The new operational definition for siege operators is a way of separating the operations of military operations from those of law enforcement.
As we have written previously, the definition has a clear legal justification, but the practical implementation of it is far more complex.
According to the operational definition, operations can be undertaken to “ensure the public’s safety” by protecting property and “operating lawfully in the territory of another nation”.
This could mean any act of violence, theft, or other breach of law.
The operational definition has two problems: first, it makes no distinction between operations undertaken to protect property and those undertaken to enforce the law, while second, it requires a legal justification for every operation undertaken.
One solution is to introduce a new legal element, the legal justification requirement.
A legal justification is defined as a justification that justifies an action in the name of the public good.
It may also be a general justification that describes the need for a particular activity, such as for example a prohibition against the carrying of arms.
But to do this, a new law must be passed.
In order to pass a new operational law, the government must first define what the law is.
The definition for operations that are carried out in support of a military operation must be specified by the relevant military commander, and the definition for such operations must also specify how the operation is to be carried out.
That is to say, the operational legal definition must specify the law that governs the conduct of the operation, including the criteria for determining what the operation does, including whether the operation can be carried over to a different military operation, how it is to affect the civilian population in the affected territory, and whether the purpose of the action is to cause injury to civilians.
If the operational justification is not specified in the operational law (i.e. is not based on the law governing the conduct or operation of the military operation), then it cannot be used to justify the conduct.
What is the operational framework for operational definitions?
The operational definition of siege operators, which will be part of the next iteration of the operational code, is intended to help with the clarification of the legal requirements for the conduct and operation of siege operations.
However, it is not a substitute for a legal definition.
It will not replace a legal framework, which is why the operational frameworks should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects the legal framework.
To that end, the new operational framework will be developed in a way that is consistent with the operational structure of the existing operational code.
As the operational definitions will be applied to all operations carried out by the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Department of Defence, the framework for operations is likely to be the same as those for the operations carried by the SAS, Australian Federal Police and the Reserve Force.
There is also an opportunity to use the operational context of siege to address other issues, such the need to ensure that operators have the appropriate training and equipment.
So, what are the implications of the new framework for law enforcement?
It is unclear what impact this will have on operational conduct in Australia.
Until now, there has been a clear separation between the operational operations of law enforcers and operations carried on by siege operators.
While the legal rationale for operational operations will be defined by the military commander of the Australian Armed Forces, the same rationale for siege operations will apply to the operations conducted by the ASIO, the Federal Police, and the Royal Australian Mounted Police.
This separation has not changed over time.
Under the operational codices, the law of siege is not relevant to the conduct in siege operations and the legal distinction between operational operations and siege operations is clear.
For example, in the first operational codice, the rationale for the operation of a siege is that it is “necessary to protect the public and secure the security of the territory”, whereas the legal basis for the actions in siege is a defence of “the defence of peace and order”.
The same rationale applies to the actions undertaken in siege.
An operational law may be applied only in the context of the armed conflict between the two sides and the lawfulness of that action does not depend on the circumstances of the conflict.
Operations conducted in the military context may not be applied at all in relation to siege operations, and therefore the operational provisions of the law apply.
Therefore, it may be appropriate to consider a change in the legal provisions to reflect the operational realities of the circumstances.
Does the operational scope of siege operation apply to other states?
Siege operations in other states may be carried on without a legal requirement for the operational status of the operations in those states.
Some jurisdictions have also legislated that they will not apply to operations conducted in other jurisdictions, even if they are carried