Click on "CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY" or "SPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY" to see content
Introduction
From a humanitarian point of view, the victims of non-international armed conflicts should be protected by the same rules as the victims of international armed conflicts. They face similar problems and need similar protection. Indeed, in both situations, fighters and civilians are arrested and detained by “the enemy”; civilians are forcibly displaced; they have to flee, or the places where they live fall under enemy control. Attacks are launched against towns and villages, food supplies need to transit through front lines, and the same weapons are used. Furthermore, the application of different rules for protection in international and in non-international armed conflicts obliges humanitarian players and victims to classify the conflict before those rules can be invoked. This can be theoretically difficult and is always politically delicate. To classify a conflict may imply assessing questions of jus ad bellum. For instance, in a war of secession, for a humanitarian actor to invoke the law of non-international armed conflicts implies that the secession is not (yet) successful, which is not acceptable for the secessionist authorities fighting for independence. On the other hand, to invoke the law of international armed conflicts implies that the secessionists are a separate State, which is not acceptable for the central authorities.
However, States, in the international law they have made, have never agreed to treat international and non-international armed conflicts equally. Indeed, wars between States have until recently been considered a legitimate form of international relations and the use of force between States is still not totally prohibited today. Conversely, the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its boundaries is inherent in the concept of the modern State, which precludes groups within that State from waging war against other factions or the government.
On the one hand, the protection of victims of international armed conflicts must necessarily be guaranteed through rules of international law. Such rules have long been accepted by States, even by those which have the most absolutist concept of their sovereignty. States have traditionally accepted that soldiers killing enemy soldiers on the battlefield may not be punished for their mere participation: in other words, they have a “right to participate” in the hostilities.[1]
On the other hand, the law of non-international armed conflicts is more recent. States have for a long time considered such conflicts as internal affairs governed by domestic law, and no State is ready to accept that its citizens would wage war against their own government. In other words, no government would renounce the right in advance to punish its own citizens for their participation in a rebellion. Such renunciation, however, is the essence of combatant status as defined in the law of international armed conflicts. To apply all the rules of the contemporary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) of international armed conflicts to non-international armed conflicts would be incompatible with the very concept of the contemporary international society being made up of sovereign States. Conversely, if ever the international community is organized as a world State, all armed conflicts would be “non-international” in nature and it would thus be inconceivable for combatants to have the right to participate in hostilities independently of the cause for which they fight, as foreseen in the law of international armed conflicts.
In recent years, however, the IHL of non-international armed conflicts has drawn closer to the IHL of international armed conflicts: through the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda based on their assessment of customary international law;[2] in the crimes defined in the ICC Statute;[3] because States have accepted that recent treaties on weapons and on the protection of cultural objects are applicable to both categories of conflicts;[4] under the growing influence of International Human Rights Law; and according to the outcome of the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law.[5] This study comes to the conclusion that 136 (and arguably even 141) out of 161 rules of customary humanitarian law, many of which run parallel to rules of Protocol I applicable as a treaty to international armed conflicts, apply equally to non-international armed conflicts.
Theoretically, the IHL of international armed conflicts and the IHL of non-international armed conflicts should be studied, interpreted and applied as two separate branches of law – the latter being codified mainly in Art. 3 common to the Conventions and in Protocol II. Furthermore, non-international armed conflicts occur much more frequently today and entail more suffering than international armed conflicts. Thus, it would be normal to study first the law of non-international armed conflicts, as being the most important.
However, because the IHL of non-international armed conflicts must provide solutions to problems similar to those arising in international armed conflicts, because it was developed after the law applicable to international armed conflicts, and because it involves the same principles, although elaborated in the applicable rules in less detail, it is best to start by studying the full regime of the law applicable to international armed conflicts in order to understand the similarities and differences between it and the law of non-international armed conflicts. The two branches of law share the same basic principles, and analogies have to be drawn between them to flesh out certain provisions or to fill logical gaps. Similarly, only by taking the law of international armed conflicts as a starting point can one identify which changes must result, for the protective regime in non-international armed conflicts, from the fundamental legal differences between international and non-international armed conflicts. Finally, from the perspective of the law of international armed conflicts, there is a grey area not affected by those fundamental differences but in which States have refused to provide the same answer in the treaties of IHL. The practitioner in a non-international armed conflict confronted with a question to which the treaty rules applicable to such situations fail to provide an answer will either look for a rule of customary IHL applicable to non-international armed conflicts or search for the answer applicable in international armed conflicts and then analyse whether the nature of non-international armed conflicts allows for the application of the same answers in such conflicts. In any event, soldiers are instructed and trained to comply with one set of rules and not with two different sets.
The ICRC Study on customary international humanitarian law[6] has confirmed the customary nature of most of the treaty rules applicable in non-international armed conflicts (Art. 3 common to the Conventions and Protocol II in particular). Additionally, the study demonstrates that many rules initially designed to apply only in international conflicts also apply – as customary rules – in non-international armed conflicts. They include the rules relating to the use of certain means of warfare, relief assistance, the principle of distinction between civilian objects and military objectives and the prohibition of certain methods of warfare.
The fact that the IHL of non-international armed conflicts continues to be developed is certainly a good thing for the victims of such conflicts, which are the most frequent in today’s world, but it should never be forgotten that these rules are equally binding on government forces and non-State armed groups.[7] Therefore, for all existing, claimed and newly suggested rules of the IHL of non-international armed conflicts, or whenever we interpret any of these rules, we should check whether an armed group willing to comply with the rule in question is able to do so without necessarily losing the conflict.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that if a given situation or issue is not regulated by the IHL of non-international armed conflicts applying as the lex specialis, international human rights law applies, although possibly limited by derogations.
To conclude, it should be stressed that even in cases in which the IHL of international armed conflicts contains no detailed provisions or to which no analogies with that law apply, and even without falling back on customary law, the plight of the victims of contemporary non-international armed conflicts would be incomparably improved if only the basic black-letter provisions of Art. 3 common to the Conventions and of Protocol II were respected.
Cases and Documents
- ICRC, Sixtieth Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part E., paras 37-100]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Boskoski
- Colombia, Constitutional Conformity of Protocol II
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2011
- ECJ, Aboubacar Diakité v. Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- ABI-SAAB Georges, “Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law, Geneva, Henry-Dunant Institute/UNESCO, 1986, pp. 217-239.
- ABI-SAAB Georges, “Humanitarian Law and Internal Conflicts: The Evolution of Legal Concern”, in Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict Challenges Ahead, Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, Dordrecht, M. Nijhoff, 1991, pp. 209-223.
- BUGNION François, “Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Non-International Armed Conflicts”, YIHL, Vol. 6 (2003), 2007, pp. 167-198.
- CULLEN Anthony, “Key Developments Affecting the Scope of Internal Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law”, in Military Law Review, Vol. 183, Spring 2005, pp. 66-109.
- CULLEN Anthony, The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge, CUP, 2010, 219 pp.
- JUNOD Sylvie S., “Additional Protocol II: History and Scope”, in The American University Law Review, Vol. 33/1, Fall 1983, pp. 29-40.
- KALSHOVEN Frits, “Applicability of Customary International Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in CASSESE Antonio (ed.), Current Problems of International Law, Milan, Giuffrè, 1975, pp. 267-285.
- KWAKWA Edward, The International Law of Armed Conflict: Personal and Material Fields of Application, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1992, 208 pp.
- MOMTAZ Djamchid, “Le droit international humanitaire applicable aux conflits armés non internationaux”, in Collected Courses, Vol. 292, 2001, pp. 9-146.
- MOIR Lindsay, The Law of Internal Armed Conflict, Cambridge, CUP, 2002, 297 pp.
“Humanitarian Protection in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in IYHR, Vol. 30, 2000, pp. 1-226. - PERNA Laura, The Formation of the Treaty Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Leiden, M. Nijhoff, 2006, 168 pp.
- SCHMITT Michael N., DINSTEIN Yoram & GARRAWAY Charles H. B. (eds), “The Manual of Law of Non-International Armed Conflict: with Commentary”, in IYHR, Vol. 36, 2006, 71 pp.
- SIVAKUMARAN Sandesh, “Identifying an Armed Conflict not of an International Character”, in STAHN Carsten & SLUITER Göran (eds), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court, Leiden, Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 363-380.
Further reading:
- ABI-SAAB Rosemary, Droit humanitaire et conflits internes : Origine de la réglementation internationale, Paris/Geneva, Pedone/Henry-Dunant Institute, 1986, 280 pp.
- BOTHE Michael, “Conflits armés internes et droit international humanitaire”, in RGDIP, Vol. 82/1, 1978, pp. 82-102.
- CULLEN Anthony, “The Definition of Non-International Armed Conflict in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: an Analysis of the Threshold of Application Contained in Article 8(2)(f)”, in Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2007, pp. 419-445.
- FLECK Dieter, “Humanitarian Protection in Non-international Armed Conflicts: the New Research Project of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law”, in IYHR, Vol. 30, 2000, pp. 1-16.
- FOUQUET Catherine de (ed.), Guerres civiles, Toulouse, Presse universitaire du Mirail, 1997.
- KÜEFNER Stefanie, “The Threshold of Non-International Armed Conflict: the Tadic Formula and its First Criterion Intensity”, in Militair-Rechtelijk Tijdschrift, Vol. 102, Issue 6, 2009, pp. 301-311.
- LA HAYE Eve, War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts, Cambridge, CUP, 2008, 424 pp.
- PIERNAS Carlos, “The Protection of Foreign Workers and Volunteers in Situation of Internal Conflict, with Special Reference to the Taking of Hostages”, in IRRC, No. 287, March-April 1992, pp. 143-172.
- SIOTIS Jean, Le droit de la guerre et les conflits armés d’un caractère non international, Paris, LGDJ, 1958, 248 pp.
- VEUTHEY Michel, “Les conflits armés de caractère non international et le droit humanitaire”, in CASSESE Antonio (ed.), Current Problems of International Law, Milan, Giuffrè, 1975, pp. 179-266.
- VEUTHEY Michel, Guérilla et droit humanitaire, Geneva, ICRC, 1983, 451 pp.
- WEHBERG Hans, “La guerre civile et le droit international”, in Collected Courses, Vol. 63, 1938, pp. 1-127.
- WYSS Gabriela M., Der nicht internationale bewaffnete Konflikt in El Salvador: Die Anwendung des Zusatzprotokolles II von 1977 zu den Genfer Abkommen von 1949, Verlag Hans Schellenberg, Winterthur, 1989, 225 pp.
- ZORGBIBE Charles, La guerre civile, Paris, PUF, 1975, 208 pp.
Footnotes
- [1] As recalled in P I, Art. 43(2)
- [2] See in particular ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part A., paras 96-136]
- [3] Compare Art. 8 (2) (a) and (b) with Art. 8. (2) (c) and (e), The International Criminal Court [Part A.]
- [4] See
- [5] See ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law
- [6] See ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law
- [7] See infra, Internal Armed Conflicts, VIII. Who is bound by the IHL of non-international armed conflicts?
I. International and non-international armed conflicts
Cases and Documents
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part A., paras 71-76 and 96-98]
- United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- Georgia/Russia, Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in South Ossetia [Paras 2-27]
- Syria, Syrian rebels treat captured Filipino soldiers as 'guests'
- Central African Republic/Democratic Republic of Congo/Uganda, LRA attacks
- Central African Republic, Coup d'Etat
Quotation
The treaty-based law applicable to internal armed conflicts is relatively recent and is contained in common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol II, and article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property. It is unlikely that there is any body of customary international law applicable to internal armed conflict which does not find its root in these treaty provisions.
[Source: Commission of Experts appointed to investigate violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia. UN Doc. S/1994/674, para. 52]
II. Comparison of the legal regimes for international and for non-international armed conflicts
Cases and Documents
- The International Criminal Court [Part A., Art. 8]
- UN, Minimum Humanitarian Standards [Part B., paras 74-77]
- Germany, International Criminal Code [Paras 8-12]
- Belgium, Law on Universal Jurisdiction [Part A., Art. 136(c)]
- UN, UN Forces in Somalia
- Georgia/Russia, Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in South Ossetia [para. 18]
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- BARTELS Rogier, “Timelines, Borderlines and Conflicts: the Historical Evolution of the Legal Divide between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in IRRC, Vol. 91, No. 873, March 2009, pp. 35-67.
- CRAWFORD Emily, “Unequal before the Law: The Case for the Elimination of the Distinction between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in Leiden Journal of International Law, No. 20, 2007, pp. 441-465.
- CRAWFORD Emily, “Blurring the Lines between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts: the Evolution of Customary International Law Applicable in Internal Armed Conflicts”, in Australian International Law Journal, Vol. 15 (2008), 2009, pp. 29-54.
- OBRADOVIC Konstantin, “Les règles du droit international humanitaire relatives à la conduite des hostilités en période de conflits armés non internationaux”, in Yearbook of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law (San Remo), Milano, Giuffrè, 1992, pp. 95-116.
- SASSÒLI Marco, “Le droit international humanitaire applicable aux conflits armés non internationaux : Quelques problèmes fondamentaux et le rôle du CICR”, in Revue burkinabè de droit, No. 17, 1990, pp. 115-143.
1. Traditional difference: protection not based on status (e.g. prisoner-of-war or protected civilian status) but on actual conduct (direct participation in hostilities)
Cases and Documents
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part C., paras 68, 171]
- Colombia, Constitutionality of IHL Implementing Legislation [Paras D.3.3.1.-5.4.3., Para. E.1]
- Afghanistan, Drug Dealers as Legitimate Targets
- ECHR, Khatsiyeva v. Russia [Paras 132-138]
- Georgia/Russia, Human Rights Watch’s Report on the Conflict in South Ossetia [Paras 7-15, 42, 84 and 92]
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- Syria, Press conference with French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin
- USA, Guantánamo, End of "Active Hostilities" in Afghanistan
- USA, Jawad v. Gates
- Italy, Use of force against ambulances in Iraq
- United States of America, Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: United States of America v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- KLEFFNER Jann K., “From “Belligerents” to “Fighters” and Civilians Directly Participating in Hostilities: on the Principle of Distinction in Non-International Armed Conflicts One Hundred Years After the Second Hague Peace Conference”, in Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2007, pp. 315-336.
- KLEFFNER Jann K., “The Notions of Civilians and Fighters in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in BERUTO Gian Luca (ed.), The Conduct of Hostilities: Revisiting the Law of Armed Conflict: 100 Years After the 1907 Hague Conventions and 30 Years After the 1977 Additional Protocols: Current Problems of International Humanitarian Law, Sanremo, 6-8 September 2007: Proceedings, Milano, Nagard, 2008, pp. 69-78.
- SOLF Waldemar A., “The Status of Combatants in Non international Armed Conflicts Under Domestic Law and Transnational Practice”, in American University Law Review, Vol. 33/1, 1983, pp. 53-65.
2. However, the regime is closer to that of international armed conflicts if fighters (members of an armed group with a continuous fighting function) are not considered to be civilians:
- and may therefore be targeted not only while directly participating in hostilities through specific acts but also – like combatants in international armed conflicts – as long as they do not fall into the power of the enemy or are otherwise hors de combat;
Cases and Documents
- and may, in the view of some States and specialists, also be detained for the mere fact that they belong to the enemy (like prisoners of war in international armed conflicts).
