Examining International and Non-International Armed Conflict Laws

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal similarities and differences between international and non-international armed conflicts, particularly in the context of international humanitarian law. It discusses the historical development of the laws governing these conflicts, highlighting the evolution from primarily inter-state concerns to the regulation of internal conflicts. The essay examines the applicability of treaties like the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, as well as customary international law, to both types of conflicts. It also addresses the reasons for the persistent distinction between the two, rooted in state sovereignty and security concerns. The analysis references key legal precedents, such as the Tadic case, and scholarly studies, including the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, to illustrate the complexities and ongoing debates surrounding the legal classification and regulation of armed conflicts. This assignment is available on Desklib, a platform offering a wide array of study tools and resources for students.

Introduction : The modern century has considered an upward jostle of conflicts that have no
longer been conclusively classified as 2 conflicts which are known as International or Non-
International Armed Conflicts. Confusion as to the applicable legal regime has been created
in some modern-day conflicts such as the Israel and Lebanon war and the combat at the
former Republic of Yugoslavia. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) while delivering it’s selection in the case of Tadic, it has been mentioned
that the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia may want to have been characterized as each
interior and international, or alternatively, as an internal conflict alongside an international
one, or as an inside warfare that had emerge as internationalized due to the fact of exterior
support, or as an worldwide battle that had as a result been changed by means of one or
greater interior conflicts, or mixture thereof.The court docket addressed the difficulty of the
legal big difference of the two sorts of conflicts as pertains to its growing irrelevance. In
managing its decision, the tribunal stated that the sensible nature of armed conflict has almost
rendered inappropriate the criminal difference between sorts of armed conflict. It in addition
mentioned that there are compelling, humanitarian motives for lowering if now not
eliminating such distinctions. In so doing the Tribunal advised that the regulation of armed
battle ought to and should be utilized uniformly to all armed conflict.
This essay will try to evaluate the similarities and differences between the armed
conflicts at international and non-international level for the functions of the submission of
law of international humanitarian as it is indispensable due to the fact that differences exist
between the contented law materials which is relevant to the extraordinary sorts of armed
issues.
Govern by the same treaties and global regulations : As remember of treaty law, the
variations are vast. The entirety of the case of the year of 1949 of Geneva Conventions, The
meetings which have been continued them and Additionally the 1977’s first protocol practice
to worldwide armed issues. These treaties comprise many heaps of articles which establish a
fairly designated physique of guidelines referring to the habits of fighting ( ‘Hague Law’), as
1

a very nicely and tricking rules that are relating to the safety of these who do not take part, or
who no longer take role, in struggle ( ‘Geneva Law’). By contrast, the applicable treaty rules
especially which are related to the conflicts of non-international armed are rather limited. In
essence, all of these issues are conflicts are quite limited to the 1949’s third article of Geneva
Conventions, it has also been measured that Additional Protocol II of 1977 and article 8(2)(c)
and (e) of the ICC Statute. The case and the study further explains that the third Common
Article is always limited to simple safety to the people who do not, or who no longer is
interested to take part in hostilities and has no policies in order to maintain the process and
activities of hostilities. It has also been found that the next Protocol II which has almost have
around 20 provisions and the components of these provisions and the ICC Statute which
extend deals with the international as well as national armed issues, somewhat, the
regulations bearing on to the safety of victims of armed war and some changes into already
existing rules that concerning to the habits of aggression however fall some distance short of
setting up a regime of worldwide compassionate regulation close to that mounted for global
armed issues.
Various new treaties have also been evaluated that govern individuals habit in terms
of an struggle related to issues which practice to entire conditions of armed issues, besides
dissimilarity. The catalog of these kind of treaties that has been consisted of the various laws
such as the conventions of 1972 of Biological Weapons, the Convention of 1993 of Chemical
Weapons, the 1997 law of Convention Prohibiting Anti-Personnel Land Mines along with the
Hague Convention’s second protocol of 1954 in order to protect the Cultural Property law,
1999 and the change in 2001 that expands the gathering on conservative arms and its rules to
domestic armed issues. After it, the argument has been done on the accepted global regulation
that now affords for a great range of rules which governs the domestic armed issues and that
fills the left gap via agreement law such that the dichotomy among the issues at the domestic
and international armed that is an awful situation.
2

The ICRC, in its comprehensive find out about of widely wide-spread worldwide
humanitarian regulation (the Study) published in 20051 has taken a similar approach. It
determined that nearly all the rules identified in the Study utilized to each global and non-
international armed conflicts. It went on to kingdom that:
This find out about gives confirm that numerous arrangements of typical overall direction rehearse
in each worldwide and non-universal furnished clashes and predict the degree that is practiced by
the state which has long gone past current settlement law and extended approaches pertinent to
domestic equipped clashes2. Specifically, the holes in the controls of the lead of war in second
additional Protocol which have generally been fulfilled through State hone and that has also
prompted the acquaintance of directions parallel with these in fist additional protocol, anyway
relevant as standard direction to non-global outfitted clashes.
The recommendation about the customary rules and worldwide regulation relevant to
non- worldwide armed conflicts which go beyond the guidelines in the Common Article 3
and the second protocol Additionally seems to be different to the earlier file of the Experts
which had been appointed by the commissioner through the Council and the security check to
look into contravention of humanitarian regulation in the former Yugoslavia.3 However,
though numerous questions have been come into the industry as the used research and the
1 J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law Study (2004).
2 Ibid, xxix.
3 Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant To Security Council Resolution 780(1992),
S/1994/674 (27 May 1994) 13, para 42
3

