No abstract

Professor Gill worked in both institutions we represent, namely the Netherlands Defence Academy (NLDA) and the University of Amsterdam, until his retirement and transition to emeritus professor, respectively. Terry Gill played an important role for our institutions as the dual-hatted professor for Military Law. On 1 September 2001, Terry took up his chair at the University of Amsterdam. As of 2005, he combined this with the newly set-up chair for Military Law at the Netherlands Defence Academy, gradually reducing his tenure at his alma mater, Utrecht University, until he divided his time equally between our institutions.In the meantime, academic teaching and research in the field of military law burgeoned as the world caught fire. The 9/11 terrorist attacks triggered the United States to wage the so-called 'Global War on Terror'. Besides being the first invocation of the collective self-defence mechanism pursuant to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, Operation Enduring Freedom (the military operation against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan) initiated academic and political debate about many of the topics within Terry's expertise, such as self-defence, the applicability of the Geneva Convention to (and the treatment of) unprivileged belligerents (in Guantanamo Bay), and the territorial scope of conflict (e.g. Pakistan and Somalia).The subsequent, highly controversial Operation Iraqi Freedom (the military operation against Iraq), generated both military and legal issues, ranging from jus ad bellum, jus in bello (e.g. the detainee abuse in Abu Ghraib) and the application of human rights law (e.g. the Al Jedda case before the European Court of Human Rights). As a professor at our institutions, Terry Gill has published important, and often-cited articles on all of the aforementioned issues.The above developments, also produced newor a return of oldmilitary strategies, such as counterinsurgency operations, which generate thorny legal questions to be answered by commanding officers supported by legal advisors.

Good and evil are separated by a very thin line. This is common knowledge to the military, especially to their legal advisors. The jester-in the above quotation-eloquently expresses the fact that doing 'the right thing' is not sufficient (for knights). 'The right thing' has to be executed in 'the right way' as well. This double standard is closely related to the issue of 'legitimacy'. Recent military operations like Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Iraqi Freedom and International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan (ISAF) proved the crucial role of legitimacy of and within operations for the public and political appreciation of these operations. Legitimacy is a principle of democratic societies vested in the rule of law, and is especially applicable to the armed forces. It implies that (1) the military require a legal basis for their (domestic and international) operations; and that (2) these operations when executed comply with the applicable legal regimes. Not by coincidence, this double standard is one of the principles of the Dutch Army's military doctrine (Koninklijke Landmacht, 2009: 107). The legal component of this principle consists of the legal basis for and the legal regimes applicable to the operations. The social and ethical components relate to public support for the operations. As recent history shows, deficiencies in the legal basis of an operation (like Iraqi Freedom) and/or violations of or disrespect for the applicable legal regimes (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) have a negative effect on the

Good and evil are separated by a very thin line. This is common knowledge to the military, especially to their legal advisors. The jester-in the above quotation-eloquently expresses the fact that doing 'the right thing' is not sufficient (for knights). 'The right thing' has to be executed in 'the right way' as well. This double standard is closely related to the issue of 'legitimacy'. Recent military operations like Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Iraqi Freedom and International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan (ISAF) proved the crucial role of legitimacy of and within operations for the public and political appreciation of these operations. Legitimacy is a principle of democratic societies vested in the rule of law, and is especially applicable to the armed forces. It implies that (1) the military require a legal basis for their (domestic and international) operations; and that (2) these operations when executed comply with the applicable legal regimes. Not by coincidence, this double standard is one of the principles of the Dutch Army's military doctrine (Koninklijke Landmacht, 2009: 107). The legal component of this principle consists of the legal basis for and the legal regimes applicable to the operations. The social and ethical components relate to public support for the operations. As recent history shows, deficiencies in the legal basis of an operation (like Iraqi Freedom) and/or violations of or disrespect for the applicable legal regimes (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) have a negative effect on the