TYPES OF CONFLICT
The more vigorously wars are pursued the
better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief.
Article 29, Instructions for the Government
of Armies of the United States in the Field (the Lieber Code of 1863)
Prior to the adoption of the Geneva
Conventions, international law distinguished between two types of armed
conflict.
The first type – the conventional conception
of ‘war’ – was understood as an armed conflict between two States. If such
conflict occurred, the laws of war automatically applied. The second type of
war was ‘civil war’, which was a condition of armed conflict between a State
and an internally-located insurgent movement that had taken up arms. This was
traditionally considered as a domestic concern, and did not usually involve any
international legal regulation at all. Only if the ‘host’ State or a third
State recognized the insurgents as belligerents did the laws of war come into
effect between the parties.
This difference in treatment was a reflection
of the international law system as it stood at that time. Civil wars had
traditionally been seen as matters solely for domestic consideration. States
were unwilling to allow international regulation of what they considered
internal political issues. However, the scope, intensity and brutality of the
Spanish Civil War and World War II demonstrated to States that they needed to
update the laws of war, and to introduce international law regarding
non-international armed conflicts as well.
The more vigorously wars are pursued the
better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief.
Article 29, Instructions for the Government
of Armies of the United States in the Field (the Lieber Code of 1863)
Prior to the adoption of the Geneva
Conventions, international law distinguished between two types of armed
conflict.
The first type – the conventional conception
of ‘war’ – was understood as an armed conflict between two States. If such
conflict occurred, the laws of war automatically applied. The second type of
war was ‘civil war’, which was a condition of armed conflict between a State
and an internally-located insurgent movement that had taken up arms. This was
traditionally considered as a domestic concern, and did not usually involve any
international legal regulation at all. Only if the ‘host’ State or a third
State recognized the insurgents as belligerents did the laws of war come into
effect between the parties.
This difference in treatment was a reflection
of the international law system as it stood at that time. Civil wars had
traditionally been seen as matters solely for domestic consideration. States
were unwilling to allow international regulation of what they considered
internal political issues. However, the scope, intensity and brutality of the
Spanish Civil War and World War II demonstrated to States that they needed to
update the laws of war, and to introduce international law regarding
non-international armed conflicts as well.
INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT (Inter-State Conflict)
International armed conflict as defined in
the Geneva Conventions is essentially similar to
traditional legal notions of the concept of ‘war’ – an armed conflict between
two or more states. Article 2, common to the Four
Conventions, provides that:
… the present Convention shall apply to 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 one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of
partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even
if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
With the adoption of the Additional Protocols
in 1977, a new category of international armed conflict was added. Under Additional Protocol I, an international armed conflict will
exist in situations:
… in which peoples are fighting against
colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the
exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of
the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations.
International armed conflict as defined in
the Geneva Conventions is essentially similar to
traditional legal notions of the concept of ‘war’ – an armed conflict between
two or more states. Article 2, common to the Four
Conventions, provides that:
… the present Convention shall apply to 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 one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of
partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even
if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
With the adoption of the Additional Protocols
in 1977, a new category of international armed conflict was added. Under Additional Protocol I, an international armed conflict will
exist in situations:
… in which peoples are fighting against
colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the
exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of
the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations.
NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS
(Intra-State Conflict)
The Geneva Conventions also cover
non-international armed conflicts, which are defined in Common Article 3 as
‘armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of
one of the High Contracting Parties’. When the laws of war were revisited in
the 1970s, it was determined that there should be more laws regulating
non-international armed conflicts. Additional Protocol II therefore,
applies to:
… all armed conflicts not covered by Article
1 … of Protocol I and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting
Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized
armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a
part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted
military operations and to implement this Protocol.
However, Additional Protocol II is limited by
a number of qualifiers. Before the Protocol can be triggered, dissident forces
have to exercise control over part of their host State’s territory. The
fighting must be sustained or protracted, and rise above mere ‘internal
tensions’, ‘riots’, and other ‘isolated and sporadic acts of violence.’ Whether
or not the Protocol applies is also dependent on the dissident forces being able
to ‘implement’ the Protocol. So, where an armed group does not retain some
measure of territorial control, or is unable to implement the Protocol, the
Protocol does not apply. In addition, the issue of multiple non-State parties
to the conflict is not addressed. Unlike Common Article 3, which foresees the
possibility of multiple dissident groups engaging in a non-international
armed conflict, Protocol II applies only in situations of armed conflict
between a dissident armed group and the armed forces of a High Contracting
Party and not as between different armed groups. Also, any situation where
there is no recognised government – only insurgent or opposition groups
fighting one another for control – results in the inapplicability of Protocol
II. The cumulative effect of these restrictions is that Protocol II remains
significantly more limited than Common Article 3.