methodology with the aid of the ICRC learn about for identifying policies of everyday
international law4 there additionally seems to two be acknowledgement, even with the aid of
States, that usual international regulation now provides extra tricky policies for the issues of
non-international armed than the other rules which is used to be discovered in Common
Article three and second protocol additionally. Thus, the provisions of the ICC Statute, which
used to be adopted in 1998, touching on to battle crimes in non-international armed issues,
include guidelines that go past the textual content of those treaties.
In any case, it moreover should be expressed that the arrangements of the ICC Statute
mirror a hesitance on the period of States to run similar to the ICTY & ICRC. The order has
been embraced once than two after two the Tadić choice and fused a few variables of that
choice (e.g. the meaning of non-worldwide equipped clashes). Anyway a portion of the rules
perceived by method for the ICTY and ICRC as standard approaches relevant in non-
worldwide furnished clashes (e.g. the forbiddance of ambushes on regular citizen objects) are
currently excluded in the fight wrongdoings arrangements of the ICC Statute. Despite the fact
that it is possible that the drafters of the Statute were in reality additional hesitant to
criminalize infringement of universal philanthropic law in non-worldwide outfitted clashes
than in worldwide equipped clashes, it is then again essential that the Statute incorporates a
definitely longer posting of hostilitiescrimes in global than in non-worldwide furnished
clashes5. Subsequently, it can be inferred that the huge contrast between the law pertinent in
4 D. Bethlehem, ‘The Methodological Framework of the Study’ and I. Scobbie, ‘The Approach to Customary
International Law in the Study’ in E. Wilmshurst and S. Breau, Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary
International Humanitarian Law (2007) 3, 15; and also J. Bellinger and W. Haynes, ‘A US Government Response
to the International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law’ (2007)
89 (866) International Review of the Red Cross 443.
5 Compare art. 8(2)(a) and (b) with art. 8(2)(c) and (e) of the ICC Statute. The Pre-Trial
Chamber of the ICC has regarded the difference in criminalization of attacks on civilian
objects as reflecting a difference in international humanitarian law. The Prosecutor v Bahar
4

worldwide and non-universal equipped clashes is obscuring; in any case, on each event States
have been acquainted with conceivable outcomes with cancel the enormous peculiarity they
appear hesitant in order to do as such. Likewise, this is irrefutable that essential items of
worldwide armed law—the direction relating to the notoriety of warriors and the regulations
alluding to detainment of soldiers & regular citizens—vary which depends on the ubiquity of
the furnished clash. Consequently, arrangement of equipped clashes for the intention of
making utilization of overall compassionate law stays vital.
Evaluation on the similarities and differences between the international and non-
international armed conflicts : As explained above, the difference between worldwide and
non-international armed conflicts can be defined by reference to the history of the
development of worldwide law in established and global humanitarian regulation in
particular. However, asserting that international law was, historically, only concerned with
inter-state conflicts does now not give an explanation for why, as soon as it was once
prevalent that international law ought to regulate non-international conflicts as well, it used to
be not extended in its entirety to such conflicts. Nor does it give an explanation for why the
difference persists, even if in an attenuated fashion. The primary reason for the constancy of
the huge distinction is the view through States, or some of them, that comparing non-
worldwide and universal armed clashes would undermine State power and, specifically,
national solidarity and security6. States have been stressed that treating non-universal armed
clashes in the equivalent path as global armed clashes would now not just rouse secessionist
Idriss Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09, Confirmation of Charges Decision (Pre-Trial Chamber), 8
February 2010: ‘The Majority notes that, while international humanitarian law offers
protection to all civilians in both international armed conflict and armed conflict not of an
international character, the same cannot be said of all civilian objects, in respect of which
protection differs according to the nature of the conflict.
5

