How International Humanitarian Law Treaties Bind Non-State Armed Groups

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Murray
Keyword(s):  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups

scholarly journals Caught in the Crossfire: Challenges to Migrant Protection in the Yemeni and Libyan Conflicts

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 318-331
Author(s):  
Danielle Flanagan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Migration Routes ◽  
Conflict Zones ◽  
Conflict Situations ◽  
Stable Conditions ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Migration Pathways

In spite of the prevailing security dynamics in Yemen and Libya, both states continue to serve as areas of transit along some of the world’s largest mixed migration routes, leaving migrants caught in the crossfire of the two conflicts. This article examines the legal framework governing the protection of migrants in armed conflict under international humanitarian and human rights law. It also identifies two adverse incentives produced by the conflict situations that impede the exercise of these legal protections: (1) profits derived from migrant smuggling and trafficking, and (2) the use of migrants to support armed groups. In the absence of stable conditions in Yemen and Libya, individuals have little reason to respect international legal protections and discontinue migrant abuse connected with the lucrative businesses of smuggling and trafficking. The intractable nature of the two conflicts has also led to the strategic use of migrants as armed support, and more specifically as combatants, weapons transports, and human shields. Given these realities, the article outlines several recommendations to address the issue of migrant abuse in conflict. It recommends that states, particularly those neighboring Yemen and Libya, strengthen regular migration pathways to help reduce the number of migrants transiting through active conflict zones. It further advises that the international community increase the cost of noncompliance to international humanitarian law through the use of accountability mechanisms and through strategic measures, including grants of reciprocal respect to armed groups that observe protections accorded to migrants in conflict situations.

Thresholds in Flux—the Standard for Ascertaining the Requirement of Organization for Armed Groups under International Humanitarian Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutaka Arai-Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Threshold Condition ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Abstract The requirement of organization is supposed to be of special importance in international humanitarian law (IHL). In the situation of international armed conflict (IAC), this requirement is implicit as part of the collective conditions to be fulfilled by irregular/independent armed groups to enable their members to claim the prisoners of war status under Article 4 A(2) of the Third Geneva Convention. In a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), the eponymous requirement serves, alongside the requirement of intensity of violence, as the threshold condition for ascertaining the onset of a NIAC. While the requirement of organization has not caused much of disputes in IACs, the international criminal tribunals have shown a willingness to examine scrupulously if armed groups in NIACs are sufficiently organized. Still, this article argues that there is need for a nuanced assessment of the organizational level of an armed group in some specific phases of the ongoing armed conflict whose legal character switches (from an NIAC to an IAC, vice-versa, and from a NIAC to a law-enforcement model). It explores what rationales and argumentative model may be adduced to explain such varying standards for organization in different contexts.

Non-State Armed Groups and the Power to Detain in Non-International Armed Conflict

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-33
Author(s):  
Joshua Joseph Niyo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Critical Feature

The restriction of personal liberty is a critical feature in all conflicts, whether they are of an international character or not. With the increased prevalence of non-international armed conflict and the drastic proliferation of non-state armed groups, it is critical to explore whether such groups can legally detain or intern persons during conflict. This article proposes that there exists a power and a legal basis for armed groups to intern persons for imperative security reasons while engaged in armed conflict. It is suggested that this authorisation exists in the frameworks of both international humanitarian law and international human rights law, as it does for states engaged in such conflicts. It is proposed that such power and legal basis are particularly strong for armed groups in control of territory, and can be gleaned from certain customary law claims, treaty law, as well as some case law on international humanitarian law and human rights. Certain case law of the European Court of Human Rights on detention by de facto non-state entities conceivably reflects a change in traditional thinking on ‘legal’ detention by armed groups.

Sources of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphaël van Steenberghe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
The Impact

This chapter analyses the specific features which characterize the sources of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL). It first examines those which are claimed to characterize IHL and ICL sources in relation to the secondary norms regulating the classical sources of international law. The chapter then looks at the specific features of some IHL and ICL sources in relation to the others of the same field. Attention is given particularly to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the impact of its features on other ICL sources, as well as to the commitments made by armed groups, whose characteristics make them difficult to classify under any of the classical sources of international law. In general, this chapter shows how all those specific features derive from the specific fundamental principles and evolving concerns of these two fields of international law.

scholarly journals DEBATE: Should the obligations of states and armed groups under international humanitarian law really be equal?

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (882) ◽  
pp. 425-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Sassòli ◽  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
Third Dimension ◽  
Image Position

By introducing a new ‘debate’ section, the Review hopes to contribute to the reflection on current ethical, legal, or practical controversies around humanitarian issues. This section will expose readers to the key arguments concerning a particular contemporary question of humanitarian law or humanitarian action.For this first debate, the Review asked two members of its Editorial Board, Professor Marco Sassòli and Professor Yuval Shany, to debate on the topic of equality of states and armed groups under international humanitarian law. Professor René Provost comments on this debate, adding a third dimension to the discussion.The crucial question is whether it is realistic to apply the current legal regime to non-state armed groups. How can armed groups, with sometimes very limited means and low levels of organization, meet the same obligations as states? What are the incentives for armed groups to respect rules that their opponents have enacted? Why should they respect any rules when the very fact of taking arms against the state already makes them ‘outlaws’?All participants in this discussion share an aspiration to ensure better legal protection for all those affected by armed conflicts. Professors Sassòli and Shany have agreed to present two ‘radically’ opposed stances, Professor Sassòli maintaining that equality should be reconsidered and replaced by a sliding scale of obligations, and Professor Shany rebutting this assertion. Professor Provost then reflects on the stances put forward by the two debaters and invites us to revisit the very notion of equality of belligerents.The debaters have simplified their complex legal reasoning for the sake of clarity and brevity. Readers of the Review should bear in mind that the debaters actual legal positions are more nuanced than they may appear in this debate.

scholarly journals THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: CURRENT AND INHERENT CHALLENGES

2007 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 45-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Sassòli
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Asymmetric Conflicts ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL) is confronted with many challenges. Some of them are inherent since IHL applies to armed conflicts: a situation must be classified before IHL can be applied. Existing implementation mechanisms either do not function at all or have their limits. In certain conflicts, such as asymmetric conflicts, and with regard to certain players, such as armed groups, it is particularly difficult to obtain respect of IHL. Beyond that, there is a perhaps even more dangerous challenge in perception.The gap between the burgeoning promises of protection by the law made by doctrine, jurisprudence and sometimes even by States, and the systematic non-respect of that law, which (in the author's view wrongly) transpires from the media and NGO reports, undermines the credibility of the law and the willingness to respect it. The author advocates ways to reduce this gap.

scholarly journals Non-State Armed Groups, Detention Authority in Non-International Armed Conflict, and the Coherence of International Law: Searching for a Way Forward

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
DARAGH MURRAY
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Current State ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractInternational humanitarian law establishes explicit safeguards applicable to detention occurring in non-international armed conflict. However, debate exists as to whether these treaty provisions establish an implicit legal basis for detention. This article approaches this debate in light of the application of international humanitarian law to non-state armed groups. It examines the principal arguments against implicit detention authority and then applies the law of treaty interpretation to international humanitarian law's detention-related provisions. On the basis of current understandings of international law – and the prohibition of arbitrary detention in particular – it is concluded that international humanitarian law must be interpreted as establishing implicit detention authority, in order to ensure the continued regulation of armed groups. Although, perhaps, problematic from certain states’ perspective, this conclusion is reflective of the current state of international law. However, this is not necessarily the end of the story. A number of potential ‘ways forward’ are identified: implicit detention authority may be (i) rejected; (ii) accepted; or (iii) re-examined in light of the non-state status of armed groups, and what this means for the content of the prohibition of arbitrary detention. These scenarios are examined in light of the desire to ensure: the coherency of international law including recognition of the role of armed groups, the continued effectiveness of international humanitarian law, and state sovereignty. An emphasis is placed on understanding the non-state status of armed groups and what this means for international regulation and the content of imposed obligations.

scholarly journals THE LIMITATION OF CYBER WARFARE UNDER HUMANITARIAN LAW (Pembatasan Perang Siber dalam Hukum Humaniter)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Laila Almira
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Cyber Warfare ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
The Impact

<p><em>States and non-State armed groups are increasingly employing cyber capabilities in their military operations in the digitalization environment today. There is a controversy about how current international legal frameworks, especially International Humanitarian Law (IHL), applies to such conduct in cyberspace, most notably in the context of armed conflict. Because one of the fundamental aims of the IHL is to protect civilians from the impact of armed conflict, it is critical to explore the norms of IHL that regulate such operations. This article will be likely to discuss about cyber warfare in the term of armed conflict. Lastly, the article will be reviewing the rules and principle that applies during the cyber warfare.</em></p><p><em> </em></p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document