Categories of Armed Conflicts | International Humanitarian Law | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Categories of Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also referred to as the law of armed conflict, governs the conduct of hostilities and the protection of persons during times of armed conflict. One of its key functions is to classify armed conflicts because the rights and responsibilities of parties, as well as the protections afforded to combatants and civilians, can vary depending on the type of conflict. The two principal categories of armed conflicts under IHL are International Armed Conflicts (IACs) and Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs).

1. International Armed Conflicts (IACs)

International armed conflicts are governed primarily by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I (1977). These apply in any conflict between two or more states, regardless of whether a formal declaration of war has been made.

• Definition: An IAC exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between two or more sovereign states. This is the most straightforward type of armed conflict, and it is presumed to exist whenever there is military engagement between states.

• Scope of Application:

  • The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I provide comprehensive rules for the protection of wounded and sick soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians.
  • IACs also include wars of national liberation in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation, or racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination. These conflicts, while not traditional state-versus-state wars, are recognized as IACs under Article 1(4) of Additional Protocol I.

• Key Principles and Rules:

  • Distinction: Parties must always distinguish between combatants and civilians.
  • Proportionality: Attacks must not cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
  • Necessity: Force must only be used to achieve legitimate military objectives.
  • Humanity: Suffering must not be excessive, and unnecessary cruelty is forbidden.

• Combatant Status and Prisoners of War (POWs): Combatants in IACs are afforded combatant immunity for lawful acts of war and are entitled to prisoner-of-war status if captured. POWs are protected under the Third Geneva Convention, which mandates humane treatment and specific conditions for their internment.

• Occupied Territories: The law of occupation, governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, applies when a territory is placed under the control of a hostile foreign state. It sets out protections for the civilian population in occupied territories and establishes the duties of the occupying power.

2. Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs)

Non-international armed conflicts are typically governed by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II (1977). These types of conflicts occur within the territory of a single state and involve either state forces and non-state armed groups or conflicts between non-state armed groups.

• Definition: NIACs occur when there is protracted armed violence between government forces and organized armed groups, or between such groups within a state. The threshold for NIACs is higher than mere internal disturbances or tensions (e.g., riots or isolated acts of violence). There must be a minimum degree of organization on the part of the armed groups and sustained intensity of fighting.

• Scope of Application: The rules for NIACs are more limited compared to those governing IACs. However, Common Article 3, often referred to as a "mini-convention," provides basic guarantees, such as:

  • Humane treatment of persons not taking active part in hostilities, including fighters who have laid down their arms.
  • Prohibition of murder, torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity.
  • Prohibition of the taking of hostages.
  • Fair trial guarantees for those detained.

• Additional Protocol II: This protocol further elaborates on the protection of persons in NIACs, but its applicability is limited to conflicts that meet certain higher thresholds, including the control of territory by non-state actors that allows them to carry out sustained military operations.

• Internal Disturbances and Tensions: Situations of internal disturbances, such as riots or isolated and sporadic acts of violence, do not qualify as NIACs. These situations are typically governed by domestic law and human rights law, rather than IHL.

3. Other Situations

While the two principal categories of armed conflict under IHL are IACs and NIACs, there are some additional nuances and emerging types of conflicts that are relevant under modern IHL interpretations:

• Mixed Conflicts or "Transnational" Conflicts: Some conflicts involve cross-border elements but do not fit neatly into the traditional IAC/NIAC distinction. For example, conflicts between a state and non-state armed groups that operate across national borders, such as certain terrorism-related conflicts, raise complex classification questions. These conflicts may require a combination of NIAC and IAC rules depending on the context.

• Internationalized Internal Conflicts: An internal conflict (NIAC) may become "internationalized" when one or more foreign states intervene on behalf of either the government or the non-state armed group. When this occurs, parts of the conflict may be governed by the laws of IACs if state forces are directly involved in hostilities against another state's forces.