developments, by methods for giving them a notoriety underneath overall law, however it
would limit the hand of the State in hunting down to put down uprisings. For instance, if the
standard of soldiers' resistance—which applies to worldwide clashes and averts arraignments
of warriors basically to take area in an armed clash—were to be used in non-global armed
clashes, States would be not able criminalize acts which are generally viewed as treasonous.
It was these concerns that led to the enclosure of 3rd number of article in second
protocol additionally which pointing out that nothing in the Protocol confines the
accountability of the State ‘by all professional means, to preserve or re-establish regulation
and order7. There has additionally been situation on the section of States that abolishing the
difference and treating non-international armed conflicts in the same way as worldwide
armed conflicts would provide global popularity to non-state agencies and would possibly
even motivate international intervention in inside conflicts.8 This concern led to the inclusion
of paragraph four in Common Article three which states that ‘[t]he utility of the previous
provisions shall no longer have an effect on the prison repute of the Parties to the conflict’.
6 Cassese, Civil War, 116. See also Bartels, The Historical Evolution, 61–4. See H.S. Levie (ed.),
The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict: Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions
(1987) (Levie, Additional Protocol II) for statements made, during the drafting of Additional
Protocol II, by the representatives of Argentina (30, para 17); the German Democratic
Republic (32, para 29); Indonesia (35, para 53); Romania(42, para 33) and Yugoslavia (47,
para 6).
7 F. Bugnion, ‘Jus Ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Non-International Armed Conflicts’ (2003) 6
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 167, 168.
6

Given that the relevant treaties include provisions which make clear that the issues of
situation to States have to no longer be read into the treaties, it is hard to see why these issues
need to persist. Besides, these issues relate particularly to the notoriety of warring gatherings
and ought not prevent the augmentation of different standards of worldwide helpful law to
non-global armed clashes. Additionally, the possibility that intercession through the global
neighborhood takes after from an order of a battle is to some degree wrong. Right off the bat,
the UN Security Council has as of late affirmed its ability and readiness to mediate in non-
universal clashes. Furthermore, worldwide law does now not permit one-sided 'helpful
intercession' and subsequently does now not permit commanding one-sided mediation with
the guide of States inside each other State in light of the idea of a fight going ahead in that
unique State9. Nonetheless, it is likely related to perceive and make some addition in the
previous existing rules that saw to domestic armed clashes will build likelihood in favor of
various States to attest which infringement of worldwide control are happening and could
likewise furthermore open up chance for legal non-persuasive counter measures (such as
sanctions or diverse assortments of opinionated weight) taken by methods for different States
and coordinated at tending to infringement by methods for the States occupied with the ion.
8 Levie, Additional Protocol II, for statement made, during the drafting of Additional Protocol II, by the
representatives of Yugoslavia (47, para 6) and Mexico (49, para 14).
9 D. Fleck, ‘The Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts’ in D. Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of
International Humanitarian Law (2008) 611–12 (Fleck, Non-International Armed Conflicts);
W. Solf, ‘Non- International Armed Conflicts: Commentator’ (1982) 31 American University
Law Review 927
7

Although it has been disputed that the compassionate goals of worldwide
compassionate regulation are pleasant satisfied via the abolition of the big difference between
international and non- international armed conflicts,10 the involving consent of states
sovereignty remain and are a purpose why the law, in particular the law bearing on to the
fame of fighters, continues to be unique in non-international armed issues.
In both the ius ad bellum and the ius in bello, publish World War II global law has
moved away from conditioning the applicability of the law on the formal or technical notion
of hostilities and toward tons more factual criteria. Under the ius advert bellum, what is
prohibited through the UN Charter is the ‘use of force’ as well as, under the law of
international humanitarian, a software of law is there which depends on the ‘armed conflict’
existence. The Geneva Conventions do not classify ‘armed conflict’. However, the Appeals
Chamber of the ICTY has been explained their views in Tadić (Appeal on Jurisdiction) that it
is an armed violence between governmental authorities with an organized armed businesses
or between groups inside a state which International humanitarian law relates from start till
the peace settlement achieved11.By maintaining that an international armed divergence exists
on every occasion there is motel to armed force with the aid of States, this selection suggests
that the porch for a global armed battle is very low.12 As Vité notes, ‘it is . . . now not
10 J.G. Stewart, ‘Towards a Single Definition of Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law: A Critique of
Internationalized Armed Conflict’ (2003) 85(850) International Review of the Red Cross 313; A. Duxbury,
‘Drawing Lines in the Sand—Characterising Conflicts for the Purposes of Teaching International Humanitarian
Law’ (2007) 8 Melbourne Journal of International Law 259; J. Crawford, ‘Unequal Before the Law: The Case for
the Elimination of the Distinction Between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts’ (2007) Leiden
Journal of International Law 441.
11 Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) with respect to Libya which authorizes a no-fly
zone and protection of civilians in the context of a non-international armed conflict. See also
8

essential for the combat to lengthen in the given time or for it to create a positive range of
people who are playing the victim role.13
Almost the further use of armed power by using one State towards another would
convey into impact an global armed issues,14 barring perhaps in cases the place the use of
the World Summit Outcome Document, GA res. 60/1 (2005) para 139, in which the UN
General Assembly recognizes the authority of the Security Council to take action in cases of
genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
12 S. Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace: Humanitarian Intervention and International
Law(2001)
13 See art. 54 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) (ILC Articles on State Responsibility) and accompanying
commentary, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, Part Two (2001).
That commentary refers to sanctions imposed on the former Yugoslavia by a number of
States and the European Communities for actions that occurred when armed conflict broke
out in that country in 1991. Likewise in 2011, the United States (and others) imposed
sanctions on Libya (which went beyond that authorized by SC res. 1970) in response to
measures taken by Libya during the violence and conflict that broke out there in 2011. See
White House, ‘Executive Order: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions
Related to Libya’ (25 February 2011), available at:
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2011libya.eo_.rel_.pdf.
9

