Search

This article critiques the articulation of the legal framework applicable to Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan found in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report (Brereton Report). In particular, using the Australian experience in Afghanistan as a case study, the article argues, on the basis of the rules of treaty interpretation, that where a foreign State party to Additional Protocol II (AP II) intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which AP II applies, that foreign State is bound by AP II, in addition to the host State and non-State armed actors that are parties to the NIAC. The article concludes by outlining the reasons why the Brereton Report's silence in relation to AP II matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A major aspect of the United States' war efforts in Afghanistan over the past two decades has been the waging of a counterinsurgency campaign. This article analyzes the extent to which the United States and other Western intervening nations developed and implemented rule of law support missions as a component of the overarching counterinsurgency mission. This article evaluates the successes and failures of the rule of law missions, analyzing the lessons learned from two decades of conflict to provide a foundation for the policymakers and strategic planners who will be tasked with executing counterinsurgency campaigns in the future. The article focuses in particular on the social, political, and cultural factors of the Afghan people that impacted the viability of the Western counterinsurgency and rule of law missions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]