5cjxburmr

hostilities and that jus in bello restrictions apply to the activities that will effectuate thoseintentions. 593.4.1.2 Non-State Armed Groups With the Intention of Conducting Hostilities. Anon-State armed group, such as a rebel group, might also intend to conduct hostilities. 60 Non-State armed groups are similarly bound by the restrictions in the law of war for the conduct ofhostilities when they intend to conduct hostilities. 61 However, in contrast to States, non-Statearmed groups lack competent authority. 62 Thus, there would not be a basis for non-State armedgroups to claim the permissions that may be viewed as inherent in parts of the law of war. 63 Forexample, members of a non-State group may be subject to prosecution under a State’s domesticlaw for their participation in hostilities against it. 643.4.2 Act-Based Test for Applying Jus in Bello Rules. Jus in bello rules apply whenparties are actually conducting hostilities, even if the war is not declared or if the state of war is59 Legal and Practical Consequences of a Blockade of Cuba, Oct. 19, 1962, 1 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINIONS OF THEOFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 486, 488-89 (2013) (“The declaration of a state of war was helpful in ascertaining therights and obligations of neutrals in a given situation. Apart from this, however, it served little function. War itself,whatever its reason, was legal self-help, and so were lesser measures if such could be said to exist. Whether or not anation declared a state of war it would be found by others to exist if that state were claiming rights, such asblockade, normally associated with war.”). For example, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012§ 1021 (“Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant tothe Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for theArmed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending dispositionunder the law of war.”); Hugh J. Clausen & W. Hays Parks, Geneva Conventions Status of Enemy PersonnelCaptured During URGENT FURY, DAJA-IA 1983/7031 (Nov. 4, 1983), III CUMULATIVE DIGEST OF UNITEDSTATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1981-1988 3452, 3454 (considering, inter alia, the fact that “[t]heDepartment of State, in a press release on 4 November 9 [1984], cited the GPW as authority for U.S. detention ofCuban Grenadan military personnel” in concluding that “de facto hostilities existed on Grenada and that the GenevaConventions do apply.”) (insertion reflect in the Digest).60 For example, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 687 (2006) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“According to the StateDepartment, al Qaeda declared war on the United States as early as August 1996. In February 1998, al Qaedaleadership issued another statement ordering the indiscriminate—and, even under the laws of war as applied tolegitimate nation-states, plainly illegal—killing of American civilians and military personnel alike. This was notmere rhetoric; even before September 11, 2001, al Qaeda was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center inNew York City in 1993, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U. S.Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U. S. S. Cole in Yemen in 2000.”) (internalcitations omitted). See also United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 201, 203 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.)(explaining in the context of a prosecution of rebels for treason that “war might be levied without a battle, or theactual application of force to the object on which it was designed to act; that a body of men assembled for thepurpose of war, and being in a posture of war, do levy war; and from that opinion I have certainly felt no dispositionto recede. But the intention is an indispensable ingredient in the composition of the fact; and if war may be leviedwithout striking the blow, the intention to strike must be plainly proved.”).61 Refer to § 17.2.4 (Binding Force of the Law of War on Insurgents and Other Non-State Armed Groups).62 Refer to § 1.11.1.1 (Competent Authority (Right Authority) to Wage War for a Public Purpose).63 Refer to § 1.3.3.2 (Law of War as Permissive Law).64 Refer to § 17.4.1 (Ability of a State to Use Its Domestic Law Against Non-State Armed Groups).81