Twenty-five Years after the Adoption of Additional Protocol II: Breakthrough or Failure of Humanitarian Legal Protection?

Humanitarian Law ◽

Civilian Population ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

Internal Armed Conflicts

On 12 December 2002, the international community celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the opening for signature of 1977 Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. In view of today's armed hostilities around the globe, this anniversary raises the questions whether international humanitarian law provides substantive regulation protecting civilians in non-international armed conflicts; whether such legal protection is effectively countering the sufferings of the civilian population and what are now the main challenges for the international communityvis-à-visinternal armed conflicts.

Protection of Children in International Humanitarian Law

10.1017/s002086040006993x ◽

1984 ◽

Vol 24 (240) ◽

pp. 140-152 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Denise Plattner

Keyword(s):

Geneva Convention ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Second World War ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Civilian Population ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

War Experience ◽

Second World

The legal protection of children was introduced into international humanitarian law after the Second World War. Experience during that conflict had, in fact, pointed to the urgent need to draw up an instrument of public international law for protecting civilian population in wartime. The results of the ICRC's efforts in this field led to the adoption of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. From that time on, children, as members of the civilian population, were entitled to benefit from the application of that Convention. Moreover, the first international humanitarian law regulations concerning armed conflicts not of an international character, contained in article 3, common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, were drawn up at the 1949 Diplomatic Conference. Here again, children were protected, in the same way as all “persons taking no active part in the hostilities”.

Internal (Non-International) Armed Conflict

10.1093/law/9780199559695.003.0014 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Eric David

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

Law Of Armed Conflict ◽

The Law ◽

Internal Armed Conflicts

The law of armed conflict previously applied only to international armed conflicts. Today, internal armed conflicts are regulated by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, along with an increasing number of provisions. The second Additional Protocol of 1977 (AP II) to the 1949 GC contains 18 substantive provisions devoted entirely to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). This chapter discusses the variety and complexity of international humanitarian law rules applicable to NIACs and the criteria used for identifying the existence of a NIAC. It considers how the nature of hostilities and the quality of the actors are used as defining criteria to distinguish an armed conflict from banditry, terrorism, and short rebellions.

Parties to Non-International Armed Conflicts under International Treaty Law

10.1093/oso/9780198821946.003.0003 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Tilman Rodenhäuser

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

International Treaty ◽

Armed Group ◽

Applicable Law ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

Treaty Law ◽

Treaty Interpretation

Chapter 2 examines international humanitarian law treaties. Using classical treaty interpretation methods, it establishes what degree of organization is required from a non-state armed group to become ‘Party to the conflict’ under article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, or an ‘organized armed group’ under article 1(1) of the Additional Protocol II or under the ICC Statute. Chapter 2 also analyses the travaux préparatoires of the different treaties, subsequent practice, and engages with the main doctrinal debates surrounding these questions. By subjecting the three treaties to thorough analysis, the chapter presents concise interpretations of the relevant organizational requirements, and compares the different thresholds. It also identifies and addresses under-researched questions, such as whether the organization criterion under international humanitarian law requires the capacity to implement the entirety of the applicable law.

Amnesties and international humanitarian law: Purpose and scope

10.1017/s1816383118000541 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 101 (910) ◽

pp. 357-363

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

War Crimes ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Universal Jurisdiction ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Geneva Conventions

States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 have an obligation to take measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to their provisions. Moreover, States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or on their territory, and other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction, such as on the basis of universal jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. In accordance with these obligations and the limits they impose, States may adopt certain measures during and in the aftermath of armed conflicts to promote reconciliation and peace, one of which is amnesties. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules pertaining to the granting and scope of amnesties. Specifically, Article 6(5) of Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) provides that, at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict. Importantly, under customary IHL (as identified in Rule 159 of the ICRC customary IHL study), this excludes persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes in NIACs.

Resolution of the Council of Delegates 1985

10.1017/s0020860400022476 ◽

1986 ◽

Vol 26 (250) ◽

pp. 11-15

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Civilian Population ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

Harmful Effects

The Council of Delegates,Mindful of the decisive contribution made by the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 to the development of international humanitarian law and, in particular, to the protection of the civilian population against the harmful effects of armed conflicts

SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (IHL) IN SITUATIONS OF NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS: EXTENDED APPLICABILITY OF COMMON ARTICLE.3

Journal of Law & Social Studies ◽

10.52279/jlss.01.02.99105 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 99-105

Author(s):

Dr. Faiz Bakhsh ◽

Keyword(s):

Special Reference ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Complex Phenomenon ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Armed Groups ◽

International Conflicts ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Binding Force ◽

