10.07.2015 Views

5cjxburmr

5cjxburmr

5cjxburmr

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

equirement recognizes that members of a non-State armed group are not entitled to theprivileges of combatant status even if that armed group satisfies the other conditions. 157The State’s authority may be granted by its representatives orally; it need not be grantedin writing, such as through a commission or warrant. In all cases, however, opposing parties tothe conflict must be able to discern that the armed group enjoys such authority. A State’s formalacknowledgement that an armed group “belongs” to it is sufficient. On the other hand, the bareclaim by the armed group that it acts on behalf of a State would be insufficient. In some cases,State support and direction to the armed group may establish that it belongs to the State. 1584.6.3 Being Commanded by a Person Responsible for His or Her Subordinates. Thearmed group must be commanded by a person responsible for his or her subordinates; the armedgroup must have a commander with effective authority over the armed group. 159 Thisrequirement helps ensure that the armed group has sufficient discipline and organization toconduct its operations in accordance with the law of war. 160The commander may derive his or her authority over the armed group by a regular ortemporary commission from a State. However, a commander may derive his or her commandfrom another position or authority. For example, the armed group may be formed informally andmay have elected the commander as its leader. In practice, a State may provide members of thearmed group with certificates or distinctive badges to show that they are officers, or military157 See The Military Prosecutor v. Omar Mahmud Kassem and Others (Israeli Military Court, Ramallah, Apr. 13,1969), LEVIE, DOCUMENTS ON POWS 776 (explaining that “the most basic condition of the right of combatants to beconsidered upon capture as prisoners of war” is belonging to a belligerent State and that if persons “do not belong tothe Government or State for which they fight, … they do not possess the right to enjoy the status of prisoners of warupon capture.”). Cf. BOTHE, PARTSCH, & SOLF, NEW RULES 237 (AP I art. 43, 2.3.1) (“gangs of terrorists acting ontheir own behalf and not linked to an entity subject to international law are excluded” from the definition of “armedforces of a Party to the Conflict” in AP I similar to how they would be excluded under Article 4A(2) of the GPW).158 See The Military Prosecutor v. Omar Mahmud Kassem and Others (Israeli Military Court, Ramallah, Apr. 13,1969), LEVIE, DOCUMENTS ON POWS 776-77 (“It is natural that, in international armed conflicts, the Governmentwhich previously possessed an occupied area should encourage and take under its wing the irregular forces whichcontinue fighting within the borders of the country, give them protection and material assistance, and that therefore a‘command relationship’ should exist between such Government and the fighting forces, with the result that acontinuing responsibility exists of the Government and the commanders of its army for those who fight in its nameand on its behalf.”).159 See GREENSPAN, MODERN LAW OF LAND WARFARE 59 (“The commander must be a person responsible for hissubordinates, that is, his authority over those in his command must be effective.”).160 See G.I.A.D. Draper, The Status of Combatants and the Question of Guerrilla Warfare, 45 BRITISH YEAR BOOKOF INTERNATIONAL LAW 173, 201 (1971) (explaining that this condition “does probably mean that the commandermust have sufficient authority to ensure that the conditions applicable to the members of the group, necessary forlawful combatancy, are observed.”); 1958 UK MANUAL 91 note 1 (explaining that “Field Marshall Rundstedt, C.-in-C. of the German armed forces in the West, disclaimed all responsibilities for the atrocities by Waffen S.S. unitson the ground that neither their commanders nor members were subject to military law” and that “he could take nodisciplinary action against them,” and thus German “Waffen S.S.” paramilitary units used during World War IIfailed to meet this condition and were not lawful combatants).122

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!