LAW601 | Introduction to Law | Armed Conflicts At International Level

Evaluation on the similarities and differences between the international and non-international armed conflicts : As explained above, the difference between worldwide and non-international armed conflicts can be defined by reference to the history of the development of worldwide law in established and global humanitarian regulation in particular. However, asserting that international law was, historically, only concerned with inter-state conflicts does now not give an explanation for why, as soon as it was once prevalent that international law ought to regulate non-international conflicts as well, it used to be not extended in its entirety to such conflicts. Nor does it give an explanation for why the difference persists, even if in an attenuated fashion. The primary reason for the constancy of the huge distinction is the view through States, or some of them, that comparing non-worldwide and universal armed clashes would undermine State power and, specifically, national solidarity and security. States have been stressed that treating non-universal armed clashes in the equivalent path as global armed clashes would now not just rouse secessionist developments, by methods for giving them a notoriety underneath overall law, however it would limit the hand of the State in hunting down to put down uprisings. For instance, if the standard of soldiers' resistance—which applies to worldwide clashes and averts arraignments of warriors basically to take area in an armed clash—were to be used in non-global armed clashes, States would be not able criminalize acts which are generally viewed as treasonous.

It was these concerns that led to the enclosure of 3^rd number of article in second protocol additionally which pointing out that nothing in the Protocol confines the accountability of the State ‘by all professional means, to preserve or re-establish regulation and order. There has additionally been situation on the section of States that abolishing the difference and treating non-international armed conflicts in the same way as worldwide armed conflicts would provide global popularity to non-state agencies and would possibly even motivate international intervention in inside conflicts. This concern led to the inclusion of paragraph four in Common Article three which states that ‘[t]he utility of the previous provisions shall no longer have an effect on the prison repute of the Parties to the conflict’.

Given that the relevant treaties include provisions which make clear that the issues of situation to States have to no longer be read into the treaties, it is hard to see why these issues need to persist. Besides, these issues relate particularly to the notoriety of warring gatherings and ought not prevent the augmentation of different standards of worldwide helpful law to non-global armed clashes. Additionally, the possibility that intercession through the global neighborhood takes after from an order of a battle is to some degree wrong. Right off the bat, the UN Security Council has as of late affirmed its ability and readiness to mediate in non-universal clashes. Furthermore, worldwide law does now not permit one-sided 'helpful intercession' and subsequently does now not permit commanding one-sided mediation with the guide of States inside each other State in light of the idea of a fight going ahead in that unique State. Nonetheless, it is likely related to perceive and make some addition in the previous existing rules that saw to domestic armed clashes will build likelihood in favor of various States to attest which infringement of worldwide control are happening and could likewise furthermore open up chance for legal non-persuasive counter measures (such as sanctions or diverse assortments of opinionated weight) taken by methods for different States and coordinated at tending to infringement by methods for the States occupied with the ion.

Although it has been disputed that the compassionate goals of worldwide compassionate regulation are pleasant satisfied via the abolition of the big difference between international and non- international armed conflicts, the involving consent of states sovereignty remain and are a purpose why the law, in particular the law bearing on to the fame of fighters, continues to be unique in non-international armed issues.

In both the ius ad bellum and the ius in bello, publish World War II global law has moved away from conditioning the applicability of the law on the formal or technical notion of hostilities and toward tons more factual criteria. Under the ius advert bellum, what is prohibited through the UN Charter is the ‘use of force’ as well as, under the law of international humanitarian, a software of law is there which depends on the ‘armed conflict’ existence. The Geneva Conventions do not classify ‘armed conflict’. However, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has been explained their views in Tadi? (Appeal on Jurisdiction) that it is an armed violence between governmental authorities with an organized armed businesses or between groups inside a state which International humanitarian law relates from start till the peace settlement achieved.By maintaining that an international armed divergence exists on every occasion there is motel to armed force with the aid of States, this selection suggests that the porch for a global armed battle is very low. As Vité notes, ‘it is . . . now not essential for the combat to lengthen in the given time or for it to create a positive range of people who are playing the victim role.

Almost the further use of armed power by using one State towards another would convey into impact an global armed issues, barring perhaps in cases the place the use of force is unintended (for instance arising out of error). The choice view, which asserts that a global armed conflict only comes into effect when the use of pressure between States reaches a certain intensity seeks consistency with the description of local armed issues, which does have a depth requirement. However, this analogy is mistaken. To import a depth requirement into the overall explanation of worldwide armed conflicts is successfully to assert that no guideline governs the behavior of army operations at the level of the intensity, along with the notch segment of aggression. This is extraordinary from the function in local armed conflicts where domestic law and worldwide human rights regulation would take care of the tensions and various internal disturbances which basically falls into the beneath the depth of an armed issue.

It is a question of fact whether or now not an armed war exists between two States. Where it does, army operations might also solely be carried out through the various parties and the party’s area, as properly as on the elevated seas (that also includes the above and below the airspace above and sea floor) and such as the distinctive monetary zones of impartial conditions. In global armed conflicts, global humanitarian law would follow to the things to do of the related people throughout this large environmental area, and in any other vicinity the place navy operations are definitely carried out.

As the Tadi? selection indicates, in worldwide armed conflicts worldwide humanitarian regulation applies until a familiar conclusion of peace is reached. The clearest example of a generic conclusion of peace is the conclusion of a peace treaty between the belligerent parties. However, due to the fact the Second World War, such peace treaties have now not been frequent (the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt being a magnificent exception). This is possibly dueto the fact that peace treaties have in the previous been used for the termination of ‘wars’ and there has been an important decline in declared wars. Therefore questions have arisen as to whether different events would possibly constitute a conclusion of peace, and are therefore to be regarded as bringing to an end an armed fighting between two or extra States. In particular, the difficulty has arisen as to whether a ceasefire or an armistice agreement is to be regarded as bringing an armed warfare to a stop or whether, alternatively, the events are to be considered as in a state of war and consequently difficulty to international humanitarian law until a peace treaty is signed. This latter view would mean, for example, that the belligerents stay entitled to proceed to use pressure against one another or that they may also continue to work out belligerent rights at sea, the place there is a breach of the armistice or ceasefire agreement. Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, an armistice only suspended military operations and the belligerent events may want to resume operations at any time. This used to be due to the fact an armistice was once no longer viewed as bringing the war to an end.

The difficulty of what is required to convey an armed war to an quit is of notable significance in modern worldwide affairs given that there has, as yet, been no peace treaty terminating the Korean battle of the early 1950s, nor a peace treaty between Israel and some of her Arab neighbours on the grounds that the 1949 conflict. The better view seems to be that taken by way of Greenwood that ‘since armed war is not a technical, felony idea however a cognizance of the reality of hostilities, the cessation of energetic fighting have to be ample to terminate the armed conflict’. A fortiori, a ceasefire or armistice settlement will deliver an armed war to an quit the place it is meant to finish a conflict and reach over a conclusion. In any event, the cessation of war will set off the software of certain duties, such as the obligation to launch prisoners of war and of folks interned in occupied territory or in the territory of the events to the conflict. However, positive components of worldwide humanitarian law will practice past the cessation of conflict, for instance the regulation of occupation, as properly as the law relevant to these covered persons who are no longer released and repatriated.

When the proposition that an armistice or ceasefire which brings battle to a close need to now be regarded as terminating an armed warfare is blended with the exclusion of the exercise of pressure contained in the UN contract, the effect is that the events to an armed conflict might also no longer exercise belligerent rights at sea and may no longer resort to force after the conflict is terminated, even if there are breaches of the agreement. Resort to pressure would only be permissible where it constitutes a lawful use of pressure in self-defence. This used to be tested by using the Security Council in decision 95 (1951) where it rejected Egypt’s endured workout of belligerent rights in opposition to shipping, after the armistice which ended warfare in the 1949 war with Israel.

