hello and welcome to the study of international humanitarian law in this lesson what we're going to do is talk about the very basic questions that we really need to answer before we start to get into the substantive principles relating to International humanitarian law and so therefore we're just going to focus on this idea of definitions trying to come up with some definitions and some ways in which we can Define this particular area of the law and so therefore what we're going to ask is the simple question what is IHL what is international humanitarian law and this involves taking a very basic introduction to the study itself and it will also mean we outline the different subjects that we're going to be covering in this series of lessons essentially speaking International humanitarian law is one of the fastest growing and fastest uh and quickly developing areas of international law specifically just to the just due to the fact that we are looking at the changing nature of different elements of Warfare and different elements of legal issues relating to the regulation and conduct of warfare and as a result of this not only are there lots of new updates and and things that we need to talk about but there are also lots of challenges that need to be presented within International humanitarian law the changing nature of warfare has led to a situation whereby we are looking at a changing in the nature of international humanitarian law because the ways in which these different principles have been applied don't necessarily reflect the ways in which armed conflicts are actually regulated to this day and that's something that we're going to actually focus on when we look for example at the distinction between International and non- international armed conflicts that is one area where we see a little bit of tension and contradiction whereby the legal principles don't necessarily reflect how the reality of law is actually operated so these are all different questions and different ideas that we're going to be covering and so the first question we have to ask is what is I CH I'm going to use the abbreviation considering the fact that International humanitarian law is a particularly long phrase to use every single time I mention it so IHL is the abbreviation so the concept of IHL International humanitarian law can be defined under multiple different terms now for the most part we're going to just use IHL because that is essentially how a lot of textbooks operate so for example maros su's textbook on International humanitarian law arguably the most succinct and and substantive textbook in my opinion at least anyway due to the fact that there are so many uh subsidiary topics that are are discussed in that textbook it's probably the best one to get your hands on if you can um they use the phrase IHL International humanitarian law but there are other ways in which we can actually refer to this particular area in Latin we refer to the concept of the use inell now this essentially means the rules that relate to the conduct of warfare and we often distinguish the the process of warfare the beginnings of an armed conflict the the and the actual regulation when that armed conflict is broken out we often made those distinctions between the yin Bellow and the utad Bella and so really when we talk about these two uh terms and these two concepts in in conjunction with each other what we're talking about is essentially the the the timeline for an armed conflict we see an armed conflict breaking out and there are a number of different legal PR principles that underly the ways in which that can actually be regulated the extent to which a an armed conflict can be legal within international law this is known as the usad Bellum so the usad Bellum is the law relating to the criteria which must be satisfied before engaging in the war in any kind of conflict legally and then we move from the usad Bellum into the usin Bellow because really the usein Bellow is the set of legal principles which regulate the conduct cond of hostilities during the armed conflict so it assumes that an armed conflict has already broken out and it assumes that we uh are existing in a state of of War depending on whichever State we're talking about and so therefore the use and the application of IHL refers to this latter of the two sort of temporal elements relating to an armed conflict not necessarily the the the principles that underly the breaking out of an armed conflict this would more for under the remit of the international law on the use of force rather we're talking about the actual regulation of the armed conflict itself the useen Bell so in this regard the study of international humanitarian law is actually just the study of the usin Bell the study of the rules of war and we can also describe it and it is sometimes described in in other textbooks as the law of armed conflict or uh abbreviated as follows and so really we can use any of these phrases now there may be some succinct distinctions between each of these phrases so for example the phrase International humanitarian law is a relatively new term in in terms of the actual the the longitudinal uh study of the subject itself because International humanitarian law sort of deres itself out of this new tradition uh that we see within the international Committee of the Red Cross and the red crescent and we see that the development of international humanitarian law through that perspective is is something that the the phrase itself has borne out of essentially and so therefore things like the law of armed conflict or the use in Bellow are arguably a little bit older in terms of their phraseology so this uh in this series of lessons we're essentially going to try our best to use and stick to one of these terms the namely International humanitarian law or IHL but if if and when we do use other phrases if we ever uh use the phrase law of armed conflict or the use in Bell you should just note that we are essentially using these terms interchangeably it doesn't mean anything different and so we'll stick as much as we can to IHL uh for the foreseeable future and like I said earlier on the usad Bellum is better described as the international law on the use of force now there might be some modules at a university level whether that be quite in in quite rare instances an undergraduate level or or possibly a post-graduate level that teach IHL in conjunction with the international law on the use of force and so they would just um talk about the law relating to armed conflict more broadly so they would maybe have a series of lessons focusing on the first of these the international law and the use of force and then have a series of lessons going over the law of armed conflict specifically IHL we're not going to do that in this series we're going to focus specifically and only on the entirety of international humanitarian law rather than the international law on the use of force if we ever do reference the international law and the use of force we will mention that as as and when we do but that's going to be a SE a separate series of lessons because that is in my opinion a separate subject to study it relates to the ways in which an armed conflict breaks out and the legal principles that underly those uh particular instances rather than IHL which relates to the actual conflict itself and the laws and rules that regulate that particular conflict so the question that I want to ask at the end of this lesson is essentially what we're going to study in the international humanitarian law series of lessons now I've mentioned already there are essentially no end to the number of lessons that we're going to do uh we're going to just keep going until we've covered as much as humanly possible this does mean of course we're going to focus on the the the substantive topics that you would do in any International humanitarian law subject but then there are also some more really interesting topics that I want to focus on as well that are not necessarily found in a a traditional textbook but possibly could be so there are definitely multiple different areas of study within International humanitarian law and the next lesson we'll talk about the basic principles of IHL as a general overview um and talk about the general motivations for the existence of IHL as well and this will also give us a better indication of how we're going to split the series of lessons up as uh that's going to happen in the next lesson but for the most part in this course what we're going to do is begin with the material sources and the history of international humanitarian law so after we focused on the general principles in the next lesson we'll talk about the history and its development and how we have uh the sources of international humanitarian law today okay so we talk about how International humanitarian law is represented in treaties in treaty interpretations those of you who are new to this study will almost definitely have some idea of things like for example the Geneva conventions but we'll also talk about where we can find International humanitarian law within customary law within customary sources so this sort of deres our understanding of and comes into conjunction with our traditional studies of public international law and the sources of public international law which we know already if we are somebody who has studied international law uh include International treaties as well as custom uh International custom next we shall study some of the substantive principles of IHL specifically so we're going to talk about the distinction that has to be made in any armed conflict between combatants and non-combatants as well as the scope of this application onto those who are considered to be a the combat so those who are considered to have been combatants but are now no