SpringerLink
Log in

Direct Participation in Hostilities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Conflict and Security Law

  • 1590 Accesses

Abstract

Direct participation in hostilities (DPH) was created as a concept in Additional Protocol I, developed in human rights and national case law and discussed briefly by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary Law Study. However, it was not clearly defined at the time. The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation under International Humanitarian Law (Interpretive Guidance) developed by the ICRC requires a threshold of harm, direct causation and a belligerent nexus as well as suggesting that civilians should be captured rather than killed if possible. However, there have been many controversies about the precise modalities of DPH. This chapter, which offers a rare practical-facing analysis of the Interpretive Guidance and contestation surrounding it, argues that the Guidance is inadequate for the realities of warfare, and that a human rights-based approach offers better, more meaningful protection to civilians taking a DPH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 330.63
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 427.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 427.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the ICRC Reports and Documents 2008, (henceforth Interpretive Guidance), pp. 1013–1014.

  2. 2.

    Common Article 3 to all four Geneva Conventions, 75 UNTS (1950) 31, 85, 135 and 287.

  3. 3.

    See Pictet ed. 1952 Geneva Convention I, pp. 38–61; 1960 Geneva Convention II, pp. 32–39; 1960 Geneva Convention III, pp. 28–44 and 1958 Geneva Convention IV, pp. 26–44.

  4. 4.

    See Commentary on Geneva Convention I 2016, para 525 and Prosecutor v Strugar, Appeal Chamber Judgment, 17 July 2008, IT-01-42-A, para 173. See also, HPCR Manual 2013, p. 132 and the International Institute of Humanitarian Law 2006, p. 4, para 2.

  5. 5.

    Prosecutor v Strugar, Appeal Chamber Judgment, 17 July 2008, IT-01-42-A, para 176. Note that the Commentary to Article 15 assumed that civilians taking a DPH would either be part of a levée en masse or part of an organized resistance movement within Article 4(2)–(6) of Geneva Convention III and so would have Prisoner of War status if captured, Pictet ed. 1958 Commentary Geneva Convention IV, pp. 131–132.

  6. 6.

    Additional Protocol I, Article 51(3), UNTS 1125 (1979) 3 and in a NIAC Additional Protocol II, Article 13(3), UNTS 1125 (1979) p. 609.

  7. 7.

    Sandoz et al eds. 1987, p. 618.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., p. 1451. See Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, in their Rule 6, p. 20 in respect of the UK view of Article 53(1).

  9. 9.

    Sandoz et al. 1987, pp. 618–619. This issue will be returned to later in the context of the ICRC Interpretive Guidance.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., p. 619 and Commentary to Protocol II, p. 1451, but see Schmitt 2010a, p. 711.

  11. 11.

    Controversies on this will be discussed in the Interpretive Guidance at Sect. 12.4 below.

  12. 12.

    Abella v Argentina, Case 11.137, 18 November 1997, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98, para 178. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights took the same approach in the third report on the human rights situation in Colombia, 26 February 1999, OAE/Ser.L/VII.102, para 61.

  13. 13.

    Abella v Argentina, ibid., para 189.

  14. 14.

    Crawford 2015, p. 81.

  15. 15.

    Third report on the human rights situation in Colombia, n.13 supra, para 61.

  16. 16.

    The Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al v The Government of Israel et al, The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, HCJ 769/02, 11 December 2006 (hereafter Targeted Killings Case). Note, although this case was decided before the publication of the Interpretive Guidance; it was decided after the expert meetings on DPH, so it may have been influenced by them.

  17. 17.

    Targeted Killings Case, para 39, making reference to Statman 2004, p. 195.

  18. 18.

    The third report on the human rights situation in Colombia, n.13 supra, para 55 and the Targeted Killings Case, para 25.

  19. 19.

    See Targeted Killings Case, para 25, this will be returned to in the conclusion at Sect. 12.6 below.

  20. 20.

    Targeted Killings Case, para 21, referring to Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip.

  21. 21.

    ICRC 2016 and its Commentary to Article 3, especially paras 431–432 and 420–430.

