Such renunciation, however, is the essence of combatant status as defined in the law of international armed conflicts. In other words, no government would renounce in advance the right to punish its own citizens for their participation in a rebellion. 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. On the other hand, the law of non-international armed conflicts is more recent. 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. ![]() Such rules have long been accepted by States, even by those which have the most absolutist concept of their sovereignty. On the one hand, the protection of victims of international armed conflicts must necessarily be guaranteed through rules of international law. 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. 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. However, States, in the international law they have made, have never agreed to treat international and non-international armed conflicts equally. 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. 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. To classify a conflict may imply assessing questions of jus ad bellum. This can be theoretically difficult and is always politically delicate. ![]() 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. Attacks are launched against towns and villages, food supplies need to transit through front lines, and the same weapons are used. 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. They face similar problems and need similar protection. If non-international armed conflicts are today by far more numerous than international armed conflicts, the law of international armed conflict is still quantitatively as well as qualitatively more substantial.įrom 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. Applicable conventional IHL, and to a lesser extent customary IHL, varies depending on each situation. According to the typology of armed conflicts in International Humanitarian Law (IHL), two types of conflicts exist: international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |