-their-commentaries
Gould, L., and Stel, N., 2022. Strategic ignorance and the legitimation of remote warfare: The Hawija bombardments. Security Dialogue [online], 53(1), 57–74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211038801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211038801
Graham, S., 2004. Vertical geopolitics: Baghdad and after. Antipode [online], 36(1), 12–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2004.00379.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2004.00379.x
Graham-Harrison, E., 2026. Secrecy around UK military civilian harm “risks undermining public confidence”. The Guardian [online], 19 January. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/19/uk-military-civilian-deaths-tribunal
Gregory, D., 2011. From a view to a kill: Drones and late modern war. Theory, Culture & Society [online], 28(7–8), 188–215. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411423027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411423027
Hacking, I., 1986. Making up people. In: T. C. Heller, M. Sosna and D. E. Wellbery, eds., Reconstructing individualism: Autonomy, individuality, and the self in Western thought. Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 222–236.
Heller, K. J., 2013. “One hell of a killing machine”: Signature strikes and international law. Journal of International Criminal Justice [online], 11(1), 89–119. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqs093 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqs093
Henckaerts, J. M. and Doswald-Beck, L., eds., 2005. Customary international humanitarian law (Volume I: Rules) [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804700 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804700
Henry, S., 2018. Exploring the “continuous combat function” concept in armed conflicts: Time for an extended application? International Review of the Red Cross [online], 100(907–909), 267–285. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383119000298 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383119000298
Heyns, C., Akande, D., Hill-Cawthorne, L., and Chengeta, T., 2016. The international law framework regulating the use of armed drones. International and Comparative Law Quarterly [online], 65(4), 791–827. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589316000385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589316000385
Hull, M. S., 2012. Government of paper: The materiality of bureaucracy in urban Pakistan [online]. Berkeley: University of California Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520272149.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520272149.001.0001
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 2009. Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law (May 2009) [online]. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0990.pdf
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 2019. Guidelines on investigating violations of international humanitarian law: Law, policy and good practice [online]. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross/Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/guidelines-investigating-violations-ihl-law-policy-and-good-practice
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 2020. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in armed conflict: A human-centred approach. International Review of the Red Cross [online], 102(913), 463–479. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383120000454 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383120000454
International Court of Justice (ICJ), 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion (8 July 1996). ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 2003. Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgment (5 December 2003) [online]. Available at: https://www.icty.org/x/cases/galic/tjug/en/gal-tj031205e.pdf
Kaufmann, M., Egbert, S., and Leese, M., 2019. Predictive policing and the politics of patterns. The British Journal of Criminology [online], 59(3), 674–692. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy060
Kennedy, D., 2006. Of war and law. Princeton University Press.
Krebs, S., 2017. The legalization of truth in international fact-finding. Chicago Journal of International Law [online], 18(1), 83–163. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol18/iss1/3/
Kretzmer, D., 2005. Targeted killing of suspected terrorists: Extra-judicial executions or legitimate means of defence? European Journal of International Law [online], 16(2), 171–212. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chi114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chi114
Latour, B., 2010. The making of law: An ethnography of the Conseil d’État [online]. Cambridge: Polity Press. Available at: https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=the-making-of-law-an-ethnography-of-the-conseil-detat--9780745639840
Lieblich, E., 2012. Show us the films: Transparency, national security and disclosure of information collected by advanced weapon systems under international law. Israel Law Review [online], 45(3), 459–504. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223712000155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223712000155
Lubell, N., and Derejko, N., 2013. A global battlefield? Drones and the geographical scope of armed conflict. Journal of International Criminal Justice [online], 11(1), 65–88. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqs096 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqs096
Lyon, D., ed., 2003. Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination [online]. London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Surveillance-as-Social-Sorting-Privacy-Risk-and-Automated-Discrimination/Lyon/p/book/9780415278737
Margalit, A., 2012. The duty to investigate civilian casualties during armed conflict and its implementation in practice. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law [online], 15, 155–186. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-924-5_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-924-5_7
Mbembe, A., 2003. Necropolitics. Public Culture [online], 15(1), 11–40. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11
McDermott, Y., Hausknecht, A., and Liefgreen, A., 2026. New evidence, new challenges: ICC judges’ perspectives on user-generated evidence and judging in an age of artificial intelligence. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 16(4), 1571–1595. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2375
Melzer, N., 2008. Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross [online], 90(872), 991–1047. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383109000319 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383109000319
Mignot-Mahdavi, R., 2023. Rethinking direct participation in hostilities and continuous combat function in light of targeting members of terrorist non-State armed groups. International Review of the Red Cross [online], 105(923), 1028–1046. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383122000595 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383122000595
Ní Aoláin, F., 2023. The use of armed drones in the context of counter-terrorism and international human rights (Position Paper) [online]. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/terrorism/sr/activities/20230103-Position-Paper-Use-Armed-Drones.pdf
Obregón Fernández, A., 2023. Inapplicability of the unwilling or unable doctrine in the fight against terrorism: A manifestation of hegemonic international law. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 13(5), 1783–1816. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1786 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1786
OHCHR, 2016. The Minnesota Protocol on the investigation of potentially unlawful death [online]. New York/Geneva: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf
OHCHR, 2019. Guidance on casualty recording [online]. New York/Geneva: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/publications/policy-and-methodological-publications/guidance-casualty-recording
Onţanu, E. A., 2022. Normalising the use of electronic evidence: Bringing technology use into a familiar normative path in civil procedure. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 12(3), 582–613. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1304
Power, M., 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-audit-society-9780198296034
Quéguiner, J. F., 2006. Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities. International Review of the Red Cross [online], 88(864), 793–821. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383107000872 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383107000872
Riles, A., ed., 2006. Documents: Artifacts of modern knowledge [online]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.185485 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.185485
Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C., and Zimmermann, B., eds., 1987. Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [online]. Geneva: Martinus Nijhoff/ICRC. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/introduction/commentary/1987
Schmitt, M. N., 2010. Deconstructing direct participation in hostilities: The constitutive elements. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics [online], 42(3), 697–739. Available at: https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/42.3-Schmitt.pdf
Scott, J. C., 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed [online]. New Haven: Yale University Press. Available at: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300078152/seeing-like-a-state/
Shaw, M., 2002. Risk-transfer militarism, small massacres and the historic legitimacy of war. International Relations [online], 16(3), 343–359. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117802016003003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117802016003003
Siemion, R., 2017. Presidential policy guidance: Procedures for approving direct action against terrorist targets located outside the United States and areas of active hostilities (May 22, 2013). International Legal Materials [online], 56(6), 1209–1225. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2017.42 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2017.42
Stanford Law School and NYU School of Law, 2012. Living under drones: Death, injury, and trauma to civilians from US drone practices in Pakistan [online]. September. Available at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf
Strathern, M., ed., 2000. Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy [online]. London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Audit-Cultures-Anthropological-Studies-in-Accountability-Ethics-and-the-Academy/Strathern/p/book/9780415233279
Supreme Court of Israel, 2006. HCJ 769/02 Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [online], Judgment (13 December 2006). Available at: https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/public-committee-against-torture-v-government
The Department of Defense Updates the Law of War Manual, 2024. American Journal of International Law [online], 118(1), 178–183. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2023.69 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2023.69
U.K. Ministry of Defence, 2004. The manual of the law of armed conflict [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-manual-of-the-law-of-armed-conflict-9780199287284
U.S. Department of Defense, 2022. Civilian harm mitigation and response action plan (CHMR-AP) [online]. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Aug/25/2003064740/-1/-1/1/CIVILIAN-HARM-MITIGATION-AND-RESPONSE-ACTION-PLAN.PDF
U.S. Department of Defense, 2023a. Department of Defense Law of War Manual [online]. June 2015, updated July 2023. Washington, DC: Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF
U.S. Department of Defense, 2023b. Defense Department updates its Law of War Manual [online]. Press release, 31 July. Available at: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3477385/defense-department-updates-its-law-of-war-manual/
U.S. Department of Defense, 2023c. DoD Instruction 3000.17: Civilian harm mitigation and response [online]. 21 December. Available at: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/300017p.PDF
U.S. Department of the Air Force, 2026. AFDP 3-60: Targeting [online]. 1 May. Available at: https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-60/3-60-AFDP-TARGETING.pdf
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2013. Joint Publication 3-60: Joint Targeting [online]. 31 January. Available at: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3_60.pdf
UN General Assembly, 2013. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. A/68/389 [online]. 18 September. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/68/389
UN Human Rights Council, 2010. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Addendum: Study on targeted killings. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 [online]. 28 May. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/14/24/Add.6
van Coller, A., 2024. Redefining doubt in cases of uncertainty: An analysis of the 2023 U.S. DoD Law of War Manual revision to the presumption of civilian status in armed conflict. Journal of International Humanitarian Action [online], 9, Article 3. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-023-00145-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-023-00145-2
Vlad, R. O., and Hardy, J., 2025. Signature strikes and the ethics of targeted killing. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence [online], 38(4), 1202–1230. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2024.2382029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2024.2382029
Watkin, K., 2010. Opportunity lost: Organized armed groups and the ICRC “Direct participation in hostilities” interpretive guidance. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics [online], 42(3), 641–695. Available at: https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/42.3-Watkin.pdf
Weizman, E., 2012. The least of all possible evils: A short history of humanitarian violence. London: Verso.
White House, 2013. Fact sheet: U.S. policy standards and procedures for the use of force in counterterrorism operations outside the United States and areas of active hostilities [online]. 23 May. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/fact-sheet-us-policy-standards-and-procedures-use-force-counterterrorism
Yanow, D., 2000. Conducting interpretive policy analysis [online]. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983747 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983747
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mehmet Recai Uygur
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence and it regulates how others can use your work. Further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