  22. 22.

    Targeted Killings Case, para 30 and see para 19 for an explanation as to why customary international law is part of the law of Israel.

  23. 23.

    Targeted Killings Case, para 33.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., paras 33 and 35 and see para 12 on sending out a person to commit a terrorist attack.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., para 37.

  26. 26.

    Note that the Palestinian representation at the UN was not upgraded to UN ‘non-Member Observer State’ status until 29 November 2012 in General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19.

  27. 27.

    Note that this is a different view than that taken by the ICRC Interpretive Guidance, see Sect. 12.4.5 below.

  28. 28.

    Targeted Killings Case, para 36.

  29. 29.

    See generally Dixon 2009.

  30. 30.

    Targeted Killings Case, para 37.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., para 25.

  32. 32.

    United States of America v Salim Ahmed Hamdan, On Reconsideration Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 19 December 2007, AE 084, at www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/Hamdan/Hamdan%20(AE084).pdf accessed at 3 March 2019. The reversal of this case was on a different basis by the Supreme Court, see Hamdan v Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) at https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-states-hamdan-v-rumsfeld accessed at 28 August 2019.

  33. 33.

    See United States of America v Salim Ahmed Hamdan, ibid., page 6.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1035.

  36. 36.

    The ICRC Customary IHL Study was published in 2005, whilst the Interpretive Guidance was published in 2009. As some experts disagreed with the final advice and would not sign it, the Interpretive Guidance was published purely under the name of the ICRC.

  37. 37.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, Rule 6, p. 22.

  38. 38.

    The Commander’s Handbook 2007, para 8.2.2. Note that the earlier edition was from 1995 and it must have been this that Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005 were citing.

  39. 39.

    See Targeted Killings Case, para 37.

  40. 40.

    Commander’s Handbook 2007, n.40, supra.

  41. 41.

    See Sect. 12.3.1 above.

  42. 42.

    See Interpretive Guidance, pp. 991–1047.

  43. 43.

    See the expert discussions at https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/direct-participation-article-020709.htm accessed on 6 September 2019, Interpretive Guidance, p. 992.

  44. 44.

    Melzer 2010, pp. 853–856. Note that it is not possible to tell if the ICRC selected the military participants or their countries nominated them.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Note that the former military members of the expert group, Boothby, Schmitt, Watkin and Hays Parks have all made comments very critical of the ICRC Interpretive Guidance. It is not possible to tell if the ICRC selected the military participants or their countries nominated them.

  47. 47.

    Interpretive Guidance, pp. 998–999. See also Schmitt 2010b, p. 15.

  48. 48.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1001, but see Watkin 2010, pp. 671–672.

  49. 49.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 993.

  50. 50.

    This issue will be returned to in the conclusion at Sect. 12.6 below.

  51. 51.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1007. The expression of making the group their ‘home’ potentially has the same effect in the Targeted Killings Case, para 35.

  52. 52.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1007.

  53. 53.

    See Sassòli 2019, p. 359 at 8.317.

  54. 54.

    Alston P., ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Addendum: Study on targeted killings’, A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, 28 May 2010, para 65, and see Crawford 2018, p. 24.

  55. 55.

    For example, see Solis 2016, p. 585 and Sassòli 2019, p. 360 at 8.318.

  56. 56.

    Hampson 2011, pp. 200–201, although Tsagourias and Morrison 2018, p. 287, disagree.

  57. 57.

    This is demonstrated by the fact that the ICRC Customary IHL Study has 136 of 161 rules based on API that they argue are a norm of customary international law applicable in both IACs and NIACs. The online edition of Sassòli et al undated, see the development of the law of NIAC closer to the law of IAC as a “good thing for the victims of such conflicts”.

  58. 58.

    For example, Watkin 2010, p. 656; Corn and Jenks 2011, p. 338 and McBride 2012, p. 50.

  59. 59.

