Article

Geography of armed conflict : why it is a mistake to fish for the red herring

Geoffrey S. Corn

• International law studies, Vol. 89, 2013, p. 77-107

English

Source : https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=ils (last accessed on 22.06.2020)

The author argues that the two traditional categories of International and Non-International Armed Conflict are under-inclusive, particularly in light of the emergence of international terrorism as a national security threat. Transnational Armed Conflict (TAC) has gained traction as a potential new category of armed conflict but has also generated concerns over its apparent legitimization of military operations with unlimited geographic scope. In response to this concern, some have proposed limiting TACs to defined “hot zones” of conflict. However, the author argues that it is the nature of the threat that determines a state’s military scope of operations. In particular, the idea of limiting operations against international terrorism to defined locales, betrays a critical aspect of the TAC typology – bringing the fight to the enemy. Further, history has shown that conflict geography is also affected by a complex interplay among concepts of jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and neutrality, rather than contained by pre-defined geographic limits. The author argues that the geographic constraints of armed conflict as determined by law are perhaps better achieved through political choices. Instead, focusing efforts on the TAC-related issues of targeting belligerents and limiting preventative detention during long-term conflicts will provide a better balance between national security realities and the individuals affected armed conflict. [Summary by students at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law (IHRP)]

• Full text
• More information is available for logged in users