Skip Navigation


Journal of International Criminal Justice Advance Access originally published online on April 15, 2008
Journal of International Criminal Justice 2008 6(2):371-383; doi:10.1093/jicj/mqn016
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
6/2/371    most recent
mqn016v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dehn, J. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press, 2008, All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

This article appears in the following Journal of International Criminal Justice issue: Special Issue The Law of Cruelty: Torture as an International Crime [View the issue table of contents]

Why Article 5 Status Determinations are not ‘Required’ at Guantánamo

John C. Dehn*

* Major, Judge Advocate General's Corps, US Army; LL.M. Candidate (Columbia Law School), LL.M. (Military Law), The Judge Advocate General's School, US Army; JD with highest honours (University of Oklahoma College of Law). [jcd2147{at}columbia.edu]


  Abstract

On 17 December 2007 the Military Commission convened to try Salim Ahmed Hamdan ruled that, as part of Hamdan's challenge to its jurisdiction, Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) required the Commission to entertain Hamdan's claims of entitlement to prisoner of war status. The Commission rejected those claims and found Hamdan to be an unlawful combatant subject to its jurisdiction two days later. The author concludes that the Commission's decision to grant an Article 5 status determination was consistent with international humanitarian law. He further argues, however, that the Commission's decisions to conduct the status determination and to consider all-claimed prisoner of war categories under the GPW were inconsistent with the Military Commission Act, specifically its definition of lawful and unlawful combatants and, hence, inconsistent with the US national law governing the Commission.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.