Regulating non-international armed conflicts: a review essay of 'The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict' by Sandesh Sivakumaran

This review essay engages with Sandesh Sivakumaran’s book The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict, exploring its significance both in international humanitarian law and international law more generally.

Identifying and recording every casualty of armed conflict

This article discusses the international legal obligation to identify and record every casualty of armed conflict that finds its basis in the treaties and customs of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The article applies the various facets of the legal obligation to the armed conflicts in Iraq and Sri Lanka and argues that the parties in these conflicts failed in their international legal responsibility to civilians.

Humanitarian law, human rights law and the bifurcation of armed conflict

This article offers a fresh examination of the distinction drawn in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. In particular, it considers this issue from the under-explored perspective of the influence of international human rights law (IHRL). It is demonstrated how, over time, the effect of IHRL on this distinction in IHL has changed dramatically. Whereas traditionally IHRL encouraged the partial elimination of the distinction between types of armed conflict, more recently it has been invoked in debates in a manner that would preserve what remains of the distinction. By exploring this important issue, it is hoped that the present article will contribute to the ongoing debates regarding the future development of the law of non-international armed conflict.

The Kurdish conflict: international humanitarian law and post-conflict mechanisms

This book is highly topical considering the recent resurgence of violence by the PKK, the incursions into Northern Iraq by the Turkish army and security forces and Turkey’s EU accession negotiations. Turkey has become an increasingly important player in Middle Eastern geopolitics. More than two decades of serious conflict in Turkey are proving to be a barrier to improved relations between Turkey and the EU. This book is the first study to address fully the legal and political dimensions of the conflict, and their impact on mechanisms for conflict resolution in the region, offering a scholarly exploration of a debate that is often politically and emotionally highly charged. Kerim Yildiz and Susan Breau look at the practical application of the law of armed conflicts to the ongoing situation in Turkey and Northern Iraq. The application of the law in this region also means addressing larger questions in international law, global politics and conflict resolution. Examples include belligerency in international law, whether the ‘war on terror’ has resulted in changes to the law of armed conflict and terrorism and conflict resolution. The Kurdish Conflict explores the practical possibilities of conflict resolution in the region, examining the political dynamics of the region, and suggesting where lessons can be drawn from other peace processes, such as in Northern Ireland. This book will be of great value to policy-makers, regional experts, and others interested in international humanitarian law and conflict resolution.

The Copenhagen principles on the handling of detainees: implications for the procedural regulation of internment

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations were released in October 2012 after a five-year long process involving states and certain organizations. The Principles address a number of issues concerning the handling and transfer of detainees. They apply in military operations conducted by states abroad in the context of non-international armed conflicts and peace operations. This article focuses on those principles that address the procedural regulation of internment (ie preventive, security detention), as it is here that the current law is particularly unclear. On the one hand, the treaty provisions applicable in non-international armed conflicts contain no rules on the procedural regulation of internment, in comparison with the law of international armed conflict. On the other hand, the relevant rules under international human rights law (IHRL) appear derogable in such situations. This article demonstrates that the approach taken to this issue in the Copenhagen Principles is one which essentially draws on the procedural rules applicable to civilian internment in the international armed conflicts. These rules adopt standards that are lower than those under IHRL. Reference is then made to other recent practice, which illustrates that the Copenhagen Principles do not apply in a legal vacuum. In particular, two recent judicial developments highlight the continued relevance of human rights law and domestic law, respectively, in regulating detention operations in the context of international military operations. Compliance with the Copenhagen Principles may not, therefore, be sufficient for detention to be lawful.

