5cjxburmr

Historically, certain conditions had to be satisfied before outside States could recognize anon-State armed group as a belligerent:• a general state of armed conflict within a territory;• the armed group occupies and administers a significant portion of national territory;• the armed group acts under responsible chain of command and respects the laws of war;and• circumstances exist that make it necessary for outside States to define their attitudetoward the conflict. 32This doctrine has not been invoked often, especially after the adoption of the Charter ofthe United Nations, and the unwarranted recognition of an insurgent group likely would, at least,be considered an unfriendly act against a State engaged in hostilities against that group. 333.3.3.2 Assertion of War Powers by a State Engaged in Hostilities Against a Non-State Armed Group. Occasionally, a State that has been engaged in hostilities against a non-State armed group has taken actions that have recognized the belligerency of the non-State armedgroup, at least for certain purposes. For example, President Lincoln’s proclamation of ablockade during the U.S. Civil War was viewed as recognizing the existence of a state of war, atleast for the purposes of imposing the blockade on foreign vessels seeking to trade with theConfederacy. 34to each the same rights of asylum and hospitality and intercourse. Each party is, therefore, deemed by us abelligerent nation, having, so far as concerns us, the sovereign rights of war, and entitled to be respected in theexercise of those rights.”).32 HERSCH LAUTERPACHT, RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 175-76 (1947) (“There is general agreement as tothe nature of the conditions which impose the duty of recognition of belligerency—or which, according to others,justify recognition of belligerency. These conditions are as follows: first, there must exist within the State an armedconflict of a general (as distinguished from a purely local) character; secondly, the insurgents must occupy andadminister a substantial portion of national territory; thirdly, they must conduct the hostilities in accordance with therules of war and through organized armed forces acting under a responsible authority; fourthly, there must existcircumstances which make it necessary for outside States to define their attitude by means of recognition ofbelligerency.”).33 See, e.g., HERSCH LAUTERPACHT, RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 239 (1947) (“If a distant continentalState in no way directly concerned with the hostilities at sea were to recognize the insurgents as belligerents, itwould lay itself open to the charge of a gratuitous gesture unfriendly to the lawful government and merely calculatedto encourage the rebellion.”).34 The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635, 670 (1862) (“Whether the President, in fulfilling his duties as Commander-in-chiefin suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance and a civil war of such alarmingproportions as will compel him to accord to them the character of belligerents is a question to be decided by him,and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to whichthis power was entrusted. ‘He must determine what degree of force the crisis demands.’ The proclamation ofblockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the Court that a state of war existed which demanded andauthorized a recourse to such a measure under the circumstances peculiar to the case.”).76