Internal armed conflict definition8/28/2023 ![]() In 2014, according to statistics used by the U.S. Some commonly used statistics, however, suggest that terrorist attacks are on the rise. The lack of definitional consensus among states makes it difficult to quantify terrorist attacks. Nor do we mean to characterize the actual legal status of any particular individual or entity. Our use of these terms is not meant to weigh in on the validity of any of those definitions. The relevant legal definition of terrorist, terrorist act, or (acts of) terrorism must be found in domestic law or international law. Similarly, the terms terrorist act and (acts of) terrorism are used here to denote those acts meeting a relevant legal definition of terroristic conduct. Thus, the term terrorist is used here to denote persons, entities, or conduct meeting a relevant legal definition of terrorist. ĭue to the lack of definitional consensus between states, for the purposes of this report we defer to definitions of (acts of) terrorism, terrorist, and terrorist act found in any of the relevant jurisdictions where such terroristic conduct may be committed, especially-due to our focus here-those with a sufficient nexus to an armed conflict. And at the domestic level, states have promulgated wide-ranging anti-terrorism legislations. Security Council has considered terrorism a threat to international peace and security and has sanctioned individuals and groups associated with al-Qaeda. Examples include those aiming to prevent and punish certain terrorist acts-such as hijacking airplanes or hostage taking-and to suppress terrorism financing. However, states have developed, at the multilateral and regional levels, numerous anti-terrorism treaties. Definitions and Incidence of TerrorismĪs discussed in more detail in section 5, there are no generally agreed-upon definitions of terrorism, terrorist, or terrorist act in international law. Finally, we outline the potential status of terrorists under IHL. We then describe and discuss challenges concerning the classification of armed conflicts involving terrorists under IHL. We first briefly note the definitions of terrorist and terrorism we use in this report. The more the applicant is able to show that he is specifically affected, the lower the level of indiscriminate violence required for him to be eligible for subsidiary protection.To foreground the discussions of medical care in IHL and states’ responses to terrorism, this section outlines key concepts in IHL and counterterrorism frameworks. Subsidiary protection should be granted when clashes pose a serious and individual threat to the life or physical integrity of the applicant. With an “armed conflict," therefore, we consider situations where there are clashes between the security forces of the state and one or more armed groups, or where clashes between two or more armed groups occur. Due to the different nature of the EU Directive on international protection and international humanitarian law, the term “armed conflict” in EU law should be understood in accordance with its usual meaning in everyday language. Such a relationship does not occur in the case of the EU Directive. The concept of armed conflict in international humanitarian law is also closely related to criminal sanctions. While the purpose of humanitarian law is primarily to ensure the protection of civilians in conflict zones by reducing the negative effects of the war, the EU law focuses on granting international protection of civilians outside a particular conflict zone. In the opinion of the CJEU, the Union legislature's intention was to grant subsidiary protection not only in the case of international or non-international armed conflicts, as defined in humanitarian law, but also in the case of internal armed conflict, assuming that these conflicts are characterized by so-called “indiscriminate violence." In the opinion of the CJEU, humanitarian law and the system of subsidiary protection provided by the Directive pursue different objectives and bring clearly distinct mechanisms of protection. ![]() The Court of Justice of the European Union agreed with him. The complainant considered that in the case of the EU Directive, the term should have an autonomous character and be defined independently. The complainant alleged that the Belgian authorities handling his case wrongly used the definition of "armed conflict" derived from international humanitarian law. Diakite, however, highlighted that he participated in anti-governments movements there and claimed that his return to the country would result in repression and violence towards him. The authorities argued that there is no armed conflict in Guinea.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |