scholarly journals International Humanitarian Law and Internationalized Internal Armed Conflicts

1982 ◽  
Vol 22 (230) ◽  
pp. 255-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dietrich Schindler
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Internal Conflicts ◽  
International War ◽  
The Third World ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

Internationalized internal armed conflicts have become a common feature of the past decades. In numerous civil wars foreign armed forces have intervened in favour of one or the other party and thereby attempted to influence the outcome of the conflict. Various causes have led to this development. One of them is the increased interdependence of States, as a consequence of which every civil war will affect other States and, conversely, the attitudes of other States may have an impact on the outcome of the civil war, even without any intervention. Another cause can be found in the world's ideological cleavage which divides nations and results in the overlapping of internal and international conflicts. Among further causes we can mention the existence of military blocs and of regional groupings which have an interest in preventing the overthrow of régimes within the bloc and tend to encourage alterations in other blocs. Another factor to be taken into consideration is the prohibition of the use of force in international relations. Whereas in earlier times States waged open wars in order to increase their power, today, due to the prohibition of the use of force, they rather endeavour to achieve the same result by interfering in the internal affairs of other States. Interference in internal conflicts is often a substitute for an international war. The instability of many contemporary régimes, mainly of the Third World, further favours the internationalization of internal conflicts.

The Use of Force in Armed Conflicts Conduct of Hostilities, Law Enforcement, and Self-Defense

2018 ◽  
pp. 61-108
Author(s):  
Gloria Gaggioli
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
Modern Warfare

In modern warfare, military forces are expected to use lethal or potentially lethal force in a variety of contexts ranging from combat operations against the adversary to maintaining law and order or responding to imminent threats to life or limb. In practice, it may not be easy to distinguish between these various situations, which may overlap, as for instance when fighters hide among rioting civilians or demonstrators. Situations of violence may also be volatile and quickly evolve from mere civilian unrest to armed clashes. This factual or operational complexity is accompanied by a legal complexity. Different legal regimes and “paradigms” govern the use of force. From an international law perspective, the use of force by armed forces and law enforcement officials is governed by two different paradigms: the conduct of hostilities paradigm, derived from international humanitarian law (IHL), and the law enforcement paradigm, mainly derived from international human rights law (IHRL). Additionally, armed forces frequently refer to the concept of self-defense at various levels (State, unit, personal) as encompassed in numerous rules of engagement. The legal sources of these concepts and interplay with IHL and HRL remain often unsettled and deserve being clarified. This chapter aims at addressing the legal complexities in identifying governing use of force rules through the analysis of various situations/scenarios that are typical of contemporary military operations.

The application of humanitarian law by the armed forces of the United Nations Organization

1978 ◽  
Vol 18 (206) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves Sandoz
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The United Nations

The events in Lebanon and the despatch of a UN armed force to keep the peace there brings into focus a problem which cannot be ignored, the application of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts. This problem has two aspects:— What is the nature of the armed forces which the UN commits or can commit at the present time?— To what extent are these armed forces obliged to apply humanitarian law?

The Historical Development of the Application of Humanitarian Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts to 1949

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Moir
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
International Law ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Similar Magnitude ◽  
International Conflicts ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

That humanitarian rules were applicable in armed conflicts was accepted long before the nineteenth century, but the fact that non-international armed conflicts were regarded as beyond the ambit of international regulation meant that the application of such norms to internal armed conflicts was certainly not a matter of course. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there had been a move towards the application of the laws of warfare to non-international armed conflicts as well as international conflicts, but this was based on the character of the conflicts and the fact that both were often of a similar magnitude, rather than any humanitarian concern to treat the victims of both equally. Not until the nineteenth century did the application of the laws of war to non-international armed conflicts become a widespread issue in international law.

3 Direct Military Assistance on Request During Civil Wars

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
De Wet Erika
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Organizational Practice ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Current State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines whether the right to self-determination in international law prevents military intervention on the side of the recognized government during a civil war. Post-Cold War state and organizational practice does not convincingly support the claim that direct military assistance at the request of a recognized government is prohibited during a civil war, otherwise known as a ‘non-international armed conflict’ (NIAC). Attempts to explain current state practice by means of counter-terrorism and counter-intervention exceptions to a general prohibition of such assistance also is not grounded in state or organizational practice, nor are such exceptions viable in practice. Instead, state and organizational practice seems to confirm the right of recognized governments to request military assistance from third states, also during civil wars/NIACs, as long as they retain their recognized, de jure status. The potential lack of ‘representativeness’ in such a situation does not seem to limit the extent to which the de jure government can act on behalf of the state (and its people) in matters pertaining to the use of force.