    Most have the opinion that it applies at the same time as humanitarian law, for example the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, (1996), para 25 and in its Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, (2004), para 106. Compare the law of IAC in Hassan v UK, Application no. 29750/09, Grand Chamber Judgment in 2014, para 104 with the law of NIAC in a British Court of Appeal case in Serdar Mohammed [2015] EWCA Civ 843, para 246 (note that the Supreme Court did not deal with IHL). See comments of Kretzmer 2009, particularly p. 39 in which he argues that the development of human rights law means that it is unnecessary to resort to IHL in a non-international armed conflict and see Martin 2001, where he argues that human rights law and IHL should be merged.

  60. 60.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1008.

  61. 61.

    See Watkin 2010, p. 661 and Targeted Killings Case, para 21, which makes the same point.

  62. 62.

    See discussion of the Targeted Killings Case in Sect. 12.3.1.

  63. 63.

    The issue of deploying and returning from attacks is discussed in Sect. 12.4.7 below.

  64. 64.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1035.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., and see the US v Hamdan On Reconsideration Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, discussed in Sect. 12.3.1 above.

  66. 66.

    See Melzer 2010, pp. 899–890; Watkin 2010, p. 688 and Crawford 2018, p. 39.

  67. 67.

    See Marchant 2020, especially pp. 60–61 and Chandrasekaran 2009.

  68. 68.

    Interpretive Guidance, pp. 1016–1031.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., p. 1016.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., p. 1017.

  72. 72.

    Prosecutor v Strugar, Appeal Chamber Judgment, 17 July 2008, IT-01-42-A, para 68.

  73. 73.

    Interpretive Guidance, pp. 1017–1019 and also see the examples of DPH in HPCR 2013, Rule 29, pp. 135–140.

  74. 74.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1019.

  75. 75.

    Ibid.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., 1021.

  77. 77.

    See Schmitt’s argument.

  78. 78.

    See argument of Schmitt 2010b, p. 29 and Melzer’s reply, Melzer 2010, p. 867. See also Schmitt 2010a, p. 725.

  79. 79.

    ICRC Interpretive Guidance, p. 1022 and see McBride 2012, p. 56.

  80. 80.

    See Additional Protocol I, Article 51(5)(b) and in Article 57(2)(b), accepted by the ICRC Customary IHL Study in their Rule 14 as customary international law in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., See also Schmitt 2010b, p. 38.

  82. 82.

    See McBride 2012, p. 56.

  83. 83.

    See McBride 2012, p. 50.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., and was not the approach of the Supreme Court in the Targeted Killing Case, see the discussion in Sect. 12.3.1 above.

  85. 85.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1022 and Schmitt 2010a, p. 731.

  86. 86.

    Interpretive Guidance, pp. 1022–1023.

  87. 87.

    See Turns 2012, p. 296 and Boothby 2010, p. 752.

  88. 88.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1024.

  89. 89.

    This is a different interpretation from that taken in the Targeted Killings Case discussed in Sect. 12.3.1 above.

  90. 90.

    Schmitt 2010b, p. 32.

  91. 91.

    Schmitt 2010b, p. 33.

  92. 92.

    Melzer 2010, p. 871.

  93. 93.

    See comments on the problem of telling whether human shields were voluntary or involuntary in Sect. 12.3.1 above and see also comments of Fenrick 2009, p. 294.

  94. 94.

    Interpretive Guidance, p.1026, original emphasis. See Schmitt 2010a, p. 736.

  95. 95.

    See also Schmitt 2010b, p. 17.

  96. 96.

    Interpretative Guidance, p. 1000.

  97. 97.

    Schmitt 2010b, p. 18.

  98. 98.

    Sandoz et al eds. 1987, p. 618. Note that modern states have not made a declaration about this according to the ICRC state party database.

  99. 99.

    Interpretive Guidance, pp. 1031–1033.

  100. 100.

    HPCR 2013 p. 133, commentary to Rule 28 and see Boothby 2010, p. 750.

  101. 101.

    Interpretive Guidance, pp. 1037–1040.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., p. 1039.

  103. 103.

    Although it has support in the Targeted Killings Case, para 40.

  104. 104.

    See Hays Parks 2010, 35–52 and Kleffner 2012, 35–52.

