Person: Modirzadeh, Naz
Loading...
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
Modirzadeh
First Name
Naz
Name
Modirzadeh, Naz
14 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 14
Publication Advancing Humanitarian Commitments in Connection with Countering Terrorism: Exploring a Foundational Reframing concerning the Security Council(Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, 2021-12) Lewis, Dustin; Kapoor, Radhika; Modirzadeh, NazStates spend tens of billions of dollars each year to help implement humanitarian programs in conflicts across the world. Yet, in practice, counterterrorism objectives increasingly prevail over humanitarian concerns, often resulting in devastating effects for civilian populations in need of aid and protection in war. Not least, confusion and misapprehensions about the power and authority of States relative to the United Nations Security Council to set policy preferences and configure legal obligations contribute significantly to this trajectory. In a new guide for States published by the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC), Dustin A. Lewis, Radhika Kapoor, and Naz K. Modirzadeh argue that it is possible — and, they believe, urgently called for — to arrest this trajectory and safeguard principled humanitarian action. In their view, short-term and ad-hoc solutions are less likely to uphold the humanitarian imperative. Instead, the authors present a framework for States to reconfigure the relations between these core commitments by deciding to assess the counterterrorism architecture through the lens of impartial humanitarianism. The authors also identify key questions that States may answer to help formulate and instantiate their values, policy commitments, and legal positions in order to advance the humanitarian imperative and uphold respect for principled humanitarian action in connection with carrying out the Security Council’s counterterrorism decisions.Publication Preparing for a Twenty-Four-Month Sprint: A Primer for Prospective and New Elected Members of the United Nations Security Council,(Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, 2020-12) Ossoff, William; Modirzadeh, Naz; Lewis, DustinUnder the United Nations Charter, the U.N. Security Council has several important functions and powers, not least with regard to taking binding actions to maintain international peace and security. The ten elected members have the opportunity to influence this area and others during their two-year terms on the Council. In this paper, we aim to illustrate some of these opportunities, identify potential guidance from prior elected members’ experiences, and outline the key procedures that incoming elected members should be aware of as they prepare to join the Council. In doing so, we seek in part to summarize the current state of scholarship and policy analysis in an effort to make this material more accessible to States and, particularly, to States’ legal advisers. We drafted this paper with a view towards States that have been elected and are preparing to join the Council, as well as for those States that are considering bidding for a seat on the Council.Publication War-Algorithm Accountability(Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC), 2016) Lewis, Dustin; Blum, Gabriella; Modirzadeh, NazIn this briefing report, we introduce a new concept — war algorithms — that elevates algorithmically-derived “choices” and “decisions” to a, and perhaps the, central concern regarding technical autonomy in war. We thereby aim to shed light on and recast the discussion regarding “autonomous weapon systems.” We define “war algorithm” as any algorithm that is expressed in computer code, that is effectuated through a constructed system, and that is capable of operating in relation to armed conflict. In introducing this concept, our foundational technological concern is the capability of a constructed system, without further human intervention, to help make and effectuate a “decision” or “choice” of a war algorithm. Distilled, the two core ingredients are an algorithm expressed in computer code and a suitably capable constructed system. Through that lens, we link international law and related accountability architectures to relevant technologies. We sketch a three-part (non-exhaustive) approach that highlights traditional and unconventional accountability avenues. We focus largely on international law because it is the only normative regime that purports — in key respects but with important caveats — to be both universal and uniform. By not limiting our inquiry only to weapon systems, we take an expansive view, showing how the broad concept of war algorithms might be susceptible to regulation — and how those algorithms might already fit within the existing regulatory system established by international law.Publication Medical Care in Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law and State Responses to Terrorism(Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, 2015) Lewis, Dustin; Modirzadeh, Naz; Blum, GabriellaThe surge in armed conflicts involving terrorism has brought to the fore the general question of medical care in armed conflict and the particular legal protections afforded to those providing such care to terrorists. Against this backdrop, we evaluate international humanitarian law (IHL) protections for wartime medical assistance concerning terrorists. Through that lens, we expose gaps and weaknesses in IHL. We also examine tensions between IHL and state responses to terrorism more broadly. In studying the IHL regime applicable to medical care, substantive fragmentation and gaps in legal protection between states and across types of conflict emerge. These ruptures are not new. But they are increasingly noticeable as terrorism is more frequently conceptualized as forming part of armed conflicts and as more states undertake aggressive responses to terrorist threats. The U.N. Security Council has been a key driver of these responses, requiring member states to take more and broader steps to obviate terrorist threats. Yet so far the Council has not required that, in doing so, states fully exempt impartial wartime medical care, even in circumstances that would render such care protected under IHL. Rather, the Council seems to consider providing medical assistance and supplies to al-Qaeda and its associates as at least a partial ground for designating those who facilitate such care as terrorists themselves. The overall result today is unsatisfactory. By prosecuting physicians for supporting terrorists through medical care in armed conflicts, some states are likely violating their IHL treaty obligations. But in certain other instances where states intentionally curtail impartial medical care there is no clear IHL violation. Both those actual IHL violations and the lack of clear IHL violations, we think, are cause for concern. The former represent failures to implement the legal regime. And the latter highlight the non-comprehensiveness— or, at least, the indeterminateness and variability — of the normative framework.Publication Understanding Humanitarian Exemptions: UN Security Council Sanctions and Principled Humanitarian Action(Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict Counterterrorism and Humanitarian Engagement Project. Harvard Law School., 2016) King, Katie; Modirzadeh, Naz; Lewis, DustinPublication Armed Non-State Actors and International Human Rights Law: An Analysis of the Practice of the U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly(Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, 2017) Burniske, Jessica; Modirzadeh, Naz; Lewis, DustinSeveral significant legal, policy, and practical concerns are at issue in whether armed non-state actors (ANSAs) will ultimately be recognized—by all relevant institutions and actors—as bearing human-rights obligations in general under international law in a manner previously reserved primarily for states. In considering this set of issues, it is important to clarify what obligations, if any, the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly recognize ANSAs as possessing under IHRL. This June 2017 Briefing Report with Annexes provides an overview of research conducted by HLS PILAC concerning modalities in which the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly have addressed ANSAs with respect to human rights; ways in which these U.N. principal organs have distinguished between different types of ANSAs; and the consequences of these organs possibly establishing responsibility of ANSAs in relation to the protection and fulfillment—or, at least, the non-abuse—of human rights. While it is incontrovertible that the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly have recognized, at a minimum, that the conduct of at least some ANSAs can amount to violations or abuses of human rights, it is not currently possible to state that either of these principal U.N. organs has taken sufficient steps to formally endow ANSAs with human-rights obligations in general under international law.Publication Indefinite War: Unsettled International Law on the End of Armed Conflict(The Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC), 2017) Lewis, Dustin; Blum, Gabriella; Modirzadeh, NazCan we say, definitively, when an armed conflict no longer exists under international law? The short, unsatisfying answer is sometimes: it is clear when some conflicts terminate as a matter of international law, but a decisive determination eludes many others. The lack of fully-settled guidance often matters significantly. That is because international law tolerates, for the most part, far less violent harm, devastation, and suppression in situations other than armed conflicts. Thus, certain measures governed by the laws and customs of war—including killing and capturing the enemy, destroying and seizing enemy property, and occupying foreign territory, all on a possibly large scale—would usually constitute grave violations of peacetime law. This Legal Briefing details the legal considerations and analyzes the implications of that lack of settled guidance. It delves into the myriad (and often-inconsistent) provisions in treaty law, customary law, and relevant jurisprudence that purport to govern the end of war. Alongside the doctrinal analysis, this Briefing considers the changing concept of war and of what constitutes its end; evaluates diverse interests at stake in the continuation or close of conflict; and contextualizes the essentially political work of those who design the law. In all, this Legal Briefing reveals that international law, as it now stands, provides insufficient guidance to precisely discern the end of many armed conflicts as a factual matter (when has the war ended?), as a normative matter (when should the war end?), and as a legal matter (when does the international-legal framework of armed conflict cease to apply in relation to the war?). The current plurality of legal concepts of armed conflict, the sparsity of IHL provisions that instruct the end of application, and the inconsistency among such provisions thwart uniform regulation and frustrate the formulation of a comprehensive notion of when wars can, should, and do end. Fleshing out the criteria for the end of war is a considerable challenge. Clearly, many of the problems identified in this Briefing are first and foremost strategic and political. Yet, as part of a broader effort to strengthen international law’s claim to guide behavior in relation to war and protect affected populations, international lawyers must address the current confusion and inconsistencies that so often surround the end of armed conflict.Publication Suppressing Foreign Terrorist Fighters and Supporting Principled Humanitarian Action: A Provisional Framework for Analyzing State Practice(Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, 2015) Burniske, Jessica; Lewis, Dustin; Modirzadeh, NazIn 2014, reports suggested that a surge of foreign jihadists were participating in armed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. The