Cases and Documents
- ICRC, Sixtieth Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions
- United States, President’s Military Order
- United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- United States, The Obama Administration’s Internment Standards
- United States, Closure of Guantanamo Detention Facilities
- United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar Mohammed (High Court Judgment)
- United States, Mukhtar Yahia Maji Al Warafi v. Obama
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- Malaysia/Philippines, Conflict over the Sultanate of Sulu
- US/Afghanistan, Transfer of Control over Bagram Prison
- United States, Jurisprudence Related to the Bombing of the U.S.S Cole
- Central African Republic, Report of the UN Independent Expert, July 2016
- Somalia/US, Airstrikes in Somalia
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- SASSÒLI Marco, “The International Legal Framework for Stability Operations: When May International Forces Attack or Detain Someone in Afghanistan?”, IYHR, Vol. 39, 2009, pp. 177-212.
3. Uncontroversial similarities and differences
- protection of all those who do not or no longer directly participate in hostilities
Cases and Documents
- Belgium, Public Prosecutor v. G.W.
- Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct
- Chile, Prosecution of Osvaldo Romo Mena
- ICJ, Nicaragua v. United States [Para. 255]
- UN, Security Council Resolution 688 on Northern Iraq
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part B., paras 573-575 and 615]
- Switzerland, Military Tribunal of Division 1, Acquittal of G.
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region [Part II.]
- Switzerland, The Niyonteze Case [Part A., consid. 9a.; Part B., III. ch. 3.D.1]
- India, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
- Civil War in Nepal
- Russian Federation, Chechnya, Operation Samashki
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- Central African Republic, Report of the UN Independent Expert, July 2016
- UN/Colombia, Human Rights Committee Clarifications and Concluding Observations (2016)
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
- Iraq, Crimes by Militia Groups
aa) who is protected?
Cases and Documents
bb) the wounded and sick
Cases and Documents
- ICRC Report on Yemen, 1967
- Afghanistan, Separate Hospital Treatment for Men and Women
- Yemen, Obstructing Medical Care
- South Sudan: Medical Care Under Fire
- Health Care in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas
- Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health
- Afghanistan, Attack on Kunduz Trauma Centre
- Italy, Use of force against ambulances in Iraq
- Cameroon, Dead and Missing Persons
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- SOLF Waldemar A, “Development of the Protection of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked under the Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions”, in Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet, Geneva, ICRC, The Hague, M. Nijhoff, 1984, pp. 237-248.
cc) prohibition of rape and other forms of sexual violence
Cases and Documents
dd) treatment of detainees
Cases and Documents
- ICRC, Tracing Service
- Israel, Methods of Interrogation Used Against Palestinian Detainees
- Sudan, Report of the UN Commission of Enquiry on Darfur [Paras 298 and 422]
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region [Part I. F.2]
- Afghanistan, Assessment of ISAF Strategy
- United States, Treatment and Interrogation in Detention
- Russian Federation, Chechnya, Operation Samashki [Para. 14]
- Georgia/Russia, Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in South Ossetia [Paras 90-93]
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- US/Afghanistan, Transfer of Control over Bagram Prison
- Sweden/Syria, Can Armed Groups Issue Judgments?
- United States, Jurisprudence Related to the Bombing of the U.S.S Cole
- USA, Jawad v. Gates
- Central African Republic, Report of the UN Independent Expert, July 2016
- Cameroon, Dead and Missing Persons
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- CRAWFORD Emily, The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford, OUP, 2010, 213 pp.
- GOODMAN Ryan, “The Detention of Civilians in Armed Conflicts”, in AJIL, Vol. 103, No. 1, January 2009, pp. 48-74.
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, “The Copenhagen Process on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations”, in Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre, Vol. 3-4, No. 46, 2007, pp. 363-392.
- RODLEY Nigel S., The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, Oxford, OUP, 3rd ed., 2009, 697 pp.
- OSWALD Bruce, “The Detention of Civilians in Military Operations: Reasons for and Challenges to Developing a Special Law of Detention”, in Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2008, pp. 524-553.
ee) judicial guarantees
Cases and Documents
- Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region [Part I. F.]
- United States, President’s Military Order
- United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- United States, Military Commissions
- United States, Habeas Corpus for Guantanamo Detainees
- United States, Closure of Guantanamo Detention Facilities
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- Sweden/Syria, Can Armed Groups Issue Judgments?
- United States, Jurisprudence Related to the Bombing of the U.S.S Cole
- USA, Jawad v. Gates
- UN/Colombia, Human Rights Committee Clarifications and Concluding Observations (2016)
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, “Security Detention”, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2009, pp. 315-650.
- ICRC, Chatam House, “Expert Meeting on Procedural Safeguards for Security Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict”, in IRRC, Vol. 91, No. 876, December 2009, pp. 859-881.
- OSWALD Bruce, “The Detention of Civilians in Military Operations: Reasons for and Challenges to Developing a Special Law of Detention”, in Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2008, pp. 524-553.
- more absolute prohibition of forced displacements
Cases and Documents
- Sudan, Report of the UN Commission of Enquiry on Darfur [Paras 226 and 328]
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [9, 30 and 36]
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, Constitution of Safe Areas in 1992-1993
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region [Part II. A.]
- Georgia/Russia, Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in South Ossetia [Paras 120-125]
- Iraq: Situation of Internally Displaced Persons
- Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- MANGALA Jack M., “Préventions des déplacements forcés de population – possibilités et limites”, in IRRC, No. 844, December 2001, pp. 1067-1095.
- PLATTNER Denise, “The Protection of Displaced Persons in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in IRRC, No. 291, November-December 1992, 13 pp.
- WILMS Jan, “Without Order, Anything Goes?: The Prohibition of Forced Displacement in Non-International Armed Conflict”, in IRRC, Vol. 91, No. 875, September 2009, pp. 547-575.
III. Different types of non-international armed conflicts
Cases and Documents
- The International Criminal Court [Part A., Art. 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(f)]
- Belgium and Brazil, Explanations of Vote on Protocol II
- Sudan, Report of the UN Commission of Enquiry on Darfur [Paras 74-76]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Boskoski [Para.197]
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Conflicts in the Kivus
- ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu [Part A., paras 601-610 and 622-627]
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2011
- ECJ, Aboubacar Diakité v. Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
SPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- ANGSTROM Jan, “Towards a Typology of Internal Armed Conflict: Synthesising a Decade of Conceptual Turmoil”, in Civil Wars, Vol. 4/3, 2001, pp. 93-116.
- BOTHE Michael, “Article 3 and Protocol II: Case Studies of Nigeria and El Salvador”, in American University Law Review, Vol. 31/4, 1982, pp. 899-909.
- DAHL Arne Willy & SANDBU Magnus, “The Threshold of Armed Conflict”, in Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre, Vol. 3-4, No. 45, 2006, pp. 369-388.
- SCHINDLER Dietrich, “The Different Types of Armed Conflicts According to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols”, in Collected Courses, Vol. 163, 1979, pp. 153-156.
1. Conflicts to which common Art. 3 is applicable
Cases and Documents
- Hungary, War Crimes Resolution
- ICJ, Nicaragua v. United States [Para. 219]
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [Para. 23]
- ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu [Part A., paras 619-621]
- Switzerland, The Niyonteze Case [Part B., III., ch. 3.C.]
- United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- Civil War in Nepal [Part I.]