  105. 105.

    See for example Akande 2010, p. 192 and Fenrick 2009, p. 299.

  106. 106.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1040.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., p. 1044 states that “international human rights law or the law governing the use of international State force (jus ad bellum)” may apply, though the latter only seems relevant to the type of the armed conflict.

  108. 108.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1040 and see pp. 1043–1044.

  109. 109.

    Melzer 2010, p. 896. From the ICRC expert meeting notes, after Part IX was introduced, it is impossible to tell if the minority of experts who supported this. were those who worked for the ICRC currently or formerly, or if they included any independent academics. It is only possible to know which experts opposed Part IX if they criticised this part of the ICRC Interpretive Guidance in book chapters or articles. It is impossible to know what the majority of experts who remained silent on this issue actually thought.

  110. 110.

    Hays Parks 2010, p. 783.

  111. 111.

    Pictet 1985, p. 75, stating that the minimum use of force to put soldiers out of action must be used, capturing, wounding and only then killing if necessary.

  112. 112.

    Hays Parks 2010, p. 799, Schmitt 2010b, p. 41 and see Fenrick 2009, p. 299. Note that Schmitt does not footnote this claim about State practice and Fenrick, in a footnote, admits that he has not done any empirical work on State practice, but argues that his claim is “substantiated to a degree by wide and relevant reading over the years”. See also Kleffner 2012, p. 39 and the opposing view of Goodman 2013, p. 836, referring to the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration.

  113. 113.

    Meron 2000, pp. 87–88 and Kleffner 2012, pp. 40 and 45.

  114. 114.

    Goodman 2013, pp. 829–830.

  115. 115.

    Fenrick 2009, p. 299.

  116. 116.

    See Akande 2010, p. 192.

  117. 117.

    Interpretive Guidance, pp. 1043–1044 and see Schmitt 2010b, p. 42.

  118. 118.

    Ibid., p. 1043.

  119. 119.

    Kleffner 2012, pp. 47 and 50.

  120. 120.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1044, footnote 222.

  121. 121.

    Ibid., pp. 1045–1046.

  122. 122.

    Ibid., p. 1047.

  123. 123.

    Watkin 2010, p. 693.

  124. 124.

    See Hampson 2011, pp. 201 and 205, who is concerned that Human Rights bodies would not accept “the application of a status test in low-intensity conflicts”.

  125. 125.

    Prosecutor v Ntaganda, ICC Trial Chamber Judgment, 8 July 2019, No.ICC-0104-02/05.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., paras 701 and 730.

  127. 127.

    This was held to apply to every element charged, ibid., para 44.

  128. 128.

    Prosecutor v Ntaganda, n.125 supra, paras 805–808.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., para 885.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., para 886, original italics.

  131. 131.

    Ibid., para 886.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., paras 890–892.

  133. 133.

    See Common Article 3(1) and (1)(a) in addition to Prosecutor v Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, No.IT-94-1, paras 119 and 126.

  134. 134.

    Prosecutor v Ntaganda, n. 125 supra, para 895.

  135. 135.

    Targeted Killings Case, para 35 and the Interpretive Guidance, p. 1006.

  136. 136.

    Prosecutor v Ntaganda, n. 125 supra, para 910.

  137. 137.

    Ibid., para 925.

  138. 138.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 129.

  139. 139.

    Prosecutor v Ntaganda, n. 125 supra, para 925.

  140. 140.

    Ibid., para 925.

  141. 141.

    Interpretive Guidance, p. 1024.

  142. 142.

    Prosecutor v Ntaganda, n. 125 supra, para 925.

  143. 143.

    See Sect. 12.3.1 and Sects. 12.4.2, 12.4.3, 12.4.4, 12.4.5, 12.4.6, 12.4.7 and 12.4.8 above.

  144. 144.

    Prosecution Appeal Brief, in the case of Prosecutor v Ntaganda, 7 October 2019, No.ICC-01/04-02/06.

  145. 145.

    Schmitt 2010a, p. 700.

  146. 146.

    See Interpretive Guidance, p. 1007.