United Nations Security Council responded by imposing in Resolution 2178 (2014) an array of obligations on member states to counter the threat posed by “foreign terrorist fighters” (FTFs). In the intervening year, those states have taken a range of actions — though at various speeds and with varying levels of commitment — to implement the FTF obligations imposed by the Council. Meanwhile, many states continue to fund and otherwise throw their support behind life-saving humanitarian relief for civilians in armed conflicts around the world — including conflicts involving terrorists. Yet, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have been increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impacts of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action. Part of their interest stems from the fact that certain counterterrorism laws may, intentionally or unintentionally, adversely affect principled humanitarian action, especially in regions where terrorist groups control territory (and thus access to civilians, too). The effects of these laws may be widespread — ranging from heightened due diligence requirements on humanitarian organizations to restrictions on travel, from greater government scrutiny of national and regional staff of humanitarian organizations to decreased access to financial services and funding. Against that backdrop, this briefing report has two aims: first, to provide a primer on the most salient issues at the intersection of counterterrorism measures and humanitarian aid and assistance, with a focus on the ascendant FTF framing. And second, to put forward, for critical feedback and assessment, a provisional methodology for evaluating the following question: is it feasible to subject two key contemporary wartime concerns — the fight against FTFs and supporting humanitarian aid and assistance for civilians in terrorist-controlled territories — to meaningful empirical analysis?Publication An Interpretive Note for U.N. Member States on Security Council Resolution 2664 (2022)(Harvard Law School, 2023-03) Kapoor, Radhika; Lewis, Dustin; Modirzadeh, NazOn December 9, 2022, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2664 (2022), laying down a limited, standing humanitarian-related “carve-out” from Council-decided asset freezes. The resolution warrants close attention from U.N. Member States. That is not only due to the resolution’s consequential character. It is also because the core obligations arising from it are notably complex and raise correspondingly intricate issues concerning interpretation and implementation. In this interpretive note for the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, Radhika Kapoor, Dustin Lewis, and Naz Modirzadeh seek to support U.N. Member States’ initial efforts to understand and implement certain key aspects of the resolution, especially the humanitarian-related “carve-out” at its center. As explained in the interpretive note, U.N. Member States bear principal responsibility for carrying out the legal mandate entailed in resolution 2664 (2022). Those States will, as a minimum, need to review and, as relevant, make adjustments to their national legal systems and any multi-State legal arrangements to which they belong, such as a regional organization. Further, members of the Security Council will need to evaluate the implications of the resolution with respect to each of the affected sanctions regimes and take the action warranted to address those implications. U.N. Member States may also take action to support those responsible for the briefings (the U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator) and the report (the Secretary-General) requested by the Security Council.Publication The Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate and International Humanitarian Law: Preliminary Considerations for States(Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, 2020-03-30) Lewis, Dustin; Modirzadeh, Naz; Burniske, JessicaIn developing international humanitarian law (IHL), States have aimed in part to lay down the primary normative and operational framework pertaining to principled humanitarian action in situations of armed conflict. The possibility that certain counterterrorism measures may be instituted in a manner that intentionally or unintentionally impedes such action has been recognized by an increasingly wide array of States and entities, including the United Nations Security Council and the U.N. Secretary-General. At least two aspects of the contemporary international discourse on intersections between principled humanitarian action and counterterrorism measures warrant more sustained attention. The first concerns who is, and who ought to be, in a position to authentically and authoritatively interpret and apply IHL in this area. The second concerns the relationships between IHL and other possibly relevant regulatory frameworks, including counterterrorism mandates flowing from decisions of the U.N. Security Council. Partly in relation to those two axes of the broader international discourse, a debate has emerged regarding whether the U.N. Security Council may authorize one particular counterterrorism entity — namely, the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) — to interpret and assess compliance with IHL pertaining to humanitarian action in relation to certain counterterrorism contexts. In this briefing, we seek to help inform that debate by raising some preliminary considerations regarding that possibility. We focus on the possible implications of States and other relevant actors pursuing various responses or not responding to this debate. One of our goals is to help raise awareness of this area with a focus on perspectives drawn from international law. Another is to invite a broader engagement with the question of the preservation of the humanitarian commitments laid down in IHL in a period marked by a growing number — and a deepening — of the intersections between situations of armed conflict and measures to suppress terrorism.