EPIK Journals Online Vol. 6 Iss. 01

Unravelling Conventional Boundaries in International Humanitarian Law: The Classification and Regulation of Non-International Armed Conflicts in the Modern World

Author: Evan Ritli, Monash University

Abstract:

International Humanitarian Law is predicated on a dichotomous system which deems wars to be either ‘International Armed Conflicts’ or ‘Non-International Armed Conflicts’. Non-International Armed Conflicts are considered to be an internal state issue rather than an issue for the international community and are thus are regulated by a far less comprehensive legal regime. However, the conventional boundary between International Armed Conflicts and Non-International Armed Conflicts appears to be unravelling. Non-International Armed Conflicts are now the most common form of conflict. They can be highly damaging for the civilian population, are potentially just as threating to world peace as ‘conventional’ interstate wars, and paradoxically, frequently involve multiple states. This essay examines the conventional boundary in IHL between International Armed Conflicts and Non-International Armed Conflicts. It argues that in order for IHL to remain relevant to contemporary conflicts, this boundary must be reconsidered and significant reforms must be made.

Key Words: Armed Non-State Actors, Common Article 2, Common Article 3, Conventional Boundaries, Geneva Conventions, Internationalization, International Armed Conflicts, International Humanitarian Law, Jus in Bello, Non-International Armed Conflict.

Full Context: PDF [Full Statement]

EPIK Journals Online Vol. 6 Iss. 02

Abstract:

This paper looks at the role of emotions in international relations by linking it to identity. It blurs the distinction between rationality and emotions and explains emotional action by altering the equation of desire (interests) + belief (identity) = action. There are two parts to the argument. First, it argues that identities trigger specific emotions, making the attribution of emotional action as “irrational” obsolete. Second, an emotion lingers because it gets institutionalized. By combining the sociological approach to emotions and constructivist theory of international relations, it explains the source of the Korean public’s anger toward Japan’s actions and its persistence in the case of Dokdo/Takeshima territorial-historical dispute. It concludes by providing important implications for the study of conflicts and tensions in international relations by showing how identity clash and the anger generated adversely affect inter-state relations.

Key Words: identity, historical and territorial disputes, Korea-Japan relations, emotions, security-economy-identity nexus

Full Context: PDF [Full Statement]