Our IHL Challenges Series continues with, over the next couple of weeks, an exchange on today's conflation of armed conflict and terrorism.
With this initial post, ICRC legal expert Jelena Pejic unpacks the distinctions between the legal frameworks governing these types of violence and elaborates on the ICRC position, notably on the legal and policy effects of blurring armed conflict and terrorism.
Ms. Pejic describes the disadvantages caused by this blurring, particularly for the observance of IHL by non-state parties to non-international armed conflicts. She also explains why the conflation of armed conflict and terrorism is of direct concern to the ICRC and other humanitarian actors seeking to protect and assist victims in situations of non-international armed conflict.
More guest contributions coming up next week, with responses to our position on IHL and terrorism by distinguished experts Bobby Chesney, Gabor Rona and Ben Saul.
You are always welcome to tweet and share this post or the entire series with colleagues and friends who, like us, live and breathe IHL.
Previous posts in the IHL And The Challenges Of Contemporary Armed Conflicts series:Introduction by Knut Doermann, Head of the ICRC Legal Division.Typology of conflicts, in five parts. International Law And The Challenges Of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, an ICRC Report presented at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross And Red Crescent, Geneva, 2011.