Noam Zamir

The Armed Conflict(s) Against the Islamic State

International Humanitarian Law in general and the classification of armed conflicts in particular have been the subjects of a vast amount of scholarly writing, international jurisprudence, states’ reports and international reports of IGOs and NGOs. Nevertheless, as exemplified by the armed conflicts with the Islamic State, important questions regarding various aspects of conflict classification remain. Since conflict classification has important practical ramifications, by analysing the armed conflicts with the Islamic State from the perspective of conflict classification, this article aims to frame these open questions and address them. As conflict classification is contingent on the status of the different actors in the battlefield, the article, inter alia, examines the following: whether the Islamic State can be regarded as a national liberation movement for the purposes of conflict classification; how international humanitarian law determines whether a group can be deemed as the Government of a given state; the effect of consent of the territorial state for intervention on the conflict classification; and, in cases where there is invitation of the territorial state for intervention, whether the foreign armed intervention should be considered separately or conjunctively with the ongoing non-international armed conflict of the territorial state.

DISTINCTION MATTERS: RETHINKING THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN OBJECTS IN NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS

Under treaty law all civilian objects are protected in international armed conflicts (IAC) whereas it is only certain civilian objects that enjoy protection under treaty law in non-international armed conflicts (NIAC). However, it is commonly argued that all civilian objects are protected in NIAC under customary law. This article examines the reasons for the differences in the protection of civilian objects under treaty law and the argument that customary law now provides equal protection for all civilian objects under both IAC and NIAC. The article argues that this equal protection may hinder the ability of states to maintain law and order under their domestic law in NIAC in situations where they may need to destroy property which belongs to armed opposition groups. The article advances the argument that the law regarding targeting should be that all civilian objects are protected in NIAC but, unlike the protection of civilian objects in IAC, this protection does not bar a state from destroying in its territory objects which were considered to be illegal under domestic law before the commencement of the NIAC, in accordance with international human rights law as lex specialis.