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.

Ensuring national compliance with IHL: The role and impact of national IHL committees

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (895-896) ◽  
pp. 1043-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Pellandini
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Large Range ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups

Since the First Geneva Convention was adopted in 1864, international humanitarian law (IHL) has become a complex and steadily developing body of international law. Its conventions, protocols and customary rules encompass a large range of subjects, from the protection of the sick and wounded, civilians, civilian objects, prisoners of war and cultural property to the restriction or prohibition of specific types of weapons and methods of warfare. All parties to a conflict are bound by applicable IHL, including armed groups involved in non-international armed conflicts.

Prisoners of War: A Comparative Study of the Principles of International Humanitarian Law and the Islamic Law of War

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed El Zeidy ◽  
Ray Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Law Of War ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Individual

AbstractThe treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) has been an issue of concern to all those engaged in armed conflict for centuries. The problem of how to deal with POWs is not a new one and their treatment is a question with which the laws of war have been particularly concerned. Not all persons captured in the course of armed conflict are entitled to POW status. Generally, only persons recognized as "combatants" in accordance with international humanitarian law are entitled to POW status upon capture by an adverse party in armed conflict. Under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, POWs are the responsibility of the capturing power from the moment of capture, and not of the individual or military units, which actually capture them. POWs must at all times be humanely treated and the Third Convention provides clear rules in relation to their camps, quarters, food and clothing. The principles embodied in the Islamic Law of War also provide a comprehensive framework for the protection of POWs. Nevertheless, there are some important differences between Islamic Law of War and the principles contained in the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations, especially in relation to triggering the application of the laws of war and the concept of armed conflict. What is most striking is the similarity in the protection provided by both legal frameworks. However, the single biggest challenge to both regimes remains the implementation of the relevant principles.

The Protection of Women in International Humanitarian Law

1985 ◽  
Vol 25 (249) ◽  
pp. 337-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Françoise Krill
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
World War ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Special Protection

Since the number of women who actually participated in war was insignificant until the outbreak of World War I, the need for special protection for them was not felt prior to that time. This does not imply however that women had previously lacked any protection. From the birth of international humanitarian law, they had had the same general legal protection as men. If they were wounded, women were protected by the provisions of the 1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field; if they became prisoners of war, they benefited from the Regulations annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

Health Care Providers in War and Armed Conflict: Operational and Educational Challenges in International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions, Part I. Historical Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick M. Burkle ◽  
Adam L. Kushner ◽  
Christos Giannou ◽  
Mary A. Paterson ◽  
Sherry M. Wren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
The Impact

AbstractSince 1945, the reason for humanitarian crises and the way in which the world responds to them has dramatically changed every 10 to 15 years or less. Planning, response, and recovery for these tragic events have often been ad hoc, inconsistent, and insufficient, largely because of the complexity of global humanitarian demands and their corresponding response system capabilities. This historical perspective chronicles the transformation of war and armed conflicts from the Cold War to today, emphasizing the impact these events have had on humanitarian professionals and their struggle to adapt to increasing humanitarian, operational, and political challenges. An unprecedented independent United Nations–World Health Organization decision in the Battle for Mosul in Iraq to deploy to combat zones emergency medical teams unprepared in the skills of decades-tested war and armed conflict preparation and response afforded to health care providers and dictated by International Humanitarian Law and Geneva Convention protections has abruptly challenged future decision-making and deployments. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:109–115)

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.

scholarly journals Le rôle du Canada dans le développement du droit en matière de conflit armé

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 489-508
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Green
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
The Law ◽  
English Speaking World

This paper is concerned with examining the role Canada has played in the development of the law of armed conflict. It makes the point that, while it is generally assumed that the Canadian courts followed the practice of those in the United Kingdom, this is too simple an approach. From the early years of the nineteenth century, the Vice-Admiralty Court in Halifax was making a contribution to the law of prize and maritime war law that might be compared with that of Lord Stowell in England. Moreover, even then, it was applying principles that have only recently been generally accepted — that armed conflict is as much a question of fact as of law, and that naval officers, at least, must be taken to know the law. It is hardly believable that as long ago as 1814, Dr. Croke was upholding the immunity from capture of "the arts and sciences... as the property of mankind at large, and as belonging to the common interests of the whole species. " In addition to these early decisions in maritime war law, the Canadian courts have stood almost alone in the English-speaking world in explaining the criminal liability of escaping prisoners of war, in terms which to some extent formed the basis of what appeared in the Geneva Convention of 1949. At the same time, a Canadian war crimes tribunal made an important contribution to the exposition of the nature of a commander's liability for the offences of his subordinates, while others added to the jurisprudence concerned with the nature of the defence of superior orders. In so far as an actual innovative contribution is concerned, it must not be forgotten that the enunciation by Daniel Webster in 1842 of the concept of self-defence as understood in international law resulted from the actions of loyalists during the 1837 Rebellion. More recently, Canada played a concrete role in the drafting of the 1977 Protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the development of humanitarian law in armed conflict. In fact, Protocol II relating to non-international conflict is almost entirely based on a Canadian draft expressing Canada*s concern to see principles of humanitarian law observed as widely as possible, regardless of the nature of the conflict. As a result of tracing Canada 's role one is led to the conclusion that itconstitutes a record of achievement that merits wider appreciation.

scholarly journals Lessons for the law of armed conflict from commitments of armed groups: identification of legitimate targets and prisoners of war

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (882) ◽  
pp. 463-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandesh Sivakumaran
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Rules Set

AbstractArmed groups frequently issue ad hoc commitments that contain a law of armed conflict component. These commitments detail the obligation of the relevant armed group to abide by international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions, or particular rules set out in the commitment. They commit the group to abide by international standards, sometimes exceed international standards, or in certain respects violate international standards. Although these commitments are often overlooked, they offer certain lessons for the law of armed conflict. This article considers the commitments of armed groups with respect to two specific areas of the law that are either of contested interpretation or seemingly inapplicable to non-international armed conflicts, namely the identification of legitimate targets and the prisoners of war regime.

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 Islamic Injunctions on Prisoner’s Immunity and Termination of captivity in War: The Case Study of Afghanistan

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (02) ◽  
pp. 29-46
Author(s):  
Muhammad Tariq Ramzan ◽  
Amir Hayat ◽  
Hafiza Sumera Rabia
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Military History ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Islamic Jurisprudence ◽  
History Of ◽  
Global Powers

Afghanistan remained an arena for international powers for the last two centuries. The climax period of the militant activities in this soil was from September 2001 to August 2021. Millions of human entities took part in this escalation and a large number of human fabric became captive by the detaining powers during this period. At the end of the armed climax, the emerging political & military coalition on this soil declared its stance about the method of governance after 15 August 2021 which would be based upon Islamic resources. In the perspective of this armed conflict, the question of prisoner’s immunity and termination of captivity in war attracted the attention of global powers. What options be available to prisoners of war about termination of war captivity under Islamic International Humanitarian Law (IIHL) and Conventional International Humanitarian Law (CIHL), is the mainstay of this paper. To answer the question, Islamic jurisprudence provides five methods to dissolve the detention and captivity in war. These methods are respectively freedom gratis, ransom, exchange of prisoners of war, execution, and enslavement. According to Islamic military guidance, freedom gratis remains the general practice in entire Islamic military history. Contrary to it, Ransom and exchange of prisoners of war were occasionally utilized and not the general practice in the entire military history of Islam. The execution and enslavement were pre-Islamic methods and practices. A set of Islamic injunctions were revealed to reform them (Execution & Enslavement) and hence they have been invoked as the source of reference in Islamic prudential literature. Along with, principles of conventional international humanitarian law are also associated with this discourse. Under these facts, this paper is a strenuous effort to embark on the solution of the matter which would be acceptable to all stakeholders regarding Afghanistan. 

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