Deconstructing the Thematic Dichotomy between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law

Abstract

 

This paper sets out to examine the desirability or otherwise of the retention of the legal distinction between International Armed Conflict (IAC) and Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) owing to its importance in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and for the recognition of the legal status of fighters in an armed conflict. Captivating as the standpoints of legal scholars on its retention or otherwise, there is yet the debate on internationalization of armed conflict which, fused with the two divides of armed conflicts, compels the writer to posit that the distinction between the two types of armed conflict is no longer desirable and should be abolished. Espousing the above, the work raises two fundamental questions - whether the rules of IHL as applicable to NIAC are sufficient to meet the current realities of armed conflicts? Whether the legal distinction between IAC and NIAC is still relevant given the dynamics of contemporary armed conflicts? Evident in the array of treaty laws already tilting towards unification, the paper proposes the development of a single body of IHL rules to regulate all types of armed conflict, regardless of nomenclature, in order to meet the changing nature of contemporary armed conflicts. The paper concludes with the novel but firm submission that non-state armed opposition groups be granted combatant status subject however to trial by the courts or tribunal set up for that purpose in the event of violations of IHL rules. This will allow for human protection which is one of the core values of IHL.