Publication

This paper examines the definitions of armed conflict in international humanitarian law (IHL) and whether these definitions accurately reflect the nature of contemporary conflict. More specifically, it focuses on the difference drawn in IHL between international and non-international armed conflicts. The main argument of the author is that the difference drawn between these two forms of conflict is outdated. The reasons for this include that non-international armed conflicts are now the most common form of conflict and as they can take a heavy toll on civilian populations, threaten world peace just as much as conventional interstate wars and involve international actors. Consequently, he suggests that if IHL is to remain relevant to contemporary conflicts, its definitions of international conflict must change.