US lawyers now define armed-conflict zones by target location, not geography.

Evidence

Similarly, a whole contingent of U.S. lawyers today claim that the notion of a “zone of armed conflict” should no longer be interpreted in a strictly geographic sense. That geocentric concept, supposedly out of date, is now opposed to a target-centered one that is attached to the bodies of the enemy-prey. The conflict zone now “goes where they go, irrespective of geography,” and “the boundaries of the battlefield are not determined by geopolitical lines but rather by the location of participants in an armed conflict.” — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 247

Categorization

• XREF: Directly serves the thesis reading on new ethical and political norms that are neither war nor peace.

Related

• Drones undermine the tacit geographic limits built into the laws of war (similarity 0.81)