International Humanitarian Law- Lecture notes

International Humanitarian Law
(Laws 4022)
Salamlak Atalay
LL.B, LL.M,
Lecturer in Law
School of Law, Samara University

Chapter I: Introduction to International Humanitarian Law
• Concept and purpose of International Humanitarian Law
• Historical development and philosophy of IHL
• The distinction between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello
• Sources of IHL
• Fundamental principles of IHL
• International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law
• Scope of application of IHL
• Qualification of armed conflicts

Concept and purpose of International Humanitarian Law
Definition
• International Humanitarian Law (aka, law of war/law of armed
conflict/jus in bello)
• Jus in bello as distinct from jus ad bellum
• A branch of International Law that governs Situations of Wars and
Armed Conflicts

Historical development and philosophy of IHL
• Religious teachings have rules governing war.
-Hindu code of Manu
-Christianity
-Islam teaching
-Buddhism

-Philosophers
 Hugo Grotius 1583-1645
• De jure belli ac pacis 1625
• Founded just war theory – just cause
• -Jus ad bellum v jus in bello

- Francis Lieber 1798-1872
• Lieber Code 1863
• American Civil War
• Contribution—Hague Law

Henri Dunant 1828-1910
• Swiss businessmen
• A Memory of Solferino
• Contribution: 1) the development of Geneva Law
2) Est. of an organizations ICRC
• Witnessed the plight of 40,000 soldiers

Battle of Solferino, Italy 1859
• “Is there in the world a prince or a
monarch who would decline to
support the proposed societies,
happy to be able to give full
assurance to his soldiers that they
will be at once properly cared for if
they should be wounded?”(A
Memory of Solferino, p. 126)

International committee for the relief of the Wounded 1861
•1864: Geneva Convention
for the Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded
in Armies in the Field
›Establishment ICRC
›Dunant: first Nobel Prize,
1901

In summary :three major Epochs
I. Before WWI
-1859-1864, Henri Dunant and Geneva Convention I
-1863 Lieber Code
-1868 St. Petersburg declaration
-1880 Oxford Manual on the law of war in Land
-1899/1907 Hague Conventions

II. Inter-war period
• 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol
Fascists bombarded a prohibited gas called “Mustard gas’’
• 1929 First Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War
III. After WWII
- 1845/48 Nuremberg/Tokyo Tribunals
-1949 Geneva Conventions I-IV
-1977 Additional Protocols I & II

The distinction between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello
• Jus ad bellum – governs the law of use of force. Article 2(4) , Chapter
VII, UN Chapter, Article 51
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations.”
• Jus in bello – law of war which governs armed conflicts.

Sources of IHL—Article 38 ICJ Statute
1. Treaties –Hague and Geneva Laws
A. Hague Laws—soldiers perspective
*Washington treaty—Lieber code 1863
*St. Petersburg Declaration 1868
limitations to the use of exploding or inflammable projectiles –400gm
Prohibition of “unnecessary suffering”
*The Hague 1899 and 1907
--1899(disarmament) expanding bullets
--1907 Martens Clause

Many Weapons treaties
• 1993 Chemical Weapons
• 1997 Anti-personel mines

*Geneva Laws—defenceless victims perspective
• GC I-Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field/ land
• GC II: Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked members of Armed
Forces at Sea
• GC III: Treatment of Prisoners of War
• GC IV: Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Additional Protocols 1977
• Protocol 1: protects victims of international conflicts(IAC)
• Protocol 2: protects victims of internal armed forces(NIAC)
• Protocol 3: Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem

2. Customary International Law
Two elements
I. State practice
II. Opino juris
3. General Principles of IHL
Generally recognized in domestic law(eg distinction)
Emergence from international law

Fundamental Principles of IHL
1. Military Necessity
No more force or greater violence should be used to carry out a military operation that is
necessary.
 Military necessity is not codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions or in the additional Protocol
l. It does appear in 1907 Hague Regulation Article 23(g),
The only legitimate object which states should endeavor to accomplish during war is to weaken
the military forces of the enemy;
it is not possible to attack everything and everyone. “I wage war against the French arm and
not against the French people”.
Total war is not allowed. Total war is what we call wanted destruction, unnecessary suffering,
which are against the principle of necessity.
The principle of Necessity was first laid out in connection with the 1868 St. Petersburg
Napoleon: 'My great maximum has always been, in politics and war alike, that every injury
done to the enemy, even though permitted by the rules, is excusable only so far as it is
absolutely necessary; everything beyond that is criminal.
Lieber Code, Article 14: Measures indispensable for securing the ends of war, and lawful
according to the modern law and usages of war.

