Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

What is an armed conflict ? - Coggle Diagram

- - - - State armed forces : de facto organs acting under the instructions or control of the state
      - Multinational forces : forces under command and control of an international organization
    - - Any type of hostilities (unilateral, isolated, ...)
      - Against any constitutive elements of the state (not necessary the armed forces, can be a building …)
      - We do not look at the intentional element E.g. we do not need a declaration of war. Law of war should apply as soon as subjective elements exist.
  - - - AP I : wars of national liberation were treated as IAC (there were treated as state entities, so it was very important for them)
- - - - That applies in all NIAC. it is the minimum norm which applies in every type of NIAC
    - - ART 3 NIAC : ART 3 + customary law
      - AP II NIAC : AP II but AP2 is essentially made of customary law SO customary norms apply to all the NIACs
    - - Armed groups (fighting another armed group or another state)
        
        Definition : Couples of individuals who are armed, using violence against the state or state agencies, they are a structure (they are organized -> military structure). Some have very organized structure (e.g. Hezbollah) and some are less structured (eg in Congo)
        
        Wild diversity of armed groups
        
        . If the group is structured and can destabilize the state, the state can use force against the armed group at some point -> the state will no longer be fighting the armed group in a traditional manner.
        
        The criteria (indices) : there is a chief, his orders are respected, the chief can punish the others in case of problems, … These indices shows if the group is organized
        
        In fact, in the JP of the ICC t: it is very flexible to consider what is an armed group -> defines very widely the notion of armed groups to have jurisdiction over war crimes VS ICRC -> cautious approach
      - Takes place in the territory of a state
      - Nature of hostilities
        
        High level of intensity
        
        For IAC -> you DO NOT NEED a level of intensity for laws of war to apply in IACs. If the laws of war do not apply, humanitarian law apply VS NIAC the laws of war will not apply immediately -> the MUST BE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF INTENSITY
        
        . The threshold of hostilities goes with the organization of the group
        
        There is no need to apply the laws of war. Belligerents can do a lot of things -> can use force against the armed group …
        
        Fluctuant intensity of violence
        
        It can get complicated because NIACS can last many years, and the level of intensity can vary (parfois c’est calme parfois c’est chaud).
        
        Usually, we consider that there is an end of hostilities when belligerent showed their intentions to stop hostilities
      - What about drug trafficking ? they are well-organized
        
        Can we treat drug traffickers as armed groups? They are very different: their logic is different. Drug traffickers do not care about controlling some part of the territory while it is the main objective of armed group.
        
        If they are organized/they have a structure and if the level of intensity is reached, they are treated as armed groups.
        
        We do not look at their political motivation because it is too subjective. We just check their structure and the level of intensity.
  - - - State armed forces VS armed groups -> AP II regulates the situation when states and armed groups are fighting (not between armed groups).
      - Armed group must be controlling a part of the state (-> they need to be more organized that the armed group of ART 3).
        
        What is the relève of control required ? it is not very clear, there is a lot of flexibility. 2 approaches
        
        Flexible approach based on effectivity (states): even a small part of territory if you can respect AP II
        
        Restrictive approach based on objective (ICRC): control a large part of the territory, are quasi state (same structures as states)
- - - - NIAC : captured combatants are NOT POW -> they can be prosecuted for taking part in hostilities
      - IAC : captured soldiers are POW -> have legal protection under international law
  - - - Eg of Ukraine: Ukrainian forces (states) VS insurgent groups in Damas (armed group who wanted to be independent). At first, it was a NIAC, but the armed group was then placed under the authority of Russia. So, the conflict became an IAC.
    - - The overall control test does not examine each individual operation, but rather looks at the broader involvement of the state in military activities.
    - - In the case of Ukraine, once the insurgent groups are under the overall control of a foreign state, they are no longer considered independent. Thus, their fighters would be treated as combatants of that state and entitled to the protections under the laws of IAC, even if they were originally Ukrainian citizens fighting against their government.
    - - When a third state intervenes in an armed conflict, the nature of the conflict becomes more complex.
      - In the case of Bosnia, where an armed group (Bosnian forces) was fighting the Bosnian government, Croatia, as a neighboring state, intervened in the conflict at some point (with the armed group) → This creates two parallel conflicts:
        
        An International Armed Conflict (IAC) between Croatia and the Bosnian government.
        
        A Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) between the Bosnian government and the armed group (Bosnian forces).
      - In this scenario, there are important legal distinctions:
        
        The armed group is still considered a non-state actor, so its members, if captured by the territorial state (Bosnia), do not qualify for prisoner of war (POW) status.
        
        VS Croatia, on the other hand, is a state actor, and as such, its forces are protected by international humanitarian law (IHL). If Croatian soldiers are captured, they will have POW status under the Geneva Conventions.
        
        SO even though Croatia and the armed group (Bosnian forces) are fighting on the same side, the distinction is made because the armed group remains an independent non-state actor. It does not benefit from the same protections as a state actor under IHL.
      - What if a third state intervenes alongside with the territorial state (bosnia) tonight the armed group ? If a foreign state joins the territorial state to fight the armed group, there are two parallel IACs:
        
        Territorial state VS the foreign state
        
        Foreign state VS armed group
        
        This doesn’t change the classification of the armed group as a non-state actor. While both states are now fighting the same opponent (the armed group), the conflict still remains two separate international conflicts, each subject to IHL as applied to IACs
      - If a third state intervenes in a NIAC without control over the armed group, it will still lead to two parallel conflicts. The intervention doesn’t automatically make it an IAC unless the intervening state has overall control over the armed group
  - - - Change of status of a governement
      - End of “overall control” over an armed group (e.g. in Libya and Ivory Coast -> Watara and Bagbo?)
      - Intervention or withdrawal of a third party: parallel application of NIAC and IAC regime
      - intervention of an armed group an in a preexisting IAC
      - Withdrawal of an intervening state from an internationalized NIAC
    - - An IAC between two states.
      - A NIAC when armed groups appear in one or both of the states and engage in hostilities.
      - Eg Hamas
    - - In principle, once the conflict is no longer international, those captured during the international phase should retain POW status because they were captured during a period when the conflict was considered international.
- - - - However, it involves hostilities in the territory of another state, which complicates the classification because the fighting might involve killing citizens of another state and damaging foreign infrastructure. This is not a traditional NIAC, and while it may technically qualify as a NIAC, it might have characteristics of an IAC, given that it involves extra-territorial hostilities.
  - - - If the armed group were treated as civilians, they'd receive full protection under IHL and would not be subject to attack unless they were directly participating in hostilities.
  - - - Because the intervention involves a violation of sovereignty + potential impact on the protection of civilians
      - SO NIAC between Israel and Hezbollah + IAC between Israel and Lebanon
      - There are hostilities between the territorial state and the third state (IAC) AND between the armed group in the state and the third state (NIAC)
        
        If only hostilities between the third state and the armed group (not with the territorial state), it depends on the consent of the territorial state
        
        If CONSENT : only NIAC
        
        if NO CONSENT: NAC + IAC