Intervention by Invitation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Government ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

This chapter examines the debate concerning a state’s intervention in internal armed conflicts based on invitation, either from the government or from a rebel group fighting against the government. It looks at the issues that arise from intervention by invitation, particularly those relating to the territorial integrity of the state, the status of the actors involved, the nature of the consent, and implications for international law in general and for politics and human rights in particular. The chapter first considers the traditional view of intervention by invitation and the recent challenges to that view. It then discusses the negative equality principle as it applies to intervention in civil wars, as well as the link between intervention by invitation and democratic legitimacy. It also analyses the position of the UN Security Council on intervention by invitation.

Competitive Intervention, Protracted Conflict, and the Global Prevalence of Civil War

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 692-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noel Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Qualitative Case Study ◽  
Average Duration ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Intrastate Conflict ◽  
Global Prevalence ◽  
Protracted Conflict ◽  
Internal Conflicts

Abstract This article develops a theory of competitive intervention in civil war to explain variation in the global prevalence of intrastate conflict. I describe the distortionary effects competitive interventions have on domestic bargaining processes and explain the unique strategic dilemmas they entail for third-party interveners. The theory uncovers the conditional nature of intervention under the shadow of inadvertent escalation and moves beyond popular anecdotes about “proxy wars” by deriving theoretically grounded propositions about the strategic logics motivating intervener behaviors. I then link temporal variation in patterns of competitive intervention to recent decreases in the prevalence and average duration of internal conflicts. The theory is tested with a quantitative analysis of all civil wars fought between 1975 and 2009 and a qualitative case study of the Angolan civil war (1975–1991). My results underscore the importance of a generalizable account of competitive intervention that not only explains past conflicts, but also informs contemporary policy.

The FARC's Best Friend: U.S. Antidrug Policies and the Deepening of Colombia's Civil War in the 1990s

2006 ◽  
Vol 48 (02) ◽  
pp. 95-116
Author(s):  
Mark Peceny ◽  
Michael Durnan
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Unintended Consequence ◽  
Best Friend ◽  
Colombian Government ◽  
Drug Cartels ◽  
Certification Requirements

Abstract The strengthening of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) during the 1990s was an unintended consequence of a series of tactical successes in U.S. antidrug policies. These included dismantling the Medellín and Cali drug cartels, interdicting coca coming into Colombian processing facilities, and using drug certification requirements to pressure the Colombian government to attack drug cartels and allow aerial fumigation of coca crops. These successes, however, merely pushed coca cultivation increasingly to FARC-dominated areas while weakening many of the FARC's political-military opponents. This provided the FARC with unprecedented opportunities to extract resources from the cocaine industry to deepen its long insurgency against the Colombian state. The Colombian experience demonstrates the importance of creating a more sophisticated understanding of how lootable wealth can exacerbate civil wars.

scholarly journals ARMED CONFLICT IN THE SOUTH-EAST OF UKRAINE: LEGAL QUALIFI-CATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-412
Author(s):  
Petr P. Kremnev
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The South ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Consequences

Unconstitutional change of power in Ukraine as a result of the "Maidan revolution" in February 2014, with the subsequent power grab by Ukrainian radicals of local authorities under nationalist slogans, led to the establishment of control over parts of the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk regions by Donbass militias, and then to the ongoing fighting between the armed formations of the latter with units of the regular armed forces of Ukraine. The purpose of this publication is to establish the form of the armed conflict and its legal consequences from the standpoint of current international law, which has not yet found proper legal analysis and coverage in either domestic or foreign (including Ukrainian) legal doctrinе. In official statements and legislative acts of Ukraine, this conflict is declared as a "state of war with Russia", "aggression of Russia", and the Ukrainian doctrine of international law almost unanimously declares the need to apply to the conflict the norms of international humanitarian law and qualifies it as an international armed conflict. In this publication, on the basis of the analysis of existing international legal norms and legal doctrine, the qualification of existing forms of armed conflicts is carried out: war, international armed conflict, non-international armed conflict, internationalized armed conflict. This examines the legal consequences (or otherwise the obligations of the parties to the conflict) that are caused by each form of such armed conflict, that is concealed and ignored by the Ukrainian side. On the basis of the theoretical and legal analysis of the UN Charter, the relevant provisions of the Geneva conventions on the protection of victims of war of 1949 and Additional protocols I and II of 1977, the author qualifies the situation in the South-East of Ukraine as a non-international armed conflict and the obligation to comply with applicable legal norms by all parties to the conflict. At the same time, the author comes to the conclusion about the insolvency of the claims about the applicability of the rules governing other mentioned forms of armed conflicts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document