2. Humanity
It is forbidden to inflict suffering, injury or destruction not actually necessary to
accomplish a legitimate military purpose.
Martens Clause after Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens, the Russian delegate at the Hague
Peace Conferences in 1899 and was based upon his words:
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting
Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted
by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of
the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among
civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.
Compare article 1(1) AP I
Martens laid down the following principle for cases not covered by humanitarian law:
(...) civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles
of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity,
and from the dictates of public conscience. This, also known as the Martens clause,
it is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a
nature to cause superfluous injuries and unnecessary suffering (API, Art 35.2)

3. Proportionality

The collateral damage arising from military operations must not be excessive in relation to the direct
and concrete military advantage anticipated from such operations.

Article 51(5)(b) and 57(2)(b) Additional Protocol I

Attacks excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage

In the battlefield the commander is required to balance human life and military advantages.

Thus, under IHL not every attack that results in civilian death or injury, or the destruction of a civilian
object, is prohibited.

However, when incidental harm is not possible to avoid, we resort to the principle of proportionality.

You don’t target an entire village because there is a machine gun positioned.

You don’t target an entire building of civilians because there is a high target commander within it.
IV. Distinction
Military Commanders must distinguish between legitimate military targets & civilian objects including
the civilian population
AP I-Art 48
AP II-Art 13(1)

4. The principle of Precaution
The principle of precaution entails a duty to avoid or minimize the inflection of
incidental death, injury and destruction on persons and objects protected against
direct attack.
The Principle of precaution among others include ;

The verification of the fact that the target is indeed military objective,

Choosing the right means and method so as to avoid excessive collateral damage,

Refraining from attacking if it appears that the likely damage is excessive and
collateral,

Suspending the attack if it appears to be excessive collateral damage and given
advanced warnings so that civilians would leave.

IHL requires an attacker to undertake “feasible precautions” to avoid and/or
minimize any incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to
civilian objects.

Parties to a conflict “must do everything feasible to verify that targets are military
objectives.

5. Distinction
Distinction, sometimes referred to as discrimination, is the most significant battlefield concept a combatant must observe. So, distinction
has two aspects, 1. individuals, and 2. objects AP I 48, 44 AP II, 13
in all armed conflicts, distinction between civilians and combatants shall always be maintained, distinction remains a duty of every
commander and every soldier.
you may not attack everyone as well as you may not attack everything!!
combatants shall distinguish themselves such as, wear a uniform or a distinctive
sign that is recognizable at a distance
combatants must target only military objectives - distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, sparing civilian objects.
The ICTY has held to constitute a violation of distinction the act must have been committed willfully, intentionally in the knowledge ...
that civilians or civilian property were targeted Prosecutor vs Blaiikic‘
There are certain challenges under the principle of distinction
If the aim of the conflict is “ethnic cleansing”, the parties will logically and of necessity attack civilians and not combatants.
If some fighters’ aim is no longer to achieve victory, but rather to earn a living by looting or controlling certain economic sectors they will
logically attack defenseless civilians instead of combatants.
Military Commanders must distinguish between legitimate military targets & civilian objects including the civilian population
 AP I-Art 48
 AP II-Art 13(1)

6. Limitation
The states that parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have
an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
 It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause
unnecessary losses or excessive suffering
Limitation: In any armed conflict the right of the Parties to choose methods or
means of warfare is not unlimited (API, Art 35.1) •
"You may not use all means and methods!"
Discussion Type Questions
Can you state what Fyodor Martens clause, or commonly referred to as „Martens
Clause says? What it the significance of this principle?
‟
 What are the principles formulated in St. Petersburg Declaration?
Discuss the principle of proportionality seeking to balance the interest dictated by
considerations of military need and by the requirements of humanity.

International Human Rights Law v. International Humanitarian Law
• Wall opinion
• Nuclear Weapons Opinion

IHRL versus IHL
IHRL IHL
Broad scope  Narrow scope
Primarily in peacetime  Armed conflict
Primarily binds States  It binds States and non-state
entities
State-individual State/non-state versus individuals of
Open-ended norms  Specific provisions
Rights to all  Specific protection
Mainly territorial Territorial / extra-territorial
Elaborate monitoring Minimal enforcement

What if the two norms contradicts?
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory in 2004( ICJ Wall Opinion para 106): three
options:
‘(…) some rights may be exclusively matters of international
humanitarian law; others may be exclusively matters of human rights
law; yet others may be matters of both these branches of international
law.’

Three options:
1.Some rights exclusively matters of IHL
•Use of red cross, red crescent
2.Some are exclusively matters of HRL
•Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly
3.Others may be matters of both branches of law
•Solution?
•lexspecialis
•complementarity

Lex Specialis derogate lex generalis
1996 ICJ Nuclear Weapons Opinion, para 25
• ‘The test of what is an arbitrary deprivation of life, however, then falls to be
determined by the applicable lex specialis, namely, the law applicable in armed
conflict which is designed to regulate the conduct of hostilities’
Is IHL lex specialis, or IHRL?
3. Approaches
1. ICJ approach – lex specialis, Wall Opinion para 106
2. Complementarity or harmonious approach—UN HRC GC 31, para 11
3. Interpretative Approach—Prof. Marco Sassoli, lex specialis derogate legi
general's depends on a particular circumstances.
Ex. Fair trail standards under Art 75(8) AP should be ruled in light of IHRL
norms.

Questions
1) Combatant X is detained during an international armed conflict. He
challenges this decision. What is the lex specialis:
• ›GC III stipulates that POW may be detained until the cessation of hostilities
without POWs having the right to challenge that decision;
• ›Article 9(4) ICCPR provides everyone who has been detained the right to a
proceeding to challenge this decision.
2) Combatant X from armed opposition group Q is detained by the state
authorities. What is his protection:
›Common Article3 prohibits the passing of sentences and the carrying out of
executions without previous judgement(…);
›Article14 ICCPR grants everyone the right to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, impartial and independent tribunal in the determination of a
criminal charge against him.

Scope of IHL
Applicable to all armed conflicts even if war is not declared Art 2(1) GC
 Covers the laws of war—weapons treaties and protocols
 Qualification of conflict
 Material scope: what does IHL regulate? Armed conflicts—IAC v
NIAC
 Personal scope: whom are bound? Parties to an armed conflict,
combatants

Qualifications of armed conflicts- thorny exercise
1) International Armed Conflict(IAC)
International armed conflicts are conflicts between states.
They are inter-state armed conflicts,
Which is when one state engages in armed conflict with another state. Also when
partial or total occupation of one state by another regarded as IAC
A) -Common article 2 of GC
• ‘(…) all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise
between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the State of war is not
recognized by them.’
So, when does the war starts?(see Emily Crawford p.52-54)
1.First shot theory—conflict exists whenever resort to armed force(see ICRC view
and Tadic case)
2. Intense fighting –boarder conflicts with high intensity

IAC applies to
B) Occupation
• ‘(…) also apply to all cases of total or partial occupation of the territory
of a High Contracting party.’
Wall Opinion ICJ para 78: (…) territory is considered occupied when it is
actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the
occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been
established and can be exercised. (…)’
c) CAR– AP I art 1(4) The applicable law is AP I
-Colonial domination
-Alien occupation
-Racist regime(Self determination)

Non-International Armed Conflicts(NIAC)
NIAC are generally armed conflicts taking place within the boundaries of one country between the government
forces and nongovernment armed groups (rebels) or among rebels themselves.
There is no other states participation in the conflict.
Thus, they are sometimes referred to as internal armed conflicts or civil war .
GC common Art 3
‘In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High
Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their
arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith,
sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect
to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. (…)

3. Internationalized Armed Conflicts
The notion of internationalized armed conflicts is not clear but it is understood.
 armed conflicts sharing the feature of both international and non-intentional armed
conflicts.
It is also understood as conflicts originally non intentional (internal) in nature but that
have taken a different form because of the involvement of other States in support of
any of the groups fighting
Example, the conflicts in the Balkans). James G. Stewart states the term
internationalized armed conflict includes war between two internal factions both of
which are backed by different States; direct hostilities between two foreign States that
militarily intervene in an armed conflict in support of opposing sides; and when a state
sending its troops directly in an internal armed conflict siding with one of the parties
to what purely an internal armed conflict.
war involving a foreign intervention in support of an insurgent group fighting an
established government.
The overall control would include coordinating, financing, organizing, equipping
activities. Nicaragua case