Geneva Conventions

The applicability of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in non-international conflicts is a complex phenomenon due to the undefined and unannounced nature of non-international armed conflicts. International Humanitarian Law extends its applicability to the armed conflicts of non-international nature between state and non-state armed groups or between non-state armed groups. Common article.3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and 1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, provide criteria for the applicability of IHL However, the states are often seen reluctant to accept international legal oversight into their internal matters and this phenomenon of violence often need to be identified and defined. This paper investigates the scope of the application of International Humanitarian Law in situations of non-international armed conflicts, mainly focussing on the extended applicability of common article.3 to the Geneva Conventions 1949, in situation of non-international armed conflicts. Various types and nature of armed conflicts, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law to non-international conflicts are discussed with special reference to the scope and applicability of Common Article.3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Moreover, the binding force and territorial scope of common article.3 are discussed in a broader context as to assess the applicability of International Humanitarian Law on the changing nature of the non-international armed conflicts.

International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Practice in Armed Conflict: Combatant’s Privilege and Kurdish Fighters in Syria

Journal of Conflict and Security Law ◽

10.1093/jcsl/krz008 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 24 (2) ◽

pp. 271-296

Author(s):

Ilana Rothkopf

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

International Community ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Armed Groups ◽

Prisoner Of War ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

State Practice ◽

The Status

Abstract Do fighters associated with non-state armed groups have the combatant’s privilege in armed conflict? Non-state armed groups are commonplace in contemporary armed conflicts. However, international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly the law that pertains to combatant’s privilege and prisoner of war status, was designed with state actors in mind. This article assesses the conditions under which the members of non-state armed groups have combatant’s privilege. Throughout, it uses the case of Kurdish fighters in Syria as an example of the timeliness of this question and its ramifications for conflict actors. This article notes, with support from the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols, and other sources of IHL, that IHL does not foresee a combatant’s privilege for armed groups in a non-international armed conflict. It contends, however, that the international community should agree to a generalisable rule for the treatment of fighters as combatants regardless of conflict type, if these fighters demonstrate the capability and willingness to adhere to IHL. Such a rule would reduce the need to assess both conflict type and the status of individual fighters should they be captured, and more importantly, it would incentivise continued compliance with IHL.

Prospects for United States Ratification of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2203556 ◽

1991 ◽

Vol 85 (1) ◽

pp. 1-20 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

George H. Aldrich

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Point Of View ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

The Law ◽

The Military

Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, concluded in Geneva in 1977, is the most important treaty codifying and developing international humanitarian law since the adoption of the four Conventions themselves; and it is the first such treaty since 1907 to deal with methods and means of warfare and the protection of the civilian population from the effects of warfare. As such, its contributions to the law were long overdue and, on the whole, are both positive from the humanitarian point of view and practicable from the military point of view. Moreover, it offers the prospect of improved compliance with international humanitarian law, which would greatly benefit the victims of war and would bring the law in action closer to the law in the books. Yet, in January 1987, the President of the United States informed the Senate that he would not submit the Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, calling it “fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed.” It is apparent that President Reagan’s decision resulted from misguided advice that exaggerated certain flaws in the Protocol, ignored the statements of understanding that would have remedied them, and misconstrued a humanitarian and antiterrorist instrument as one that could give aid and comfort to “terrorists.”

Enforceability Of International Humanitarian Law In Armed Conflict at Present

UUM Journal of Legal Studies ◽

10.32890/uumjls.7.2016.4640 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Lina Hastuti

Keyword(s):

World War Ii ◽

International Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

World War ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

New Type

The tendency of the current conflict is a new type of conflict, which is not regulated by international humanitarian law. After World War II, in any war, emphasize the protection of victims of war and an obligation to be responsible for violations of international law or international humanitarian law. The purpose this research is to explore the theories or the law resources in International Humanitarian Law to facing a new type of armed conflict. It is also significant to know where the discovered principles international humanitarian law about the problem. Based on Martens Clause and 1977 Additional Protocol I and II or Si Omnes Clause and Common Articles 2 Geneva Conventions 1949 can applied in new type of armed conflicts. As the development of international humanitarian law which always follow the development of the international community, to address issues related to a new type of armed conflict, it can be back to the theories and legal resources in international humanitarian law. Keywords: Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law

Adoption of the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977: A milestone in the development of international humanitarian law

10.1017/s1816383118000413 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 99 (905) ◽

pp. 785-796 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

François Bugnion

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

40Th Anniversary ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

The Law ◽

War Victims

AbstractOn 8 June 1977, the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts adopted two Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. This was the result of nearly ten years of intensive and delicate negotiations. Additional Protocol I protects the victims of international armed conflicts, while Additional Protocol II protects the victims of non-international armed conflicts. These Protocols, which do not replace but supplement the 1949 Geneva Conventions, updated both the law protecting war victims and the law on the conduct of hostilities. This article commemorates the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the 1977 Additional Protocols.