5cjxburmr

In discussions of the status of private acts of hostility under international law, the point isoften made that international law does not require States to prevent what they may regard as actsof patriotism and heroism. 393However, outside the context of patriotic acts of resistance by persons in internationalarmed conflict, private acts of hostility often carry additional sanction under international law.For example, persons who set off in private military expeditions against a foreign State from aState that has peaceful relations with the foreign State, have been subject to punishment underthe law of nations. 394 Similarly, private acts of hostility, under certain conditions, may beregarded as piracy. 395 In contemporary parlance, private acts of hostility are often punished as“terrorism.” 396 The unauthorized use of violence by private persons to achieve political ends hasbeen viewed as contrary to the principles of democratic States. 397 Moreover, States haveobligations under international law to repress terrorism, especially when conducted on theirterritory against other States. 3984.19 RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES OF UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENTSUnprivileged belligerents have certain rights, duties, and liabilities. In general,unprivileged belligerents lack the distinct privileges afforded to combatants and civilians, and aresubject to the liabilities of both classes. Unprivileged belligerents generally may be made theobject of attack by enemy combatants. They, however, must be afforded fundamental guaranteesof humane treatment if hors de combat. Unprivileged belligerents may be punished by enemyStates for their engagement in hostilities if they are convicted after a fair trial.393 Richard R. Baxter, So-Called ‘Unprivileged Belligerency’: Spies, Guerillas, and Saboteurs, 28 BRITISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 323, 342 (1951) (“In both occupied and unoccupied areas, resistance activities,guerrilla warfare, and sabotage by private persons may be expected to continue on at least as widespread a basis infuture warfare as they have in the past. More often than not, patriotism or some sort of political allegiance lies at theroot of such activities. Consequently the law of nations has not ventured to require of states that they prevent thebelligerent activities of their citizenry or that they refrain from the use of secret agents or that these activities uponthe part of their military forces or civilian population be punished.”).394 Refer to § 15.1.5 (Domestic Neutrality Laws).395 Refer to § 13.3.3.1 (Entitlement of Vessels to Conduct Attacks During Non-International Armed Conflict).396 See, e.g., R. v. Khawaja, (Supreme Court of Canada, Dec. 14, 2012) (upholding the terrorism conviction of adefendant who provided support to terrorist groups in Afghanistan and rejecting his argument that his support forterrorist groups could not be punished because they were part of an armed conflict governed by international law).397 Public Prosecutor v. Folkerts, (The Netherlands, District Court of Utrecht, Dec. 20, 1977), reprinted in 74INTERNATIONAL LAW REPORTS 695, 698 (1987) (“It is totally unacceptable in democratic countries such as thosejust mentioned [the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany], and also in the Netherlands, for individualswho disagree with their country’s policy, for that reason to resort to acts of violence such as those which took placehere. Such acts attack the most fundamental principles of the constitutional State.”).398 See, e.g., U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1373, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1373 (2001) (deciding that all Statesshall, inter alia, “[e]nsure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration ofterrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measuresagainst them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations andthat the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;”).162