Abstract
Abstract International humanitarian law provides for fundamental guarantees, the content of which is similar irrespective of the nature of the armed conflict, and which are applicable to individuals even if they do not fall into the categories of specifically protected persons under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Those guarantees, all of which derive from the general requirement of human treatment, include prohibitions of specific types of conduct against persons, such as murder, cruel treatment, torture and sexual violence, or against property, such as pillaging. However, it is traditionally held that entitlement to those guarantees depends upon two requirements: the ‘status requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons must not or must no longer take a direct part in hostilities, and the ‘control requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons or properties must be under the control of a party to the armed conflict. This study argues in favour of breaking with these two requirements, in light of the existing ICC case law. The study is divided into two parts, with each part devoted to one requirement and made the object of a specific paper. The two papers follow the same structure. They start with general observations on the requirement concerned, examine the relevant ICC case law and put forward several arguments in favour of an extensive approach to the personal scope of the fundamental guarantees. The first paper, which is published in this issue, deals with the status requirement. It especially delves into the ICC decisions in the Ntaganda case with respect to the issue of protection against intra-party violence. It advocates for the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in such a context by rejecting the requirement of a legal status, on the basis of several arguments. Those arguments rely on IHL provisions protecting specific persons, on the potential for humanizing IHL on the matter and on the approach making the status requirement relevant only when the fundamental guarantees apply in the conduct of hostilities. The second paper, which will be published in a coming issue, deals with the control requirement. It examines several ICC cases in detail, including the Katanga and Ntaganda cases, in relation to the issue of the applicability of the fundamental guarantees in the conduct of hostilities. It is argued that the entitlement to those guarantees is not dependent upon any general control requirement, and that, as a result, some of these guarantees (mainly those whose application or constitutive elements do not imply any physical control over the concerned persons or properties) may apply in the conduct of hostilities.
Highlights
International Humanitarian Law sets out a detailed regulatory framework for the protection of persons in relation to situations of armed conflict
International humanitarian law provides for fundamental guarantees, the content of which is similar irrespective of the nature of the armed conflict, and which are applicable to individuals even if they do not fall into the categories of protected persons under the 1949 Geneva Conventions
It is traditionally held that entitlement to those guarantees depends upon two requirements: the ‘status requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons must not or must no longer take a direct part in hostilities, and the ‘control requirement’, which basically means that the concerned persons or properties must be under the control of a party to the armed conflict
Summary
International Humanitarian Law (ihl) sets out a detailed regulatory framework for the protection of persons in relation to situations of armed conflict. Of its members of their comrades who wish to withdraw from the group, the raping of female members, who are sometimes recruited by the group as child soldiers, or the conducting of unfair trials against its members for war crimes or ordinary crimes associated with the armed conflict.[51] This practice may have motivated the International Committee of the Red Cross (icrc), in its Updated Commentaries, to plead in favour of the applicability of Common Article 3 – and of all the fundamental guarantees provided in that Article – to any civilian or member of armed forces, irrespective of his/her affiliation to the armed group.[52] The icrc supports such an extended scope of application by arguing that Common Article 3 does not indicate that it applies to persons ‘in the power of the enemy’.53. The Pre-Trial Chamber reached that conclusion by relying on the status requirement (Section 3.1), whereas the Trial Chamber rejected that status (Section 3.2) and the Appeals Chamber overlooked it and, rather, focussed on another requirement (Section 3.3)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
