scholarly journals Applying Humanitarian Law: A Review of the Legal Status of the Turkey–Kurdistan Workers’ Party (pkk) Conflict

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Deniz Arbet Nejbir
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Operational Ability ◽  
Kurdistan Workers Party

Abstract This article assesses the applicability of the criteria for non-international armed conflict to the situation in South-Eastern Turkey. It demonstrates that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (also known as the pkk), as a party to the conflict, fulfils the three main criteria laid down in conventional international humanitarian law and developed by indicative factors in international jurisprudence for assessing the existence of a non-international armed conflict in the context of Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions: being an organised armed group, having the ability to engage in ‘protracted violence’, and complying with law of armed conflict. It establishes that the pkk qualifies as an organised armed group under responsible command and has the operational ability, structure and capacity to carry out ‘protracted violence’, to respect fundamental humanitarian norms of international humanitarian law and to control territory. The article also ascertains that Turkey is clearly bound by the provisions of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, including Common Article 3, and customary international humanitarian law. Accordingly, it concludes that the conflict between the pkk and the Turkish security forces qualifies as a non-international armed conflict within the meaning of both Common Article 3 and customary international humanitarian law.

Who Are Protected by the Fundamental Guarantees under International Humanitarian Law? Part 2: Breaking with the Control Requirement in Light of the icc Case Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-58
Author(s):  
Raphaël van Steenberghe
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
General Control ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Control Requirement ◽  
Specific Paper

Abstract International humanitarian law provides for fundamental guarantees, the content of which is similar irrespective of the nature of the armed conflict and which apply to individuals even if they do not fall into the categories of specifically protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. Those guarantees, all of which derive from the general requirement of human treatment, include prohibitions of specific conduct against persons, such as murder, cruel treatment, torture, sexual violence, or against property, such as pillaging. However, it is traditionally held that the entitlement to those guarantees depends upon two requirements: the ‘status requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons must not or no longer take a direct part in hostilities, and the ‘control requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons or properties must be under the control of a party to the armed conflict. This study argues in favour of breaking with these two requirements in light of the existing icc case law. That study is divided into two parts, with each part devoted to one requirement and made the object of a specific paper. The two papers follow the same structure. They start with general observations on the requirement concerned, examine the relevant icc case law and put forward several arguments in favour of an extensive approach to the personal scope of the fundamental guarantees. The first paper, which was published in the previous issue of this journal, dealt with the status requirement. It especially delved into the icc decisions in the Ntaganda case with respect to the issue of protection against intra-party violence. It advocated the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in such a context by rejecting the requirement of a legal status, on the basis of several arguments. Those arguments relied on ihl provisions protecting specific persons as well as on the potential for humanizing ihl on the matter and also on the approach making the status requirement relevant only when the fundamental guarantees apply in the conduct of hostilities. The second paper, which is published here, deals with the control requirement. It examines several icc cases in detail, including the Katanga and Ntaganda cases, in relation to the issue of the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in the conduct of hostilities. It is argued that the entitlement to those guarantees is not dependent upon any general control requirement, and that, as a result, some of these guarantees may apply in the conduct of hostilities. This concerns mainly those guarantees whose application or constitutive elements do not imply any physical control over the concerned persons or properties.

scholarly journals Applicability of the international humanitarian law to the fight against the Islamic State during the 2013-2017 conflict in Iraq

2021 ◽  
Vol 200 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krystian Mularczyk ◽  
Karolina Saska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict

The article addresses the applicability of international humanitarian law during the armed conflict in Iraq in 2013-2017 waged against the Islamic State. The paper answers how to classify this conflict against the background of the law of armed conflict. The argumentation for considering it as a non-international conflict with the Islamic State and the Iraqi government as parties is presented. The discussed failure to recognize the Islamic State's status as a state within the meaning of international law does not classify the armed conflict as international. The classification has not been changed by the United States and allied states' intervention, which, as one at the invitation of the Iraqi government, does not mean qualifying the conflict as international. The article also discusses the scope of the norms of international humanitarian law that apply to the conflict in question. It primarily concerns Article 3 that is common to the Geneva Conventions and customary law. Protocol II supplementing the provisions of the Geneva Conventions will not apply as Iraq is not a signatory to it.

scholarly journals Who Are Protected by the Fundamental Guarantees under International Humanitarian Law? Part 1: Breaking with the Status Requirement in Light of the icc Case Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-54
Author(s):  
Raphaël van Steenberghe
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
General Control ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Control Requirement ◽  
Specific Paper

Abstract International humanitarian law provides for fundamental guarantees, the content of which is similar irrespective of the nature of the armed conflict, and which are applicable to individuals even if they do not fall into the categories of specifically protected persons under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Those guarantees, all of which derive from the general requirement of human treatment, include prohibitions of specific types of conduct against persons, such as murder, cruel treatment, torture and sexual violence, or against property, such as pillaging. However, it is traditionally held that entitlement to those guarantees depends upon two requirements: the ‘status requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons must not or must no longer take a direct part in hostilities, and the ‘control requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons or properties must be under the control of a party to the armed conflict. This study argues in favour of breaking with these two requirements, in light of the existing ICC case law. The study is divided into two parts, with each part devoted to one requirement and made the object of a specific paper. The two papers follow the same structure. They start with general observations on the requirement concerned, examine the relevant ICC case law and put forward several arguments in favour of an extensive approach to the personal scope of the fundamental guarantees. The first paper, which is published in this issue, deals with the status requirement. It especially delves into the ICC decisions in the Ntaganda case with respect to the issue of protection against intra-party violence. It advocates for the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in such a context by rejecting the requirement of a legal status, on the basis of several arguments. Those arguments rely on IHL provisions protecting specific persons, on the potential for humanizing IHL on the matter and on the approach making the status requirement relevant only when the fundamental guarantees apply in the conduct of hostilities. The second paper, which will be published in a coming issue, deals with the control requirement. It examines several ICC cases in detail, including the Katanga and Ntaganda cases, in relation to the issue of the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in the conduct of hostilities. It is argued that the entitlement to those guarantees is not dependent upon any general control requirement, and that, as a result, some of these guarantees (mainly those whose application or constitutive elements do not imply any physical control over the concerned persons or properties) may apply in the conduct of hostilities.

Who Guards the Guardians: Third Parties and the Law of Armed Conflict

1976 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Forsythe
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Medical Transport ◽  
Definition Of

The Geneva Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts continues its attempts to supplement the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and in so doing to make the bulk of jus in bello consonant with factual reality. The first session of the Conference in 1974 provisionally adopted one highly important article out of 137 presented to the Conference by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The second session in 1975 provisionally adopted 77 articles pertaining to such important subjects as the definition of a noninternational armed conflict, the protection of civilians and civilian goods, medical transport, environmental protection, and protection of journalists.

Internal (Non-International) Armed Conflict

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric David
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
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

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
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.

Japanese Red Cross Society: The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols as a cornerstone of peace-loving Japan

1987 ◽  
Vol 27 (258) ◽  
pp. 288-292
Author(s):  
Sumio Adachi
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Legal Measure

International humanitarian law is, so to speak, a legal measure for moral enforcement which in turn bridges the gap between law and politics. It prescribes minimum duties of contending parties in case of an international or non-international armed conflict.

Applying Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions to the United Nations Forces

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 234-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artem Sergeev
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Hostile Environments

Following the widespread participation of United Nations (UN) forces in hostile environments, this article aims to expand the obligations of the UN under International Humanitarian Law. The article argues that Additional Protocol II (AP II) to the Geneva Conventions can bind UN forces, even though the UN is not formally a party thereto. The argument is built on three distinct legal issues: the first issue is whether the UN’s involvement in a conflict internationalizes a non-international armed conflict; the second issue is the legal nature of the UN’s obligations under AP II, which will be explained through two legal theories of indirect consent; and the third issue is the conformity of UN forces to the criteria of an armed group outlined in AP II. The article concludes that if UN forces meet certain conditions, as will be outlined herein, they should be bound by the provisions contained in AP II.

scholarly journals The redirection of attacks by defending forces

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Tsvetelina van Benthem
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This article examines the redirection of incoming missiles when employed by defending forces to whom obligations to take precautions against the effects of attacks apply. The analysis proceeds in four steps. In the first step, the possibility of redirection is examined from an empirical standpoint. Step two defines the contours of the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Step three considers one variant of redirection, where a missile is redirected back towards the adversary. It is argued that such acts of redirection would fulfil the definition of attack under the law of armed conflict, and that prima facie conflicts of obligations could be avoided through interpretation of the feasibility standard embedded in the obligation to take precautions against the effects of attacks. Finally, step four analyzes acts of redirection against persons under the control of the redirecting State. Analyzing this scenario calls for an inquiry into the relationship between the relevant obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law.

scholarly journals Instytucjonalizacja współpracy w zakresie grobownictwa wojennego

2015 ◽  
pp. 88-103
Author(s):  
Joanna Szymoniczek
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Social Organizations ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Us ◽  
Special Protection

Resting places of fallen soldiers – war cemeteries – are monuments to soldiers’ heroism, and thus are of special significance not only for those who have lost their loved ones, but also for entire nations, countries and communities. Therefore, such cemeteries are created under the provisions of relevant authorities, and then put under the special protection of the public. These issues are closely regulated by international law established throughout the twentieth century. Cemeteries are protected by the state on whose territory individual objects are placed. However, the problem of cemeteries is more and more often the responsibility of social organizations. According to the international humanitarian law of armed conflict, specific tasks in this respect are assigned to the tracing services of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, who deal with the registry of exhumation, inhumation and body transfer, hold deposits, establish the fate of victims of war and issue death certificates. Institutions that deal with exploration, keeping records, exhumation of remains and the construction or revaluation of the graves of fallen citizens buried outside the borders of their own countries include the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites, the German People’s Union for the Care of War Graves, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Austrian Red Cross (Österreichisches Schwarzes Kreuz), the American Battle Monuments Commission, the US Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad and the Italian Commissariat General for the Memory of Killed in War (Commissariato Generale per le Onoranze Caduti in Guerra). For political reasons, tasks related to war cemeteries are assigned to social organizations, because their actions are believed to be more effective and less bureaucratic than those of states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document