This article considers the state of the doctrine on dual attribution in military operations. The rapidly expanding jurisprudence on cooperative military ventures has yet to coalesce around a single normative framework. The role of the ario and ars in that realm has been decidedly mixed, perhaps predictably given the inconsistency between the two codes. The most hopeful developments have come in the Netherlands, with the elaboration of a bifocal, preventive interpretation of Article 7 of the ario. However, whether that framework will resonate elsewhere is uncertain. Thus far, the concept of dual attribution itself has played an odd role. It has been affirmed repeatedly in theory, but the primary value of its theoretical possibility has been in empowering courts to hear cases they might otherwise have avoided, while failing actually to attribute conduct to two or more entities.
Dannenbaum, supra note 22, pp. 726–727; Dannenbaum, supra note 46, pp. 158–164. This may be part of “the literature” to which the Court refers without citation (Mothers of Srebrenica v. Netherlands, supra note 83, para. 4.60).
Dannenbaum, supra note 46, pp. 158–164.
Dannenbaum, supra note 46, pp. 165–170. Cf. Cedric Ryngaert, ‘Srebrenica Continued’ (2014) 61 Netherlands International Law Review pp. 367–368 (arguing, correctly in my view, that these actions should have been attributed to the Netherlands, but questioning whether they could have been attributed to the un).