The article considers whether a state owes any obligation under international humanitarian law or under human rights law to its own soldiers killed or injured during an armed conflict or an occupation of territory. Whether a soldier's own state can be a cause (in conjunction with the acts of enemy forces) of his death during combat is explored through situations such as poor training, equipment, and leadership and of specific issues such as ‘friendly fire’ incidents. It marks out a distinction between causation and the responsibility of a state. Whilst there may be political, or even national law, pressures upon a government which is at fault to some degree in causing casualties amongst its own soldiers this article suggests that, in certain limited circumstances, a duty may crystallise under customary international humanitarian law or arise under human rights law on a state to prevent it being a cause of the death or wounding of its own soldiers. It concludes that soldiers are, perhaps, the last group involved in an armed conflict to be recognised as individuals who should be owed some obligation of protection, in this case, by their own state under international law.

The modern Law of International Armed Conflict is principally framed upon a linear notion of warfare. It classically anticipates massed armies engaging one another upon the battlefield where victory is achieved by way of decisive military defeat of one side by the other. The targeting philosophy underpinning this paradigm is that civilians are to be spared to the greatest extent possible during the course of the conflict. Concomitantly, military force is to be applied in a surgical and economic manner mainly against the sovereign forces of the enemy as well as defined ‘military objectives’, with the law being relatively comprehensive as to the character of each of these categories. Under the prevailing philosophy, the law nonetheless acknowledges that where civilians vitiate their protected status and elect to participate directly in hostilities, then they might also be targeted. The paucity of legal prescription in this area strongly suggests, however, that this is regarded as a somewhat exceptional phenomenon.

One noticeable coincidence in 2006 involved the deaths of three former heads of state: Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milošević. Many past calendar years have marked the passing of multiple former heads of state but these three particular former leaders had all been subjected to judicial processes of one sort or another in respect of alleged widespread and systematic violations of human rights, arbitrary killings and – for two of them – genocide of their own or other peoples. In all three cases the deaths were linked in some way to the legal proceedings and evoked widespread dissatisfaction – Pinochet because he escaped trial, Hussein because the proceedings against him were fundamentally flawed and Milošević because he died before the four-year trial proceedings against him could be brought to a conclusion. Despite the obvious differences in judicial proceedings against all three accused, an emergent and common refrain has been to query whether any satisfactory trial of a former head of state is indeed possible.

In November 2000, a few weeks after the outbreak of a major uprising in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Israeli government officially acknowledged it was operating a policy of targeted killing against selected Palestinian militants. On 14 January 2002, an Israeli (PCATI) and a Palestinian (LAW) human rights group jointly submitted a petition to the Israeli High Court to halt the policy and to issue an interim order suspending its implementation. The Court subsequently refused to issue the requested interim order and, when it finally delivered its judgment in the case on 14 December 2006, at least 213 targeted persons and 137 bystanders had been killed and hundreds of others injured in operations of targeted killing. In its judgment, the Court neither banned nor justified the state policy as a whole, but ruled that the lawfulness of targeted killings must be examined separately for each operation.

Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti died at the hands of Iraqi officials at dawn on 30 December 2006 following a tumultuous fourteen month trial for crimes committed against the citizens of a relatively obscure Iraqi village known as al-Dujail. Prior to the sporadic small arms fire on 8 July 1982 that was perceived by Saddam as an attempted assassination, the Trial Judgment describes al-Dujail as a ‘safe town … rich in fruit gardens irrigated from the Tigris river through canals and water pumps’. The people of Dujail enjoyed a good standard of living, and the local party membership ‘was mixed between Shiites and Sunnites’. Iraqi citizens were imprisoned in the aftermath of that July day; many were tortured and dozens were murdered. An eyewitness testified at trial that three months after the incident, the fields and orchards of Dujail were razed and all of the fruit trees carted off and destroyed by regime tractors, bulldozers, international type cars and six-wheel drive vehicles For specialists in international humanitarian law, the conviction of these acts as the crime against humanity of inhumane acts may become the very embodiment of that catch-all crime. Destroying the sustenance and prosperity of and entire village is the epitome of acts ‘intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to the body or to the mental or physical health’. The al-Dujail trial is a metaphor for our common struggle to build the rule of law around the world.