longer combatants for whatever particular reason in continuing this we can also talk about the general principles to protect uh those who are not designated as combatants which fall under the sort of general rules related to targeting now targeting uh the targeting rules within IHL are actually really interesting because they actually um instill for us the some of the most important principles of IHL so principles of necessity principles of uh of non-discrimination of discrimination should I say between combatants and non combatants as well as proportionality and precaution all of these different ideas are instilled into this broader application of targeting decisions that have to be made and then there are also other areas of study as well so for example the law of belligerent occupation whereby one state occupies a region or territory of a different state what kind of rules and how do these rules uh apply in those particular instances and circumstances there are lots of examples that we can apply there what about prohibited weapons and means of warfare so why are there some weapons that are not allowed to be used within International humanitarian law what about the distinction that has to be made and continues to be made between International and non-international armed conflicts now for some purposes there have been debates as to the extent to which we should even delineate between the two because the rues should apply to both but there are definitely arguments to counter that specifically arguments relating to the interaction that is had between International States in States in international armed conflict versus States versus non-state armed groups specifically within non- International armed conflicts Marcus sui has a very good chapter on that in his textbook that we might go over and have a look at in a future lesson what about the concept of war crimes but specifically from the perspective of international humanitarian law if you are somebody who has studied international criminal law before you will know that war crimes is one of the four substantive crimes that you will study and we Define war crimes very Loosely if we were just to describe it in one sentence as gross or serious violations of IHL and so therefore to what extent do we look and see the ways in which war crimes are regulated or war crimes are determined through the perspective and through the lens of international humanitarian law we can look at it through both lenses and then we have some other uh little uh or not necessarily little but um further elements of uh study that we can really look at the idea and the issue of command responsibility potentially looking at the idea of command responsibility as a defense for gross violations of international humanitarian law the protection of PS the protection of prisoners of war the concept of application and scope of application of these rules of international humanitarian law when we talk about Warfare itself when we talk about Naval Warfare and then let's think about some of the other issues that are increasingly growing in terms of their severity and their application so what about things like cyber warfare what about the uh regulation of IHL principles for uh unmanned aerial attacks like drone strikes how do they actually apply how do we apply rules to those particular instances non-state armed groups to what extent are non-state armed groups bound to and have to apply the principles that are essentially applied within the context of public international law so that's another element that we have to think about what about the concept of terrorism and international terrorism and terrorist activity how does that apply within the situations of armed conflict all of these things are going to be discussed and further topics will also be discussed in this series of lessons but for now what we're going to do is move on in the next lesson to talk about some of the basic motivations behind the existence of IHL and then talk about the basic principles of IHL before we start to move on to look at the history and the sources of IHL in more detail in this lesson what we're going to do is talk about a couple of major things relating to some of the introductory elements of international humanitarian law so the first of these is going to be really the purpose of international humanitarian law what were the motivations behind those who founded this as a branch of international law uh in the regulation of armed conflicts and then the second is from that we can direct derived a number of different principles so what are the basic principles of international humanitarian law now the purposes of this lesson isn't necessarily to provide an in-depth uh substantive understanding of each of these principles uh in detail because that's what we're going to do in future lessons but the purposes of this lesson is just to give us a general idea of what the landscape is like for the subject and for the study of international humanitarian law and one of the reasons why I want to focus on the basic principles so early on at this point is because it gives us an indication of the kind of elements of the study that we can actually go into and and examine so we're going to look at the different uh basic principles the different basic rules that underly this specific area of international law I'm going to see how these principles can actually give us uh further insight into how we're going to study this subject uh going forward in the future so outlining the broad principles that are instilled in the rules of international humanitarian law is something that I believe is quite important for an early uh an early study of the subject we could just go through these principles in the substantive detail that we're going to as and when we get there but I feel that it is more important to do this at this stage at this Venture before moving on and looking at these principles in more detail and so really essentially it gives us a better understanding a greater understanding of the definition of international humanitarian law as well as the place it has within the broader study of public international law because public international law is very very broad there are lots of different elements that we can actually examine and so therefore we can have to uh we will have to sorry look at International humanitarian law as a branch of this broader subject which is pil which is public international law so the first thing that we have to ask we know the definition of international humanitarian law we know that it is the law that regulates conduct of hostilities during an armed conflict and the last lesson what we did was we distinguished this between uh that and the international law on the use of force or we made the Latin distinction between the usad Bellum and the yusin Bello so really the next question we have to ask is what is the purpose of IHL what is the purpose of these principles that we have actually that we're going to study in the future what is the purpose of the signing and ratification of say the Geneva conventions well contrary to ition contrary to what you might think would be the purpose of any law relating to armed conflict or Warfare International humanitarian law is not a body of principles with the aim to end armed conflict as a concept uh for for the rest of time essentially what is quite interesting in the creation of international humanitarian law all the way back to the humanitarian efforts that existed following the Battle of solarino isn't that necessarily the case that we want to see Warfare come to an end as a general term or as a general option for states to engage in really the founders of international humanitarian law were far more pragmatic in their application and in the scope of application of this body of law because they realized that essentially speaking International armed conflicts or even non- International armed conflicts are inevitably always going to exist within the world even though to today we live in a relatively peaceful period of time compared to uh historically um conflict situations the extent to which we could say that armed conflict is going to end is incredibly uh incredibly LAX should we say there's there's there's not really any indication that we'll ever see an end to the use of force within international law so pragmatically the creators of international humanitarian law didn't create this body of law with the idea that they were going to try and bring armed conflict to an end rather they created this uh area of law with the implicit assumption that armed conflict is a reality because if you remember from the last lesson IHL applies only in circumstances where an armed conflict has broken out so it doesn't assume that armed conflict isn't going to break out it actually assumes the opposite it assumes that armed conflict will break out it assumes the armed conflict is a reality and it only applies in situations and C circumstances where this takes effect where there is an armed conflict and so rather than trying to end armed conflict as a as a concept or as a as an instrument for states to actually engage in IHL seeks to limit the use of violence in so far as possible during the armed conflict to try and maintain a certain degree of humanitarianism during an armed conflict so that essentially as is described in a video I Believe by the international committee for the Red Cross and red crescent that we can essentially live with together at the end of an armed conflict so that we can actually get on with each other following the end of hostilities that's one of the main important elements of international humanitarian law and so really is to protect those who are not fighting and it is to protect those who are unable to fight as well as to limit violence in so far as possible so from this from