Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

The law of armed conflict/International Humanitarian law/law of war…

- - - - Requirement that hostilities be substantial,
        protracted(förlänga) and large-scale.
- - - - i.e. Uganda's conduct in the DRC, when a
        state requests the assistance of another
        state in order to combat an armed group in
        its territory, but subsequently withdraws its
        content. The DRC has initially requested
        suport from Uganda in its armed struggle
        against rebel armed groups. uganda had
        therefore used force in the territory of the
        DRC with the letters consent. After while
        DRC denounced the invasion o f their
        territory by Uganda. Therefore DRC
        considered Uganda's presence to be
        unlawful.
    - - the mention article is straightforward but art. 4 in convention 4 is more delicate
      - the mention article is straightforward but
        art. 4 in convention 4 is more delicate
    - - if non-state forces have sufficient control of
        territory to satisfy the requirements of
        Protocol II, non-international conflicts are
        governed by the Protocol in addition to
        Common Article 3, if other states intervene the conflict may become internationalized, leading to the application of the Geneva conventions in full, plus protocol I if the state cornered are parties thereto.
      - Two positions serve as a point of departure for determining the beginning of the applicability of IHL: 1) In the one proposed in the commentaries to the Geneva comments(also referred as the first shot theory). 2) the one adopted by ICTY in the Tadic case.
        
        In keeping with the pragmatism
        characterising IHL, determining the moment
        at which its applicability is triggered must
        not be made subject to any international
        recognition process, or to any reaction on
        the part of UN. Though it can be difficult to
        be dependent on the factual finding if the
        new 'State' no longer recognises the central
        government, is in sole command of its
        territory, and has its own armed forced. How
        can a distinction be drawn between these
        attributes and those of an armed group which
        could not be termed a party to an IAC within
        th meaning of IHL?
        
        therefore necessary to abide by the conditions which PIL lays down for recognition of a state by the international community.
        
        IHL will begin to apply when armed forces
        of one or more state are involved
        
        An IAC will exist if one State employs armed force against another, even if the latter does not relate. Thus the intervention of members of the armed forced of either High sonctracting party is sufficient.
        
        Amy use of force by a third state int the territory of these countries, and directed against them would be subject to the riles of IHL.
        
        Against whom must the armed force be
        direct, and under what conditions, in order
        for iHLR pertaining to IAC to apply?
        
        Geneva: art. 2.'armed conflict between two
        high contracting parities'(sovereign entities, States. ). Tadic:
        the use of armed force between "States"
        
        Synonymous?
  - - - ICTY: control by a state over subordinate armed forced or militias or paramilitary units may be of an overall character and must compromise more than the mere provision of financial assistance or military equiment or training. Overall control: is achieve when the foreign state has a role in organising, co-ordinating or planning the military action of the military support to that group
- - - - The criterion of organisation
        
        Syria: The weapons used by both the armed opposition groups and the government armed forces, the army's inability to regain control of certain areas, the tens of thousands of victims, the mass mass flight of civilians into neighbouring countries, the mounting violence, UN's involvement in a fruitless effort to restore peace, in addition the intensive and constant use of force on the gov. side. In regards to organisation: the Free Syrian Army, the main armed group present at 2011-2012 had a general staff, controlled certain parts of the territory or was at least capable of preventing the Syrian army from entering certain areas, and had spokespersons and representatives. Thus the Free Syrian Army's degree of organisation appears to have met the relevant requirements. And can therefore be concluded that there was an ongoing NIAC, to which Common art. 3 can be applied.
      - The criterion of intensity of the violence and the notion of protracted armed violence
    - - Article 3: Ir refers back to common article 2,
        which deals with conflicts between states.
        Armed conflicts that arena to fan
        international governmental character are
        those in which at least one of the parties
        involved is not governmental. Dependings of
        the case, hostilities take place either
        between one or more armed groups and
        government forces or solely between armed
        groups. The threshold of intensity required in
        that case is higher than for an IAC. According
        to ICTY: it has to be (a) the intensity of
        violence (b) the organisation of the
        parties.These two criteria is evaluated on
        case by case basis
      - Article 1 of Additional Protocol II: applies to
        NIAC 'which take place in the territory of a
        High Contracting Party its armed
        forces and dissident armed forces or other
        organised armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol'.
        
        betweenDoes not apply to wars of national
        liberation, which are equated wit
        international armed conflicts by virtue of art.
        1(4) of Additional Protocol I
        
        just like common article 3, a NIAC within
        the meaning of Additional Protocol II can
        only exist if the situation attains a degree of
        violence that sets it apart from cases of
        internal tensions or disturbances. Though
        this article, defines more limited field of
        application than that of common art. 3. It
        requires non-gov. forces to have a
        particularly high level of organisation, in the
        sense that they must be placed under
        responsible command exercise territorial
        control, allowing them to carry out sustained
        and concerted military operations and to
        implement this Protocol. Art. 3 also
        presumes that armed group are able to
        demonstrate a degree of org, it does not
        stipulate that these groups should be able
        to control part of territory. All the armed
        conflicts covered by Add. Pro II are also
        covered by Common Article 3.
- - - - i.e. Lebanon summer 2006: attacks by Hezbollahs military on positions and villages in Israeli territoryThe Israeli retaliated by launching a ground, air and sea offensive on lebanon. It keeps on until August, when a ceasefire that htbeen agreed by the two governments entered into effect. UNHR council considered an IAC but the lebanese armed forces never took part of it. but Hizbollah is represented in the parliament and therefore a military belonging to a party to the conflict.