ICTY Prosecutor v. Tadic, IT-94-1-T, Judgment 7 May 1997, para 561
an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between
States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and
organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.
• ‘562 -The test applied by the Appeals Chamber to the existence of an armed
conflict for the purposes of the rules contained in Common Article 3 focuses
on two aspects of a conflict; the intensity of the conflict and the
organization of the parties to the conflict.
• Intensity: number, duration, intensity of individual confrontations, type of
weapons and other military equipment used,
• Organization: existence of a command structure, disciplinary rules within the
group, existence of headquarters.

AP II—higher threshold than common Article 3
Dissident armed forces/ opponent or other organized armed group
Responsible command
Which exercise such control over territory so as to enable them to
Carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to
implement this Protocol

Note NIACs
• These criteria (…) are used for the purpose, as a minimum, of
distinguishing an armed conflict from banditry, unorganized and
short-lived insurrections, or terrorist activities, which are not subject
to international humanitarian law.
• ›Not a NIAC: riots, isolated acts of violence
-NIAC Common Art 3 Armed Group
1
Armed Group
2
Government

Scope of application: conséquence of a forgien intervention in a NIAC
STATE A
STATE B STATE C
Rebels of
State A
INTERNAL
INTERNATIONAL
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
INTERNAL
INTERNAL
INTERNATIONAL

STATE A
STATE B STATE C
Rebels of
State A
INTERNAL
INTERNATIONAL
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
INTERNAL
INTERNAL
INTERNATIONAL
OVERALL
CONTROL
INTERNATIONAL
CONSEQUENCES OF A FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN
AN INTERNALARMED CONFLICT

State A State B
Armed group
Overall control
Financing
Training
Equipment
Operational support
Organisation
Coordination or
Planification
FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN NIAC
+
Consequences : NIAC  IAC IHL in IAC
applies

Level of support ?
How do we assess the level of Intervention/support?
A.Effective control—Nicaragua Test para , higher threshold –
paras 86, 109 & 115
-No direct and critical support of US to Contras.
-High threshold
--Genocide Case 2007 –resort to Nicargua test , para 398-415
B. Overall control—Tadic case, lower control—para 145

Scope of application: consequences of an intervention by
multinational forces in a NIAC
STATE A
Multinational
forces
Multinational
forces
Rebels of
State A
INTERNAL
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
INTERNAL
INTERNAL
INTERNATIONAL

Complications
• Many conflicts cannot be neatly categorized:
›Fighting may spill across national borders
›Armed group may be fighting in one state but be based in other
›Government may support one of the parties to a civil war in another
state
• From IAC to NIAC –from common Article 2 to common Article 3 -(Iraq,
Afghanistan –NB article Bellal in reading materials for this lecture)
• From NIAC to IAC –from common Article 3 to common Article 2 -
(Lebanon, Georgia, Colombia, Ukraine?)

More complications…
• Dual status conflicts (Afghanistan, Lybia, former Yugoslavia (Tadic))
›Lybia:
• IAC with states participating militarily (SC Resolution 1973)
•NIAC where Lybia was fighting a non-state armed group (Common Article 3 and
AP II)
Crawford’s classification
›Internationalized armed conflicts
• Military intervention by foreign state
• Other state meddles-
>Transnational Armed conflicts—when NIAC involves the territory of many state

Question
• Syria : the nature of the conflict?
http://www.rulac.org/browse/countries/syria

Model questions
Qualification of armed conflict
Note, we have seen international humanitarian law applies in situation of
armed conflict. The first thing that we have to determine would be
qualification of the situation. But, what we classify the situation of conflict
?
 To figure out the applicable law
To put sanction
For humanitarian action
Rights , privileges and obligations

International Humanitarian Law- Lecture notes

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to International Humanitarian Law- Lecture notes

More from getabelete

Recently uploaded

International Humanitarian Law- Lecture notes