this looking at the rationale of the the the the study of IHL we can actually come to some conclusions about the principles that are in place so things as IHL seeks to protect in so far as possible those who are not fighting as well as to sort of limit the amount of violence that is inflicted to those who are fighting which which we can sort of divide these into two main ideas for the purposes and rationale of IHL so it is to protect those who aren't fighting or who who can't fight and is to protect those um who are fighting from excessive and unnecessarily severe forms of violence so we could really describe these as two basic principles but we can go a little bit further because from this we can derive the key principles that we will explore over the series of lessons so the first principle is a distinction that has to be made at all times between civilians and combatants in the last lesson and in some textbooks and University modules they might make the distinction between combatants and non-combatants but I I'm going to be a bit more precise in the language here because you can have a situation where you have a non-combatant who is not necessarily a civilian so we'll get to that in a future lesson but there is a distinction that always has to be made a principle of distinction between civilians and uh combatant to the extent to which there is never an excuse there is never a legal route to targeting civilians so if a civilian piece of infrastructure exists and it is only a civilian piece of infrastructure we will talk about the idea of of Dual Purpose Targets in a future lesson that is a a an element a piece of infrastructure or an instrument or something like that that can never be in any circumstance targeted by military force and use of military force the extension of this principle is the prohibition to attack those who are what we describe as ORS to combat or to combat is a a technical phrase essentially to refer to those who are out of action who are no longer fighting so not only are we talking about people who were never fighting who were never in a circumstance where they were involved in the armed conflict I.E people like civilians but also those who were fighting but are who know who are are no longer fighting should I say so for example those who are injured those who are wounded the protection of those who are wounded and are a to combat or no longer a threat to anybody who is fighting those who are PS those who have surrendered to to the enemy combatants those who are prisoners of War there has to be an extension that we protect those in that particular um element as well to to allow those individuals to have and maintain a certain amount of humanitarian dignity uh when they are um when they have been captured by enemy combatants there is the general implies assumption uh that that combatants can do essentially whatever they want to those who have they have captured this is something that we see historically be the case the further back we go in history the more this is this is relevant even as far back as periods during the second world war for example PS were treated incredibly harshly in certain circumstances these would all constitute gross violations of international humanitarian law there is also the need and necessity to reduce unnecessary suffering and so in reducing unnecessary suffering we have a number of different principles that are derived through the idea of targeting principles um it is not just through targeting principles there is also the prohibition of certain weapons that we'll get to in a second so from these targeting principles we have the principle of necessity we have the principle of proportionality and we also have the principle of precaution which sort of sits uh tangentially to the other two that we have just examined so this is to pres prevent unnecessary suffering and to maintain this distinction that is made between combatants and non-combatants um another element in reducing necessary suffering is the prohibition of certain forms of Weaponry so it is generally just uh generally established through a lot of international treaties that things like cluster bombs are prohibited not necessarily just because they are um they would create unnecessary suffering but they would also violate a distinction principle the idea that there has to be a distinction between combatants and non-combatants the same can be said for things like chemical warfare again preventing unnecessary suffering on the one hand but also it is very difficult to apply chemical warfare chemical weapons onto a particular Target and for that to not be uh distinguishing between civilians and non- civilians because at that point chemical warfare doesn't actually have any kind of method by which we can make a distinction between the two if you drop chemical weapons over a particular territory it will kill everybody within that territory regardless of if they are combatants or non-combatants a similar thing is made of the idea using cluster bombs the idea of using weapons that um spread uh destruction over a large period a large space a large geographical uh territory again it makes it impossible to be able to accurately distinguish between combatants and non-combatants there is also this idea that exists within law that uh relating to the use of nuclear weapons within the principles of international humanitarian law now contrary to popular judgment the use of nuclear weapons is not NE necessarily in and of itself a violation of international humanitarian law there is a very famous case from the international court of justice an advisory opinion on the use and threat of nuclear weapons from the 1990s that makes this very clear it suggests that so long as the use of these weapons are in line with IHL within line with these principles the principle of necessity proportionality precaution distinction etc etc there's nothing in and of itself about nuclear weapons that suggest that they are uh are illegal within IHL now of course the pragmatic approach to this would suggest that any use of nuclear weapons would it' be quite difficult to uh uphold these principles of necessity proportionality and distinction um if you're using nuclear weapons because they are just so vast in their destruction and their destructive capabilities but assuming you can assuming you can in line with these particular uh principles they are not necessarily illegal in and of themselves so with the these principles in mind let's think about the branches of study that we can actually examine so the first of these is just essentially the means and methods of warfare what weapons and what types of warfare are allowed under International humanitarian law what are prohibited now this gets a little bit murky in the sense that some of these rules derive from customary principles so customary international law other rules derived from treaty Provisions that not every single state has actually appli lied so we have to make a little bit of a distinction there uh with some of the legal difficulties in the use and of the means and methods of warfare and distinguishing those two different elements the second branch of study is relating to the broad protection of persons in armed conflict the idea that we protect civilians we protect those who are wounded and sick we protect those for example who are a to combat or Ps these are different individuals who should and always have to be protected under International humanitarian law and we will focus on some elements of uh and some case studies whereby this has not taken place and where those are therefore constituted war crimes and then finally there's the broader branch of study which relates to uh the relationship between belligerent and non-belligerent States so just as a brief overview here a belligerent state is a state that is engaged in armed conflict so for example uh at the moment at time of recording this is in uh November it's in November 2022 the countries of Ukraine and the Russian Federation are currently belligerent states in the sense that they are involved in an international armed conflict with each other non-belligerent states are countries that are not at war no not at War at all as far as I'm aware the United Kingdom for example is a non-belligerent state at the moment what is the relationship between belligerent and non-belligerent states in the course of an armed conflict this is another question that we can ask and we can answer using international humanitarian law and so essentially if we were to just paint IHL into three categories this is really where we would leave it we would talk about the means and methods of warfare which really constitute a number of different elements we would talk about the protected persons in armed conflict and we'd talk about the relationship between belligerent and non-belligerent states and so the next lesson what we're going to do is talk about the history of international humanitarian law the developments from its very early concept I at the Battle of suino all the way through to the hag uh era of uh International regulation so the hag conventions uh the first Geneva conventions that were established and then going into and following the end of the second world war the establishment of the Geneva conventions that we apply to now as well as the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions that are also important and then more modern treaties and more modern interpretations that really focus a lot of the time time on the uh means and methods of warfare element so the idea of new treaties Banning certain uh uses of certain weapons for example that's what we're going to do in the next lesson and then the next the lesson after that we will talk about the formal sources of international humanitarian law so customary treaty general principles use coens