Suchergebnisse

Situations of hostility between States and armed groups located on the territories of other States are difficult to classify because they call into question the categories of international and non-international armed conflicts. This contribution argues for the single classification of non-international armed conflicts of those transnational armed conflicts. The article starts with a clarification on the relevant circumstances for the contribution. The different classifications proposed by scholars, tribunals and States are then examined, leading us to our arguments for a single classification of non-international armed conflicts, and to the test adopted for a rapid categorization of those transnational hostilities. Finally, we mention some important observations and challenges on this topic, like the classification of situations involving at the same time hostilities between a State and an armed group located on the territory of another State and the occupation of the territory of this second State.

Intro -- Cover -- Half title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Table of cases -- Table of treaties -- Table of Security Council resolutions -- Table of General Assembly resolutions -- Abbreviations -- 1 The framework -- I. Introduction -- A. NIACs and IACs -- B. LONIAC -- C. No NIAC jus ad bellum -- II. The legal strata of NIAC law -- A. Treaty law -- B. Customary international law -- III. The triple classification of violence during a NIAC -- A. Hostilities -- B. Ordinary crimes -- C. War crimes -- D. The triple classification and wilful killing -- E. The disparate perspectives of domestic and international law -- IV. Motives and goals of a NIAC -- A. Motives -- B. Goals -- 2 The preconditions of a NIAC -- I. NIACs as armed conflicts -- II. NIACs distinguished from internal disturbances -- A. Isolated and sporadic acts of violence -- B. The law enforcement paradigm -- III. The dichotomy of NIACs and IACs -- IV. The territorial dimensions of NIACs -- A. A NIAC as an armed conflict within the territory of a single State -- (a) The internal character of a NIAC -- (b) Extra-territorial spillover -- (i) The high seas -- (ii) Cyber space -- (iii) Cross-border hostilities on land -- (c) The 'war' on terrorism -- (d) Divided nations -- V. A clash between organized armed groups inter se -- VI. A modicum of organization of the insurgents -- A. Insurgency distinguished from mob violence -- B. Insurgents as a party to the conflict -- VII. Protracted violence -- A. The temporal element -- B. Revolutions and coups d'Etat -- C. How much time is required? -- VIII. Intensity of the fighting -- A. Terrorist activities -- B. Intensity as an independent criterion -- C. Indicia of intensity -- 3 Thresholds and interaction of armed conflicts -- I. The thresholds of armed conflicts -- A. Below-the-threshold violence -- B. Over the first threshold.

" This book explores the human rights obligations of armed non-state actors in non-international armed conflicts from the existing sources. This book seriously challenges the Statecentric view of human rights by breaking the traditional perception of international human rights regime that applies only to State actors. This book shows the necessity in considering the capacity of de facto regimes of armed non-state actors to incur human rights obligations in order to protect individuals and groups, and regulate their daily lives in the control areas of these armed non-state actors. Further, this book proves the capacity of armed non-state actors for violating human rights as well as bearing human rights obligations in non-international armed conflicts. The degree of human rights obligations of armed non-state actors, especially regarding civil and political rights, as well as obligations towards some vulnerable groups, has been confirmed in this book. Nevertheless it is very difficult to impose human rights obligations on armed nonstate actors without relying on other international norms such as international humanitarian law and international criminal law in non-international armed conflicts since these bodies of law give more detailed provisions to regulate the specific issue. In addition, the success of the fulfilment of obligations in international norms by armed non-state actors mostly depends on their capacity, willingness and intentions, including the ideology of a specific group."--Page four of cover

The Debate section of the Review aims to contribute to reflection on contemporary questions of humanitarian law, policy or action. In this issue of the Review, we invited two experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) - Claus KreBeta and Frederic Megret - to debate on how IHL applicable in non-international armed conflict (NIAC) should develop. In the two pieces that follow, Professor KreBeta submits for debate a new norm of international law outlawing NIACs - a jus contra bellum internum - with a corresponding set of rules applicable in NIACs - a jus in bello interno. The jus in bello interno would give the 'privilege of belligerency' - akin to combatants' privilege in international armed conflicts - to non-State actors in NIACs, providing an incentive for them to comply with these new rules of civil war. Frederic Megret critically examines the proposed privilege of belligerency, pointing out its problematic aspects and positing that the creation of such a privilege is, in fact, not desirable. Adapted from the source document.

Albeit the prohibition of recruitment and use in hostilities of children is an established norm of international law, recognized under both international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the problem still remains. The main actors responsible for this reality are non-state armed groups (NSAGs), which kept recruiting and involving children in various tasks, including direct participation in hostilities (DPH). This in turn generates a dilemma regarding targetability of such children: whether to extend the special protection afforded to them by international law from being recruited and/or used in hostilities for targeting purposes as well. Additionally, the difficulty to determine targeting rules in the context of non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), which led to controversies as to targetability of even adult members of NSAGs while they do not take a direct part in hostilities, exacerbates the dilemma. This piece, accepting persuasiveness of the proposal in the ICRC Interpretive Guidance that those members of armed groups who have continuous combat function (CCF) are targetable, in addition to civilians taking a direct part in hostilities, questions whether children with such function/role are targetable in the same manner as adults of the same position. It is argued here that though children can be targeted during their DPH or when they have CCF, there is support in the law that the notions of DPH and CCF should be applied to them differently than adults. The piece also analyzes if the same means and methods used to target adults could be lawful when employed against children.

TheDebatesection of theReviewaims to contribute to reflection on contemporary questions of humanitarian law, policy or action. In this issue of theReview, we invited two experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) –Claus KreβandFrédéric Mégret– to debate on how IHL applicable in non-international armed conflict (NIAC) should develop. In the two pieces that follow, Professor Kreβ submits for debate a new norm of international law outlawing NIACs – ajus contra bellum internum– with a corresponding set of rules applicable in NIACs – ajus in bello interno. Thejus in bello internowould give the "privilege of belligerency" – akin to combatants' privilege in international armed conflicts – to non-State actors in NIACs, providing an incentive for them to comply with these new rules of civil war. Frédéric Mégret critically examines the proposed privilege of belligerency, pointing out its problematic aspects and positing that the creation of such a privilege is, in fact, not desirable.

AbstractThe paper offers the first comprehensive treatment of the applicability and regulation of belligerent reprisals in non-international armed conflicts. It introduces three approaches to the topic ('extralegal', 'permissive' and 'restrictive' approaches) which all enjoy some support among States and scholars. The paper shows that international humanitarian law (IHL) treaties, IHL customs and other legal sources do not make it possible to decide between these approaches, as they are either silent on the topic or allow for several interpretations. It is the assessment of extralegal considerations and of the general framework of IHL which allows us to conclude that belligerent reprisals are inapplicable in non-international armed conflicts ('extralegal' approach). Yet, there are signs indicating that a gradual shift toward the 'restrictive' approach could be under way. The paper cautions against a premature acceptance of this approach drawing attention to its limits.