Non-Refoulement between 'Common Article 1' and 'Common Article 3'

This article considers whether, in the context of armed conflicts, certain non-refoulement obligations of non-belligerent States can be derived from the 1949 Geneva Conventions. According to Common Article 1 (CA1) thereof, all High Contracting Parties (HCPs) undertake to ‘respect and to ensure respect’ for the four conventions ‘in all circumstances’. It is contended that CA1 applies both in international armed conflicts (IACs) and in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). In turn, it is suggested that Common Article 3 (CA3) which regulates conduct in NIACs serves as a ‘minimum yardstick’ also applicable in IACs. It is widely (though not uniformly) acknowledged that the undertaking to ‘ensure respect’ in a given armed conflict extends to HCPs that are not parties to it; nevertheless, the precise scope of this undertaking is subject to scholarly debate. This article concerns situations where, in the course of an (international or non-international) armed conflict, persons ’taking no active part in hostilities’ flee from States where violations of CA3 are (likely to be) occurring to a non-belligerent State. Based on the undertaking in CA1, the central claim of this article is that, as long as risk of exposure to these violations persists, persons should not be refouled notwithstanding possible assessment of whether they qualify as refugees based on the 1951 Refugee Convention definition, or could be eligible for complementary or subsidiary forms of protection that are regulated in regional arrangements. The analysis does not affect the explicit protection from refoulement that the Fourth Geneva Convention accords to ‘protected persons’ (as defined in Article 4 thereof). It is submitted that CA1 should be read in tandem with other obligations of non-belligerent States under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Most pertinently, all HCPs are required to take specific measures to repress ‘grave breaches’ and to take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the 1949 Geneva Conventions other than the grave breaches. A HCP that is capable of protecting displaced persons from exposure to risks of violations of CA3 and nonetheless refoules them to face such risks is arguably failing to take lawful measures at its disposal in order to suppress acts contrary to the conventions and, consequently, fails to ‘ensure respect’ for the conventions. KEYWORDS Non-refoulement; International Armed Conflict; Non-International Armed Conflict; Common Article 1; Common Article 3

The Lieber Code and the regulation of civil war in international law

In this paper, we consider one particularly interesting feature of the Lieber Code, which is the fact that it was drawn up by the U.S. Government to regulate the conduct of its armed forces in a civil war. In so doing, we hope to explore the extent to which there may be links between the Lieber Code and the contemporary regulation of non-international armed conflicts. In particular, we explore some similarities and contrasts between the views on the regulation of civil war that existed at the time of the drafting of the Lieber Code and the position that exists today.

Civilian casualties – do we really care? The failure of the revolution in military affairs of non-lethal weapons in the U.S., Russia and Israel

Causing civilian casualties during military operations has become a much politicised topic in international relations since the Second World War. Since the last decade of the 20th century, different scholars and political analysts have claimed that human life is valued more and more among the general international community. This argument has led many researchers to assume that democratic culture and traditions, modern ethical and moral issues have created a desire for a world without war or, at least, a demand that contemporary armed conflicts, if unavoidable, at least have to be far less lethal forcing the military to seek new technologies that can minimise civilian casualties and collateral damage. Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) – weapons that are intended to minimise civilian casualties and collateral damage – are based on the technology that, during the 1990s, was expected to revolutionise the conduct of warfare making it significantly less deadly. The rapid rise of interest in NLW, ignited by the American military twenty five years ago, sparked off an entirely new military, as well as an academic, discourse concerning their potential contribution to military success on the 21st century battlefields. It seems, however, that except for this debate, very little has been done within the military forces themselves. This research suggests that the roots of this situation are much deeper than the simple professional misconduct of the military establishment, or the poor political behaviour of political leaders, who had sent them to fight. Following the story of NLW in the U.S., Russia and Israel this research focuses on the political and cultural aspects that have been supposed to force the military organisations of these countries to adopt new technologies and operational and organisational concepts regarding NLW in an attempt to minimise enemy civilian casualties during their military operations. This research finds that while American, Russian and Israeli national characters are, undoubtedly, products of the unique historical experience of each one of these nations, all of three pay very little regard to foreigners’ lives. Moreover, while it is generally argued that the international political pressure is a crucial factor that leads to the significant reduction of harmed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure, the findings of this research suggest that the American, Russian and Israeli governments are well prepared and politically equipped to fend off international criticism. As the analyses of the American, Russian and Israeli cases reveal, the political-military leaderships of these countries have very little external or domestic reasons to minimise enemy civilian casualties through fundamental-revolutionary change in their conduct of war. In other words, this research finds that employment of NLW have failed because the political leadership asks the militaries to reduce the enemy civilian casualties to a politically acceptable level, rather than to the technologically possible minimum; as in the socio-cultural-political context of each country, support for the former appears to be significantly higher than for the latter.