force is unintended (for instance arising out of error)15. The choice view, which asserts that a
global armed conflict only comes into effect when the use of pressure between States reaches
a certain intensity16 seeks consistency with the description of local armed issues, which does
have a depth requirement. However, this analogy is mistaken. To import a depth requirement
into the overall explanation of worldwide armed conflicts is successfully to assert that no
guideline governs the behavior of army operations at the level of the intensity, along with the
notch segment of aggression. This is extraordinary from the function in local armed conflicts
where domestic law and worldwide human rights regulation would take care of the tensions
and various internal disturbances which basically falls into the beneath the depth of an armed
issue.
14 J.G. Stewart, ‘Towards a Single Definition of Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian
Law: A Critique of Internationalized Armed Conflict’ (2003) 85(850) International Review of
the Red Cross 313; A. Duxbury, ‘Drawing Lines in the Sand—Characterising Conflicts for the
Purposes of Teaching International Humanitarian Law’ (2007) 8 Melbourne Journal of
International Law 259; J. Crawford, ‘Unequal Before the Law: The Case for the Elimination of
the Distinction Between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts’ (2007) Leiden
Journal of International Law 441.
15 Tadic, Jurisdiction, para 70
16 S. Vité, ‘Typology of Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law: Legal Concepts
and Actual Situations’ (2009) 91(873) International Review of the Red Cross 69, 72 (Vité,
Typology); W. Fenrick, ‘Article 8, War Crimes’ in O. Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1999).
10

It is a question of fact whether or now not an armed war exists between two States.
Where it does, army operations might also solely be carried out through the various parties
and the party’s area, as properly as on the elevated seas (that also includes the above and
below the airspace above and sea floor) and such as the distinctive monetary zones of
impartial conditions17. In global armed conflicts, global humanitarian law would follow to the
things to do of the related people throughout this large environmental area, and in any other
vicinity the place navy operations are definitely carried out.
As the Tadić selection indicates18, in worldwide armed conflicts worldwide
humanitarian regulation applies until a familiar conclusion of peace is reached. The clearest
example of a generic conclusion of peace is the conclusion of a peace treaty between the
belligerent parties. However, due to the fact the Second World War, such peace treaties have
now not been frequent (the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt being a magnificent
exception19). This is possibly dueto the fact that peace treaties have in the previous been used
for the termination of ‘wars’ and there has been an important decline in declared wars.
Therefore questions have arisen as to whether different events would possibly constitute a
conclusion of peace, and are therefore to be regarded as bringing to an end an armed fighting
between two or extra States. In particular, the difficulty has arisen as to whether a ceasefire or
17 Vite, Typology, 72.
18 Tadić Jurisdiction, para 70.
19 Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel of 1979 (1979) 18 International Law Materials 362.
11

an armistice agreement is to be regarded as bringing an armed warfare to a stop or whether,
alternatively, the events are to be considered as in a state of war and consequently difficulty
to international humanitarian law until a peace treaty is signed. This latter view would mean,
for example, that the belligerents stay entitled to proceed to use pressure against one another
or that they may also continue to work out belligerent rights at sea, the place there is a breach
of the armistice or ceasefire agreement.20 Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, an armistice
only suspended military operations and the belligerent events may want to resume operations
at any time.21 This used to be due to the fact an armistice was once no longer viewed as
bringing the war to an end.
The difficulty of what is required to convey an armed war to an quit is of notable
significance in modern worldwide affairs given that there has, as yet, been no peace treaty
terminating the Korean battle of the early 1950s, nor a peace treaty between Israel and some
of her Arab neighbours on the grounds that the 1949 conflict. The better view seems to be
that taken by way of Greenwood that ‘since armed war is not a technical, felony idea
however a cognizance of the reality of hostilities, the cessation of energetic fighting have to
be ample to terminate the armed conflict’.22 A fortiori, a ceasefire or armistice settlement will
deliver an armed war to an quit the place it is meant to finish a conflict and reach over a
conclusion.23 In any event, the cessation of war will set off the software of certain duties, such
as the obligation to launch prisoners of war and of folks interned in occupied territory or in
20 G. Chang, ‘How to Stop North Korea’s Weapons Proliferation’ Wall Street Journal (1 July 2009).
21 Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Hague Convention IV
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907), art. 36.
12

the territory of the events to the conflict.24 However, positive components of worldwide
humanitarian law will practice past the cessation of conflict, for instance the regulation of
occupation,25 as properly as the law relevant to these covered persons who are no longer
released and repatriated.26
22 Greenwood, Scope of Application, 72, para 250
23 Y. Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (2005) 44.
24 Geneva Convention IV, art. 133 and 134.
25 Ibid, art. 6.
26 Geneva Convention III, art. 5; Geneva Convention IV, art. 6; Additional Protocol I, art. 3.
13

When the proposition that an armistice or ceasefire which brings battle to a close need
to now be regarded as terminating an armed warfare is blended with the exclusion of the
exercise of pressure contained in the UN contract, the effect is that the events to an armed
conflict might also no longer exercise belligerent rights at sea and may no longer resort to
force after the conflict is terminated, even if there are breaches of the agreement. Resort to
pressure would only be permissible where it constitutes a lawful use of pressure in self-
defence.27 This used to be tested by using the Security Council in decision 95 (1951) where it
rejected Egypt’s endured workout of belligerent rights in opposition to shipping, after the
armistice which ended warfare in the 1949 war with Israel.28
The query whether or not or not a struggle is an inter-state one may additionally be
difficult to reply where one of the events claims to be a State and the different celebration
rejects that claim—as occurred, for example, for the duration of the termination of
Yugoslavia’s former Socialist Federal Republic. It is viable that what starts off evolved as a
non-international armed combat becomes worldwide when an interior rebellion group is
profitable in turning into a State. However, as Crawford has pointed out, without in the case
of entities possessing the right of external self- willpower (i.e. colonial or different non-self-
governing peoples with a proper to decide their political repute which includes a proper to
independence)29 secession barringthe consent of the mother or father State is rarely identified
as profitable as a count of global law.30
27 Greenwood, Scope of Application, 68.
28 For a general discussion, see D. Akande, ‘The Korean War Has Resumed!! (Or so we are told)’ EJIL: Talk! (22
July 2009).
29 GA res. 1514 (1960); GA res. 2625 (1970).
14

Therefore, where an armed fighting includes an try at secession it would be
challenging to argue that an insurrection group had gained statehood such that the conflict
had now end up international. Nonetheless, this may additionally be possible in instances of
dissolution of the mother or father State or where the mum or dad State sees eye to eye to
secession however continues to fight (perhaps not directly through imparting aid for
companies within the new State). However, the truth that the armed struggle is ongoing may
additionally itself make it extra difficult to argue that the standards for statehood had been
met. In Prosecutor v Miloš evi ć,31 the ICTY’s Trial Chamber had to decide the query of
when Croatia grew to become a State (at the time of the dissolution of the former Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) such that the war grew to be a worldwide armed conflict.
Applying the standards for statehood contained in the Montevideo Convention, it determined
that Croatia used to be a State by using October 1991; this was earlier than Croatia used to be
recognized by way of the European Community in January 1992 and admitted to the UN in
May 1992.
It has been counselled that the provisions of the ICC Statute dealing with warfare
crimes in non- worldwide armed conflicts introduce a 1/3 type of domestic armed conflict, or
rather, introduce a third threshold at which an extraordinary regime of law will observe to
certain domestic armed issues.111 This suggestion is basically related on the reality that
30 J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), ch. 9 (Crawford, Creation of States). The main
exception to this has been Bangladesh—which was admitted to the UN before consent by Pakistan. Kosovo
represents an example of a seceding entity which at the time of writing, in early 2012, had not yet achieved
recognition by the majority of States in the face of opposition by Serbia of such recognition.
31 Prosecutor v Milošević, IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Under Rule 98 bis (Trial
Chamber), 16 June 2004 (Prosecutor v Milošević).
15

article 8(2)(f) of the Statute states that article 8(2)(e that mainly deals with fighting the crimes
in a domestic armed issues (it is different from the Common Article 3, which are dealt with in
article 8(2)(c)), applies the place there is ‘prolonged armed issues among the authorities of
governmental and properly organized armed people32.
It is stated that this threshold falls between these identified by means of third article of
Common Article three and second protocol of additional protocol because it requires a
‘protracted conflict’. It is noteworthy that article 8(2)(d), which offers with the applicability
of Common Article 3, does now not contain wording related to protracted armed conflict.
Despite the unique wording of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(f) of article 8, it is now not at all
clear that it used to be intended to create different thresholds of application. Nor does the
phrasing truly do so33. As is obvious, the phrasing in article 8(2) (f) is mainly used from Tadić
two case as well as in Tadi ć. It has been found that the ICTY was mainly trying to define the
kind of issues which would basically fall inside the Common Article three While it is proper
that some emphasis is positioned on the duration of the struggle and the fact that it need to be
protracted, ICTY jurisprudence has already indicated that this is one of the elements in order
to take into the account through applying the third common article and in the intensity of
judging. It has been further explained by the Article8(2)(f) is better interpreted as genuinely
32 UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004) 29: ‘an accidental
border incursion by members of the armed forces would not, in itself, amount to an armed
conflict, nor would the accidental bombing of another country.
33 See ILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to art. 6.
16