norms for example all of these things are also important for our study as well in this lesson what we're going to do is do a very brief history of the modern development of international humanitarian law because in reality we could talk about the ways in which law has been regulated for thousands of years there's been some kind of principle that there exists some kind of rules when it comes to Warfare and of course this would not constitute International humanitarian law in the same kind of way that IHL today exists so we're going to focus really beginning with what is traditionally understood as to be the the Inception of some of these General humanitarian in ideas and we will then also talk about the convergence between the two bodies of uh International humanitarian law which are divided into what it described as hagga law on the one hand and Geneva law on the other these two are both uh Realms or aspects of international humanitarian law they cover slightly different elements of the conduct of hostilities but for the most part and at least in recent years with the addition of the additional protocols to the Geneva Convention ions we've seen a somewhat of a convergence between these two bodies of law and the traditional uh historical understanding as to where IHL first begins or at least IHL in the modern context as we know it today and subsequently also the international committee for the Red Cross um that all comes out of the aftermath of the battle of suino now I've already mentioned that we could talk about the ways in which conduct and law has existed to regulate armed conf conflict it goes back to ancient times or at least there are very few sources uh going back to ancient times that can really give us some indication as to where the armed conflict has been regulated in the past however this understanding of IHL as we know it today is like I've said something that began really out of the battle of sulfaro the modern interpretation of IHL comes from the 1859 Battle of suino and it was not necessarily the battle itself but it was more the aftermath of the battle of suarin know because a Swiss businessman and humanitarian activist by the name of Jean Harry dant uh came and saw and witnessed the aftermath of the battle of sarino and saw the amount of horrific suffering that was caused as a result of the of the of the battle the injuries and the deaths and the ways in which these individuals were injured and and had been killed and so ultimately as a result of this as a result of seeing these Horrors uh in the aftermath of the this battle um dant would go around and begin to campaign run a campaign that would lead to the creation of the first Geneva conventions as well as the establishment of the international committee for the Red Cross the icrc and this is really like I said where we see the beginnings of the modern doctrines of international humanitarian law with the first Geneva conventions um following the end of the battle of salarino and this is really where we see modern international humanitarian law develop because modern IHL in this context is therefore divided into two main areas of law both of which spawning out of this humanitarian effort that existed at the end of this particular battle we have the law of the ha and we have Geneva law like I've just mentioned and while there is uh seemingly an increase in the convergence between these two areas of the law they do see still exist as separate entities to an extent and the reasons for the difference in Nom nature n clure when it comes to the differences in these two areas of law just comes from the names of the conventions and international conferences from which these rules derive so Geneva law for example deriving out of the Geneva conventions for example so really where we see what we cons consider to be hag law it draws its Origins from the hay conventions of 1799 and 190 sorry 1899 and 1907 and uh the law of the ha and Geneva law both deal with different elements of international humanitarian law and like I've said there is a somewhat of a convergence so for example the hag law the the ha conventions uh will concern itself with a number of different elements of IHL so for example the definition and scope of combatants are in an armed conflict is something that exists as part of the ha conventions the means and methods of warfare something that we're going to look at in a future lesson as well is also something that gets its derivation from hag law on the other hand Geneva law which came from the first established Geneva conventions in 1863 pay closer attention to the protection of those who are unable or unwilling to fight in the process of an armed conflict so rather than talking about the means and methods of warfare the conduct of hostilities in terms of the definition of combatants what Geneva law the Geneva conventions deals with is looking at protecting those who are unwilling or unable to um to to fight in the appr of an armed conflict so for example a civilian or somebody who is potentially AED to combat a sick or a wounded individual like a a soldier and so therefore we have the development of the Geneva conventions now the next lesson what we're going to do is talk about the sources of international humanitarian law and we will draw a lot of attention to the various different treaties and conventions which uh I mean treaty and conventions are exactly the same thing um that uh derive these different rules so the Geneva conventions their additional protocols as well as some other conventions relating specifically to the conduct of warfare and conduct of hostilities and we will also draw uh pay close attention to the ways in which International humanitarian law has developed through the development of customary principles as well so we'll talk about that in the next lesson but for now it's it might be worth noting the basic treaty law that exists for the uh regulation of of armed conflict specifically within the context of the Geneva conventions now contrary to popular belief the there's no such thing as a Geneva Convention uh singular there are Geneva conventions there are four so in general common parants or in popular culture Whenever there is a reference to the Geneva conventions they are referenced as a singular document like the Geneva Convention um which is uh not true and it is one of these pet peeves of an international lawyer so while the Geneva conventions developed in a number of stages between 1864 and 1949 uh we have this this um uh Second World War postc World War development that really is where we see the modern revisions and the modern interpretations of the Geneva conventions as they apply to this day so we can talk about the various different um developments and changes that are made between 1864 and 1949 but it is the 1949 Geneva conventions that are really what are important and what we would reference and site um if you were to write an essay on IHL to this day for example and like I've said there are four so the first Geneva Convention is the Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field this was first adopted in 1864 it was then revised in 1906 1929 and then the final revision came in 1949 at the end of the second world war the second Geneva Convention is the Geneva Convention for the amelioration of uh the condition of wounded sick and Shipwrecked members of armed forces at Sea this again was adopted in 1906 and then revised in 1949 so you notice that between these two Geneva conventions the first and the second we are talking about the amelioration of the condition of wounded and sick uh members of armed forces one being on the land essentially in the field and second being at Sea so that's what these two conventions do they both deal with wounded and sick um one in one area of the world and another in another area of the world the third Geneva Convention is the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war first adopted in 1929 and then replaced in 1949 again this is dealing with a specific condition that certain soldiers and members of armed forces could potentially be in the first deals with uh wounded and sick in the field second wounded and sick at Sea the third dealing with uh those who are armed members of armed forces who are in detainment who are now prisoners of war and then finally the Fourth Geneva Convention Is the Gen the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian persons in times of War this is is a a a convention that was adopted in 1949 uh and so we essentially have the different protections that are uh that are created and established in IHL when an armed conflict takes place we have to protect those who are wounded and sick we have to do that at at both at Sea and also in uh in the field we also want to protect prisoners of War those who have been detained and then we also want to protect those who aren't fighting at all who are not members of armed forces I.E the protection of civilians this is what the four Geneva conventions do now in addition to the Geneva conventions we also have the additional protocols which are also important to be cited the first additional protocol was established in 1977 and it relates to the protection of protection of victims in uh International armed conflicts now this is very important and very um influential for the adoption um of IHL principles but what is arguably in my opinion slightly more important is the the second additional protocol because what this does is it applies the relating to the protection of victims but not just to International armed conflicts but specifically to non- International armed conflicts now what we will notice that when we look at the distinction between an international and a non- international armed conflict you will note that there is a substantive body of law specifically treaty law that deals