Thus, the exceptional state of affairs, with its attendant extraordinary measures that are tolerated by IHL, continues. ![]() The transformation of a NIAC into an IAC is possible, for instance, where the acts of a non-state organized armed group fighting a state’s armed forces become attributable to another state. We do not include a standalone theory covering the factual situation where IHL of NIAC ceases to apply to the situation once it transforms into an IAC, at which point IHL of IAC immediately applies. Moreover, none, on its own, presents a sufficiently totalizing theory to address all the normative, practical, and legal concerns that may arise with respect to the discontinuance of the application of IHL to NIAC.Ī prefatory point is in order. None has attained consensus in either law or commentary. In certain respects, these theories may be over- or under-inclusive. ![]() The no-reasonable-risk-of-resumption theory and. ![]() In this section, drawing from existing international law and scholarly arguments, we postulate and scrutinize four theories on the vanishing point of the application of the international-legal framework of armed conflict in relation to NIAC: Even though NIACs are the most common type of contemporary armed conflict, there are, as we illustrated in Section 5, fewer IHL provisions and rules concerning how NIACs end compared to IACs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |