ICRC Washington Legal Advisor Daniel Cahen wraps up the first part of our IHL Challenges series on the typology of armed conflicts with a synthesis of the positions already published. 
We will be focusing on IHL and terrorism next and as is now customary, feature contributions from leading non-ICRC experts. Spread the word if you like what you read.

For the fifth instalment of our IHL Challenges series, where we are honored to have University of Nottingham Professor Sandesh Sivakumaran respond to our position on typolgy and question which actors should characterize armed conflicts.
Next we will wrap up of our exchange on typology with a note by Daniel Cahen, Legal Advisor here at ICRC Washington. 

I am in general agreement with the substance of the typology section of the ICRC report. One question that it raises, but leaves unaddressed, is who makes the assessment as to the characterization of the situation. Who decides if the situation in question is one of internal tensions and disturbances or if it amounts to a non-international armed conflict (NIAC)? Who determines whether what seems to be a NIAC is actually an international armed conflict (IAC)? 

Earlier this week, ICRC Legal Advisor Jelena Pejic explained why the ICRC is of the opinion that the existing classification of armed conflicts under the Geneva Conventions remains relevant to address contemporary armed conflicts.  
Today, Professor Geoffrey Corn, of South Texas College of Law, answers Ms. Pejic and provides his perspective on the issue of typology as framed by the ICRC.
Professor Corn, whose bio and list of publications speak for themselves, is the first non-ICRC contributor to the series. It is an honor and a privilege to have him respond on Intercross.