Boston1, et al,
I wouldn't waste any time on Billo_Really's commentary. He really doesn't understand the application of how they all come together. I especially like the inference he draws on "War - vs - Occupation."
From a International Law standpoint, the word "war" is a layman's term. There is no universally accepted definition of war, one proposed definition contains the following four elements:
(a) a contention;
(b) between at least two nation-states;
(c) wherein armed force is employed;
(d) with an intent to overwhelm.
After the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Law of Armed Conflict can now be triggered by the existence of “armed conflict” between States. The Law of Armed Conflict is often referred to as the Law of War (LOW) or by the title you see very often: International Humanitarian Law (IHL). What is often misunderstood is that the purposes for the Law of Armed Conflict are to:
(1) integrate humanity into war, and
(2) serve as a tactical combat multiplier.
Let me impress this point one more time. The objectives of the law of armed conflict.
The purposes of the law of armed conflict are to:
(1) integrate humanity into war, and
(2) serve as a tactical combat multiplier.
The validity of the law of armed conflict is best explained in terms of both objectives. There are only two kinds of "armed Conflict."
International armed conflict (IAC)
The generally accepted criteria for the existence of an IAC are derived from
Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which 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.
Treaty law, together with the ad hoc tribunals’ rich body of jurisprudence, provides detailed guidance as to when a situation of violence amounts to a NIAC and thus triggers the application of
Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Two instruments apply to NIAC:
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (CA3) and the
1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions (APII). Of these, it is the latter that sets forth far more detailed rules, despite its narrower scope of application. As with IAC, there is no codified definition of NIAC, although treaty law does inform us as to what type of violence is not governed by LOAC.
"Wars" are very strange things. They can involve "state actors" and "non-state actors." But the basics and fundamentals in the evaluation of any Armed Conflict ("war") are: •••
These are most important. •••
• The gravity of attacks and their recurrence;
• The temporal and territorial expansion of violence and the collective character of hostilities;
• Whether various parties were able to operate from a territory under their control;
• An increase in the number of government forces;
• The mobilization of volunteers and the distribution and type of weapons among both parties to the conflict;
• The displacement of a large number of people owing to the conflict;
• Whether the conflict is subject to any relevant scrutiny or action by the UN Security Council.
Billo_Reilly's draws an incorrect inference when he states: "Your whole argument hinges upon it being a war and it's not; it's an occupation." Occupation is an outcome of conflict along the timeline. The terms "Armed Conflict" and "Occupation" recognize a change in conditions; NOT a change in law, merely applicability.
In any event, the overall legal framework remains unchanged. Billyo-Reilly's commentary is completely irrelevant.
Most Respectfully,
R
