Present and future conceptions of the status of government forces in non-international armed conflict
Creighton Authors
Watts, Sean
Watts, Sean
Admin. Units
School of Law
School of Law
Subjects
War; Humanitarian law; International law
War; Humanitarian law; International law
Title
Present and future conceptions of the status of government forces in non-international armed conflict
Present and future conceptions of the status of government forces in non-international armed conflict
Authors
Watts, Sean
Watts, Sean
Book
International law studies v. 88
International law studies v. 88
Pages
145-180
145-180
Date
2012
2012
Metadata
Show full item record
Link
Check for Full-Text (may not be available)
Check for Full-Text (may not be available)
Other Link(s)
SSRN
SSRN
Citation
Sean Watts, Present and Future Conceptions of the Status of Government Forces in Non-International Armed Conflict, 88 Int'l L. Stud. 145 (2012).
Sean Watts, Present and Future Conceptions of the Status of Government Forces in Non-International Armed Conflict, 88 Int'l L. Stud. 145 (2012).
Abstract
Legal voids exist and operate nowhere more clearly and widely in international law than in the laws of war applicable to non-international armed conflicts (NIAC). Status of government actors in NIAC provides an intriguing and specific example of just such a void. Where the protections and obligations of the law of armed conflict are premised almost entirely on the status of affected persons, the law of NIAC spurns such classifications, as well as the taxonomy of status-based protection generally. Yet modern forms of conflict and State practices may soon place pressure on the NIAC status void. Increasing media attention, growing international oversight, and progressively heightening sensitivity to the suffering produced by NIAC conspire to match the legal protective regime of NIAC with that of international armed conflict, including perhaps the latter's use of status. This article offers explanations of the likely influences behind the NIAC status void and offers logical, structural, and operational arguments in its defense. The article concludes by addressing a series of considerations related to generalizations about international legal voids as an opportunity to reflect more deliberately on an appropriate interpretive approach to the law of NIAC.