Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Table of cases
- Table of treaties
- Table of Security Council resolutions
- Table of General Assembly resolutions
- Abbreviations
- 1 The framework
- 2 The preconditions of a NIAC
- 3 Thresholds and interaction of armed conflicts
- 4 Insurgent armed groups and individuals
- 5 Foreign intervention in a NIAC
- 6 Recognition
- 7 State responsibility
- 8 The principal LONIAC treaty provisions
- 9 Additional treaty texts
- 10 NIAC war crimes
- 11 LONIAC customary international law
- 12 LONIAC and human rights law
- Conclusions
- Index of persons
- Index of subjects
- References
3 - Thresholds and interaction of armed conflicts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Table of cases
- Table of treaties
- Table of Security Council resolutions
- Table of General Assembly resolutions
- Abbreviations
- 1 The framework
- 2 The preconditions of a NIAC
- 3 Thresholds and interaction of armed conflicts
- 4 Insurgent armed groups and individuals
- 5 Foreign intervention in a NIAC
- 6 Recognition
- 7 State responsibility
- 8 The principal LONIAC treaty provisions
- 9 Additional treaty texts
- 10 NIAC war crimes
- 11 LONIAC customary international law
- 12 LONIAC and human rights law
- Conclusions
- Index of persons
- Index of subjects
- References
Summary
The thresholds of armed conflicts
There are three thresholds of armed conflicts – two relating to NIACs and one to IACs – preceded by a tier of violence lying below the first threshold.
Below-the-threshold violence
Below-the-threshold violence relates to ‘isolated and sporadic’ internal disturbances (see supra 65). These extend to all forms of disorganized – individual or mob – violence, which do not make the grade of an armed conflict, although they may cause mayhem and provoke savage crackdowns by governmental forces. Grave internal disturbances may cause an incumbent Government to be reeling, and perhaps even force a political realignment or dissolution of the legislature, but that does not mean that a NIAC has been cut loose.
Internal disturbances need not be directed against an incumbent Government (see supra 86). Often, they give vent to sectarian – inter-ethnic or inter-religious – friction (e.g., what appears to be a perennial Hindu/Muslim tension in the Indian sub-continent). Whether or not it is the direct target, the Government may collapse as a result of the chaos produced.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Non-International Armed Conflicts in International Law , pp. 37 - 57Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
and , ‘A Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards’, 85 AJIL375, 377–81 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Humanization of International Law 60 (2006)
McCann et al. v. UK (ECHR, 1995), paras. 213–14
, ‘International Humanitarian Law (Laws of War)’, The Centennial of the First International Peace Conference: Reports and Conclusions 161, 228–33 ( ed., 2000)Google Scholar
, ‘Present and Future Conceptions of the Status of Government Forces in Non-International Armed Conflict’, 88 ILS, supra note 55, at 145, 149
, ‘Scope of This Protocol’, New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 622, 626 (, and eds., 1982)Google Scholar
, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law 33 ( ed., 2009)
, ‘Accountability of Organized Armed Groups’, Non-State Actors and International Humanitarian Law: Organized Armed Groups: A Challenge for the 21st Century 109, 112 (32nd Round Table, San Remo, 2000; and eds.)Google Scholar
, The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict 367 (2012)
, ‘Private Military and Security Companies in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello’, War by Contract: Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, and Private Contractors 235, 252 ( and eds., 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović et al. (Decision) (ICTY, Appeals Chamber, 2003), para. 16
, ‘Hors de Logique: Contemporary Issues in International Humanitarian Law as Applied to Internal Armed Conflict’, 15 AUILR 1, 96 (1999–2000)Google Scholar
Prosecutor v. Tadić (Judgment) (ICTY, Appeals Chamber, 1999), 38 ILM 1518
These and other elements are enumerated especially in Prosecutor v. Limaj et al. (ICTY, Trial Chamber, 2005), paras. 46, 94–103
and , International Humanitarian Law and Terrorism 163 (2011)
, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict 321 (2nd edn, 2000)
, ‘Liability for “War Crimes” during a Non-International Armed Conflict’, 34 Mil.LLWR149, 154 (1995)Google Scholar
, ‘The Yugoslavia Tribunal and the Common Core of Humanitarian Law Applicable to All Armed Conflicts’, 13 LJIL619, 635 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, International Territorial Administration: How Trusteeship and the Civilizing Mission Never Went Away 182–8 (2008)CrossRef
Prosecutor v. Halilović (ICTY, Trial Chamber, 2005)
Report of the Seventy-Fourth Conference 676, 713 (The Hague, 2010)
, ‘Classification of Armed Conflicts: Relevant Legal Concepts’, International Law and the Classification of Conflicts, supra note 99, at 32, 41
, ‘The Geneva Conventions and the Dichotomy between International and Non-International Armed Conflict: Curse or Blessing for the “Principle of Humanity”?’, Searching for a ‘Principle of Humanity’ in International Humanitarian Law 85, 100–1 (, and eds., 2013)Google Scholar
and , ‘Non-International Armed Conflicts in the Philippines’, 88 ILS, supra note 55, at 263, 265–71
, ‘The Development of International Humanitarian Law by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, 2 MPYUNL97, 117 (1998)Google Scholar
, ‘Conclusions’, International Law and the Classification of Conflicts, supra note 99, at 80, 99
and , ‘The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law to the Conflict in Libya’, 14 ICLR403, 413–34 (2012)Google Scholar
, ‘Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua's Fallout’, 92 AJIL236–42 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Historical Background of the 1998–2000 War: Some Salient Points’, The 1998–2000 War between Eritrea and Ethiopia: An International Legal Perspective 21, 23 (, and eds., 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar