Abstract
A combatant in an armed conflict, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, can seek to gain a tactical or strategic advantage by resort to deception and trickery. International Humanitarian Law (IHL), however, distinguishes between permissible ruses of war and illegal acts of perfidy. How, then, should combatants conduct themselves so as to avoid violating IHL’s perfidy prohibitions? This article argues that belligerents should interpret prohibitions against perfidy in a purposive manner (looking to causative links that may exist between perfidy and harm) in order to avoid eroding the protection that IHL affords to designated groups. A close analysis of potentially perfidious land, air, and sea combat practices will further reveal that some accepted practices may need to be reassessed and/or ceased if States wish to comply with purposively-interpreted perfidy prohibitions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
