Difference between revisions of "Non-international armed conflict"

From International cyber law: interactive toolkit
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "== Definition == <section begin=Definition /> {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="background-color:#ffffcc;" |- ! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| Non-in...")
 
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="background-color:#ffffcc;"
 
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="background-color:#ffffcc;"
 
|-
 
|-
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| Non-international armed conflict
+
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Non-international armed conflict]]
 
|-
 
|-
|The law of NIAC applies to all armed conflicts not of an international character.<ref>Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions.</ref> This notion has been authoritatively defined by the ICTY as encompassing all situations of “protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State”.<ref><i>Prosecutor v Tadić</i> (Decision on Jurisdiction) IT-94-1-AR72 (2 October 1995) [70].</ref>  
+
|[[File:Non-international armed conflict.svg|left|frameless|200x200px]]The law of '''non-international armed conflict''' (NIAC) applies to all armed conflicts not of an international character.<ref>[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/375-590006 Common Article 3] GCs.</ref> As set forth by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the ''Tadić'' case, NIACs are situations of “protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State”.<ref>[http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acdec/en/51002.htm <i>Prosecutor v Tadić</i> (Decision on Jurisdiction) IT-94-1-AR72 (2 October 1995)] [70].</ref>  
  
This judicial definition implies a twofold requirement of minimum organization and intensity. Firstly, the non-State group must be militarily organized, the indicators of which include the presence of a command structure, the ability to determine a unified military strategy and speak with one voice, the adherence to military discipline, as well as the capability to comply with IHL.<ref><i>Prosecutor v Limaj, Bala and Musliu</i> (Trial Judgment) IT-03-66-T (30 November 2005) [129]; <i>Prosecutor v Boškoski and Tarčulovski</i> (Trial Judgment) IT-04-82-T (10 July 2008) [199]–[203].</ref> Secondly, the hostilities must reach a certain level of intensity, which is indicated by, among other factors, the seriousness of attacks, the extent of destruction, or the deployment of governmental armed forces.<ref><i>Prosecutor v Boškoski and Tarčulovski</i> (Trial Judgment) IT-04-82-T (10 July 2008) [177].</ref>
+
This definition rests on two factors—the intensity of the fighting and the organization of the non-State group.<ref>See also [http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/tjug/en/tad-tsj70507JT2-e.pdf ''Prosecutor v Tadić'' (Trial Judgment) IT-94-1-T (7 May 1997)] [562] (noting that the two criteria distinguish “an armed conflict from banditry, unorganized and short-lived insurrections, or terrorist activities, which are not subject to international humanitarian law”).</ref> First, the hostilities between the parties must reach a certain level of intensity, which may be indicated by, among other factors, the seriousness and frequency of attacks and military engagements, the extent of destruction, or the deployment of governmental armed forces.<ref>[http://www.icty.org/x/cases/boskoski_tarculovski/tjug/en/080710.pdf <i>Prosecutor v Boškoski and Tarčulovski</i> (Trial Judgment) IT-04-82-T (10 July 2008)] [177].</ref> Second, the non-State group must have some minimum level of organization, indicators of which may include the presence of a command or leadership structure, the ability to determine a unified military strategy and speak with one voice, the adherence to military discipline, as well as the capability to comply with IHL.<ref>[http://www.icty.org/x/cases/limaj/tjug/en/lim-tj051130-e.pdf <i>Prosecutor v Limaj, Bala and Musliu</i> (Trial Judgment) IT-03-66-T (30 November 2005)] [129]; [http://www.icty.org/x/cases/boskoski_tarculovski/tjug/en/080710.pdf <i>Prosecutor v Boškoski and Tarčulovski</i> (Trial Judgment) IT-04-82-T (10 July 2008)] [199]–[203].</ref>  
 
   
 
