How to improve upon the faulty legal regime of internal armed conflicts
Realizing utopia : the future of international law
Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2012
There is a growing view that human rights law offers greater protection to the individual and should therefore replace international humanitarian law (IHL) in the regulation of internal armed conflict, at least when the violence is below the threshold of Protocol II. However, the consequences of a shift from regulation through IHL to regulation through human rights law have not been fully explored. For example, one would need to turn attention to wether, and in what circumstances, armed groups have human rights obligations. There would also need to be a forum before which these obligations could be enforced. Another problem is the methodological approach by which the international law of internal armed conflict has developed. The development has taken place primarily by analogy to the law of international armed conflict. Yet there are important differences between internal armed conflicts and their international counterparts, principal among which are the actors that take part in each of them. A study needs to be undertaken to determine wether all rules now applicable in internal armed conflicts are within the capacity of armed groups. To improve upon the current condition greater regard should be had to the ad hoc regulation of internal armed conflict through unilateral declarations, bilateral agreements, and the like, which is more prevalent that may be thought.