Wednesday 30 March 2011

What International Humanitarian Law says....in the Lybia case

[...]
Jus ad bellum vs. jus in bello
At the outset, it is important to stress that international humanitarian law (IHL) applies equally to all sides of an armed conflict, regardless of the lawfulness of the resort to force by either side. This is due to the separation of the jus ad bellum (the law governing the resort to force) and the jus in bello (the law applicable to situations of armed conflict). As (now Judge) Christopher Greenwood writes, "The principle that international humanitarian law applies equally to both sides of a conflict irrespective of the reasons for resort to force or its legality is one of the best established principles of the jus in bello." Accordingly, once an armed conflict exists, all parties to the conflict must comply with the relevant provisions of IHL.


Key principles
As reflected in customary law, IHL requires all parties to an armed conflict at a minimum to adhere to the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity, among others.[...]


Qualifying the armed conflict(s) in Libya
The question arises as to whether the situation in Libya amounts to a non-international armed conflict or an international armed conflict—or, perhaps, to multiple ongoing armed conflicts. [..]


A separate, but related, question arises regarding whether an intervention by foreign forces on behalf of a non-state armed group fighting the host state’s armed forces"internationalizes" an already-existing non-international armed conflict. If so, the "new" conflict would in principle be governed by the provisions applicable to international armed conflicts.


Harvard University, IHL in Action

No comments: