Search

This thesis concerns the problems that surround the implementation and enforcement of international humanitarian law in non-international armed conflicts. The provisions applicable to such conflicts are common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions together with Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. The main obstacles surrounding the implementation of these provisions are of various natures. States tend to be reluctant to admit that a situation meets the requirements for non-international armed conflicts. States are equally reluctant to recognise armed insurgent factions as parties to such conflicts. Armed insurgent factions, on the other hand, lack motivation to apply the rules since this measure will probably not change their status and treatment under the domestic laws of the State. In addition, the concept of internationalised armed conflict, where a prima facie non-international armed conflict turns international by the involvement of a third State or States, is creating confusion on which legal framework should be applicable. The conclusion is that since the problems surrounding the implementation and enforcement in non-international armed conflicts are various and not easily dealt with under the current provisions, a solution to this problem would be to create one single legal framework for all armed conflicts, abandoning the current division between international and non-international armed conflicts. This would help in the application of the rules and in addition make it easier for the parties involved to abide by them. Unfortunately, it seems that such a solution is yet far away.

This thesis concerns the problems that surround the implementation and enforcement of international humanitarian law in non-international armed conflicts. The provisions applicable to such conflicts are common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions together with Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. The main obstacles surrounding the implementation of these provisions are of various natures. States tend to be reluctant to admit that a situation meets the requirements for non-international armed conflicts. States are equally reluctant to recognise armed insurgent factions as parties to such conflicts. Armed insurgent factions, on the other hand, lack motivation to apply the rules since this measure will probably not change their status and treatment under the domestic laws of the State. In addition, the concept of internationalised armed conflict, where a prima facie non-international armed conflict turns international by the involvement of a third State or States, is creating confusion on which legal framework should be applicable. The conclusion is that since the problems surrounding the implementation and enforcement in non-international armed conflicts are various and not easily dealt with under the current provisions, a solution to this problem would be to create one single legal framework for all armed conflicts, abandoning the current division between international and non-international armed conflicts. This would help in the application of the rules and in addition make it easier for the parties involved to abide by them. Unfortunately, it seems that such a solution is yet far away.

Since January 2002, a Swedish citizen has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He was captured in Pakistan during the post-September 11 war between Afghanistan and the United States and subsequently brought to Guantanamo, where he has now passed his two years imprisonment. The U.S. has pronounced that it cannot determine how dangerous he is because he is not answering questions and as a consequent of that he cannot be repatriated. The war in Afghanistan is over but the ''war against terrorism'', which the U.S. started, is still going on. The U.S. has determined that the laws of war or international humanitarian law is applicable to the ''war on terrorism''. But even during armed conflicts, to which the humanitarian law is applicable, the fundamental provisions of international human rights law remain in force. Despite the numerous criticisms from different human rights organisations, the U.S. has still not reviewed its position that the individuals at Guantanamo are not entitled to prisoner of war status and that they should continue to be detained. The U.S. opinion is that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to the Taliban detainees but that they do not fulfil the requirements of being prisoners of war. Regarding the al-Qaeda detainees the opinion is that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable because al-Qaeda is not a state party to the Conventions and as an international terrorist organisation they are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war. When going through the provisions enabling entitlement to POW status, it seems that it cannot be clearly said that the Taliban detainees do not fulfil the requirements. Neither can it be beyond doubt that al-Qaeda detainees fall outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. is nevertheless refusing to let a competent tribunal, as referred to in article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, determine the status of the detainees. The U.S. claims that it has determined the status o

Since January 2002, a Swedish citizen has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He was captured in Pakistan during the post-September 11 war between Afghanistan and the United States and subsequently brought to Guantanamo, where he has now passed his two years imprisonment. The U.S. has pronounced that it cannot determine how dangerous he is because he is not answering questions and as a consequent of that he cannot be repatriated. The war in Afghanistan is over but the ''war against terrorism'', which the U.S. started, is still going on. The U.S. has determined that the laws of war or international humanitarian law is applicable to the ''war on terrorism''. But even during armed conflicts, to which the humanitarian law is applicable, the fundamental provisions of international human rights law remain in force. Despite the numerous criticisms from different human rights organisations, the U.S. has still not reviewed its position that the individuals at Guantanamo are not entitled to prisoner of war status and that they should continue to be detained. The U.S. opinion is that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to the Taliban detainees but that they do not fulfil the requirements of being prisoners of war. Regarding the al-Qaeda detainees the opinion is that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable because al-Qaeda is not a state party to the Conventions and as an international terrorist organisation they are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war. When going through the provisions enabling entitlement to POW status, it seems that it cannot be clearly said that the Taliban detainees do not fulfil the requirements. Neither can it be beyond doubt that al-Qaeda detainees fall outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. is nevertheless refusing to let a competent tribunal, as referred to in article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, determine the status of the detainees. The U.S. claims that it has determined the status o