Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT: INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN WAR
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: A FRAMEWORK
- 5 Conflict Status
- 6 Individual Battlefield Status
- 7 Law of Armed Conflict's Four Core Principles
- 8 What Is a “War Crime”?
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: BATTLEFIELD ISSUES
- References
- Index
- References
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core
5 - Conflict Status
from LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: A FRAMEWORK
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT: INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN WAR
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: A FRAMEWORK
- 5 Conflict Status
- 6 Individual Battlefield Status
- 7 Law of Armed Conflict's Four Core Principles
- 8 What Is a “War Crime”?
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: BATTLEFIELD ISSUES
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
On a most basic level, essentials of the law of armed conflict/international humanitarian law (LOAC/IHL) are 1907 Hague Regulation IV, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, and 1977 Additional Protocols I and II. In what circumstances do they apply, and how do they interact? In a given case, do they all apply, do they apply only in part, or do they apply at all?
Now we can resolve those questions, as well as the first of the two questions a law-of-war student should always be prepared to answer: What is the conflict status? (The second foundational question, addressed in the next chapter, is: What is the status of the individuals involved in the conflict?) In determining conflict status, one asks what law of war, if any, applies in the armed conflict under consideration?
It is not always an obvious determination. “The problem is that the Geneva Conventions do not provide an authoritative definition of ‘armed conflict.’ Substantial evidence suggests, in fact, that the drafters of the Conventions purposely avoided any rigid formulation that might limit the applicability of the treaties.” As in many matters of law, there is no “bright line test,” no formula to determine whether there is an armed conflict in progress, let alone what LOAC/IHL may apply. With an understanding of the basics, and a modest tolerance for ambiguity, one can make a sound assessment.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Law of Armed ConflictInternational Humanitarian Law in War, pp. 149 - 185Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, “The Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the ‘Global War on Terrorism,’” 46–1
Virginia J. of Int'l L. (2006), 1, 20–1Google Scholar
, “Chemical Agents and Expanding Bullets: Limited Law Enforcement Exceptions or Unwarranted Handcuffs?” in , ed., International Law Studies, vol. 82, The Law of War in the 21st Century: Weaponry and the Use of Force (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2006), 193, 199
, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 2nd ed. (Manchester: Juris Manchester University Press, 2000), 65–6
, The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 14
, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 29
, Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing, vol. II (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1977), 610
, The United States Marines: A History, 4th ed. (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2003), 107–17
, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 4th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 11
, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), para. 3.3.1., at 29
, War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 35
, “Former '70s Radical is Back in Custody After a Parole Error,” NY Times (March 23, 2008), A14
Google Scholar
, ed., Commentary, IV Geneva Convention (Geneva: ICRC, 1958), 42
, “United States Compliance with Humanitarian Law Respecting Civilians During Operation Just Cause,” 133
Mil. L. Rev. (1991), 31, 41–2Google Scholar
, “Responding to Transnational Terrorism Under the Jus ad Bellum: A Normative Framework,” in and , eds., International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), 157–95, at 187
, “The Laws of War in the War on Terror,” in , ed., Terrorism and the Military: International Legal Implications (The Hague: Asser Press, 2003), 65
, International Law: A Treatise, vol. II, Disputes, War and Neutrality, 7th ed. , ed. (London: Longman, 1952), 203
, “Extending International Criminal Law beyond the Individuals to Corporations and Armed Opposition Groups,” 6–5
J. of Int'l Crim. Justice (Nov. 2008), 899, 920Google Scholar
, “Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law,” in , ed., The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 45, 76
, “The Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Current and Inherent Challenges,” in , ed., Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (The Hague: Asser Press, 2009), 45, 56
and , “Armed Groups, Sanctions and the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law,” 870
Int'l Rev. of the Red Cross (June 2008), 327, 331Google Scholar
, The Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 10
, “On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law,” 102–4
AJIL (Oct. 2008), 715, 764Google Scholar
, The Humanization of International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), 86
, “A Response to Amos Guiora: Pre-Emptive Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors?” 13–1
J. of Conflict & Security L. (Spring 2008), 25, 28Google Scholar
, “Contextualizing Proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese War,” 864
Int'l Rev. of the Red Cross (Dec. 2006), 779
Google Scholar
, “The Eleventh of September and the Right of Self-Defense,” in , ed., Terrorism and the Military (The Hague: Asser Press, 2003), 23, 32–3
, The Power & Purpose of International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 182
, Problems & Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 232
, “Targeting and Humanitarian Law: Current Issues,” 33
Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (2003), 59, 88–9Google Scholar
, “Responding to Terrorism: The Strikes Against bin Laden,” 24
Yale J. of Int'l L. (1999), 559, 565Google Scholar
, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 110
, , and , Can Might Make Rights? (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 40–1
, “A Response to Amos Guiora: Reassessing the Parameters of Use of Force in the Age of Terrorism,” 13–1
J. of Conflict & Security L. (Spring 2008), 33, 41Google Scholar
, “Predator and Prey: Seizing and Killing Suspected Terrorists Abroad,” 15–3
J. of Pol. Philosophy (2007), 251
Google Scholar
, “Clamping Down on Terrorism in the United Kingdom,” 4–5
J. of Int'l Crim. Justice (Nov. 2006), 1137, 1145Google Scholar
, “The Indefinable Concept of Terrorism,” 4–5
J. of Int'l Crim. Justice (Nov. 2006), 894, 899Google Scholar
, War and Decision (New York: Harper, 2008), 9
, “The Status of Persons Held in Guantanamo under International Humanitarian Law,” 2–1
J. of Int'l Crim. Justice (March 2004), 96
Google Scholar
, “When a Rose is Not a Rose: Military Commissions v. Courts-Martial,” 5–1
J. of Int'l Crim. Justice (March 2007), 48
Google Scholar
, “Terrorism and the Concept of ‘Armed Attack’ in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter,” 43
Harvard Int'l L. J. (2002), 41, 47–50Google Scholar
, “The Orwellian Military Commissions Act of 2006,” 5–1
J. of Int'l Crim. Justice (March 2007), 10
Google Scholar
, Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 396
, “‘Snipers in the Minaret – What is the Rule?’ The Law of War and the Protection of Cultural Property: A Complex Equation,” The Army Lawyer (July 2005), 28–40, 31, fn. 27Google Scholar
, “Drawing Lines in the Sand – Characterising Conflicts for the Purposes of Teaching International Humanitarian Law,” 8–2
Melbourne J. of Int'l L. (2007), 259, 263Google Scholar
, ed., Commentary, I Geneva Convention (Geneva: ICRC, 1952), 32
, Raid on the Sun (New York: Broadway Books, 2004)
, Self-Defense Against the Use of Force in International Law (The Hague: Kluwer, 1996)
, Self-Defense in International Law: The Israeli Raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996)
, War Law (New York: Grove Press, 2005), 72
, State of Denial (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 215
, International Law and the Use of Force (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 13
, et al., National Security Law (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1990), 154–5
, State of Denial (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 215
and , “Analysts Find Israel Struck a Syrian Nuclear Project,” NY Times (Oct. 14, 2007), A1
Google Scholar
, “Bush Administration Releases Images to Bolster Its Claims About Syrian Reactor,” NY Times (April 25, 2008), A5
Google Scholar
, “A Juridical Examination of the Israeli Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty
,” 36
Naval L. Rev. (Winter 1986), 1
Google Scholar
, Body of Secrets (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 187–239
, The Liberty Incident (New York: Brassey's, 2002)