   
The same criteria of organization and intensity apply in situations involving (or even limited to) cyber operations.<ref>Cf. L Cameron et al, ‘Article 3: Conflicts Not of an International Character’ in ICRC (ed), <i>Commentary on the First Geneva Convention</i> (CUP 2016) 158 [436] (“In order to determine the existence of a non-international armed conflict involving cyber operations, the same criteria apply as with regard to kinetic violence.”). </ref> However, given that the intensity threshold is relatively high, cyber operations alone will only rarely trigger a NIAC.<ref>Tallinn Manual 2.0, commentary to rule 83, para. 7.</ref>
+
These same criteria of intensity and organization apply in situations involving (or even limited to) cyber operations.<ref>Cf. L Cameron et al, ‘Article 3: Conflicts Not of an International Character’ in ICRC (ed), <i>[https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316755709 Commentary on the First Geneva Convention]</i> (CUP 2016) 158 [436] (“In order to determine the existence of a non-international armed conflict involving cyber operations, the same criteria apply as with regard to kinetic violence.”). </ref> However, cyber operations alone will only rarely meet the requisite level of intensity to trigger a NIAC.<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316822524 Tallinn Manual 2.0], commentary to rule 83, para 7; Yoram Dinstein, ''[https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107279391 Non-International Armed Conflicts in International Law]'' (CUP 2014) 35.</ref>
 
|}<section end=Definition />
 
|}<section end=Definition />
  
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
=== See also ===
 
=== See also ===
 +
* [[International armed conflict]]
  
 
=== Notes and references ===
 
=== Notes and references ===
Line 21: Line 22:
  
 
=== Bibliography and further reading ===
 
=== Bibliography and further reading ===
 +
<!--
 +
* MN Schmitt (ed), ''Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations'' (CUP 2017)
 +
-->
  
* MN Schmitt (ed), ''Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations'' (CUP 2017)
+
[[Category:International humanitarian law]]
 +
[[Category:Non-international armed conflict]]
 +
[[Category:Legal concepts]]

Latest revision as of 13:51, 14 May 2019

Definition[edit | edit source]

Non-international armed conflict
Non-international armed conflict.svg
The law of non-international armed conflict (NIAC) applies to all armed conflicts not of an international character.[1] As set forth by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Tadić case, NIACs are situations of “protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State”.[2]

This definition rests on two factors—the intensity of the fighting and the organization of the non-State group.[3] First, the hostilities between the parties must reach a certain level of intensity, which may be indicated by, among other factors, the seriousness and frequency of attacks and military engagements, the extent of destruction, or the deployment of governmental armed forces.[4] Second, the non-State group must have some minimum level of organization, indicators of which may include the presence of a command or leadership structure, the ability to determine a unified military strategy and speak with one voice, the adherence to military discipline, as well as the capability to comply with IHL.[5]

These same criteria of intensity and organization apply in situations involving (or even limited to) cyber operations.[6] However, cyber operations alone will only rarely meet the requisite level of intensity to trigger a NIAC.[7]

Appendixes[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

Notes and references[edit | edit source]

  1. Common Article 3 GCs.
  2. Prosecutor v Tadić (Decision on Jurisdiction) IT-94-1-AR72 (2 October 1995) [70].
  3. See also Prosecutor v Tadić (Trial Judgment) IT-94-1-T (7 May 1997) [562] (noting that the two criteria distinguish “an armed conflict from banditry, unorganized and short-lived insurrections, or terrorist activities, which are not subject to international humanitarian law”).
  4. Prosecutor v Boškoski and Tarčulovski (Trial Judgment) IT-04-82-T (10 July 2008) [177].
  5. Prosecutor v Limaj, Bala and Musliu (Trial Judgment) IT-03-66-T (30 November 2005) [129]; Prosecutor v Boškoski and Tarčulovski (Trial Judgment) IT-04-82-T (10 July 2008) [199]–[203].
  6. Cf. L Cameron et al, ‘Article 3: Conflicts Not of an International Character’ in ICRC (ed), Commentary on the First Geneva Convention (CUP 2016) 158 [436] (“In order to determine the existence of a non-international armed conflict involving cyber operations, the same criteria apply as with regard to kinetic violence.”).
  7. Tallinn Manual 2.0, commentary to rule 83, para 7; Yoram Dinstein, Non-International Armed Conflicts in International Law (CUP 2014) 35.

Bibliography and further reading[edit | edit source]