On December 30, 2006, Saddam Hussein was led into a dank execution chamber in Baghdad, Iraq. A heavy noose was slipped around his neck while several guards in the room began hurling sectarian taunts at him. Saddam Hussein stared ahead, mocking his guards before reciting the most sacred of Islamic prayers-"There is no God but God, and Muhammed is his prophet." The trap door beneath Saddam Hussein swung open at 6:10 a.m. Saddam Hussein never finished his prayer. This article analyzes the legal rules governing Mr. Hussein's last moments of life. In particular, this article sets forth the legal requirements that govern implementation of the death penalty in Iraq and opines that the Iraqi government did not follow these rules when carrying out Saddam Hussein's capital sentence. To accomplish this goal, the article (1) analyzes whether the Iraqi government had legal authority to execute Saddam Hussein and (2) sets forth abstractly the procedural steps that apply to implementation of a capital sentence in Iraq; and (3) applies these abstract procedural steps to the specific facts of Saddam Hussein's execution. The purpose of this exercise is to understand more broadly what went wrong in the days leading to Saddam Hussein's execution so that legal scholars and policy makers can draw broader conclusions about what this event might mean about the rule of law in Iraq.

Taha Yaseen Ramadan was a long-time ally of Saddam Hussein and Vice-President of Iraq at the time of the United States-led invasion in 2003; he was captured by American forces in 2004 and, in 2005-2006, tried before the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT), alongside Saddam Hussein. The Trial Chamber hearing the case found Taha Yaseen guilty of, inter alia, the crime against humanity of wilful killing; he was handed a sentence of life imprisonment in November 2006. This sentence was appealed by the IHT Prosecutor; the IHT Appellate Chamber responded several days later with an order that the Trial Chamber award Taha Yaseen a capital sentence. The process of re-sentencing, which ultimately led to the execution of Taha Yaseen in March 2007, was, like many other key phases of the trial of Saddam Hussein and Taha Yaseen, undermined by Iraqi political interference emanating, in the main, from the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The fairness of the proceedings against Taha Yaseen and his co-accused was further undermined throughout by the near total ignorance of the those involved in the case (i.e., the Iraqi Judges, Prosecutors and Defence counsel) of the substantive law that they were meant to be applying, in particular, International Criminal Law, which had been received into Iraqi law almost verbatim in 2004 from the Statute of the International Criminal Court. This combination of professional ignorance and political interference gave rise to a travesty of justice that cannot be reversed, that is, the execution of a man who was manifestly not guilty of the crime for which he was hanged.

The positive developments contrasted with widespread violations of humanitarian law in a number of major and minor armed conflicts and in the context of the so-called ‘war on terrorism’.

The International Criminal Courts Round-Up reports on the most interesting judgements and decisions rendered by international(ized) criminal courts and tribunals during the reporting period. In addition, important developments within the various organs of the courts are highlighted, such as the appointment of new judges and significant amendments to the procedural rules of the courts. The Round-Up presently covers issues concerning the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

This article analyses jus ad bellum questions arising from the 2006 war in Lebanon between Israel and Hizbollah. In particular, it examines Israel's claim to self-defence. Part 1 describes the scene of events and the actors. Part 2 explores whether the events of 12 July qualify, in themselves, as an armed attack. Part 3 concerns Hizbollah's and Lebanon's international responsibility for the attack. Part 4 examines whether Israel's actions complied with the legal requirements for a lawful act of self-defence.

What is it like to be working in the field with international humanitarian law during an armed conflict? In the article ‘International Humanitarian Law from a field perspective - case study: Nepal‘, the promotion of international humanitarian law is described through the eyes of a humanitarian aid worker. The author worked as a delegate for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) during the civil war in Nepal. International humanitarian law forms the legal basis of the ICRC's presence in Nepal, it's humanitarian activities and confidential interventions. Nepal and its conflict are introduced, as well as the warring parties and the Red Cross in Nepal. Various humanitarian activities and dilemma's are described. Through this article the YIHL seeks to link theory and practice, and focus on international humanitarian law from an operational perspective.

Compiled and edited by Michelle Lesh, in cooperation with General Editor Timothy L.H. McCormack and Managing Editor Jann Kleffner.

The section Correspondents' Reports is a digest of state practice in the field of international humanitarian law and related fields. It features succient, highly readable reports compiled and reported by the yearbook's roster of expert rapporteurs which provide a global review of IHL covering the reporting period. Areas covered by the national reports include legislative and judicial developments at the national level. The section does not purport to be a fully inclusive compilation of all international humanitarian law-related developments in every state, reporting in this volume mainly developments since the beginning of 2006 until the end of 2006 that have come to the Yearbook's attention.

Further, some 2005 humanitarian law-related developments came to our attention after volume 8 went to press and could not be noted there. For the sake of completeness, we have included them here. Reference is also included to a number of legal developments which are not strictly-speaking related to IHL but which are nonetheless interesting and relevant for our readers, in particular relating to justice issues, jurisdictional questions, jus ad bellum, state security, human rights, refugees and internally displaced persons, and terrorism.

The YIHL features a comprehensive bibliography covering the most recently published books and articles focusing on international humanitarian law, international criminal law and related fields. While the focus is on literature in the English language, notable publications in French, German, Spanish, Italian and other languages are also listed.