Criteria for defining "armed conflict" in international humanitarian law: historical background, current challenges and legal realities
L. Pashynna
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.84.4.46
2024-09-28
Abstract:The global landscape, enshrined in a wide range of international legal agreements, envisions an era of peaceful coexistence among nations. This vision is based on fundamental legal acts, such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice (dated 26.06.1945), which enshrine the principle of peaceful coexistence. In addition, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (24.10.1970) and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (01.08.1975) build on this foundation, strengthening the doctrine of peaceful interaction between states.
The United Nations Charter resonates as a clear call to nations to prioritize peace and diplomacy over confrontation. The provision that “all Members of the United Nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner as not to endanger international peace, security and justice” (Article 2(3)) is not just a statement of intent; it is a guiding principle that emphasizes the value of peaceful coexistence. This principle favors dialogue over discord, cooperation over confrontation, and understanding over unilateral action.
However, the development of international relations from the mid-20th century to the beginning of the 21st century demonstrates a somewhat opposite dynamic. Despite these well-established doctrines, there have been many instances where disputes have escalated into armed conflicts. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, multiple conflicts in the Middle East, and the recent civil war in Syria are just a few examples that have left a deep mark on the structure of world relations. Such events demonstrate the unfortunate tendency of states or groups within states to resort to force or the threat of force as a means of resolving disputes.
This departure from the established norm of peaceful settlement raises a number of pressing questions and concerns, especially within the framework of international humanitarian law. How to accurately define “armed conflict”? What distinguishes an international conflict from a non-international one? When delving into this sub-topic, it is very important to distinguish between different classifications of conflicts. A thorough understanding of the criteria that distinguish, for example, between international conflicts, internal unrest, and other types of hostilities is of paramount importance. Referring to these criteria not only helps to accurately categorize conflicts, but also ensures that appropriate legal mechanisms are applied to mitigate the humanitarian consequences of such events.