During its engagement in Afghanistan, the US military seriously tried to mitigate the risk of civilian casualties from airstrikes only when called for by changes in military doctrine emphasizing the need to gain the support of the population. Consistent efforts by external political and humanitarian actors to reduce casualties by demanding more transparency and clearer lines of accountability for ‘collateral damage’ had little immediate, observable effect. The case study underlines the contingent nature of progress towards protecting civilians in armed conflict even when a military institution formally accepts the principles of customary international humanitarian law, but concludes that, faute de mieux, strategies to enhance protection through greater accountability and attention to the kind of military ordinance used remain central.
Danish-Norwegian Return Center for Minors in Kabul: Well-Founded Initiative?
Jessica Schultz and Terje Einarsen
Missing from the picture: Men imprisoned for ‘moral crimes’ in Afghanistan
Aziz Hakimi, Torunn Wimpelmann
Adultery, rape, and escaping the house: The protection and policing of female sexuality in Afghanistan
Women’s informal peace efforts: Grassroots activism in South Sudan
Helen Kezie-Nwoha and Juliet Were
The International Protection Alternative in Refugee Law: Treaty basis and scope of application under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol
Russian Use of Private Military and Security Companies - the implications for European and Norwegian Security
Åse Gilje Østensen and Tor Bukkvoll