Any acts which would normally be categorized as 'terrorist' as understood within the context of the universal anti-terrorism instruments and criminal justice approaches during peacetime, such as the deliberate perpetration of acts of violence against civilians or civilian objects, constitute war crimes under IHL which should be prosecuted accordingly. Whilst IHL does not recognize 'terrorists' as their own discrete category of actors during situations of armed conflict, it does recognize and prohibit "terrorist" activities. (Especially useful in the drafting of this section was Pejic, 2012, Ch. In contrast, they may be criminally prosecuted for the commission of unlawful acts, such as perfidy which constitutes a war crime. Instead, persons lawfully engaged in IAC direct hostilities, as defined by IHL, enjoy combatants' immunity from prosecution by the detaining State for lawful acts of war. To do so would incorrectly suggest that such acts are unlawful and should be criminalized. Instead, such acts constitute the very nature of armed conflict and, as such, should never be legally defined as 'terrorist', whether under IHL or any other body of international law (including universal instruments against terrorism). As has been noted previously, acts which are permitted during armed conflict under IHL, such as the targeting of legitimate military targets, do not constitute terrorist acts. In terms of IHL's application to situations of terrorism and counter-terrorism, it is important to understand that the term 'terrorist' in situations of armed conflict has no associated special legal significance and is not defined within IHL. International humanitarian law, terrorism and counter-terrorism Conflation of terrorism and conflict
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |