![]() Conflict classification can seem dry and technical, but it affects both protection and accountability in armed conflict.įirst, the treaty law of IAC is far more detailed and robust than the treaty law of NIAC. This post, like my previous one, emerged from a terrific recent event at the University of Georgia School of Law that examined a number of issues raised by the Commentary.īefore we begin, let’s remember why the question is worth asking, and why the answer matters. For now, I will try to explain why I find the ICRC’s view persuasive. I hope to respond to some of these criticisms in a future post. The ICRC’s position has attracted substantial criticism, including on Just Security (see here, here, and here). If there is a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between the intervening state and the armed group then the law of NIAC may apply in parallel. Importantly, the law of IAC applies even if the intervening state exclusively targets an organized armed group operating in the territorial state. Accordingly, the law of IAC applies to, and constrains, all such uses of force. ![]() When one state, say, the United States, uses military force on the territory of another state, say, Syria or Pakistan, without the consent of that state, what legal rules constrain that use of military force? What if the attacking state does not target the armed forces or institutions of the other state but instead targets an organized armed group (say, ISIL or the Taliban) operating in the other state?Īccording to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 2016 Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, if one state uses military force on the territory of another state then the use of force triggers an international armed conflict (IAC) between the two states, unless the territorial state consents to the use of force.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |