5cjxburmr

conflict. 17 The rules for States conducting military operations against unprivileged belligerentsin international armed conflict are not significantly different from the rules for States conductingmilitary operations against non-State armed groups during non-international armed conflict.17.1.3 Important Differences Between the Law Applicable to International ArmedConflict and the Law Applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict.17.1.3.1 Nationality and Territoriality Exclusions in the Law of InternationalArmed Conflict. Certain rules applicable to international armed conflict reflect concepts (e.g.,nationality and territory) that preclude the application of those rules to internal armed conflicts.For example, nationals who are in the power of their State of nationality would not be providedPOW status under the GPW or protected person status under the GC. 18 Thus, even if the GPWand GC could otherwise be deemed applicable to a civil war, these exclusions based onnationality would limit the application of many of the provisions of the GPW and GC (as amatter of treaty law) to internal armed conflicts. In any case, it remains true that fundamentalprinciples guaranteeing humane treatment (e.g., Common Article 3 of the 1949 GenevaConventions) would apply in any such circumstances.Similarly, it is the essence of belligerent occupation that it should be exercised overforeign, enemy territory; 19 thus, occupation law rules would not apply to internal armedconflict. 20Certain non-international armed conflicts, however, are not internal armed conflicts. 2117.1.3.2 Prevalence of Customary Law Applicable to NIAC as Opposed to TreatyLaw. There are fewer treaty provisions that address non-international armed conflict than thataddress international armed conflict. 22 Put another way, practitioners are generally more likelyto encounter situations regulated by customary law in non-international armed conflict than in17 Refer to § 4.3 (Lawful Combatants and Unprivileged Belligerents).18 Refer to § 4.4.4.2 (Nationals of a State Who Join Enemy Forces); § 10.3.3.1 (A State’s Own Nationals).19 Refer to § 11.2.2.3 (“Of the Hostile Army” – Belligerent Occupation Applies to Enemy Territory).20 See Richard A. Baxter, Ius in Bello Interno: The Present and Future Law, in JOHN NORTON MOORE, LAW ANDCIVIL WAR IN THE MODERN WORLD 518, 531 (1974) (“Other provisions of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention apply to‘territory of a party to the conflict’ and to ‘occupied territory.’ In internal conflict, the lawful government and theinsurgents will both maintain that there is only ‘territory of a party to the conflict.’ Territory cannot be belligerentlyoccupied by the lawful government or the rebels. There is no starting point which divides territory into friendly andenemy areas, so that, when the latter type of area is occupied, it will be belligerently occupied. It surely cannot bemaintained that the insurgents should be required to treat all territory over which they exercise control as beingbelligerently occupied or that the lawful government should be forced to treat territory liberated from the control ofrebels as belligerently occupied. It is of the essence of belligerent occupation that it should be exercised overforeign, enemy territory. Such requirements as that of Article 43 of the Hague Regulations that the occupant mustrespect, ‘unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country’ are simply unworkable in domesticconflict.”).21 Refer to § 17.1.1.2 (NIAC and Internal Armed Conflict); § 17.1.1.3 (Transnational or Internationalized NIACs).22 Refer to § 17.2.1 (Treaties That Apply to NIAC).1014