• Armed Conflicts Involving Terrorist Groups: The rise of terrorist organizations as key players in modern armed conflicts, such as ISIS, has raised questions about the classification of these conflicts. In general, if a terrorist group has sufficient organization and conducts sustained military operations, the conflict may be classified as a NIAC. However, counterterrorism operations conducted by states in foreign territories could trigger the rules of IACs if the territorial state's government is involved.

4. Principles and Protections Common to All Armed Conflicts

Regardless of whether a conflict is classified as an IAC or NIAC, several core principles under IHL apply across the board:

• Protection of Civilians: Civilians must be protected from the effects of hostilities, and all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid harming them.

• Prohibition of Targeting Non-Combatants: Combatants must not direct attacks against civilians, civilian objects, or those who are hors de combat (e.g., wounded soldiers or prisoners of war).

• Prohibition of Torture and Other Cruel Treatment: Both in IACs and NIACs, torture and inhuman treatment are absolutely prohibited, without exception, under Common Article 3 and Customary International Law.

• Treatment of the Wounded and Sick: Combatants who are wounded or sick, regardless of their affiliation, must be cared for, and medical personnel and facilities must be protected from attack.

• Prohibition on the Use of Indiscriminate Weapons: Weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians, or that cause unnecessary suffering, are prohibited in all armed conflicts.

5. Challenges in Modern Armed Conflict Classifications

In contemporary conflicts, the classification of armed conflicts has become more challenging due to:

• Hybrid Warfare: States and non-state actors may employ a combination of conventional and unconventional tactics, cyber warfare, propaganda, and irregular combat forces, making it difficult to draw clear distinctions.

• Use of Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs): The involvement of private contractors in hostilities can complicate the classification of a conflict, as they may not fall neatly into the traditional categories of state or non-state actors.

• Cyber Warfare: IHL is still adapting to new domains of conflict, such as cyber warfare, which could occur without direct physical violence but still cause significant harm to states or civilians.

6. Conclusion

In summary, the classification of armed conflicts under International Humanitarian Law is essential for determining the applicable legal regime and the protections afforded to individuals. The key distinction is between International Armed Conflicts (IACs), which involve conflicts between states, and Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs), which involve armed violence between a state and non-state actors or among non-state actors. Despite the complexity of modern warfare, the core principles of IHL—such as the protection of civilians and the humane treatment of all persons—remain at the heart of the law, guiding the conduct of hostilities and safeguarding human dignity in the midst of armed conflict.

International Armed Conflicts | Categories of Armed Conflicts | International Humanitarian Law | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) – Categories of Armed Conflicts

1. Categories of Armed Conflicts

In International Humanitarian Law (IHL), armed conflicts are generally categorized into International Armed Conflicts (IACs) and Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs). This distinction is crucial because the applicable legal regime depends on the type of conflict, with certain rules being stricter or more detailed in international armed conflicts.

a. International Armed Conflicts (IACs)

Definition: An International Armed Conflict is an armed conflict that occurs between two or more states. It is the classical form of armed conflict and is governed by a comprehensive body of rules, including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977.

The scope of IAC is broad and includes both declared wars and any armed clash between states, regardless of whether the parties acknowledge a state of war. A single incident involving the use of force between two states, such as a border skirmish or a naval engagement, can trigger the application of IHL.

Sources of Law Governing IACs: The legal framework governing international armed conflicts is primarily found in the following sources:

1. Geneva Conventions of 1949:

   • Geneva Convention I: For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.
   • Geneva Convention II: For the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
   • Geneva Convention III: Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
   • Geneva Convention IV: Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

2. Additional Protocol I (1977):

   • Supplementary to the Geneva Conventions, this protocol expands protections, particularly for civilians and combatants in international armed conflicts.

3. Customary International Law:

   • Customary IHL, as compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), provides additional binding norms for states, even those not party to specific treaties.

4. Hague Regulations (1907):

   • The Hague Conventions of 1907 lay down rules concerning the conduct of hostilities, particularly regarding the means and methods of warfare.

Applicability: An international armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between two or more states. There is no requirement that the conflict is declared or that the belligerents recognize the state of war. Even minor clashes can trigger the application of IHL rules.

