¹ See for example ICRC, 1984 Annual Report, Geneva, 1985, pp. 89–90 Google Scholar; 1985 Annual Report, Geneva, 1986, pp. 85–86 Google Scholar; 1986 Annual Report, Geneva, 1987, pp. 86 and 88.Google Scholar Further examples are to be found in ICRC field activities in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East in 1988 and 1989; see 1988 Annual Report, Geneva 1989. pp. 13 ff., 43 ff., 59 ff. and 77 ff.Google Scholar; 1989 Annual Report, Geneva, 1990, pp. 13 ff., 39 ff., 57 ff., and 85 ff.Google Scholar

² See for example Gasser, H.P., “Some reflections on the future of international humanitarian law”, International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC), No. 238, 01–02 1984, at pp. 19–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the ICRC paper “Respect and development of international humanitarian law”, in IRRC, No. 239, 03–04 1984, at pp. 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Our definition of internal armed conflicts and the various forms they may take is based mutatis mutandis on the provisions of Article 1 of Additional Protocol II, in relation to Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, and on the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) on State responsibility, from the ILC Yearbook, 1975, Vol. II, pp. 98–99 Google Scholar (commentary on Art. 14 of Part One of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, paras. 1–3). See also ICRC internal policy as described in “ICRC protection and assistance activities in situations not covered by international humanitarian law”, in Gasser, H.-P., “A measure of humanity in internal disturbances and tension: proposal for a Code of Conduct”Google Scholar, and in Meron, T., “Draft Model Declaration in internal strife”Google Scholar, in the IRRC special issue on the subject, No. 262, January-February 1988, at pp. 12–13, 30–42 and 67, respectively. See also Mangas Martin, A., Conflictos armados internos y derecho international humanitario, Salamanca, 1990, pp. 59–62 and 68–70 Google Scholar.

Some conflicts are difficult to categorize. This is the case in particular of very complex situations said to be internal conflicts, such as the so-called civil war in Lebanon. In fact, there was a state of civil war in Lebanon only from the spring of 1975 until the autumn of 1976, the Syrian armed intervention of June 1976 having virtually put an end to it. Since then the conflict has been in an intermediate phase with sporadic clashes and periods of more serious crisis. We believe that our definition surmounts these difficulties and can be applied to the Lebanese conflict, as is confirmed in the study by Eitel, T., “Lebanon: a legal survey”, in the German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 29, 1986, at pp. 14–23 Google Scholar.

In any case, our definition does not include “armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination”, which according to Article 1, para. 4, of Additional Protocol I, constitute international armed conflicts.

⁴ See Huber, M., “Réclamations britanniques dans la zone espagnole du Maroc (Accord anglo-espagnol du 29 mai 1923)”, in Rapports, The Hague, 1925, p. 56 Google Scholar, para. 4, and Ralston, J.H., Supplement to the 1926 Revised Edition of the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals, Stanford University (California), 1936, pp. 175–1976 Google Scholar, para. 613b. Acts of banditry may of course be simply common-law offences or occur in a situation of rebellion, and would therefore be included in low-intensity or high-intensity conflicts respectively. But we feel that the intermediate situation is that which best characterizes banditry in accordance with jurisprudence and practice, because the permanence and general insecurity which typify it and distinguish it from low-level conflicts are not usually accompanied by effective control of part of the territory and an antagonistic political claim, as a rule the aspiration to govern or secede, which are characteristic of high-level conflicts.

⁵ We have again simply gone one step further in our interpretation, since we have not changed the institutional framework of the customary norm, but have merely broadened one category to include more cases than hitherto. See Díez-Picazo, L., Experiencias jurídicas y teoría del derecho, Barcelona, 1982, pp. 282–283.Google Scholar

⁶ This is without doubt the principal and most widespread component of intermediate-level conflict, and is fully recognized as an emergency situation brought about by a conjunction of external and internal socio-economic factors. See Marks, S.P., “Principles and norms of human rights applicable in emergency situations: underdevelopment, catastrophes and armed conflicts”, in Vasak, K. (ed.), The international dimensions of human rights, 3 vols., Greenwood Press, Connecticut. 1982, vol. I, at pp. 176–179.Google Scholar

