Non-international armed conflicts

Noam Zamir provides a comprehensive and concise analysis of the issues concerning conflict classification, with particular focus on the impact of foreign state interventions in the internal affairs of states engaged in a NIAC. The presentation of the normative framework of conflict classification, supported by a well-argued contribution to the scholarly discourse of IHL, is the incontestable added value of his work. It is worth noting that his theoretical undertaking is pertinent not only to the development of the IHL doctrine but also to the practice of states.

Everyone has the right to life according to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, this is not an absolute right as article 2 of the Convention provides the exceptional situations in which the deprivation of life resulting from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary would not be regarded as a violation of the article. International humanitarian law, the law to be applied in times of armed conflict, provides situations in which the right to life of a person can be restricted based on his/her status and behaviors. Combatants have the right to take part in hostilities and as a result, they can be targeted during hostilities. The aim of this thesis is to make a comparison between international humanitarian law and international human rights law with regard to the protection of the right to life; to determine the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the right to life in non-international armed conflicts and to demonstrate that the Court should interpret the right to life in Art. 2 of the Convention under the light of the international humanitarian law during non-international armed conflicts if the State party to the Convention makes a derogation from Article 2.

На сегодняшний день большинство вооруженных конфликтов происходит в пределах границ государств, причиняя большие разрушения и приводя к огромному количеству жертв. Несмотря на значительный прогресс в международно-правовом регулировании вооруженных конфликтов между государствами, следует отметить, что количество положений международного гуманитарного права (МГП), применимых к немеждународным конфликтам, является существенно ограниченным. С учетом этого обстоятельства, несомненно, что обеспечение соблюдения норм МГП всеми сторонами в немеждународном вооруженном конфликте, включая  негосударственные субъекты, становится серьезным гуманитарным вызовом. Данная статья предлагает краткий обзор понятий, правовых норм, пробелов и проблем, связанных с соблюдением права вооруженных конфликтов негосударственными субъектами в контексте немеждународных вооруженных конфликтов. Целью работы является рассмотрение и предложение нескольких путей и способов, направленных на обеспечение надлежащего соблюдения МГП негосударственными субъектами.

As violence has continued to rise in Mexico year after year, criminal groups have adopted an increasingly militarized approach to their tactics, weaponry and training.

InSight Crime sat down with Robert J. Bunker and John P. Sullivan, founders of Small Wars Journal-El Centro and editors of a new book, "Illicit Tactical Progress: Mexican Cartel Tactical Notes 2013-2020," which dives deep into how this evolution has taken place.

Crime  wars and  criminal  Insurgencies challenge  states  as  they emerge at the intersection of crime and war. In many nations these conflicts involve  protracted gang and drug  wars.  These situations of insecurity range in the level of intensity and complexity.  At times the lower levels of violence result in local consequences:  violence and  insecurity.  In others the  criminal organizations  challenge  the  state  and  establish  alternative  of  parallel  power structures.  This short paper  will discuss these issues by briefly summarizing the  situation  in  Mexico  and  Colombia.  This  summary  will  then  identify  the need for further research and development of legal and policy approaches in these  states,  as  well  as  others  facing  similar  challenges  such  as  Brazil and Central America.

This working paper analyses the principle of distinction in virtual warfare. It focuses upon the case studies of drone warfare under non-international armed conflict and cyber warfare under international armed conflict. It argues that the increasing prevalence of virtual warfare has paradoxically led to both a clarification of the principles of distinction in warfare but also the convolution of this principle in practice. Generally, improved capabilities such as precision and accuracy and transparency of determinations of distinction indicate positive results of developments in virtual warfare. Conversely, it has illustrated the opposite truth in regards to cyber warfare wherein it proves increasingly complicated to identify or isolate the actors involved with the attacks themselves, in addition to complications arising with the principle of distinction of cyber targets.

There are sequences of challenges concomitant with the drastic increase of Non-State Armed Groups. These challenges have caused a lot of travail on humanity especially to the noncombatants or civilians living in places of de facto control by Non-State Armed Groups. In most armed conflicts innocent, vulnerable and unarmed civilians for many years have continued to bear the brunt of hostilities, especially those who armed conflicts occur around or within their surroundings. International Commission on Red Cross on playing its part has tried in many cases although in some instances yielding little or completely no results, to educate Non-State Armed Groups on the need to respect and promote International Humanitarian Law in Noninternational Armed Conflicts. It is hoped that discussions around this issue will lead to a better appreciation of the challenges posed to protection and succour activities in favor of the casualties of Non-International Armed Conflicts and that an adequate if not sufficient solution may be found on this issue. This paper will examine three major challenges; difficulty for the application of IHL to conflicts involving NSAGs, difficulty for the legal regime to protect persons living in areas that are in de facto control of NSAGs, and lastly, Legal and political dilemmas regarding detention by NSAGs

Even though the law of armed conflict traditionally recognizes only the dichotomy of international and non-international armed conflict applicable in the normative framework regulating armed hostilities, reality presents situations that do not readily fit into these categories. Foreign State involvement is almost habitual in contemporary conflicts and a significant number of conflicts rage between States and non-State actors not necessarily remaining within the confines of a country.
The present paper attempts to examine the legal classification of ‘transnational armed conflicts’, i.e. armed hostilities with a transboundary character that involve non-State actors and thus seemingly escape the classic division of international and non-international armed conflict. After a perusal of legal doctrine and State practice, it concludes that contemporary international humanitarian law is capable of regulating such conflicts and calls for an overhaul of the present system are premature.

Le conflit armé au Yémen a été déclenché en mars 2015 par une intervention militaire de la Coalition de plusieurs pays du Golf et de la Ligue Arabe à la demande du président Hadi en exil à Riyad. La Coalition, qui agit sur commandement militaire de l’Arabie Saoudite, combat le groupe armé Houthi qui contrôle militairement et administrativement une partie du territoire ensemble avec sa branche politique Ansar Allah. Les Houthis sont soutenus par l’ancien président Saleh. Le conflit soulève des questions juridiques importantes telles que la qualification du conflit armé au Yémen ainsi que son éventuel internationalisation et le droit applicable. En outre, le conflit s’inscrit dans un contexte économique et politique désastreux et aggrave la situation humanitaire du pays. En effet, sur 26 millions d’habitants, 18 sont en grande situation de besoin humanitaire et parmi ceux-ci, 10.3 million sont dans un besoin urgent d’aide humanitaire, sans laquelle ils risquent leurs vies. Ce drame interroge aussi sur l’absence de couverture médiatique alors que les personnes et des biens civils sont les premiers à être touchés par des attaques militaires ciblées, en violation du droit international humanitaire. Malgré cela, il n’y aura aucune enquête internationale indépendante et impartiale pour documenter les violences. Le Yémen est en train de devenir un « failed state ».

This presentation aims to analyze the difficulties connected with the spread of epidemics in times of war, which may be considered "an emergency within an emergency", involving difficult problems with no easy solutions, from both a practical and legal point of view.

The protection of the right to health during armed conflicts is governed by an international regulatory framework which results in a complex reading and understanding picture for the fight against epidemics and pandemics, including COVID-19. The Geneva normative system, created and developed since 1949 to meet different objectives and varying needs, could hardly be expected to be ready or immediately proactive when faced with an unprecedented historical challenge such as the coronavirus. Nevertheless, this analysis shows that, if analyzed and interpreted in an evolutionary, systematic and coherent manner, international humanitarian law seems capable of providing a response to COVID-19 and, more broadly, to controlling epidemics in times of war.

What is certainly needed is to revise the relevant legal arrangements through an evolutionary re-interpretation and, above all, to guarantee a joint response and coordinated intervention capacity between all systems and at all levels. While examining the normative point of view of the issue and the practice of the International Movement of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, this paper also aims to open a debate, that can be further developed, on other relevant aspects, such as the World Health Organizations's activities and the accountability perspective, including the international criminal justice system.

Does the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts still exist or has it been virtually eliminated? If there are no distinctions and same set of rules govern both international and non-international armed conflicts, will the international humanitarian law apply as the lex specialis to the exclusion of the international human rights law in all armed conflicts, whether international or non-international in character? This article addresses these issues with the help of legal instruments and case laws.

RESUMEN: Los grupos armados no estatales no son un fenómeno nuevo. Sin embargo, el incremento de los conflictos armados internos desde el final de la Guerra Fría así como el surgimiento del terrorismo internacional han abierto el debate sobre la eficacia del Derecho Internacional Humanitario (DIH)y del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos (DIDH) a la hora de regular y sancionar las actividades de tales grupos armados. Esta falta de control y regulación se debe a que los tradicionales tratados de DIH y de DIDH sólo regulan los actos de los Estados en situaciones de conflicto armado. Por su parte, el estatuto de la Corte Penal Internacional sólo cubre la actuación de los individuos pero no la de los grupos o personas jurídicas. No obstante, en los últimos años la práctica de los organismos internacionales, las iniciativas de ciertas ONGs y la doctrina científica abogan por la aplicabilidad de las obligaciones de derechos humanos a los grupos armados así como su consiguiente responsabilidad internacional por los posibles abusos cometidos.