Core Principles of IHL in IACs: The following are key principles of IHL applicable in international armed conflicts:

1. Distinction:

   • Parties must always distinguish between combatants and civilians. Only combatants and military objectives may be directly targeted; civilians and civilian objects are protected from attack unless they take a direct part in hostilities.

2. Proportionality:

   • Even if a legitimate military target is being attacked, the incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian property must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage gained.

3. Necessity:

   • The use of force must be limited to what is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. Superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering must be avoided.

4. Humanity:

   • Inhumane treatment, such as torture, inhumane acts, and degrading treatment of individuals, is strictly prohibited.

Who is Protected: In IACs, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I protect a wide range of individuals:

1. Combatants:

   • Lawful combatants have the right to participate in hostilities and, if captured, are entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Third Geneva Convention.

2. Civilians:

   • Civilians are protected from the effects of hostilities unless they take a direct part in the conflict. Civilians who are not taking part in hostilities are granted specific protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

3. Wounded and Sick:

   • The wounded and sick, whether military or civilian, are to be cared for without adverse distinction.

4. Prisoners of War (POWs):

   • Captured members of the armed forces must be treated humanely and are protected from violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. They are also entitled to fair trials for any crimes they may be accused of.

5. Detainees:

   • Civilians in the hands of the enemy are also protected against arbitrary detention and must be treated humanely.

Means and Methods of Warfare: In international armed conflicts, the use of certain means and methods of warfare is restricted:

1. Weapons Prohibited under IHL:

   • Certain weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or that have indiscriminate effects are prohibited. These include biological weapons, chemical weapons, anti-personnel mines (under the Ottawa Treaty), and certain types of explosive remnants of war.

2. Targeting Rules:

   • The parties to the conflict must ensure that their military operations are directed only at lawful military objectives. Civilian objects such as homes, schools, and hospitals are protected unless they are being used for military purposes.

3. Sieges and Blockades:

   • While these are permitted, the methods used in sieges and blockades must not cause undue suffering to civilians. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is explicitly prohibited under Protocol I.

End of Hostilities: The cessation of hostilities in an international armed conflict does not necessarily terminate the application of IHL. The obligations under IHL, particularly regarding the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians, may continue until all detainees are released and all combatants have been repatriated.

War Crimes: Violations of IHL during international armed conflicts constitute war crimes. These include but are not limited to:

1. Willful killing of civilians.
2. Torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments.
3. Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
4. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

These crimes are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that any state can prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, regardless of where the crimes occurred or the nationality of the perpetrator.

Recent Developments in International Armed Conflicts:

• The scope of IHL governing IACs has also expanded to include wars of national liberation. Under Additional Protocol I, conflicts where peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation, or racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination are considered international armed conflicts.

• Moreover, there has been increasing recognition of the role of non-state actors in international conflicts, particularly in cases where these actors operate with state sponsorship or control. However, non-international armed conflict law often applies to such actors unless they can be classified under the rules of IAC.

In sum, the legal regime governing international armed conflicts is well-established and rooted in both treaty law and customary international law. It is designed to regulate the conduct of hostilities, protect non-combatants, and ensure humane treatment of all those affected by conflict. The Geneva Conventions, along with their Additional Protocols, remain the bedrock of the legal framework, ensuring a comprehensive approach to safeguarding human dignity even in times of war.

Internal or Non-international Armed Conflict | Categories of Armed Conflicts | International Humanitarian Law | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Internal or Non-international Armed Conflict (NIAC) under International Humanitarian Law

1. Definition and Legal Framework An internal or non-international armed conflict (NIAC) refers to armed hostilities that take place within the borders of a single state, involving the government and organized armed groups, or between such groups themselves, without the direct involvement of other states. It is distinct from international armed conflicts (IACs) which involve multiple states.

The legal framework for NIACs is primarily derived from two key sources under International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

• Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: Common Article 3 sets out minimum standards of humane treatment for persons not taking an active part in hostilities, including civilians and combatants who are hors de combat (wounded, captured, or otherwise incapacitated). It applies in all NIACs and is often referred to as a "mini-convention" within the broader Geneva Conventions.
• Additional Protocol II (AP II) to the Geneva Conventions of 1977: AP II supplements Common Article 3 and provides more detailed rules for the protection of civilians and combatants. It only applies in situations where the armed groups are organized and control a significant portion of territory, enabling them to carry out sustained military operations.

2. Threshold for a Non-international Armed Conflict A crucial distinction between a mere internal disturbance (e.g., riots, isolated violence) and a NIAC under IHL is the level of intensity and organization of the parties involved. For an internal conflict to rise to the level of a NIAC, two main criteria must be satisfied:

• Intensity of the Conflict: The hostilities must surpass mere internal disturbances or tensions, reaching a threshold of sustained armed violence.
• Organization of the Parties: The non-state armed groups must have a level of organization that allows them to engage in coordinated military operations. This includes having a command structure, capacity for planning operations, and ability to implement IHL.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has provided a working definition of NIAC in its Tadić case, specifying these criteria for recognizing the existence of a NIAC.

3. Legal Protections in NIACs Both Common Article 3 and AP II emphasize the humane treatment of individuals during NIACs. These protections include:

• Protection of Non-Combatants: Civilians and those not directly participating in hostilities must be treated humanely. Acts such as murder, torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and taking hostages are prohibited.
• Protection of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked: Parties to the conflict are obligated to collect and care for the wounded and sick without adverse distinction. Medical personnel and facilities must also be respected.
• Humane Treatment of Detainees: Detainees, whether combatants or civilians, are entitled to humane treatment. Executions without a proper trial and degrading treatment are prohibited.
• Prohibition of Indiscriminate Attacks: Attacks against civilian populations or civilian objects are strictly forbidden. AP II also prohibits acts of terror against civilians and prohibits starvation as a method of warfare.

4. Key Principles Governing NIACs The following core principles of IHL govern NIACs, similar to their application in international armed conflicts:

• Principle of Distinction: Parties must always distinguish between civilians and combatants. Only combatants may be targeted.
• Principle of Proportionality: Even if an attack is directed against a legitimate military target, the attack must not cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military advantage.
• Principle of Military Necessity: Military operations must serve a legitimate military purpose, and the harm caused must be proportional to the objective.
• Principle of Humanity: Parties to the conflict must ensure that suffering is minimized, especially for those who are no longer participating in hostilities, such as the wounded, detainees, and civilians.

5. International Criminal Responsibility Individuals, including military commanders and political leaders, can be held criminally responsible for war crimes committed during a NIAC. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) recognizes the commission of war crimes in NIACs, including:

• Murder, torture, and inhuman treatment.
• Attacks against civilians.
• Pillage and destruction of civilian property.
• Sexual violence, including rape.
• Forced displacement of civilian populations.

The ICC’s jurisdiction over NIACs is significant as it broadens accountability for violations of IHL, particularly in conflicts involving non-state actors.

6. Domestic Application of NIAC Rules in the Philippines In the Philippines, non-international armed conflicts have historically involved the state and non-state armed groups such as the New People’s Army (NPA), the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). These conflicts have triggered the application of NIAC norms under both Common Article 3 and AP II, to which the Philippines is a party.

• Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity) incorporates IHL provisions into domestic law. It defines and penalizes war crimes committed during non-international armed conflicts, such as attacks on civilians, torture, and inhuman treatment.
• The 2009 Internal Peace and Security Plan (IPSP): The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) acknowledges the applicability of IHL, particularly Common Article 3 and AP II, in its counter-insurgency operations. The plan also emphasizes adherence to human rights laws alongside IHL norms.

7. Challenges and Evolving Issues in NIACs

• Classification Challenges: Determining whether an internal conflict meets the threshold of a NIAC can be contentious, as states often resist the classification of an internal situation as a NIAC, as it implies international oversight and legal obligations.
• Application to Non-State Actors: A central challenge is ensuring non-state armed groups comply with IHL. Although IHL binds these groups, enforcing accountability, particularly against splinter or loosely organized groups, remains difficult.
• Urban Warfare and Asymmetric Conflicts: NIACs increasingly involve urban settings, complicating the application of distinction and proportionality principles. Asymmetric tactics by non-state actors, such as the use of civilians as shields, pose significant challenges to ensuring compliance with IHL.

8. Conclusion Non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) are subject to specific rules and protections under International Humanitarian Law, primarily through Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. These provisions set out minimum standards for the treatment of individuals and the conduct of hostilities, aiming to limit the effects of armed conflict on civilian populations and non-combatants. The domestic application of these rules, as seen in the Philippines, underscores the evolving challenges of applying IHL to conflicts involving non-state actors, while ensuring compliance and accountability.

War of National Liberation | Categories of Armed Conflicts | International Humanitarian Law | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

War of National Liberation under International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Definition and Context
A War of National Liberation refers to an armed conflict in which a people fight against colonial domination, alien occupation, or racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination. The concept was developed and recognized primarily during the decolonization period in the mid-20th century when peoples in Africa, Asia, and Latin America sought independence from colonial powers. These conflicts are distinct from traditional interstate wars or civil wars as they are fought to end oppression and gain sovereignty.

Under international law, wars of national liberation are not viewed as mere internal disturbances or rebellions but are afforded a special status due to their connection with the right to self-determination, a principle enshrined in various international instruments.

Legal Framework

1. Right to Self-Determination

• The right to self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law, recognized in Article 1(2) of the United Nations Charter and affirmed in Common Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This right allows peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue economic, social, and cultural development.
• The wars of national liberation are directly connected to this principle as they are the means through which oppressed peoples, particularly under colonial or racist regimes, seek to exercise their right to self-determination.

2. Application of International Humanitarian Law

• The legal status of wars of national liberation is formally recognized in Additional Protocol I (AP I) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, adopted in 1977. Article 1(4) of Additional Protocol I extends the application of IHL to include:

  "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

• This inclusion means that participants in such wars must be treated as combatants under IHL, provided they comply with the conditions set forth in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols. The application of jus in bello (laws of war) ensures protection for both combatants and civilians.

• Recognition as a "war of national liberation" under AP I confers legitimacy to the belligerents, granting them the status of lawful combatants and allowing them to receive prisoner of war (POW) status if captured.

3. Combatant Status

• For members of forces fighting in a war of national liberation to be treated as lawful combatants and entitled to POW status upon capture, they must fulfill the criteria outlined in Article 43 of Additional Protocol I, which requires that:

  1. They are under a command responsible for the actions of their subordinates.
  2. They have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
  3. They carry arms openly.
  4. They conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

• Combatants in such conflicts are expected to comply with international humanitarian law, including rules on the protection of civilians, the treatment of prisoners of war, and restrictions on the means and methods of warfare.

4. Non-International Armed Conflicts vs. Wars of National Liberation

• Prior to the recognition provided by Additional Protocol I, wars of national liberation were often classified as non-international armed conflicts, falling under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which applies minimum humanitarian standards to internal conflicts.

• However, with the inclusion of wars of national liberation in AP I, such conflicts are now recognized as international armed conflicts (IACs), even if they involve fighting between a colonial power and a national liberation movement within the same state.

• This distinction is crucial because international armed conflicts are subject to a more comprehensive set of rules under IHL, offering greater protection to the participants and civilians involved in the conflict.

5. Obligations of States and Non-State Actors

• States that are parties to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I are obligated to respect the legal framework of wars of national liberation. They must provide humane treatment to all persons not actively participating in hostilities, including detained combatants and civilians.
• National liberation movements, if they claim to act in conformity with international law and seek recognition as legitimate participants in a war of national liberation, are also bound by the same rules of IHL.

6. Legal Challenges and Controversies

• While Additional Protocol I provides a legal framework for wars of national liberation, the recognition of such conflicts has been controversial. Some states, particularly former colonial powers, have resisted this recognition, arguing that it legitimizes what they perceive as terrorist activities or insurgencies.

• The classification of a conflict as a war of national liberation can also be politically sensitive, as it involves recognizing the right of a group to self-determination, which may conflict with a state’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

• Moreover, not all states are parties to Additional Protocol I, and some have made reservations to the application of Article 1(4). For instance, the United States has not ratified AP I and has expressed concerns that the recognition of wars of national liberation could be misused to justify armed violence by non-state actors.

7. Role of the United Nations

• The United Nations General Assembly has played a significant role in supporting wars of national liberation, particularly during the decolonization era. In its Resolution 1514 (XV), the General Assembly declared that all peoples have the right to self-determination and that colonialism should be brought to an end.
• The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) reinforced this, and subsequent General Assembly resolutions have recognized the legitimacy of struggles against colonialism, foreign occupation, and apartheid.
• The Security Council, however, has been more conservative in its approach, focusing primarily on maintaining international peace and security rather than endorsing specific struggles for self-determination.

8. Examples of Wars of National Liberation

• Historically, several conflicts have been categorized as wars of national liberation, including:
  1. The Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962) against French colonial rule.
  2. The struggle against apartheid in South Africa, supported by various liberation movements such as the African National Congress (ANC).
  3. The Vietnam War (1955-1975), where the Viet Minh and later the Viet Cong fought against colonial powers and the regime they viewed as a puppet of foreign interests.
  4. The Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation, which some argue falls under the framework of a war of national liberation, though it remains highly contested in international forums.

Conclusion

Wars of national liberation are a distinctive category of armed conflicts under international humanitarian law, recognized for their connection to the right of peoples to self-determination. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides the legal basis for treating such conflicts as international armed conflicts, thereby extending the full scope of IHL protections to both combatants and civilians involved. However, the recognition of these wars remains a politically sensitive and legally complex issue, particularly when states are reluctant to acknowledge the legitimacy of such struggles.

Dispute Resolution | Categories of Armed Conflicts | International Humanitarian Law | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Dispute Resolution under International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Dispute resolution in the context of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is critical in ensuring compliance with the laws governing armed conflicts. Dispute resolution mechanisms aim to address violations of IHL, interpret its provisions, and provide remedies for breaches. Under IHL, dispute resolution takes several forms, ranging from diplomatic negotiations to judicial remedies. Below is an exhaustive discussion of the relevant mechanisms and legal frameworks involved:

---

I. Legal Framework for Dispute Resolution under IHL

The primary sources of International Humanitarian Law are the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols (1977), which contain provisions related to dispute resolution. Other key instruments include the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the United Nations (UN) Charter, and customary international law. The dispute resolution mechanisms under IHL can be grouped into non-judicial and judicial processes.

II. Non-Judicial Methods of Dispute Resolution

Non-judicial methods primarily involve diplomatic or quasi-diplomatic approaches to resolving disputes concerning violations of IHL. These mechanisms seek to restore compliance through cooperation, negotiation, and engagement rather than punishment.

A. Protecting Powers

Protecting powers are third states that are designated by the warring parties to safeguard the interests of one belligerent party in the territory of another. Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions authorizes the use of protecting powers to facilitate communication and dispute resolution between belligerents. Their functions include:

1. Overseeing compliance with IHL by the parties in conflict.
2. Offering good offices to mediate disputes and to negotiate settlements.
3. Assisting with repatriation of prisoners of war (POWs) and other humanitarian issues.

Protecting powers play a crucial role in resolving conflicts and upholding the principles of humanitarian law, especially when formal legal mechanisms are not readily accessible.

B. International Fact-Finding Commission (IFC)

Established under Article 90 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, the International Fact-Finding Commission (IFC) investigates alleged breaches of IHL. This commission is composed of experts who can:

1. Investigate serious violations of IHL upon the request of one or more parties to a conflict.
2. Facilitate fact-finding missions to ascertain the facts of a dispute and report on violations.
3. Promote conciliation by helping parties reach a mutual understanding of the facts and encouraging settlements.

Although its use has been limited, the IFC remains an available mechanism for addressing IHL violations.

C. Good Offices, Mediation, and Conciliation

International organizations, neutral states, and third-party actors may offer good offices or act as mediators to assist in resolving disputes. These processes are non-binding and aim to foster communication and negotiation between warring parties. Some key elements include:

• Good offices: Facilitating dialogue between the disputing parties without becoming directly involved.
• Mediation: A neutral third party actively participates in negotiations to help resolve disputes.
• Conciliation: A more structured form of mediation, where conciliators may propose solutions to the disputing parties after an inquiry into the matter.

