5cjxburmr

to armed conflict; and (4) law of war treaties explicitly incorporating concepts from other bodiesof law.In some cases, it may be difficult to distinguish between these approaches, and differententities may apply different approaches to achieve the same result. 12 Although there are differentapproaches and although the ultimate resolution may depend on the specific rules and context,the law of war, as the lex specialis of armed conflict, is the controlling body of law with regardto the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims. 131.3.2.1 The Law of War as the Lex Specialis Governing Armed Conflict. Themaxim lex specialis derogat legi generali means that “[a]s a rule the special rule overrides thegeneral law.” 14 The rule that is more specifically directed towards the action receives prioritybecause it takes better account of the particular features of the context in which the law is to beapplied, thus creating a more equitable result and better reflecting the intent of the authoritiesthat have made the law. 15The law of war has been developed with special consideration of the circumstances ofwar and the challenges inherent in its regulation by law. Thus, for example, the exigencies ofarmed conflict cannot justify violating the law of war. 16 Moreover, lawmakers sometimes have12 Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-sixth session (3 May-4 June and 5 July-6 August 2004), U.N.Doc. A/59/10 304 (2004) (“In introducing the part of the study concerning the function and scope of the lexspecialis rule, the Chairman stressed several points. First, he emphasized that recourse to the lex specialis rule wasan aspect of legal reasoning that was closely linked to the idea of international law as a legal system. The lexspecialis maxim sought to harmonize conflicting standards through interpretation or establishment of definiterelationships of priority between them. In fact, he said, it was often difficult to distinguish between these twoaspects of the functioning of the technique: the interpretation of a special law in the light of general law, and thesetting aside of the general law in view of the existence of a conflicting specific rule. … The adoption of a systemicview was important precisely in order to avoid thinking of lex specialis in an overly formal or rigid manner. Itsoperation was always conditioned by its legal-systemic environment.”).13 Observations of the United States of America on the Human Rights Committee’s Draft General Comment 35:Article 9, June 10, 2014, 20 (“While the United States acknowledges that difficult questions arise regarding theapplicability of international human rights law in situations of armed conflict, the draft does not accord sufficientweight to the well-established principle that international humanitarian law, as the lex specialis of armed conflict, isthe controlling body of law with regard to the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims.”).14 Colleanu v. German State, German-Rumanian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Jan. 12, 1929, reprinted in H.LAUTERPACHT, V INTERNATIONAL LAW REPORTS 438 (1929). See also GROTIUS, LAW OF WAR & PEACE 428(2.16.29.1) (“[A]mong agreements which are equal in respect to the qualities mentioned, that should be givenpreference which is most specific and approaches most nearly to the subject at hand; for special provisions areordinarily more effective than those that are general”).15 U.N. International Law Commission, Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation ofInternational Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law 2(7) (2006)(“Rationale of the principle. That special law has priority over general law is justified by the fact that such speciallaw, being more concrete, often takes better account of the particular features of the context in which it is to beapplied than any applicable general law. Its application may also often create a more equitable result and it mayoften better reflect the intent of the legal subjects.”).16 Refer to § 2.2.2 (Military Necessity and Law of War Rules).9