14 Humanitarian Relief Operations

Humanitarian Law ◽

Armed Groups ◽

Humanitarian Relief ◽

Armed Group ◽

Primary Responsibility ◽

Main Tenet ◽

This chapter examines humanitarian relief operations in armed conflict. The main tenet of international humanitarian law (IHL) is that human suffering should be limited, even in an environment where causing death and injury is, to a certain extent, legitimate. In amongst the violence and death that characterizes armed conflict in all its forms, humanitarian relief operations seek to assuage the suffering by providing protection and assistance to persons who are affected by the armed conflict. Humanitarian relief actors not only promote IHL to the parties to a conflict, but they also provide protection and assistance to victims of a conflict. States have the primary responsibility to provide humanitarian assistance to their citizens, to provide them with protection, and to respect and ensure respect for IHL. Non-state armed groups engaged in armed conflict also have a responsibility to uphold IHL and provide assistance to people in the territory which they control. However, where the state or armed group is not able to provide such assistance, humanitarian relief actors and organizations can fill the gap. Therefore, like combatants, civilians, and other protected persons, humanitarian relief personnel have specific protections, obligations, and requirements under IHL.

Territorial Control by Armed Groups and the Regulation of Access to Humanitarian Assistance

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223716000285 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 50 (1) ◽

pp. 25-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Tom Gal

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Assistance ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Armed Groups ◽

Humanitarian Relief ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

Occupied Territories ◽

Humanitarian assistance is essential for the survival of the civilian population and peoplehors de combatin the theatre of war. Its regulation under the laws of armed conflict tries to achieve a balance between humanitarian goals and state sovereignty. This balance, reflected in the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, is not as relevant to contemporary armed conflicts, most of which involve non-state armed groups. Even those provisions relating to humanitarian assistance in conflicts involving non-state armed groups fail to address properly the key features of these groups, and especially their territorial aspect. This article proposes a different approach, which takes into consideration and gives weight to the control exercised by non-state armed groups over a given territory. Accordingly, it is suggested that provisions regulating humanitarian relief operations in occupied territories should apply to territories controlled by armed groups. This approach views international humanitarian law first and foremost as an effective, realistic and practical branch of law. Moreover, it has tremendous humanitarian advantages and reflects the aims and purposes of the law, while considering the factual framework of these conflicts.

Part II Predominant Security Challenges and International Law, Economic and Resource Security, Ch.28 Humanitarian Relief in Situations of Armed Conflict

The Oxford Handbook of the International Law of Global Security ◽

10.1093/law/9780198827276.003.0029 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Gillard Emanuela-Chiara ◽

Weizmann Nathalie

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

International Security ◽

Human Security ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Armed Groups ◽

Humanitarian Relief ◽

Security Challenges ◽

Humanitarian Crises ◽

This chapter addresses humanitarian relief in situations of armed conflict. In many modern wars, more civilian deaths and suffering occur as a result of humanitarian crises prompted or exacerbated by the conflicts than from actual hostilities. International humanitarian law (IHL) includes an important body of rules aimed at ensuring that the basic needs of civilians caught up in conflict are met. While these protections can be considered as a manifestation of the ‘freedom from want’ dimension of human security, it is essential to bear in mind that the relevant rules of IHL are well established, binding on States and, in case of non-international armed conflict, also organized armed groups. The chapter outlines the rules of IHL regulating collective humanitarian relief operations, with a particular focus on how they balance the dictates of belligerents’ security interests and civilians’ ‘human security’ needs and entitlements. It then considers one particular way in which a pressing national and international security objective—countering terrorism—interacts with and adversely impacts the capacity of humanitarian actors to operate in a principled manner, and thus impairs the human security of populations in need.

Promoting Compliance with the Rules Regulating Humanitarian Relief Operations in Armed Conflict: Some Challenges

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223717000048 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 50 (2) ◽

pp. 119-137 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Dapo Akande ◽

Emanuela-Chiara Gillard

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

Humanitarian Assistance ◽

Focused Attention ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Relief ◽

In recent years, the increasingly frequent and, in certain contexts, extremely severe impediments to the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in need have focused attention on how to enhance compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) that regulate humanitarian relief operations. Efforts to hold accountable parties to armed conflict and persons responsible for unlawfully impeding humanitarian relief operations face the challenge that the underlying rules give parties latitude in how to implement the central obligation to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian supplies, equipment and personnel. This article outlines the rules of IHL regulating humanitarian relief operations and highlights the difficulties, in the majority of situations, of determining whether they have been violated. It then presents current endeavours to promote accountability. It concludes with some reflections on whether the threat of accountability is the most effective way of enhancing compliance with this area of IHL, at least while efforts are under way to negotiate access.

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

Journal of Conflict and Security Law ◽

10.1093/jcsl/kraa024 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Yutaka Arai-Takahashi

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

Geneva Convention ◽

Prisoners Of War ◽

Organizational Level ◽

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

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223719000207 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 53 (1) ◽

pp. 3-33

Author(s):

Joshua Joseph Niyo

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Case Law ◽

Customary 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.

Conflict-induced Food Insecurity and the War Crime of Starvation of Civilians as a Method of Warfare

Journal of International Criminal Justice ◽

10.1093/jicj/mqz050 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (4) ◽

pp. 753-779

Author(s):

Dapo Akande ◽

Emanuela-Chiara Gillard

Keyword(s):

Food Insecurity ◽

International Criminal ◽

International Criminal Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Relief ◽

Humanitarian Action ◽

General Rules ◽

Relief Operations ◽

Principle Of Proportionality

Abstract This article examines the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) relevant to avoiding or minimizing conflict-induced food insecurity. It is important to consider these rules in order to appreciate the range of protections to which civilians are entitled. Understanding these rules is also essential for interpreting the relevant provisions of international criminal law, including, most notably, the war crime of starvation of the civilian population. After providing a brief outline of the general rules of IHL respect of which can reduce the risk of food insecurity, the article focuses on two sets of rules of direct relevance to food insecurity: the prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the rules regulating humanitarian relief operation. With regard to the former, the article considers whether, under IHL, the prohibition requires that the party that has engaged in the conduct must act with the purpose of causing starvation. It is argued that while the general prohibition of starvation in IHL requires such purpose, there are other, more specific, rules of IHL directed at reducing food insecurity which do not require such purpose. Consideration is also given to the application of the principle of proportionality to measures which have the effect of causing starvation. While most of this article focuses on IHL, it also provides some reflections on the interplay between the rules of IHL relating to humanitarian relief operations and the war crime of starvation in the International Criminal Court’s Statute. Moving briefly away from IHL, the article also highlights a normative tension that can impede humanitarian action and therefore exacerbate food insecurity.

Returning foreign fighters: The case of Denmark

International Review of the Red Cross ◽

10.1017/s1816383118000656 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 100 (907-909) ◽

pp. 315-336

Author(s):

Helene Højfeldt Jakobsen

Keyword(s):

Criminal Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Forces ◽

Islamic State ◽

Direct Part ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Armed Group ◽

Legal Regimes ◽

Foreign Fighters

AbstractThis article considers which legal regimes apply in cases where a Danish citizen and/or resident returns from Syria or Iraq after having taken part in the armed conflict on behalf of the group known as Islamic State, and continues his/her affiliation with the armed group. The article argues that international humanitarian law currently applies to the Danish territory and that a Danish foreign fighter may continue to be considered as taking a direct part in hostilities after having returned from Iraq or Syria. The article then considers the application of Danish criminal law to returned foreign fighters and argues that Danish counterterrorism laws do not apply to members of the armed forces of an armed group that is party to an armed conflict with Denmark.

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

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156517000061 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 30 (2) ◽

pp. 435-456 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

DARAGH MURRAY

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

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.

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

terAs Law Review : Jurnal Hukum Humaniter dan HAM ◽

10.25105/teras-lrev.v3i1.10741 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Laila Almira

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

Cyber Warfare ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Armed Groups ◽

Military Operations ◽

Legal Frameworks ◽

The Impact

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.

International Humanitarian Law and Blockade

10.1093/oso/9780198808435.003.0007 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Phillip Drew

Keyword(s):

Customary Law ◽

Soft Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Relief ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Maritime Traffic ◽

Geneva Conventions ◽

This chapter is a study of how blockade law relates to international humanitarian law, particularly that set out in Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Noting that under the customary law of blockade all incoming and outgoing maritime traffic is prohibited, an assessment is made on whether or not the customary requirement has been displaced by the humanitarian provisions of AP1. Focusing on the wording of article 49(3), it is shown that for a number of states, the adoption of AP1 did not change the customary law, while for some others it did. As a result of this discrepancy it is posited that in spite of recent attempts to create such an obligation through soft law approaches, there is no customary law that requires humanitarian relief operations during blockade blockades.