While the fourth advisement–compensation to victims is just, fair and humane, this entire approach inadvertently grants an imprimatur of legality to protocols that are so horrific and so extra-judicial that any attempt to make accommodation with those who have arrogated to themselves the right to use such means is an exercise in the enabling of evil.
I am sure that this article’s 2 authors mean well, but the task they delineate is nothing short of arguing justice with a sociopath. The killing squads that operate in the dark, murder on the basis of false rationales, and manufacture their own sanitized fallacious accountings of events are not entities amenable to justice.
In my mind, these demands (apart from #4) work to grant a patina of legitimacy to that which cannot BE legitimate. It’s like asking the Inquisitors to make orderly lists of the homes they burn down and persons they burn as witches and heretics.
The chronicling of crimes against humanity may have a value; but not if emphasis is placed on proper protocols so that the killing fields may continue into perpetuity.
Real justice is asking for and demanding a world where there are no drones and where extremes of wealth along the with profligate sale of weaponry do not GUARANTEE pockets of aggression which then work as pretexts for State Sponsored Violence, and to those interested in such responses, a continuation of war.
In other words, rather than look for ways to justify existing protocols, work to cure the conditions that cause war and court aggression.