⁷ Our interpretation of this category is based on: Marks, op. cit.; Eide, A., “Internal disturbances and tensions”, in International dimensions of humanitarian law, Unesco (Paris), Henry Dunant Institute (Geneva), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (Dordrecht), 1988, Ch. XV, at pp. 242–243 and 246–248 Google Scholar; Meron, T., Human rights in internal strife: their international protection, Grotius Publications Ltd., Cambridge, 1987, pp. 71–86 Google Scholar; the interesting United Nations document E/CN.4/1108/Rev.1, E/CN.4/1131Rev.1 (Study prepared by M. Ganji, New York, 1975, pp. 107–108, paras. 221–230, and 111–112, paras. 233–237); and Falk, R.'s analysis of prospects for human rights development in Human rights and State Sovereignty, New York, 1981, pp. 66–71, 76–77, 87–89, 98–99 and 165–166.Google Scholar For a specific example, that of Peru, see Rubio Correa, M., “Militares y Sendero Luminoso frente al sistema democrático peruano”, in Revista de Estudios Políticos, Madrid, No. 53, 1986, at pp. 162–163 and 169 in fine – 174.Google Scholar

⁸ See Meron, , op. cit., pp. 95–102.Google Scholar Colombia is a good example; see Valencia Villa, H., “The law of armed conflict and its application in Colombia”, in IRRC, No. 274, 01–02 1990, at pp. 9–14.Google Scholar

⁹ Garcia Amador, F.V., The Changing Law of International Claims, 2 vols., Oceana, Dobbs Ferry, New York, 1984, Vol. I, pp. 206–208.Google Scholar This Cuban scholar expressly states that practice suggests “that negligence in the protection of aliens during internal disturbances (riots, mob violence and the like) be dealt with separately from negligence during civil war (rebellion or insurgency)” (p. 206).

¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 208–211, and Al-Ganzory, A.A., “International Claims and Insurgence”, in Revue égyptienne de droit international, Vol. 33, 1977, at pp. 78–81.Google Scholar See Arts. 14 and 15 of Part One of the ILC's Draft Articles on State Responsibility.

¹¹ Cassese, A., “La guerre civile et le droit international”, in Revue générale de droit international public (RGDIP), Vol. 90, 1986, at pp. 577–578.Google Scholar

¹² See Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II, Section B, pp. 120 Google Scholar (Seventh report drawn up by the Special Committee of the Joint Committee) and 128 (Report of the Joint Committee to the Plenary Assembly). See also Cassese, , op. cit. p. 564.Google Scholar

¹³ See for example the statement made in plenary by MrAbdine, (Syria), in Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva (1974–1977), Federal Political Dept., Bern, 1978, Vol. VII, p. 67, para. 47.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See inter alia the statements made in plenary by Mr. Mbaya (Cameroon), ibid. Vol. VII, p. 70, para. 66; MrEide, (Norway), p. 71 Google Scholar, para. 68; MrDi Bernardo, (Italy), p. 223 Google Scholar, paras. 143–146; MrBindschedler, (Switzerland), pp. 299–300.Google Scholar paras. 103–106. Also see the written explanations of votes by the Federal Republic of Germany (pp. 79–80), Belgium (p. 76) and Italy (pp. 100–101). As concerns ICRC policy, see Swinarski, , Ch., Introducción al derecho international humanitario. San José de Costa Rica/Geneva, 1984, pp. 60–67 Google Scholar, and Bornet, J.-M., “Modalidades de acción del CICR en las situaciones de disturbios interiores y de tensiones internas y sus actividades en América Latina”, in Coloquio sobre la protección jurídica international de la persona humana en las situaciones de excepción Google Scholar, (Mexico, 16–21 March 1987). organized by the ICRC and the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, s. 1. ed., s.a. at pp. 82–85. See also Veuthey, M., “Implementation and enforcement of humanitarian law and human rights in non-international armed conflicts: the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross”, in American University Law Review. Vol. 33, 1983, at pp. 87–89 Google Scholar; Abi-Saab, G., “Non-international armed conflicts”, in International dimensions of humanitarian law, op. cit., ch. XIV, at pp. 224, 228–229 and 237–238 Google Scholar; and Meron, , op. cit., pp. 106–117.Google Scholar

