This article will touch briefly on the ways in which the conversation about when an individual loses protection from attack through membership in an organized armed group (and related questions of what it means to take direct part in hostilities) have developed in the course of the last several years. In so doing, it will underscore that the development of the law in this area remains for the time being largely in the hands of States, and, in particular, their executive branches. It will also give a sense of where like-minded States with which the U.S. government works particularly closely have reached consensus in this area, as well as identify some areas where there remains a range of views. To keep the scope of this exercise manageable, the paper will keep a narrow focus on the threshold for membership in organized armed groups and direct participation in hostilities on the non-State side of a NIAC. It will not address a number of important related questions that also have a bearing on the question of when individuals lose immunity from being made the object of attack in non-international armed conflict, including questions about the point at which armed violence can be deemed an armed conflict, the level of cohesion that is required in order to deem an organization an "organized armed group," the circumstances under which an organized armed group can be said to be engaged in armed conflict, the geographic scope of armed conflict and the circumstances in which legal rules outside the law of armed conflict may be relevant.