During times of military occupation following an armed conflict it is not uncommon for the victors to implement mass detention programmes aimed both at providing security and bringing criminals to justice. International human rights regimes serve as overarching guidance for these programmes but are subject to broad interpretations, so it is often unclear what regulations or laws should inform day-to-day operations. Military and civilian lawyers may find themselves practising in a foreign jurisdiction for which they have no training or experience, let alone licensure. Law enforcement officers and military police are forced to adapt long-held practices to a new environment. Questions arise as to the rights that detained individuals possess, as these programmes frequently combine rules from different legal systems with no clear authoritative hierarchy. Attention is focused on the treatment of detained individuals with far less emphasis placed on their due process rights or other fundamental legal freedoms. This article examines one such instance, the US detention programme in Iraq, and highlights the numerous ethical and professional conflicts presented when members of one justice system are transplanted into another without proper preparation and background.

Hunger strikes in a custodial setting are complex to manage clinically, with associated legal and ethical complexities. Hunger strikes in Irish prisons have received, and are likely to continue to be the focus of, considerable media attention. Whilst there is an internationally accepted consensus ethical position, there is limited legal guidance available for psychiatrists to draw upon in such cases. In this paper, we review recent case-law and discuss the legal considerations in the management of prisoners on hunger strike.

In 2011, Frank Van Den Bleeken became the first detainee to request euthanasia under Belgium’s Euthanasia Act of 2002. This article investigates whether it would be lawful and morally permissible for a doctor to accede to this request. Though Van Den Bleeken has not been held accountable for the crimes he committed, he has been detained in an ordinary prison, without appropriate psychiatric care, for more than 30 years. It is first established that Van Den Bleeken’s euthanasia request plausibly meets the relevant conditions of the Euthanasia Act and that, consequently, a doctor could lawfully fulfill it. Next, it is argued that autonomy-based reasons for euthanizing him outweigh complicity-based reasons against doing so, and that, therefore, it is also morally permissible for a doctor to carry out the euthanasia request.

In a list of ‘desk side reminders’, allegedly originating with General Colin Powell, there is one towards the end which says ‘the window for changes is the first year’. It is unlikely President Obama follows these reminders, but it is nonetheless worthwhile to consider how his decisions – the decisions of the Commander in Chief of the sole remaining military superpower – impacted the application and development of international humanitarian law during the year when his window of opportunity was open.

President Obama's first year in office can be defined by two words: pragmatism and commitment. His pragmatism is reflected in the decision to continue to pursue the armed conflicts against transnational terrorism, and his refusal to abandon the legal and policy positions of his predecessor that lodge that struggle squarely within an armed conflict paradigm. His commitment is reflected both in his decision to continue the armed struggle against transnational terrorism, and in the actions he has taken to demonstrate US commitment to fundamental humanitarian principles of the law, and to abandon the policy of legal exceptionalism that defined his predecessor's ‘authority without obligation’ interpretation of the law as it applied to this armed conflict. Any doubt about these dual pillars of his approach to transnational terrorism was eliminated when he delivered his Nobel acceptance speech. In that speech, he challenged the international community to accept the continuing need to meet the threat of transnational terrorism with military force. However, he also emphasized that maintaining the moral high ground in the conduct of hostilities – even when confronting an immoral opponent – is at the very core of the American military tradition.