5cjxburmr

These other types of conflict are described as “not of an international character” or “noninternationalarmed conflict.” 21 For example, two non-State armed groups warring against oneanother or States warring against non-State armed groups may be described as “non-internationalarmed conflict,” even if international borders are crossed in the fighting. 22The law of war rules applicable to non-international armed conflict are addressed inChapter XVII. 23 There are a number of important differences between the law applicable tointernational armed conflict and the law applicable to non-international armed conflict. 243.3.1.1 Application of Jus in Bello Rules Does Not Necessarily Affect the LegalStatus of Parties. Although the legal status of an opponent affects the character of the conflictand what rules apply as a matter of law, the application of jus in bello rules does not necessarilyaffect the legal status of parties to a conflict. For example, a belligerent may, as a policy matter,afford a person POW protections and treatment without affording that person legal status as aPOW. 25 Similarly, the application of humanitarian rules, such as those reflected in CommonArticle 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, towards enemy non-State armed groups does notaffect their legal status (e.g., such application does not amount to recognizing the group as lawfulbelligerents or as the legitimate government of a State). 263.3.1.2 Mixed Conflicts Between Opposing States and Non-State Armed Groups.Rather than viewing a situation as either an international armed conflict or a non-internationalarmed conflict, it may be possible to characterize parts of a conflict as international in character,while other parts of that armed conflict may be regarded as non-international in character. 27 Forexample, under this view, during a situation involving conflict between a variety of States andnon-State armed groups, as between the States, the rules of international armed conflict would21 See, e.g., Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33, 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Williams, J., concurring) (“Non-state actorscannot sign an international treaty. Nor is such an actor even a ‘Power’ that would be eligible under Article 2 (P3)to secure protection by complying with the Convention’s requirements. Common Article 3 fills the gap, providingsome minimal protection for such non-eligibles in an ‘armed conflict not of an international character occurring inthe territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.’ The gap being filled is the non-eligible party’s failure to be anation. Thus the words ‘not of an international character’ are sensibly understood to refer to a conflict between asignatory nation and a non-state actor. The most obvious form of such a conflict is a civil war. But given theConvention’s structure, the logical reading of ‘international character’ is one that matches the basic derivation of theword ‘international,’ i.e., between nations. Thus, I think the context compels the view that a conflict between asignatory and a non-state actor is a conflict ‘not of an international character.’”).22 Refer to § 17.1.1.2 (NIAC and Internal Armed Conflict).23 Refer to § 17.1 (Introduction).24 Refer to § 17.1.3 (Important Differences Between the Law Applicable to International Armed Conflict and theLaw Applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict).25 Refer to § 9.3.1 (POW Status Versus POW Protections).26 Refer to § 17.2.3 (Application of Humanitarian Rules and the Legal Status of the Parties to the Conflict).27 Christopher Greenwood, International Humanitarian Law and the Tadic Case, 7 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OFINTERNATIONAL LAW 265, 271 (1996) (“[T]here is nothing intrinsically illogical or novel in characterizing someaspects of a particular set of hostilities as an international armed conflict while others possess an internal character.Conflicts have been treated as having such a dual aspect where a Government is simultaneously engaged inhostilities with a rebel movement and with another State which backs that movement.”).74