5cjxburmr

4.18 PRIVATE PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN HOSTILITIESIn general, private persons who engage in hostilities forfeit many of the protections towhich members of the civilian population are entitled, and are liable to treatment in one or morerespects as unprivileged belligerents. 3684.18.1 Private Persons Who Engage in Hostilities – Notes on Terminology. This sectionrefers to “private persons” who engage in hostilities rather than “civilians” who engage inhostilities for three reasons. First, an emphasis on “private” persons is consistent withlongstanding explanations of the principle of distinction. 369 Second, it may be analyticallyunhelpful to focus on “civilians” because private persons who engage in hostilities are liable totreatment in one or more respects as combatants. Third, non-military personnel belonging to aState (e.g., persons authorized to accompany the armed forces), who are often called “civilians,”raise a different set of issues that merit special consideration as opposed to the general case of aprivate person who decides to engage in hostilities.For the purpose of applying different law of war rules, different formulations have beenused to describe when a person has engaged in hostilities. Although these phrases often refer tothe same conduct, the context in which each term is applied is important; whether a phraseincludes a particular type of conduct may depend on the particular legal rule in question.Whether a particular person is liable as a consequence of his or her conduct to treatment as acombatant (e.g., being made the object of attack, internment, or prosecution for acts ofunprivileged belligerency) must be assessed with reference to the specific legal rule at issuerather than based on the use of a conclusory label, such as “enemy combatant.” 370This manual generally uses the phrase “engaging in hostilities” in a broad sense to referto any of those actions that could cause a person to forfeit one or more protections under the lawof war. When discussing specific legal rules, on the other hand, this manual uses the particularlanguage of the rule at issue, rather than the phrase “engaging in hostilities.” For example, thismanual generally reserves the use of the phrase “taking a direct part in hostilities” to address the368 Refer to § 4.19 (Rights, Duties, and Liabilities of Unprivileged Belligerents).369 See, e.g., LIEBER CODE arts. 22 and 23 (“Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, sohas likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging toa hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. … Private citizens are no longer murdered,enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations asthe commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant In the overruling demands of a vigorous war.”).370 See Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Address at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanSociety of International Law: The Obama Administration and International Law, Mar. 25, 2010, 2010 DIGEST OFUNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 749 (“Some commentators have criticized our decision to detaincertain individuals based on their membership in a non-state armed group. But as those of you who follow theGuantánamo habeas litigation know, we have defended this position based on the AUMF, as informed by the text,structure, and history of the Geneva Conventions and other sources of the laws of war. Moreover, while the variousjudges who have considered these arguments have taken issue with certain points, they have accepted the overallproposition that individuals who are part of an organized armed group like Al Qaeda can be subject to law-of-wardetention for the duration of the current conflict. In sum, we have based our authority to detain not on conclusorylabels, like ‘enemy combatant,’ but on whether the factual record in the particular case meets the legal standard.”).157