ABSTRACT: Non-state armed groups are not a new phenomenon. However, the increase in non-international armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the international terrorism has opened the debate about the effectiveness of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the International Human Rights Law (IHRL) to regulate and sanction the activities of armed groups. This lack of control and regulation is due to the fact that traditional treaties on IHL and IHRL only take into consideration the acts of States in conflict settings. On the other hand, the Statute of the International Criminal Court only covers the actions of individuals but not of groups or legal persons. Nevertheless, during the last years the practice of international organizations, the initiatives of certain NGOs and the literature on the subject advocate for the applicability of human rights obligations to armed groups and their international responsibility for the possible abuses committed.

The purpose of this article is to re-examine recognition of belligerency in non-international armed conflict (NIAC) and, by looking at civil wars in the 19th and 20th Centuries, come to a better understanding of why recognition of belligerency fell into disuse and why the practice is unlikely to be revived. But even if a revival of recognition of belligerency is impractical or unlikely, there is a legal process that is functionally, albeit unintentionally, equivalent: authorization of collective military intervention by the United Nations Security Council. Issued only when a threat to international peace and security has been found to exist, a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing intervention in a NIAC attests, in practice, to the existence of hostilities that have reached levels of intensity, duration, and internationalization that historically were considered sufficient to bring the whole jus in bello into play.

The non-international armed conflict in Tajikistan(NIAC), often simply referred to as the civil war in Tajikistan, was an armed intra-ethnic and inter-clan conflict of a non-international character fought between pro-governmental forces and various non-state groups in Tajikistan following a declaration of the country's independence after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. It lasted the years between 1992 and 1997. The Tajikistani NIAC was one of the bloodiest and devastating – although perhaps not the most protracted and not always intense – armed conflicts in Asia at the end of the twentieth century, not only due to a high number of victims and casualties but also because of its direct and long-term negative impact on the country's economy, demography and humanitarian situation. Also, some neighboring countries in Central Asia and beyond – such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia – had also been implicated in the conflict, by way of helping the governmental forces of Tajikistan in their fight against the opposition.

Background: Situations of humanitarian crisis are often caused by armed conflicts. Given the prevalence of non-international armed conflicts today, ways of ameliorating these situations are at the forefront of concerns. The international humanitarian law rules governing non-international armed conflict remain much less developed than those for international armed conflicts. This makes governing the behaviour of non-state parties to non-international armed conflicts (non-state armed groups) extremely challenging. This is exacerbated by the lack of direct human rights obligations for non-state armed groups. Although several initiatives have been taken to encourage non-state actors to mitigate situations of humanitarian crisis, the role of human rights law is somewhat underdeveloped in this respect.

The Hungarian criminal proceedings concerning the prosecution of people responsible for committing alleged breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions during the 1956 revolution have attracted surprisingly little international attention. This lack of interest is all the more astonishing, given the fact that the Hungarian courts directly applied international law for prosecuting criminal offenses and in the course made statements concerning the definition of non-international armed conflict, individual criminal responsibility for violations of Common Article 3 and the application of the 1968 UN Convention on non-applicability of statutory limitations. In the paper I attempt to critically analyse these findings, concentrating on the period between 23 October and 4 November, and demonstrate that even though they do not meet the requirements of international law, some of the perpetrators could be brought to trial even without stretching beyond the confines of the law of nations.

