5cjxburmr

Although seldom explicitly recognized as a class in law of war treaties, the category ofunprivileged belligerent may be understood as an implicit consequence of creating the classes oflawful combatants and peaceful civilians. 35 The concept of unprivileged belligerency, i.e., theset of legal liabilities associated with unprivileged belligerents, may be understood in oppositionto the rights, duties, and liabilities of lawful combatants and peaceful civilians. Unprivilegedbelligerents include lawful combatants who have forfeited the privileges of combatant status byengaging in spying or sabotage, and private persons who have forfeited one or more of theprotections of civilian status by engaging in hostilities. 364.3.2 Combatant – Notes on Terminology.4.3.2.1 “Combatant” and “Belligerent”. “Combatant” and “belligerent” havesometimes been used interchangeably and, in this usage, they generally describe individuals whoare not “civilians.”“Belligerent,” however, has also sometimes used to describe States and to contrast suchStates with “neutral” or “non-belligerent” States. 37 “Belligerent” has also been used to contrastarmed groups that have “belligerent rights” with armed groups that lack such rights, such as“insurgents.” 38 4.3.2.2 “Lawful,” “Privileged,” and “Qualified”. The distinction between“lawful” and “unlawful” combatants has sometimes been called a distinction betweenprotect civilians. Although the two Conventions might appear to cover all the categories concerned, irregularbelligerents were not actually protected.”); id. at 612 (Swiss representative taking the view that “[i]n regard to thelegal status of those who violated the laws of war, the [Civilians] Convention could not of course cover criminals orsaboteurs.”); id. at 621 (UK representative rejecting a draft which “would mean that persons who were not entitledto protection under the Prisoners of War Convention would receive exactly the same protection by virtue of theCivilians Convention, so that all persons participating in hostilities would be protected, whether they conformed tothe laws of war or not. … The whole conception of the Civilians Convention was the protection of civilian victimsof war and not the protection of illegitimate bearers of arms, who could not expect full protection under rules of warto which they did not conform. Such persons should no doubt be accorded certain standards of treatment, but shouldnot be entitled to all the benefits of the Convention.”).35 See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 948a (“The term ‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other than aprivileged belligerent) who” engages in certain conduct); Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 35 (1942) (“Our Government,by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class ofunlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including those who, though combatants, do not wear ‘fixed anddistinctive emblems.’”).36 Refer to § 4.3.4 (Types of Unprivileged Belligerents).37 Refer to § 15.1.2 (Classification of States as Belligerent, Neutral, or Non-Belligerent).38 See, e.g., Memorandum submitted in United States v. Shakur, 690 F. Supp. 1291 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), IIICUMULATIVE DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1981-88 3436, 3448 (“The concept of‘insurgency’ was traditionally used to describe a conflict that did not meet the rigid standards of customaryinternational law for recognition of belligerency.”); Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, UnitedKingdom, Oral Answers to Questions, Dec. 8, 1937, HANSARD 330 HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES § 357 (“HisMajesty’s Ambassador at Hendaye has been instructed to inform the Salamanca authorities that as belligerent rightshave not been recognised to either party in the Spanish conflict. His Majesty’s Government are not prepared toadmit their right to declare any such blockade.”). Refer to § 3.3.3 (State Recognition of Armed Groups asBelligerents).104