Armed Conflict In International Law

Under international law, in an armed conflict enemy fighters may be targeted and killed in situations not permitted in peace. Certain persons may also be detained without trial or tried before military commissions. Many important human rights protections may be relaxed or derogated from in the exigencies of armed conflict. This shift from the law that prevails during peace occurs only when armed conflict begins. It is, therefore, critical to understand what constitutes “armed conflict” in international law to make an appropriate choice of law between the law that prevails in peace and the law that may be applied during an armed conflict. This choice between bodies of international legal rules is, in turn, governed by international law. It is

States may conduct targeted killings under international humanitarian law applicable in the context of an “armed conflict,” it is therefore very appealing for the United States to prove an armed conflict is taking place – the IHL applicable in armed conflict arguably has more permissive rules for killing than does human rights law or a State’s domestic law, and generally provides immunity to State armed forces. Neither the relevant Geneva Convention nor the additional Protocols define an “armed conflict;” the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), expressed what is in recent times considered the authoritative test in Tadic. The test was further advanced upon in Boskoski, where it adjudged that the fighting between the Macedonian security forces and the Albanian National Liberation Army amounted to an armed conflict. The test consists of two elements that must be

This was clearly shown when the group attacked American military in Yemen in 1992, bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, orchestrated the devastating 9/11 attacks in 2001, the bombings of the London Underground in 2005 and the attack on the embassy of Denmark in Islamabad in 2008.

Al Qaeda most definitely possesses a hierarchical command structure. A CIA analyst who specialised in al Qaeda described the group as having “bylaws, committee structures, [and] rules for succession.” The group has a structure which is so highly organised it also includes regional commanders who adhere to the “Annual Plan” adopted at the “command council”, a mandate for their activities, where Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri once casted “the deciding vote[s].” Additionally, the organisation has management tiers and a ladder system where senior members are replaced by mid-level officers upon death.

Al Qaeda also readily behaves like a political body. Co-operation between al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban government was clear and did not cease until that government was toppled. Additionally, many of the group’s stated goals, such as introducing fundamentalism to secular governments and encouraging religious leadership, are political and form a mandate for their actions. Therefore, al Qaeda also satisfies the organisation element of the