Asymmetrical war and the notion of armed conflict – a tentative conceptualization

Abstract

States across the globe are increasingly involved in violent conflicts with non-state groups both within and across borders. This new situation challenges the classic distinction in international humanitarian law between international and non-international armed conflicts. However, the changing face of warfare does not diminish the importance of IHL. The essence of this body of law – to protect civilians and persons hors de combat and to lessen unnecessary harm during armed conflict – remains the same. The applicability of IHL must therefore be determined according to objective criteria and must not be left to the discretion of the warring parties. This article seeks to conceptualize the notion of armed conflict and examines the extent to which the existing body of humanitarian law applies to the new asymmetrical conflicts. It finds that the definition given by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in its Tadić Decision on Jurisdiction, which was taken up by Article 8(2)(f) of the Rome Statute, is a useful starting point for an analysis of the ‘triggering mechanism’ of international humanitarian law in asymmetrical conflicts.

The problems of interpreting GATT Article XXI(b)(iii) in Russia – Traffic in Transit

“…International humanitarian law requires that the existence of an armed conflict must be based on an objective assessment. (Ferraro, 2012) Neither the opinions nor the view of the State is relevant in determining the situation of armed conflict (Paulus, 2009). It is concluded that all the subject matters enumerated in the sub-paragraphs require the existence of objective facts and therefore amenable to objective determinations [16].…”

Drone Use ‘Outside Areas of Active Hostilities’: An Examination of the Legal Paradigms Governing US Covert Remote Strikes

“…In addition, it was shown above that al-Qaeda cannot be understood to be a globally organized group such that all terrorist acts carried out by regional franchises in its name can be attributed to it. 260 Therefore, in terms of intensity, we must consider only those acts carried out against the US perpetrated by AQAP (or its predecessor, AQY).…”

When history no longer suffices: Towards uniform rules for armed conflicts

“…70 A prominent example of such a hybrid cross-border conflict is Israel's military operation against the Shia Lebanonbased Hezbollah group in 2006, which included heavy bombardment and destruction of state infrastructure in southern and central Lebanon. 71 Nevertheless, it seems that the overwhelming majority of writers classify transnational conflicts as NIACs. 72 Focussing specifically on the 'war on terror', Sassoli concludes that the conflict must be split into different components: "In some cases the law of international armed conflicts applies.…”