Author:
Van Poecke Thomas,Verbruggen Frank,Yperman Ward
Abstract
AbstractWhile armed conflicts are principally governed by international humanitarian law (IHL), activities of members of non-State armed groups and their affiliates may also qualify as terrorist offences. After explaining why the concurrent application of IHL and criminal law instruments on terrorism causes friction, this article analyzes the chief mechanism for dissipating this friction: a clause excluding activities governed by IHL from the scope of criminal law instruments on terrorism. Such armed conflict exclusion clauses exist at the international, regional and national level. This article explains how an exclusion clause can best avoid friction between IHL and criminal law instruments on terrorism.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Sociology and Political Science
Reference10 articles.
1. Expanding the Borders of Common Article 3 in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Amending Its Geographical Application Through Subsequent Practice?
2. Global Armed Conflict? The Threshold of Extraterritorial Non-International Armed Conflicts;Radin;International Law Studies,2013
3. A Global Battlefield?: Drones and the Geographical Scope of Armed Conflict
4. Charting the Legal Geography of Non-International Armed Conflict;Schmitt;International Law Studies,2014
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献