¹⁵ ICJ, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders 1986, pp. 113–115 Google Scholar, paras. 217–220, although the Court does not state on what kind of normative interaction it bases the customary nature attributed to the article, i.e., it does not justify its conclusions. See Meron, T., “The Geneva Conventions as customary law”, in the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, 1987, at pp. 356–358 If.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ See inter alia the statements in plenary of MrSamper, Charry (Colombia), in Official Records, op. cit., Vol. VII, pp. 66 and 69 Google Scholar, paras. 39 and 56; MrClark, (Nigeria), p. 70 Google Scholar, para. 60; MrsSudirdjo, (Indonesia), pp. 72–73 Google Scholar, paras. 70–71. Also the written explanations of votes submitted by Brazil (p. 78), Canada (pp. 78–79), Colombia (p. 80), India (pp. 82–83), Kenya (p. 83) and the Philippines (p. 85). See Bretton, P., “Les Protocoles de 1977 additionnels aux Conventions de Genève de 1949 sur la protection des victimes des conflits armés internationaux et non internationaux dix ans après leur adoption”, in Annuaire français de droit international, Vol. XXXIII, 1987, at pp. 547–548.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Marks, , op. cit., pp. 192–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Eide, , op. cit., pp. 243–245.Google Scholar Zayas, A. de, Moller, J. T., Opsahl, T., “Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under the Optional Protocol by the Human Rights Committee”, in GYIL, Vol. 28, 1985, at pp. 61–63.Google Scholar Gros Espiel, H. and Zovatto, D., “La regulación jurídica international de los estados de emergencia en América Latina”, in Coloquio sobre la protección jurídica international de la persona humana en las situaciones de excepción, op. cit., at pp. 38–42.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Marks, , op. cit., pp. 200–204 Google Scholar (p. 200 cited), and Eide, , op. cit., pp. 245–250.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For the origins of this resolution, see United Nations document E/CN.4/Sub.2/392/Rev. 1 (Study prepared by Baroness Elles), New York, 1980. in particular pp. 36–37 (paras. 249–254) and 57–58 (Annex I).

²⁰ See Lillich, R.B., “The Paris minimum standards of human rights norms in a state of emergency”, in AJIL, Vol. 79, 1985, at pp. 1076–1079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, a note reflecting the consensus reached by the International Law Association at its 61st Conference, held in Paris in 1984; Abellan Honrubia, V., “La protección internacional de los derechos humanos: métodos internacionales y garantías internas”, in Pensamiento jurídico y sociedad internacional. Estudios en honor del Profesor D. Antonio Truyol Serra, 2 vols., Madrid, 1986, Vol. I, at pp. 52–55 Google Scholar; and Chowdhury, S.R., Rule of Law in a State of Emergency, Pinter Publishers, London, 1989, pp. 143–219.Google Scholar These papers all deal with the application of human rights law in situations of internal conflict as defined above, irrespective of whether those situations are formally designated as states of emergency or martial law.

²¹ There is no shortage of books on the relationship between humanitarian law and human rights. See ICRC, Henry Dunant Institute, Bibliography of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts, 2nd ed., Geneva, 1987 Google Scholar, passim, in particular p. 29 ff.

²² See in particular Calogeropoulos-Stratis, A.S., Droit humanitaire et droits de l'homme. La protection de la personne en période de conflit armé, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 1980, pp. 47–52, 94–97, 165–168 and 223–228 Google Scholar, and El Kouhene, M., Les garanties fondamentales de la personne en droit humanitaire et droits de l'homme, Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1986, pp. 8–12, 97–98 and 161.Google Scholar

²³ See in this respect the body of rights said to make up the minimum standard, on the basis of international and arbitrational jurisprudence, by Schwarzenberger, G., The law of armed conflict — International law as applied by international courts and tribunals, 4 vols., Stevens and Sons, London, 1957–1986, Vol. I (3rd ed.), pp. 200–207.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Nascimbene, B., Il trattamento dello straniero nel diritto internazionale ed europeo, Milan, 1984, pp. 11–16, 20–21, 95–99, 146–149, 176–184, 203–204 and 215–220 Google Scholar (p. 20 cited), and Zayas, , Moller, , Opsahl, , op. cit., pp. 31–42 and 44–51 Google Scholar, which discusses the “jurisprudential” development by the Commission on Human Rights of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, Article 6 (the right to life), Article 7 (the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment), Article 9 (the right to liberty and security of person), Article 10 (the right to humane treatment and respect for human dignity during imprisonment) and Article 14 (the right to justice); the Commission has had no opportunity to do the same for Article 8 (the prohibition of slavery and servitude). In our opinion these articles constitute a relatively well-defined legal basis for the recently-developed standard.

