5cjxburmr

19.20.2.2 AP II’s Requirements for Its Application. By its terms, AP II does notapply to all armed conflicts not of an international character. Instead, according to its terms, APII only applies to armed conflicts that are not covered by Article 1 of AP I and that take place inthe territory of a Party to AP II between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or otherorganized armed groups, which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part ofits territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and toimplement AP II. 228This threshold limits the application of AP II to a subset of armed conflicts that would becovered by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. For example, AP II would onlycover conflicts in which dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups are organizedand disciplined like regular armed forces. 229 In addition, non-State armed groups must be in aposition to implement AP II before it is deemed to apply to all parties to the conflict. 230Although AP II specifies more strict requirements for its application, President Reagan,in submitting AP II to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, recommended that theUnited States take the position that it would apply AP II to all armed conflicts that would becovered by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 23119.21 CCW, CCW AMENDED ARTICLE 1, AND CCW PROTOCOLS19.21.1 CCW. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and ProtocolsI, II, and III were adopted at Geneva on October 10, 1980. Subsequent conferences adopted: (1)228 AP II art. 1(1) (“This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which arenot covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating tothe Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of aHigh Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which,under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustainedand concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.”).229 BOTHE, PARTSCH, & SOLF, NEW RULES 626 (AP II art. 1, 2.5) (“Regarding the concept of ‘organized armedgroups’ the ICRC delivered the following statement during the negotiations in Working Group B of Committee I:The expression does not mean any armed band acting under a leader. Such armed groups must be structured andpossess organs, and must therefore have a system for allocating authority and responsibility: they must also besubject to rules of internal discipline. Consequently the expression ‘organized armed groups’ does not imply anyappreciable difference in degree of organization from that of regular armed forces.”).230 ICRC AP COMMENTARY 1353 (4470) (“This is the fundamental criterion which justifies the other elements ofthe definition: being under responsible command and in control of a part of the territory concerned, the insurgentsmust be in a position to implement the Protocol. The threshold for application therefore seems fairly high. Yet,apart from the fact that it reflects the desire of the Diplomatic Conference, it must be admitted that this threshold hasa degree of realism. The conditions laid down in this paragraph 1, as analysed above, correspond with actualcircumstances in which the parties may reasonably be expected to apply the rules developed in the Protocol, sincethey have the minimum infrastructure required therefor.”).231 George P. Shultz, Letter of Submittal, Dec. 13, 1986, MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTING AP II VIII(“We are therefore recommending that U.S. ratification be subject to an understanding declaring that the UnitedStates will apply the Protocol to all conflicts covered by Article 3 common to the 1949 Conventions ... . Thisunderstanding will also have the effect of treating as non-international these so-called ‘wars of national liberation’described in Article 1(4) of Protocol I which fail to meet the traditional test of an international conflict.”).1164