5cjxburmr

As another example, to the extent that the concept of “due regard” for the safety of civilaircraft may be deemed to apply during armed conflict, what regard is due would be understoodin terms of the requirements of the law of war. 31 Similarly, to the extent that the concept of “dueregard” for the rights of other States under the law of the sea may be deemed to apply duringarmed conflict, what regard is due would be understood in terms of the requirements of the lawof war. 32 Lastly, even where international courts or commissions have characterized human rightsobligations as applicable during armed conflict, they generally have characterized the content ofthose obligations as determined by standards and tests drawn from the law of war. 331.3.2.4 Explicit Incorporation of Concepts From Other Bodies of Law Into theLaw of War. In some cases, law of war treaties explicitly incorporate concepts from other bodiesof law. For example, the peacetime property law concept of usufruct is made applicable to theduties of the Occupying States. 34 Similarly, the GC explicitly applies a peacetime rule withrespect to the nationals of the Occupying Power who, before the outbreak of hostilities, havesought refuge in the occupied territory. 35 And as another example, Common Article 3 of the1949 Geneva Conventions incorporates by reference those judicial guarantees that arerecognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 361.3.3 Restrictive and Permissive Character of the Law of War. In certain respects, the lawof war may be viewed as prohibitive; in other respects, the law of war may be viewed aspermissive. 371.3.3.1 Law of War as Prohibitive Law. The law of war that relates to the conductof hostilities has generally been viewed as “prohibitive law,” in the sense that it forbids ratherthan authorizes certain uses of force. 38 For example, the lawfulness of the use of a type of31 Refer to § 14.1.1.4 (Due Regard for the Safety of Navigation of Civil Aircraft).32 Refer to § 13.1.1 (The Law of the Sea During Armed Conflict).33 Refer to § 1.6.3.1 (Relationship Between Human Rights Treaties and the Law of War).34 Refer to § 11.18.5.2 (Public Real (Immovable) Property That Is Essentially of a Non-Military Nature).35 Refer to § 11.11.7.2 (Protection of Nationals of the Occupying Power Who, Before the Outbreak of Hostilities,Have Sought Refuge in the Territory of the Occupied State).36 Refer to § 8.16 (Criminal Procedure and Punishment).37 VON GLAHN, THE OCCUPATION OF ENEMY TERRITORY 5 (“Throughout the pages of this study a basic fact willappear repeatedly: the laws of war, including the rules applicable to belligerent occupation, are in part permissiveand in part prohibitive—a fact that has been overlooked frequently in treatments of the subject.”).38 See Richard R. Baxter, So-Called ‘Unprivileged Belligerency’: Spies, Guerillas, and Saboteurs, 28 BRITISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 323, 324 (1951) (“The law of war is, in the descriptive words of a war crimestribunal, ‘prohibitive law’ in the sense that it forbids rather than authorizes certain manifestations of force.”)(quoting United States v. List, et al. (The Hostage Case), XI TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 1252);Gherebi v. Obama, 609 F. Supp. 2d 43, 65 (D.D.C. 2009) (rejecting as “exactly backwards” the “notion that theGeneva Conventions must specifically enable its signatories to act in a specific manner for a signatory to have theauthority necessary to take such action.”); JOHN WESTLAKE, II INTERNATIONAL LAW 52 (1907) (“These rules arealways restrictive, never permissive in any other sense than that of the absence of prohibition, for law can give nopositive sanction to any act of force of which it cannot secure the employment on the side of justice alone, even if13