- Georgia/Russia, Human Rights Watch’s Report on the Conflict in South Ossetia [Paras 84 and 92]
- United States, Jurisprudence Related to the Bombing of the U.S.S Cole
- lower threshold
Cases and Documents
- The Seville Agreement [Part II Art. 5.2]
- ICRC, Disintegration of State Structures
- UN, Minimum Humanitarian Standards
- ECHR, Korbely v. Hungary
- Chile, Prosecution of Osvaldo Romo Mena
- Inter-American Commission on Human Right, Tablada [Paras 154-56]
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [Para. 23]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part B., paras 562-568, Part E.]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Boskoski
- ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu [Part A., paras 619-621]
- India, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
- Russian Federation, Chechnya, Operation Samashki
- South Sudan, The Nuer “White Armies”
2. Conflicts covered by common Art. 3 and Art. 8(2)(e) of the ICC Statute
3. Conflicts to which, in addition, Protocol II is applicable
Cases and Documents
- International Law Commission, Articles on State Responsibility [Part A., Art. 10 and Commentary, para. 9]
- UN, Minimum Humanitarian Standards [Part B., paras 78-81]
- Belgium and Brazil, Explanations of Vote on Protocol II
- Switzerland, Qualification of the Conflict in El Salvador
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [Paras 16, 24 and 34-37]
- ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu [Part A., paras 622-627]
- Switzerland, The Niyonteze Case [Part A., 9 a. and Part B., III., ch. 3, Part C., III., ch. 3, and Part D(2)., III., ch 3]
- Human Rights Committee, Guerrero v. Colombia
- Germany, Government Reply on Chechnya
- Russian Federation, Chechnya, Operation Samashki
- Russia, Constitutionality of Decrees on Chechnya
- Georgia/Russia, Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in South Ossetia [Paras 11-12]
- ICC, Confirmation of Charges against LRA Leader
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- JUNOD Sylvie S., “Additional Protocol II: History and Scope”, in American University Law Review, Vol. 33/1, 1983, pp. 29-40.
- LYSAGHT Charles, “The Scope of Protocol II and its Relation to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Other Human Rights Instruments”, in American University Law Review, Vol. 33/1, 1983, pp. 9-27.
4. Material field of application of the customary IHL of non-international armed conflicts
Cases and Documents
5. Conflicts to which IHL as a whole is applicable
- recognition of belligerency by the government
Cases and Documents
- special agreements between the parties
Cases and Documents
- Sudan, Report of the UN Commission of Enquiry on Darfur [Para. 168]
- Sri Lanka, Jaffna Hospital Zone
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [Para. 4]
- Former Yugoslavia, Special Agreements Between the Parties to the Conflicts
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, Release of Prisoners of War and Tracing Missing Persons After the End of Hostilities
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part A., para. 73]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Galic [Part A., para. 22]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin [Part B., para. 69]
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region [Part III.B.]
- Germany, Government Reply on the Kurdistan Conflict
- Afghanistan, Soviet Prisoners Transferred to Switzerland
- Colombia Peace Agreement
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- JAKOVLJEVIC Bosko, “Memorandum of Understanding of 27 November 1991: International Humanitarian Law in the Armed Conflict in Yugoslavia in 1991”, in Yugoslav Review of International Law, No. 3, 1991, pp. 301-312.
- JAKOVLJEVIC Bosko, “The Agreement of May 22, 1992, on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in the Armed Conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina”, in Yugoslovenska Revija za Medunarodno Pravo, No. 2-3, 1992, pp. 212-221.
- SANDOZ Yves, “Réflexions sur la mise en œuvre du droit international humanitaire et sur le rôle du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge en ex-Yougoslavie”, in Revue Suisse de Droit International et de Droit Européen, No. 4, 1993, pp. 461-490.
- SMITH Colin, “Special Agreements to Apply the Geneva Conventions in Internal Armed Conflicts: the Lessons of Darfur”, in Irish Yearbook of International Law, 2009, pp. 91-101.
- TENEFRANCIA Roselle C., “A Breed of its Own: Characterizing the CARHRIHL as a Legal Document”, in Ateneo Law Journal, Vol. 54, 2009, pp. 149-163.
Cases and Documents
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- PLATTNER Denise, “La portée juridique des déclarations de respect du droit international humanitaire qui émanent de mouvement en lutte dans un conflit armé”, in RBDI, Vol. 18/1, 1984-1985, pp. 298-320.
- See documents on http://www.genevacall.org.
6. Problems of qualification
Cases and Documents
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- BYRON Christine, “Armed Conflicts: International or Non-International?”, in Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 6, No. 1, June 2011, pp. 63-90.
- CARSWELL Andrew J., “Classifying the Conflict: a Soldier’s Dilemma”, in IRRC, Vol. 91, No. 873, March 2009, pp. 143-161.
- CRAWFORD Emily, “Blurring the Lines Between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts: The Evolution of Customary International Law Applicable in Internal Armed Conflicts”, in Australian International Law Journal, Vol. 15, 2008, pp. 29-54.
- GRAY Christine, “Bosnia and Herzegovina: Civil War or Inter-State Conflict? Characterization and Consequences”, in BYIL, Vol. 67, 1996, pp. 155-197.
- MERON Theodor, “Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, Nicaragua’s Fallout”, in AJIL, Vol. 92/2, 1998, pp. 236-242.
- SANDOZ Yves, “Réflexions sur la mise en œuvre du droit international humanitaire et sur le rôle du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge en ex-Yougoslavie”, in Revue Suisse de Droit International et de Droit Européen, No. 4, 1993, pp. 461-490.
- SASSÒLI Marco, “The Legal Qualification of the Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia: Double Standards or New Horizons in International Humanitarian Law?”, in WANG Tieya & SIENHO Yee (eds), International Law in the Post-Cold War World: Essays in Memory of Li Haopei, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 307-333.
- SIVAKUMARAN Sandesh, “Identifying an Armed Conflict not of an International Character”, in STAHN Carsten & SLUITER Göran (eds), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court, Leiden, Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 363-380.
- STEWART James G., “Towards a Single Definition of Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law: a Critique of Internationalized Armed Conflict”, in IRRC, No. 850, June 2003, pp. 313-349.
- VITE Sylvain, “Typology of Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law: Legal Concepts and Actual Situations”, in IRRC, Vol. 91, No. 873, March 2009, pp. 69-94.
- traditional internationalized internal conflicts
Cases and Documents
- International Law Commission, Articles on State Responsibility [Part A., Art. 8]
- ICJ, Nicaragua v. United States [Paras 219 and 254]
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [Paras 9 and 26]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part A., para. 72 and Part C., paras 87-162]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Rajic [Part A., paras 11]
- United States, Kadic et al. v. Karadzic
- Switzerland, Military Tribunal of Division 1, Acquittal of G.
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region [Part III. A.]
- Philippines, Application of IHL by the National Democratic Front of the Philippines
- Georgia/Russia, Human Rights Watch’s Report on the Conflict in South Ossetia [Paras 7-15]
- Georgia/Russia, Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in South Ossetia [Paras 2-27]
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2011
- Democratic Republic of Congo, Fighting with the M 23 Group
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
- International Criminal Court, Trial Judgment in the Case of the Prosecutor V. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo
- Eastern Ukraine, Attacks Against and Military Use of Schools
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
- Central African Republic/Democratic Republic of Congo/Uganda, LRA attacks
- Central African Republic, Coup d'Etat
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- GASSER Hans-Peter, “Internationalized Non-International Armed Conflicts: Case Studies of Afghanistan, Kampuchea and Lebanon”, in American University Review,Vol. 33/1, 1983, pp. 145-161.
- SCHINDLER Dietrich, “The Different Types of Armed Conflicts According to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols”, in Collected Courses, Vol. 163/2, 1979, pp. 119-163.
- SCHINDLER Dietrich, International Humanitarian Law and the Internationalization of Internal Armed Conflict, San Remo, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 1981, 15 pp.
- conflicts of secession
Cases and Documents
- United States, The Prize Cases
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [Paras 2 and 34]
- Former Yugoslavia, Special Agreements Between the Parties to the Conflicts [Part A.]