The use of children as combatants is not only carried out by the state, but also by actors other than the state. Children aged 8 to 14 are armed, trained and fielded in combats. The recruitment of child soldiers is generally prohibited by international law. There are several international legal instruments that prohibit the involvement of child soldiers in armed conflict. However, so far international legal arrangements have emphasized obligations on state subjects. This results in unclear regulations and legal accountability for the use of child soldiers by non-state actors. This research answers two problem formulations, First, how is the practice of using child soldiers by non-state actors?; Second, what is the concept of the responsibility of non-state actors for the crime of using child soldiers in international humanitarian law? This research is a normative study, using a statutory, historical, and conceptual approach. The results of this study concluded: First, the practice of using child soldiers in the field by non-state actors was carried out by recruiting their child soldiers forcibly and voluntarily, treating them very inhumanely, and assigning various kinds of child soldiers on their side based on age and sex; Second, the responsibility for a person who commits crimes using child soldiers can be in the form of individual responsibility or command responsibility. Abstrak Penggunaan anak-anak sebagai kombatan bukan hanya dilakukan oleh negara, namun juga oleh aktor selain negara. Anak-anak usia 8 hingga14 tahun dipersenjatai, dilatih, dan diterjunkan dalam pertempuran. Perekrutan tentara anak secara umum dilarang oleh hukum internasional. Terdapat beberapa instrumen hukum internasional yang melarang keterlibatan tentara anak dalam konflik bersenjata. Namun, selama ini pengaturan-pengaturan hukum internasional lebih menekankan kewajiban pada subyek negara. Hal ini mengakibatkan ketidakjelasan pengaturan dan pertanggungjawaban hukum atas penggunaan tentara anak oleh aktor selain negara. Penelitian ini menjawab dua rumusan masalah, Pertama, bagaimanakah praktik penggunaan tentara anak oleh aktor selain negara?; Kedua, bagaimana konsep pertanggungjawaban aktor selain negara terhadap kejahatan penggunaan tentara anak dalam hukum humaniter internasional? Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif, menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan, historis, dan konseptual. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan: Pertama, praktik penggunaan tentara anak di lapangan oleh aktor selain negara dilakukan dengan merekrut tentara anaknya secara paksa dan sukarela, memerlakukan dengan sangat tidak manusiawi, serta menugasi berbagai macam pada tentara anak di pihak mereka berdasarkan usia dan jenis kelamin; Kedua, pertanggungjawaban yang diemban seseorang yang melakukan kejahatan penggunaan tentara anak dapat berupa tanggung jawab individu maupun tanggung jawab komando. Kata-kata Kunci: Aktor selain negara; konflik bersenjata; tentara anak

The right to rebel is a neglected topic in international law. The reasons for this lack of interest are to be found in the centrality of states as subjects of international law and their understandable reluctance to address non-state violence in terms of right. This approach is reflected in the tendency to look at opposition groups as illegitimate, frequently labelling them as terrorists. However, non-state armed groups are highly heterogeneous and their aims and motivations to use violence should matter at the international law level.
This paper argues that the responsibility to protect (R2P) could provide the legal basis for the right to rebel against gross and systematic violations of human rights.
The R2P doctrine maintains that each state bears the primary responsibility to protect the population within its borders; when it fails to do so, this responsibility is shared with the international community. In extreme circumstances, foreign states can use force in order to stop gross and systematic violations of human rights (at least with the authorization of the Security Council). If international law accepts forcible interventions against human rights violations, why should it negate the right to react to the victims of such violations?
International law has increasingly addressed the use of force by states within their borders. International humanitarian law (IHL) regulating non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) is now a fully developed field of studies. On the other hand, state violence in peaceful times has been taken away from the domaine reservée: the respect of international human rights law (IHRL) does matter at the international level, as confirmed by the R2P doctrine.
Both R2P and the increasing attention for the respect of human rights by governments are in line with a top-down approach that pervades nearly all fields of international law. States are the central subjects at the international level; what happens within their borders might affect their legitimacy in the eyes of their peers, inter alia, but in no way it could grant any particular status to non-state actors.
This paper challenges this traditional top-down approach. Several scholars have demonstrated that non-state actors can become subjects of specific branches of international law, such as IHL and IHRL. Now times seem ready to take a step further and recognize a more active role to non-state actors. Victims of heinous human rights violations should not be passive subjects, waiting for foreign states to react to violations of their human rights: granting them rights would be pointless without a related right to defend and protect them. International law would thus regulate both state and non-state violence, and the latter would be legitimate at least when directed to stop massive and systematic human rights violations.
This article is organized as follow. First, it focuses on the attempts of international law to address the right to rebel at the domestic, regional, and international level. Part II examines the ways in which the R2P doctrine could operate as legal basis of the right to rebel against human rights violations. Finally, Part IV investigates what could mean, in practice, to recognize a right to rebel, especially with regard to foreign interventions.

