Wouldn’t bet the house on having anything enshrined in a treaty. See what the draft does to the ECHR and, apparently, the Withdrawal Agreement.

Would not all dependant children in a family, assuming they don’t earn £38k per annum each, be expelled?

most international lawyers will nod along, I suspect

I suppose those of us with EU SS would not have to pay NI and taxes then, right?

The service personnel involved may not be aware that the legal justification offered is untenable, but the chain of command can hardly claim ignorance that these are unlawful orders.

Sorry to hear this…but not at all surprised!

to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, to be very precise.

who are liable to attack, but they too are not subject to proportionality in these circumstances (Art 51(3) API). This is pretty fundamental. The correct way to put it is to say that an attack may not be expected to cause incidental civilian harm that is disproportionate, or excessive in relation

As Juliette says. The issue is this: with one exception, civilians may not be made the object of attack (Art 51(2) API). If they are, this is an outright violation of the principle of distinction, not subject to proportionality. The one exception is civilians directly participating in hostilities,

this bit

It probably is poor phrasing, but makes me wonder whether the author asked an expert to double-check the text before publication... Anyway, that apart, it's a good read and inspiration for some reflection.

I bookmarked it for incoming PIL students to read, but it does say that civilians may not be attacked if the collateral harm is disproportionate. I didn’t notice any other howlers.

“Rechtlich gilt der Einsatz solcher Störsender als Waffengebrauch.”

???