with the regulation of hostilities in the context of an international armed conflict armed conflicts between states whereas when it comes to non- International armed conflicts there's a lot less treaty law and there's a much heavier Reliance on customary international law so the only real reference in the treaties uh at least in the main aspects of the treaties are of course common article three of the Geneva conventions and additional protocol 2 from 1977 so the distinction between International and non- international armed conflicts is still something that is particularly relevant and is very much seen to be the case when we talk about for example the ways in which treaties have regulated armed conflicts and then finally the least important in my opinion of the additional protocols is the 2005 additional protocol 3 which just relates to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem um and is never really referenced in any uh major textbook or um or or or study on International humanitarian law for the most part we're talking about AP1 and ap2 so that's essentially the the historical development of this particular area of international law in the next lesson what we're going to do is talk about like I said the sources of international humanitarian law paying close attention to mainly uh the uh the law relating to treaties as well as to customary International humanitarian law welcome back everybody to International humanitarian law in this lesson we are going to talk about the sources of this particular area of public international law specifically which is what it is and you'll notice that the there is a distinct similarity between the sources of international humanitarian law and the general sources that exist for public international law more broadly so when we think about the sources of public international law we are obviously talking about for example International treaties we're talking about customary international law we're talking about general principles uh accepted as uh practice general practice accepted by uh as law by by civilized Nations and we're also talking about the more subsidiary Elements which is things like judicial decisions as well as the uh the the the works of publicists now we have covered and we will be uh releasing lessons on the sources of international law in in the future for the public international law series that are going on this channel um as we speak essentially so you can go over and have a look at how all of these different sources of international law actually work and operate um in more detail in those lessons but for this uh lesson we're going to focus specifically on these sources but within the context of international humanitarian law the last lesson looked at a historical development of the law relating to the regulation of armed conflicts and what we did note briefly is that there was the establishment of different treaty Provisions um during uh and after uh the second world war essentially we we have well not necessarily during but specifically after the second world war in 1949 we have the establishment of the four main Geneva conventions and then in 1977 we get the establishment of the additional protocols now this lesson is going to take more time to examine the formal sources of international humanitarian law and just give you some indication as to where these different rules and principles derive their Authority essentially so like I said just like with any other body of public international law IHL is derived from multiple sources the first of these sources that any uh study uh any course any module and undergraduate or postgraduate level would do on international law is talk about International treaties so we noted in the previous lesson that there are a multiple uh multitude sorry of different treaties which codify International humanitarian law uh and we know that in practice the most relevant sources of IHL come from these International treaties at least when it comes to the application of international armed conflicts we will note in a future lesson that when we talk about non- International armed conflicts uh there is uh much more heavy Reliance on customary principles rather than necessarily looking specifically at the treaties just because the Trea ification of non- international armed conflicts is not as prevalent as the Trea ification of the law relating to International armed conflicts so in the context of international armed conflicts the most important sources are of course the four Geneva conventions of 1949 we know what these Geneva conventions do the first Geneva Convention deals with wounded and sick soldiers in the field the second deals with wounded and sick soldiers at Sea so Naval um combat and Naval Warfare and and and the the amelioration of armed forces at Sea the third of these Geneva conventions deals with uh members of armed forces in detainment so prisoners of War specifically and then the fourth of these Geneva conventions which only came into practice in 1949 uh deals itself with the protection of those who are not fighting so namely people like civilians during uh International armed conflicts now additional protocol One deals with victims of uh armed conflicts from an international perspective so International armed conflicts specifically in the context of non- international armed conflicts treaty law is less developed But it includes common article 3 which we will focus on in a future lesson as well as additional protocol 2 so this is really where International treaties uh begins and and gives us our indication of how IH operates from a treaty perspective and any uh essay that you write or any exam that you do in international humanitarian law will very likely site one of these treaties will site one of the Geneva conventions or potentially site the additional protocols there are other um elements that are less in s that are less prevalent in terms of sources of international humanitarian law so you could argue for for example that the Rome statute of 1998 uh can represent somewhat of a subsidiary source of international humanitarian law in the context that it deals uh specifically with war crimes in certain elements um so of course the Rome statute is the establish establishing document for the international criminal court you will deal with the Rome statute if you study international criminal law more specifically than if you did IHL but of course war crimes is one of these crimes that falls under the remit of international criminal law and the other substantive Crimes of the Rome statute also have some kind of relevance to the conduct and hostilities of armed conflicts so genocide for example while not requiring there being the existence of an armed conflict um often is lined up somewhat with the existence of armed conflict the same thing for crimes against humanity and then obviously the fourth of these crimes is that of aggression we also have some specific conventions and treaties that deal with specific elements so we will talk about this in a future lesson on cultural property but there's the 1954 ha convention on cultural property we also have international treaties that deal with specific uh weapons in question so there are some elements of international humanitarian law there are some elements relating to the means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by certain International treaties so in addition to these formal sources these being the additional uh protocols and the Geneva conventions there are treaties that deal with the prohibition of use of certain weapons so for example we have the 2008 convention on cluster Munitions or the 1980 convention on certain convention weapons again these are treaties that deal specifically with areas of international humanitarian law dealing with these specific means and methods of warfare the 2008 convention for example deals with the prohibition of cluster Munitions something that we've focused on and talked very briefly about in a in a in in a previous lesson on the principles of IHL so that's what the treaty law tells us when we talk about International humanitarian law what about customary IHL how does this particularly relate to um our studies well we know now that there are a lot of rules within IHL that are rooted in international custom the majority of which or at least a certain percentage of which are are seen to be accepted as law so we uh used the principle of opino Urus for this particular purpose and like I said if you want to know more about the principle of opino Urus we have a lesson specifically on that that will be coming out in a few weeks time specifically within the context of public international law and so you can really my recommendation is if you are somebody who is studying um only IHL that you go and look at our lessons on public international law and sort of just go through them very very quickly in conjunction with this particular series of lessons just so you have a general idea of what sources of international law actually do and how they operate in more detail you can do that uh and sort of watch these lessons in conjunction with each other now customary international law is useful in the sense that it develops in line with the growing acceptance of State practice so that's something that is quite important for uh our study um essentially where there maybe potentially gaps in the Trea ification of certain elements of IHL we could turn to and look towards customary international law as a potential filler of these potential gaps um customary international law related to armed conflict is also useful in the sense that it potentially has more binding Authority specifically binding Authority onto states which are not necessarily parties to the international treaties we're going to focus in a future lesson on the Ethiopia erria