Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:52:21.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sandesh Sivakumaran, The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, xxxvii + 657 pp., ISBN 9780199239795, £105.00.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Shin Kawagishi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
BOOK REVIEWS
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 387 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A similar concern regarding the extrapolation of the law of IAC to that of NIAC has previously been pointed out in the literature. See Kretzmer, D., ‘Rethinking the Application of IHL in Non-International Armed Conflicts’, (2009) 42 Israel Law Review 8, at 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 In contrast, it seems that the notion of territorial control in AP II has been restrictively interpreted in the literature. See L. Moir, The Law of Internal Armed Conflict (2002), 105–7.

3 In recent years there has been much active debate on the classification of extraterritorial operations against non-state actors. While it is true that the majority of the literature classifies such an operation as ‘extraterritorial’ NIAC, it is likely that the application of AP II is not compatible with the language of Art. 1(1) of AP II. See N. Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law (2008), 257; N. Lubell, Extraterritorial Use of Force against Non-State Actors (2010), 100.

4 On the other hand, this position contrasts with the ICTY jurisprudence. For details, see A. Cullen, The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law (2010), 140–142.

5 The author developed this idea in another of his articles, and presents the theory of ‘Quasi-Custom’, which is ‘based on the practices and views of states plus actors other than states, including . . . armed groups’. See Roberts, A. and Sivakumaran, S., ‘Lawmaking by Nonstate Actors: Engaging Armed Groups in the Creation of International Humanitarian Law,’ (2012) 37 Yale Journal of International Law 107, 149–51Google Scholar. However, it is not clear whether this theory mitigates concerns about the role of the state in the creation of customary international law.

6 In relation to this issue, the Serdar Mohammed case clarifies that international humanitarian law does not provide a legal basis for detention in NIAC. See Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Justice [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB), at 239–51.

7 In this sense, the author advances the ICRC's membership approach to include individuals who do not perform ‘continuous combat functions’ as members to be targeted.

8 See Scobbie, I., ‘The approach to customary international law in the Study’, in Wilmshurst, E. and Breau, S. (eds.), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (2007) 15, 36–47Google Scholar.

9 See Kingsbury, B., ‘The Concept of Compliance as a Function of Competing Conceptions of International Law’, (1998) 19 Michigan Journal of International Law 345, 345–68Google Scholar.

10 See Cassese, A., ‘Introduction’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law (2012) xvii, xxiCrossRefGoogle Scholar.