- Philippines, Application of IHL by the National Democratic Front of the Philippines
- South Sudan: Medical Care Under Fire
- foreign intervention not directed against governmental forces
Cases and Documents
- Israel, Operation Cast Lead [Part I, paras 29-30]
- ICRC/Lebanon, Sabra and Chatila
- Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah, Conflict in 2006
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region [Part III. A.]
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Conflicts in the Kivus [Parts I, II, and III, paras 1-12]
- Afghanistan, Drug Dealers as Legitimate Targets
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea [Part 1. B. 4]
- Turkey/Iraq, Turkish Military Operations in Northern Iraq
- UN, Statement of a Special Rapporteur on Drone Attacks
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2011
- United States of America, The Death of Osama bin Laden
- Syria, Press conference with French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2015 [paras 26, 57]
- Yemen, Potential Existence and Effects of Naval Blockade
- Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
- Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS
- Iraq, The Battle for Mosul
- Yemen , Humanitarian Impact of the Conflict
- non-international armed conflicts that spread into a neighbouring country
Cases and Documents
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Conflicts in the Kivus
- ICJ, Democratic Republic of the Congo/Uganda, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2011
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2015 [paras 68]
- Myanmar, Incidents at Chinese border
- Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS
- Cameroon, Dead and Missing Persons
- UN peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations in a non-international armed conflict
Cases and Documents
- Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
- UN, UN Forces in Somalia
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region [Part III. D.]
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. [Part 1. B. 3.]
- Democratic Republic of Congo, Involvement of MONUSCO
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2011
- Central African Republic: Sexual Violence by Peacekeeping Forces
- Central African Republic, Report of the UN Independent Expert, July 2016
- Central African Republic, No Class: When Armed Groups Use Schools
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- CHO Sihyun, “International Humanitarian Law and United Nations Operations in an Internal Armed Conflict”, in Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 26, 1998, pp. 85-111.
- SHRAGA Daphna, “The United Nations as an Actor Bound by International Humanitarian Law”, in International Peacekeeping, Vol. 5/2, 1998, pp. 64-81.
- UN operations to restore or maintain law and order
Cases and Documents
- the “global war on terror”
[See supra Fundamentals, B) International Humanitarian Law as a Branch of Public International Law, III.International Humanitarian Law: a branch of international law governing the conduct of States and individuals, 1.Situations of application, e. The global war on terror]
Cases and Documents
- ICRC, The Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts
- United States, Status and Treatment of Detainees Held in Guantanamo Naval Base
- United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [Parts I and III]
- United States, The Obama Administration’s Internment Standards
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2011
- United States, Jurisprudence Related to the Bombing of the U.S.S Cole
- USA, Guantánamo, End of "Active Hostilities" in Afghanistan
- USA, Jawad v. Gates
IV. The explicit rules of Common Article 3 and of Protocol II
Cases and Documents
1. Who is covered by common Art. 3?
CASES AND DOCUMENTS
2. Principles under common Art. 3
Cases and documents
- non discrimination
CASES AND DOCUMENTS
- humane treatment
Cases and Documents
- Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Bámaca-Velasquez v. Guatemala,
- Canada, Ramirez v. Canada
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Strugar [Part B., paras 219 and 234-250]
- Human Rights Committee, Guerrero v. Colombia
- Afghanistan, Code of Conduct for the Mujahideen [Arts 3, 8, 12-13, 18, 21]
- United States, Treatment and Interrogation in Detention
- Mali, Conduct of Hostilities
- Central African Republic, Coup d’Etat
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- Somalia, the fate of Children in the conflict
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic
- Myanmar, Forced Population Movements
- USA, Jawad v. Gates
- Central African Republic, Report of the UN Independent Expert, July 2016
- Iraq: Situation of Internally Displaced Persons
- Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
- ICC, Confirmation of Charges against LRA Leader
- UN/Colombia, Human Rights Committee Clarifications and Concluding Observations (2016)
- International Criminal Court, Trial Judgment in the Case of the Prosecutor V. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- DROEGE Cordula, ““In Truth the Leitmotiv”: The Prohibition of Torture and Other Forms of Ill-Treatment in International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, Vol. 89, No. 867, September 2007, pp. 515-541.
- does the prohibition of murder cover attacks in the conduct of hostilities?
Cases and documents
- judicial guarantees
Cases and Documents
- United States, President’s Military Order
- United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- United States, Military Commissions
- United States, Habeas Corpus for Guantanamo Detainees
- Yemen, Obstructing Medical Care
- Mali, Conduct of Hostilities
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- Sweden/Syria, Can Armed Groups Issue Judgments?
- United States, Jurisprudence Related to the Bombing of the U.S.S Cole
- USA, Jawad v. Gates
- Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)
- UN/Colombia, Human Rights Committee Clarifications and Concluding Observations (2016)
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- CRAWFORD Emily, The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford, OUP, 2010, 213 pp.
- PEJIC Jelena, “Procedural Principles and Safeguards for Internment/Administrative Detention in Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence”, in IRRC, No. 858, June 2005, pp. 375-391.
- SAYAPIN Sergey, “The Application of the Fair Trial Guarantees to Alleged Terrorists in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in Humanitäres Völkerrecht, Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 152-159.
Cases and Documents
- Yemen, Obstructing Medical Care
- South Sudan: Medical Care Under Fire
- Health Care in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas
- United States, Mukhtar Yahia Maji Al Warafi v. Obama
- Democratic Republic of Congo, Fighting with the M 23 Group
- Syrian Statement at the UN on the Medical Treatment of Enemy Fighters
- The armed conflict in Syria
- Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health
- United States of America, The Death of Osama bin Laden
- Afghanistan, Attack on Kunduz Trauma Centre
- Sri Lanka, Naval War against Tamil Tigers
3. Additional rules under Protocol II
- more precise rules on:
aa) fundamental guarantees of humane treatment
P II, Arts 4 and 5 [CIHL, Rules 87-96, 103, 118, 119, 121, 125, 128]
Cases and Documents
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni [Paras 29-46]
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Conflict in the Kivus (Part III, paras 16, 35-41)
- Afghanistan, Code of Conduct for the Mujahideen [Art. 51]
- Mali, Conduct of Hostilities
- Central African Republic, Coup d’Etat
- United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar Mohammed (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judgments)
- El Salvador, Supreme Court Judgment on the Unconstitutionality of the Amnesty Law
- ICC, Confirmation of Charges against LRA Leader
- South Sudan, AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- BELLAMY Alex J., “No Pain, No Gain? Torture and Ethics in the War on Terror”, in International Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 121-146.
- RODLEY Nigel S., The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, Oxford, OUP, 3rd ed., 2009, 697 pp.
Cases and Documents
- United States, President’s Military Order
- Mali, Conduct of Hostilities
- Sweden/Syria, Can Armed Groups Issue Judgments?
- United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar Mohammed (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judgments)
- UN/Colombia, Human Rights Committee Clarifications and Concluding Observations (2016)
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
cc) wounded, sick and shipwrecked
P II, Arts 7-8 [CIHL, Rules 109-111]
Cases and Documents
- Yemen, Obstructing Medical Care
- South Sudan: Medical Care Under Fire
- Health Care in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas
- Democratic Republic of Congo, Fighting with the M 23 Group
- Syrian Statement at the UN on the Medical Treatment of Enemy Fighters
- Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health
- Sri Lanka, Naval War against Tamil Tigers
- South Sudan, AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan
- Cameroon, Dead and Missing Persons
dd) use of the emblem
P II, Art. 12 [CIHL, Rules 30 and 59]
Cases and Documents
- specific rules on:
aa) protection of children
P II, Art. 4(3) [CIHL, Rules 136 and 137]
Cases and Documents
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni [Paras 10-11]
- ICC, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
- Afghanistan, Code of Conduct for the Mujahideen [Art. 50]
- Civil War in Nepal
- Sierra Leone, Special Court Ruling on the Recruitment of Children
- Engaging Non-state Armed Groups on the Protection of Children
- Philippines, Armed Group Undertakes to Respect Children
- Somalia, the fate of Children in the conflict
- Central African Republic, Report of the UN Independent Expert, July 2016
- ICC, Confirmation of Charges against LRA Leader
- UN/Colombia, Human Rights Committee Clarifications and Concluding Observations (2016)
- Eastern Ukraine, Attacks Against and Military Use of Schools
- Central African Republic, No Class: When Armed Groups Use Schools
- South Sudan, AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan
- Yemen , Humanitarian Impact of the Conflict
- Geneva Call and the Chin National Front
P II, Arts 9-12 [CIHL, Rules 25, 26 and 28-30]
Cases and Documents
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni [Paras 17-22]
- Yemen, Obstructing Medical Care
- South Sudan: Medical Care Under Fire
- United States, Mukhtar Yahia Maji Al Warafi v. Obama
- Democratic Republic of Congo, Fighting with the M 23 Group
- The armed conflict in Syria
- Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health
- South Sudan, AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan
- Yemen , Humanitarian Impact of the Conflict
- rules on the conduct of hostilities
aa) protection of the civilian population against attacks
P II, Art. 13 [CIHL, Rules 1 and 6]
Cases and Documents
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni [Paras 12-16]
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Conflicts in the Kivus [Part III, paras 12-23]
- Afghanistan, Assessment of ISAF Strategy
- Civil War in Nepal
- ECHR, Isayeva v. Russia
- ECHR, Khatsiyeva v. Russia
- ICC, Confirmation of Charges against LRA Leader
- UN, Working Group on the use of Mercenaries: Preliminary Findings of Mission to Ukraine
- South Sudan, AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan
- Yemen , Humanitarian Impact of the Conflict
bb) protection of objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population
P II, Art. 14 [CIHL, Rules 53 and 54]
CASES AND DOCUMENTS
- Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
- South Sudan, AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan
- Yemen , Humanitarian Impact of the Conflict
cc) protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
P II, Art. 15 [CIHL, Rule 42]
Cases and Documents
Cases and Documents
- prohibition of forced movements of civilians
P II, Art. 17 [CIHL, Rule 129 B]
Cases and Documents
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni [Paras 3-9]
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [Paras 24, 30, 33 and 36]
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Conflicts in the Kivus [Part III, paras 38-40]
- Iraq: Situation of Internally Displaced Persons
- Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
- relief operations
P II, Art. 18 [CIHL, Rules 55 and 56]
Cases and Documents
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni [Paras 23-28]
- United States of America, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
- Yemen, Potential Existence and Effects of Naval Blockade
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
- South Sudan, AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan
- Yemen , Humanitarian Impact of the Conflict
V. Customary Law of non-international armed conflicts
Cases and Documents
- ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law
- Sudan, Report of the UN Commission of Enquiry on Darfur [Paras 154-167]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part A., paras 96-126]
- United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar Mohammed (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judgments)
- Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
- Central African Republic/Democratic Republic of Congo/Uganda, LRA attacks
- Central African Republic, Coup d'Etat
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- COWLING Michael, “International Lawmaking in Action: the 2005 Customary International Humanitarian Law Study and Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in African Yearbook on International Humanitarian Law, 2006, pp. 65-87.
- CRAWFORD Emily, “Blurring the Lines between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts: the Evolution of Customary International Law Applicable in Internal Armed Conflicts”, in Australian International Law Journal, Vol. 15 (2008), 2009, pp. 29-54.
- KALSHOVEN Frits, “Applicability of Customary International Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in CASSESE Antonio (ed.), Current Problems of International Law, Milan, Giuffrè, 1975, pp. 267-285.
- TAVERNIER Paul & HENCKAERTS Jean-Marie (Dir.), Droit international humanitaire coutumier : enjeux et défis contemporains, Brussels, Bruylant, 2008, 289 pp.
- WILMSHURST Elizabeth & BREAU Susan (eds), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge, CUP, 2007, 433 pp.
VI. Applicability of the general principles on the conduct of hostilities
Cases and Documents
- The International Criminal Court [Part A., Art. 8(2)(e)]
- Sudan, Report of the UNCommission of Enquiry on Darfur [Para. 166]
- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Tablada [Paras 182-189]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Rajic [Part A., para. 48]
- Colombia, Constitutional Conformity of Protocol II [Paras 22-24]
- Mali, Conduct of Hostilities
- Somalia, the fate of Children in the conflict
- United States, Use of Armed Drones for Extraterritorial Targeted Killings
- The armed conflict in Syria
- General Assembly, The use of drones in counter-terrorism operations
- Libya, Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2014/15)
- Iraq, Forced displacement and deliberate destruction
- Eastern Ukraine, OHCHR Report on the Situation: November 2016 - February 2017
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- CASSESE Antonio, “The Spanish Civil War and the Development of Customary Law Concerning Internal Armed Conflicts”, in CASSESE Antonio (ed.), Current Problems of International Law, Milan, Giuffrè, 1975, pp. 287-318.
- HOFFMANN Michael H., The Customary Law of Non-International Armed Conflict: Evidence from the United States Civil War, Geneva, ICRC, October 1990, 23 pp.
- “Declaration on the Rules of International Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in IRRC, No. 278, September-October 1990, 5 pp.
- “Rules of International Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in IRRC, No. 278, September-October 1990, pp. 383-403.
1. Principle of distinction
Cases and Documents
- Belgium, Law on Universal Jurisdiction [Part A., Art. 136(c)]
- Sudan, Report of theUNCommission of Enquiry on Darfur [Paras 166 and 240-268]
- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Tablada [Para. 177]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Martic [Part A., paras 11-14]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Strugar [Part A.; Part B., paras 116 and 228]
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Conflicts in the Kivus [Part III, paras 31 and 39]
- Colombia, Constitutional Conformity of Protocol II [Paras 28-34]
- Germany, Government Reply on Chechnya
- Russian Federation, Chechnya, Operation Samashki
- Sri Lanka, Naval War against Tamil Tigers
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
- Iraq/Syria/UK, Drone Operations against ISIS
- United Kingodm, Arms Trade With Saudi Arabia
- Germany, Aerial Drone Attack in Mir Ali/Pakistan
- Eastern Ukraine, Attacks Against and Military Use of Schools
- Syria, Syrian rebels treat captured Filipino soldiers as 'guests'
- Central African Republic, No Class: When Armed Groups Use Schools
2. Principle of military necessity
Cases and documents
3. Principle of proportionality
Cases and Documents
4. Right to relief
Cases and Documents
- UN, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement [Principle 25]
- UN, Security Council Resolution 688 on Northern Iraq
- Sri Lanka, Conflict in the Vanni [Paras 23-28]
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia [Para. 36]
- United States of America, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
- Yemen, Potential Existence and Effects of Naval Blockade
- Syria, the Battle for Aleppo
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT Denise, “Actions of Assistance in Non-international Conflicts – Art. 18 of Protocol II”, in European Seminar on Humanitarian Law (Jagellonean University, Krakow, 1979), Warsaw/Geneva, Polish Red Cross, ICRC, Geneva, 1979, pp. 71-85.
Further reading:
- KWAKWA Edward, “Internal Conflicts in Africa: Is There a Right of Humanitarian Action?”, in African Yearbook of International Law, 1994, pp. 9-46.
VII. Necessity and limits of analogies with the law of international armed conflicts
Introductory text
First, in some cases the precise rule resulting from a common principle or from combining principles with a provision of the law of non-international armed conflicts or with simple legal logic can be found by analogy in rules which have been laid down in the much more detailed texts of the Conventions and Protocol I for international armed conflicts.[8]
Second, certain rules and regimes of the law of international armed conflicts have to be applied in non-international armed conflicts to fill gaps in the applicable provisions, to make the application of explicit provisions possible, or to give the latter a real chance of being applied.