Лисик В. ЮРИДИЧНІ НАСЛІДКИ ПРИПИНЕННЯ НЕМІЖНАРОДНОГО ЗБРОЙНОГО КОНФЛІКТУ ДЛЯ ОСІБ, СВОБОДА ЯКИХ У ЦЬОМУ КОНФЛІКТІ ОБМЕЖЕНА /Володимир Лисик, Софія Ольшанецька//Вісник Львівського університету. Серія міжнародні відносини. -2015.- Випуск 37. - Частина 2. - C. 47–57

Розглянуто юридичні наслідки, що настають для осіб, свободу яких обмежено у зв’язку із неміжнародними збройними конфліктами після їхнього припинення. Автори роблять спробу довести, що в сучасному міжнародному праві сформувався міжнародний звичай, згідно з яким такі особи підлягають звільненню. Окремо розглянуто випадки відмови таким особам у звільненні.
Ключові слова: особи, свобода яких обмежена; неміжнародний збройний конфлікт; міжнародне гуманітарне право.

Lysyk Volodymyr LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF TERMINATION NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT FOR THE PERSONS DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY/ Volodymyr Lysyk, Sofia Olshanetska//Visnyk of the Lviv University. Series International Relations. - 2015.-  Issue 37.-  Part 2. - P. 47–57
The article deals with the legal consequences that come to persons deprived of their liberty in relation to a non-international armed conflict after their termination.The authors attempt to prove that in modern international law formed an international custom according to which such persons shall be exempt. This exemption should cover the broadest possible range of persons, whether detained them in criminal proceedings or for security reasons (interned). Separately considered cases where detainees may be denied release, namely regarding the identity of the criminal proceedings conducted in connection with the commission of her general crime; a person serving a criminal punishment by lawful sentence of a court in the usual manner; a person accused of a serious crime that is related to the armed conflict; a person accused of a serious violation of humanitarian law or other international crimes; regarding detainee received an international arrest warrant or a request from a State or an international judicial body extradition (transfer).
Key words: Persons deprived of their liberty; non-international armed conflict; international humanitarian law.

The purpose of this article is to re-examine recognition of
belligerency in non-international armed conflict (NIAC) and, by looking at civil wars in the 19th and 20th Centuries, come to a better understanding of why recognition of belligerency fell into disuse and why the practice is unlikely to be revived.  But even if a revival of recognition of belligerency is impractical or unlikely, there is a legal process that is functionally, albeit unintentionally, equivalent: authorization of collective military intervention by the United Nations Security Council.  Issued only when a threat to international peace and security has been found to exist, a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing intervention in a NIAC attests, in practice, to the existence of hostilities that have reached levels of intensity, duration, and internationalization that historically were considered sufficient to bring the whole jus in bello into play.

In "Le droit international relatif aux groupes armés non étatiques", which is based on the author's PhD thesis defended at the University of Geneva, Zakaria Daboné contributes to the ongoing study of non–state armed groups' behaviors. In a most novel, interesting and compelling way, Daboné tests the question of the place of these non–state actors within the international realm. He does not disappoint. It would not be accurate, however, to frame the book's scope and influence as only relating to such entities. Rather, the book touches upon wider issues of public international law and is certainly one of the most insightful studies in relation to armed groups and international law. In a meticulously researched and very well–written book, Daboné focuses on certain areas which, according to him, are the most frequently employed when one refers to the behavior of armed groups. These are jus in bello, jus ad bellum, human rights, international responsibility and the sources of international law.

The concept of international customary law is one of the most debated issues of international law. There is controversy regarding its constituent elements, the process of its formation, indeed, some authors even debate its very existence as a separate source of international law. On the other hand, as it was famously quipped by Hersch Lauterpacht “…if international law, in some ways, at the vanishing point of law, the law of war, perhaps even more conspicuously, at the vanishing point of international law.”

Putting together these constituent elements they form a potentially explosive mix – customary international humanitarian law. This paper attempts to decipher some of its riddles relying on a formalist methodology of the formation of customary international law. It first examines the major problems of customary international law – the problems of State practice and opinio juris and the weight that should be accorded to them and their relationship with treaties – then gives a brief overview of the practice of international judicial bodies. Finally, it analyses some parts of the recently published Customary International Humanitarian Law Study of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

This chapter focuses on the role of Antonio Cassese in the development of the customary law of non-international armed conflicts. Analyzing the situation before the decision of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY in Tadić, the author submits that there was no general acceptance of a body of customary norms applicable to internal conflicts but the existence of such rules received widespread recognition after the ruling. The central thesis of this paper is that this judgment was opportunistically used by Cassese as a vehicle to ‘humanize’ humanitarian law, i.e. to extend the regulatory framework of international armed conflict to non-international armed conflicts. Following an examination of the process of successful completion of this project, this chapter concludes with the examination of the potential merits and pitfalls of such an endeavour.