mentioning the intensity check with the prolonged nature of the divergence being an aspect
which is to be evaluated in order to find out the intensity34.
International and internal armed conflicts can also be going on simultaneously in the
identical area at the equal time. Such as, in the Nicaragua case, the ICJ held that the war
between the US and Nicaragua was once to be evaluated under the regulation touching on to
international armed conflicts and the hostilities between the Contras and the authorities of
Nicaragua was once to be analyzed underneath the regulation concerning to non-international
armed conflicts. Likewise, two of the Appeals Chamber of ICTY which has been held, in the
Tadić Jurisdiction Appeal,35 that the struggle in the former Yugoslavia had each inner and
worldwide characteristics, as a consequence requiring a dedication in each precise case as to
what battle was at trouble and what law applied. This approach, which lets in for blended
(international and non-international) conflicts in the equal factual situation, has been
criticized on the floor that it makes ‘a passionate quilt of rules that would be appropriate in
the equal issues, relying on the situation of happening or not happening. It is characterized as
International or domestic level.36 However, as it has been noted by Greenwood, there is not
34 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, art. 6. See also discussion in Akande, AP II and the
Afghan conflict.
35 Tadić Jurisdiction
17

anything which is essentially illogical or narrative in characterizing few elements of a unique
position of struggle as global armed warfare while others hold an internal character’.37
The fact that it is feasible for two exclusive sorts of conflicts to be ongoing
concurrently has made the software of international humanitarian regulation lots more
complicated in many recent conflicts. Questions bearing on to the standards for detention will
occasionally rely entirely on who happened to capture or to detain a specific person
considering the fact that the Third Geneva Convention dealing with POWs and the Fourth
Geneva Convention, which includes provisions on internment, are solely relevant if the
character is interned by using State forces in an worldwide armed conflict, but are now not
relevant if the fighting in query is non-international.
In cases the place there is intervention by using foreign State forces on the facet of or
alongside a non-state team which is warfare the territorial State, whether or not the combat is
a blended struggle or is internationalized totally will depend on whether the non-state team is
viewed as ‘belonging to’ the intervening State. Where the overseas intervening State
workouts the requisite diploma of manage over the non-state team or the place it is in reality
36 T. Meron, ‘Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s Fallout’ (1998) 92 AJIL
236, 238; see also US Amicus Brief in the Tadić case.
37 C. Greenwood, ‘Development of International Humanitarian Law by the ICTY’ (1998) 2 Max Planck Yearbook
of UN Law 98, 117.
18

the use of pressure thru the non-state group,38 the entire fighting will grow to be an
international armed conflict. Therefore even various conflict among the non-state group and
the defensive State would be governed via the law touching on to global armed conflicts.
Aside from that, the limit for the utilization of Additional Protocol II to non-global
armed clashes is higher than that for Common Article 3 As is the situation with the Common
Article 3, Additional Protocol II does not see to circumstances of inside aggravation and
pressures, for example, riots, remoted and sporadic demonstrations of brutality (the edge for
'armed clash'). In any case, underneath article 1(1) of Additional Protocol II, the directions
contained in that exclusively see to armed clashes which take region on the region of a
birthday festivity 'between its armed powers and nonconformist armed powers or distinctive
equipped armed partnerships which, underneath responsible order, exercise such oversee over
a period of its domain as to empower them to lift out managed and deliberate military tasks
and to put in compel this Protocol'.This investigate is similar to what was once truly
connected by utilizing States in perceiving belligerency in common wars for the reason for
bringing into impact the control of armed clash. Be that as it may, this arrangement applies
exclusively to Additional Protocol II and is a more stringent check of non-global armed
clashes than that which exists in natural international law39.
38
39 It has been suggested that under customary international law there might be two separate
thresholds for classifying non-international armed conflict, with these thresholds
corresponding to the tests under Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II.
19

The take a look at is greater rigorous than the threshold for the utility of Common
Article 3 in a wide variety of ways. First of all, it excludes conflicts which occur fully
between organized armed agencies and follows only if authority’s forces are getting involved
in the issues of the business. Secondly, there is the obligation that the connected in armed
team manages over territory40. The test appears has been designed for a state of affairs in
which a rebellion team is an opposing power, with the administration, for power over the
condition or a stage of it. The obligation of manipulate over province is connected to an
aptitude to lift out sustained and intensive military activities as nicely as an ability to put in
force the protocol. Textually, the phrases do no longer seem to require the proper carrying out
of such operations however basically the capacity to do so. However, in exercise it is difficult
to conceive of manipulate of territory being carried out and maintained without sustained and
concerted army operations being carried out at some stage.
A separation between the utilization of Additional Protocol II and Common 3 is that
second additional protocol applies to the domestic armed issues which takes place in the area
of the government powers and the actual powers. The total of the prerequisites that the battle
be (I) in the domain of a gathering and (ii) between the powers of that birthday festivity and
armed offices is to limitation the utilization of the Protocol in internationalized non-global
armed clashes. As will be specified beneath, in circumstances when an abroad State
intercedes in an inside armed battling with the assent of the State where the ion is occurring,
40 T. Meron, ‘Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s Fallout’
(1998) 92 AJIL
236, 238; see also US Amicus Brief in the Tadić case.
20

the armed battle stays non-global. Nonetheless, even the place each the interceding State and
the regional State are occasions to Additional Protocol II, that arrangement will never again
see to the demonstrations of the mediating State in the ion. This is on the grounds that the
fight does not take area in its domain and however it takes district in the region of another
birthday festivity to the Protocol, the dangers is no longer between the armed powers of that
birthday festivity and armed gatherings.
Applying this elucidation to the armed fighting in Afghanistan, (since it developed to
end up a non-global fighting in 2002) would recommend that however Afghanistan moved
toward becoming birthday festivity to Additional Protocol II in 2009 and albeit a portion of
the countries strife in Afghanistan with its assent are likewise gatherings to Additional
Protocol II, the Protocol does never again practice to the ion between these interceding
nations and armed offices they battle. It isn't evident regardless of whether this used to be
assumed in the drafting of 1(1) of the Protocol41. An elective understanding is consider the
powers of the interceding State to be period of the armed powers of the regional State. In
spite of the fact that this would be reasonable keeping in mind the end goal to extend the
helpful assurances of Additional Protocol II, this check for armed powers does now not find
bolster in whatever is left of worldwide compassionate law42. The powers of a co-pugnacious
are currently not regularly viewed as period of the armed powers of a gathering43. A State is
41 D. Akande, ‘Afghanistan accedes to Additional Protocols to Geneva Conventions: Will AP II
govern the conflict in Afghanistan?’ EJIL Talk (30 June 2009) (Akande, AP II and the Afghan
conflict).
42 See Vite, Typology, 80.
21

responsible for every one of the demonstrations of its own armed powers and it would be a
stretch to state that a State is responsible for all demonstrations of the co-aggressive's powers.
An extraordinary way of accomplishing a comparable end result (i.e. making
Additional Protocol II practice to acts of invited overseas forces) is to think about whether the
territorial State is legally accountable below the regulation of condition accountability for
violations of Additional Protocol II dedicated by using foreign forces invited via the
territorial State. However, for that to occur, the foreign forces would want to be ‘placed at the
disposal of’ the territorial State44. This ability that these forces must act below the distinctive
direction and control of the territorial State and no longer below the authority of the sending
State.45 This check would rarely be cosy and, therefore, the acts of overseas forces will not
often be attributable to the territorial State.
43 For international armed conflicts, see Additional Protocol I, art. 91.
44 For international armed conflicts, see Additional Protocol I, art. 91.
45 See ILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to art. 6.
22

Conclusion : It is really worth noting that, in order to safe protect the rights of human,
International compassionate Law have to practice with the identical vim to all varieties of
struggle that endanger the very existence of the civilian population, whether they take place
inside a state or between states. Direct military intervention is sufficient to internationalize an
otherwise internal conflict. This includes with itself the guidelines and regulations imposed
by means of International compassionate law to conditions of armed issues. However, it is no
longer prudent enough to watch for the internationalization of a fighting so as to make
guidelines of International Humanitarian Law which has been applied in global armed
conflicts apply to an internationalized armed conflict. It has additionally grown to be hard to
perceive the law which is applicable in current conflicts because of the various changes of the
issues and laws. Moreover, the worldwide and domestic dichotomy at the global
humanitarian law explains about the changes which have already proved the vulnerability to
outstanding political exploitation, especially, at the time of involvement of the conflicts at
domestic and international level. Therefore, the big difference is artificial, undesirable and
difficult to justify its existence. The difference in addition frustrates humanitarian law efforts
in the protection of civilians throughout an interior conflict. With the classification of an
armed combat becoming irrelevant, a similarly consideration of a single law of armed
fighting will be inevitable for the improvement of larger humanitarian safety for the duration
of armed conflict.
23

BIBLIOGRAPHY :
J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law Study
(2004).
Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant To Security Council
Resolution 780(1992), S/1994/674 (27 May 1994) 13, para 42
D. Bethlehem, ‘The Methodological Framework of the Study’ and I. Scobbie, ‘The Approach
to Customary International Law in the Study’ in E. Wilmshurst and S. Breau, Perspectives on
the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (2007) 3, 15; and also J.
Bellinger and W. Haynes, ‘A US Government Response to the International Committee of the
Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law’ (2007) 89 (866)
International Review of the Red Cross 443
Compare art. 8(2)(a) and (b) with art. 8(2)(c) and (e) of the ICC Statute. The Pre-Trial
Chamber of the ICC has regarded the difference in criminalization of attacks on civilian
objects as reflecting a difference in international humanitarian law. The Prosecutor v Bahar
Idriss Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09, Confirmation of Charges Decision (Pre-Trial Chamber), 8
February 2010: ‘The Majority notes that, while international humanitarian law offers
protection to all civilians in both international armed conflict and armed conflict not of an
international character, the same cannot be said of all civilian objects, in respect of which
protection differs according to the nature of the conflict.
Cassese, Civil War, 116. See also Bartels, The Historical Evolution, 61–4. See H.S. Levie (ed.),
The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict: Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions
(1987) (Levie, Additional Protocol II) for statements made, during the drafting of Additional
Protocol II, by the representatives of Argentina (30, para 17); the German Democratic
Republic (32, para 29); Indonesia (35, para 53); Romania(42, para 33) and Yugoslavia (47,
para 6).
F. Bugnion, ‘Jus Ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Non-International Armed Conflicts’ (2003) 6
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 167, 168.
D. Fleck, ‘The Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts’ in D. Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of
International Humanitarian Law (2008) 611–12 (Fleck, Non-International Armed Conflicts);
W. Solf, ‘Non- International Armed Conflicts: Commentator’ (1982) 31 American University
Law Review 927
24

