Unequal before the Law: The Case for the Elimination of the Distinction between International and Non-international Armed Conflicts

Abstract

This article examines the possibility of creating a law of armed conflict that could be uniformly applied to both international and non-international armed conflict. The article looks at the history of modern armed conflict, and charts the progression of warfare from a predominantly interstate event to that which is more likely to be characterized as non-international or internal. The increasing prevalence of non-international armed conflicts throughout the twentieth century has lead to ongoing moves on behalf of the international community to bring the regulation of such conflicts further within the ambit of international regulation. With this in mind, the article argues that such moves have blurred the historical distinction between types of armed conflict to the point where the distinction could be eliminated altogether. By looking at international treaties, tribunals, and state practice, this article asserts that the law of armed conflict could be uniformly applied, with the aim of ensuring that all participants in armed conflict are equally and humanely treated.

La aplicación de los Convenios de Ginebra en ausencia de un conflicto armado: El caso de la dictadura militar chilena

“…Por otra parte, en lo relativo al Derecho Consuetudinario, si bien el Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja ha sostenido que los regímenes de los CAI y CANI se encuentran en proceso de acercamiento, con normas que resultarían aplicables con independencia de la clasificación del conflicto (Henckaerts & Doswald-Beck, 2005) (37) , esa posición ha sido criticada por parte de la doctrina (Bellinger & Haynes, 2007;Dinstein, 2014). De hecho, incluso quienes sostienen que sería preferible contar con un régimen único que no distinga entre los tipos de conflictos armados, reconocen que aún no se ha llegado a dicho estado (Crawford, 2007).…”

Protectors on trial? Prosecuting peacekeepers for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court

“…69 The Trial Chamber reached this conclusion by applying the definition of international armed conflict found in common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions, that international armed conflict exists whenever there is declared war or any other armed conflict between two or more High Contracting Parties, which in the case of the Geneva Conventions, limits international armed conflict to armed conflict between states (Sassoli and Bouvier, 1999: 89 Secondly, it is determined that IHL applies to UN forces when they are engaged in hostilities. While it is true that IHL has been determined to apply in both international and non-international armed conflicts, and there is support for the elimination of a distinction between the two (Cassese, 2008: 96;Crawford, 2007), 75 a distinction does still exist between international and non-international armed conflict, particularly with regard to IHL. The application of IHL to UN forces demonstrates that there is consideration of the UN forces as engaging in international armed conflict (Greenwood, 1998: 25).…”

Los crímenes de violencia sexual cometidos al interior de un grupo armado: El caso de los niños soldados en The Prosecutor vs. Bosco Ntaganda

“…Así se explica que exista una protección más amplia y acabada para los conflictos armados internacionales, consagrada en los cuatro Convenios de Ginebra, y una protección más limitada en conflictos armados sin carácter internacional, reconocida solamente en el artículo 3 común de los referidos convenios. La existencia de la misma distinción ha sido objeto de innumerables críticas entre los autores(Stewart, 2003;Crawford, 2007;Bartels, 2009).…”