Defining Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law

The Supreme Court stated that an international armed conflict was a conflict between states, whereas the aim of Common Article 3 was to provide minimum protections in situations involving rebels in conflicts not of an international nature but the Court took a broad approach to Common Article 3 and came to the conclusion that it operated in Hamdan’s circumstances (Duxbury, p 3). The two different views on the ‘war on terror’ show how it is difficulty in determining the dynamics of the situation.

Importance of Classifying Armed Conflicts

The failure to classify a state of affairs as an ‘armed conflict’ has grave legal and humanitarian consequences (Duxbury, p 10). This is because, International humanitarian law has a close relationship with human rights law that aims to protect the rights and dignity of civilians during peace and armed conflict with parties of the conflict having legally binding obligations concerning the rights of persons not involved in the conflict (United Nations, 2010). The main principles of international humanitarian law includes: principle of distinction where a combatant should distinguish a non combatant (including a soldier) who has surrendered from a soldier and the distinguishing of military targets from civilian territories, the limited use of certain weapons such as biological weapons, and the protection of the environment (Dinstein, 2004, p 55). Therefore, if it is not in force, belligerent parties will have an extent of freedom in carrying out there activities without checks.

However, there are still situations that are recognized as armed conflicts but there are still breaches of international humanitarian law. In such situations, the role of the Security Council comes in to play in its role of promoting international peace and security according to the UN Charter (Chapter 7, 1945). In the recent times, the Security Council has been more proactive in promoting human rights especially in situations of armed conflicts by imposing economic and political sanctions and more specifically in the establishment of tribunals as is the case of Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone (Fleck, 2008, p 275).

Conclusion

The politics behind classification of armed conflicts as often brought about the failure of international humanitarian law in playing its part. Because of states’ interests, conflicts continue to happen with breaches of human rights and destruction of property continuing to happen. For international humanitarian law to play a crucial part, it needs to adapt and continuously evolve to cater for the changing dynamics of conflicts experienced today.

References

Chadwick (1996) Self determination, terrorism and international humanitarian law, 1^st ed. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Cullen, A. (2010), The Concept of Non-international Armed conflict in international humanitarian law, Cambridge studies in international law and comparative law, 66: 1-10

Duxbury, A. (2007), Drawing Lines in the Sand- Characterizing conflicts for the purposes of teaching International humanitarian law, Melbourne Journal of International law, volume 8: 1-14

Galicki, Z. (2005), International law and terrorism, American Behavioral Scientist, 48(6):743-757

Geneva Conventions (1949), Convention for the Amelioration for the Wounded and Sick in Armed forces in the field

Sassoli, M. (2006), Transnational armed groups and international humanitarian law, Harvard University, 6:1-50

Stewart, G.S. (2003), Towards a single definition of armed conflict in international humanitarian law: A critique of internationalized armed conflict, 85(850):313-350

Vite, S. (2009), Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations, International Review of the Red Cross, 91(873): 69-95

ICRC (2008), How is the term armed conflict defined in international humanitarian law, Opinion Paper, Geneva

ICRC (2007), International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts, Geneva, (30IC/07/8.4)

League of Nations (1938), Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of terrorism (C.546(1).M383(1))

United Nations (1974), Definition of Aggression General Assembly Resolution 3314, New York: United Nations

United Nations (2010), Report of the Office of the High Commissioner on the outcome of the expert consultation on the issue of protecting the human rights of civilians in armed conflict, New York: United Nations (A/HRC/14/40)

United States District court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 04-1519 (JR)