5cjxburmr

A helpful rule of thumb may be that where parties are, in fact, engaged in activities thatthe law of war contemplates (e.g., detention of enemy military personnel without criminalcharge, bombardment of military objectives), those activities are subject to the law of war. 773.4.2.3 Responding to Ordinary Crimes, Including Acts of Terrorism. States arenot required to apply law of war rules when using domestic law enforcement tools to respond toordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism. 78 For example, States may apply their domestic lawand prosecute acts of terrorism by non-State armed groups. 79 States, however, have at timesdecided to resort to military force to counter a terrorist or similar threat that is beyond thecapabilities of ordinary law enforcement to address. 80 If States intend to conduct hostilities, thenagreements, and the attempt of representatives from international organisations to broker and enforce cease fireagreements.”); Prosecutor v. Dordevic, ICTY Trial Chamber II, IT-04-82-T, Judgment, 1526 (Feb. 23, 2011)(“Trial Chambers have taken into account a number of factors when assessing the organization of an armed group.These fall into five broad groups. First, are the factors signalling the presence of a command structure. Secondly,are factors indicating that an armed group could carry out operations in an organised manner. Thirdly, are factorsindicating a level of logistics have been taken into account. Fourthly, are factors relevant to determining whether anarmed group possessed a level of discipline and the ability to implement the basic obligations of Common Article 3.A fifth group includes factors indicating that the armed group was able to speak with one voice.”).77 Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of AmericanStates, Case 11.137, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98, 155 (Nov. 18, 1997) (“What differentiates the events at the La Tabladabase from these situations [of internal disturbances] are the concerted nature of the hostile acts undertaken by theattackers, the direct involvement of governmental armed forces, and the nature and level of the violence attendingthe events in question. More particularly, the attackers involved carefully planned, coordinated and executed anarmed attack, i.e., a military operation, against a quintessential military objective - a military base.”); GPWCOMMENTARY 23 (“It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, how much slaughter takes place, or hownumerous are the participating forces; it suffices for the armed forces of one Power to have captured adversariesfalling within the scope of Article 4. Even if there has been no fighting, the fact that persons covered by theConvention are detained is sufficient for its application. The number of persons captured in such circumstances is,of course, immaterial.”).78 United Kingdom, Statement on Ratification of AP I, Jan. 28, 1998, 2020 UNTS 75, 76 (“It is the understanding ofthe United Kingdom that the term ‘armed conflict’ of itself and in its context denotes a situation of a kind which isnot constituted by the commission of ordinary crimes including acts of terrorism whether concerted or inisolation.”).79 Refer to § 17.4.1 (Ability of a State to Use Its Domestic Law Against Non-State Armed Groups).80 For example, William J. Clinton, Address to the Nation on Military Action Against Terrorist Sites in Afghanistanand Sudan, Aug. 20, 1998, 1998-II PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 1460, 1461 (“America has battled terrorismfor many years. Where possible, we’ve used law enforcement and diplomatic tools to wage the fight. … But therehave been and will be times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough, when our verynational security is challenged, and when we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens. Withcompelling evidence that the bin Ladin network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks againstAmericans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act. And so this morning, based on theunanimous recommendation of my national security team, I ordered our armed forces to take action to counter animmediate threat from the bin Ladin network. Earlier today, the United States carried out simultaneous strikesagainst terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan.”); Public Committee against Torture in Israel, et al. v.Government of Israel, et al., HCJ 769/02, Israel Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice, 21 (Dec. 11,2005) (“Indeed, in today’s reality, a terrorist organization is likely to have considerable military capabilities. Attimes they have military capabilities that exceed those of states. Confrontation with those dangers cannot berestricted within the state and its penal law.”).85