Claims Commission and one of the elements of this relates to the applicability of the Geneva conventions when it came to that particular conflict that took place we'll talk about the facts of it later on but it gives us an indication of what about situations where we have states that are not necessarily a party to these fundamental conventions like the Geneva conventions well how do the rules of War apply in those particular instances and this is really where customary international law can fill in the gaps where treaty law necessarily does not um provide so much of a substantial regulation and this is particularly important when we talk about non-international armed conflicts we noted that there is a heavy Trea ification of international armed conflicts of IHL so when it comes to conflicts between two states but what about between a state and a non-state armed group or maybe Civil Wars that take place in internally to a particular State we noted earlier on in this lesson that we can only look to the treaties in specific reference to Common article 3 and the additional protocol 2 as as our sources or our treaty sources of law relating to non- International armed conflicts well customary international law is quite important in the sense that it can actually provide the the filling in the gaps for where the treaties um actually fall down sub quite substantially when it comes to non- International armed conflicts so really what are the rules the customary rules of international humanitarian law well the international committee for the Red Cross did a study on the customary IHL that exists um this began in 1995 and is arguably the most comprehensive landscape on the nature of the customary rules on International humanitarian law now uh I'm just going to get them up on my screen here there we go so I know which ones so I know what I'm looking at now essentially what this is if you just type in icrc stud study on customary International humanitarian law or go into the link in the description below CU I will I'll provide a link for it for anybody who wants to it gives us essentially a whole host of rules and a whole host of principles that are seen to have some relevance within customary IHL so right now the the icrc database lists 161 different rules which are seen to have some customary nature within International humanitarian law I believe I had at one point a PDF copy of this which would be quite useful but essentially it gives us all of these different rules and different ways in which these rules apply um the 161 in total and what is also important and what is also really really useful to anybody who is studying the laws of war is that it also gives us an interpretation of each of these rules a summary of each of these rules and the extent to which they apply to both International and non- international armed conflicts this is really really really important because it gives us an indication of really uh on the one hand if this rule for example whatever rule it is I've got um uh let me find a let me find a rule that I can uh that I can look at uh so for example um we have rule 53 which is uh the rule rela to starvation as a method of warfare the use of starvation of Civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited as you can probably imagine and it gives us a summary of this particular uh rule in question and it also talks about the applicability of the rule from the purpose uh from the context sorry of international armed conflicts as well as from the context of non-international armed conflicts now when we get on to looking at the distinction between International and non- international armed conflicts we will note that there may be potentially some rules of IHL that just cannot apply to Armed conflicts of a non- international character because International humanitarian law is a body and a branch of public international law the ways in which International humanitarian law applies to non-state groups like non-state armed groups or or or or Breakaway states that are not officially recognized is something that is very important and is a debate in international law to this day and so therefore looking at the applicability to both types of warfare is actually really important just as with other sources of public international law we can also examine general principles of Law and according to article 38 of the statute for the international court of justice the general principles of law are described as as the name suggests general principles of law recognized by civilized Nations now essentially the international court of justice has derived a number of principles of law from different cases and so we have general principles of law um but this sort of Falls in line slightly with the argument of um judicial decisions so judicial decisions are sometimes derived they do sometimes sorry derive general principles of law are recognized as civilized Nations and I have a couple of examples here that we can actually look to so for example the coru channels case from 1949 specifically United Kingdom versus Albania in the international court of justice and essentially without going into the facts of this case and looking at the merits and looking at all of the specific details um the icj in this case held that there is an obligation in international humanitarian law um that applies um to peacetime specifically the obligation on states to give notice of the existence of Maritime minefields so essentially there existed Maritime minefields in this case and um the question of law was to whether or not they had to give there was an obligation to give notice of the existence of these minefields when an armed conflict um had ended and the um the the icj as you can probably imagine came to the conclusion that of course you have this obligation to give notice the existence of Maritime minefields another case that we looked at When We examined public international law is the case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the Nicaragua case or Nicaragua versus United States of America from 1986 so essentially it was held in this case um specifically a lot of things were were were decided and determined in this case but the specific IHL applications of this case are as follows it held that the icj um uh the icj sorry held that the application of common article 3 applies to any situation of armed conflict regardless of the status and the legal classification of the conflict itself we remember that the uh the scope of common article 3 is often determined to be that of non- international armed conflicts well the icj determined that it applied to any situation of armed conflict which which includes um non- International armed conflicts and international armed conflicts sorry of armed conflicts of a non- international character so so essentially what we'll do is I'll will um link these um different uh customary IHL principles I'll link the database in the description below so you can have a look and just scroll through them and look at how these um principles are determined and how these are derived and and and whereabouts these principles apply then the next lesson I'm just going to deal with a subsidiary issue relating to International humanitarian law focusing specifically on the Mar's clause and then we will start to get into some of the substantive uh rules and regulations relating to the means and methods of warfare hello everyone welcome back to International humanitarian law in this lesson what we're going to do is talk about one of the major principles that seems to underpin quite a lot of international humanitarian law or at least early on underpins International humanitarian law and this being the Martin's Clause now this is something that some commentators might argue is less relevant in today's uh modern cont context of IHL but I would just like to just go over briefly in this lesson just to give us an indication of what it is and really what it says about International humanitarian law as a body of of legal doctrines because it's quite important that the way in which this particular principle actually applies um and you'll see why in a minute so it's a very early development in the international uh in the field of international humanitarian law uh and essentially it we find it in the 1899 second heg convention and this is the hag convention with respect to the laws and customs of war and land or on land should I say and this is where we really where we find the Martens Clause it is also found in the fourth hay Convention of 1907 and it is in this hay convention that we see it stated on screen now and it says that until a more complete code of the laws of war have been issued the high Contracting parties deem it expedient to declare that in cases not included in the regulations adopted by them the inhabitants and the belligerent remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of Nations as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples from the law of humanity and the dictates of public conscience so what does this actually mean what does this actually mean and what is the significance of the Martin's clause for the modern conception of the laws of war that we see today well it should be noted that we also find elements of the inclusion of the Martin's clause in other PE parts of international humanitarian law so for example we have in the 1949 Geneva conventions as well as article one two of additional protocol one and additional protocol one actually gives a bit more concise a little bit of a shorter uh definition of the Martens Clause because they say that in cases not covered by this protocol or by other International agreements civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience so we see there is a relevance in terms of um some actual uh linguistic uh distin uh distinctions and also similarities uh between the martens's Clause as codified in additional protocol one versus in the fourth ha conventions so what does it actually refer to what does it actually mean well what this is telling us essentially is that International humanitarian law is recognized by these conventions as not being complete that is how I would uh interpret the martens's Clause it is suggesting that there may be areas of law relating to the conduct of hostilities in armed conflicts that do have not been codified yet in a particular International agreement so we might have the Geneva conventions we might have the additional protocols but we would not consider the Geneva conventions and the additional protocols or the hay conventions as a complete and uh full uh fulfilled set of doctrines for international humanitarian law because it implies that there is no more work to be done in terms of the protection of certain individuals or certain uh means and methods of warfare regulation that can be done in the future that is something that um the Martens Clause wants to work against it suggests that if there is no actual codified regulation in in an international uh uh convention or an international treaty um that protects a certain element of uh maybe civilians or combatants um then that's not to S suggest that there is no protection or there is no regulation uh in that particular area it just means that they fall under the protection of the authority of the principles of international law which are derived from established custom and from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public public conscience now it comes out of the work of a Russian delegate Fredick Frederick uh D Martens um who was a professor of international law of public international law and what the marttin Clause uh is important for was the fact that in early developments of international humanitarian law um there are many gaps in the legal establishment of certain rules whether that be because of the particular geopolitical implications of applying certain rules or establishing certain rules or the potential lack of universality of certain rules of international humanitarian law so there might have been some principles that um were not agreed upon by every single state um to a particular convention well in those circumstances it is recognized that there are gaps in protection there are gaps in regulation and it shouldn't be noted that while this is not a code of while there is not a codification of substantive rules of international humanitarian law the Martin's clause requir belligerant to behave in ways which are consistent with international law more broadly despite the fact that there might not be an explicit rule in IHL and essentially from this we can suggest that the marttin Clause has a number of different functions and these functions are still relevant to this day so for one it accepts that it is not possible or at least is very unlikely at the moment for there to be a complete codification of the desired rules for international humanitarian law why is that the case well the means and methods of warfare continue to always develop there is uh we're going to do a lesson in the future on the new idea of O of of modern Technologies in in armed conflict and the extent to which IHL can provide protections there so for example cyber warfare the extent to which this should be protected under International humanitarian law of course at the signing and the creation of the Geneva conventions or the hay conventions the idea of cyber warfare didn't exist and so therefore it would not have been possible to codify those rules into the original doctrines of international humanitarian law because they didn't exist at the time and so the Martin's Clause recognize recognizes sorry that there is a um a very very real possibility in fact an inevitability that there are going to be more and more um changes and developments in the regulation and the conduct of hostilities in armed conflict that the old generation of of conventions and and law relating to IHL just do not cover and so therefore we have this rule that says where there are limitations or where there are gaps in the regulation that's not to suggest that there is just no regulation whatsoever that it's a fair game and you can just do what you want it just suggests that we defer back to the principles of international law the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience and the Martin's Clause as a second function is Dynam DC in the sense that it leaves the door open for regulation for future protection and it makes uh and it makes for a situation where not just the Martin's Clause is dynamic but International humanitarian law more broadly becomes a dynamic field it becomes a field that can change and develop and a and also codify new rules as time goes on which is really really good that's really really cool and it's actually very important for um the development of these different principles relating to the conduct of hostilities it leaves the door open for future development so I said at the start of this lesson that there are some individuals that might suggest that the Martin's Clauses is not as relevant in today's modern context and the main reason for this potentially is because we have seen in recent years or at least in the last 100 years or so a deeper codification of the principles of international humanitarian law since its first Inception so the first Geneva Convention of the 1800s and then the the ha regulations that be began to take shape and then uh these seem to be a rather LAX and not particularly deep codification of the laws of war at the time but since then we've had the second world war come and go and we've seen the 1949 Geneva conventions which are far more substantive considering that they added a f a fourth one to that list and then we've seen the 1977 additional protocols as well as other conventions and treaties that prohibit the use of certain weapons in in in armed conflict and so we have seen a deeper codification and we have also seen a deeper um prevalence in terms of the rules of customary International humanitarian law as well there are 160 plus uh rules that are codified by the icrc database in terms of the customary rules that apply to Armed conflicts so in that sense you could argue that yeah the Martins Clause is probably less relevant than its first Inception because there is a deeper codification but it sort of misses the point to suggest that because we have seen deeper codification of IHL then that means therefore that the Martin's Clause is less relevant the marttin Clause isn't necessarily about the amount of codification that there is the Martens Clause is more about the fact that regardless of the codification of IHL regardless of how much um law is put to a treaty and and is signed on by every state in the world there was always going to be new developments and there's always going to be new ways in which war is conducted that the law at the time cannot account for and will never be able to account for so that's what the Martin's Clause does it accounts it is the only document is the only part of a document or the only Clause that accounts for future developments in this kind of way for any future developments because it establishes the Baseline for protection the Baseline for protection being under the general rules of international law and peace and the dictates of public conscience for example or the print principles of humanity the Clause is also important in the sense that it is able to account for the rapid and everchanging development in military technology like we have seen like I've said we are going to do a lesson in the future about cyber technology we can do lessons about for example chemical warfare or we could do lessons about nuclear warfare or um or cluster Munitions that's a good example even though we have a treaty 2008 related to Cluster Munitions that's a relatively new development in international law and so therefore the Martin Clause accounts for this by allowing this open door policy to exist and I'm just going to finish by talking about a reference to the marttin Clause as late as 1996 in one of my favorite cases from the international court of justice the case on the legality on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons at The Advisory opinion um essentially asking whether or not there is an inherent principle in international law that makes nuclear weapons illegal and the icj interestingly said not necessarily as long as there is a clear um uh mandate that these weapons are utilized within the ordinary context of international humanitarian law there's not necessarily a customary principle for example that um that bans them but the um point for for what I'm talking about here is this particular quote that is referenced in this case they say that the court would likewise refer in relation to these principle to the Martens clause which was first included in the hay convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land of 1899 and which has proved to Be an Effective means of addressing the rapid evolution of military technology it's that second element that second that last bit the last line or so that is really important because it tells us that um with the rapid evolution of military technology the Martens Clause is there with its flag pole and it is not moving and it's not moved anywhere near it moved from its flag pole in terms of uh developments that have changed in terms of military technology so that is why I would invite you to suggest that the Martens Clause is still very very important and very very relevant in today's principles of IHL hello everybody and welcome back to International humanitarian law in this lesson what we're going to be doing is taking a look at the next of our major topics now