Shortly after September 11, 2001, the US administration, headed by former President George W. Bush, declared that it was engaged in a War on Terror (or War against Terrorism). This “war” was seen as a single worldwide international armed conflict against a non-state actor (Al-Qa’ida).
The present administration, headed by President Barack Obama, does not use this or any similar expression. According to the administration, the US is currently engaged in a non-international armed conflict with the Al-Qa’ida and its associated forces. Yet it commonly looks at terrorism within a war or armed conflict paradigm. In this sense, there are important similarities in howthe two administrations deal with terrorism.
In this article, the author discusses the interrelationship between terrorism and international humanitarian law (IHL). Since the applicability of IHL is dependent on the existence of an armed conflict situation, clarifying this concept is of first importance. After a brief look at the concept of terrorism, this paper analyzes howarmed conflicts are categorized in IHL and considers howparties to armed conflicts are conceptualized. In this vein, it is argued that it would be difficult for terrorist groups to qualify as parties to armed conflict.
Historically, the international community has taken actions against terrorism from the perspective of international criminal law (ICL). Indeed, there exist many international legal instruments designed to prevent designated “terroristic” activities and punish individual perpetrators (ICL treaties). However, the context in which terrorist acts are committed is not limited to so-called peacetime. The second half of this article is devoted to the question of the interplay between these ICL treaties and IHL. An analytical focus is placed on regime setting clauses or exclusionary clauses in the treaties.
抄録全体を表示