![]() In explaining what was understood by “armed conflict not of an international character”, the report states that “it was clear this refers to civil war” This Report of the Joint Committee is referred to here only to highlight that the terms “civil war” and “armed conflict not of an international character” were understood as possessing equivalent thresholds. ‘The Report drawn up by the Joint Committee and presented to the Plenary Assembly interprets the term “armed conflict not of an international character” as having the same meaning as “civil war”. ![]() 42: ‘International law and conventions should apply when civil war was of such magnitude as to be full-scale war ’. By evaluating the merits of the arguments posed by the ICRC, the article assesses whether the phrase ‘conflict not of an international character’, as included in Common Article 3, conclusively limits its geographical application to an armed conflict occurring within the boundaries of a single state.įinal Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. The ICRC’s position serves as a possible solution to prevent a lacuna in humanitarian protection in situations where conflicts fit neither the understanding of ‘international armed conflict’ nor ‘internal armed conflict’. This re-interpretation recently has gained traction in scholarship. The 2016 ICRC Commentaries to the First Geneva Conventions challenges this traditional view and argues in favour of a broader interpretation of the scope of application of Common Article 3. The customary interpretation of Common Article 3 is that it has a geographical scope of application limited to non-international armed conflicts which take place exclusively within the borders of a single member state (internal armed conflict). Controversy surrounds this question which until recently has received little attention. This article examines whether the opening lines of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions include a geographical requirement. The geographic footprint of contemporary warfare often challenges the existing understanding of the term ‘non-international armed conflict’, a term not defined in international humanitarian treaty law. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |