Expand All Collapse All. Sign up for alerts. Latest edition 4 ed. Prev Next. Subject s : Combatants — Principle of distinction — Armed conflict — Prisoners of war. International law regarding persons taking part in or affected by an international armed conflict makes a fundamental distinction between combatants and civilians, a distinction being the leading principle and the unchangeable core of international humanitarian law applicable in international armed conflicts.
They indicate the primary status of persons in the event of an international armed conflict. Rules current 2. Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants. Related Practice. Quick navigation Practice Summary International armed conflicts Non-international armed conflicts. State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The three components of this rule are interrelated and the practice pertaining to each of them reinforces the validity of the others.
In light of the evolution of armed conflicts and the growing difficulty of distinguishing between civilians and combatants in contemporary non-international armed conflicts, the ICRC published in Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under IHL.
International humanitarian law does not recognize combatant status for members of non-state armed groups involved in non-international armed conflicts, but it can be applied by way of special agreement by parties to the conflict, as encouraged by Common Article 3. If such a status is not applied, they are considered as civilians taking part in the hostilities APII Art.
However, they must at a minimum benefit from the fundamental guarantees established for persons who no longer participate in the hostilities GCI-IV Art. Additional Protocol II also provides specific provisions to fill the vacuum created by the absence of prisoner-of-war status. Article 5 regulates the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, while Article 6 spells out guarantees concerning the prosecution and punishment of criminal offences related to the armed conflict.
Those judicial guarantees are very important because in non-international armed conflicts, the sole fact of taking up arms against national authorities is considered a crime under domestic law. The guarantees contained in these articles are minimum guarantees, which can be completed by more favorable provisions provided by the rest of humanitarian law with the agreement of the parties to the conflict.
The term unlawful combatant has been used in the context of legal proceedings related to the war against terrorism. Combatant status and rights attached thereto was denied to such people by some States because they do not meet the conventional criteria relating to the status of combatant and prisoner-of-war status. Civilian status and the rights attached thereto were also refused because of their participation in actions of combat.
These debates were finally settled by several judicial decisions, including those of the U. Supreme Court, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , U. These judgments recalled legal evidence: humanitarian law cannot be invoked to deny fundamental rights to actors in conflicts or to create categories of conflicts that would escape any law. Indeed, the interpretation of international conventions must remain faithful to the spirit of these texts and cannot lead to absurd or unreasonable situations.
Hence, on unlawful combatants, the Israel Supreme Court held that the categories of combatant and civilian were mutually exclusive and that a third category, which would concern unlawful combatants, did not exist. The Court deduced that terrorists belonged to the category of civilians taking part in hostilities. The U. Supreme Court also pointed out that the categories of international and non-international armed conflict were mutually exclusive and that therefore there was no other category for which no humanitarian law would apply.
It concluded that, at a minimum, Common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions was still applicable in these situations.
For Additional Information: Callen, Jason. Dinstein, Yoram. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , esp. Dormann, Knut. Hoffman, Michael H. Ipsen, Kurt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Meron, Theodor, and Allan Rosas. Sassoli, Marco, and Laura M. Sjoberg, Laura. Watkin, Kenneth. Combatants, Unprivileged Belligerents, and Struggle over Legitimacy. Zachary, Shlomy. Toggle navigation. Advanced search The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law « Calling things by the wrong name adds to the affliction of the world.
Cookies disclaimer I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information cookies on your device in order to deliver better content and for statistical purposes.
Index Alias Alphabetical index International conventions Ratified conventions by countries Advanced search. Others Authors and participants. Combatants Combatants are persons who are authorized to use force in situations of armed conflict by international humanitarian law. Status of Combatants in International Armed Conflicts The study on the rules of customary international humanitarian law published by the ICRC in customary IHL study has summarized the consensus on the definition of combatants.
Combatants and Prisoners of War -According to the Third Geneva Convention, combatants are: members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces GCIII Art.
Clauses of Exclusion from the Status of Combatant Additional Protocol I takes up, clarifies, and simplifies the criteria set out in the definitions of the various categories of combatants. The existence of a command that is responsible for the conduct of its subordinates is an important criterion when distinguishing acts of violence that are the result of an isolated initiative of those who are involved in the armed conflict.
The existence of a hierarchical link impacts on the criminal responsibility framework. The obligation to respect humanitarian law lies with combatants and armed forces. Awareness of this obligation is therefore inherent to the concept of combatant. Violations of humanitarian law by a combatant do not deny them combatant or prisoner of war status.
A party to a conflict may not justify its own violations of humanitarian law by stating that its enemy violated humanitarian law initially. In such cases, Additional Protocol I stipulates that if an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: during each military engagement, and during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Fundamental Guarantees of Treatment of Combatants The Third Geneva Convention establishes a detailed and therefore strict definition of who may be considered a prisoner of war and benefit from that status.
Civilians Taking Part in Hostilities Without specifying conditions or circumstances, Additional Protocol I provides for the protection of those who take part in hostilities.
Status of Combatants in Internal Armed Conflicts International humanitarian law does not recognize combatant status for members of non-state armed groups involved in non-international armed conflicts, but it can be applied by way of special agreement by parties to the conflict, as encouraged by Common Article 3. Article also referenced in the 3 following categories :.
0コメント