ABSTRACT
This chapter challenges the prevailing view that United States "exceptionalism" provides the strongest narrative for the United States rejection of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The United States chose not to adopt the Protocol in the face of intense international criticism because of its policy conclusions that the text contained overly expansive provisions resulting from politicized pressure to accord protection to terrorists who elected to conduct hostile military operations outside the established legal framework. The chapter reviews the development of the law related to belligerent status in order to provide the necessary predicate to understanding the revolutionary developments enshrined in Protocol I. It concludes that eliminating the opportunity for states to make reservations as the tools of a second order dialogue over the true meaning and import of treaty provisions endangers the utility of multilateral treaties.