  147. 147.

    See Ibid., pp. 1035–1036.

  148. 148.

    Department of Defense Law of War Manual 2015, 5.8.4.2, pp. 235–236.

  149. 149.

    See Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, Rule 141.

  150. 150.

    UK Ministry of Defence 2004, 5.33 at p. 54 deals with DPH in one short paragraph. The US Department of Defense Law of War Manual 2015 covers DPH in over 10 pages, 226–236 with dense footnotes, and is too detailed to be practical. Both are authoritative guidance for all services.

  151. 151.

    Haque 2019, p. 127. Note that rules of engagement are always classified so it is not possible to compare between them here.

  152. 152.

    See Haque 2019, pp. 127–128.

  153. 153.

    See Sect. 12.5 above.

  154. 154.

    See Haque 2019, p. 128 on erring on the legally safe side and Sect. 12.4.2 above.

  155. 155.

    Interpretive Guidance, pp. 1040–1044.

  156. 156.

    See, for example, the Targeted Killings Case, para 40 and Department of Defense Law of War Manual 2015 5.8.5, p. 236.

  157. 157.

    Targeted Killings Case, para 25; generally considered customary international law in this case and by the US, see Milanovic 2011. On the equivalent in a NIAC, Articles 4 and 6 as customary international law, see Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, rule 87and rule 100.

  158. 158.

    See Sassòli 2019, 10.14.41-10.305, pp. 617–623, mainly considering detention under human rights law.

  159. 159.

    See generally Clapham 2006.

  160. 160.

    See Kleffner 2012, pp. 47 and 50 and Sect. 12.4.9 above.

  161. 161.

    See Byron 2007, pp. 883–884.

  162. 162.

    See Byron 2007, p. 848.

  163. 163.

    See Article 2, ICPPR, 999 UNTS 171; Article 1 ECHR, 213 UNTS 221, Article 1 ACHR, 144 UNTS 123 and note that the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) 1520 UNTS 217, assumes in Article 1 that each state will take legislative measures to give effect to the rights and duties.

  164. 164.

    Either as an ‘exported’ NIAC or in an IAC.

  165. 165.

    See Byron 2007, pp. 848–864 and the more recent cases before the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Iraq, for example, Al-Jedda v UK, Application No.27021/08, 7 July 2011, para 85.

  166. 166.

    See Articles 4, 6, 7, 10 and 14 ICCPR; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 15 ECHR; Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 27 ACHR and Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 ACHPR.

  167. 167.

    See Interpretive Guidance, pp. 1021–1022 on direct and indirect causation.

  168. 168.

    Prosecutor v Strugar, n. 5 supra, para 178 and see Crawford and Pert 2020, p. 123.

References

  • Akande D (2010) Clearing the Fog of War? The ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59:180–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boothby B (2010) “And for Such Time as”: The Time Dimension to Direct Part in Hostilities. NYU Journal of International Law and Policy 42:741–768

    Google Scholar 

  • Byron (2007) A Blurring of the Boundaries: The Application of International Humanitarian Law by Human Rights Bodies. Virginia Journal of International Law 47:839–896

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran R (2009) Washington Post Foreign Service, NATO Orders Probe of Afghan Airstrike Alleged to Have Killed Many Civilians at https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090400543.html?sid=ST2009090400002. Accessed 1 July 2020

  • Clapham A (2006) Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Commentary on the First Geneva Convention (2016) Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Corn J, Jenks C (2011) Two Sides of the Combatant Coin: Untangling Direct Participation in Hostilities from Belligerent Status in Non-International Armed Conflicts. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 33:313–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford E (2015) Identifying the Enemy: Civilian Participation in Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford E (2018) Who is a Civilian? Membership of Opposition Groups and Direct Participation in Hostilities. In: Lattimer M, Sands Ph (eds) The Grey Zone: Civilian Protection between Human Rights and the Laws of War. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 19–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford E, Pert A (2020) International Humanitarian Law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Defense Law of War Manual (2015) (updated 2016) Office of General Council Department of Defense, Pentagon, Washington at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190. Accessed 6 July 2020

  • Dixon P (2009) ‘Hearts and Minds’? British Counter-Insurgency from Malaya to Iraq. The Journal of Strategic Studies 32:353–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenrick W (2009) ICRC Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 12:287–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman R (2013) The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants. European Journal of International Law 24:819–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampson F (2011) Direct Participation in Hostilities and the Interoperability of the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law. International Law Studies 87:187–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Haque A (2019) Indeterminacy in the Law of Armed Conflict. International Law Studies 95:118–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays Parks W (2010) Part IX of the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” Study: No Mandate, No Expertise, and Legally Incorrect. NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 42:769–830

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules. ICRC and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • HPCR (Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research) (2013) Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • International Institute of Humanitarian Law (2006) The Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict with Commentaries at https://www.fd.unl.pt/docentes_docs/ma/jc_MA_26125.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2020

  • ICRC (2016) Commentary on the First Geneva Convention (2016) Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd edn. Available at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCI-commentary. Accessed 7 July 2020

  • ICRC Reports and Documents (2008) Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation under International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 90 (872): 991–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleffner J (2012) Section IX of the ICRC Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities: The End of Jus in Bello Proportionality as we Know it? Israel Law Review 45:35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kretzmer D (2009) Rethinking the Application of IHL in Non-International Armed Conflicts. Israel Law Review 42:8–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant E (2020) Insufficient Knowledge in Kunduz: The Precautionary Principle and International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 25:53-79

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin F (2001) Using International Human Rights Law for Establishing a Unified Use of Force Rule in the Law of Armed Conflict. Saskatchewan Law Review 64:347–396

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride D (2012) Who is a Member? Targeted Killings against Organised Armed Groups. Australian Yearbook of International Law 30:47–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2010) Kee** the Balance Between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 42:831–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (2000) The Martens Clause, Principles of Humanity, and Dictates of Public Conscience. American Journal of International Law 78:78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic M (2011) Article 75 and US Opinio Juris, EJIL:Talk! blog of the European Journal of International Law at https://www.ejiltalk.org/article-75-ap-i-and-us-opinio-juris/. Accessed 8 July 2020

  • Pictet J (ed) (1952) Commentary Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (ed) (1960) Commentary Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (ed) (1960) Commentary Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (ed) (1958) Commentary Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (1985) Development and Principles of International Law. Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz V, Swinarski C, Zimmerman B (eds) (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassòli M (2019) International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassòli M, Bouvier A, Quintin A, Grignon J (eds) (undated) How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law. ICRC, Geneva, available at https://casebook.icrc.org/law/non-international-armed-conflict. Accessed 8 January 2020

  • Schmitt M (2010a) Deconstructing the Direct Participation in Hostilities: The Constitutive Elements. NYU Journal of International Law and Policy 42:697–739

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt M (2010b) The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis. Harvard National Security Journal 1:5–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Solis G (2016) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Statman D (2004) Targeted Killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 5:179–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsagourias N, Morrison A (2018) International Humanitarian Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • The Commander’s Handbook (2007) on the Law of Naval Operations. NWP 1-14M at https://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/NWP_1-14M_Commanders_Handbook.pdf. Accessed 30 August 2019

  • Turns D (2012) Cyber Warfare and the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. Journal of Conflict & Security Law 17:279–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Ministry of Defence (2004) The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkin K (2010) Opportunity Lost: Organized Armed Groups and the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” Interpretive Guidance. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 42:641–695

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK

    Christine Byron

Authors
  1. Christine Byron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Byron .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Sergey Sayapin

  2. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Rustam Atadjanov

  3. National Law School of India, Pune, India

    Umesh Kadam

  4. Law and Social Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, UK

    Gerhard Kemp

  5. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar

  6. Bristol Law School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Noëlle Quénivet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Byron, C. (2022). Direct Participation in Hostilities. In: Sayapin, S., Atadjanov, R., Kadam, U., Kemp, G., Zambrana-Tévar, N., Quénivet, N. (eds) International Conflict and Security Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-514-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-515-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation