It slipped my mind that there is a legitimate legal concern when we start using the word “indiscriminate” in this context. It would
Definitely catch the legal eye. You’re right to be specific. “Indiscriminate attack” specifically.
Since you’re speaking in nuance. Can you comment on how your knowledge contrasts this restriction/ requirement/ idea with the Philippines. Signatories on the Rome statute as well to my knowledge. I would suggest it’s the closest comparable issue- if you have better I’d love to see it.
They did what they did with their hit squads- and just told the ICC no thanks. I don’t feel like the rest of the world cares too much what the Canadian corridor of thought on what they do to police massive internal threats to security.
Further to this- Mexico (in dated experience- so maybe it’s different now) does not have the clear lines between military and police function we re used to. It is more unusual for the marines and several other units there to have not been involved in legitimate civilian security operations. So I’m trying to think of a comparable situation.
No worries. If you misread it, obviously I could have been more clear.
I don’t know a ton about the situation in the Philippines, but certainly I think that some parts of the conflict, like Marawi, would rise to that level. I’m not qualified to speak to it beyond that, I’m not knowledgeable enough.
Totally agreed that neither place is likely to care what Canada, or I personally think. I’m just being a nerd about an area of law that interests me.