Levie, Additional Protocol II, for statement made, during the drafting of Additional Protocol
II, by the representatives of Yugoslavia (47, para 6) and Mexico (49, para 14).
Fleck, Non-International Armed Conflicts, 611–12.
Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) with respect to Libya which authorizes a no-fly zone
and protection of civilians in the context of a non-international armed conflict. See also the
World Summit Outcome Document, GA res. 60/1 (2005) para 139, in which the UN General
Assembly recognizes the authority of the Security Council to take action in cases of
genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
S. Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace: Humanitarian Intervention and International
Law(2001)
See art. 54 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) (ILC Articles on State Responsibility) and accompanying
commentary, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, Part Two (2001).
That commentary refers to sanctions imposed on the former Yugoslavia by a number of
States and the European Communities for actions that occurred when armed conflict broke
out in that country in 1991. Likewise in 2011, the United States (and others) imposed
sanctions on Libya (which went beyond that authorized by SC res. 1970) in response to
measures taken by Libya during the violence and conflict that broke out there in 2011. See
White House, ‘Executive Order: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions
Related to Libya’ (25 February 2011), available at:
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2011libya.eo_.rel_.pdf.
J.G. Stewart, ‘Towards a Single Definition of Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian
Law: A Critique of Internationalized Armed Conflict’ (2003) 85(850) International Review of
the Red Cross 313; A. Duxbury, ‘Drawing Lines in the Sand—Characterising Conflicts for the
Purposes of Teaching International Humanitarian Law’ (2007) 8 Melbourne Journal of
International Law 259; J. Crawford, ‘Unequal Before the Law: The Case for the Elimination of
the Distinction Between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts’ (2007) Leiden
Journal of International Law 441.
S. Vité, ‘Typology of Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law: Legal Concepts and
Actual Situations’ (2009) 91(873) International Review of the Red Cross 69, 72 (Vité,
25

Typology); W. Fenrick, ‘Article 8, War Crimes’ in O. Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1999).
See Greenwood, Scope of Application, 46, para 202: ‘An international armed conflict exists if
one state uses force against another state.’
UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004) 29: ‘an accidental
border incursion by members of the armed forces would not, in itself, amount to an armed
conflict, nor would the accidental bombing of another country.
International Law Association, ‘Final Report of the Meaning of Armed Conflict in
International Law’ (2010).
Greenwood, Scope of Application, 59, para 216. Note that military operations will be
prohibited in certain areas, such as hospital and safety zones, demilitarized zones,
neutralized zones, all of which are established by agreement of the parties. Ibid, paras 219–
20.
Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel of 1979 (1979) 18 International Law Materials 362.
G. Chang, ‘How to Stop North Korea’s Weapons Proliferation’ Wall Street Journal (1 July
2009).
Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to
HagueConvention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907), art. 36.
Greenwood, Scope of Application, 72, para 250
Y. Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (2005) 44.
Geneva Convention IV, art. 133 and 134.
26

Geneva Convention III, art. 5; Geneva Convention IV, art. 6; Additional Protocol I, art. 3.
Greenwood, Scope of Application, 68.
For a general discussion, see D. Akande, ‘The Korean War Has Resumed!! (Or so we are
told)’ EJIL: Talk! (22 July 2009).
GA res. 1514 (1960); GA res. 2625 (1970).
J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), ch. 9 (Crawford, Creation of
States). The main exception to this has been Bangladesh—which was admitted to the UN
before consent by Pakistan. Kosovo represents an example of a seceding entity which at the
time of writing, in early 2012, had not yet achieved recognition by the majority of States in
the face of opposition by Serbia of such recognition.
Prosecutor v Milošević, IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Under Rule
98 bis (Trial Chamber), 16 June 2004 (Prosecutor v Milošević).
T. Meron, ‘Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s Fallout’
(1998) 92 AJIL
236, 238; see also US Amicus Brief in the Tadić case.
C. Greenwood, ‘Development of International Humanitarian Law by the ICTY’ (1998) 2 Max
Planck Yearbook of UN Law 98, 117.
It has been suggested that under customary international law there might be two separate
thresholds for classifying non-international armed conflict, with these thresholds
corresponding to the tests under Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II.
D. Akande, ‘Afghanistan accedes to Additional Protocols to Geneva Conventions: Will AP II
govern the conflict in Afghanistan?’ EJIL Talk (30 June 2009) (Akande, AP II and the Afghan
conflict).
For international armed conflicts, see Additional Protocol I, art. 91.
ILC Articles on State Responsibility, art. 6. See also discussion in Akande, AP II and the
Afghan conflict.
See ILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to art. 6.
27