The query whether or not or not a struggle is an inter-state one may additionally be difficult to reply where one of the events claims to be a State and the different celebration rejects that claim—as occurred, for example, for the duration of the termination of  Yugoslavia’s former Socialist Federal Republic. It is viable that what starts off evolved as a non-international armed combat becomes worldwide when an interior rebellion group is profitable in turning into a State. However, as Crawford has pointed out, without in the case of entities possessing the right of external self- willpower (i.e. colonial or different non-self-governing peoples with a proper to decide their political repute which includes a proper to independence) secession barringthe consent of the mother or father State is rarely identified as profitable as a count of global law.

Therefore, where an armed fighting includes an try at secession it would be challenging to argue that an insurrection group had gained statehood such that the conflict had now end up international. Nonetheless, this may additionally be possible in instances of dissolution of the mother or father State or where the mum or dad State sees eye to eye to secession however continues to fight (perhaps not directly through imparting aid for companies within the new State). However, the truth that the armed struggle is ongoing may additionally itself make it extra difficult to argue that the standards for statehood had been met. In Prosecutor v Miloš evi ?, the ICTY’s Trial Chamber had to decide the query of when Croatia grew to become a State (at the time of the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) such that the war grew to be a worldwide armed conflict. Applying the standards for statehood contained in the Montevideo Convention, it determined that Croatia used to be a State by using October 1991; this was earlier than Croatia used to be recognized by way of the European Community in January 1992 and admitted to the UN in May 1992.

It has been counselled that the provisions of the ICC Statute dealing with warfare crimes in non- worldwide armed conflicts introduce a 1/3 type of domestic armed conflict, or rather, introduce a third threshold at which an extraordinary regime of law will observe to certain domestic armed issues.111 This suggestion is basically related on the reality that article 8(2)(f) of the Statute states that article 8(2)(e that mainly deals with fighting the crimes in a domestic armed issues (it is different from the Common Article 3, which are dealt with in article 8(2)(c)), applies the place there is ‘prolonged armed issues among the authorities of governmental and properly organized armed people.

It is stated that this threshold falls between these identified by means of third article of Common Article three and second protocol of additional protocol because it requires a ‘protracted conflict’. It is noteworthy that article 8(2)(d), which offers with the applicability of Common Article 3, does now not contain wording related to protracted armed conflict. Despite the unique wording of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(f) of article 8, it is now not at all clear that it used to be intended to create different thresholds of application. Nor does the phrasing truly do so. As is obvious, the phrasing in article 8(2) (f) is mainly used from Tadi? two case as well as in Tadi ?. It has been found that the ICTY was mainly trying to define the kind of issues which would basically fall inside the Common Article three While it is proper that some emphasis is positioned on the duration of the struggle and the fact that it need to be protracted, ICTY jurisprudence has already indicated that this is one of the elements in order to take into the account through applying the third common article and in the intensity of judging. It has been further explained by the Article8(2)(f) is better interpreted as genuinely mentioning the intensity check with the prolonged nature of the divergence being an aspect which is to be evaluated in order to find out the intensity.

International and internal armed conflicts can also be going on simultaneously in the identical area at the equal time. Such as, in the Nicaragua case, the ICJ held that the war between the US and Nicaragua was once to be evaluated under the regulation touching on to international armed conflicts and the hostilities between the Contras and the authorities of Nicaragua was once to be analyzed underneath the regulation concerning to non-international armed conflicts. Likewise, two of the Appeals Chamber of ICTY which has been held, in the Tadi? Jurisdiction Appeal, that the struggle in the former Yugoslavia had each inner and worldwide characteristics, as a consequence requiring a dedication in each precise case as to what battle was at trouble and what law applied. This approach, which lets in for blended (international and non-international) conflicts in the equal factual situation, has been criticized on the floor that it makes ‘a passionate quilt of rules that would be appropriate in the equal issues, relying on the situation of happening or not happening. It is characterized as International or domestic level. However, as it has been noted by Greenwood, there is not anything which is essentially illogical or narrative in characterizing few elements of a unique position of struggle as global armed warfare while others hold an internal character’.

The fact that it is feasible for two exclusive sorts of conflicts to be ongoing concurrently has made the software of international humanitarian regulation lots more complicated in many recent conflicts. Questions bearing on to the standards for detention will occasionally rely entirely on who happened to capture or to detain a specific person considering the fact that the Third Geneva Convention dealing with POWs and the Fourth Geneva Convention, which includes provisions on internment, are solely relevant if the character is interned by using State forces in an worldwide armed conflict, but are now not relevant if the fighting in query is non-international.

In cases the place there is intervention by using foreign State forces on the facet of or alongside a non-state team which is warfare the territorial State, whether or not the combat is a blended struggle or is internationalized totally will depend on whether the non-state team is viewed as ‘belonging to’ the intervening State. Where the overseas intervening State workouts the requisite diploma of manage over the non-state team or the place it is in reality the use of pressure thru the non-state group, the entire fighting will grow to be an international armed conflict. Therefore even various conflict among the non-state group and the defensive State would be governed via the law touching on to global armed conflicts.

Aside from that, the limit for the utilization of Additional Protocol II to non-global armed clashes is higher than that for Common Article 3 As is the situation with the Common Article 3, Additional Protocol II does not see to circumstances of inside aggravation and pressures, for example, riots, remoted and sporadic demonstrations of brutality (the edge for 'armed clash'). In any case, underneath article 1(1) of Additional Protocol II, the directions contained in that exclusively see to armed clashes which take region on the region of a birthday festivity 'between its armed powers and nonconformist armed powers or distinctive equipped armed partnerships which, underneath responsible order, exercise such oversee over a period of its domain as to empower them to lift out managed and deliberate military tasks and to put in compel this Protocol'.This investigate is similar to what was once truly connected by utilizing States in perceiving belligerency in common wars for the reason for bringing into impact the control of armed clash. Be that as it may, this arrangement applies exclusively to Additional Protocol II and is a more stringent check of non-global armed clashes than that which exists in natural international law.

The take a look at is greater rigorous than the threshold for the utility of Common Article 3 in a wide variety of ways. First of all, it excludes conflicts which occur fully between organized armed agencies and follows only if authority’s forces are getting involved in the issues of the business. Secondly, there is the obligation that the connected in armed team manages over territory. The test appears has been designed for a state of affairs in which a rebellion team is an opposing power, with the administration, for power over the condition or a stage of it. The obligation of manipulate over province is connected to an aptitude to lift out sustained and intensive military activities as nicely as an ability to put in force the protocol. Textually, the phrases do no longer seem to require the proper carrying out of such operations however basically the capacity to do so. However, in exercise it is difficult to conceive of manipulate of territory being carried out and maintained without sustained and concerted army operations being carried out at some stage.

A separation between the utilization of Additional Protocol II and Common 3 is that second additional protocol applies to the domestic armed issues which takes place in the area of the government powers and the actual powers. The total of the prerequisites that the battle be (I) in the domain of a gathering and (ii) between the powers of that birthday festivity and armed offices is to limitation the utilization of the Protocol in internationalized non-global armed clashes. As will be specified beneath, in circumstances when an abroad State intercedes in an inside armed battling with the assent of the State where the ion is occurring, the armed battle stays non-global. Nonetheless, even the place each the interceding State and the regional State are occasions to Additional Protocol II, that arrangement will never again see to the demonstrations of the mediating State in the ion. This is on the grounds that the fight does not take area in its domain and however it takes district in the region of another birthday festivity to the Protocol, the dangers is no longer between the armed powers of that birthday festivity and armed gatherings.

Applying this elucidation to the armed fighting in Afghanistan, (since it developed to end up a non-global fighting in 2002) would recommend that however Afghanistan moved toward becoming birthday festivity to Additional Protocol II in 2009 and albeit a portion of the countries strife in Afghanistan with its assent are likewise gatherings to Additional Protocol II, the Protocol does never again practice to the ion between these interceding nations and armed offices they battle. It isn't evident regardless of whether this used to be assumed in the drafting of  1(1) of the Protocol. An elective understanding is consider the powers of the interceding State to be period of the armed powers of the regional State. In spite of the fact that this would be reasonable keeping in mind the end goal to extend the helpful assurances of Additional Protocol II, this check for armed powers does now not find bolster in whatever is left of worldwide compassionate law. The powers of a co-pugnacious are currently not regularly viewed as period of the armed powers of a gathering. A State is responsible for every one of the demonstrations of its own armed powers and it would be a stretch to state that a State is responsible for all demonstrations of the co-aggressive's powers.

An extraordinary way of accomplishing a comparable end result (i.e. making Additional Protocol II practice to acts of invited overseas forces) is to think about whether the territorial State is legally accountable below the regulation of condition accountability for violations of Additional Protocol II dedicated by using foreign forces invited via the territorial State. However, for that to occur, the foreign forces would want to be ‘placed at the disposal of’ the territorial State. This ability that these forces must act below the distinctive direction and control of the territorial State and no longer below the authority of the sending State. This check would rarely be cosy and, therefore, the acts of overseas forces will not often be attributable to the territorial State.

Conclusion:

It is really worth noting that, in order to safe protect the rights of human, International compassionate Law have to practice with the identical vim to all varieties of struggle that endanger the very existence of the civilian population, whether they take place inside a state or between states. Direct military intervention is sufficient to internationalize an otherwise internal conflict. This includes with itself the guidelines and regulations imposed by means of International compassionate law to conditions of armed issues. However, it is no longer prudent enough to watch for the internationalization of a fighting so as to make guidelines of International Humanitarian Law which has been applied in global armed conflicts apply to an internationalized armed conflict. It has additionally grown to be hard to perceive the law which is applicable in current conflicts because of the various changes of the issues and laws. Moreover, the worldwide and domestic dichotomy at the global humanitarian law explains about the changes which have already proved the vulnerability to outstanding political exploitation, especially, at the time of involvement of the conflicts at domestic and international level. Therefore, the big difference is artificial, undesirable and difficult to justify its existence. The difference in addition frustrates humanitarian law efforts in the protection of civilians throughout an interior conflict. With the classification of an armed combat becoming irrelevant, a similarly consideration of a single law of armed fighting will be inevitable for the improvement of larger humanitarian safety for the duration of armed conflict.

Bibliography:

J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law Study (2004).

Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant To Security Council Resolution 780(1992), S/1994/674 (27 May 1994) 13, para 42

D. Bethlehem, ‘The Methodological Framework of the Study’ and I. Scobbie, ‘The Approach to Customary International Law in the Study’ in E. Wilmshurst and S. Breau, Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (2007) 3, 15; and also J. Bellinger and W. Haynes, ‘A US Government Response to the International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law’ (2007) 89 (866) International Review of the Red Cross 443

Compare art. 8(2)(a) and (b) with art. 8(2)(c) and (e) of the ICC Statute. The Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC has regarded the difference in criminalization of attacks on civilian objects as reflecting a difference in international humanitarian law. The Prosecutor v Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09, Confirmation of Charges Decision (Pre-Trial Chamber), 8 February 2010: ‘The Majority notes that, while international humanitarian law offers protection to all civilians in both international armed conflict and armed conflict not of an international character, the same cannot be said of all civilian objects, in respect of which protection differs according to the nature of the conflict.

Cassese, Civil War, 116. See also Bartels, The Historical Evolution, 61–4. See H.S. Levie (ed.), The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict: Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (1987) (Levie, Additional Protocol II) for statements made, during the drafting of Additional Protocol II, by the representatives of Argentina (30, para 17); the German Democratic Republic (32, para 29); Indonesia (35, para 53); Romania(42, para 33) and Yugoslavia (47, para 6).

F. Bugnion, ‘Jus Ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Non-International Armed Conflicts’ (2003) 6 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 167, 168.

D. Fleck, ‘The Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts’ in D. Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (2008) 611–12 (Fleck, Non-International Armed Conflicts); W. Solf, ‘Non- International Armed Conflicts: Commentator’ (1982) 31 American University Law Review 927

Levie, Additional Protocol II, for statement made, during the drafting of Additional Protocol II, by the representatives of Yugoslavia (47, para 6) and Mexico (49, para 14).

Fleck, Non-International Armed Conflicts, 611–12.

Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) with respect to Libya which authorizes a no-fly zone and protection of civilians in the context of a non-international armed conflict. See also the World Summit Outcome Document, GA res. 60/1 (2005) para 139, in which the UN General Assembly recognizes the authority of the Security Council to take action in cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

S. Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace: Humanitarian Intervention and International Law(2001)

See art. 54 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) (ILC Articles on State Responsibility) and accompanying commentary, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, Part Two (2001). That commentary refers to sanctions imposed on the former Yugoslavia by a number of States and the European Communities for actions that occurred when armed conflict broke out in that country in 1991. Likewise in 2011, the United States (and others) imposed sanctions on Libya (which went beyond that authorized by SC res. 1970) in response to measures taken by Libya during the violence and conflict that broke out there in 2011. See White House, ‘Executive Order: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya’ (25 February 2011), available at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2011libya.eo_.rel_.pdf.

J.G. Stewart, ‘Towards a Single Definition of Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law: A Critique of Internationalized Armed Conflict’ (2003) 85(850) International Review of the Red Cross 313; A. Duxbury, ‘Drawing Lines in the Sand—Characterising Conflicts for the Purposes of Teaching International Humanitarian Law’ (2007) 8 Melbourne Journal of International Law 259; J. Crawford, ‘Unequal Before the Law: The Case for the Elimination of the Distinction Between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts’ (2007) Leiden Journal of International Law 441.

S. Vité, ‘Typology of Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law: Legal Concepts and Actual  Situations’ (2009) 91(873) International Review of the Red Cross 69, 72 (Vité, Typology); W. Fenrick, ‘Article 8, War Crimes’ in O. Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1999).

See Greenwood, Scope of Application, 46, para 202: ‘An international armed conflict exists if one state uses force against another state.’

UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004) 29: ‘an accidental border incursion by members of the armed forces would not, in itself, amount to an armed conflict, nor would the accidental bombing of another country.

International Law Association, ‘Final Report of the Meaning of Armed Conflict in International Law’ (2010).

Greenwood, Scope of Application, 59, para 216. Note that military operations will be prohibited in  certain areas, such as hospital and safety zones, demilitarized zones, neutralized zones, all of which are established by agreement of the parties. Ibid, paras 219–20.

Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel of 1979 (1979) 18 International Law Materials 362.

G. Chang, ‘How to Stop North Korea’s Weapons Proliferation’ Wall Street Journal (1 July 2009).

Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to HagueConvention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907), art. 36.

Greenwood, Scope of Application, 72, para 250

Y. Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (2005) 44.

Geneva Convention IV, art. 133 and 134.

Geneva Convention III, art. 5; Geneva Convention IV, art. 6; Additional Protocol I, art. 3.

Greenwood, Scope of Application, 68.

For a general discussion, see D. Akande, ‘The Korean War Has Resumed!! (Or so we are told)’ EJIL: Talk! (22 July 2009).

GA res. 1514 (1960); GA res. 2625 (1970).

J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), ch. 9 (Crawford, Creation of States). The main exception to this has been Bangladesh—which was admitted to the UN before consent by Pakistan. Kosovo represents an example of a seceding entity which at the time of writing, in early 2012, had not yet achieved recognition by the majority of States in the face of opposition by Serbia of such recognition.

Prosecutor v Miloševi?, IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Under Rule 98 bis (Trial Chamber), 16 June 2004 (Prosecutor v Miloševi?).

T. Meron, ‘Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s Fallout’ (1998) 92 AJIL

236, 238; see also US Amicus Brief in the Tadi? case.

C. Greenwood, ‘Development of International Humanitarian Law by the ICTY’ (1998) 2 Max Planck Yearbook of UN Law 98, 117.

It has been suggested that under customary international law there might be two separate thresholds for classifying non-international armed conflict, with these thresholds corresponding to the tests under Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II.

D. Akande, ‘Afghanistan accedes to Additional Protocols to Geneva Conventions: Will AP II govern the conflict in Afghanistan?’ EJIL Talk (30 June 2009) (Akande, AP II and the Afghan conflict).

For international armed conflicts, see Additional Protocol I, art. 91.

ILC Articles on State Responsibility, art. 6. See also discussion in Akande, AP II and the Afghan conflict.

See ILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to art. 6.