²⁵ See Meron, T., Human Rights Law-Making in the United Nations. A Critique of Instruments and Process, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986, pp. 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar By the same author, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989, pp. 188–201.Google Scholar Article 5 (approved at first reading) of Part Two of the ILC's Draft Articles on State Responsibility, in the ILC Yearbook, 1985, Vol. II (Part Two), pp. 26 Google Scholar in fine - 29 Google Scholar, Article 5 and points 20–22 of the Commentary.

²⁶ See ICJ, Reports 1980, p. 42.Google Scholar

²⁷ ICJ, Memorial, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, pp. 179–183, in particular pp. 181–183.Google Scholar

²⁸ The term “humanitarian protection” has a completely different meaning in this article from its meaning in IHL. It is used to mean a form of minor protection of a political nature, as distinct from diplomatic protection; this is also the meaning given it and similar expressions (for example, “humanitarian considerations”) by United Nations bodies concerned with the defence and promotion of human rights.

²⁹ See Zourek, J., “Le respect des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales constitue-t-il une affaire interne de l'Etat?”, in Estudios de Derecho International. Homenaje al Profesor Miaja de la Muela, 2 vols., Madrid, 1979, Vol. I, at pp. 616 ff.Google Scholar and 624. See also the “Final report” by MrSperduti, G. on “Protection of human rights and the principle of non-intervention in the domestic concerns of States”Google Scholar, and Articles 2 and 3 of the Institute of International Law Resolution of 13 September 1989 on the same subject, in IIL Yearbook, Vol. 63, Part I (Santiago de Compostela Session, 1989), pp. 376–402 Google Scholar; and Revista española de derecho international, Vol. XLI, 1989, p. 698.Google Scholar

³⁰ A definition of the crime of hostage-taking, in no case applicable to acts committed by States, is proposed in Articles 1, 12 and 13 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, approved by consensus in United Nations General Assembly resolution 34/146 of 17 December 1979, and in force since 3 June 1983; see Salinas Burgos, H., “The taking of hostages and international humanitarian law”, in IRRC, No. 270, 05–06 1989, at pp. 198–199 and 297–210.Google Scholar The constituent elements of hostage-taking are the seizure or detention of a person against his will, knowingly and without authority to do so, for one of a number of possible reasons (to kill him, for profit, to obtain information, to intimidate or compel that person or a third party, including a State, to act in a specific way) which may or may not be an express condition for the release of the hostage. The scope of the Convention means perforce that there is an international factor, so that, among other options, the act involves nationals of more than one State or is carried out in more than one State; this would appear to correspond to a terrorist or guerrilla phenomenon (in time of peace or internal conflict). For a general analysis, see Veuthey, M., Guérilla et droit humanitaire, ICRC, Geneva, 1983, pp. 115–127.Google Scholar

³¹ See Actividades, textos y documentos de la politico exterior española (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Madrid), No. 43, 1984, p. 815 Google Scholar, and No. 46, 1985, pp. 127–129 (pp. 129 and 815 cited). See also “Documentatión sobre política exterior” in Revista de Estudios Internationales, Madrid, Vol. 5, 1985, pp. 1032 and 1034.Google Scholar In fact, Spanish diplomatic action seems to have been aimed simply at obtaining information on the condition of the hostages and assurances as to their prompt release.

³² “Practice of the UK”, in International Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1957, pp. 138–141.Google Scholar See Zimmerman, T., “Missionaries”Google Scholar, in Berhardt, R. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 8, 1985, pp. 395–396.Google Scholar

³³ Article Three, para. 2, of the Agreement on Non-Agression and Good Neighbourliness between Mozambique and South Africa, signed on 16 March 1984, requires the parties to forbid, prevent and control the organization, recruitment, transfer and assistance of irregular forces or armed groups, including mercenaries, in both territories; see International Legal Materials, Vol. XXIII, 1984, 283–284 Google Scholar, and “Chronique”, in RGDIP, Vol. 88, 1984, pp. 892–893.Google Scholar See also Caddux, C., “L'accord de Nkomati et les nouvelles perspectives de relations entre la Republique d'Afrique du Sud et ses voisins d'Afrique australe”, in AFDI, Vol. XXX, 1984, at pp. 73 and 78–80.Google Scholar South Africa has had problems in applying the agreement, as there is proof that the South African armed forces have continued to back RENAMO: “Chronique”, in RGDIP, Vol. 90, pp. 179–180 Google Scholar, and Keesing's, 1986, pp. 34085–34086.Google Scholar

³⁴ Keesing's, 1986, pp. 34084–34085 (p. 34084 cited).Google Scholar

³⁵ El País, 27 01 1987, pp. 1–2 (both pages cited).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Actividades, textos y documentos de política exterior española, No. 60. 1987, p. 79.Google Scholar See also El País, 31 01 1987, p. 15 Google Scholar (cited), and compare with 7 February 1987, p. 3.

³⁷ IRRC, No. 273, 11–12 1989, pp. 575–576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 579; No. 274. January-February 1990, pp. 45–46 and 54–55; No. 275, March-April 1990. pp. 135–136 and 154–155; No. 276, May-June 1990, p. 269; No. 277, July-August 1990, p. 355; and No. 278, September-October 1990, pp. 435–436 and 446–447. See also ICRC Bulletin, from No. 166 (11 1989)Google Scholar to No. 176 (September 1990). The first time an ICRC delegate was taken hostage in Lebanon because of his Swiss nationality was in November 1988. The delegate, Peter Winkler, was released in December of the same year: see ICRC Bulletin, No. 156, 01 1989, p. 1.Google Scholar

³⁸ ICRC Bulletin, No. 116, 09 1985, p. 4 (cited).Google Scholar

³⁹ ICRC Bulletin, No. 116, 09 1985, p. 4.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See for example IRRC, No. 204, 05–06 1978, pp. 165–167, 172–174 and 178–180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; or ICRC Bulletin, No. 169, 02 1990, p. 1.Google Scholar One precedent does exist, however, to our knowledge: the ICRC filed a claim against the United Nations in the matter of G. Olivet, who disappeared in 1961 near Elisabethville (Katanga) with two nurses on board a Red Cross ambulance; the bullet-riddled ambulance and their bodies were found nearby days later. The commission of inquiry appointed by the parties established that the deaths had occurred in the zone controlled by United Nations forces and that the bullets came from weapons used by those forces. The United Nations compensated the ICRC with a sum of money to be distributed to the families of the victims; see Barberis, J.A., “El Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja como sujeto del derecho de gentes”, in Studies and essays on international humanitarian law and Red Cross principles, in honour of Jean Pictet, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, ICRC, Geneva, 1984, at p. 640.Google Scholar The damages were, however, ex gratia; see Pérez Gonzalez, M., “Les organisations internationales et le droit de responsabilité”, in RGDIP, Vol. 92, 1988, at pp. 82–83.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Salinas, Burgos, op. cit., pp. 219–220.Google Scholar

⁴² Article 148 of the Fourth Convention reads as follows: “No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article” (which lists grave breaches of the Convention). All the obligations in Article 147, such as the prohibition on taking hostages, therefore have an erga omnes or non-derogatable nature.

⁴³ As formulated by the ICJ in its judgment in the Chorzów Factory case (claim for compensation, Fund) of 13 September 1928: “… la réparation doit, autant que possible, effacer les conséquences de l'acte illicite et rétablir l'état qui aurait vraisemblablement existé si ledit acte n'avait pas été commis” ( Cour permanente de justice Internationale, Serie A, No. 17, pp. 29 and 47).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Jiménez Piernas, C., La conducta arriesgada y la responsabilidad international del Estado, University of Alicante Publications Service, Alicante, 1988, pp. 303–312.Google Scholar