For example, the law of non-international armed conflicts contains no definition of military objectives or of the civilian population. Such definitions are required, however, to apply the principle of distinction applicable in both types of conflict and the explicit prohibitions to attack the civilian population, individual civilians and certain civilian objects.[9] No fundamental difference between the regimes applicable to the two types of conflict precludes the application of one and the same definition.
Prohibitions or limitations on the use of certain weapons are a more difficult case. None of the relevant differences between the two categories of conflict could justify not applying in non-international armed conflicts prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain weapons set out in the law of international armed conflicts. Yet States have traditionally refused to accept proposals explicitly extending such prohibitions to non-international armed conflicts. Fortunately, this trend has been reversed in recent codification efforts.[10]
A striking feature of the law of non-international armed conflicts is that it foresees no combatant status, does not define combatants and does not prescribe specific rights and obligations for them; its provisions do not even use the term “combatant”. This is a consequence of the fact that no one has the “right to participate in hostilities” in a non-international armed conflict (a right which is an essential feature of combatant status). Some authors conclude that the law of non-international armed conflicts does not protect people according to their status but according to their actual activities. If this is correct, on the crucial question of when a fighter (i.e. a member of an armed group with a fighting function[11] may be attacked and according to what procedures a captured fighter may be detained, no analogy could be made with the rules applicable in international armed conflicts to combatants and prisoners of war. Fighters could only be attacked if and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities and the admissibility of their detention would be governed, in the absence of specific rules of the IHL of non-international armed conflicts, by domestic law and International Human Rights Law.
Other authors and States consider that fighters may be attacked in non-international armed conflicts like combatants may be attacked in international armed conflicts, i.e. at any time until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat. Some of those who promote this analogy also consider that captured fighters may be detained, like prisoners of war in international armed conflicts, without any individual judicial determination until the end of the conflict.
This controversy, which has important humanitarian consequences in non-international armed conflicts and armed conflicts which have both international and non-international components, shows that an analogy between international and non-international armed conflicts does not always lead to better protection for those affected by the conflict. It also raises the question of whether International Human Rights Law should not have a greater impact in non-international armed conflicts than in international armed conflicts, inter alia because the applicable IHL treaty rules are incomplete.
In any case, if civilians are to be respected in non-international armed conflicts as prescribed by the applicable provisions of IHL, those conducting military operations must be able to distinguish those who fight from those who do not fight, and this is only possible if those who fight distinguish themselves from those who do not fight. Detailed solutions on how this can and must be done are found, mutatis mutandis, in the law of international armed conflicts. In addition, it might be reasonable not to consider fighters as civilians (who may be attacked only if and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities), but this presupposes clear criteria and a real possibility to determine who is a fighter. On the other hand, in our view, captured fighters should not be detained by analogy to prisoners of war. On arrest, it is more difficult to identify fighters than soldiers of armed forces of another State. The correct classification can be made by a tribunal, which will only have its say if the arrested person is not classified as a POW.
Cases and Documents
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- CARILLO-SUÀREZ Arturo, “Hors de Logique: Contemporary Issues in International Humanitarian Law as Applied to Internal Armed Conflict”, in American University International Law Review, Vol. 15/1, 1999, pp. 1-150.
1. “Combatants” must distinguish themselves from the civilian population
Cases and Documents
2. Respect for IHL must be rewarded
Cases and Documents
- internment, not imprisonment for those captured bearing arms
Cases and Documents
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, “Security Detention”, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2009, pp. 315-650.
- OLSON Laura, “Guantanamo Habeas Review: Are the D.C. District Court’s Decisions Consistent with IHL Internment Standards?”, in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 42, No. 1 & 2, 2009, pp. 197-243.
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- DUGARD John, “Dealing with Crimes of Past Regime. Is Amnesty still an Option?”, in Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 12/4, 1999, pp. 1001-1015.
- MACDONALD Avril, “Sierra Leone’s Uneasy Peace: The Amnesties Granted in the Lomé Peace Agreement and the United Nations’ Dilemma”, in Humanitäres Völkerrecht, Vol. 13/1, 2000, pp. 11-26.
aa) for the mere fact of having taken part in hostilities
CASES AND DOCUMENTS
- El Salvador, Supreme Court Judgment on the Unconstitutionality of the Amnesty Law
- Colombia Peace Agreement
bb) but not for war crimes or other violations
Cases and Documents
- South Africa, AZAPO v. Republic of South Africa
- Sri Lanka, Jaffna Hospital Zone
- Columbia, Constitutional Conformity of Protocol II[Paras 41-43]
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea [Part 3. D.]
- El Salvador, Supreme Court Judgment on the Unconstitutionality of the Amnesty Law
- Colombia Peace Agreement
3. Rules on the use of the emblem
Cases and Documents
4. Prohibition of the use of certain weapons
Cases and Documents
- ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law
- Minimum Humanitarian Standards [Art. 5(3)]
- ICRC Report on Yemen, 1967
- UN/ICRC, The Use of Chemical Weapons
- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Tablada [Para. 187]
- Geneva Call, Puntland State of Somalia Adhering to a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadic [Part A., paras 119-124]
- ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Martic [Part A., para. 18; Part B., 303-313, 461-463, 470 and 472]
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- FISCHER Horst, “Limitation and Prohibition of the Use of Certain Weapons in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in Yearbook of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law (San Remo), 1989, pp. 117-180.
- PLATTNER Denise, “The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons and the Applicability of Rules Governing Means of Combat in a Non-International Armed Conflict”, in IRRC, No. 279, November-December 1990, pp. 551-564.
- SALINAS BURGOS Hernan, “The Taking of Hostages and International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, No. 270, May-June 1989, pp. 196-216.
5. Limits to analogies
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- CRAWFORD Emily, The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford, OUP, 2010, 213 pp.
- SOLF Waldemar A., “Problems with the Application of Norms Governing Interstate Armed Conflict to Non-International Armed Conflict”, in Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 13, 1983, pp. 323-326.
- no combatant status (but members of armed groups with a continuous fighting function are argued to have the same disadvantages – but not privileges – as combatants in international armed conflicts)
Cases and Documents
- ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities
- United States, Status and Treatment of Detainees Held in Guantanamo Naval Base
- United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- United States, The Obama Administration’s Internment Standards
- United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar Mohammed (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judgments)
- USA, Jawad v. Gates
- no occupied territories
Cases and Documents
Footnotes
- [8] Thus, one may claim that the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks as codified in Art. 51(5) and the precautionary measure laid down in Art. 57(2)(b) of Protocol I are necessary consequences of the principle of distinction, and the rules of Conventions I and IV as well as Protocol I concerning who may use, and in which circumstances, the distinctive emblem have to be taken into account when applying Art. 12 of Protocol II on the distinctive emblem.
- [9] See P II, Arts 13 and 14
- [10] Thus the Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and other Devices also applies to non-international armed conflicts (See Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention) (Art. 1(2)))
- [11] For a discussion of this concept, see supra, Part I, Chapter 9, II. 7. Loss of protection: The concept of direct participation in hostilities and its consequences
VIII. Who is bound by the law of non-international armed conflicts?
Introductory text
From the point of view of the law of treaties, Art. 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions and Protocol II are binding on the States party to those treaties. Even those rules of the IHL of non-international armed conflicts considered customary international law would normally be binding only on States. The obligations of the States parties include responsibility for all those who can be considered as their agents. IHL must, however, also be binding on non-State parties in a non-international armed conflict – which means not only those who fight against the government but also armed groups fighting each other – because victims must also be protected from rebel forces and because if IHL did not respect the principle of the equality of belligerents before it in non-international armed conflicts, it would have an even smaller chance of being respected by either the government forces, because they would not benefit from any protection under it, or by the opposing forces, because they could claim not to be bound by it.
