as on customary international law. It will also refer to soft law providing authoritative interpretations of the relevant treaty provisions. While soft law principles are not binding per se, they have generally been accepted by the international community and reflect a general consensus on the correct interpretation of the relevant norms. In the same vein, opinions of authoritative bodies which provide guidance on the interpretation of international law will also be used in the report. References will be made to domestic standards, as relevant to the situation of detainees at Guantánamo and the proceedings before the military commissions. 105. Four cross-cutting issues concern the applicability of international standards: (a) when and to what extent international humanitarian law applies; (b) the dual application and interrelationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law; (c) the legal terminology concerning the classification of detainees as this affects the application of law; and (d) the extraterritorial application of international human rights law. War Paradigm: When and to What Extent Does International Humanitarian Law Apply? 106. In the aftermath of 11 September 2001 (9/11), the United States developed a “war on terror” paradigm, proclaiming itself in a global war without geographical boundaries against al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.9 According to this paradigm, detainees were not entitled to protection under international human rights law. Indeed, the US government maintained that its obligations under that body of law did not apply extraterritorially, and that international humanitarian law is the applicable law and is the lex specialis (at the exclusion of international human rights law) that should apply in cases of armed conflict, including the “war on terror”.10 Further, the US government originally maintained that detainees were not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, including Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Common Article 3). This provision includes the requirement that all persons who are not or are no longer taking active part in hostilities are treated humanely.11 The United States was effectively positing that international humanitarian law applied to the exclusion of <http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm>: The United States has signed, but not ratified this Convention. The United States has said, however, that it considers many of its provisions to be customary international law. See, also, International Court of Justice (ICJ), Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 25 September 1997, para. 49, <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7375.pdf>: “[The Court] needs only to be mindful of the fact that it has several times had occasion to hold that some of the rules laid down in that Convention might be considered as a codification of existing customary law.” 9 The “war on terror” paradigm was originally set out in general terms in President George W. Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress and the nation on 20 September 2001. “Text: President Bush Addresses the Nation”, The Washington Post website, 20 September 2001, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html>. 10 Marko Milanović, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 232; “Assessing Damage, Urging Action - Report of the Eminent Jurist Panel on Terrorism, Counterterrorism and Human Rights”, International Commission of Jurists, 2009, p. 51, <http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/specialmeetings/2011/docs/icj/icj-2009-ejp-report.pdf>. 11 Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949 (hereinafter, “Third Geneva Convention”), Art. 3, <https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E160550475C4B133C12563CD0051A A66>; “The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols”, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) website, 29 October 2010, <https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-genevaconventions.htm>; United States Supreme Court, Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Case No. 05-184, 29 June 2006, <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/05-184P.ZO>: the Supreme Court found that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was applicable to Guantánamo detainees. 36