International armed conflicts are by far the
most highly regulated, with a raft of treaties and comprehensive customary
international law regulating permissible State conduct. By comparison,
non-international armed conflicts have few laws regulating their conduct. The
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Additional Protocols have over 550
articles combined, but only 29 of those regulate non-international armed
conflict; The Hague Regulations of 1907 do not contain any provisions regarding
non-international armed conflict.
The Geneva Conventions also cover
non-international armed conflicts, which are defined in Common Article 3 as
‘armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of
one of the High Contracting Parties’. When the laws of war were revisited in
the 1970s, it was determined that there should be more laws regulating
non-international armed conflicts. Additional Protocol II therefore,
applies to:
… all armed conflicts not covered by Article
1 … of Protocol I and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting
Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized
armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a
part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted
military operations and to implement this Protocol.
However, Additional Protocol II is limited by
a number of qualifiers. Before the Protocol can be triggered, dissident forces
have to exercise control over part of their host State’s territory. The
fighting must be sustained or protracted, and rise above mere ‘internal
tensions’, ‘riots’, and other ‘isolated and sporadic acts of violence.’ Whether
or not the Protocol applies is also dependent on the dissident forces being able
to ‘implement’ the Protocol. So, where an armed group does not retain some
measure of territorial control, or is unable to implement the Protocol, the
Protocol does not apply. In addition, the issue of multiple non-State parties
to the conflict is not addressed. Unlike Common Article 3, which foresees the
possibility of multiple dissident groups engaging in a non-international
armed conflict, Protocol II applies only in situations of armed conflict
between a dissident armed group and the armed forces of a High Contracting
Party and not as between different armed groups. Also, any situation where
there is no recognised government – only insurgent or opposition groups
fighting one another for control – results in the inapplicability of Protocol
II. The cumulative effect of these restrictions is that Protocol II remains
significantly more limited than Common Article 3.
International armed conflicts are by far the
most highly regulated, with a raft of treaties and comprehensive customary
international law regulating permissible State conduct. By comparison,
non-international armed conflicts have few laws regulating their conduct. The
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Additional Protocols have over 550
articles combined, but only 29 of those regulate non-international armed
conflict; The Hague Regulations of 1907 do not contain any provisions regarding
non-international armed conflict.
TRANSNATIONAL CONFLICT
Transnationalism as concept,
theory and experience has nourished an important literature in social sciences.
In practice transnationalism refers to increasing functional integration of
processes that cross-borders or according to others Trans bordered relations of
individuals, groups, firms and to mobilizations beyond state boundaries.
Individuals, groups, institutions and states interact with each other in a new
global space where cultural and political characteristic of national societies
are combined with emerging multilevel and multinational activities.
Transnationalism is a part of the process of capitalist globalization. The
concept of transnational Conflict refers to the conflicts or problems generate
from multiple links and interactions linking people and institutions across the
borders of nation-states.
Transnationalism as concept,
theory and experience has nourished an important literature in social sciences.
In practice transnationalism refers to increasing functional integration of
processes that cross-borders or according to others Trans bordered relations of
individuals, groups, firms and to mobilizations beyond state boundaries.
Individuals, groups, institutions and states interact with each other in a new
global space where cultural and political characteristic of national societies
are combined with emerging multilevel and multinational activities.
Transnationalism is a part of the process of capitalist globalization. The
concept of transnational Conflict refers to the conflicts or problems generate
from multiple links and interactions linking people and institutions across the
borders of nation-states.
Sir,If possible, then Please try to add print option in this page/platform?
ReplyDeleteOK Shah, I will try
ReplyDeleteThank you so much Sir
ReplyDeleteSir I am proud of you ❤️
ReplyDeleteExtremely Thank you sir
ReplyDelete