A first possibility to explain why armed groups are bound by IHL is to consider that when the rules applicable to non-international armed conflicts, which include the provision that those rules be respected by “each Party to the conflict,”[12] are created by agreement or custom, States implicitly confer on the non-governmental forces involved in such conflicts the international legal personality necessary to have rights and obligations under those rules. According to this construction, the States have conferred on rebels – through the law of non-international armed conflicts – the status of subjects of IHL; otherwise their legislative effort would not have the desired effect, the effet utile. At the same time, the States explicitly stated that the application and applicability of IHL by and to rebels would not confer on the latter a legal status under rules of international law (other than those of IHL).[13]
A second theory is to consider that armed groups are bound because a State incurring treaty obligations has legislative jurisdiction over everyone found on its territory, including armed groups. Those obligations then become binding on the armed group via the implementation or transformation of international rules into national legislation or by the direct applicability of self-executing international rules. Under this construction, IHL is indirectly binding on the rebels. Only if they became the effective government would they be directly bound.
Other possible explanations for the binding effect of IHL on rebel armed groups are: third, that armed groups may be bound under the general rules on the binding nature of treaties on third parties (this presupposes, however, that those rules are the same for States and non-State actors and, more importantly, that a given armed group has actually expressed its consent to be bound); fourth, that the principle of effectiveness is said to imply that any effective power in the territory of a State is bound by the State’s obligations; fifth, armed groups often want to become the government of the State and such government is bound by the international obligations of that State.
The precise range of persons who are the addressees of the IHL of non-international armed conflicts has been discussed in the jurisprudence of the two ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals.[14] Certainly, not only members of armed forces or groups, but also others mandated to support the war effort of a party to the conflict are bound by IHL. Beyond that, all those acting for such a party, including all public officials on the government side, must comply with IHL in the performance of their functions. Otherwise judicial guarantees, which are essentially of concern to judges, rules on medical treatment, which are equally addressed to ordinary hospital staff, and rules on the treatment of detainees, which also apply to ordinary prison guards, could not have their desired effect because those groups could not be considered as “supporting the war effort”. On the other hand, acts and crimes unconnected to the armed conflict are not covered by IHL, even if they are committed during the conflict.
As for individuals who cannot be considered as connected to one party but who nevertheless commit acts of violence contributing to the armed conflict for reasons connected with it, those perpetrating such acts are bound by the criminalized rules of IHL. If such individuals were not considered addressees of IHL, most acts committed in anarchic conflicts would be neither covered by IHL nor consequently punishable as violations of IHL. What is unclear is whether the many rules of IHL that are not equally criminalized cover all individual acts having a link to the conflict.
1. Both parties
Cases and Documents
- International Law Commission, Articles on State Responsibility [Part A., para. 16 of the Commentary to Art. 10]
- UN, Secretary-General’s Reports on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict
- Sudan, Report of the UN Commission of Enquiry on Darfur [Paras 172-174]
- Geneva Call, Puntland State of Somalia Adhering to a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines
- ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu [Part B., paras 430-446]
- Colombia, Constitutional Conformity of Protocol II [Para. 8]
- Engaging Non-state Armed Groups on the Protection of Children
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- Sweden/Syria, Can Armed Groups Issue Judgments?
- Colombia Peace Agreement
- Geneva Call and the Chin National Front
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- HENCKAERTS Jean-Marie, “Binding Armed Opposition Groups through Humanitarian Treaty Law and Customary Law”, in Proceedings of the Bruges Colloquium, Relevance of International Humanitarian Law to Non-State Actors, 25th-26th October 2002, in Collegium No. 27, Spring 2003, pp. 123-138.
- SASSÒLI Marco, “Taking Armed Groups Seriously: Ways to Improve Their Compliance with International Humanitarian Law”, in Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Vol. 1, 2010, pp. 5-51.
- SIVAKUMARAN Sandesh, “Binding Armed Opposition Groups”, in ICLQ, Vol. 55, Part 2, April 2006, pp. 369-394.
- SOMER Jonathan, “Jungle Justice: Passing Sentence on the Equality of Belligerents in Non-International Armed Conflict”, in IRRC, Vol. 89, No. 867, September 2007, pp. 655-690.
- ZEGVELD Liesbeth, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law, Cambridge, CUP, 2002, 260 pp.
2. All those belonging to one party
Cases and Documents
- United States, Kadic et al. v. Karadzic
- Case Study, Armed Conflicts in the Great Lakes Region (Parts II. 2 and III.)
- ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu [Part B., paras 425-446]
- Switzerland, The Niyonteze Case [Part A., para. 9 and Part B., III. ch. 3.D]
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts in 2015 [paras 101-107, 110, 113, 114]
3. All those affecting persons protected by IHL by an action linked to the armed conflict
Cases and Documents
- ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu [Part B., paras 432-445]
- Switzerland, The Niyonteze Case [Part B., III. ch. 3.D.2]
- Central African Republic: Sexual Violence by Peacekeeping Forces
- Central African Republic, Report of the UN Independent Expert, July 2016
- International Criminal Court, Trial Judgment in the Case of the Prosecutor V. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo
- Somalia/Kenya, Al-Shabab Attacks
Footnotes
IX. Consequences of the existence of a non-international armed conflict on the legal status of the parties
Introductory text
Art. 3(4) common to the Conventions clearly states that application of Art. 3 “shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict”. As any reference to “parties” has been removed from Protocol II, a similar clause could not appear in it. However, Protocol II contains a provision clarifying that nothing it contains shall affect the sovereignty of the State or the responsibility of the government, by all legitimate means – legitimate in particular under the obligations foreseen by IHL – to maintain or re-establish law and order or defend national unity or territorial integrity. The same provision underlines that the Protocol cannot be invoked to justify intervention in an armed conflict.[15]
The application of IHL to a non-international armed conflict therefore never internationalizes the conflict or confers any status – other than the international legal personality necessary to have rights and obligations under IHL – to a party to that conflict. Even when the parties agree, as encouraged by Art. 3(3) common to the Conventions, to apply all of the laws of international armed conflicts, the conflict does not become an international one. In no case does the government recognize, by applying IHL, that rebels have a separate international legal personality which would hinder the government’s ability or authority to overcome them and punish them – in a trial respecting the judicial guarantees provided for in IHL – for their rebellion. Nor do the rebels, by applying the IHL of non-international armed conflicts, affect their possibility to become the effective government of the State or to create a separate subject of international law – if they are successful. Never in history has a government or have rebels lost a non-international armed conflict because they applied IHL. The opposite is not necessarily true.
Cases and Documents
- International Law Commission, Articles on State Responsibility [Part A., Art. 10 and Commentary, paras 2 and 9]
- Sudan, Report of the UN Commission of Enquiry on Darfur [Para. 174]
- Former Yugoslavia, Special Agreements Between the Parties to the Conflicts [Part A., Art. 14(2) and Part B., Introduction]
- Colombia, Constitutional Conformity of Protocol II [Paras 14-16]
- Syria, Code of Conduct of the Free Syrian Army
- United States of America, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
- Geneva Call and the Chin National Front
sPECIFIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested reading:
- CASSESE Antonio, “The Status of Rebels under the 1977 Geneva Protocol on Non-international Armed Conflicts”, in ICLQ, Vol. 30/2, 1981, pp. 416-439.
- NIYUNGEKO Gérard, “The Implementation of International Humanitarian Law and the Principle of State Sovereignty”, in IRRC, No. 281, March-April 1991, pp. 105-133.
Footnotes
- [15] See P II, Art. 3