The aim of this study has been twofold: first, to highlight misconceptions surrounding the threshold of non-international armed conflict and, second, to present an argument for a particular approach to its interpretation. The approach adopted was to examine the development of the threshold and then to provide an analysis its contemporary formulation. It is hoped that by doing so, the content of this work may prove useful for the characterisation of non-international armed conflict.

Before elaborating on particular themes common to each of the chapters included above, it is beneficial first to provide an overview of the route taken in this work. The first chapter provided a starting point for the study in the international legal regime which preceded the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Here the relevant concepts of traditional international law were examined: rebellion, insurgency and belligerency. The mandatory application of international humanitarian standards in situations of civil war, achieved through recognition of belligerency, was viewed to be a significant development of international law. This practice of belligerent recognition emerged as a means of preserving the interests of states in the conduct of their international relations. While governed by restrictive criteria and limited to situations akin to conventional international war, the recognition of belligerency nevertheless introduced a practice allowing international legal concern for situations of armed conflict that were distinctly non-international in character. Although clearly a significant influence in the formulation of common Article 3, the doctrine of belligerency has now fallen into disuse.