that we have finished taking the introductory series of lessons where and we're going to start to examine the scope of application of IHL so what do we mean by the scope of application well essentially we're asking the question of where does international humanitarian law apply and the simple answer to this question is that it applies during the outbreak and the conduct of an armed conflict so this really is the start of our lesson we have to think about what is an armed conflict and where and why does international humanitarian law apply only in situations where armed conflict arises what constitutes an armed conflict and then over the next few lessons we're going to start to look at the delineation that is made in IHL between International and non-international armed conflicts so this is going to be moving away from the introductory principles of IHL that we've already looked at so looking at the history in the sources of IHL and looking at um some subsidiary issues relating to IHL like for example the Martin's clause and we're going start to look at the scope of application and so essentially the question that we're asking over the next few lessons is when do the principles of international humanitarian law apply and really we're going to begin by talking about the concept of armed conflicts and ask the question of what an armed conflict is and so the most common understanding of IHL is that it applies in any situation where an armed conflict breaks out but the question we have to then ask is what is an armed conflict for the purposes of law that we are examining what do we mean when we talk about armed conflict well it is important that one come up with a working definition since as we already know any dispute that will fall short of an armed conflict will not have the protections of international humanitarian law so if you have a situation whereby there is uh maybe some violence that breaks out in uh for example an internal struggle and this does not meet the level the threshold that is considered to be an armed conflict then the kinds of protections that we have for example within the Geneva conventions and the additional protocols do not apply so it's important that we actually come up with a working definition to be able to um determine where IHL will apply so the protections that would not apply in a circumstance where uh the dispute falls short of an armed conflict include things like the means and methods of warfare the protection of civilians uh or those who are unable to fight in the conflict for example PS or the injured and the sick as well as rules relating to beler an occupation now belligerent occupation is something that is going to be a recurring theme over the next few lessons because it's sort of uh one of those things that is quite difficult to fit into a nice neat box when it comes to the protections of the provisions of IHL so essentially according to the second editional protocol specifically article two instances of tensions such as riots or other internal disputes do not amount to meeting the threshold of an armed conflict for the purposes of IHL and we will come to the conclusion at the end of this lesson or into the going into the next lesson that when we look at what determines an armed conflict that threshold that we have to meet it is a lot easier to meet that threshold when we are talking about armed conflicts that are international rather than non- International non- intern non- International armed conflicts have a relatively High barrier a high threshold that we have to pass in order to make this determination so in the absence of an armed conflict and in the absence therefore of the law of IHL the only law that will apply are those that are subject to the particular disput of the state so for example um if there are violent riots going on well this is just the peacetime law that is applied in the national jurisdiction now is in so far as the state in question participates um international human uh sorry international human rights law may also apply in certain situations uh including Elements which are deemed to be customary um so you won't have this protection that exists within IHL but you'll have to rely on human rights law you'd have to rely on uh the law of the particular state in question the the Constitutional law of that particular State and the human rights that are uh found in them the provisions that are found in them so this means that the Geneva conventions would not apply in a situation where an armed conflict doesn't exist and it does raise an interesting question about the intersection between international human rights regulation and that of IHL and the interplay and the relationship between IH L and IHL uh human rights versus humanitarian law is quite interesting and it is something that we're going to talk about when we look at belligerent occupation in more detail and the extent to which human rights law should apply in circumstances where we have a state of belligerent occupation so the question that we're going to then ask is given the fact that IHL does not apply in circumstances where an armed conflict does not exist are there instances where there are certain IHL Provisions that may still apply uh in circumstances that are either peacetime uh dour either just in a peacetime situation or potentially de facto peacetime situations and I'll talk about what these mean in a second so essentially there are definitely elements of IHL which will apply regardless of the existence of an armed conflict so for example weapons treaties don't just prohibit the use of the weapons which which would obviously be done under the remit of an armed conflict but they also uh prohibit the manufacturer development and stockpiling of those weapons and so the implication there is that this extends Beyond a time of armed conflict and also into periods of Peace time you can't manufacture develop and stockpile weapons uh certain weapons that are prohibited by certain treaties during peace time as well as During the period of armed conflict so this is an element of IHL that could apply to both peacetime situations as well as an armed conflict there is also the expectation that states ensure military forces are properly trained to act in accordance with IHL during peace time so even if there is no armed conflict about uh you are training and if you're training for a military uh role of military position whether that be uh maybe army or or Air Force or navy you are trained uh to uh follow the the rules of War to follow the law of international humanitarian law and so therefore um this would be done in accordance with peacetime training as well and then finally somebody who is deprived of their Liberty so for example a prisoner of war will not lose the protections of IHL if the conflict in which they were arrested or or detained um uh ends and so therefore these protections do not cease until they have either been released or repatriated so this is another element of where IHL will apply to those certain situations so they will not lose their status and protection under IHL when the conflict ends and they remain incarcerated if that is something that takes place now those are elements where it would be physically a peacetime situation where elements of IHL would apply but what about situations which could be considered to be def facto peace time where IHL applies and this brings us to the issue of belligerent occupation because essentially we're going to touch on biger occupation in more detail in future lessons so that's fine to deal with um in the future but for now let's think about how this works so there may be circumstances where belligerent occupation exists but the quote unquote conflict itself may have died down to such an extent that is it is de facto a peacetime situation so belligerent occupation exists where an armed conflict exists uh where it is an international armed conflict and one state occupies a region or territory of another state without that State's consent now belligerent occupation can take place and exist for many many many years potentially decades and so in those circumstances You could argue that it was de facto a peacetime circumstance but that because it is still a belligerent occupation the rules of international humanitarian law may still apply and so essentially what this means is that those under uh belligerent occupation do not lose their status and protection under IHL even if it is for all intents and purposes if we go outside and you see that it is pretty much a peacetime circumstance a peacetime situation and so there are many examples of this taking place um for example there are times um during the the flareups and the breakout conflicts between uh between uh Palestine and Israel that are considered to be peace time it is considered to be peaceful in in a lot of a lot of the time in a lot of Israel and Palestine but of course it is still what many International lawyers would argue as being a state of belligerent occupation and so therefore uh you still have the rules and the laws International humanitarian law applying now of course Israel and Palestine is a very very complicated um situation and Circumstance because of course you then have the issue of statehood for the state of Palestine that has to be raised but regardless of regardless of uh that particular situation you can see how a state of belligerent occupation like Israel and Palestine lasting for as long as it has for many many decades having periods of time where things were relatively peaceful but is still a a a state of religion occupation so we have this idea of a de facto peacetime circumstance now the next lesson is going to examine the distinction that we make between International and non-international armed conflicts and the kind of rules that apply in both of these circumstances