III. Judicial Methods of Dispute Resolution

Judicial processes involve formal legal proceedings before international or national courts to resolve disputes related to violations of IHL.

A. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, with jurisdiction over disputes between states, including those involving violations of IHL. States can bring cases against other states to the ICJ on matters such as:

1. Interpretation and application of IHL treaties, including the Geneva Conventions.
2. Accountability for state-sponsored violations of IHL.
3. Advisory opinions on legal issues relating to armed conflict.

For instance, in the Nicaragua Case (1986), the ICJ examined violations of IHL, including unlawful use of force and breaches of customary international law.

B. International Criminal Court (ICC)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes individuals responsible for serious violations of IHL, particularly war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, under the Rome Statute. The ICC may exercise jurisdiction over:

1. War crimes, which include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as intentional killing, torture, and targeting civilians.
2. Crimes against humanity and genocide that occur during armed conflicts.
3. Referral by the UN Security Council or state parties under its jurisdiction.

The ICC plays a significant role in promoting accountability and deterrence of IHL violations by holding individuals criminally responsible.

C. Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals

In addition to the ICC, ad hoc criminal tribunals have been established to prosecute individuals for violations of IHL during specific conflicts. Examples include:

1. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which prosecuted war crimes committed during the Yugoslav Wars.
2. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which addressed the genocide and war crimes committed during the Rwandan genocide in 1994.

These tribunals have contributed significantly to the development of jurisprudence in international humanitarian law.

D. National Courts and Universal Jurisdiction

Many states have enacted national legislation that incorporates IHL into their domestic legal systems, allowing their national courts to prosecute IHL violations. In addition, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, states can prosecute individuals for war crimes and other serious violations of IHL, regardless of where the crime was committed and the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. Notable examples include:

1. Spain's attempts to prosecute former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet under universal jurisdiction for human rights violations.
2. Various European states prosecuting war criminals from the Rwandan genocide and Yugoslav Wars.

E. Human Rights Courts

In some instances, regional human rights courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, may have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of IHL when those violations intersect with fundamental human rights protections. These courts can hold states accountable for breaches that occur during armed conflict, particularly where they overlap with human rights treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights.

IV. Arbitration and International Commissions of Inquiry

A. Arbitration

Arbitration is another judicial method of resolving disputes, often used in conjunction with other mechanisms. Parties to a conflict may agree to submit their dispute to an arbitration panel, which then issues a binding decision. Arbitration has been used in the context of IHL violations, particularly in boundary disputes or claims for reparations.

B. International Commissions of Inquiry

International Commissions of Inquiry are temporary bodies established to investigate specific allegations of violations of IHL and recommend measures to resolve disputes. These commissions typically investigate facts, gather evidence, and propose solutions. Examples include:

1. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, which investigates violations of IHL and human rights law in Syria.
2. The UN Human Rights Council’s investigations into the armed conflicts in the Central African Republic and Yemen.

V. Compliance Mechanisms and Enforcement

To ensure compliance with IHL, various monitoring and enforcement mechanisms exist, including the roles of the UN Security Council, UN peacekeeping missions, and international sanctions regimes. The Security Council, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, may authorize sanctions, peacekeeping operations, or military interventions to address breaches of IHL.

Moreover, civil society organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) play vital roles in monitoring compliance with IHL, providing humanitarian assistance, and advocating for accountability in cases of violations.

---

Conclusion

Dispute resolution mechanisms under International Humanitarian Law are diverse and comprehensive, involving both non-judicial and judicial approaches. From diplomatic measures like protecting powers and mediation to formal adjudication by international and national courts, these mechanisms serve to address and remedy violations of IHL. As IHL continues to evolve, ensuring the effective resolution of disputes and enforcing compliance with humanitarian norms remains essential to mitigating the impact of armed conflicts and protecting vulnerable populations.