SIIL 4/3 Restricts the means and methods of how

warfare should be conducted

Military approach We want the military to attack judiciously;
not to attack those who are helpless
How does the military approach differ from
ICJ approach? What do these principles mean?

In terms of IHL, IHRL: Principles of necessity and prop in IHL:

IHL: Necessity WON it should be employed

Prop the degree of the force to be used
Core principles:
IHL compared to IHRL
The core fundamental principles of IHL are:
The rules are applicable to both state and
1. the distinction between civilians and non state actors
combatants.
State: military
Importance of differentiating civs and Non state : terrorism
combs:
Protects people who are no longer taking
They are treated differently part in the hostilities

2. the prohibition to attack those hors There is no right to life during wartime
de combat (i.e those not directly (IHL)
engaged in hostilities). 

Right to life should be respected (IHRL)

What exactly is an armed conflict?

3. the prohibition to inflict unnecessary
Why apply IHL to non international
suffering. 

conflicts?

Apply ICJ approach

If threshold is met, apply IHL as an
immediate response

4. the principle of necessity. 
 Case to case

Prosecutor v. milosevi(2004)

5. the principle of proportionality. Defendant was acquitted because this was

not an armed conflict as defined

Who are combatants

Protects civilians
What about the military medic; chaplain
employed by the army

Are they combatants

They should be treated differently; their

roles are different from those of soldiers

Medic shoots a person; now a combatant?

Can a civilian turn into a combatant?

Civilians can take up arms but the protected

status is suspended during the period if such
activity

Fighters

How do we put these in the context of

terrorism?

Are terrorists civilians?

Terrorism vs guerilla warfare

Is terrorism just another form of warfare?

Italy v. bouyahia maher ben abdelaziz

(2007)

Kj v. sos home dept (2009)