Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The strict division of international humanitarian law into rules applicable in international armed conflict and those relevant to armed conflicts not of an international nature is almost universally criticized. Even though attempts to abandon the distinction were made at every stage of negotiation of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols, calls for a single body of international humanitarian law have since died out. This article revives those calls by highlighting the inadequacies of the current dichotomy’s treatment of internationalized armed conflicts, namely, armed conflicts that involve internal and international elements. It concludes that the law developed to determine this “internationalization” has created convoluted tests that in practice are near impossible to apply. Even once internationalized, it is difficult to determine the applicable law as relationships and military presences change. Moreover, the international/non-international dichotomy in international humanitarian law has proved susceptible to incredible political manipulation, often at the expense of humanitarian protection. Further considerations of substantive aspects of a single law of armed conflict will be essential in the development of greater humanitarian protection during internationalized armed conflict.
James Stewart (Sun,) studied this question.